Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 2022

Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
Second Edition
Extensively updated for the second edition, this handy guide covers the safety
engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations at every stage of design, construc-
tion, operation, lifetime healthcare and decommissioning. New sections cover
additional types of offshore structures, including offshore power plants, as well as
cutting-edge technologies and all the latest advances in the field. The text focuses on
minimising accidents and the effects of extreme conditions, with new chapters
covering earthquakes, hurricanes and terrorist attacks, as well as traditional types of
accidental events such as hull girder collapse, collisions, fires and explosions. This is
an invaluable resource for students who will be approaching the subject for the first
time as well as practising engineers and researchers.
Jeom Kee Paik is Professor of Marine Technology in the Department of Mechanical

Engineering at University College London, and Director of the International Centre
for Advanced Safety Studies (Lloyd’s Register Foundation Research Centre of
Excellence, www.icass.center).
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. Southern Cross University, on 19 Apr 2022 at 21:54:22, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024471
Cambridge Ocean Technology Series
1. O. Faltinsen: Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures

2. Roy Burcher and Louis J. Rydill: Concepts in Submarine Design
3. John P. Breslin and Poul Anderson: Hydrodynamics of Ship Propellers
4. R. A. Shenoi and J. F. Wellicome (eds): Composite Materials in Maritime
Structures Vol I
5. R. A. Shenoi and J. F. Wellicome (eds): Composite Materials in Maritime
Structures Vol II
6. Michel K. Ochi: Ocean Waves: The Stochastic Approach
7. Dong-Sheng Jeng: Mechanics of Wave-Seabed-Structure Interactions: Modelling,
Processes and Applications
8. Johannes Falnes and Adi Kurniawan: Ocean Waves and Oscillating Systems:
Linear Interactions Including Wave-Energy Extraction
9. Jeom Kee Paik: Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations: Design, Construction,
Operation, Healthcare and Decommissioning
Ship-Shaped Offshore
Installations
Design, Construction, Operation, Healthcare
and Decommissioning
Second Edition
JEOM KEE P AIK

University College London
The International Centre for Advanced Safety Studies (Lloyd’s Register Foundation
Research Centre of Excellence)
University Printing House, Cambridge CB2 8BS, United Kingdom
One Liberty Plaza, 20th Floor, New York, NY 10006, USA
477 Williamstown Road, Port Melbourne, VIC 3207, Australia
314–321, 3rd Floor, Plot 3, Splendor Forum, Jasola District Centre, New Delhi – 110025, India
103 Penang Road, #05–06/07, Visioncrest Commercial, Singapore 238467
Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

It furthers the University’s mission by disseminating knowledge in the pursuit of
education, learning, and research at the highest international levels of excellence.
www.cambridge.org
Information on this title: www.cambridge.org/9781316519608
DOI: 10.1017/9781009024471
First edition © Jeom Kee Paik and Anil Kumar Thayamballi 2007
Second edition © Jeom Kee Paik 2022
This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

and to the provisions of relevant collective licensing agreements,
no reproduction of any part may take place without the written
permission of Cambridge University Press.
First published 2007
First paperback edition 2011
Second edition 2022
A catalogue record for this publication is available from the British Library.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Paik, Jeom Kee, author.
Title: Ship-shaped offshore installations : design, construction, operation, healthcare,
and decommissioning / Jeom Kee Paik.
Description: Second edition. | Cambridge, United Kingdom ; New York, NY, USA :
Cambridge University Press, 2022. | Series: Cambridge ocean technology series |
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021045502 (print) | LCCN 2021045503 (ebook) | ISBN 9781316519608 (hardback) |
ISBN 9781009024471 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Drilling platforms. | Offshore structures–Design and construction. |
BISAC: TECHNOLOGY & ENGINEERING / Mechanical
Classification: LCC TN871.3 .P35 2022 (print) | LCC TN871.3 (ebook) | DDC 622/.33819–dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021045502
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021045503
ISBN 978-1-316-51960-8 Hardback
Cambridge University Press has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy
of URLs for external or third-party internet websites referred to in this publication
and does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Contents
Preface to the Second Edition page xv

Preface to the First Edition xvii
1 Introduction to Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 1

1.1 Types of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 1
1.1.1 Offshore Oil and Gas Development 1
1.1.2 Liquefied Gas Storage and Regasification 4
1.1.3 Oil Terminals 4
1.1.4 Wave Energy Harvesting 5
1.1.5 Liquefied Natural Gas–Fuelled Power Plants 6
1.1.6 Nuclear Power Plants 6
1.1.7 Deep-Sea Mineral Mining 7
1.2 Trading Tankers versus Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 7
1.3 New Builds versus Tanker Conversions 10
1.4 Tanker Conversions 11
1.4.1 Selection of a Suitable Tanker for Conversion 11
1.4.2 Inspection of an Aged Tanker’s Hull Prior to Conversion 15
1.4.3 Repair of an Aged Tanker’s Hull Prior to Conversion 16
1.4.4 Reuse of Existing Machinery and Equipment during
Tanker Conversion 17
1.4.5 New Component Addition in a Tanker Conversion 17
1.4.6 Appraisal of the Conversion Yard 19
1.5 Front-End Engineering and Design for New Builds 19
1.5.1 Initial Planning and Contracting Strategies 21
1.5.2 Detailed Engineering 22
1.5.3 Principal Factors That Affect Project Costs 23
1.5.4 Selection of Storage, Production and Offloading Capabilities 23
1.5.5 Site-Specific Metocean Data 24
1.5.6 Process Facility Design Parameters 25
1.5.7 Limit State Design and Engineering 25
1.5.8 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management 26
1.5.9 Project Management 27
1.5.10 Post-Bid Scheduling and Management 27
vi Contents
1.6 Characteristics of As-Built Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 28

1.6.1 Layout of Facilities in an FPSO Installation 29
1.6.2 Principal Dimensions of As-Built FPSO Installations 30
1.6.3 Double-Bottom and Double-Side Arrangements 30
1.6.4 Tank Arrangement 33
1.6.5 Longitudinal Strength Characteristics of FPSO Hulls 35
1.6.6 Export Facilities 36
1.7 Hypothetical Designs of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 38
1.7.1 An FPSO Hull 38
1.7.2 A Nuclear Power Plant Hull 39
References 46
2 Structural Steel Selection and Construction 49

2.1 Steel Selection for Hull Structures 49
2.2 Chemical and Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels 50
2.3 Relationship between Stress and Strain of Materials 51
2.4 Elastic–Perfectly Plastic Material Model 54
2.5 Effect of Elevated Temperatures 54
2.6 Effect of Sub-zero Temperatures and Cryogenic Conditions 55
2.7 Effect of Impact Loading 57
2.7.1 Strain Rate 57
2.7.2 Dynamic Yield Stress 59
2.7.3 Dynamic Fracture Strain 59
2.8 Effect of Corrosion 62
2.9 Welding Procedures and Techniques 62
2.10 Welding-Induced Initial Imperfections 63
2.10.1 Welding-Induced Residual Stresses 64
2.10.2 Welding-Induced Initial Deformations 66
2.11 Prevention of Welding-Induced Deformations 68
2.12 Construction of Topside Modules 71
2.12.1 Types of Topside Supports 71
2.12.1.1 Multi-point Support Columns 72
2.12.1.2 Flexible Support Stools 72
2.12.1.3 Transverse Web-Girder Supports 73
2.12.2 Types of Topside Flooring 74
2.12.3 Types of Topside Construction 74
2.12.3.1 Built-In Grillage Deck 74
2.12.3.2 Pre-assembled Units 75
2.13 Interface between the Hull and Topside Module 76
References 78
3 Ocean Environmental Conditions 81

3.1 Types of Ocean Environmental Conditions 81
3.2 Return Period of Ocean Environmental Conditions 83
Contents vii
3.3 Wind 84
3.4 Waves 88
3.4.1 UK Offshore Operators Association Guidance Notes 93
3.4.2 American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practices 95
3.4.3 DNV Recommended Practices 95
3.4.4 Wave Energy Spectra 96
3.4.4.1 The Generalised Pierson–Moskowitz Spectrum 97
3.4.4.2 The JONSWAP Spectrum 97
3.4.4.3 Directional Wave Spectrum 98
3.5 Current 99
3.6 Non-collinear Combination of Waves, Wind, Current and Swell 99
3.7 Tide 100
3.8 Sea Surface Temperature 100
3.9 Snow and Icing 101
3.10 Marine Growth 102
3.11 Seafloor Earthquakes and Tsunami 102
3.12 Tank Sloshing 104
3.13 Slamming 106
3.14 Green Water 106
References 108
4 Site-Specific Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads 111

4.1 Principles of Hull Girder Load Prediction 111
4.2 Parameters That Affect Hull Girder Loads 112
4.3 Site-Specific Wave Data at Nautical Zones 114
4.4 Site-Specific Wave Database of Six Seas 114
4.5 Probability Density Functions of the Wave Parameters in Six Seas 114
4.6 Probabilistic Selection of Benign Wave Scenarios in Six Seas 128
4.7 Analysis of Motions and Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads 130
4.8 Probability of Exceedance Diagrams 144
4.9 Survival Conditions 151
4.10 Tow Conditions 156
References 160
5 Serviceability Limit States 162

5.1 Principles of Serviceability Limit States Engineering 162
5.2 Structural Idealisations 163
5.3 Elastic Deflection Limits under Quasi-static Actions 167
5.3.1 Support Members 167
5.3.2 Plating between Support Members 169
5.4 Elastic Plate Buckling Limits 170
5.5 Elastic Flange Buckling Limits 171
5.6 Permanently Set Plate-Deflection Limits under Impact
Pressure Actions 172
viii Contents
5.7 Stability of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 174

5.8 Weathervaning and Heading Control of Ship-Shaped
Offshore Installations 176
5.9 Excessive Motion of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 177
5.10 Vibration and Noise 179
5.11 Vortex-Induced Vibrations 181
References 181
6 Fatigue Limit States 183

6.1 Principles of Fatigue Limit States Engineering 183
6.2 Approaches for Fatigue Limit States Engineering 185
6.3 Types of Critical Structural Details 186
6.4 Safety Factors for Fatigue Limit States 186
6.5 Types of Stresses at Structural Details 188
6.6 Cyclic Stress Ranges 190
6.7 S–N Curves 192
6.8 Criteria for Fatigue Limit States 195
6.9 High Cycle Fatigue versus Low Cycle Fatigue 196
6.10 Fatigue Limit States Assessment of Ship-Shaped
Offshore Installations 197
6.10.1 Analysis of Hull Motions 199
6.10.2 Global and Local Finite-Element Analyses 201
6.10.3 Stress-Range Transfer Functions 204
6.10.4 Selection of S–N Curves 205
6.10.5 Fatigue Damage Calculations 206
6.11 Crack Growth Models 211
References 213
7 Ultimate Limit States 215

7.1 Principles of Ultimate Limit States Engineering 215
7.2 Ultimate Strength of Plates 216
7.2.1 Ultimate Plate Strength under Combined Loads 217
7.2.2 Effective Plate Width and Ultimate Compressive
Strength Formulation 220
7.2.3 Effective Shear Modulus and Ultimate Shear
Strength Formulation 222
7.2.4 Ultimate Plate Strength Formulation under Combined Loads 223
7.2.5 The Average Stress–Average Strain Relation before and
after the Ultimate Strength 224
7.2.6 The Incremental Galerkin Method 225
7.3 Ultimate Strength of Stiffened Panels 226
7.3.1 Six Possible Collapse Modes 226
7.3.2 Ultimate Panel Strength Formulations under Axial
2287.3.2.1
Compressive
TheLoads
Paik–Thayamballi Empirical Formulation 229
Contents ix
7.3.2.2 The Johnson–Ostenfeld Formulation 230

7.3.2.3 The Perry–Robertson Formulation 230
7.3.3 Ultimate Panel Strength Formulation under Lateral
Pressure Loads 231
7.3.4 The Incremental Galerkin Method 232
7.4 Ultimate Strength of Hull Girders 233
7.4.1 Geometric Properties of Hull Cross-Sections 233
7.4.2 The Modified Paik–Mansour Method 234
7.4.3 The Intelligent Supersize Finite-Element Method 237
7.4.3.1 Dow’s Frigate Test Hull 238
7.4.3.2 A Hypothetical Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading Installation Hull 240
7.4.4 Ultimate Hull Girder Strength Interaction Relations under
Combined Loads 241
7.5 Structural Collapse Triggered by Fracture 244
7.5.1 Fracture Criteria 247
7.5.2 The Relationship between Stress and Strain 248
7.6 Structural Collapse in Fires 249
7.6.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations of Fires 251
7.6.2 Heat Transfer Analysis 252
7.6.3 Fire Progressive Collapse Analysis 253
7.7 Ultimate Strength under Cyclic Loading 254
7.8 Ultimate Strength of Aged Structures 255
7.9 Dynamic Ultimate Strength of Plates under Impact Axial
Compressive Loads 256
References 259
8 Accidental Limit States 262

8.1 Principles of Accidental Limit States Engineering 262
8.2 Accidental Flooding 264
8.3 Collisions with Ships 265
8.3.1 Selection of a Collision Scenario 265
8.3.2 Extent of Structural Crashworthiness Analysis 266
8.3.3 Types of Finite Elements 266
8.3.4 Size of Finite Elements 267
8.3.5 Material Property Modelling 268
8.3.6 Other Considerations in Finite-Element Modelling 268
8.3.7 Assessment of the Collision Energy Absorption Capability 269
8.3.8 Side-by-Side Collision between a Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading Hull and a Shuttle Tanker:
Case Study 270
8.3.9 Collision of a Supply Vessel with a Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading Hull: Case Study 273
8.4 Collisions with Icebergs 277
x Contents
8.5 Dropped-Object Impacts 279

8.6 Fires 280
8.7 Explosions 282
References 286
9 Mooring System Engineering 288

9.1 Principles of Mooring System Engineering 288
9.2 Types of Mooring Systems 289
9.2.1 Spread Mooring Systems 289
9.2.2 Single-Point Mooring Systems 290
9.2.3 Turret Mooring Systems 293
9.3 Selection of the Mooring System 295
9.4 Safety Engineering of Disconnectable Mooring Systems 297
9.4.1 Life-Cycle Cost Model 297
9.4.2 Probability of Failure 299
9.4.3 Life-Cycle Cost-Based Optimisation 300
References 301
10 Sloshing Impact Engineering 303

10.1 Principles of Sloshing Impact Engineering 303
10.2 Procedure for Sloshing Load Analysis 307
10.3 Probabilistic Selection of Sloshing Scenarios 310
10.4 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Wind and
Current Forces 312
10.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Hull Motions
in Waves, Wind and Current 312
10.6 Decomposition of the Hull Motion Components of a Ship-Shaped
Offshore Installation 316
10.7 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Tank Sloshing 316
10.8 Determination of Design Sloshing Pressure Loads 321
10.9 Procedure for Sloshing Response Analysis 321
References 325
11 Seismic Impact Engineering 327

11.1 Principles of Seismic Impact Engineering 327
11.2 Computational Modelling for Seismic Response Analysis 329
11.3 Procedure for Nonlinear Seismic Response Analysis 331
11.4 Modelling of Site-Specific Seismic Load Profiles 332
11.5 Finite-Element Modelling 334
11.5.1 Modelling of the Hull 334
11.5.2 Modelling of the Seabed 336
11.5.3 Modelling of Seawater 337
11.5.4 Modelling of Boundary and Contact Conditions 337
Contents xi
11.5.5 Modelling of the Seismic Load Application 339

11.6 Seismic Responses of a Ship-Shaped Nuclear Power Plant Hull 339
References 345
12 Aircraft Impact Engineering 347

12.1 Principles of Aircraft Impact Engineering 347
12.2 Procedures for Aircraft Impact Engineering 349
12.3 Modelling of the Striking Body 350
12.3.1 A Single-Engine Model of a Hypothetical Boeing
777 Aeroplane 350
12.3.2 The Entire Fuselage Model of a Hypothetical Boeing
777 Aeroplane 351
12.4 Modelling of Ballasting Materials 353
12.5 Modelling of the Struck Body 354
12.5.1 Extent of the Analysis 354
12.5.2 Material Modelling 356
12.5.2.1 Fuselage Structures of a Hypothetical Boeing
777 Aeroplane 357
12.5.2.2 Jet Engines 357
12.5.2.3 Hull Structures of a Hypothetical Floating Nuclear
Power Plant 358
12.6 Analysis of Computational Results 360
12.6.1 Model of a Single Engine Striking a Partial Hull Structure 360
12.6.2 Model of an Entire Fuselage Striking a Rigid Wall 365
12.6.3 Model of an Entire Fuselage Striking an Entire
Hull Structure 371
References 372
13 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management 374

13.1 Principles of Risk-Based Safety Engineering 374
13.2 Probabilistic Selection of Event Scenarios 376
13.3 Analyses of Frequency and Consequences 377
13.5 Fire Risk on Topsides 378
13.5.1 Fire Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection 378
13.5.2 Analyses of Fire Frequency and Consequences 379
13.5.3 Fire Risk Management 380
13.6 Fire Risk on Helicopter Decks 380
13.6.1 Fire Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection 381
13.6.2 Analyses of Fire Frequency and Consequences 384
13.6.3 Fire Probability of Exceedance Diagrams 386
13.6.4 Fire Risk Management 389
13.7 Explosion Risk on Topsides 389
xii Contents
13.7.1 Explosion Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection 389

13.7.2 Analyses of Explosion Frequency and Consequences 390
13.7.3 Explosion Risk Management 391
13.8 Collision Risk with Vessels 391
13.8.1 Collision Hazard Identification and Scenario
Selection 391
13.8.2 Analyses of Frequency and Consequences 392
13.8.3 Collision Risk Management 395
References 397
14 Life-Cycle Corrosion Assessment and Management 400

14.1 Principles of Life-Cycle Corrosion Engineering 400
14.2 Phenomenological Actions Causing Corrosion 402
14.3 Types of Corrosion in Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 403
14.3.1 General Corrosion 404
14.3.2 Pitting Corrosion 404
14.3.3 Grooving Corrosion 406
14.3.4 Weld Metal Corrosion 407
14.4 Operational Factors Affecting Corrosion 407
14.5 Life-Cycle Behaviour of Corrosion 410
14.6 Prediction of Life-Cycle Corrosion Behaviour 412
14.6.1 Procedure for Developing an Empirical Corrosion
Prediction Formulation 413
14.6.2 Applied Example of the Procedure for Developing an
Empirical Corrosion Prediction Formulation 414
14.7 Residual Strength of Corroded Structures 417
14.7.1 Residual Strength Behaviour of Corroded Plates 419
14.7.2 Residual Strength Formulation of Pitted Plates under
Compression or Tension 421
Edge Shear 430
14.8 Options for Life-Cycle Corrosion Management 433
14.8.1 Addition of Corrosion Margins 433
14.8.2 Coating 433
14.8.2.1 Types of Coating 433
14.8.2.2 Surface Preparation prior to Coating
Application 436
14.8.2.3 Selection Criteria for Coating Materials 437
14.8.2.4 Prediction of Coating Life 437
14.8.3 Cathodic Protection 439
14.8.4 Ballast Water Deoxygenation 440
14.8.5 Chemical Inhibitors 441
References 441
Contents xiii
15 Lifetime Healthcare and Safe Decommissioning 445

