In-place structural strength and fatigue analysis

for floating platform topsides

Chen Lizhong
(DMAR Engineering Inc.，Houston，Texas 77094，USA)

Abstract：This paper presents some insights on the state-of-the-art practice that has been utilized recently in the in-
place structural strength and fatigue analysis for topsides on deepwater floating platforms such as tension leg plat-
form (TLP) and semi-submersibles. Emphases are put on analysis software，geometric and mass modeling，hydro-
dynamic loading and its mapping，and analysis procedures. In addition，for the in-place analysis using structure
analysis computer system (SACS)，the procedure of Visual Basic for Application (VBA) is developed to map
AQWA-LINE hydrodynamic loading to the SACS integrated hull/topsides model；for the in-place analysis using
structure engineering system analysis model (SESAM)，many computer aided applications are made to aid the
post-processing. These applications have been used in structural analyses for a few TLP and semi-submersible plat-
form topsides，and are briefly introduced in this paper.
Key words：topsides；TLP；semi-submersible；in-place structural analysis；hydrodynamic loading；SACS；SESAM

35 % of the total topsides operating payload. There-

1 Introduction
Over the past two decades，more offshore dril-
ling and production floating platforms (Fig.1)，such
as tension leg platform (TLP) ， semi-submersibles
and spars，have been installed in the deeper sea fields
because near shore oil/gas reservoirs are exhausting；
oil/gas price is increasing and some key technologies
are advancing [1]. Deepwater floating platforms de-
mand less topsides weight to lower the vertical center
of gravity (VCG) and thus improve the global perfor-
mance，which is critical for risers，moorings and
overall project feasibility.
Fig.1 Typical floating platform with topsides
Topsides structural weight accounts for about
fore，it is very meaningful to optimize the topsides
structural design in terms of weight saving on the con-
dition that the structural integrity is maintained；all re-
lated codes and regulations requirements are satis-
fied，and all structural members are properly sized. In
order to achieve this goal，something should be done
as follows.
1) Loading conditions on topsides structures in
pre- service and in- place stages should be clearly
defined.
2) Loads should be obtained based on related
codes，metocean data，vendor data，sound enginee-
ring judgment and assumptions，and right tools.
3) All applicable loads should be applied to the
analysis model properly，and combined with code
checking.
4) In order to fully account for the interactions
between topsides and hull and transfer the hydrody-
namic loading directly，the analysis models for top-
sides structures have to include both detailed topsides
structural model and hull structural model (can be
simplified as appropriate). The integrated topsides/
hull model is commonly large so that it is important
to plan the analysis and code checking carefully in

Received 13 May 2013

24 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
terms of software selection， running time， code
checking implementation，coordination between hy-
drodynamic analysis and structural analysis.
5) The structural analysis commonly involves a
huge amount of data，hundreds of members and load
cases，and many analysis and design cycles. There-
fore，in order to expedite the analysis and design pro-
cess and reduce errors，various computer tools should
be developed for different purposes.
This paper presents insights on many key aspects
of the topsides in-place structural strength and fatigue
analysis including software selection， geometrical/
mass modeling，boundary conditions，design loads，
environmental conditions， environmental dynamic
wave loads，strength analysis and code checking，
and fatigue analysis methods. To help structural engi-
neers understand dynamic wave loading，this paper
discusses characteristic global hydrodynamic respon-
ses，statistical properties of waves and responses，de-
sign wave approach， hydrodynamic loading map-
ping，verification and usage. For mapping hydrody-
namic loads from AQWA- LINE results to structure
analysis computer system (SACS) model，the proce-
dure of Excel- based Visual Basic for Application
(VBA) is made and briefly introduced. For in- place
structural analysis through structure engineering sys-
tem analysis model (SESAM)，many computer aids
have been made to expedite the whole process from
the beginning to the end.
2 Analysis software
Topsides structural analysis has been carried out
mainly through SACS or SESAM. Developed by En-
gineering Dynamics Inc. (EDI) and recently acquired
by Bentley Systems，SACS is an integrated suite of
software that is capable to do loading generation，stat-
ic/dynamic structural analysis，code checking and de-
terministic/spectral fatigue analysis. SACS has been
widely used for offshore structural analysis in the oil/
gas industry. Developed by Det Norske Veritas
(DNV)，SESAM is a complete strength assessment
system for engineering of ships，offshore structures
and risers based on the finite element (FE) metho-
dology. SESAM is able to perform structural and hy-
drodynamic analysis.
The following summarizes the strength and
weakness of SACS and SESAM，which serves as
guidelines for analysis software selection.
