AQUA 2006, Florence

Challenges in the
Design of
Marine Structures for
Aquaculture Purposes

by
Torgeir Moan,
CeSOS, NTNU, Norway

1
 Background:
Oceans provide opportunity for:
- transport
- energy (oil and gas, renewables),
- food

Scope:
Structures for
- open sea fish-farming
- offshore oil and gas exploitation

2
 Outline
• Introduction
- offshore oil and gas viz fishfarming
- life cycle approach to structures;
with emphasis on design
• Accident experiences
- technical-physical causes
- human and organizational factors

• Safety management approach

ULS: for structures at large
RC/γγR > γDDC + γLLC + γEEC
- life cycle approach to safety
(design, fabrication and operation)
- Quality assurance and control

• Concluding remarks
3
 Introduction
Oil and gas exploitation

The oil and gas industry is crucial to the world
economy

At the same time, the society at large is

concerned about the industry’s potential damage
to the environment (and to men) – and its control

Focus on safety for men, environment and

property loss - implying “zero release” philosophy

Open sea fish-farming

Sea food production beyond 100 Mtons a year
depends on aquaculture

Increased production / quality could be achieved
by large farms in open sea

Open sea fish-farming also partly meets the
environmental challenge – by avoiding the
coastal zone
4

Novel industry with opportunities and challenges
 Introduction, continued
Life Cycle Approach
Design Data,
for methods,
- serviceability & criteria
- producability Layout/
- safety Scantlings
Fabrication
- Fabrication plan -
- Inspection/repair
Fabrication
& Operation
Operation data
- Operation plan
Inspection/
monitoring/
repair /
maintenance
Reassessment

5 Removal and reuse

 Introduction, continued
Design for Servicability
 Platforms for drilling and  Fishfarms
production of oil and gas

 Platform for supporting
payload, and risers
 Limited motions
 Mobility of drilling vessels
 Provide containment
- prevent escape
(single barrier, cage, plant)
 Ensure proper fish welfare

 Operational suitability for

fish in and out, feeding,
6 cleaning, slaughtering
 Introduction

Design for Safety

to avoid:
• Fatalities or injury
• Environmental damage
• Property damage

Regulatory regime:
Offshore oil and gas
• National Regulatory bodies;
• Industry : API, NORSOK,…
• Classification societies
• IMO/ISO
Fish farming
National Regulatory body, Norway:
- Design code enforced in January 2004.
Classification societies ??

Other parties: insurance companies

- Goal-setting viz. prescriptive
Regulatory issues - Probabilistic viz. deterministic
7 - First principles viz. purely experiential
 Safety: absence of accidents/failures
Example: Alexander Kielland accident
Accident Experiences

Technical-physical
point of view

Human and
organizational
Technical- physical Human and organizational point of view
causes factors
• crack in • bad welding
hydrophone • inadequate inspection
support

• fatigue failure • designers did not make a fatigue

of one brace check despite requirement in the code
• regulatory body did not require it

• ultimate failure of • codes did not require

8 braces robustness
 Accident rates for mobile drilling and fixed
production platforms
( Number of accidents per 1000 platform years )
20
18
16 Mobile
14 Fixed

12
10
8
6
4
2
0

ist
ge
ing
ct

ct

e
ut

e
sio

as
nta

g/l
bje

Fir
wo

ma
nd

ele

rin
plo
do
/co
Blo

da
ou

de
ill/r
Ex
ion

pe

Gr

al
Design or

un
Sp

tur
op
lis

/fo
uc
Co

Dr

Fabrication

ize
Str

ps
Operational errors errors

Ca
9
(World wide in the period 1980-95, Source: WOAD 1996)
 Experiences with fishfarms.
Causes for salmon and trout escape
in Norway during 2001- medio May 2005 (Source: A. Fredheim)

Technical-physical causes
Example of plant failure:
(3%) Structural failure

(40%) (6%)
Collision (21%)

(8%)
A steel cage system which collapsed.
due to wave loading
(Source: Berstad et al 2004)

Human and organizational factors ?

- operational events are obvious
10 - what about plant failure ?
 Safety management through the life cycle
DESIGN
• Design codes
RC/γγR > γDDC + γLLC + γEEC - criteria
Σni/Ni ≤ Dallowable
D=Σ - methods to demonstrate compliance
• Implementation of design codes
• QA/QC of the design process

FABRICATION
• QA/QC of the as-fabricated structure

OPERATION
• QA/QC (inspection) during operation

• Event control of accidental events

• (Evacuation and Escape)

11
 Selected milestones of code development for offshore platforms
Year Code Change
≈1950 First Offshore platforms in the oil industry