15.1 Principles of Lifetime Healthcare 445
15.2 Types of In-Service Damage 447
15.3 Methods for Damage Detection 448
15.3.1 Corrosion Wastage 449
15.3.2 Cracking Damage 450
15.3.3 Mechanical Damage 452
15.3.4 Probability of Detection 452
15.4 Health Condition Monitoring 452
15.4.1 International Standards and Codes 456
15.4.2 Enhanced Survey Programme 457
15.4.3 Ship Inspection Report Programme 458
15.4.4 Risk-Based Inspection 460
15.4.4.1 RBI Team Setup 461
15.4.4.2 Component Grouping and Baselining 461
15.4.4.3 Risk-Based Prioritisation 462
15.4.4.4 Inspection Plan Development 462
15.4.4.5 Inspection Strategy 462
15.4.4.6 Scope of Inspection 462
15.4.4.7 Frequency of Inspection 463
15.4.4.8 Inspection Execution 463
15.4.4.9 Analysis of Inspection Results 463
15.4.4.10 RBI Programme Updating 464
15.5 Health Condition Assessment 464
15.5.1 Residual Strengths of Cracked Plates under Tension
or Compression 465
15.5.2 Residual Strengths of Dented Plates under Compression 466
15.5.3 Emergency Response Services 470
15.6 Remedial Actions 470
15.7 Likely Future Health Condition Assessment and Management:
Case Study 473
15.7.1 Sea States and Operational Conditions 473
15.7.2 Time-Variant Corrosion Wastage 473
15.7.3 Time-Variant Fatigue Cracking 474
15.7.4 Time-Variant Mechanical Damage 475
15.7.5 Time-Variant Ultimate Hull Strength 475
15.8 Regulatory Framework for Safe Decommissioning 477
15.9 Challenges for Safe Decommissioning 478
15.9.1 Technical Challenges 478
15.9.2 Personnel Health and Safety 480
15.9.3 Environmental Safety 480
15.10 Decommissioning Practices 480
15.10.1 Well Plugging and Abandonment 481
15.10.2 Pipeline, Umbilical, Flowline and Riser Removal 482
xiv Contents
15.10.3 Mooring System Removal 483

15.10.4 Site Clearance and Verification 483
15.11 Decommissioning Cost Estimation 483
15.12 Digital Twins for Lifetime Healthcare 484
References 485
Appendix 1 Glossary of Maritime Engineering Terms 488

Appendix 2 Scale Definitions of Wind, Waves and Swells 503
A2.1 Beaufort Wind Scale 503
A2.2 Wave Scale 503
A2.3 Swell Scale 504
Appendix 3 Sea State Data in Various Ocean Regions 505
A3.1 Sea States in the North Atlantic Ocean 505
A3.2 Annual Sea States in the North Atlantic Ocean 507
A3.3 Annual Sea States in the North Pacific Ocean 507
A3.4 Characteristics of 100-Year Return Period Storms in Various
Ocean Regions 508
A3.5 Extremes of Environmental Conditions in Various
Ocean Regions 508
Appendix 4 Inverse First-Order Reliability Method for Drawing Extreme
Wave Contours 509
Appendix 5 Source Listing of the FORTRAN Computer Program USAS-L 514
Appendix 6 Source Listing of the FORTRAN Computer Program USAS-S 530
A6.1 Source Listing 530
A6.2 Definition of Input Data Variables 539
A6.3 Sample Input Data 540
Index 544
Preface to the Second Edition
Advances in human civilisation have led the development of various types of engin-
eered structures. The ship-shaped offshore installation is a type of engineered structure
that uses the space and resources of the ocean to develop energy. Ship-shaped offshore
installations are exemplified by floating storage and offloading (FSO) units; floating
production, storage and offloading (FPSO) units (for the development of offshore oil
or gas); floating power plants (fuelled by liquefied natural gas or nuclear reactors) and
floating storage and regasification units (FSRUs).
In the offshore oil and gas industry, fixed offshore platforms have been used in
relatively shallow waters but are unsuitable for use in developing oil and gas fields in
deep and ultra-deep areas (depth >1,000 m). Instead, floating offshore installations
such as FPSO units are preferred for developments in remote and/or deep and ultra-
deep areas, where they perform multiple functions in the production, storage and
offloading of oil or gas. These installations enable these energy resources to be
transported to shore via shuttle tankers, thus obviating the need for pipeline infrastruc-
ture and facilitating fast-track functionality. FPSOs are also preferred for use in
marginal fields, where the reservoirs are not necessarily abundant.
Floating power plants fuelled by liquefied natural gas or nuclear reactors are used to
generate electrical power at sea. Uniquely, these plants can provide electricity and heat
to remote, relatively inaccessible sites. FSRUs are floating offshore installations that
are used as near-shore liquefied natural gas terminals, with functions such as storage
and regasification. FSO units are also utilised near onshore oil terminals.
Ship-shaped offshore installations have been used since the late 1970s, and their
complexity and size have been gradually increasing. Many engineering challenges
associated with structural safety and tolerance to extreme conditions and accidents,
and with economics and financial expenditures in design, construction and operation,
remain to be solved. Safer end-of-life decommissioning is essential to ensure the
health and safety of the environment, as aged installations have substantial accumula-
tions of structural damage resulting from natural deterioration or accidents.
Ship-shaped offshore installations are similar to trading tankers in terms of struc-
tural geometry, but differ in terms of their design, construction, operation, lifetime
care and decommissioning. For example, the different design loads require substan-
tially different structural design concepts. Trading tankers can avoid rough weather or
alter their heading while in operation, whereas ship-shaped offshore installations have
fixed locations and thus are continuously exposed to site-specific environmental
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781009024471.001
xvi Preface to the Second Edition
conditions. In addition, unlike trading tankers, ship-shaped offshore installations

typically cannot be periodically dry-docked for inspection and maintenance, meaning
that the designs must enable greater long-term durability and reliability. Furthermore,
ship-shaped offshore installations are likely to be subjected to significant environ-
mental actions during loading and offloading, whereas trading tankers are typically
loaded and unloaded under still-water harbour conditions. Finally, for historical
reasons, the design return period of a ship-shaped offshore installation is typically
100 years, while that of a trading tanker is considered to be 25 years.
Despite significant efforts, accidents invariably occur at every stage of the design,
construction, operation, lifetime care and decommissioning of a ship-shaped offshore
installation, and these may have catastrophic effects on personnel, assets and the
environment. Thus, there is an obvious need for a textbook on the safety engineering
of ship-shaped offshore installation structures that provides an exposition of the
emerging technologies and industry practices. This book is therefore intended as a
comprehensive text and handy guide to the first principles, current practices, recent
advances and cutting-edge trends in safety engineering for ship-shaped offshore
installations, with a focus on extreme conditions and accidents. This edition represents
an extensive update of the first edition (published in 2007 with Dr A. K. Thayamballi),
as it covers the latest advances in the field and comprehensively examines new
approaches to structural safety intended to minimise accidents and the effects of
extreme conditions.
I hope that this book will be useful for practising engineers and will increase their
awareness and use of advanced and sophisticated technologies, in addition to existing
industrial practices, in the safety engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations.
Because of its coverage of the fundamentals and principles of individual technologies,
this book will also be useful for university students at all levels of study. Readers are
also recommended to refer to my sister textbooks, Ultimate Limit State Analysis and
Design of Plated Structures, second edition (John Wiley & Sons, 2018) and Advanced
Structural Safety Studies with Extreme Conditions and Accidents (Springer, 2020), as
the first describes the fundamentals and detailed derivations of theories, and the
second presents industrial practices and applications.
I gratefully acknowledge all of those who have helped to make this book possible.
Most of all, I am grateful to Dr A. K. Thayamballi (formerly a senior technical advisor
at Chevron Shipping Company), who was the co-author of the first edition, and Dr
G. Wang (formerly a principal surveyor at the American Bureau of Shipping) and Dr
I. Lotsberg (a specialist engineer at DNV), who provided valuable and comprehensive
comments that greatly improved this book. Finally, I thank my wife, Yunhee Kim (a
sculptor), my son, Myunghoon Paik, Esq. (an international lawyer) and my daughter,
Yunjung Paik (a product designer), for their unfailing patience and support.
Preface to the First Edition
Today, the need for development of offshore oil and gas resources in increasingly
deeper waters is becoming more important because of many reasons associated with
the world economy and the related energy resource development constraints and
strategies.
Fixed-type offshore platforms, which have been useful for oil and gas develop-
ments in relatively shallow waters, are now much less feasible as we move further in
developing oil and gas fields in deep- and ultradeep-water areas, now reaching more
than 1,000 m water depth. Floating-type offshore structures have to be increasingly
considered to develop these deep-water areas. In addition to ship-shaped offshore
units, at least three other types of floating production systems – semisubmersibles,
spars, and tension leg platforms (TLP) – are also available today for that purpose. All
of these types of floating systems require storage, pipeline infrastructure, and other
associated field structures and systems to transport produced oil and gas to the
facilities on shore, but perhaps to varying degrees.
That the use of ship-shaped offshore units remains a very attractive alternative in
many cases of field development is attributable to its ability to successfully serve
multiple functions, such as production, storage, and offloading, and the capability for
oil or gas to be transported to shore via shuttle tankers. Ship-shaped offshore units
reduce need for pipeline infrastructure and are functional on a fast-track basis.
Ship-shaped offshore units are now recognized as perhaps one of the most econom-
ical of all systems for potential developments of offshore oil and gas and are often the
preferred choice in marginal fields. These systems are becoming more attractive for
developing oil and gas fields in deep- and ultradeep-water areas and locations remote
from the existing pipeline infrastructures. Recently, the ship-shaped offshore units
have also begun to be applied to near-shore oil and gas terminals.
Although the use of ship-shaped offshore units has been in existence since the late
1970s, the complexity and size of the units have been gradually increasing, and there
are still many issues related to design, building, and operation to be resolved for
achieving high integrity in terms of safety, health, environment, and economics/
financial expenditures.
Although ship-shaped offshore units are similar to trading tankers in structural
geometry, they are different in a variety of ways. Environmental conditions are unique
in each case, and structural design concepts must be tailored to a specific location.
Trading tankers may avoid rough weather or alter their heading in operation, but
xviii Preface to the First Edition
ship-shaped offshore units must be continuously located in the same area with site-
specific environments and do not have the ability to periodically dry-dock for the
necessary inspection and maintenance. This is an aspect that must be reflected in some
fashion in the design and long-term durability and reliability of the units concerned.
To continue further on the subject of differences from trading tankers, one should
note that ship-shaped offshore units are likely to be subjected to significant environ-
mental actions even during loading and unloading; however, trading tankers are
typically loaded and unloaded at still-water condition in harbor. And, for historical
reasons, the design return period of ship-shaped offshore units is typically taken as
100 years, and that of trading tankers is considered to be 20–25 years or so.
The application of existing procedures, criteria, and standards to the structural
design of ship-shaped offshore units also requires additional thought and discussion.
This can be particularly important for the many interface areas between the hull and
topsides. Even for the hull part, the shipbuilding industry standards may need to be
selectively upgraded to ensure the long life and onsite reliability needed. Similarly, for
the topsides part, it is often not straightforward to apply the relatively more econom-
ical shipbuilding industry standards, in part perhaps because of differences in the
background, experience, and culture of the operating personnel involved. In any
event, the complexities of the design are enormous, and there are many interface
issues (e.g., those related to the interaction between hull and topsides facilities and
related consistency in design information) that need to be identified up front and
addressed and managed on a continuous basis.
In such a situation, direct analyses from first principles, advanced engineering, and
practices are increasingly desired so that practicing engineers and academic research-
ers can resolve the issues that remain, reconcile differences in standards and practices,
and improve structural and other design procedures and criteria. In the never-ending
quest for safe, reliable, yet economical structures and systems effectively designed
and constructed, there are often demanding schedules and other constraints and
challenges.
Also, many diverse international organizations in the maritime industry such as
the International Maritime Organization (IMO), International Organization for
Standardization (ISO), International Association of Classification Societies (IACS),
and the industry in general are now increasingly applying the limit-state design
approach for both trading ships and ship-shaped offshore installations, making related
knowledge and training even more relevant. Another emerging and increasingly more
important technology consists of risk-based approaches to design, operation, and
human and environmental safety, with much of the same accompanying knowledge,
training, and familiarization needs.
The intention behind writing this book is to develop a textbook and handy resource
that sufficiently addresses current practices, recent advances, and emerging trends on
core technologies for designing, building, and operating ship-shaped offshore units,
within certain inevitable space (and time) requirements. This book covers a wide
range of topics, from the initial contracting strategy to the decommissioning and even
the removal of the units concerned, but not always to a depth some might have wished
Preface to the First Edition xix
for. Although a large number of research papers and references and industry standards
useful for specific topics in the areas do exist, we did our best to high-light selected
and useful ones among them in the various chapters and appendices.
We have also tried our utmost to always refer to relevant past work, with proper
acknowledgments. It is respectfully requested that any unintentional oversights in this
regard be brought to our attention for correction in future editions.
We believe and hope that this book will be very useful for practicing engineers and
engineers-in-training and will contribute to their increased awareness and potentially
greater use of advanced and sophisticated technologies as well as existing and
emerging practices. Because of its coverage of the fundamentals and principles of
the individual technologies, this book will also be useful for university students who
are approaching both the initial and more intensive studies of advanced engineering
for ship-shaped offshore installations. With regard to the scope, emphasis, and other
relevant aspects of this book, we encourage all related and pertinent feedback and
suggestions for the future; these will be gratefully received.
Professor Jeom Kee Paik, Pusan National University, Korea and Dr. Anil Kumar
Thayamballi, San Ramon, CA, USA
1 Introduction to Ship-Shaped
Offshore Installations
1.1 Types of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
Various types of engineering structures have been developed over the course of
human civilisation. One type is the ship-shaped offshore installation, which is a
floating structural system located at sea. As a result of their multiple functionalities,
these installations are widely used in the production, processing and storage of energy
derived from marine sources and electrical power generation in a marine environment.
1.1.1 Offshore Oil and Gas Development

The availability of energy has been central to the progress of civilisation. Industrial
advances were first stoked by coal, and then by oil and gas. Initially, oil and gas
production occurred onshore and then spread into offshore areas. Production was
initially conducted in shallow waters, but it is now conducted in waters with depths of
more than 1,000 m because of the decreased possibility that new fields will be
discovered in shallower waters.
Figure 1.1 shows the process of offshore oil and gas exploration and production
using ship-shaped offshore installations. Specially outfitted vessels are used for
exploration, which begins with seismic surveys. Then, exploratory drilling of promis-
ing fields is conducted using jack-up, semi-submersible or ship-shaped drilling rigs.
Development drilling is used to identify fields that contain profitable amounts of oil
and gas, based on the number of wells and the amount of subsea equipment (i.e.,
various combinations of platforms, accommodations and supplies) that would be
required for production.
Ship-shaped offshore installations known as floating production, storage and
offloading (FPSO) units enable the production, processing and storage of oil, and its
offload into shuttle tankers for transportation to land-based terminals. Floating
liquefied natural gas (FLNG) units, which are also known as LNG FPSO units, are
FPSO units associated with facilities for the liquefaction of produced natural gas. The
resulting LNG cargo is transported ashore by LNG carriers. Floating storage and
offloading (FSO) units are non-production ship-shaped offshore installations used to
store processed oil before it is shipped ashore via pipelines. Figure 1.2 depicts FPSO
units with an external turret, an internal turret or a single-point mooring. Figure 1.3
shows an FLNG unit installation.
2 Introduction to Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
Exploration Drilling Production Processing
Transportation Offloading Storage (Gas Liquefaction)
Figure 1.1 The process of offshore oil and gas exploration and production using ship-shaped
offshore installations
(a) (b)
(c)
Figure 1.2 Floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) units: (a) an FPSO with an
external turret mooring (courtesy of SBM Offshore); (b) an FPSO with an internal turret
mooring (courtesy of SBM Offshore) and (c) the FPSO AKPO, which was built in 2008, is
secured via a single-point mooring and in operation 200 km south of Port Harcourt off the
coast of Nigeria in West Africa (courtesy of Hyundai Heavy Industries)
FPSO units are now found in all offshore areas where floating production
systems are used. They range in size from 50,000-barrel tankers, which can process
10,000–15,000 barrels per day, to very large crude carrier (VLCC)-sized units, which
can process more than 200,000 barrels per day and store 2 million barrels. Figure 1.4
shows the worldwide site distributions of the new-build and trading tanker conversion
FPSO units in operation in 2020.
The highest concentrations of FPSO units are off the east coast of South America
and the west coast of Africa. Although many FPSOs have been installed in relatively
(a) (b)
Figure 1.3 The Petronas floating liquefied natural gas unit SATU, which was built in 2015, (a) in
tow and (b) in operation at the Satu site in Malaysia (courtesy of Daewoo Shipbuilding and
Marine Engineering)
North Sea
(20 units, 12%)
southeastern coast of Asia

(22 units, 14%)
Gulf of Mexico
(5 units, 3%)
western coast of
Africa
northwestern coast of
(43 units, 27%)
eastern coast of Australia
South America (6 units, 4%)
(46 units, 28%)
Figure 1.4 Worldwide distribution of floating production, storage and offloading units in
operation in 2021
benign environmental areas, such as southeastern coast of Asia, western coast of

Africa and offshore Brazil near the equator, the use of FPSO units for oil and gas
exploration in deeper waters and some geographic areas (e.g., the northwestern coast
of Australia, which experiences tropical cyclones and storms) is challenging. The
effects of hurricanes on the station-keeping capabilities and structural failures of the

mooring systems of FPSO units are a major concern of regulatory bodies, as operators
use FPSO units in deep-water developments. A mooring-system failure in an FPSO
unit can lead to collisions with adjacent offshore installations, resulting in major oil
spills. The application of FLNG units (or LNG FPSO units) is even more challenging,
as it requires the liquefaction of produced gas, and storage and offloading under
cryogenic conditions. This is detailed in Section 1.1.2.
1.1.2 Liquefied Gas Storage and Regasification

Demand for natural gas is increasing, as natural gas has become an important energy
source associated with various advantages in environmental friendliness and easy
storage compared to other fossil fuels. Figure 1.5 shows the value chain of natural
gas. Production and processing may be performed on land or at sea. Produced natural
gas is liquefied by cooling to 163 C under atmospheric pressure. The resulting LNG
occupies 600 times less volume than natural gas, thereby facilitating its transport by
ship. Liquefaction is also performed in land-based facilities when natural gas is
produced on land, but LNG FPSO units (or FLNG units) are used to fully process
offshore gas, in terms of its production, liquefaction, storage and offloading into ships,
for transportation to terminals ashore. Floating storage and regasification units
(FSRUs) are used as LNG terminals to distribute and transport LNG to consumers,
such as power plants, factories or homes. Figure 1.6 shows a floating storage and
regasification facility in self-propelled transit to operation.
1.1.3 Oil Terminals

As mentioned, ship-shaped offshore installations are also used as FSO facilities that
function as marine-based oil terminals for oil storage and export purposes. FSOs are
usually unmanned and operated remotely, and the main electrical power is supplied
via cables from its turret. Typically, oil is produced by a floating installation, such as a
tension leg platform (TLP), from whence it is transferred via a flexible riser and
swivelling turret to FSO tanks for storage. Oil is offloaded to a shuttle tanker via a
flexible hose in the stern of an FSO. Dynamic positioning systems are used during
offloading operations to ensure that the FSO hull is maintained in the correct heading.
FSOs are useful because they can be moored near cities in coastal waters, which
Production Processing Liquefaction Transportation
Distribution and Transportation to Consumers Regasification
Figure 1.5 Value chain of liquefied natural gas
Figure 1.6 The liquefied natural gas floating storage and regasification unit TURQUOISE P,
which was built in 2019, in self-propelled transit to operation in Aliaga, Turkey
(courtesy of Hyundai Heavy Industries)
obviates the need for oil depots in residential areas on land. They are also able to treat
and warm oil to optimise its storage and transport.
1.1.4 Wave Energy Harvesting

The utilisation of renewable energy sources, such as waves, is increasing rapidly.
Waves are a renewable energy source because they are generated by wind action.
Thus, the generation of energy from waves depends on the height and period of the
waves; deep-water ocean waves, for example, offer large energy fluxes.
Wave energy has unique advantages in addition to its renewability, as it is widely
distributed in the ocean, recurrent, regular and pollution-free; accordingly, the
development of wave energy will not affect the marine and atmospheric environ-
ments (McCormick 2013; Cong et al. 2018). Wave energy can be harvested using
wave energy extraction converters, such as oscillating water columns, oscillating
bodies and overtopping systems. The conversion of wave energy to electrical power
is achieved via power take-off system-based devices. A novel approach for harvest-
ing wave energy is based on the use of decommissioned ships, and it is
described next.
More than 400 large merchant ships are decommissioned and scrapped every year.
Not all of these ships are weakened and degraded, and some retain significant levels of
strength. The decommissioning and scrapping of such ships are not only expensive,
but generate many environmental and toxic hazards. As such, the reuse of decommis-
sioned ships is superior to the recycling of their steel via scrapping, as the ships can,
for example, be used to generate wave energy (Mansour et al. 2013). First, an
unmanned decommissioned ship is placed in approximately 50 m of water, where
deep-water swells have an average wave period of 6–15 seconds. Then, the ship is
heave pitch
power take-off pump
submerged plate
for force reaction
mooring line mooring line anchor
Figure 1.7 Wave energy extraction using a decommissioned ship
‘tuned’ to have a large wave-motion response, particularly in heave and pitch. In

small-wave conditions, the ship therefore serves as a platform for secondary energy
absorption. It is also tuned to have near-rigid body resonance, such that it resists wave
motion to absorb power. This power is stored by hydraulic ramps connected to an
accumulator-fed hydraulic motor. Figure 1.7 shows a schematic of wave energy
extraction using a decommissioned ship (Mansour et al. 2013), although commercial
operations are not yet in progress.
1.1.5 Liquefied Natural Gas–Fuelled Power Plants