1) SACS seamlessly integrates analysis model
geometric inputs，loading inputs，analysis and code
checking setting into one or a few input files，be-
cause of which a re-design cycle can be done very
quickly. SACS provides reliable beam member code
checking and tubular joint code checking capacity；
therefore，it is very suitable for topsides structures
consisting of plate girders and tubular columns/
braces. However，SACS has very limited capacity to
model plate elements and doesn’t have any function
to transfer/map hydrodynamic loading from hydrody-
namic analysis results to structural model. In sum-
mary，SACS is a better structural analysis software
choice for floating platform topsides that mainly con-
sists of beams，columns，braces and simple deck
shear plating；depending on the hydrodynamic analy-
sis software，a computer program may need to be
made to map hydrodynamic loading from hydro-
dynamic loading output to the SACS structural analy-
sis model. Section 6.4 presents a VBA that can map
hydrodynamic loading generated through AQWA-
LINE to the SACS model.
2) While SACS is based on beam theory where
beam elements are directly modeled without mes-
hing，SESAM is based on FE theory where all ele-
ments are generated through meshing geometric
model. Because of this，member code checking in
SESAM is cumbersome and time consuming；the re-
design cycle is thus slow；computer aided tools are
necessary to streamline the member code checking
process (refer to Section 7).
3) SESAM has complete tools for beam and
plate geometric modeling and meshing；it is the ideal
structural analysis software choice for floating plat-
form topsides that mainly consists of not only beams，
columns，braces and simple shear plating，but also
bulkhead and deck orthotropic plate panels. In addi-
tion ， SESAM also has a unique feature — super-
element technique. The structure models can be built
in SESAM Patran- Pre or GeniE or other programs
and saved as low level superelements. A top level su-
perelement can readily be built up by merging the low
level superelements via SESAM Presel. The super-
element technique enables SESAM to handle detailed
integrated hull/topsides model that can be used for
both hull and topsides structural analysis and design.
Fig.2 shows two integrated topsides/hull SESAM
structural analysis models for a semi-submersible plat-
form and a TLP，respectively.
4) Another advantage of SESAM over SACS is
that SESAM has a wide spectrum of hydrodynamic
analysis capacity，is able to internally transfer hydro-
Vol. 11 No.4，Aug. 2013 25
dynamic loading to structural model and can do plat
panel check according to DNV-RP-C201 [2].
Fig.2 Integrated topsides/hull SESAM structural analysis
models for semi-submersible platform and TLP
3 Geometric and mass modeling
3.1 Geometric modeling
All primary topsides structural components shall
be modeled in a way as follows.
1) Primary load paths are simulated correctly.
2) Beam offsets are properly modeled.
3) Connections between beams and plating are
simulated through rigid dummy links，rigid planes or
restrain equations as appropriate.
4) Equipment pyramid dummy supports shall
have small stiffness and end moment releases at the
deck elevation，which is to avoid stiffness contribu-
tion from the dummy structures and thus be
conservative.
5) Major secondary platforms shall be modeled
with their main frame members so that the load trans-
fer is adequately simulated. In addition，members
26 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
shall have end moment releases at the connections on
the deck to minimize the stiffness contribution from
the platforms.
6) Deck plating system shall be modeled with
sound engineering judgment and practice；it shall be
modeled in a way that the load path and function are
reflected. If the deck plating is primarily for hori-
zontal bracing only，it can be modeled as large plate
elements without stringers or stiffeners；if the deck
plating is of stiffened plate panels and as primary
structural components，the deck plate and girders
shall be modeled explicitly and meshed.
Geometric modeling philosophy for hull struc-
ture depends on the analysis software used. If
SESAM is chosen for both topsides and hull struc-
tural analysis，the hull analysis model can be used di-
rectly for the topsides structural analysis. If SESAM
is chosen for topsides structural analysis and other
softwares such as ANSYS is chosen for hull struc-
tural analysis ， the hull shall be modeled using
SESAM in such a way that the interface part between
the deck and the hull is modeled with sufficient de-
tails and other hull parts can be modeled with simpli-
city as long as the overall hull stiffness is accurately
simulated and the outer shell mesh is fine enough for
hydrodynamic analysis and loading mapping.
For the topsides structural analysis using SACS，
in order to simulate the local stiffness at the interface
between the deck and the hull，the upper parts of the
hull columns above the mean water line (MWL) are
modeled by using shell elements for hull wall steel
plates and three- dimension (3D) beam elements for
hull girders and stiffeners. The lower parts of hull col-
umns and pontoons are modeled with beam elements
for their global stiffness and hydrodynamic loading
transfer. It is noted that member/plate offsets shall al-
ways be considered as appropriate and lower hull col-
umn and pontoon beam elements shall have stiffness
that includes both hull wall and stiffeners. The stiff-
ness may be conveniently obtained through hull analy-
sis model.
3.2 Mass modeling
In the topsides in- place structural analysis，
wave- induced inertial loads are simulated by speci-
fying the model masses and rigid body accelerations
of six degrees of freedom. The magnitude and loca-
tion of mass components shall be modeled with high
accuracy. The rigid body 6×6 mass matrix and center
of gravity (COG) location assembled from the in-
place analysis model shall be consistent with the glo-
bal mass in the hydrodynamic analysis model. Gene-
rally，the basis for mass modeling is the project
weight control report. The target mass for in- place
analyses is the not-to-exceed (NTE) mass of the
topsides.
