IJRMET Vol.

6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016 ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

FE Analysis of Joint Interfaces of FPSO Topside Module

Through 1D to 3D Sub-Modeling Technique
Naveen Agrawal
FE Analyst, Vadodara, Gujarat, India

Abstract mesh at critical location to capture correct geometry so that 3D

FPSO is a floating vessel used for production, storage and
offloading of oil. FPSO deck consists topside module structures
which are large in size and every time need validation for stress
concentration at their joint interfaces. Most of the engineers prefer
to model large structures in Finite Element Analysis (FEA) using
beam elements which is convenient and economical. However,
it is difficult to extract the correct stresses at critical locations
from beam model.
To overcome this problem, the present paper is written to explain
the integration of 1D model of global structure with 3D sub model
of joint interface and evaluation of joint interfaces using sub-
modeling technique where cut boundaries are taken from 1D
global model of structures. Sub-modeling is a technique to provide
more detailed and accurate stress results at area of interest. This
technique allows fine mesh at critical location to capture correct
geometry so that 3D model can provide more accurate results and
can be used for further evaluation.
Where existing traditional modeling approaches like 1D modeling
does not give accurate stress results and 3D modeling approach
is time consuming and expensive, proposed 1D to 3D modeling
approach is the best fit for accurate stress results in less time. Hence
current paper also focuses on comparing 1D to 3D sub-modeling
technique with traditional 3D to 3D sub-modeling approach.
model results can be more accurate and used for further evaluation.
There is some approximation because cut boundaries are not
taken from 3D global model, so there will be certain variation
in results.
This paper provides detailed explanation on sub-modeling
technique which integrates 1D model of global structure with
3D sub model of joint interface. Along with this, paper focuses
on comparing 1D to 3D sub-modeling technique with traditional
3D to 3D sub-modeling approach.
II. FPSO Structural Model
Generally FPSO structures are mega structures which are built by
joining several modules together. For current study, a simplified
FPSO topside module is generated for analysis purpose which
is made of structural steel. It is representation of general topside
module structure. Basic dimensions of FPSO module [2] are:
1. Total structural members – 142
2. European wide flange beams - HE600A & HE400A
3. Standard channels for supports- RHS300x16, RHS200x8
4. Total height (elevation) - 14 m.
5. North (longitudinal) – 16 m.
6. West (transvers) -8 m.

Keywords The representative model of offshore topside module is illustrated

FPSO, FEA, 1D, 3D, Sub-modeling, Offshore Structure in fig. 1.

I. Introduction
Floating Production Storage and Offloading vessels (FPSO)
are offshore production facilities that typically have processing
equipment as well as storage for extracted crude oil.
Offshore topside modules consist several parts which are the
combination of beams and columns. Junction of beams and
columns forms a joint interface. These joint interfaces experience
stress concentrations which are a concern in structural integrity of
system. Hence engineers and analyst experience the challenge to
design and validate by analysis techniques of this structure.
Offshore structures are generally validated using Finite Element
Analysis (FEA) method. FE analysis operates on the concept of
minimum error of approximation. This means that FEA algorithms
tried to capture geometry as accurate as to minimize the chances
of approximation. The key challenge with FEA is to get reliable,
accurate and most economical results which is almost possible
by using 3D elements like solid & shell. Hence 3D analysis is Fig. 1: Representative Offshore Topside Module
highly preferred and suggested. Though 1D elements like beam
can produce most economical results but not reliable and accurate III. Proposed Approach (1D-3D Sub-Modeling)
results. Creating 3D model of entire structure is time consuming
task which in turn increase the computational time and cost as A. Process Flow
well. Since 1D model is not suitable for stress evaluation and 3D
To overcome this problem, sub-modeling technique [1] is the global model creation is time consuming activity, hence 1D to 3D
most suitable solution where sub-model is created in 3D for joint integration is the best suitable solution to overcome this problem.
interface and cut boundaries are taken from 1D global structure This section describes the step by step process [7] to perform 1D
model. Sub-modeling is a technique to provide more detailed and to 3D sub-modeling technique which is captured in fig. 2.
accurate stress results at area of interest. This technique allows fine