Ship-shaped offshore installations are also used as LNG-fuelled power plants, and
they are thus useful for providing electricity and heat to remote or relatively inaccess-
ible sites. Moreover, the hull structures of these installations can be built at a shipyard
and towed to the site of operation. The LNG is drawn from storage tanks for floating
storage and power plants or is supplied by LNG bunkering ships.
1.1.6 Nuclear Power Plants

Despite the ongoing debate about nuclear power’s waste and safety hazards versus its
economics and environmental friendliness, it is recognised as a clean and cheap
energy for resolving the issues associated with global warming (Devanney 2020).
Ship-shaped nuclear power plants are non-self-propelled vessels that generate elec-
trical power from one or more nuclear reactors installed inside a hull. Similar to LNG
power plants, the hull structures are built at a shipyard and towed to the site of
operation, eliminating the need for a special construction site. However, sensitive
equipment may be installed in the plant after its arrival on site. These offer more
advantages than land-based nuclear power plants, as their environmental impact is low
1.2 Trading Tankers vs Ship-Shaped Offshore Inst. 7
Figure 1.8 A ship-shaped nuclear power plant (courtesy of ThorCon Power)
during both operation and dismantling, although it must be ensured that radioactive
material never leaks into the sea.
Figure 1.8 shows a ship-shaped nuclear power plant developed by ThorCon (2019;
see thorconpower.com), which is composed of a generator and power modules. The
hull structure of the plant is similar to that of a double-hull tanker, as it comprises a
double bottom and double sides. The central working portion of the hull is flanked by
ballast tanks. The deck features several large hatches to allow access for the extraction
and replacement of various components. The ThorCon plant is a gravity-based
platform, and it is towed to a site in shallow water (approximately 10 m) and ballasted
down onto the seabed by the addition of water, concrete or sand into the double sides
and double bottom.
1.1.7 Deep-Sea Mineral Mining

Ship-shaped offshore installations offer a practical basis for mining minerals, such as
manganese nodules, from deep-sea sources. These deep-sea mining installations may
have a similar hull structure as that of the FPSO units used for offshore oil and gas
collection. However, commercial ship-shaped deep-sea mining operations are not yet in
progress, as the development of this sector depends on an array of social, political, legal
and economic factors, similar to the development of energy resources (Sparenberg 2019).
1.2 Trading Tankers versus Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
Trading tankers are often converted to ship-shaped offshore installations. These may
retain the original structure and form of the trading-tanker hull, although modifications
and repairs are made to the structural scantlings. Although the hull structural arrange-
ment in a newly built installation is similar to that of a trading tanker, the former has a
block coefficient close to unity to maximise the cargo storage volume, instead of a hull
form optimised for passage at sea. In addition, as a ship-shaped offshore installation
remains at a specific site, there is no risk of grounding accidents, and therefore a
single-bottom structure is feasible. However, a double-bottom space may be required
Table 1.1. Differences between trading tankers and ship-shaped offshore installations
Parameter Trading tanker Ship-shaped offshore installation
Hull block 0.8–0.9 Approx. 1.0 (new build)

coefficient
Hull structural Double bottom and double sides Double sides and single bottom
arrangement
Design condition North Atlantic wave environment Site- and tow route–specific environments
Return period (years) 25 100
Actions (loads) Wave and wind Wave, wind, current, etc.
Loading and Limited number; loading and unloading Frequent; relatively more environmental
offloading cycle occur in harbour effects
frequency
Operating location On open sea ~70% of the time Offshore 100% of the time
Weathervaning Weather comes from any direction; Highly directional weather and
weather routing for rough-weather weathervaning; rough-weather avoidance
avoidance possible not possible once fixed on site
Mooring Not applicable Single-point mooring in harsh
environment and spread mooring in
benign environment
Dry-docking Dry-docking every 5 years Continuous operation, usually without
dry-docking
Topside No topside Has topside; subject to effects of
interaction between hull and topside
to host ballast tanks or heating units to warm cargo tanks in a ship-shaped offshore
installation operating within the Arctic Circle.
Trading tankers and ship-shaped offshore installations differ in various ways, as
indicated in Table 1.1. In particular, the design considerations for ship-shaped off-
shore installations are more complex than those for trading tankers. This is not
because the trading-tanker design is any less complicated in principle, but because
of the relative importance of site-specific offshore conditions for ship-shaped offshore
installations, and the need to consider the towing and commissioning of these instal-
lations at sea. Environmental conditions are also considered differently when
designing trading tankers and ship-shaped offshore installations. Specifically, the
North Atlantic wave environment is typically adopted as the design premise for a
trading tanker, as this results in a vessel that is strong enough to navigate any ocean
conditions and thereby enables worldwide trade. However, the design load of a ship-
shaped offshore installation is based on the environment at its intended operational site
and on the requirements for its transportation to this site, prior commissioning
and mooring.
For historical reasons, the return period of waves is typically set at 100 years
when designing the hull girder strength of a ship-shaped offshore installation,
whereas it is set at 25 years when designing a trading ship. Wind and current are
1.2 Trading Tankers vs Ship-Shaped Offshore Inst. 9
also considered as important parameters in the engineering of ship-shaped offshore

installations, whereas waves are regarded as the primary source of environmental
actions on trading tankers. Trading tankers are loaded and unloaded in still-water
conditions in harbour, whereas ship-shaped offshore installations are unloaded
offshore and are thus subject to significant environmental loads during loading
and offloading. The latter also undergo more frequent loading and offloading cycles
than trading tankers. Thus, the fatigue failure characteristics of ship-shaped offshore
structures differ from those of trading tankers, as the former are more likely to
experience low-cycle fatigue. Indeed, industry experience shows that such frequent
loading and offloading operations on ship-shaped offshore installations cause
fatigue at the structural joints that is not observed in trading tankers. Moreover,
ship-shaped offshore installations are offshore for 100 per cent of their design life,
while trading tankers are on the open sea for approximately 70 per cent of theirs.
Trading tankers operate in either full-load or ballast conditions, while ship-shaped
offshore installations operate in various load and offload conditions. These charac-
teristics mean that ship-shaped offshore installations have larger draught variations
between fully loaded and minimally loaded or ballast conditions than do trading
tankers. It follows that ship-shaped offshore installations must have sufficient
strength to cope with various loading conditions at a range of draughts, and with
the various environmental conditions of different return periods.
Unlike trading tankers, ship-shaped offshore installations have features such as
topsides, mooring systems (single-point or spread mooring), flare towers, riser
porches and drill towers. These are items that have a large mass, high centre of
gravity and large windage area, which affect the installation’s motions and its
responses to the environment. Trading tankers may use weather routing to avoid
rough weather or alter their operational headings (Olsen et al. 2006; Dickson et al.
2019; Szlapczynska and Szlapczynski 2019; Gkerekos and Lazakis 2020; Kurosawa
et al. 2020), but ship-shaped offshore installations are fixed in the same location and
are constantly subject to site-specific environmental conditions. Single-point mooring
systems are used to secure ship-shaped offshore installations that operate in harsh
environmental conditions. These systems allow installations to move to face into the
weather, thus minimising the environmental loads placed by winds, waves and
currents. In addition, single-point mooring systems can be disconnected prior to
storm conditions to enable ship-shaped offshore installations to be towed or sail to
sheltered areas and then return to restart operations when the weather calms (Cabrera-
Miranda et al. 2018; Ma et al. 2019).
Notably, ship-shaped offshore installations that operate in the North Sea and those
with single-point mooring systems must have significantly greater hull girder strength
than those of trading tankers in unrestricted service. In contrast, in areas such as West
Africa, the wave environment is largely benign, which means that the strength
requirements are less rigorous and spread mooring can be used. Finally, trading
tankers and ship-shaped offshore installations each have their own characteristics with
respect to undesirable hull motions that lead to sloshing, slamming, green water
damage, mechanical downtime on equipment and crew discomfort.
Trading tankers are regularly dry-docked at five-year intervals. Ideally, ship-shaped

offshore installations are never dry-docked during their entire production period in the
field, which ranges from 20 to 40 years. This is often because of the economic
unviability of repairing a ship-shaped offshore installation in dry dock, primarily
because of interruptions to production. In addition, hot works (such as welding or
flame cutting) are commonly performed when trading tankers are repaired in dry dock.
However, these techniques are obviously unsafe for use during the in situ repair of
offshore structures, because of the high risk of fire or explosion.
1.3 New Builds versus Tanker Conversions
Table 1.2 indicates the number of FPSO units that are in use for the development of
offshore oil resources in deep waters as of 2020 (Boggs et al. 2020, www.offshore-
mag.com). More than 70 per cent of these operating installations are trading tanker
conversions, and the number of on-order conversions is almost the same as the
number of on-order new builds.
When an FPSO unit is required, the advantages and disadvantages of new builds
versus trading tanker conversions must be evaluated to determine which option best
fits the requirements of a particular situation.
The advantages of a new build are that:
field-appropriate design and fatigue lives are more easily achieved;

technical, commercial and environmental risks are more easily managed;
systems intended to survive harsh environments are more easily designable;
re-sale and residual values are maximised and
reusability opportunities are improved.
Conversely, the advantages of a trading tanker conversion are that:
capital costs are reduced;

design and construction schedules are reduced;
more construction facilities are available and
overall project-supervision requirements are reduced.
One of the key drivers when selecting an FPSO unit is field life, which is often
determined by the economic life of the oil or gas reservoir. When the design life for a
continuous on-site operation is greater than 20 years, a new build is invariably desirable.
Table 1.2. Numbers of floating production, storage and offloading units in operation for offshore oil
development in 2021
Type Operating Available On order Total
Conversion 110 17 8 135

New build 52 6 19 77
Total 162 23 27 212
For marginal fields where the reservoirs are not necessarily abundant, the design life
may be 5, 10 or 15 years, and thus a trading tanker conversion option is more econom-
ical. Notably, the design life of a new-build installation is much longer than that of a
trading tanker conversion, although new-build costs vary according to many factors,
such as the capacity of production and storage. A project to build a ship-shaped offshore
installation is divided into different work packages, such as those related to the hull, the
topsides, hull–topside integration and overall project management. Construction con-
tracts for these packages may be awarded separately or as a whole.
1.4 Tanker Conversions
Table 1.3 lists the trading tanker conversion FPSO units that have been built since
2000. Most of them are converted VLCC-class tankers. DNV (Det Norske Veritas)
and ABS (American Bureau of Shipping) are the two major classification societies that
certify tanker conversion FPSO installations.
1.4.1 Selection of a Suitable Tanker for Conversion

The selection of a trading tanker for conversion and the subsequent conversion
engineering are based on the unique requirements of a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation. In particular, servicing of a ship-shaped offshore installation is more arduous
than that of a trading tanker and depends on the operational environment. For
example, factors such as a higher tank temperature, which leads to a higher risk of
hot water generation in tanks, and a greater number of loading and offloading cycles
create more severe service conditions on ship-shaped offshore installations than on
trading tankers. In addition, the deck structures of ship-shaped offshore installations
must bear heavier topside modules than those of trading tankers, and this may cause
design challenges related to the deck and freeboard deck strength, stability and
deflection. A ship-shaped offshore installation is also not designed to undergo dry-
docking for maintenance during its service life. All of these aspects must be borne in
mind when converting a trading tanker to a ship-shaped offshore installation.
It is also important to identify and evaluate which trading tanker systems can be
reused or renewed, and which systems must be newly installed during conversion.
Useful summaries of the information and practices associated with the conversion of
trading tankers to ship-shaped offshore installations are given by Johnson (1996),
Assayag et al. (1997), da Costa Filho (1997), Park et al. (1998), Parker (1999a,
1999b), Neto and de Souza Lima (2001), Terpstra et al. (2001), Lane et al. (2004),
Mones (2004), Terpstra et al. (2004) and Biasotto et al. (2005).
The basic features and vessel-related factors that are relevant when selecting a
trading tanker for conversion are its
price;
tank volume (e.g., oil storage capacity);
Table 1.3. List of trading tanker conversion floating production, storage and offloading installations in operation since 2000
First year in oil

No. Name IMO No. Class L (m) B (m) D (m) T (m) development
1 P-76, Replicant 9005223 DNV 332 58 31 22 2019

2 P-77, Replicant 8906913 ABS 322.07 56.04 31.4 20.3 2019
3 P-74, Replicant 9012824 DNV 326.2 56.6 28.6 20 2018
4 P-75, Replicant 9005273 ABS 322.07 56.04 31.4 20.6 2018
5 BW ADOLO (AZURITE) 861831 DNV 312 56 30 18 2018
6 TURRITELLA 9269087 ABS 274 48 24 17 2016
7 CIDADE DE ITAGUAI (MV 26) 9179713 ABS 332 58 32 22 2015
8 P-58 9012238 ABS 331 56 30.2 20.8 2014
9 P-62 9044217 DNV 328 57.2 30.4 21.3 2014
10 CIDADE DE MANGARATIBA (MV 24) 9001007 ABS 332 58 28.1 18.9 2014
11 P-63 9385124 ABS 334 58 28 22.3 2013
12 CIDADE DE SAO PAULO (MV23) 9005211 ABS 332 58 28 21 2013
13 PSVM FPSO 9077800 ABS 318 57 32 23 2012
14 BW PIONEER 8918265 DNV 242 42 20 14 2012
15 CIDADE DE ANCHIETA 7382249 ABS 344 52 28 22 2012
16 KWAME NKRUMAH MV21 9003861 ABS 359 59 30 20 2010
17 P-57 8617225 ABS 311 56 29.5 20.2 2010
18 CIDADE DE SANTOS (MV 20) 7325899 ABS 334 51 26 20 2010
19 CAPIXABA 7370193 ABS 346 55 27 21 2010
20 BW CIDADE DE SAO VICENTE 7380693 DNV 254 44 23 14 2009
21 FRADE 7522318 ABS 337 55 27 21 2009

22 CIDADE DE NITEROI (MV 18) 8500123 ABS 315 60 28.45 19.2 2009
23 ALVHEIM 9170078 DNV 252 42 23 16 2008
24 ARMADA PERKASA 7383401 ABS 201 32 18 13 2008
25 SAXI-BATUQUE (KIZOMBA C) 7379993 ABS 369 56 29 22 2008
26 P-53 7385136 ABS 346 57 28 22 2008
27 POLVO 7822122 DNV 325 55 28 17 2007
28 UMUROA 8017815 DNV 232 46 23 15 2007
29 YÙUM K’AK’ NÁAB 7708302 DNV 325 65 32 23 2007
30 P-54 7391812 ABS 337 54 28 22 2007
31 MONDO 7370246 ABS 370 54 27 21 2007
32 SENDJE BERGE 7360057 DNV 350 52 27 22 2005
33 P-48 7391824 ABS 337 55 27 21 2005
34 P-50 7391824 ABS 337 55 28 21 2005
35 P-43 7370208 ABS 337 55 27 21 2004
36 ABO 7374046 DNV 269 54 20 15 2003
37 CURLEW 8124046 LR 236 40 20 15 2002
38 ESPOIR IVOIRIEN 7373949 DNV 269 54 20 15 2002
39 PETROLEO NAUTIPA 7380629 DNV 256 44 23 16 2002
40 SENDJE CEIBA 7360069 DNV 265 52 27 22 2002
IMO ¼ International Maritime Organization; L ¼ length of all; B ¼ breadth; D ¼ depth and T ¼ draught.
Table 1.4. Hull structural design trends for very large crude carriers built during the 1970s and the
1980s or after
1970s 1980s or after
Location Thickness (mm) Material Thickness (mm) Material
Main deck 35 Mild steel (grade A) 20 AH32 or AH36

Side shell 23 Mild steel (grade A) 17 AH32 or AH36
Bottom panels 36 Mild steel (grade A) 20 AH32 or AH36
year of construction (i.e., tanker age);

hull construction (e.g., single skin, double sides/single bottom or double sides/
double bottom);
hull structural condition and systems condition and
residual strength and fatigue life.
Generally, Suezmax or VLCC class trading tankers are considered candidates for
conversion. A key structural consideration is whether a vessel can be converted to its
new service form while using relatively modest amounts of steel for modifications and
repairs. This has led trading tankers that were constructed in the 1970s to be favoured
for conversion, as these have heavier scantlings and contain a higher proportion of
mild steel than more recently built vessels.
Some structural design trends of VLCCs built before and after the 1980s are listed
in Table 1.4. Useful regression formulas for main dimensions of as-built tankers are
available in the literature (Kristensen 2012). The conditions of trading tankers vary,
depending on the level of fatigue damage and corrosion wastage accumulated during
their service lives and the initial construction quality. Trading tankers that were
constructed in the 1970s are now more than 40 years old and are thus unsuitable for
conversion, although their thicker scantlings are relatively more resistant to corrosion
than those of younger vessels, which have thinner scantlings that contain greater
amounts of high tensile steel. These thinner scantlings are more susceptible to
fatigue cracking and corrosion wastage over the long service life of a ship-shaped
offshore installation, that is, 10 years or longer.
Therefore, the structural health and design condition of a trading tanker is assessed
carefully to determine whether it is suitable for conversion, and the required amount of
steel renewal is estimated. Consequently, only a structurally sound vessel that meets
the minimal requirements for in situ on-site maintenance is selected. All of the trading
tanker machinery must also be suitable for the expected functions, service life and
maintenance programme of the planned ship-shaped offshore installation.
Since the adoption of the US OPA (Oil Pollution Acts) 90, trading tankers have
been built with double hulls that incorporate varying amounts of high tensile steel. The
MARPOL Annex I requirements (IMO 2003) are mandatory for ship-shaped offshore
installations and are required by some national or regional statutory bodies, although
these do not stipulate the use of a double hull. Double sides are also preferred for ship-
shaped offshore installations to improve collision resistance but are not usually
required by regulations. Single-skin trading tankers are most commonly refurbished

and converted to ship-shaped offshore installations, as double-hull tankers are typic-
ally more expensive. Single-skin trading tankers can be converted to double-hull
vessels by the addition of sponsons, which act as a new outer hull.
1.4.2 Inspection of an Aged Tanker’s Hull Prior to Conversion

A trading tanker is subjected to a close up visual inspection and non-destructive
examination prior to its conversion in order to detect and quantify fatigue cracking
and corrosion wastage (described in Chapter 15). Inspectors are likely to be more
familiar with the five-year trading tanker inspection requirements of classification
societies and related surveys, and must therefore be made aware that a trading tanker is
intended for conversion and that a different function is to be performed. In this regard,
the operations of various ship-shaped offshore installations converted from trading
tankers have demonstrated that the inspection procedures of classification societies
must be augmented using special surveys and comprehensive inspections, which must
be performed in a shipyard before the repair and refurbishment plan is finalised and
the refurbishment and conversion work is begun.
These comprehensive inspections involve a close examination of the structures of a
trading tanker in dry dock, and numerous measurements of the external and internal
hull thickness losses or corrosion wastage to identify construction defects and in-
service damage, such as cracking and denting. This process is carried out after the hull
has been properly cleaned and made accessible. Close up visual inspections of the
cargo, slop and ballast tanks are also performed from scaffolding erected inside the
tanks. Local pitting, grooving and knife-edging damage is difficult to repair offshore,
and thus it is critical to identify as much of this damage as possible to enable its
gauging and shipyard-based repair or refurbishment prior to conversion. The key
aspects of this comprehensive inspection process are given here.
Visual inspection of the structure in all cargo, slop, ballast, fuel oil, forepeak, aft
peak and void spaces.
Close up visual inspection (0.5 m) of the toes of all transverse bottom webs and
horizontal girders. Toes that are directly connected to an oil-tight bulkhead should
be subject to magnetic particle inspection.
Close up visual inspection of the collar plates of all longitudinal stiffeners
protruding through watertight or oil-tight bulkheads. Approximately 20 per cent of
the welds should be subject to magnetic particle inspection.
Ultrasonic thickness measurements and close up inspection of the entire main deck,
the entire bottom deck and selected strakes in the side shell plating (at ballast and,
when fully loaded, at the waterline).
Ultrasonic thickness measurements and close up inspection of all horizontal
stringers and centreline girders.
Ultrasonic thickness measurements and close up inspection of representative
sections of selected web frames and all transverse bulkheads. One or more web
frames should be inspected in each cargo, slop and ballast tank.
Ultrasonic thickness measurements and close up inspection of one entire transverse

girth belt in each tank (including the slop tank).
Detailed measurements and mapping of all areas of significant pitting in the cargo,
slop and ballast tanks.
Heavily corroded areas must be renewed and enhanced to the required levels during
the conversion process. The renewal plate thickness is estimated as the sum of the net
plate thickness required for the new service demands and the corrosion margin value.
The net plate thickness of the structural components is determined based on their
respective strength (stress and buckling) and fatigue requirements, and the corrosion
margin value should reflect the intended lifetime of the ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation to which the trading tanker is to be converted.
1.4.3 Repair of an Aged Tanker’s Hull Prior to Conversion