Commonly，the following mass concepts are em-
ployed to model masses.
1) Modeled structural self- weight. All modeled
steel beams and plates have mass contribution；their
mass is calculated in the analysis model through their
material density，thickness and cross section.
2) Point/joint mass. Point mass is a concept in
GeniE to model a single concentrated mass at a single
specified location；similarly，joint mass is a single
concentrated mass in SACS that is applied on a joint.
Together with pyramid dummy support structures，
point and joint masses are commonly utilized to simi-
lar major heavy equipments.
3) Equipment concept mass. In SESAM GeniE，
equipment concept mass is used to define and distri-
bute a bulk mass over a specified area. When the
GeniE concept model is meshed，equipment concept
mass is automatically meshed into point masses
which are distributed and applied to nodes in the co-
vered area.
4) Footprint mass. In SACS，footprint mass is
used to define and distribute a bulk mass over a speci-
fied area through skid beams. Inertia forces will be ap-
plied on the cross points among skid beams and deck
supporting beams. SESAM equipment concept mass
and SACS footprint mass are used to apply area
masses such as miscellaneous bulk masses，company
reserve and laydown area masses.
Commonly，the modeled mass in a topsides in-
place analysis model falls into one of the following
categories：modeled structural self-weight，unmod-
eled structural weight，major equipments，major ac-
cess platforms pipe racks，living quarters (LQ)，lay-
down areas and residual masses.
Eventually，the mass of the topsides in- place
analysis model needs to be calibrated against the
weight control report. The first calibration step is to
ensure that all of the above mass categories are cor-
rectly modeled；the second step is to approximately
calibrate the mass magnitude and COG for each con-
struction module；the last step is to adjust the residual
mass so that the total modeled mass and COG are the
same as the NTE mass and COG as specified in the
weight control report.
4 Boundary conditions and balancing
loading
Loads on a deepwater floating platform are ba-
lanced in nature. In reality，restraint of the platform
is provided by water pressure on the hull outer shell，
mooring lines/tendons and risers. In terms of mode-
ling，restraint from mooring lines and risers is simu-
lated by springs at the keel around pontoons with ap-
proximately equivalent stiffness. Vertical restraint
from water pressure is simulated by springs at the
keel with total vertical stiffness calculated based on
the water plane area of the columns. Lateral restraint
from water pressure is simulated by springs at the
keel with horizontal stiffness being taken as 10 % of
the vertical water plane stiffness.
It is accepted that a small amount of rigid body
motion will exist in the model due to unbalanced for-
ces on the in-place analysis model. This is because of
inherent imperfections in the geometric and mass
modeling processes；the above mentioned boundary
conditions keep the rigid body motion to a practical
minimum. Large applied forces on topsides that cre-
ate significant unbalanced conditions，such as wind
loads and inertial loads ， and riser loads are re-
balanced by applying forces at the four keel corners
in order to eliminate excessive rigid body motion.
5 Design loads and environmental
conditions
Deepwater floating platform topsides shall be de-
signed for all load conditions that will be experienced
during the topsides whole life cycle. For topsides in-
place structural analysis，the following design loads
are commonly considered [3- 6]：a. static loads，inclu-
ding dead loads，buoyancy loads (i.e. static water
pressure on hull wet surface)， static mooring and
riser loads，and balancing loads；b. operational static
loads， including crane operational loads， drilling
operational loads and live loads；c. environmental
static loads， including wind loads， current loads
and inertial loads；d. environmental dynamic wave
loads.
Environmental dynamic wave loads are loads
induced by waves；they are obtained through hydro-
dynamic analysis. Wave loads are stochastic proces-
ses in nature and thus need to be characterized by
their statistic properties，such as probability distribu-
tion and power spectral density [4]. However，in order
to simplify the loads for design purpose， design
Vol. 11 No.4，Aug. 2013 27
waves are determined through hydrodynamic analysis
and statistical analysis for design environmental con-
ditions so that the design wave induced loads can pro-
duce the extreme values of defined global responses [5].
Section 6 will discuss the environmental dynamic
wave loads in details.
Typically，deepwater floating platform topsides
are designed for in-place operating and extreme envi-
ronmental conditions if working stress design (WSD)
is used [6]，or for ultimate limit state (ULS) and acci-
dental limit state (ALS) environmental conditions if
load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is used [7].
As a part of design basis，operating and extreme
(ULS or ALS) environmental conditions are specified
as storms of certain return periods. Table 1 lists defini-
tions for operating and extreme environmental condi-
tions in some locations around the world.