36 International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)
Fig. 2: Process flow -1D to 3D Sub-Modeling
B. FE Modeling Details of 1D Global Model
In ANSYS workbench 16.2, the FE model of simplified FPSO
topside module is built using 1D beam elements which is
demonstrated in fig. 3. Henceforth, it would be termed as global
1D FE model.
Fig. 3: Global 1D FE model
1. Meshing
Mesh generation is one of the most critical aspects of engineering
simulation. Too many elements may result in long solution time,
and too few may lead to inaccurate results. For global 1D FE
w w w. i j r m e t. c o m
IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016
model, coarse mesh is done with 200mm element size which is
presented in fig. 4.
Fig. 4: Meshing on Global 1D FE Model
2. Materials
As per standard practice during offshore structure design, materials
for offshore structures are selected based on their functionality and
criticality in the design. In present paper standard structural steel
is assumed to be material for all beams and channels at all levels.
The same material properties are used for 1D and 3D models.
Structural steel material properties are listed in Table 1.
Table 1: Structural Steel Material Properties
Density Young's Modulus
Material Poisson Ratio
(Kg/m^3) (Pa)
Structural Steel 7850 2.00E+11 0.3
3. Loads
Variety of loads [3-5 & 9] are applied on the FPSO structure
modules. Such as dead load, live load, environment loads, wind
load, wave loads, ship deflections, still water loads etc. Depending
on structure design, these loads are distributed either uniformly
over beam or applied at the joint. Some of the loads are also
applied in term of gravity loads.
Current analysis is considered following loads in FE model on
FPSO module.
(i). Dead Load
Generally, FPSO structures supports various equipment and
facilities which are fixed type items but not structural components.
So they do not have any stiffness to offer in the global integrity
of the structure and shall not be modelled. The weight of such
items shall be calculated and applied at the appropriate locations
according the plan of the structure.To account dead load on
intermediate deck level of the topside module, two processing
tanks of weight 80000 kg & 100000kg are considered and applied
using equivalent point loads, at centre of gravities in FE model.
Dead load values for each location is listed in Table 2 which are
applied in FE model as shown in fig. 5.
International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology  37
IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016 ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

Table 2: Details of dead loads Here,

Dead Loads C = shape coefficient
S = projected area of the member normal to the direction of the
Locations Mass (Kg) Load (N)
force
Location# B & D 80000 784800
α = angle between the direction of the wind and the axis of the
Location# A & C 100000 981000 exposed member or surface
Location# E 10000 98100 q = basic wind pressure or suction
With above calculations, wind load for individual beam type is
listed in Table 3 which are applied in FE model as shown in fig.
6.

Table 3: Details of wind loads

Wind Loads
Beam type Load (N/mm)
HE600A 2.0419
HE400A 1.3498

Fig. 5: Dead Loads Applied in FE Model

(ii). Wind Load

The wind loads are an important design parameter for FPSO
structures. For current study, the wind load in transvers directions
is considered. Wind is applied on the individual items of module
using a combination of uniformly distributed loads.
A commonly used height is H=10m and commonly used averaging
times 10 minute is considered for use of wind loading calculations.
For the present analysis:
Mean Wind Speed: The mean wind speed U with averaging
period T at height Z is defined by following equation from Ref
[3];

Fig. 6: Wind Loads Applied in FE Model

Here, (iii). Live load

T = Static wind load shall be considered using a 3seconds wind Live loads [8] are defined as movable loads and are temporary
gust. in nature. Live loads are only be applied on areas designated for
U10= U10 is the 10-minute mean wind speed at height H. This the purpose of storage either temporary or long term. Live loads
expression converts mean wind speeds between different are generally measured in per unit area. Live loads are taken from
averaging periods. Reference wind speed for 10 m above DNV standard for current analysis and are listed in Table 4.
still water is assumed 41.0 m/s
Z = the maximum height from sea level to centre of module is Table 4: Details of Live Loads
approximately 18 m. Live Loads
UDL (KN/m2) as per DNV-OS-
Calculate Basic Wind Pressure:The basic wind pressure is defined Location
C101, Table D1 [5]
by following equation from Ref [4];
Storage areas 15
Lay down areas 15