Structural defects in the hull of an aged trading tanker must be repaired, as in-service
damage will also occur during the service life of a derived ship-shaped offshore
installation. If the depth of local denting is greater than the plate thickness, insert
plates are used for repairs. If the indentations in the plates of web frames or the
longitudinal stiffeners of side shell plates are greater than the thickness of the plates,
these sections are replaced. Sharp dents are impermissible, and the affected structures
must be renewed. All visible cracks are repaired, and critical areas are inspected for
crack-like defects, which are also repaired irrespective of their sizes. All pits and
grooves are repaired by welding or with insert plates. Any weld overfill (crown) that
has been lost by pitting is renewed. Pitting or grooving to a depth of 15–33.3 per cent
of the plate thickness is repaired by infill welding, provided that a layer (e.g., 6 mm) of
the original plate remains at the bottom of the pit/groove, the nominal diameter of the
pit/groove does not exceed a certain limit (e.g., 300 mm) and individual pit/grooves
are spaced at least 75 mm apart. Pitting or grooving corrosion outside these limits is
repaired using insert plates.
The renewal criteria for the general corrosion of a member are based on the limits
described next. The renewal thickness for the overall corrosion of plating and stiffen-
ers, which dictates the corroded areas to be renewed at conversion, is defined to ensure
that substantial corrosion conditions are not reached within the on-site life of the
structure. Accordingly, this renewal thickness takes into account the expected losses
to corrosion during the service life of a ship-shaped offshore installation derived from
a trading tanker. The substantial corrosion margin is defined as 75 per cent of the
corrosion allowance. The maximum allowable corrosion loss is therefore defined as
20–30 per cent, depending on the location of the member. The renewal thickness
is defined by industry practice as follows: renewal thickness ¼ required thickness
(1 – 0.75 allowed corrosion percentage) + (expected service life in years yearly
corrosion loss). This relates to general corrosion on a local structural level. Finally,
reductions in hull girder section moduli and gross strength properties of panels over
the expected service life should not exceed approximately 10 per cent.
1.4.4 Reuse of Existing Machinery and Equipment during Tanker Conversion

The existing equipment and machinery of a trading tanker may be partly or fully
reusable, with or without refurbishment, over the expected service life of a ship-
shaped offshore installation. This reusability is important because it reduces the capital
cost, but key considerations are needed.
The components that may warrant refurbishment and upgrading are:
main and auxiliary engines;

electrical generators;
boilers and economisers;
starting air and instrument air systems;
piping systems (cargo and ballast);
deck hydraulic systems;
bilge, seawater and fireman systems;
steam, inert gas and crude oil washing systems;
lubricating oil systems;
cargo or ballast pumps, and related control systems;
communication systems;
electric cables and switchgear;
heaters, motors and light fittings;
fire- and gas-detection systems;
firefighting systems and lifesaving appliances;
corrosion protection systems (cathodic protection) and
accommodation facilities.
These components must remain functional and safe during the required service life of
a ship-shaped offshore installation. A detailed examination of the conditions of these
components and follow-up refurbishment and testing, if necessary, are required prior to
conversion. This process depends on the age and previous levels of maintenance of a
trading tanker and the operational requirements and constraints of the ship-shaped
offshore installation to which it may be converted. However, some components are
usually reusable, either with or without modification, and this may provide a unique cost
advantage of a trading tanker conversion compared to a new build. To varying degrees,
such refurbishment, modification or reuse is successful for components involved in
power generation, cargo handling, inert gas management, ballast, crude oil washing,
steam generation and supply, utilities, firefighting and accommodation.
1.4.5 New Component Addition in a Tanker Conversion

The following new components are added during the conversion of a trading tanker to
a ship-shaped offshore installation:
a process plant;
a turret and riser porch;
a flare system;
a mooring system (e.g., a spread mooring or turret mooring);

control and instrumentation systems;
an offloading system;
a helideck;
cranes and their coverage and
green-water protection, such as bulwarks and breakwaters.
The determination of an appropriate mooring system depends on various aspects,

such as the trading tanker size, the number and type of riser paths required in a ship-
shaped offshore installation and any mooring disconnectability requirements, in
addition to the ocean environment and water depth at the planned installation site.
A mooring system may comprise
fixed spread moorings, forward and aft;

an internal turret, forward-fixed or disconnectable;
a submerged turret production buoy;
an external bow or stern turret, cantilevered at the deck or keel;
an external stern turret, yoked to a catenary anchor leg mooring buoy;
rigid and articulated yokes connected to buoys;
an articulated buoyant column and yoke or
a mooring tower and yoke.
In most mooring systems (except fixed spread moorings), the riser paths terminate
via a fluid swivel, which enables weathervaning into the environment. If active
heading control will be required for offloading to a shuttle tanker or because of the
environmental conditions at the proposed site, a thruster is fitted aft. This requires
complex conversion work to ensure that sufficient space is created at the aft end to
accommodate the thruster.
A process plant is supplied in the form of skids, packages, modules and similar pre-
assembled units, which are ready for onboard hook-up and pre-commissioning. The
sizes of pre-assembled units depend on the shipment, crane or load-out facilities
available at the conversion yard. The location of process equipment on the upper
deck is determined by various factors, such as the longitudinal hull girder strength,
stability, deck structure deflection and green water requirements. The weight and
centre of gravity of a topside are determined at an early stage of conversion and are
monitored throughout the conversion process to ensure that these properties do not
change. The maximum extreme wave-induced bending moments and shear forces,
which are related to longitudinal strength, are determined from environmental data
recorded at the intended site, based on waves of the 100-year return period. The still
water bending moments and shear forces of the design are calculated for various
loading and offloading conditions, such as full load, ballast and intermediate
conditions.
During the in situ inspection of tanks in a ship-shaped offshore installation,
certain sets of tanks are emptied in turn to minimise disturbances to production. In
such situations, the additional weight of the processing equipment – even though it
1.5 Front-End Engineering & Design for New Builds 19
may not significantly increase the still water load – may affect the stability of a ship-
shaped offshore installation, as this additional weight will alter its centre of gravity.
Accordingly, it will be more difficult to meet damage stability requirements. The
free surface effect in slack cargo tanks is another aspect that may affect stability and
sloshing.
If a ship-shaped offshore installation is destined for use at a site where severe
green water loading may occur because of harsh environments and low freeboard
situations, structures are added to secure the process equipment. Deck structures
must invariably be strengthened around heavy process plants, as the supports of
process equipment are vulnerable to deformation and overstress. Such structures are
designed with consideration for hull girder bending and the interaction between the
hull and topside structures.
1.4.6 Appraisal of the Conversion Yard

While a trading tanker is undergoing conversion to a ship-shaped offshore installation,
the process plant facilities may be fabricated in the same yard or elsewhere. In the
latter case, the pre-assembled units are transported to the conversion yard to be fitted,
or the vessel is transported to the process plant fabrication site where fitting is
performed. Thus, a conversion yard is appraised in terms of its
health, safety and environmental aspects;

past experience of conversions;
physical facilities and trade resources;
staffing, discipline and labour aspects;
corporate aspects associated with management experience and fiscal stability;
ability to manage technical problems and changes during design and conversion;
experience in planning fast track project execution and
ability to manage complex projects.
1.5 Front-End Engineering and Design for New Builds
The design approach for a new-build ship-shaped offshore installation is classified as a

comparative or direct approach, as shown in Figure 1.9. In a comparative approach,
the design is based primarily on existing (or as-built) systems, while a direct approach
is based on the use of direct analysis methods to determine the actions and action
effects under ocean environmental and operational conditions. For an existing ship-
shaped offshore installation, a good track record of service, which indicates that no
significant design changes have been required, can be used as a reference for a
comparative design approach. In contrast, the direct approach is used if a ship-shaped
offshore installation will incorporate significant design changes or new designs. In
general, most trading tankers are designed using a comparative approach, whereas
most ship-shaped offshore installations are designed using a direct approach.
Design Approach
Significant
Design Change or
Yes New Design ? No
Good Service
Track Record ? No
Yes
Comparative Approach Direct Approach
Figure 1.9 Decision tree for the comparative approach versus the direct approach for a new-build
design of a ship-shaped offshore installation
Many problems associated with the costs and scheduling of new-build ship-shaped
offshore installations result from inadequate project definitions and requirements,
which lead to expensive changes being required during the project execution phase.
Therefore, front end engineering and design (FEED), which involves substantial
engineering analyses, must be performed at the outset of any new-build project, prior
to the development of specifications, the issuing of an invitation to tender a package
and (usually) the bidding phase. As a new-build project may take three to four years to
complete, and its success is dependent on the orchestration and scheduling of a variety
of key tasks, such as front-end engineering, the development of a design basis, the
determination of performance specifications and detailed specifications, the vetting and
selection of candidate yards and contractors, the awarding of the construction contract,
the performance of a detailed engineering process, construction, pre-commissioning
(dock trials), sea trials, delivery, on-site commissioning and acceptance.
The complexity and sizes of ship-shaped offshore installations have been gradually
increasing. Accordingly, aspects of the design, building and operation of each new
build may need revision, relative to previous designs, to ensure that a high level of
system integrity is achieved. The requirements for the design and construction of a
ship-shaped offshore installation differ from those applied to trading tankers, as the
former must exhibit excellent on-site reliability over a long operational life, without
requiring dry-docking-based repair (described in Section 1.2). Furthermore, ship-
shaped offshore installations are much more complex facilities than trading tankers,
and their successful construction requires a coordinated effort from all parties, namely
the owners, shipyards, topsides integration contractors, hull engineering contractors,
classification societies and operators. A detailed engineering process is crucial for the
design, construction and commissioning of a new-build project.
This section describes the front-end engineering involved in building a new ship-
shaped offshore installation, with a focus on the construction of FPSO units used for
offshore oil development. The construction of other types of ship-shaped offshore

installations may follow similar procedures.
1.5.1 Initial Planning and Contracting Strategies

In the initial stage of planning the construction of a ship-shaped offshore installation, a
company must decide whether to own or lease the installation, and whether it should
be a new build or a trading tanker conversion. These decisions are made based on the
following aspects that are relevant to owners:
economics;
field life and installation amortisation over this period;
residual value of the used installation and
opportunities for redeployment.
Companies that plan to operate an FPSO unit usually purchase rather than lease
a new build or tanker conversion, whereas they tend to lease drilling rigs because
the latter are required for relatively intermittent periods. However, FPSO units may
also be leased for long and short periods. The decision to purchase or lease is
primarily based on economics. It is actually very rare for a company to design and
build an FPSO unit for use in multiple fields over its design life, primarily because
of the substantial investment required and the needs and regulations of the
host country.
Contracting plans are also established in the initial planning stage. Ship-shaped
offshore installations are constructed with shipyard involvement to ensure that con-
struction is performed within a culture and atmosphere that are similar to that of
typical shipbuilding. For cost and scheduling reasons, a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation hull is built using ordinary shipbuilding practices, with specific enhancements
where needed. However, topside processing facilities are designed and fabricated by a
separate contractor, using offshore practices that are more akin to those used in the
construction of fixed platforms than in the construction of ships, and are integrated
onto the ship-shaped hull by the shipyard.
The process of newly designing and constructing a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation is unique and more complex than that used for a trading tanker. In addition, a
new build or trading tanker conversion ship-shaped offshore installation project
involves many elements, such as the engineering of the hull, topsides and mooring
system; the integration of the topsides onto the hull; the towing of the installation to
the site; the establishment of the installation on site and the commissioning. In contrast
to the construction of trading tankers in shipyards, several major interfaces must be
managed during the construction of a ship-shaped offshore installation, such as those
between the design of the topside facilities and the hull, and between the multiple
contractors involved. To share costs and spread risk during construction, a consortium
is formed that comprises an owner, joint venturers and operators, which allows all
parties to be involved in planning the work elements of a contract. The success of such
a contract depends on the optimisation of the following three major factors:
engineering capability;
fabrication capability, including quality control systems and
project management, including cost and schedule control.
Not all shipyards have the required expertise in all aspects of design, custom
engineering or project management, and thus it is critical to select the best shipyard
to fulfil a ship-shaped offshore installation construction contract. Key aspects of the
success of a project include good FEED; comprehensive technical specifications; a
clear scope of work; the clear identification and management of all interfaces;
effective and accurate communications between the owner, the fabrication yards and
classification societies; an adequate and detailed construction plan; sufficient site
teams for construction supervision; adequate systems for health, safety and environ-
ment and quality control; standardisation of equipment and materials; appropriate
planning for long lead item procurement and supply and the avoidance of changes
after a contract is settled.
1.5.2 Detailed Engineering

After a contract is awarded and before construction starts, certain detailed aspects of
engineering must be completed. Preliminary safety studies of process facilities,
including fire and explosion analyses and gas dispersion analyses, significantly affect
the layout and design of a ship-shaped offshore installation and must be conducted as
part of the FEED. That is, detailed and specific safety studies are part of the detailed
design phase. Both the FEED and detailed engineering deal with the following aspects
at different degrees of sophistication:
principal particulars and general arrangement of a vessel;

hull stability and strength analyses;
vessel motion analysis;
mooring system and station-keeping analyses;
riser system analysis;
turret system analysis, and design where required;
design process plant layout and support load determination;
operational and safety philosophies and relevant plan development and
risk assessment and management planning.
The specifications for a ship-shaped offshore installation are developed based on
operational factors to achieve optimal levels of on-site reliability and minimal down-
time. An owner must have an installation classified to ensure that it meets the
classification society rules and various offshore industry standards that stipulate the
minimum requirements for structural integrity. In addition, an owner invariably has
requirements that are not adequately covered by classification society rules, such as
detailed prescriptive requirements for functional and performance features and items.
Similarly, certain structural aspects must be enhanced to ensure on-site safety and
integrity. Finally, an owner is also involved in design review during the plan approval
process and in monitoring the construction quality to ensure that all of the require-
ments are met satisfactorily.
1.5.3 Principal Factors That Affect Project Costs

The principal factors that affect the costs of FPSO unit construction projects are the
field production profile over time;

water depth at the proposed site;
unit size and capacities;
operational requirements for uptime and reliability;
site and tow conditions and the associated requirements;
deck space requirements for the process facility;
subsea design and manifold arrangements;
support functions, such as power generation and utilities;
design life, and related structural integrity management philosophy;
classification, verification and regulatory compliance and
safety in design.
Table 1.5 lists a sample breakdown of the costs involved in ship-shaped offshore
installation construction projects. The overall costs are proportional to the hull size,
which depends on the required production, storage and offloading capacities. The
construction friendliness of a project also affects the fabrication costs. Cost specifica-
tions and relative cost proportions vary from project to project, and also according to
the operational philosophies and management priorities and whether a new build or
trading tanker conversion is being performed.
1.5.4 Selection of Storage, Production and Offloading Capabilities

The key factors that affect the storage capacity of a planned FPSO installation are its
required rate of production;

export cargo parcel size;
number of grades of production or export fluids;
offloading system efficiency and other characteristics and
required buffer storage capacity.
Table 1.5. A sample breakdown of the costs of a ship-shaped

offshore installation construction project
Item Cost division (%)
Engineering and management 10

Vessel hull and systems 40–50
Process topsides 20–30
Moorings and installation 4–5
Commissioning 2–3
The simplest way to determine the required buffer storage capacity is to first
identify the commonest large export parcel size and then add extra capacity to contain
the volume generated at the greatest production rate. This ensures that sufficient
additional storage capacity is available in an FPSO unit to cope with delays resulting
from the export shuttle tanker arrival or weather conditions unsuitable for offloading.
Additional storage flexibility can also be obtained by decreasing the production rate
during adverse conditions. The optimal storage capacity is identified by performing a
cost-benefit analysis that considers the hull size, export system capacity and lifetime
production profile, together with the related costs. If more than one grade of produc-
tion is planned, separate piping configurations are used to segregate the different areas
of production.
1.5.5 Site-Specific Metocean Data

The meteorological and oceanographic (metocean) data for a proposed operational site
inform the design of a ship-shaped offshore installation. Wind, wave and current data
are obtained by measurements, hindcasting or extrapolation from comparable situ-
ations. Bathymetric and geophysical data are obtained for anchoring, piling and
subsea construction designs. The design parameters vary according to the return
period (e.g., 1, 10, 50 or 100 years). All of these data are collated in a design basis
document, which typically includes
wind data (extremes of speed and direction, vertical profile, gust speeds and
spectra);
wave data (joint probability of a significant wave height and period, extreme wave
crest elevation, extreme wave height, direction and range of the associated period,
cumulative frequency distributions of individual wave heights and steepness and
wave spectra and direction spreading);
water depth data (depth below the mean sea level and extreme still water level
variations);
current data (extremes of speed and direction, variations with depth, mean current
speed for fatigue design and joint probability of the co-occurrence of wave and
current extremes);
sea surface temperature data (maximum and minimum air and sea temperatures);
snow and ice accretion data (densities and maximum thicknesses of snow and
ice) and
marine growth data (type of growth, permitted thickness and terminal thickness
profile).
These parameters are used to establish the environmental conditions of a site, which
are factored into the engineering calculations of operational and extreme responses in
the context of, for example, mooring forces, hull bending moments, green water
loading, bow slamming and steep wave impacts. Ship-shaped offshore installations
have far more complex behaviours than fixed offshore platforms with respect to their
responses to the wave period and the joint occurrence of waves, currents and winds.
1.5.6 Process Facility Design Parameters

The parameters that affect the design of the process facility of an FPSO installation
are the
maximum oil, gas and water production;

well fluid characteristics;
water and gas injection rates and pressures and
storage temperature of produced oil.
The design of the process facilities depends on whether minimal or full offshore
processing will be implemented. In the former scenario, all produced fluids are sent to
onshore terminals for final processing, while the latter scenario involves the gener-
ation of all saleable products on the FPSO installation.
1.5.7 Limit State Design and Engineering