Table 1 Typical regional environmental conditions
Location Operating Extreme
Gulf of Mexico 10-year winter storm 100-year hurricane
North Sea 1-year storm 100-year storm
South China Sea 1-year tropic storm 100-year tropic storm
6 Environmental dynamic wave loads
Environmental dynamic wave load is one of the
most significant loads that the deepwater floating plat-
forms experience in the in- place condition [5]. Defi-
ning，calculating and transferring wave loads are not
as straightforward as other loads，which involve met-
ocean data，hydrodynamic analysis，statistical analy-
sis，load mapping and verification. For topsides in-
place structural analysis，it is essential for the respon-
sible engineers to understand the fundamental know-
ledge of environmental dynamic wave load，design
wave method and load transfer. This section briefly re-
views characteristic global dynamic responses，statis-
tical properties of waves and responses and design
wave determination. In addition，a wave load map-
ping application is introduced for SACS in- place
analysis.
6.1 Characteristic global hydrodynamic responses
Characteristic global hydrodynamic responses
are forces at cut cross sections of the platform rigid
body in the hydrodynamic analysis，which are impor-
tant parameters for design wave determination. For
topsides in- place structural analysis，the characteris-
tic global hydrodynamic responses that govern vari-
28 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
ous aspects of the design are first selected. Design
peak values for these responses are calculated for dif-
ferent environmental loading conditions through hy-
drodynamic analysis and statistical post-processing.
Design waves are finally determined so that they can
produce the same peak response values. For exam-
ple，peak platform accelerations are critical for the
whole topsides structural design， and peak pry/
squeeze forces are critical for the nearby area around
hull- topsides connections. Therefore， characteristic
global hydrodynamic responses that are associated to
topsides accelerations and pry/squeeze forces need to
be considered in the design wave determination.
The following listed characteristic global hydro-
dynamic responses commonly govern for the topsides
in- place design：a. split (pry/squeeze) force between
pontoons；b. torsion moment about a transverse hori-
zontal axis；c. shear force between the pontoons；
d. longitudinal acceleration of deck mass；e. trans-
verse acceleration of deck mass；f. vertical accelera-
tion of deck mass. More details on those characteris-
tic global hydrodynamic responses can be found in
Ref. [5].
6.2 Statistical properties of waves and responses
Sea waves by nature are random processes. For
engineering purposes ， sea wave processes can be
idealized by stationary Gaussian stochastic processes.
The stationary Gaussian stochastic process can be
completely characterized by a certain power spectral
density (PSD) function. The JONSWAP spectrum and
the Pierson- Moskowitz spectrum are most frequently
utilized to describe wave processes in offshore engi-
neering，which are characterized by the following pa-
rameters：significant wave height，average zero- up-
crossing period and peak [4]. The above parameters
shall be specified in the project specifications as met-
ocean criteria.
According to the linear stochastic system
theory，the PSD functions of the input and output pro-
cesses can be related through the system complex
transfer function H( ω ) as follows [5]：
S out ( ω) = H 2 ( ω) ⋅ S in ( ω) (1)
In marine engineering where the hull hydro-
dynamic system is idealized as a linear system and
the wave as the input Gaussian stochastic process，
the magnitude of the system transfer function，|H ( ω) |，
is conventionally called the response amplitude opera-
tor (RAO). Obviously， RAO is a function of fre-
quency ω and associated to a certain output. By defi-
nition，RAO can be obtained by passing a series of
unit amplitude sinusoidal input with different frequen-
cies through the linear system，and the series of re-
Fig. 3 Illustration for RAO
6.3 Design wave approach
The most rational method for the topsides in-
place structural analysis for a deepwater floating plat-
form is to carry out a stochastic analysis in the fre-
quency domain. However，a design wave approach is
commonly utilized because it is simpler and easier to
be implemented. It also satisfies the need for the si-
multaneity of the responses，and the merits of the sto-
chastic approach are retained by using the extreme
stochastic values of some characteristic global re-
sponse parameters in the selection of design waves [5].
In the design wave approach，a set of regular
waves with selected wave heights and frequencies are
utilized in different load cases to carry out the top-
sides in-place structural analysis. These waves are de-
termined by the following procedure and will produce
the most probable maximum governing global re-
sponse parameters [5].
1) Characteristic response parameters and corre-
sponding wave headings may be chosen according to
the code such as Ref. [5] and engineering judgment.
Typical characteristic response parameters are listed
in Section 6.1.
2) For a characteristic global response pa-
rameter，its RAO is obtained by running the hydro-
dynamic model for a series of waves with unit ampli-
tudes and selected frequencies. The PSD function of
the response parameter is equal to the production of
wave PSD and the squared RAO.
3) The most probable maximum (MPM) value of
the response parameter with 90 % is commonly used
as the design extreme value. The direct and quick
way to calculate the MPM is through the short- term
statistical analysis based on the response PSD [5]. How-
ever，since the design wave approach is based on the
linear system assumption and the nonlinear effect
may be significant when the platform motion is large
under the extreme environmental condition， the
sponse magnitudes form the RAO function，as shown
in Fig.3.
MPM from the short- term statistical analysis may be
less than the desirable extreme value. Therefore，the
coupled nonlinear time-domain simulation of 3 h du-
ration is commonly necessary to get the desirable ex-
treme values，especially for accelerations，and then
the MPM can be adjusted accordingly. In addition，
the MPM needs to be adjusted according to model
test results and wave long-term distribution.