Where, To apply live loads in 1D global model, it is assumed that live loads
are uniformly distributed per unit length as no area is available.
ρa = The mass density of air: to be taken as 1.225 Kg/m3 for dry Further calculation to obtain loads per unit length is explained
air at 15oC. in Table 5.
UT, Z = The wind velocity averaged over a time interval T at a height
z meter above the mean water level or onshore ground. Table 5: Details of live loads calculations
For 1D model
Wind Force: Assume the wind force Fw on structural member Cumulative beam length Load per unit
or surface acting normal to the member axis or surface may be Approximation Length of Total load
for load distribution length
on UDL (N/m) area (m) on area (N)
calculated according to equation from Ref [4]; (mm) (N/mm)
15000 16 240000 40000 6
FW = C q sinα 15000 2 30000 16000 1.875

38 International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print) IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016

Live loads per unit length are applied on storage areas as shown
in fig. 7 and on lay down areas as shown in fig. 8.
stress concentration region, so that reasonably accurate results
can be calculated in the sub-model. Hence cut boundaries of each
beam or channel is defined at 2m. Displacements are taken at cut
boundaries location to interpolate in 3D sub- model, which are
listed inTable 6.

Fig. 7: Live Loads at Storage Areas

Fig. 10: Joint Identification for Sub-Modeling

Table 6: Displacement at cut boundaries

Longitudinal Vertical (Y) Transverse
Beams
(X) (mm) (mm) (Z) (mm)
Beam#1 -0.01 -2.95 -0.39
Beam#2 0.09 -2.40 -0.34
Beam#3 -0.01 -2.86 -0.32
Beam#4 0.01 -1.91 -0.32
Beam#5 0.16 -2.34 -0.34
Beam#6 0.21 -2.11 -0.33
Fig. 8: Live Loads at Lay Down Areas Beam#7 -0.11 -2.29 -0.33
4. Boundary conditions
FPSO topside module is installed on the top of ship deck. Hence D. FE Modeling Details of 3D Sub-Model
bottom end of the vertical columns which are resting on ship deck For 3D sub-modeling approach, identified joint in 1D is created
are fully constrained and fixed in all DOF (fig. 9). in 3D model using shell elements and shown in fig. 11. Structure
is designed by European wide flange beams HE600A & HE400A
and supported by standard channels RHS300x16, RHS200x8.
Stiffener or gusset plate is added at appropriate locations. Fine
meshing is done on joint interface with 08mm element size because
minimum thickness of plate is 8mm at joint interface.

Fig. 9: Boundary Conditions

C. Joint Identification for Sub Modelling

A joint in 1D global model is identified for 3D sub-modeling
which is highlighted in fig. 10. The principle behind sub-modeling
assumes that the cut boundaries are far enough away from the Fig. 11: 3D Sub-Model Mesh

w w w. i j r m e t. c o m International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology  39

IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016 ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

Displacement taken from 1D global model at cut boundaries are

mapped using remote point at the end of each individual beam
as shown in Fig. 13. Remote points connect with nodes by multi-
point constrains (MPC) (Fig. 12). According to sub-modeling
approach, no load should be applied on sub-model as they are
taken care in global model.

Fig. 12: MPC at Cut Boundaries

Fig. 14: Displacement Plot for 1D Global Model & 3D Sub-

Model

2. Von-Mises Stress Plots

The von Mises stress is used to predict yielding of materials under
any loading condition. Maximum von Misesstress is observed at
joint interface where beam and channel are welded together. FE
assessment of offshore structure is performed by DNV standards
ref [6]. It suggests to use hot spot method where von Mises stress is
calculated at 0.5t from weld edge and t is defined as the minimum
thickness of plate at weld joint.vonMises stress is calculated at
Fig. 13: Cut Boundaries Displacement 0.5t and shown in Fig. 15 to Fig. 16.