Limit state–based methods are used for structural design because they are superior to
methods based on allowable working stress. The key benefit of these methods is that
they enable a rigorously designed yet economical FPSO unit to be obtained by
taking into account the various modes of failure associated with four types of limit
states (i.e., serviceability limit states, ultimate limit states, fatigue limit states and
accidental limit states) (Paik 2018). An FPSO structure is designed to exhibit high
structural integrity throughout its service life, such that it will achieve uninterrupted
and safe operation on site. As mentioned earlier, this design accounts for the fact that
dry-docking for repairs is impractical for a ship-shaped offshore installation because
of the high costs and the constraints on hot work, in marked contrast to the dry-
docking of trading tankers at five-year intervals. Limit states design and engineering
comprise the following aspects:
vessel motion analysis (of the interactions of the hull, topsides and mooring system
and the omni-directional and non-collinear features associated with winds, waves
and currents);
load (action) effect analysis at the global and local levels;
serviceability limit states (SLS) engineering;
ultimate limit states (ULS) engineering;
fatigue limit states (FLS) engineering and
accidental limit states (ALS) engineering.
A vessel motion analysis reveals the site-specific actions on a proposed ship-shaped
offshore installation and is followed by an action effect analysis to determine the
required action effects (e.g., working stresses and deformation allowances). SLS
engineering identifies the criteria where exceedance will prevent the normal functional
or operational use of an installation. For example, function-diminishing structural
damage may be caused by impact pressures resulting from (a) steep wave impacts on
the bow; (b) wave slamming impacts on the fore-body; (c) sloshing impacts on
internal structures or (d) green water loading impacts on the deck structures and
topsides. ULS engineering involves an examination of the buckling and collapse of
individual structural components and the hull to ensure local and global structural
safety. FLS engineering involves the examination of fatigue cracking in (a) the
bottom, deck and side shell structural assemblies; (b) the internal structures that are
subjected to stress ranges from loading or unloading cycles; (c) the hull openings; (d)
the mooring turret and connections to the hull; (e) the process plant and pipe run
seatings to the hull and (f ) the interface structures, such as the module support stools
and the flare tower base. ALS engineering involves examining the effects of accidental
or abnormal events, such as unintended flooding (which may lead to progressive hull
collapse or a loss of stability or survival buoyancy), collisions, impacts due to dropped
objects, overheating, fires and gas explosions.
Thus, the loading conditions determined by the limit state design and engineering
of a ship-shaped offshore installation represent the inherent and modelling uncertain-
ties associated with the ocean environment and other operational scenarios. These
conditions are determined for
functional loads at normal conditions;

maximum (i.e., most unfavourable) environmental loads and associated
functional loads;
accidental loads and associated functional loads and
environmental loads and associated functional loads after accidental events.
An additional factor that complicates the design of a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation is the lack of long-term service data related to certain design aspects. For
example, even benign environments may experience high year-round temperatures
and humidity, and limited data on coating durability and corrosion wastage under such
conditions are available.
1.5.8 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management

Accidents may occur when engineering structures are exposed to extreme conditions,
and these may have catastrophic effects on personnel, the structure and the environ-
ment. Axiomatically, that risk exists wherever potential hazards exist. The use of risk-
based methods is recognised as the best way to effectively manage such challenges
(Paik 2020). Quantitative risk assessment and management are used to manage the
risks of various hazards, such as
the unintended release of flammable or explosive materials;

hydrocarbon fires and explosions;
the effects of extreme weather and structural failure;
a collision with a supply vessel or shuttle ship;
an impact due to a dropped object;
an impact due to a helicopter crash on a helipad;
the ingress of smoke and gas into safe refuge areas;
a loss of mooring and station-keeping integrity;

an impact caused by sloshing in partially filled liquid tanks;
an impact because of green water;
seismic impacts resulting from an earthquake or
a collision with an aeroplane during a terrorist attack.
Risk assessment and management are used to make decisions about the overall
characteristics and performance of protective and emergency systems, such as accom-
modation facilities and temporary safe refuges; passive and active fire protection
systems; explosion and blast protection; escape, evacuation and rescue protocols; fire-
and gas-detection systems; emergency shutdown systems; emergency power gener-
ation systems and relief, blow-down and flare systems.
1.5.9 Project Management

Project management dictates the success of a project, as it controls and manages any
restraints on the project that result from other concurrent projects, production and
construction limitations within shipyards and several other factors.
Figure 1.10 depicts a possible organisational chart for project management, which
encompasses various aspects of project engineering, procurement, construction, plan-
ning, contracting, monitoring and cost control. Each key function is supported by an
adequately staffed team equipped with the correct resources and expertise.
1.5.10 Post-Bid Scheduling and Management

One of the most important elements in the success of a project is effective monitoring,
with follow-up action as necessary, to ensure that a project adheres to the planned
Project Manager
Quality Assurance Project Services
Document Control Production Control Cost Control Contract Administrator Planning Coordinator
Engineering Coordinator Procurement Coordinator Construction Coordinator
Safety Coordinator Engineering Supervisor Certification Coordinator Interface Coordinator
Lead Discipline Engineers and Specialists
Figure 1.10 A possible organisational chart for project management
schedule of construction and delivery. The planned schedule itself is a function of

various factors, such as the capabilities of the shipyard and its contractors. Prior to the
awarding of a final commercial contract to a shipyard, its construction facilities are
evaluated in terms of the physical facilities (e.g., steelwork pre-fabrication and dry-
dock facilities), management systems (e.g., project management system, quality
assurance and control organisation, procurement and pre-outfitting experience), dis-
cipline and trade resources (e.g., engineering manning levels, steelwork and outfitting
trade levels, and hook-up and commissioning resources) and corporate considerations
(e.g., previous offshore sector experience and fiscal stability).
The construction schedule for a typical project is broken down into four
quartiles, (1) engineering and procurement, (2) prefabrication and pre-outfitting,
(3) vessel erection, outfitting and process installation and (4) final outfitting, hook
up, commissioning and completion. Any schedule slippage in an earlier quartile
may delay the entire project, and the recovery of a delayed schedule during the
next quartile can be difficult. Thus, a primary function of project management is to
remain alert to possible schedule slippages and prevent these from occurring.
Delay recovery is costly, as it invariably requires additional resources and a greater
than planned work volume to be performed within a shorter than planned period
of time.
1.6 Characteristics of As-Built Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
The general arrangement of a ship-shaped offshore installation depends on its

intended function, in terms of the process plant size, footprint and complexity. The
capacity of an installation is also project-specific and dependent on field economics.
The determination of the optimal capacity is complex, as it involves the assessment of
overall field development costs that are affected by multiple factors, including the
plant capacity and characteristics, and the required gas handling, water injection, flow
assurance and chemical treatment facilities.
This section describes the characteristics of the facilities of as-built ship-shaped
offshore installations, with a focus on those of a hypothetical hull structured FPSO
unit that is used for offshore oil development. The factors that affect the general
arrangement of an FPSO installation are the
capacity of its process modules;

size of its cargo tanks;
arrangement of its double sides or double bottom;
location and size of its mooring systems;
location and size of its accommodation facilities;
capacity and distribution of its ballast;
arrangement of its escape, evacuation and rescue facilities;
arrangement of its offloading facilities and
margins for future upgrading and expansion of its processes.
1.6 As-Built Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 29
1.6.1 Layout of Facilities in an FPSO Installation

The layout of an FPSO installation is configured to maximise separation between the
accommodation facilities (including the principal evacuation systems) and the major
hydrocarbon hazards. The main facilities of an FPSO installation are
topside facilities, such as process modules;

cargo and ballast tanks;
riser facilities;
mooring systems;
accommodation facilities;
a flare tower;
machinery and utility systems;
escape routes and
export facilities.
Accommodation facilities are located in the bow or stern area; if they are placed in
the former location, they are separated as much as possible from the single-point
mooring systems that are arranged with risers. This configuration is optimal because it
enables the motion of single-point mooring systems to be minimised while simultan-
eously maximising the weathervaning capacity. If the accommodation facilities are
equipped with a helideck and are located at the stern of an FPSO unit that has been
converted from a trading tanker, the proximity to the engine room can be an advantage,
as it enables rapid access to many of the major vessel systems such as utility systems.
Single-point mooring systems are usually located as far forward as possible,
whereas accommodation facilities equipped with a helideck are sited aft. The process
modules and power generation areas are located in the cargo length, and the flare
tower is located in the forward area. This location of the single-point mooring system
facilitates active heading control by the thrusters. However, the forward location of an
internal single-point mooring system in a trading tanker conversion depends on the
size of the system and the number of risers that must be served. Larger single-point
mooring systems are sited in the section 0.2–0.35 L from the forward end (where L ¼
vessel length), and the accommodation facilities are sited forward of this. This is done
to maximise the length of the cargo region aft of the mooring system.
The topside facilities are located above the main deck in between the single-point
mooring system and the accommodation facilities. The main deck must be strong
enough to hold the support columns of the topside modules, with sufficient space to
house the piping required for cargo loading and offloading and inerting and venting,
and to accommodate hatches for tank access. The main deck also typically contains
the two main cranes (one each on the port and starboard sides) and the oil-metering
skid for fiscal metering during offloading (usually located in front of the accommoda-
tion facilities). Shielded escape routes run from the bow along the port and starboard
sides of the main deck, in front of the accommodation facilities. Stairways and ladders
are installed to permit intermediate access from the elevated process deck to the
escape routes.
The topside modules are divided into a process area and a utility area. The process
area contains the hydrocarbon-containing equipment, flare tower, compression equip-
ment and separation equipment. The utility area contains the utility equipment and
power generation equipment. It is crucial to ensure that the layout of the topside
facilities maximises the safety of the onboard personnel. As such, the process equip-
ment hazards must be minimised. Accordingly, a minimal amount of piping is used
and is itself protected from hazards, such as dropped objects and dynamic hull flexing.
The process area is located as far as possible from the accommodation facilities, while
the utility area is located in between the process area and the accommodation facilities.
1.6.2 Principal Dimensions of As-Built FPSO Installations

The dimensional relationships of an FPSO installation depend on and affect its storage
capacity, stability, motion characteristics, mooring and station keeping, and the environ-
mental actions to which the vessel is subjected. The interrelationships between the
principal dimensions of an FPSO installation affect various features of its design. For
example, an increase in the length of an installation for a given storage capacity will
increase the mooring forces and the extent of the hazardous zones, and will thus affect
the construction costs. The lowest building cost for an FPSO installation is obtained for
the lowest L/B ratio (B ¼ vessel breadth), where L and B are maximised with respect to
vessel depth and B is also maximised to obtain the greatest deck area. While the draught
is the smallest dimensional parameter, it is maximised for overall storage efficiency and
must be sufficiently deep to minimise bottom slamming. The block coefficient of the
vessel is maximised for storage capacity and construction efficiency. Table 1.6 lists
forty-five FPSO installations that have been built since 2000, including new builds and
trading tanker conversions. Table 1.7 details the characteristics of the principal dimen-
sions for FPSO installations (new builds and trading tanker conversions) and trading
tankers built since 2000. Figures 1.11–1.14 show plots of the relationships between the
principal dimensions and capacities of FPSO installations built since 2000.
1.6.3 Double-Bottom and Double-Side Arrangements

The safe design and operation of an FPSO installation require that cargo tanks are
protected from damage resulting from collisions with shuttle tankers, particularly
when a side-by-side configuration is to be used for exporting cargo. Supply boats or
passing vessels are also sources of collisions. The hull of a new-build FPSO usually
has double sides, but its bottom may be single skinned. During the conversion of a
single-skin trading tanker, double sides are created by attaching sponsons, which act
as an extra outer hull.
A double bottom is usually not required for an FPSO installation, as damage from hull
grounding is unlikely to occur. However, a disconnectable FPSO installation may need
to leave its site periodically under its own power, in which case regulations may require it
to have a double bottom. Similarly, a double bottom may be necessary if an FPSO
installation is located in a relatively shallow location where there is a greater chance of
Table 1.6. Floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) installations built since 2000
Topside Cargo
IMO weight volume
No. Name N/C Cargo Location Owner Class Number L (m) B (m) D (m) T (m) (ton) ðm3 Þ Builder Year built
1 HAI YANG SHI YOU N Oil China CNOOC CCS 9918937 255.8 48.9 26.6 17.2 BSIC 2020
119
2 ABIGAIL-JOSEPH C Oil West Africa YINSON DNV 8904460 274.0 44.4 24.1 16.5 138,000 Harland & Wolff/ 1992/2020
FPSO KEPPEL
3 EGINA N Oil West Africa TOTAL BV 9695896 330.0 61.0 32.5 25.8 365,000 SHI 2018
4 PETROBRAS 67 N Oil ECSA PETROBRAS BV 9654024 288.0 54.0 31.0 23.2 255,000 COOEC 2018
5 PETROBRAS 69 N Oil ECSA PETROBRAS ABS 9654036 288.0 54.0 31.0 23.1 255,000 ESTALEIRO 2018
BRASFELS
LTDA
6 BW CATCHER N Oil North Sea BW DNV 9777280 220.8 50.0 27.0 18.5 105,000 IHI Japan 2017
OFFSHORE
7 ICHTHYS VENTURER N Oil Timor Sea INPEX DNV 9657179 336.0 59.0 31.0 190,000 DSME 2017
8 PRELUDE N LNG Timor Sea SHELL LR 9648714 473.6 74.0 43.36 20.0 570,000 SHI 2017
9 CIDADE DE N Oil ECSA MODEC ABS 9740483 324.0 60.0 28.8 20.5 254,000 MITUI E&S 2016
CARAGUATATUBA
(MV27)
10 PETROBRAS 66 N Oil ECSA PETROBRAS ABS 9654012 288.0 54.0 31.0 23.2 255,000 ECOVIX 2016
11 PETROBRAS 68 N Oil ECSA PETROBRAS ABS 9654048 288.0 54.0 31.0 23.2 255,000 RIO GRANDE 2016
12 PFLNG DUA N LNG Malaysia PETRONAS ABS 9739185 333.2 64.0 30.5 15.5 177,000 SHI 2016
13 PFLNG SATU N LNG Malaysia PETRONAS DNV 9665085 300 60.0 33.0 16.0 177,000 DSME 2016
14 GLEN LYON N Oil North Sea BP DNV 9621493 270.0 52.0 30.0 21.7 143,000 HHI 2015
15 PETROJARL KNARR N Oil North Sea TEEKAY DNV 9630987 244.0 48.0 26.6 18.6 127,000 SHI 2014
16 CLOV N Oil ECSA TOTAL BV 9630951 292.8 61.0 32.0 24.5 37478 286,000 DSME 2013
17 PAZFLOR N Oil West Africa TOTAL BV 9494515 312.0 61.0 32.5 25.6 32000 302,000 DSME 2011
18 USAN N Oil West Africa TOTAL BV 9505845 310.4 61.0 32.0 24.7 27700 318,000 HHI 2011
19 PETROBRAS 57 C Oil ECSA PETROBRAS ABS 8617225 310.0 56.0 29.5 20.2 14500 254,000 SBM/KEPPEL 1988/2010
20 SKARV N Oil Norwegian Sea AKER BP DNV 9433042 269.3 50.6 29.0 19.9 16000 139,000 SHI 2010
21 AKPO N Oil West Africa TOTAL BV 9361146 310.0 61.0 30.5 23.5 37000 318,000 HHI 2008
22 HAI YANG SHI YOU N Oil China CNOOC DNV 9349148 323.0 63.0 32.5 20.0 286,000 SWS(CSSC) 2008
117
23 NGUJJIMA-YIIN C Oil West Australia WOODSIDE LR 9181182 316.9 58.0 31.0 22.7 7000 190,000 HHI/KEPPEL 1999/2008
24 AGBAMI N Oil West Africa CHEVRON ABS 9348417 320.0 58.4 32.0 23.5 35000 286,000 DSME 2007
25 XIJIANG N Oil China CNOOC CCS 9373084 217.4 46.0 24.0 16.0 111,000 COOEC 2007
Table 1.6. (cont.)
Topside Cargo
IMO weight volume
No. Name N/C Cargo Location Owner Class Number L (m) B (m) D (m) T (m) (ton) ðm3 Þ Builder Year built
26 DALIA N Oil West Africa TOTAL BV 9343962 291.0 60.0 33.2 24.3 30000 318,000 SHI 2006
27 GREATER PLUTONIO N Oil West Africa BP BV 9315111 310.0 58.0 31.0 23.4 286,000 HHI 2006
28 GROBAL PRODUCER C Oil North Sea MAERSK DNV 9183245 200.0 38.0 23.0 17.0 6000 79,500 MITUI E&S 1999/2006
O&G
29 WENCHANG Ⅱ N Oil China CNOOC CCS 9364435 217.4 46.0 24.0 16.0 111,000 COOEC 2006
30 BELANAK NATUNA N Oil Indonesia MEDCO ABS 8765216 275.3 58.0 26.0 20.3 25000 140,000 DHHI 2005
31 BONGA N Oil West Africa SHELL LR 9222962 295.0 58.0 32.0 23.4 22000 318,000 SHI 2005
32 ERHA N Oil West Africa EXXON DNV 9280823 285.0 63.0 32.3 24.0 30000 350,000 HHI 2005
33 KIZOMBA B N Oil West Africa EXXON DNV 9287936 285.0 60.0 32.3 24.4 23000 350,000 HHI 2005
34 PETROBRAS 48 C Oil ECSA PETROBRAS ABS 7326908 320.0 54.5 27.0 21.1 14000 318,000 ESTALEIRO 1973/2005
BRASFELS
LTDA/Mauá-
Jurong Cnsort.
35 HAI YANG SHI YOU N Oil China CNOOC DNV 9285172 242.5 51.0 23.6 17.7 223,000 DHHI 2004
112
36 HAI YANG SHI YOU N Oil China CNOOC DNV 9321859 272.0 51.0 20.6 14.5 127,000 SWS(CSSC) 2004
113
37 KIZOMBA A N Oil Mediterranean EXXON DNV 8765292 285.0 63.0 32.3 24.4 23000 350,000 HHI 2004
Sea
38 MYSTRAS C Oil West Africa NPDC ABS 7374280 271.0 55.0 22.0 17.0 5500 159,000 CESL/DDD 1976/2004
39 PETROBRAS 43 C Oil ECSA PETROBRAS ABS 7370208 320.0 54.5 27.0 21.0 14000 JMU/Mauá-Jurong 1975/2004
Cnsort.
40 SEA ROSE N Oil East Canada HUSKY DNV 9274501 258.0 46.0 26.6 18.0 150,000 SHI 2004
41 HAI YANG SHI YOU N Oil China CNOOC CCS 9273882 242.3 46.0 24.6 17.1 159,000 SWS(CSSC) 2003
111
42 FLUMINENSE C Oil ECSA SHELL ABS 7389405 349.9 60.0 28.3 23 4500 190,000 MODEC/Jurong 1974/2003
43 SEA EAGLE N Oil West Africa SHELL LR 9198185 267.0 50.0 28.0 20.0 223,000 SHI 2002
44 GIRASSOL N Oil West Africa TOTAL BV 8764509 290.7 59.6 30.5 22.8 23500 HHI 2001
45 SANHA LPG N LPG West Africa CHEVRON ABS 9277462 230.0 49.0 29.0 13.2 57,500 JMU 2001
L ¼ length of all; B ¼ breadth; D ¼ depth; T ¼ draught; N ¼ new build; C ¼ conversion and ECSA ¼ eastern coast of South America.
Table 1.7. Characteristics of principal dimensions for floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO)
installations and trading tankers built since 2000
Vessel type L/B B/D T/D T/B
New-build FPSO installations

North Sea 4.90 1.80 0.70 0.39
West coast of Africa 5.05 1.86 0.73 0.39
East coast of South America 5.26 1.83 0.74 0.41
Worldwide 5.12 1.89 0.68 0.36
Tanker conversion FPSO installations (worldwide) 5.86 1.99 0.72 0.37
Trading tankers
50,000–70,000 dwt 6.3 2.5 – –
70,000–100,000 dwt 5.6 3.0 – –
100,000–200,000 dwt 5.6 2.8 – –
L ¼ length of all, B ¼ breadth, T ¼ draught ; D ¼ depth and dwt ¼ deadweight tonnage.
L/D = 9.55 (mean)

L/B = 4.42
L/D = 7.93
L/B = 6.40
B (m)
D (m)
L/D = 13.20
L/B = 5.13 (mean)
L (m) L (m)
Figure 1.11 Relationships between the breadth (B) or depth (D) versus length (L) of the hulls of
floating production, storage and offloading installations built since 2000
contact with the sea bottom than in deeper locations. Finally, an FPSO installation that
processes heavy oil, especially in cold climates, may require a double bottom to reduce
its heating load. If double bottoms that contain complex bottom-shell stiffeners are
incorporated into cargo tanks, difficulties may arise during tank stripping and cleaning.
Consequently, double-bottom tanks are left void or are used for water ballast.
1.6.4 Tank Arrangement

The hull in a new built FPSO contains several centrally located cargo tanks and
several port- and starboard-side ballast water wing tanks. The number of cargo and
ballast water tanks depends on the production capacity and the location where a
shuttle tanker is to be moored to offload the produced oil. The areas for mooring
B/D = 1.69
T/B = 0.43
D (m)
T (m)
B/D = 2.48
T/B = 0.24
B/D = 1.88
(mean) T/B = 0.37
(mean)
B (m) B (m)
Figure 1.12 Relationships between the depth (D) or draught (T) versus breadth (B) of the hulls of
floating production, storage and offloading installations built since 2000
V/L = 5.50 (mean)

T/D = 0.78
V (Mbbl)
T/D = 0.71 (mean)