4) The peak periods of the RAO and/or the peak
periods of the response PSD function are chosen as
the periods of the design wave.
5) The design wave height (DWH) is finally ob-
tained through dividing the MPM by the value of the
RAO at the chosen period of the design wave.
The above procedure is carried out for each
wave direction/sea state of interest，and for each glo-
bal response parameter，resulting in a set of DWHs
and associated frequencies. The topsides in- place
structural analysis will be carried out based on this set
of regular waves for wave loading cases. Table 2
shows one typical set of design waves that are ob-
tained through the above procedure.
6.4 Hydrodynamic load mapping
A given unit amplitude wave with a period，hy-
drodynamic analysis generates real and imaginary
sets of water pressure on wet panels and rigid body ac-
celerations of six degrees of freedom. It is straight-
forward to transfer/map rigid body accelerations to
structural analysis model；it needs a certain algorithm
to transfer water pressure from panels to shell ele-
ments in the structural analysis model.
If SESAM is utilized for both hydrodynamic
analysis and topsides structural analysis，there is a
seamless mechanism built in SESAM to map hydro-
dynamic loads from hydrodynamic analysis results to
the structural analysis. If，however，SACS is used
for topsides structural analysis，a computer applica-
tion is needed to transfer hydrodynamic load data to
Vol. 11 No.4，Aug. 2013 29
 Table 2 Typical defined design waves for topsides structural analysis
Horizontal acce-
Load No. Response description Heading/(°) Period/s Amplitude/m Responsea
lerationb/(m·s-2)
CL 1 Longitudinal split force, to (+)x 180 11.5 8.45 217.29 0.14
CL 2 Transverse split force, to (+)y 270 11.5 8.41 223.61 1.26
CL 3 Roll moment about x-axis 330 8.5 3.95 2 627.19 0.74
CL 4 Pitch moment about y-axis 300 8.5 3.87 2 224.06 1.03
CL 5 Longitudinal shear force, to (+)x 315 8.0 6.03 66.79 0.94
CL 6 Longitudinal shear force, to (+)x 315 11.5 10.01 66.79 0.94
CL 7 Transverse shear force, to (+)y 225 8.0 6.11 68.29 0.93
CL 8 Transverse shear force, to (+)y 225 11.0 10.04 68.29 0.93
CL 9 Longitudinal acceleration 180 8.0 5.34 1.04 0.14
CL 10 Transverse acceleration 270 8.0 6.12 1.09 1.30
CL 11 Vertical acceleration 0 13.5 9.78 1.32 0.12
CL 12 Longitudinal split force, to (+)x 330 11.5 8.69 154.07 0.80
CL 13 Longitudinal split force, to (+)x 210 11.5 8.67 155.32 0.78
CL 14 Transverse split force, to (+)y 300 12.0 8.55 159.23 1.00
CL 15 Transverse split force, to (+)y 240 12.0 8.56 159.32 0.99
CL 16 Horizontal acceleration 0 8.0 5.35 1.05 —
CL 17 Horizontal acceleration 45 10.5 5.93 0.72 —
CL 18 Horizontal acceleration 90 8.0 5.40 0.99 —
CL 19 Horizontal acceleration 135 10.5 5.94 0.73 —
CL 20 Horizontal acceleration 225 10.5 6.02 0.73 —
CL 21 Horizontal acceleration 270 8.0 6.17 1.12 —
CL 22 Horizontal acceleration 315 10.5 6.05 0.74 —
CL 23 Vertical acceleration 45 13.5 9.80 1.22 —
CL 24 Vertical acceleration 90 13.5 9.52 1.17 —
CL 25 Vertical acceleration 135 13.5 9.80 1.22 —
CL 26 Vertical acceleration 180 13.5 9.80 1.31 —
CL 27 Vertical acceleration 225 13.5 9.83 1.20 —
CL 28 Vertical acceleration 270 13.5 9.54 1.13 —
CL 29 Vertical acceleration 315 13.5 9.82 1.20 —
Note：a. 90 % fractile response：m/s2 for acceleration，acceleration responses are measured at model coord (0，0，48)；b. corresponding hori-
zontal acceleration in topsides，measured at model coordinate (0，0，62)

the SACS model. For a semi-submersible platform
project，SACS is used for topsides structural analysis
and AQWA- LINE is used for hydrodynamic analy-
sis；an Excel- based VBA procedure is developed by
the author to map the panel pressure data from
AQWA- LINE output to the SACS in- place analysis
model.
Results directly from an AQWA- LINE run con-
tain sets of real and imaginary components of rigid-
body accelerations at COG and hydrodynamic pres-
sures on hull wet panels. Each set corresponds to one
unit amplitude sinusoidal wave with one design wave
frequency. In the SACS model，the lower hull is mo-
deled by 3D beam elements aligned along the center
lines of hull columns and pontoons. The hydro-
dynamic loading mapping process is just to transfer
panel pressure onto these beam elements.