1969 API RP2A.1 First ed. of dedicated code for fixed platforms
1972 API RP2A.3 Static strength of tubular joints
Limit brace stress to 20 ksi to avoid fatigue
1974 NPD/DNV/HSE (DOE) First Norwegian and UK code for fixed platforms
1976 API RP2A.7 Reference level of wave height in GoM
1977 API RP2A.8-9 Detailed fatigue analysis specifications
New strength formulae for tubular joints
1977 HSE (DOE) Second ed.
1977 NPD LRFD design, fatigue analysis procedure,
accidental loads, PLS req. Airgap req.
1981 NPD First regulation for risk analysis of offshore
structures
Mid-80’s Floating platforms/ FPSOs
1984 NPD Accidental Collapse Limit State introduced
1992 HSE Safety case ALARP principle
1993 API RP2A.20 New hydrodynamic load recipe for jackets
12 1997 API RP2A.20 Suppl. Sect. 17.0 for assessment of existing structures
 Design criteria for safety
(with focus on structural failure modes- offshore examples)
Limit states Physical appearance Remarks
of
failure mode
Ultimate (ULS)
- Overall instability
- Ultimate failure Collapsed Component design check
cylinder

Fatigue (FLS) Component design check

- Failure of welded joints Fatigue - depending on residual
due to repetitive loads fracture system strength and
Wear and tear access for inspection

Accidental collapse (ALS) System design check

Total loss
- Ultimate failure of structure
with “credible” damage

13
 Safety against fatigue or other degradation
failure is achieved by design,inspection and repair
(Offshore ni
• Design criterion D=∑ ≤ Dallowable (0.1 − 1.0)
example) Ni

• Initial and modified inspection plan

- method, ferquency

Brace
wall
Ground Diver inspection or ROV
Chord
wall

14 • Repair (grinding, welding ..steel…)

 Analysis for design
Functional loads
- dead loads
- -pay loads Load Design
effects criteria
Wave/current
environment Extreme
Sea loads force (N) ULS:
Collapse
resistance

Local FLS:
stress SN-curve
Accidental history
loads
Damaged
structure
Analysis of damage ALS:
Extreme
global Ultimate
force global
resistance
Response
analysis
Design
Industrial and Operational check
15
Conditions
 Overall goal: Explicit measures of structural safety
Semi-probabilistic design code:

R c /γ R ≥ γ SSc
- Rc ; Sc -characteristic resistance and load effect
- γR ; γS - partial safety factors

Reliability analysis:
Resistance R
R and S modelled as random variables;
Load effect S
e.g. by lognormal distributions

ln ( µ R / µ S )
Pf = P  R ≤ S  ≈ Φ ( − )
V +V
R
2
S
2

ln (B R γ R γ S /B S )
....... = Φ ( − )
V +V
R
2
S
2

....... = Φ ( − β ) ≈ 101.2 −1.4 β ; B R = 1.1; B S = 0.8

Goal: Implied Pf ≅ Pft µ - denotes mean value
σ - denotes st. deviation
V = σ/µ – coefficient of variation
16 Φ(-β) = standard cumulative normal distribution
 Uncertainty Assessment (of load effects)
• Inherent variability and uncertainty of wave,
current, wind and ice conditions at specific sites

• Model and parameter uncertainty of

- hydrodynamics
- structural mechanics
- probabilistic
analysis

• Procedure for uncertainty assessment of

new types of structures
- identify phenomena
- establish (efficient) methods
17 - assess uncertainty measures
 Uncertainty assessment of load effects
• Compliant systems
– Flexible systems
(PE collars, Rubber hoses)
• Rigid or hinged steel structures
Hand rail
Net
Vertical pole

Inner floating ring

Clamp

Outer floating ring

Crowfoot cable

• Submergible and
submerged systems
Complex analysis:
-hydrodynamics ( splash zone effects (wash over) ; net cage
Model testing hampered by scale effects; Full-scale measurements
18
-interaction between floater, net cage, mooring and possibly food barge
 Safety management through the life cycle
DESIGN
• Design codes
- development
- implementation (varies a lot!)
How good are the codes ?
• Benchmark test of design analyses
Are they properly applied ?

• QA/QC of the design process

especially for new concepts
- springing and ringing of tethers
- VIV of slender structures and spar platforms

FABRICATION & OPERATION

• QA/QC of the as-fabricated structure
Operational procedures
and during operation
(manuals) consistent with
design assumptions ? (inspection of structural resistance,
Implementation of control ? monitoring of loads)
• Event control of accidental events
19
 Comparison of experienced overall risk levels:
Frequency- Consequence diagram
(Example: economic risk in the offshore industry)

Annual probability of failure Mobile

Net cage with
Drilling
Units (up to)1000
tons fish:
Fixed
platforms Acceptable
failure
probability due
to all hazards ?

(adjust for
inflation)

Frequency-consequence diagrams for offshore structures in

20
world-wide operation, considering all hazards, for the period 1980-89.
 Concluding remarks

Life cycle safety management consists of
- Developing and implementing Design Codes,
based on rational serviceability and safety criteria and methods
- Consistent design and operational criteria
(e.g. net cage handling during fish off-take etc)
- Adequate life cycle QA/QC
- design analyses and design
- structure during fabrication and operation w.r.t. fatigue/wear/tear

Quantify the safety level

- Structural Reliability Analysis for use in establishing
consistent design criteria
- Benchmarking of design analyses

Add: Extend to Quantitative Risk Analysis for safety

21 management in a broader sense