T (m)
V/L = 7.72
T/D = 0.46
V/L = 2.94
D (m) L (m)
Figure 1.13 Relationships between the draught (T) versus depth (D) and cargo volume (V) in
Mbbl versus length (L) of the hulls of floating production, storage and offloading installations
built since 2000 (where Mbbl ¼ 1,000 barrels)
and offloading contain a hose storage area, a handling reel and a mooring hawser. An
FPSO installation must include a range of tanks, such as cargo oil tanks, ballast tanks,
slop tanks, potable water tanks, fresh water tanks, diesel oil tanks, methanol tanks and
hydraulic oil storage tanks.
The factors that affect the tank design and layout of an FPSO installation are
the number, location and size of cargo and ballast tanks;

the location and size of tanks required for special services (such as methanol tanks,
slop tanks, chemical tanks, reception tanks and off-specification oil tanks);
the pumping arrangement for tanks and
the strength of, corrosion protection for and access to tanks.
new-build
Topside Weight (tonne) tanker conversion
mean of all
(W/L = 71.8 tonne/m)
mean of new builds

(W/L = 94.7 tonne/m)
mean of
conversion
(W/L = 35.5
tonne/m)
Length (m)
Figure 1.14 The relationship between the topside weight (W) versus length (L) of the hulls of
floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) installations built since 2000
The factors that affect the cost of tank designs are
the number of cargo production grades;

the export parcel size and production rate;
the hull stresses of various loading scenarios, particularly those related to onsite
maintenance and repair and
the flexibility required for operations, inspections and maintenance, with special
considerations needed for hot work isolation.
1.6.5 Longitudinal Strength Characteristics of FPSO Hulls

As in the design of trading tankers, longitudinal hull strength is a key aspect of the
design of FPSO installations. Figure 1.15 lists the thicknesses of bottom and side shell
plates in single-hull and double-hull trading tankers (Wang 2003), demonstrating that
both may be converted to FPSO installations, particularly for siting in benign wave
environments. However, the hull cross-sectional properties of new-build FPSO instal-
lations are largely determined by site-specific factors. For example, the wave-induced
vertical bending moments of FPSO installations designed for specific environments
differ from those of trading tankers, as the latter are typically designed for unrestricted
service worldwide and across a range of environments. Furthermore, the ratio of
sagging to hogging wave-induced vertical bending moments is 1.0–1.33 for new-
build FPSO installations, which is higher than that for converted tankers. Presumably,
this difference is attributed to the different hull forms (HSE 2003).
Based on seakeeping analyses, Wang (2003) collected useful data on the
wave-induced bending moments of new-build FPSO installations at various sites
and compared these to the data of trading tankers, as shown in Table 1.8. The
Table 1.8. The ratio of floating production, storage and offloading installation wave-induced bending
moments at different sites, compared to trading tanker wave-induced bending moments calculated for
the North Atlantic
North Sea Gulf of Mexico Eastern coast of South America Western coast of Africa
1.1–1.7 0.8–1.1 0.5–0.7 0.3–0.7
40 40
sing-hull tanker sing-hull tanker
double-hull tanker double-hull tanker
30 30
t (mm)
t (mm)
20 20
10 10
bottom plates side shell plates

0 0
100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450 100 150 200 250 300 350 400 450
a (m) a (m)
Figure 1.15 Relationship between the thickness (t) and length (a) of the bottom and side shell
plates on trading tankers
wave-induced bending moments of FPSO installations in harsh environments are

greater than those of trading tankers. Conversely, the wave-induced bending moments
of FPSO installations in benign environments are much smaller than those of trading
tankers, because the extreme wave environments of the North Atlantic are commonly
used for the design of trading tankers to enable worldwide trade.
1.6.6 Export Facilities

Two methods are used to export produced oil or gas from ship-shaped offshore
installations, namely shuttle tankers and high pressure pipelines, where the latter feed
into a larger pipeline-gathering system onshore. Export via shuttle tankers requires
high capacity cargo-transfer pumps for the offloading of cargo from storage tanks
within the required turnaround times. Export is conducted using risers that are
appropriate to the depth of water, the rate of flow and the involved pressures. Cargo
pumps are deep-well hydraulically powered units, and installations converted from
trading tankers may use existing pumps located in machinery spaces, where the
dismantling and removal of pumps for maintenance purposes may be required.
The oil cargo is directed to a shuttle tanker via a transfer hose that is deployed at the
stern of the installation, and the hose diameter depends on the flow rate. During the
period between offloading operations, the transfer hose is stowed appropriately, that is,
away from accommodation facilities, temporary refuges, escape routes and lifeboat
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 1.16 Types of shuttle tanker export systems (courtesy of Samsung Heavy Industries):
(a) tandem export; (b) side-by-side export and (c) export by shuttle tanker with a catenary
anchor leg-mooring buoy
embarkation stations, to minimise the risks of accidental leakage and spillage during
offloading. It is also important to establish procedures and install support devices for the
removal and repair of damaged hose sections. The vibrations from hydraulic power
systems must be minimised to reduce vibration and noise in the hull machinery spaces
and on deck in the vicinity of accommodation facilities. Vibrations are transmitted via
the structure, pipe work and piping supports, and may cause fatigue cracking at stress
concentration areas. Environmental concerns and related regulatory requirements mean
that flaring or venting surplus gas into the air is permitted only in an emergency. Instead,
separated gas must be reinjected into the reservoir or adjacent suitable geological
formations for storage, and may or may not be recovered in the future. The gas may
also be exported if a pipeline infrastructure exists, assuming economic feasibility.
Shuttle tanker export operations are performed via one of three systems (shown in
Figure 1.16): in tandem, side-by-side or with a catenary anchor leg-mooring buoy
located at a distance from the installation. Which system is used depends on various
factors, and an available back-up system in case of a failure of the primary system is
highly desirable. Most fields use export operations as the means to monetise oil
production, and thus an export system must safely offload oil or gas from the
Storage Capacity (dwt) dwt/L = 571.3
dwt/L = 486.5
dwt/L = 191.8
L (m)
Figure 1.17 The relationship between the storage capacity (deadweight tonnage; dwt) and length
(L) of shuttle tankers
installation and accurately measure the quantity and quality of the exported product.
The oil or gas must be exported at a sufficient rate to avoid incurring demurrage of the
tankers involved. For example, a million-barrel oil parcel may need to be offloaded in
a period of fewer than thirty-six hours, which is measured from the time of arrival of
the shuttle tanker or when the shuttle tanker indicates its readiness to berth at the
terminal, to its time of departure, once all of the post-offloading paperwork has been
completed. The offloading rate should thus allow for the connection time; slowdown
during starting and finishing (topping-up) operations; and paperwork completion and
disconnection times. An export system must therefore enable the offloading of a full
parcel within twenty-four to twenty-six hours, with the remaining time being used for
the related activities. Longer periods are required for offloading larger parcel sizes, for
example, seventy-two hours for offloading a two million barrel parcel. Figure 1.17
shows the relationship between the size and storage capacity of a shuttle tanker.
The use of dynamic positioning systems attached to ship-shaped offshore instal-
lations or shuttle tankers can help to achieve the required station-keeping accuracy,
disconnection limits and weather downtime prevention during production and/or
offloading. Most dynamic positioning systems use thrusters to control vessel motion.
1.7 Hypothetical Designs of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
1.7.1 An FPSO Hull

Here, a hypothetical ship-shaped FPSO installation hull based on an ultra-large crude
carrier (ULCC) is designed. This hull is used in this book to illustrate the examples of
1.7 Hypothetical Designs 39
structural safety assessments. The principal dimensions and important features of this
hypothetical vessel are as follows:
L (length of all) ¼ 305 m;

B (breadth) ¼ 60 m;
D (depth) ¼ 32 m;
cargo capacity at 90 per cent full load condition ¼ 2,400,000 barrels;
estimated dwt (deadweight tonnage) ¼ 334,500 tonne;
estimated full-load T (draught) ¼ 23.3 m;
estimated light ship T (draught) ¼ 3.3 m;
C b (block coefficient) ¼ 0.975;
slop tank capacity at 98 per cent full-load condition ¼ 90,000 barrels;
estimated process-deck weight ¼ 31,000 tonnes;
estimated total production riser weight ¼ 3,200 tonnes and
mooring loads ¼ 1,900 tonnes.
The principal dimensions of this hypothetical FPSO installation hull fall within the
mean values (described in Section 1.6.2), with an L/B ¼ 5.08, L/D ¼ 9.53, B/D ¼ 1.88,
T/B ¼ 0.39 and T/D ¼ 0.73 at a 90 per cent full-load condition. Figure 1.18 shows the
general arrangement of the hull, while Figure 1.19 shows the designs of the midship
section of the hull. The vessel has double sides and a single-skin bottom. Ordinary steel
(grade A) is used in most parts of the hull, while the deck and bottom areas are made of
high strength steel (AH32). Figure 1.20 shows the three-dimensional configurations of
the midship section for a hypothetical FPSO hull and an entire hull.
Table 1.9 indicates the midship sectional properties of a hypothetical floating pro-
duction, storage and offloading installation hull, where the values from the H-CSR
minimum requirement (IACS 2020) for trading ships are also compared. The ultimate
vertical bending moments in hogging or sagging were calculated by the ALPS/HULL
software (www.maestromarine.com) using the intelligent supersize finite element
method (described in Section 7.4.3). Figure 1.21 shows the ALPS/HULL model for a
one-bay hull section between two transverse frames. In the ALPS/HULL method
modelling, the effects of welding-induced initial imperfections were accounted for,
where an average level of residual stress from Equation (2.11) and an average level of
initial deflection from Equation (2.12) were applied for plating between longitudinal
stiffeners, while a low level of initial deflection from Equation (2.12) and zero residual
stress were applied for webs and flanges of longitudinal stiffeners.
1.7.2 A Nuclear Power Plant Hull

Next, a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power-plant hull is designed (Paik 2019). It
is also used in this book to illustrate examples of structural safety assessments. The
principal dimensions of this hypothetical hull are as follows:
L (length of all) ¼ 174 m;

B (breadth) ¼ 65 m;
Figure 1.18 General arrangement of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation hull
Figure 1.19 Midship section design of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation hull
Table 1.9. Midship sectional properties of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation hull
M u ðGN mÞ
Property I ðm4 Þ Z D ðm3 Þ Z B ðm3 Þ M P ðGN mÞ Hog Sag
Gross scantling 1650.542 98.768 101.330 33.243 27.613 –27.153

Net scantling 1517.491 90.494 93.493 30.496 24.868 –23.998
H-CSR minimum requirement for net scantling 827.633 70.552 70.552 – 20.790 –19.830
The gross scantling indicates the values with corrosion margins and the net scantling is without corrosion
margins. I ¼ moment of inertia; Z D ¼ section modulus at deck; Z B ¼ section modulus at bottom; M P ¼ full
plastic bending moment and M u ¼ ultimate vertical bending moment. The H-CSR minimum requirement
(IACS 2020) indicates the values for trading tankers.
Figure 1.20 Three-dimensional configurations of the entire hull and the midship section of a
hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation hull
Frame spacing: 5,690 mm

Yield stress:
- Ordinary steel: 235 MPa
- AH32: 315 MPa
z
Figure 1.21 ALPS/HULL one-bay section model for the midship hull structure between two
transverse frames of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation
Figure 1.22 General arrangement of a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull
27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
26
25
Figure 1.23 Numbers of the cross-sections for a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull
89 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
7
6
5
4
3
1 2
1.7 Hypothetical Designs 45
D (depth) ¼ 33 m;
C b (block coefficient) ¼ 1.0;
Hull weight of ordinary steel (grade A) ¼ 43,345 tonnes;
Hull weight of high-strength steel (AH36) ¼ 3,842 tonnes;
Total hull weight ¼ 47,187 tonnes and
Total equipment weight ¼ 20,179 tonnes.
Figure 1.22 shows the general arrangement of the hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear
power plant hull (thorconpower.com). Figure 1.23 shows the numbers of the hull cross
sections associated with transverse frames. The vessel has double sides and a double
bottom, which are used for ballasting. Ordinary steel (grade A) is used in most parts of
the hull, while the bustle around the hull and support members in the deck and bottom
areas are made of high strength steel (AH36). Figure 1.24 shows the structural
configurations of the midship section (containing turbine hall) and an entire hypothet-
ical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull.
Table 1.10. Sectional properties of a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull
M u ðGN mÞ
Property I ðm Þ4
Z D ðm Þ3
Z B ðm Þ
3
M P ðGNmÞ Hog Sag
Net scantling (section no. 20) 2604.412 128.219 205.269 50.899 42.415 35.674
Net scantling (section no. 22) 2870.926 146.260 214.711 55.434 45.406 40.427
H-CSR minimum requirement for 146.735 28.110 28.110 6.387 6.082
net scantling
The gross scantling indicates the values with corrosion margins and the net scantling is without corrosion
margins. I ¼ moment of inertia; Z D ¼ section modulus at deck; Z B ¼ section modulus at bottom; M P ¼ full
plastic bending moment and M u ¼ ultimate vertical bending moment. The H-CSR minimum requirement
(IACS 2020) indicates the values for trading tankers.
Figure 1.24 Structural configuration of a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull
section no. 20 section no. 22
Figure 1.25 ALPS/HULL one-bay section models for the hull structure between two transverse
frames at sections 20 and 22 for a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant
Table 1.10 indicates the sectional properties of a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear

power plant hull, where the values from the H-CSR minimum requirement (IACS
2020) for trading tankers are also compared. The ultimate vertical bending moments in
hogging or sagging were calculated by the ALPS/HULL software (www
.maestromarine.com) using the intelligent supersize finite element method (described
in Section 7.4.3). Figure 1.25 shows the ALPS/HULL models for a one-sliced midship
hull section between two transverse frames at section numbers 20 and 22 (shown in
Figure 1.23). In the ALPS/HULL method modelling, the same conditions of welding-
induced initial imperfections as those of Section 1.7.1 were applied.
References
Assayag, S., Prallon, E. and Sartori, F. (1997). ‘Improvements in design of converted FPSOs
regarding 20 years operation without docking’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8389,
Houston, TX, 5–8 May.
Biasotto, P., Bonniol, V. and Cambos, P. (2005). ‘Selection of trading tankers for FPSO
conversion projects’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 17506, Houston, TX, 2–5 May.
Boggs, D., Barton, C., Albaugh, E. K. and Davis, D. (2021). ‘2021 worldwide survey of floating
production, storage and offloading (FPSO) units’. Offshore Magazine / Endeavor Business
Media, Houston, TX, July/August.
Cabrera-Miranda, J. M., Sakugawa, P. M., Corona-Tapia, R. and Paik, J. K. (2018). ‘On design
criteria for a disconnectable FPSO mooring system associated with expected life-cycle cost’.
Ships and Offshore Structures, 13(4): 432–442.
Cong, H., Haiying, M. and Zaijin, Y. (2018). ‘Study on the distribution of wave energy resources in
China and the applicability of wave energy generation device’. Ocean Science, 42(3): 142–148.
da Costa Filho, F. H. (1997). ‘The world’s biggest conversion’. Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 8407, Houston, TX, 5–8 May.
Devanney, J. (2020). Why Nuclear Power Has Been a Flop at Solving the Gordian Knot of
Electricity Poverty and Global Warming. The CTX Press, Stevenson, WA.
Dicson, T., Farr, H., Sear, D. and Blake, J. I. R. (2019). ‘Uncertainty in marine weather routing’.
Applied Ocean Research, 88, doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2019.04.008.
References 47
Gkerekos, C. and Lazakis, I. (2020). ‘A novel, data-driven heuristic framework for vessel
weather routing’. Ocean Engineering, 197, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106887.
HSE (2003). Margins of Safety in FPSO Hull Strength. Research Report 083, Health and Safety
Executive, London.
IACS (2020). Common Structural Rules for Bulk Carriers and Oil Tankers. International
Association of Classification Societies, London.
IMO (2003). Guidelines for Application of MARPOL Annex I Requirements to FPSOs and
FSUs. MEPC/Circ. 406, International Maritime Organization, London.
Johnson, M. (1996). ‘Application of the ABS/SafeHull technology to FPSO conversions’.
Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Texas Section, The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers, Alexandria, VA, 23 February.
Kristensen, H. O. (2012). Determination of regression formulas for main dimensions of
tankers and bulk carriers based on IHS Fairplay data. Project no. 2010-56,
Emissionsbeslutningsstøttesystem Work Package 2, Report no. 02, Technical University of
Denmark, Lyngby.
Kurosawa, K., Uchiyama, Y. and Kosako, T. (2020). ‘Development of a numerical marine
weather routing system for coastal and marginal seas using regional oceanic and atmospheric
simulations’. Ocean Engineering, 195, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2019.106706.
Lane, J. A., Bryans, R. and Preston, R. (2004). ‘Conversion of the TT Sahara to FPSO
Fluminense, a low cost solution for the Bijupira and Salema field development, offshore
Brazil’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 16707, Houston, TX, 3–6 May.
Ma, K., Luo, Y., Kwan, T. and Wu, Y. (2019). Mooring System Engineering for Offshore
Structures, Gulf Professional Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
McCormick, M. E. (2013). Ocean Wave Energy Conversion, Dover Publications, New York.
Mansour, A. E., Pedersen, P. T. and Paik, J. K. (2013). ‘Wave energy extraction using
decommissioned ships’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 8(5): 504–516.
Mones, M. (2004). ‘Hull structural assessment and refurbishment for conversion FPSOs’.
Proceedings of ASMR-PTI FPSO Integrity Workshop, American Society Mechanical
Engineers/Petroleum Technology Institute, Houston, TX, 30 August–2 September.
Neto, T. G. and de Souza Lima, H. A. (2001). ‘Conversion of tankers into FPSOs: practical
design experiences’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 13209, Houston, TX, 30 April–
3 May.
Olsen, A. S., Schroter, C. and Jensen, J. J. (2006). ‘Wave height distribution observed by ships
in the North Atlantic’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 1(1): 1–12.
Paik, J. K. (2018). Ultimate Limit State Analysis and Design of Plated Structures. 2nd Edition,
John Wiley & Sons, Chichester.
Paik, J. K. (2019). Structural Designs of a Hypothetical Ship-Shaped Nuclear Power-Plant
Hull. Technical Report to ThorCon Power, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University College London, London.
Paik, J. K. (2020). Advanced Structural Safety Studies with Extreme Conditions and Accidents.
Springer, Singapore.
Park, I. K., Jang, Y. S., Shin, H. S. and Yang, Y. T. (1998). ‘Conceptual design and analyses of
deep-sea FPSO converted from VLCC’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8809,
Parker, G. (1999a). The FPSO Design and Construction Guidance Manual. Reserve
Technology Institute, Houston, TX.
Parker, G. (1999b). The FPSO Design and Construction Guidance Manual: A Reference Guide
to Successful Projects Designing and Constructing FPSOs in all Water Depths. Reserve
Technology Institute, Houston, TX.
Sparenberg, O. (2019). ‘A historical perspective on deep-sea mining for manganese nodules,
1965–2019’. The Extractive Industries and Society, 6(3): 842–854.
Szlapczynska J. and Szlapczynski, R. (2019). ‘Preference-based evolutionary multi-objective
optimization in ship weather routing’. Applied Soft Computing Journal, 84, doi: 10.1016/
j.asoc.2019.105742.
Terpstra, T., d’Hautefeuille, B. B. and MacMillan, A. A. (2001). ‘FPSO design and conversion:
A designer’s approach’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 13210, Houston, TX, 30
April–3 May.
Terpstra, T., Schouten, G. and Ursini, L. (2004). ‘Design and conversion of FPSO Mystras’.
Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 16198, Houston, TX, 3–6 May.
ThorCon (2019). Design of ThorConIsle (www.thorconpower.com). Stevenson, WA.
Voogt, A. and Buchner, B. (2004). ‘Wave impacts excitation on ship-type offshore structures in
steep fronted waves’. Proceedings of OMAE Specialty Symposium on Integrity of Floating
Production, Storage & Offloading (FPSO) Systems, OMAE-FPSO’04-0062, Houston, TX,
30 August–2 September.
Wang, G. (2003). ‘Experience based data for FPSO’s structural design’. Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC 15068, Houston, TX, 5–8 May.
2 Structural Steel Selection
and Construction
2.1 Steel Selection for Hull Structures
Classification society rules or recommended practices dictate the types of steel to be