6.5 Hydrodynamic wave loading verification
There is a huge amount of hydrodynamic loa-
ding data that needs to be automatically transferred to
the structural analysis model either through the com-
mercial program itself or through the in- house com-
puter application. To ensure that the structural model
receives the right hydrodynamic loading，one key
step in the topsides in- place structural analysis is to
verify the hydrodynamic wave loading mapped from
the hydrodynamic analysis results.
Acceleration is the most important hydrodynam-

30 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
ic loading component for topsides. It is critical to
check if the structural analysis model receives the
right accelerations and the desirable maximum acce-
lerations for all wave headings are realized in the
model. Cantilever supported unit point masses may
be put at the interested locations so that accelerations
at those locations can easily be extracted from shear
forces of the support members in the structural analy-
sis results. Accelerations from structural analysis
shall be verified against accelerations obtained di-
rectly from the hydrodynamic analysis，and the maxi-
mum acceleration realized in the structural analysis
shall be greater than the desirable extreme values pro-
vided by the hydrodynamic analysis.
Hydrodynamic wave loading shall also be veri-
fied based on other characteristic global hydro-
dynamic responses. Taking SESAM structural analy-
sis for example，the FE model is set up so that all the
Wadam- generated hydrodynamic pressure，drag load
and accelerations are applied directly on to the shell
model. Therefore it is not possible to visualize the
pressure mapping using SESAM. The best way to val-
idate the load mapping process is then to compare the
Wadam- calculated section forces/moments with Cu-
tes- calculated results. Wadam calculates the section
forces/moments of a structure due to wave excitation
and rigid body motion. Cutres cuts sections through
the structural model，and calculates section forces/
moments by integrating the resultant stresses. Com-
parison is conducted for squeeze/pry load. Fig.4
shows RAO comparisons of squeeze/pry load. It is
shown that the results predicted by Wadam and
Cutres have matched well，and the load mapping pro-
cess has worked as intended.
Fig.4 Validation of hydrodynamic loading by comparing
global responses (pry/squeeze force in this chart) obtained
through hydrodynamic analysis and structural analysis
Note：1 kips=4.448 kN，1 ft=0.304 8 m
6.6 Use of mapped hydrodynamic loads
Mapped wave loads in the structural analysis
model are just real “in-phase” ( ) and imaginary “out- (
of- phase”) components of rigid body accelerations
and water pressures on the wet hull shell elements or
resulted pressure forces on the lower hull beam ele-
ments. For each wave heading- frequency combina-
tion，two load cases，corresponding to real and imagi-
nary components，are defined in the structural analy-
sis model. For example，if design waves are specified
as in Table 2，we select 29 different design waves
and have 58 wave load cases defined in the structural
analysis model.
The above 58 load cases do not comprise real
loads on the structure. For each specific design wave，
the actual wave loads (Fdesign_wave) are time- dependent
and shall be obtained through the following formula
H design_wave H design_wave
F de sign _wave =( )⋅ sin ( ωt ) ⋅ R +( )⋅ cos( ωt ) ⋅ I
2 2
(2)
Where， Hdesign_wave is the DWH ； R is the loads in
the real component load case；I is the loads in the
imaginary component load case； ( ω∙t ) is the phase
angle that varies over time. We call the linear load
combination in Eq. (2) a harmonic load combination.
The topsides structure shall be designed against
the above harmonic load combinations. For SESAM
analysis，the stress results are first obtained for the
real and imaginary unit wave load cases；then the
code checking is carried out based on the harmonic
stress combination，which is similar to Eq. (2). For
SACS analysis，the above harmonic load combina-
tion is realized by specifying a limited number of
evenly spaced phase angles ( ω∙ t)i over the range [0° ，
360°]，which will lead to many regular load combina-
tions.
The error between the actual continuous harmon-
ic combination of Eq. (2) and the discrete harmonic
combinations is established as follows with respect to
a certain phase angle interval Δ ( ωt )
||
| t ∈ [0,∞)[ (
max sin ωt + ϕ)] - i =max (
1,2,⋯,N ë i
)
ésin ( ωt ) + ϕ ù || ≤
û|
(3)
Δ ( ωt)
1 - cos( )
2
Where， N = 360°/ Δ ( ωt )； ( ωt ) i = (i－1)× [Δ] ( ωt) . If
the phase angles are chosen to be spaced at 12° ，
i.e. Δ ( ωt ) = 12° ，the error would be 0.55 % . There-
fore，for each harmonic combination，it is accurate
enough to use 30 regular linear load combinations cor-
responding to 30 phase angles spaced at 12°.
Vol. 11 No.4，Aug. 2013 31

7 Strength analysis and code checking
Topsides in-place structural strength analysis and
code checking can be summarized as the following
Fig.5 Typical SESAM in-place strength analysis procedure
It is noted that the structural analysis may have
many different runs for different environmental condi-
tions；furthermore，if the gravity of a module is ap-
plied by steps and the support boundary conditions
change from step to step，it is important to consider
the sequential gravity loading effect in the in- place
strength analysis.