E. Analysis Results

1. Sanity Checks
In sub-modeling, it is required to verify the adequate distance
between the cut boundaries and the stress concentration region.
To verify,the deformations from 1D global model and 3D sub-
model are plotted and observed that deformation plots are well
matching as shown in fig. 14.
Maximum deformation values are different in both models
because of modeling approach. In case of 1D model, each beam
is connected centrally at the junction irrespective of beam shape
which transfer the same stiffness to all beams. On the opposite
hand, in 3D model each beam and channel are modelled as per
dimensions and provided appropriate stiffeners. This made 3D
joint to transfer different stiffness to each beam.
Since same displacement is mapped at cut boundaries from 1D
to 3D model, hence deformation pattern is same with different
deformation values. Fig. 15: Max. von-Mises Plot for 3D Sub-Model

40 International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print) IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016

Fig. 17: Meshed 3D Global Model

For traditional 3D sub-modelling approach, same 3D sub-model

is taken as described in section [4]. In this case, displacements
from the global 3D model are mapped to cut boundaries of the
sub-model as shown in Fig. 19.

Fig. 18: Loading Details on 3D Global Model

Fig. 16: Von-Mises Plot at t &0.5t Distance (Cont.)

III. Traditional Approach (3D-3D Sub-Modeling)

A. FE Modeling Details
Proposed approach of 1D to 3D sub-modeling maps inputs from
1D model which may have variation in values as compared to 3D
model. To believe on results, a comparison is done with traditional
approach where global model is made with 3D elements and cut
boundaries of sub-model is mapped with displacement values
from 3D global model.
Global 3D model is meshed with same element size of 200mm
which is captured inFigure 17. Same dead load, wind load & live
loads are applied on global 3D modelwhich are shown in Figure
18.On shell model of 1D beam, uniformly distributed loads are
converted in to force & applied over shell body in terms of force
magnitude. Same boundary conditions on 3D global model is
applied as explained in section [II.D].
Fig. 19: Displacement Mapping at Cut Boundaries in Sub-
Model

w w w. i j r m e t. c o m International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology  41

IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016 ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)

B. Analysis Results

1. Sanity Checks
Similar verification is done as mentioned in section [V.A]. Hence
deformations from 3D global model & sub-model for joint interface
are plotted and found that deformation pattern is identical with
equal maximum displacement value (Fig. 20).

Fig. 21: von-Mises plot for 3D global model

Fig. 20: Comparative Displacements

Another verification on reaction forces at fixed boundary condition

can be done for 1D and 3D global models. It is found in Table
7 that reaction forces obtained from 1D global model are in line
with reactions forces from 3D global model which confirms the
same applied loading in both the models.

Table 7: Reaction force details

Model Fx (N) Fy (N) Fz (N)

1D Global Model 0 3929700 103410

3D Global Model 0 3929700 103410

Fig. 22: von-Mises Plot for 3D Sub-Model

2. Von-Mises Stress Plots

Maximum von-Mises stresses from 3D global model and sub-
model are shown in fig. 21 & fig. 22. Both models are exhibiting
different maximum stress values. It is because of mesh size. Global
model is meshed with very coarse mesh of 200mm size whereas
sub-model is meshed with fine meshing of 8mm sizing. So coarse
mesh model shows less stress as compared to fine mesh model
(Table 8) which is desired outcome from sub-modeling technique.
von-Mises stress is calculated at 0.5t in sub-model which is shown
in fig. 23.

Table 8: Comparative von-Mises Stresses(MPa) Details

3D Global 3D Sub
Stress locations
Model model

Maximum stress at same

69.5 116.2
location of 1D model

Maximum stress at
69.1 110
0.5tdistance

Fig. 23: von-Mises plot at 0.5t distance (Cont.)