used in the assembly of the hull structures of ship-shaped offshore installations. The
steel must exhibit high levels of buckling and fatigue performance and be amenable to
corrosion management. It is recommended that the proportion of reduced thickness,
high strength steel be minimised and the proportion of ordinary steel (e.g., grade A) be
maximised in a hull structure. However, structural members that require an ordinary
steel plate with a thickness greater than 30 mm may instead be made from high
strength steel to avoid the need for heavy welding and to simplify the construction.
The greater resistance of high strength steel to corrosion reduces the need for repairs in
dry dock, which is critical for the long on site life required in a ship-shaped offshore
installation. Three grades of steel are used in the assembly of hulls for installations that
will be in service at sub-zero temperatures: grade D steel for use at 20 C, grade
E steel for use at 40 C and grade F steel for use at 60 C. Steel may be exposed to
colder temperatures than it has been designed to withstand or even to cryogenic
conditions as a result of the accidental release of liquefied gas (e.g., liquefied natural
gas or hydrogen). This can cause a brittle fracture in structural steel and a subsequent
catastrophic failure.
Structural fractures are classified into three modes (Paik 2018, 2020): rupture,
ductile fracture and brittle fracture. A rupture is a mode of failure that occurs by
necking, which is associated with a high level of plastic flow. Brittle fractures occur
in non-ductile materials that fracture under very low magnitude of strains. A ductile
fracture is an intermediate fracture mode between rupture and brittle fracture, in
which partial ductility plays a role. The fracture behaviour of a ductile material, such
as steel, is distinct from that of an inherently brittle material, such as glass. In ductile
materials, slow and stable crack growth occurs during crack extension. Ductile
materials behave similarly to brittle materials under certain conditions, such as
cryogenic conditions or temperatures lower than their ductile-to-brittle transition
temperature, and/or under impact loading. Under such conditions, the Bauschinger
effect of a material cannot be neglected as the behaviour of a material under
compression is distinct from that under tension (Brockenbrough and Johnston
1981; Dowling 2012; Paik 2018). Figure 2.1 illustrates the ductile-to-brittle fracture
behaviour of structural steel.
50 Structural Steel Selection and Construction
100
Dominance (%)
brittle behaviour ductile behaviour
ductile-to-brittle fracture transition
0
Cryogenic DBTT 0°C Elevated
Steel Temperature
Figure 2.1 Ductile-to-brittle fracture behaviour of structural steel (where DBTT ¼ ductile-to-
brittle transition temperature)
It is usually not mandatory to determine the fracture toughness of ordinary shipbuild-

ing steel by using a material qualification test such as the Charpy V-notch impact test, as
it is assumed that chemistry and steel-making methods will generate materials that are
adequate for use in certain applications at a range of thicknesses. However, this assump-
tion does not account for all hazards, such as the exposure of ordinary steel to cold or
cryogenic temperatures coupled with impact loading, which may lead to brittle fracture
(Paik et al. 2020). It is therefore recommended that the steel and welding materials used
to assemble hull structures meet Charpy V-notch impact-energy requirements that are
suitable for the intended service of a ship-shaped offshore installation. These require-
ments, and those for absorbed energy, have been specified for all hull steel.
2.2 Chemical and Mechanical Properties of Structural Steels
The chemical composition of steel is a fundamental factor that determines mechanical

properties and must therefore be strictly controlled during steel production (BSI
2019). Table 2.1 lists the required chemical compositions of structural steels of
various grades. Table 2.2 lists the chemical compositions of selected structural steels,
which were directly measured by Rajput and Paik (2021) in an analysis of square
specimens (20 mm 20 mm 6 mm) at 20 C using a glow discharge spectrometer
(Paik 2020). These data show the variations of the chemical compositions of actual
structural steels according to the grade.
The mechanical properties of a material are characterised by itselastic modulus
ðEÞ, yield stress ðσ Y Þ, ultimate tensile stress ðσ T Þ, fracture strain εf and Charpy V-
notch impact energy. Table 2.3 lists the required mechanical properties of steels for
marine applications (IACS 2017). Table 2.4 lists the mechanical properties for the
same selected structural steels as above, which were directly measured by Rajput and
Paik (2021) using tensile coupon tests: σ f is the fracture stress (i.e., stress at the
fracture strain), εY is the yield strain (i.e., strain at the yield point), εT is the ultimate
tensile strain (i.e., strain at the ultimate tensile strength) and εf is the fracture strain
(i.e., elongation strain at which the test specimen is separated into two pieces).
2.3 Relationship between Stress and Strain 51
Table 2.1. Chemical compositions of structural steels (unit: weight percent, %)
Grade C Mn Si P S Cu Others
Ordinary A 0:21 >2:5 C 0:50 0:035 0:035 – Cr, Ni, Mo,

steel B 0:21 >0.80 0:35 0:035 0:035 – S-Al, Nb, V,
D 0:21 >0.60 0:35 0:035 0:035 – Ti
E 0:18 >0.70 0:35 0:035 0:035 –
High AH32, 0:18 0.90–1.60 0:50 0:035 0:035 0:035
strength EH32,
steel EH40
EH47 0:10 2:00 0:55 0:030 0:030 0:035
C ¼ carbon; Mn ¼ manganese; Si ¼ silicon; P ¼ phosphorus; S ¼ sulfur; Cu ¼ copper; Cr ¼ chromium;
Ni ¼ nickel; Mo ¼ molybdenum; Al ¼ aluminium; Nb ¼ niobium; V ¼ vanadium and Ti ¼ titanium.
Table 2.2. Direct measurement of the chemical compositions of selected steels
Composition of specimen before corrosion (%)
Element A steel AH32 steel DH32 steel
C 0.22399 0.17497 0.19032

Mn 0.63994 0.97997 1.467
P 0.03099 0.03199 0.031
S 0.02797 0.02600 0.02602
Si 0.30098 0.27000 0.37603
Cu 0.30997 0.320 0.313
Ni 0.35992 0.35201 0.35796
Cr 0.18900 0.202 0.20499
Mo 0.05189 0.05588 0.0651
Al 0.01700 0.015 0.016
C ¼ carbon; Mn ¼ manganese; Si ¼ silicon; P ¼ phosphorus; S ¼ sulfur; Cu ¼ copper; Cr ¼
chromium; Ni ¼ nickel; Mo ¼ molybdenum and Al ¼ aluminium.
The mechanical properties of actual structural steels invariably surpass the minimum
requirements. Table 2.5 (IACS 2017) lists the Charpy V-notch impact requirements
for ordinary steel and high strength steel, based on a Charpy V-notch impact test
specimen extracted from a plate (shown in Figure 2.2).
2.3 Relationship between Stress and Strain of Materials
Material behaviour is determined by testing and is formulated as a constitutive

equation representing the stress–strain relation in a given material. The relation
between the engineering stress and engineering strain of a material neglects the effects
of variations in the cross-sectional area (or plate thickness) of a material, whereas the
Table 2.3. Required mechanical properties of structural steels
Elastic modulus, E Yield stress, Ultimate tensile Fracture (failure)

Grade (GPa) σ Y (MPa) stress, σ T (MPa) strain, εf
A 200 235 400–520 0:22

B
D
E
AH32 200 315 440–570 0:22
DH32
EH32
FH32
AH36 200 355 490–630 0:21
DH36
EH36
FH36
AH40 200 390 510–660 0:20
DH40
EH40
FH40
Table 2.4. Mechanical properties of selected steels at 20 C
Steel grade E (GPa) σ Y (MPa) σ T (MPa) σ f (MPa) εY (%) εT (%) εf (%)
A 209.6 331.3 485.4 378.4 2.2 19.2 37.8

AH32 209.6 360.5 555.0 416.7 1.4 16.3 32.3
DH32 233.4 364.7 540.7 419.5 1.4 16.5 34.9
striking direction
striker 10 mm 0.25mm R
10 mm
specimen
notch 45
support support
b
a
a = 55 mm for V-notched Charpy type test

= 75 mm for V-notched Izod type test
b = a/2 = 27.5 mm for V-notched Charpy type test
= 28 mm for V-notched Izod type test
Figure 2.2 Charpy V-notch impact test set-up
2.3 Relationship between Stress and Strain 53
Table 2.5. Charpy V-notch impact requirements of the average absorbed energy (unit: J) for ordinary
and high strength steels of various plate thicknesses ðt Þ
t 50 mm 50 mm < t 70 mm 70 mm < t 100 mm

Grade Temperature ( C) RD TD RD TD RD TD
A 20 – – 34 24 41 27

B 0 27 20 34 24 41 27
AH32 0 31 22 38 26 46 31
AH36 0 34 24 41 27 50 34
AH40 0 39 26 46 31 55 37
D –20 27 20 34 24 41 27
DH32 –20 31 22 38 26 46 31
DH36 –20 34 24 41 27 50 34
DH40 –20 39 26 46 31 55 37
E –40 27 20 34 24 41 27
EH32 –40 31 22 38 26 46 31
EH36 –40 34 24 41 27 50 34
EH40 –40 39 26 46 31 55 37
FH32 –60 31 22 38 26 46 31
FH36 –60 34 24 41 27 50 34
FH40 –60 39 26 46 31 55 37
RD ¼ rolling direction and TD ¼ transverse direction.
relation between true stress and true strain takes into account the effects of
these variations.
In analyses of the post-buckling and ultimate strengths of steel structures at room
temperature (20 C), the effects of variations in the cross-sectional area are also usually
neglected, as these are very small at the ultimate limit state. In this case, therefore, the
engineering stress–engineering strain relation is used. However, the effects of vari-
ations in the cross-sectional area cannot be neglected in the analysis of accidental limit
states associated with extreme conditions and accidents (Paik 2020), as these situ-
ations always involve the behaviours of materials beyond their yield strengths, and
thus the true stress–true strain relation of materials must be used. The true stress–true
strain relation in a structural steel is obtained directly from tests, during which
variations in the cross-sectional areas of the test specimens are also measured. If the
engineering stress–engineering strain relation of a material is available in the form of a
constitutive equation or in a test database, then the true stress–true strain relation may
be approximately defined, as follows:
σ true ¼ σ ð1 þ εÞ, εtrue ¼ ln ð1 þ εÞ, (2.1)
where σ true is the true stress, εtrue is the true strain, σ is the engineering stress and ε is
the engineering strain. See chapter 18 of Paik (2020) for details.
Several databases of the test behaviours of materials have been published
(Brockenbrough and Johnston 1981; Dowling 2012; Paik et al. 2017; Paik 2018).
Paik et al. (2017) developed Mechanical Property Database Management software,
which is based on a test database, to predict the engineering stress–engineering strain

(and the true stress–true strain) relations of a range of materials (e.g., steel, stainless
steel and aluminium alloy) under various conditions, such as cold (sub-zero) tempera-
tures and different loading speeds (strain rates).
2.4 Elastic–Perfectly Plastic Material Model
Material behaviour is often simplified to follow the elastic–perfectly plastic model of

engineering stress–engineering strain relations, as shown in Figure 2.3. This model
neglects the strain-hardening and Bauschinger effects. It provides practically reason-
able solutions in a strength analysis because the strains induced by loading are
sufficiently small at a constant cross-sectional area, although there may be large
deformations in the plate thickness direction.
2.5 Effect of Elevated Temperatures
The mechanical properties of structural steels are substantially affected by elevated

temperatures, such as those resulting from operational or environmental conditions or
accidents (e.g., fires). EN 1993-1-2 (2005) defines the reduction factors of the material
properties of structural steel (elastic modulus, proportional limit and yield strength) at
elevated temperatures. In addition, Paik et al. (2021b, 2021c) collected test data of the
mechanical properties (elastic modulus, yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and
elongation) of AH32 steel at elevated temperatures, as shown in Figure 2.4 and
Table 2.6. A comparison between the EN 1993-1-2 curve and the aforementioned
test data is made in Figure 2.5, where the normalised factor is the ratio of the material
Figure 2.3 The elastic–perfectly plastic model of a material
2.6 Effect of Sub-zero Temperatures 55
Table 2.6. Mechanical properties of AH32 steel obtained from tension tests at elevated temperatures
Temperature 20 C 400 C 600 C 800 C
Elastic modulus, E (GPa) 224.0 153.80 94.0 31.70

Yield stress, σ Y (MPa) 340.0 320.71 140.80 34.60
Ultimate tensile stress, σ T (MPa) 546.20 498.60 185.50 61.20
Fracture strain (elongation), εf 0.30 0.37 0.61 1.08
600
20°C
500
400
Stress (MPa)
400°C
300
200
600°C 20°C 400°C 600°C 800°C
800°C
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Strain
Figure 2.4 The engineering stress–engineering strain curves of AH32 steel obtained via tension
tests at elevated temperatures
properties at an elevated temperature to those at room temperature (Paik et al. 2020a).

Note that the EN 1993-1-2 curve is in good agreement with the test data for the elastic
modulus and yield strength. In addition, the trend in the reduction in ultimate tensile
strength at elevated temperatures is similar to that of the reduction in yield strength.
The test data also confirm that the elongation (fracture strain) increases substantially
with temperature.
2.6 Effect of Sub-zero Temperatures and Cryogenic Conditions
Tables 2.7 and 2.8 list the mechanical properties of AH32 steel at cold temperatures
as obtained from tension and compression tests, respectively (Paik et al. 2020b,
2021a). With a decrease in temperature, the yield strength and ultimate tensile
strength increase, whereas the elastic modulus remains unchanged. The ultimate
tensile strain (i.e., strain at the ultimate tensile strength) and fracture strain increase
at temperatures greater than 100 C but begin to decrease at temperatures less than
100 C (shown in Figure 2.6) and Table 2.7, where the normalised factor is a ratio
Table 2.7. Average mechanical properties of AH32 steel obtained from tension tests at cold (sub-zero) temperatures
Property 20 C 40 C 80 C 100 C 130 C 160 C
Elastic modulus, E (GPa) 205.8 205.8 205.8 205.8 205.8 205.8

Yield stress, σ Y (MPa) 358.03 391.02 433.48 472.52 546.74 672.96
Ultimate tensile stress, σ T (MPa) 497.07 537.81 579.13 605.10 652.28 739.36
Ultimate tensile strain, εT 0.193 0.207 0.222 0.223 0.211 0.163
Fracture strain (), εf 0.376 0.423 0.430 0.448 0.409 0.336
Table 2.8. Average mechanical properties of AH32 steel obtained from compression tests at cold (sub-
zero) temperatures
Property 20 C 40 C 80 C 100 C 130 C 160 C
Elastic modulus, E (GPa) 205.8 205.8 205.8 205.8 205.8 205.8

Yield stress, σ Y (MPa) 359.65 369.06 382.01 386.22 387.20 411.51
yield stress
by EN 1993-1-2
Normalised Factor (Ε, σY, σT)
tension tests:
Normalised Factor (e f )
elastic modulus, Ε
yield stress, σY elongation
by tension test
ultimate tensile stress, σT
elongation, εf
elastic modulus
by EN 1993-1-2
Temperature (°C)
Figure 2.5 A factor comparison of the mechanical properties of AH32 steel at elevated
temperatures normalised by those at room temperature
of the property at a cold temperature to that at room temperature (20 C). The
increasing trend in the yield strength under compression is much more moderate
than the increase in tension (shown in Figure 2.7) and Table 2.8. This evidence
clearly demonstrates that the Bauschinger effect cannot be neglected at cold
(sub-zero) temperatures.
yield
stress, sY
Normalised Factor
ultimate tensile stress, sT
ultimate tensile strain, eT

fracture strain, ef
elastic modulus, E
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2.6 The factor of mechanical properties for AH32 steel obtained via tension tests at cold
temperatures normalised by those at room temperature
2.7 Effect of Impact Loading
The material behaviour and structural responses subject to impact loading are distinct
from those under static or quasi-static loading (Paik 2018, 2020). Three major
differences between the two cases are evident: (1) The field of load effects (e.g.,
stress) is different. In an impact loading situation, tensile stresses may occur even
under compressive far-field loading, leading to stress concentrations without notch
formation; (2) The structural responses under impact loading are affected by the strain
rate. Differences (1) and (2) always interact; and (3) The impact loading may give rise
to brittle fractures of structural steels that are ductile under static or quasi-static
loading, as the fracture strain of such material decreases at high strain rates.
2.7.1 Strain Rate

The strain rate is used as a parameter in this context, and is defined as the ratio of the
loading speed to the structural displacement between two reference points, as follows:
dε
ε_ ¼ , (2.2)
dt
Table 2.9. Classification of loading modes depending on the strain rate
Strain
rate ε_ð1=sÞ <105 105–101 101–101.5 101.5–104 >104
Loading Creep Static or quasi- Dynamic Impact Hyper velocity

mode static impact
Example Constant Dead or live Impulse pressure effects on Explosion; Bombing
loading loading on a ship high-speed craft; wave ship
machine hull girder breaking loads collision
tension test
compression test
Yield Stress, σY (MPa)
Temperature (oC)
Figure 2.7 Comparison of yield stresses between tension and compression for AH32 steel at cold
temperatures
where ε_ is the strain rate, ε is the strain and t is the time. Table 2.9 provides a
classification of loading modes depending on the strain rate.
Assuming that the initial loading speed ðV 0 Þ decreases linearly until the loading is
finished and results in an average displacement ðδÞ, the strain rate can be approxi-
mately determined as follows:
V0
ε_ ¼ : (2.3)
2δ
In a ship–ship collision, the strain rate of steel at the tip of the bow of the striking ship
is approximated as a function of the initial loading (collision) speed, V 0 , as follows
(Ko et al. 2018; Paik 2020):
ε_ ¼ 2:970V 0 0:686 for V o 0:231 m=s: (2.4)

In reality, the strain rate at a monitoring point of structures under impact loading
usually changes over time. In nonlinear finite element method software such as LS-
DYNA, the strain rates of individual finite elements are measured at each incremental
time step. As a practical technique for a structural crashworthiness analysis under
impact loading, an average strain rate measured from a pre-test simulation may
approximately be used, assuming that the strain rate remains unchanged over time
(see Figures 12.14 and 12.15 for applied examples).
2.7.2 Dynamic Yield Stress

In industry practice, the Cowper–Symonds equation is used to estimate the dynamic
yield stress of a structural steel (Cowper and Symonds 1957; Jones 2012; Paik 2018,
2020), as follows:
( 1=q )
ε_
σ Yd ¼ 1 þ σY , (2.5)
C
where σ Yd is the dynamic yield stress, σ Y is the static yield stress and C and q are the
test constants. The dynamic yield stress tends to increase with the strain rate (shown in
Figure 2.8(a)). Strain rates are moderately sensitive to the dynamic yield stress of high
strength steel but are more sensitive to that of ordinary steel. Cowper and Symonds
(1957) proposed C ¼ 40:4=s and q ¼ 5 for ordinary steel, and Paik (Paik and Chung
1999; Paik 2018, 2020) proposed C ¼ 3200=s and q ¼ 5 for high strength steel.
Table 2.10 provides the test constants of Equation (2.5) for other materials, indicating
that C and q significantly depend on the types of materials.
In nonlinear finite element method software such as LS-DYNA, the dynamic yield
stress of each finite element is automatically updated with a new strain rate at each
incremental time step as far as the test constants C and q in Equation (2.5) are defined
in advance.
2.7.3 Dynamic Fracture Strain

Paik (2007a, 2007b, 2020) proposed a procedure for defining the dynamic fracture
strain (shown in Figure 2.9), which is used for a crashworthiness analysis of plated
structures under impact loading using the finite element method with plate-shell
elements. The accuracy and applicability of this procedure were confirmed by
Umunnakwe (2020) through a benchmark study on material modelling techniques
with numerous fracture criteria.
The original fracture strain of a material is obtained from tension tests under a
quasi-static tensile loading condition at room temperature (20 C) or from a nominal
value of the static-fracture strain. Paik (2010, 2018, 2020) proposed modifying the
original static-fracture strain to be used for a nonlinear finite element method
Figure 2.8 Effect of the loading speed (strain rate) on the mechanical properties of structural
steels (see chapter 10 of Paik (2018) for details): (a) dynamic yield stress and (b) dynamic
fracture strain
Table 2.10. Test constants of Equation (2.5) for various materials
Material C (1/s) q Reference
Ordinary steel (grade A) 40.4 5 Cowper and Symonds (1957)