Eventually，all structural components shall be
checked according to certain loading combinations
and project specified steel design codes from Ameri-
can Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) [8]，Ameri-
can Petroleum Institute (API) [6]，DNV [7] and Norsk
Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon (NORSOK) [9]. The
structural integrity shall be ensured with respect to
the stress，local buckling，beam and panel buckling，
which form the structural code checking hierarchy.
At the first level of the structural code checking
hierarchy，von Mises stresses of plate/shell elements
shall be checked against the allowable；detailed local
finite element analysis (FEA) models are often neces-
sary for von Mises stress checking at nodes. At the
second level，local buckling strength of plates and
member section components such as flanges and
webs needs to be checked by using compactness crite-
32 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
steps：geometric modeling，mass modeling，hydro-
dynamic loading importing，major static forces input-
ting，structural analysis，load combination and code
checking. Fig.5 shows a typical strength analysis and
code checking procedure using SESAM.
ria or flat plate buckling checking codes such as DNV-
RP-C201 [2]. At the last level，beams and panels shall
be checked for their yielding and global buckling
strength through steel member design codes and plate
panel design codes.
For topsides structural strength and code chec-
king using SESAM，because the whole process is in-
volved with complicated geometrical and mass mode-
ling，many loads and load combinations，and a huge
amount of code checking for beams and plates，it
would be very meaningful to use various in-house
computer aided tools to make the whole process more
efficient and minimize the possible mistakes.
For a few projects， the following computer
aided tools were made and are found to be very use-
ful：a. various SESAM GeniE JScript applications for
data importing and exporting between GeniE model
and Excel，and for other purposes；b. GeniE JScript
applications and Excel- based VBA for topsides mass
modeling based on the weight control database ；
c. GeniE JScript applications for applying wind forc-
es and other static forces；d. Excel- based VBA for
generating SESAM Xtract， Framework and Plate-
work load combination journal files (.JNL files) based
on the load combination matrix； e. Excel- based
VBA for extracting forces from SESAM Xtract out-
put files； f. Excel- based VBA for generating SES-
AM Xtract，Framework and Platework code check-
ing journal files (.JNL files)；g. Excel-based VBA for
sorting and extracting plate panel stresses from Plate-
work code checking results output files.
8 Fatigue analysis
Offshore structural steel fatigue is caused by os-
cillating stresses. Since waves as input are random
processes，steel stresses as output are random pro-
cesses, too. Any estimated fatigue damage shall be
considered as an empirical statistical expectation va-
lue because the source is stochastic and the S-N
curves are empirical. Commonly，the floating plat-
forms are assumed to be linear systems so that any
stress response PSD is just the production of determi-
nistic squared RAO and the input wave PSD，which
forms the basis for many fatigue estimation methods.
Steel fatigue damage is determined by the statis-
tical distribution of the stress oscillating range and ap-
plicable S-N curve. Fatigue damage can be cumulated
through Palmgren-Miner rule. According to stress cal-
culation methods and S- N curve selection，there are
two commonly fatigue life estimation methods as
follows [10，11].
1) Nominal stress method. This method is based
on nominal stresses from classic beam elements and
plate elements without local structural details
modeled. The local nominal stresses at the interested
spots are estimated by applying a stress concentration
factor (SCF) to the nominal stresses；SCFs depend on
the connection details and can be obtained from code
specified values or detailed FEA. Eventually，the
nominal stress S- N curves and the local nominal
stresses are used together to estimate the fatigue life.
2) Hot spot stress method. In order to assess the
fatigue life for some complicated details，for which it
is difficult to select a applicable nominal stress S-N
curve and use the nominal stress method，the hot spot
stress method needs to be used. This method uses the
hot spot stress and a compatible S- N curve. The hot
spot stress commonly refers to the stress at the toe of
weld. For tubular joints，the hot spot stresses can be
obtained through member nominal stresses and
SCFs，and SCFs can be calculated through Efthy-
miou formulae. For other joints，hot spot stresses are
commonly obtained through detailed FEA and stress
extrapolation.
Depending on the stress range statistical distribu-
tions，there are the following fatigue analysis catego-
ries that have been utilized in the topsides structural
fatigue assessment.
1) Deterministic fatigue analysis. In the situation
where the cyclic loading can be assumed to be deter-
ministic，i.e. the loading change ranges and their cy-
cles can be specified，the fatigue damage can be sim-
ply calculated by the Palmgren-Miner rule，which re-
fers to the deterministic fatigue analysis. The fatigue
induced by crane operational loading is usually as-
sessed through deterministic fatigue analysis.