42 International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology w w w. i j r m e t. c o m

ISSN : 2249-5762 (Online) | ISSN : 2249-5770 (Print)
IV. Comparison of Proposed Approach With Traditional
Approach
The comparative study between proposed approach (1D-3D sub-
modeling) and traditional approach (3D-3D sub-modeling) shows
following observations:
1. The models are behaving in similar fashion which is justified
by deformation pattern (Fig. 14 & Fig. 20). Therefore it is
confirmed that both models are simulated accurately and
analogous to each other.
2. Higher von-Mises stresses in proposed sub-modeling
technique is observed as compared to traditional sub-modeling
technique, keeping sub-modeling approach same. Therefore it
is confirmed that proposed sub-modeling technique is more
conservative in nature. Comparative deformations are listed
in Table 9.
Table 9: Comparative von-Mises Stresses
Proposed Traditional
Sub-Modeling Sub-Modeling
Stress
Technique Technique % Difference
locations
(1D-3D sub (3D-3D sub
model) model)
At
maximum
124.13 116.2 7%
stress
location
Maximum
stress at 0.5t 118 110 7%
distance
3. 3D modeling approach is done with detail joint modeling
whereas 1D modeling is done just to represent the joint model.
Because of this, global displacements are mapped differently
in both sub-modeling approach and found proposed sub-
modeling to be more conservative.
V. Conclusion
This paper makes an attempt to provide synopsis of both sub-
modeling approaches for structural integrity of offshore structures.
Sub-modeling technique is well known technique which is
available in all FE software. Hence detailing on sub-modeling
technique is kept excluded from this paper.
The paper also provides reasoning to select correct technique as
per the availability of time & cost for FEA execution of offshore
structures. 3D modeling as per drawings and dimensions with
appropriate mesh always gives accurate results, which is best
suitable when huge time and budget is available. Else 1D modeling
is the option with compromising in design factors.
Comparative study of both approaches concludes that proposed
sub-modeling approach is analogous to traditional approach and
it is more conservative as it is ~7% overestimating stress. These
results are drawn from a simplified FPSO structure which is
comparable to original FPSO structures.
Author made an attempt to provide and share his experience in
this paper. This paper provides readers to opt any of the technique
to analyse offshore structure as per the requirement.
VI. Acknowledgments
The author is grateful to all colleagues who supported directly
indirectly on my paper work.
w w w. i j r m e t. c o m
IJRMET Vol. 6, Issue 2, May - Oct 2016
References
[1] ANSYS. (2015). ANSYS HELP - Release 16.2. Retrieved from
ANSYS HELP VIEWER: help/wb_sim/ds_submodeling.
html
[2] Bahar, M. H.,"Analytical & Numerical Analysis of Ship/
FPSO Side Structures Subjected to Extreme Loading with
Emphasis of Ice Actions", Norwegian: Norwegian University
of Science and Technology, pp. 34-35, 2014.
[3] Det Norske Veritas,"Environmental Conditions and
Environmental Loads", DNV-RP-C205, pp. 16, 2010.
[4] Det Norske Veritas,"Environmental Conditions and
Environmental Loads", DNV-RP-C205, pp. 47, 2010.
[5] Det Norske Veritas,"Design of Offshore Steel Structures,
General", DNV-OS-C101, pp. 23, Table D1, 2011.
[6] DET NORSKE VERITAS. (2012). Fatigue Design of
Offshore Steel Structures. DNV-RP-C203, pp. 46-55.
[7] EdzardBrünner, H. v.,"Fatigue Analysis and condition
assessment of FPSO structures", TSCF Shipbuilding Meeting,
pp. 1-2, TSCF, 2007.
[8] Lars O. Henriksen, B. D.,"Structural Design and analysis
of FPSO Topside Module", ABS Technical Paper, pp. 157,
2008.
[9] T. Terpstra, B. D.,"FPSO Design and Conversion: A Desiger’s
Approach", OTC 13210. OTC, 2001.
Naveen Agrawal received his B.Tech.
degree in Mechanical Engineering
from National Institute of Technology
Calicut, Kerala, India, in 2005, and the
PGDBA in Operation Management
from Symbiosis Centre for Distance
Learning, Pune, India, in 2014. He has
worked for TATA Motors Ltd, Cummins
Research & Technology India Ltd and
Larsen & Toubro Ltd in 2005, 2008
& 2013 respectively. He has extensive
work experience in engine domain, industrial products, oil & gas
domain & FPSO structures. His research interests include FEA,
ANSYS, Model reduction techniques, Dynamics & Vibration.
At present, He is engaged in rotor dynamics analysis and its
application.
International Journal of Research in Mechanical Engineering & Technology  43