2) Simplified fatigue analysis. This analysis first
assumes that the long- term stress range distribution
can be expressed as a two-parameter Weibull distribu-
tion. Then the two parameters，Weibull shape parame-
ter and scale parameter，are calibrated based on a ref-
erence design environmental loading condition such
as the extreme condition. Finally，the fatigue damage
can be estimated through a simple formula based on a
proper S- N curve and the largest stress range under
the reference design loading condition. Simplified fa-
tigue analysis is often utilized for secondary steel fa-
tigue assessment and fatigue screening.
3) Spectral fatigue analysis. The spectral fatigue
analysis defines the long- term stress range distribu-
tion through short- term Rayleigh distributions and
wave scatter diagrams. By assuming that the short-
term stress range induced by a seastate wave has a
Rayleigh distribution，the damage from this seastate
wave can be estimated through a closed-form for-
mula；then the total damage from all seastate waves
can be accumulated through Palmgren-Miner rule
based on seastate probability distribution. The spec-
tral fatigue analysis has been widely utilized in the
deepwater floating platform hull and topsides struc-
tural fatigue assessment in the detailed engineering
stage.
4) Fatigue analysis through time domain simula-
tion. The above mentioned spectral fatigue analysis
assumes that the whole floating platform system is
linear and the response processes are narrow banded
Gaussian stationary processes. However，in a situa-
tion where the nonlinear and/or low- frequency re-
sponse components are significant，it is not conserva-
tive to use spectral fatigue analysis anymore. For this
situation ， a fatigue analysis through time domain
simulation may be needed. In this analysis，a time
history of a seastate wave is first simulated based on
its PSD and input into the coupled nonlinear hydrody-
Vol. 11 No.4，Aug. 2013 33
namic analysis. Then，the governing response time
history is output and its change range distribution can
be obtained through the rainflow counting method.
Through many such simulations，a few equivalent
load cases can be determined so that the fatigue dam-
age can be calculated from these loading cases with
their numbers of cycles. The fatigue assessment for
the connections between spar hull and topsides is
sometimes carried out through this time domain simu-
lation method.
The use of fatigue analysis methods depends on
the specific project. A typical SESAM fatigue analy-
sis procedure for topsides structure is shown in Fig.6.
Fig.6 Typical SESAM fatigue analysis procedure
9 Conclusions
Floating platform topside structure supports lots
of heavy equipment and is subjected to substantial en-
vironmental loads during its whole life cycle；topside
steel weight accounts for about 35 % of the total top-
side operating pay load. It is essential to optimize the
structural design，reduce the structural weight，and at
Author
Chen Lizhong，male，born in 1971，obtained his Ph.D. in structural engineering from Texas Tech Univer-
sity. Now he is a registered professional structural engineer in DMAR Engineering Inc. in Houston，Texas. He
has published more than 10 papers on structural dynamics，wind engineering and stochastic processes. He spe-
cializes in floating system structural design and analysis. He can be reached by E-mail：lchen@dmar-engr.com
34 ENGINEERING SCIENCES
the same time maintain the structural integrity and
meet all the requirements. For this purpose，responsi-
ble structural engineers need to completely under-
stand all steps in the structural analysis including
modeling，loading and code checking.
This paper addresses many key aspects of the
state- of- the- art topsides in- place structural strength
and fatigue analysis，which helps structural engineers
choose the right software，determine and apply hydro-
dynamic loading correctly，and carry out code chec-
king properly. In addition，this paper shows that the
whole analysis process can be made more efficiently
through various computer aided applications.
References
[1] Zhang Dagang，Deng Zhongchao，Yan Fasuo. An introduction to
hull design practices for deepwater floating structures [J]. Journal
of Marine Science and Application，2009，8(2)：123-131.
[2] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- RP- C201 Buckling strength of plated
structures [S]. Norway：Det Norske Veritas，2010.
[3] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- OS- C103 Structural design of column
stabilised units (LRFD method) [S]. Norway：Det Norske Veri-
tas，2008.
[4] Det Norske Veritas. DNV-RP-C205 Environmental conditions and
environmental loads [S]. Norway：Det Norske Veritas，2010.
[5] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- RP- C103 Column- stabilised units [S].
Norway：Det Norske Veritas，2010.
[6] American Petroleum Institute. RP 2A-WSD Recommended prac-
tice for planning，designing and constructing fixed offshore plat-
forms—Working stress method (21st edition) [S]. Washington
DC：American Petroleum Institute，2005.
[7] Det Norske Veritas. DNV-OS-C101 Design of offshore steel struc-
tures，general (LRFD method) [S]. Norway：Det Norske Veritas，
2011.
[8] American Institute of Steel Construction. Steel Construction Man-
ual (13th edition) [M]. Chicago：American Institute of Steel Con-
struction，2005.
[9] Norsk Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon. N-004 Design of steel struc-
tures [S]. Norway：NORSOK，2004.
[10] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- RP- C203 Fatigue design of offshore
steel structures [S]. Norway：Det Norske Veritas，2008.
[11] American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for the Fatigue Assessment
of Offshore Structures [M]. USA，Houston：American Bureau
of Shipping，2003.