High strength steel 3,200 5 Paik and Chung (1999); Paik (2018, 2020)
Aluminum alloy 6,500 4 Bodner and Symonds (1962)
10:39 1010 10.55 Hsu and Jones (2004)
610.4 3.6 Paik et al. (2017)
α-titanium (Ti 50A) 120 9 Symonds and Chon (1974)
Stainless steel 100 10 Forrestal and Sagartz (1978)
3,000 2.8 Paik et al. (2017) for room temperature
35.9 1.5 Paik et al. (2017) for sub-zero temperature
Size of the Finite Element

and Plate Thickness
Definition of the Original Definition of the Modified Static- Definition of the

Static-Fracture Strain Fracture Strain, Equation (2.6) Strain Rate
Test Constants, Definition of the Dynamic

Equation (2.6) or (2.7) Fracture Strain
Inverse of the Cowper-

Symonds Equation (2.7)
Figure 2.9 Procedure for defining the dynamic fracture strain of a material used for a nonlinear
finite element method computation
computation because the fracture strain is affected by mesh size and plate thickness,
among other factors, as follows:
t d 2
εfm ¼ γd1 εf , (2.6)
s
where εf is the original static-fracture strain obtained from material tests or a
nominal value of the static-fracture strain of a material, d 1 and d 2 are the test
constants where d1 ¼ 4:1 and d2 ¼ 0:58 for relatively thin plates, γ is a correction
factor associated with the localised bending of thick elements as a result of folding
(and may be taken as 0.3–0.4), t is the plate thickness and s is the size of a finite
element. Equation (2.6) indicates that the modified static-fracture strain tends to
decrease with mesh size but tends to increase with plate thickness. Further experi-
mental studies are encouraged to develop a database of testing and finite element
method computations for the test constants of Equation (2.6) on tensile coupon
specimens, varying the plate thickness.
In industry practice, the inverse of the Cowper–Symonds equation is used to
estimate the dynamic fracture strain, as follows (Jones 2012; Paik 2018, 2020):
( 1=q )1
ε_
εfd ¼ 1þ εfm , (2.7)
C
where εfd is the dynamic fracture strain, εfm is the modified static-fracture strain and the
values of C and q are the same as those used to calculate the dynamic yield stress
defined in Equation (2.5). If Equation (2.7) is used for the structural crashworthiness
analysis using the finite element method with plate-shell elements, the modified static-
fracture strain is estimated from Equation (2.6). The dynamic fracture strain tends to
decrease with the strain rate (shown in Figure 2.8(b)).
The strain rate varies over time and thus the dynamic fracture strain also varies with
time (described in Section 2.7.1). For a crashworthiness analysis under impact loading
using the finite element method, it is proposed to update the dynamic fracture strains
of individual finite elements with new strain rates at each incremental time step,
similar to the definition of the dynamic yield stress, following the procedure presented
in Figure 2.9. Unlike the dynamic yield stress, however, no commercial finite element
method software is currently available to automatically update the dynamic fracture
strain with a new strain rate at each incremental time step. In this case, an average
strain rate (described in Section 2.7.1) is used to define the dynamic fracture strain,
which is assumed to remain unchanged over time.
2.8 Effect of Corrosion
As steel structures age, they suffer from corrosive wear. The extent of this wear is
affected by the magnitudes of various parameters in the corrosive environment, such
as the moisture level, temperature, oxygen content, salinity, pH and atmospheric
pressure. Using tests of the natural progression of corrosion over a period of 12
months, Rajput and Paik (2021) showed that the chemical compositions of structural
steels – and thus their mechanical properties – are unaffected by corrosion. This
finding demonstrated that corrosion wastage-induced reductions in structural strength
are owing to the development of geometric defects, rather than modifications of the
material mechanical properties.
2.9 Welding Procedures and Techniques
In the shipbuilding and offshore construction industries (DNV 2015), flux-cored arc
welding (FCAW) is one of the most common methods used to create fillet welds to
attach support members to plating or butt welds. FCAW was developed to overcome
the many restrictions associated with shielded metal arc welding (SMAW). As such,
FCAW uses a continuously fed consumable tubular electrode, rather than the stick
electrodes used in SMAW.
cored wire
current conductor electrode
inlet of
self-shielded current conductor shielding gas
cored wire
insulated
protective slag guide wire guide
solidified contact tip and contact tip
weld metal protective slag solidified
weld metal gas nozzle
arc
arc
base metal
base metal
molten weld metal
Molten weld metal
(a) (b)
Figure 2.10 Flux-cored arc welding (FCAW) methods: (a) self-shielded FCAW and (b) gas (or
dual)-shielded FCAW
FCAW is conducted with or without additional shielding gas (shown in Figure 2.10).
In self-shielded FCAW (shown in Figure 2.10(a)), a tubular consumable electrode is
used, which contains flux and various elements that generate a shielding gas to protect
the arc. The advantages of this method are its portability, good penetration of the base
metal and tolerance of windy conditions. Its disadvantages are its production of
excessive volumes of noxious smoke, which make it difficult to see the weld pool.
Therefore, the correct electrode must be chosen to obtain the desired mechanical weld,
and the electrode and machinery must be configured correctly to prevent unwanted
porosity in the weld. In gas (or dual)-shielded FCAW (shown in Figure 2.10(b)), a
shielding gas (e.g., pure carbon dioxide or an argon–carbon dioxide blend) is supplied
by an external source, and a flux-cored electrode is used. Consequently, this technique is
a combination of true FCAW and gas metal arc welding (GMAW). The advantages of
this method are a high production rate and good weldability, as the operator does not
have to stop periodically to install a new electrode. Like SMAW, its disadvantage
includes an inability to be used in a windy environment, as the wind-driven loss of
shielding gas may lead to porosity at the welds.
Tables 2.11 and 2.12 list the parameter specifications used by the shipbuilding and
offshore construction industries for the FCAW of non-strength structures (e.g., deck
house, engine block, wheel house or accommodation facilities) and hull structures,
respectively, depending on the weld leg length (Lw ; shown in Figure 2.11) in a
horizontal posture of welding, and whether one-pass or multiple-pass welding is
performed. Lw is typically 3.5–10 mm for non-strength structures and 10–18 mm for
thicker strength structures (e.g., hull structures).
2.10 Welding-Induced Initial Imperfections
Welded steel structures always have initial imperfections in the form of initial deform-
ations and residual stresses which may affect the structural properties and load-
carrying capacities.
Table 2.11. Flux-cored arc welding parameters used in the one-pass welding of non-strength structures
Welding parameter
Lw (mm) Current (A) Voltage (V) Speed (cm/min) Heat input (kJ/cm)
3.5 200 28 86 3.9

4.5 300 32 70 8.2
6 320 32 40 15.4
6.8 290 36 40 15.7
8 330 33 32 20.4
10 320 32 26 23.6
Lw ¼ weld leg length.
Table 2.12. Flux-cored arc welding parameters used in the multiple-pass welding of hull structures
Welding parameter
Lw (mm) Pass Current (A) Voltage (V) Speed (cm/min) Heat input (kJ/cm)
10 1st 220 25 30 11.0

2nd 250 28 20 21.0
3rd 280 30 25 20.2
12 1st 220 25 25 13.8
2nd 260 24 22 17.0
3rd 250 28 20 21.0
4th 250 28 20 21.0
5th 280 30 22 22.9
15 1st 220 25 18 18.3
2nd 260 28 24 18.2
3rd 290 30 20 26.1
4th 260 25 21 18.6
5th 300 29 20 26.1
18 1st 230 25 28 12.3
2nd 255 28 23 18.6
3rd 280 30 25 20.2
4th 300 32 22 26.2
5th 310 29 24 22.5
6th 300 28 20 25.2
7th 320 28 21 25.6
Lw ¼ weld leg length.
2.10.1 Welding-Induced Residual Stresses

In the heat-affected zones of welds, molten metal expands freely as a ‘liquid’ but
quickly solidifies and shrinks during the post-welding cooling process. This phe-
nomenon causes the development of persistent tensile stresses along the weld line
and compressive stresses in the middle of a plate, which establish an equilibrium
Lw
Lw
Figure 2.11 Definition of the weld leg length (Lw ) at a fillet weld
Transverse stiffener
transverse frame
Weld bead
weld bead
y
at a 2at at
bt
longitudinal stiffener
compressive Longitudinal stiffener
residual stress
b 2b t
rcy
tensile
Tens. residual rty
stress
bt
Tens.
x
rtx rcx
Figure 2.12 Idealised distribution of biaxial residual stresses in a welded plate
between tension and compression. These equilibrium stresses are known as the
tensile residual stress and the compressive residual stress, respectively. Both of
these residual stresses are biaxial because they develop in the longitudinal and
transverse directions, as both the longitudinal and transverse support members are
attached to a plate by welding. The distribution of welding-induced biaxial residual
stresses within a plate can be represented by idealised tensile and compressive stress
blocks (shown in Figure 2.12).
The breadths of the tensile residual stress block in the x (longitudinal) and y
(transverse) directions can be calculated from the equilibrium between tension and
compression, as follows (Paik 2018):
σ rcx σ rcy
2bt ¼ b, 2at ¼ a, (2.8)
σ rcx σ rtx σ rcy σ rty
where bt and at are the breadths of a tensile residual stress block in the plate breadth
and length direction, respectively; σ rtx and σ rty are the magnitudes of a tensile residual
stress block in the plate length or breadth direction, respectively; σ rcx and σ rcy are the
magnitudes of a compressive residual stress block in the plate length and breadth
direction, respectively; a is the plate length (i.e., the spacing between transverse
frames) and b is the plate breadth (spacing between longitudinal stiffeners). For
structural steels, σ rtx and σ rty are approximately equal to σ Y (material yield stress).
Based on the databases of direct measurements and the solutions of the finite
element method, the breadths of tensile residual stress blocks can be formulated as a
function of the plate slenderness ratio and Lw (Paik 2018; Yi et al. 2019; Yi et al. 2020,
2021), as follows:
bt ¼ c1 Lw þ c2 , (2.9a)
at ¼ d 1 Lw þ d2 , (2.9b)
where
c1 ¼ 0:4562β2x þ 4:1994βx þ 2:6354, c2 ¼ 1:1352β2x 4:3185βx 11:1750,
d1 ¼ 0:0399β2y þ 2:0087βy þ 8:7880, d 2 ¼ 0:1042β2y 4:8575βy 17:7950,
pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffi
βx ¼ bt σEY and βy ¼ at σEY .
Equation (2.9) is used to predict the breadths of tensile residual stress blocks for
thin-walled structures with an Lw of 4–8 mm. The compressive residual stresses can
therefore be estimated from Equation (2.8), as follows:
2bt 2at
σ rcx ¼ σ rtx , σ rcy ¼ σ rty : (2.10)
2bt b 2at a
On the other hand, Smith et al. (1988) suggested the following formula to define
the compressive residual stresses in the x direction of a welded steel plate of naval
ships:
8
< 0:05σ Y for a low level
σ rcx ¼ 0:15σ Y for an average level : (2.11)
:
0:30σ Y for a severe level
2.10.2 Welding-Induced Initial Deformations

A stiffened plate may buckle because of the effect of compressive residual stresses.
This is denoted as thermal buckling and results in three types of deformation, i.e.,
lateral deflections of plating and distortions of stiffeners in the vertical and horizontal
directions (shown in Figure 2.13). Welding-induced initial deformations substantially
reduce the strengths of plate panels under compressive loads and thus cause undesir-
able structural changes (e.g., severe door frame twisting and substantial wall deflec-
tions) in non-strength structures comprising 6–8-mm thick thin-plates, such as the
deck housing or accommodation facilities of ship-shaped offshore installations.
b
wos
wopl
woc
Figure 2.13 Three types of welding-induced initial deformations in a stiffened plate structure:
local plate initial deflection, sideways initial deflection and global (column-type) initial
deflection
To achieve a larger Lw and thus improved weldability, more heat sources are required,
which generates more severe initial deformations.
Smith et al. (1988) suggested the following formula to define the initial deflection
of a welded steel plate of naval ships:
8
> 2
< 0:025β t for a low level
wopl ¼ 0:1β2 t for an average level , (2.12)
>
: 2
0:3β t for a severe level
pffiffiffiffi
where wopl is the initial plate deflection, β ¼ bt σEY is the plate slenderness ratio, b is
the plate breadth or spacing between longitudinal stiffeners, t is the plate thickness, σ Y
is the material yield stress and E is the Young’s modulus.
Ship classification societies or other regulatory bodies specify the limits of
construction tolerances for strength members. These limits should be used to ensure
that the initial deformations in a fabricated structure are less than their corresponding
specified values (Paik 2018). Some examples of the limits for maximum initial plate
deflections are as follows:
NORSOK (2004):
wopl
0:01: (2.13a)
b
Steel box-girder bridge quality standards (ECCS 1982):
t t
wopl min : þ 2; , (2.13b)
6 3
where wopl is the maximum or limit of the initial plate deflection and t is the plate
thickness in mm.
The limit of the column-type or sideways deformation of a stiffener is specified as
follows (Paik 2018):
woc wos
0:0015, 0:0015, (2.14)
a a
where woc is the column-type deflection of a stiffener, wos is the sideways deflection of
a stiffener and a is the vertical deflection of a longitudinal stiffener or spacing between
transverse frames.
As the magnitude and shape of a welding-induced initial deformation affect the
ultimate strength behaviour of a steel-stiffened plate structure, these parameters must
be defined accurately. The initial deflection of a plate with a plate length of a and a
plate breadth of b, surrounded by longitudinal stiffeners and transverse frames, can be
expressed by the following equation (see chapter 1 of Paik (2018) for details):
wpo XM
iπx πy
¼ Boi sin sin , (2.15)
wopl i¼1
a b
where wpo is the initial deflection function of the plate; M ¼ 11 for plates of trading
ships and ship-shaped offshore structures (as the plate aspect ratio is usually a=b 5)
and Boi represents the coefficients of the initial deflection shape of the plate, which
may be taken as Bo1 ¼ 1:0, Bo2 ¼ 0:0235, Bo3 ¼ 0:3837, Bo4 ¼ 0:0259,
Bo5 ¼ 0:2127, Bo6 ¼ 0:0371, Bo7 ¼ 0:0478, Bo8 ¼ 0:0201, Bo9 ¼ 0:0010,
Bo10 ¼ 0:0090 and Bo11 ¼ 0:0005 to generate the so-called hungry horse’s back
shape. The column-type initial deflection of a stiffener may thus be formulated as
follows:
πx
wco ¼ woc sin , (2.16)
a
where wco is the column-type initial distortion of the support members and a is the
length of the stiffener between transverse frames. The sideways initial deflection of a
stiffener may be formulated as follows:
z πx
wso ¼ wos sin , (2.17)
hw a
where wso is the sideways initial distortion of the support member, z is the coordinate in
the direction of the stiffener web height and hw is the stiffener web height.
2.11 Prevention of Welding-Induced Deformations
A proactive approach to the control of welding-induced initial imperfections involves

the reduction of their effects or minimisation of their magnitude. This is achieved by
a reduction of welding-induced biaxial compressive residual stresses or

an increase in the plate buckling strength.
Welding-induced biaxial compressive residual stresses can be reduced by altering the
welding conditions, for example, reducing Lw by using the minimum number of heat
2.11 Prevention of Welding-Induced Deformations 69
sources. However, this is challenging, as it requires advanced welding workmanship,

and it can be difficult to achieve a sufficient Lw for weldability in shipyards. Although
the plate buckling strength can be increased by increasing the plate thickness, this is
not a viable option because it increases the overall structural weight. Instead, an
increased plate buckling strength is obtained by increasing the torsional rigidities of
support members, which can be done without increasing the plate thickness. Under
biaxial compressive loading, the following criterion of the elastic buckling strength–
interaction relationship must be satisfied for a plate supported by longitudinal stiffen-
ers and transverse frames (see chapter 3 of Paik (2018) for details):

σ rcx α1 σ rcy α2
ΓB ¼ þ 1:0, (2.18)
σ xE, 1 σ yE, 1
where,
pffiffiffi
α1 ¼ α2 ¼ 1 for 1 ab 2
a3 a2 a 9
α1 ¼ 0:0293 0:3364 þ 1:5854 1:0596 >
= a pffiffiffi
b b b for > 2.
þ 0:8522 >
a 3 a 2 a ; b
α2 ¼ 0:0049 0:1183 þ 0:6153
b b b
In Equation (2.18), σ xE, 1 and σ yE, 1 are the elastic buckling strengths of the plate
under uniaxial compressive loading in the x and y directions, respectively, which are
defined by
π2E t 2 π2E t 2
σ xE, 1 ¼ k x , σ yE, 1 ¼ k y , (2.19)
12ð1 n 2 Þ b 12ð1 n 2 Þ b
where E is the elastic modulus, n is the Poisson ratio and kx and ky are the buckling
coefficients of the elastic buckling strengths under uniaxial compressive loading in the
x and y directions, respectively. The latter two values can be obtained by considering
the rotational restraint effects associated with the torsional rigidity of support members
(stiffeners), as follows (Paik and Thayamballi 2000):
k x ¼ k x1 þ kx2 k x0 , ky ¼ k y1 þ ky2 k y0 , (2.20)
where kx is the buckling coefficient of a plate that is elastically rotation-restrained at

both its long and short edges; k x1 is the buckling coefficient of a plate elastically
rotation-restrained at its long edges and simply supported at its short edges; kx2 is the
buckling coefficient of a plate elastically rotation-restrained at its short edges and
simply supported at its long edges; kx0 is the buckling coefficient of a plate simply
supported at all of its edges; k y is the buckling coefficient of a plate elastically rotation-
restrained at both its long and short edges; ky1 is the buckling coefficient of a plate
elastically rotation-restrained at its long edges and simply supported at its short edges;
ky2 is the buckling coefficient of a plate elastically rotation-restrained at its short edges
and simply supported at its long edges and ky0 is the buckling coefficient of a plate
simply supported at all of its edges. For details of Equations (2.18) and (2.20), see
chapter 3 of Paik (2018).
The buckling coefficients in Equation (2.18) are a function of the rotational restraint
parameters, ζ L and ζ S , which are dependent on the torsional rigidities of the support
members (described by the nomenclature in Figure 2.14). Thus, ζ L and ζ S are defined
as follows:
GJ L GJ S
ζL ¼ , ζS ¼ , (2.21)
bD aD
3 hwx t 3wx þbfx t 3fx hwy t 3wy þbfy t 3wy
where G ¼ 2ð1þn
E
Þ, D ¼ 12ð1n 2 Þ, J L ¼
Et
3 , and J S ¼ 3 . It is obvious that
the torsion constants (J L and J S ) of an angle bar or tee bar are larger than those of a flat
bar. Consequently, as the rotational restraint along the intersection between a plate and
its support members increases, the plate edges approach the fixed condition and the
plate buckling strength thereby increases.
Figure 2.15 presents a schematic of the initial versus optimal design for the
prevention of plate buckling under biaxial compressive residual stresses. The ΓB of
Equation (2.18) is greater than 1.0 for the initial design under σ rcx and σ rcy , and thus
the residual stress point is located outside the elastic-buckling strength curve. σ xE, 1
b b b a a a
t t t t t t
hwx hwx hwx hwy hwy hwy

twx twy twy twy
twx tfx tfx twy tfy tfy
bfx bfx t bfy bfy

flat bar angle bar tee bar flat bar angle bar tee bar
(a) (b)
Figure 2.14 Cross-sectional dimensions for a (a) longitudinal stiffener and (b) transverse frame
Figure 2.15 Initial versus optimal design to prevent plate buckling under biaxial compressive
residual stresses
and σ yE, 1 are increased by increasing the rotational restraints or torsional constants of
the support members without altering the plate thickness, and thus thermal buckling
associated with welding is prevented.
2.12 Construction of Topside Modules
Topside modules are fitted on an elevated deck a few (i.e., 3–4) metres above the
upper deck of the hull of a ship-shaped offshore structure. Foundation structures (i.e.,
module supports) are placed between the upper main deck of the hull and the topside
modules (shown in Figure 2.16), to support the latter structures. The required pipe-
work and associated structures are located in the adjoining spaces.
Topside modules may have either a single deck or multiple decks as needed, on
which the process equipment and utility systems are arranged. The distance between
the upper deck of the hull and the topside flooring is based on the space that is required
for the module support arrangements and the space and height that are needed beneath
the topside modules to fulfil various safety, functionality and other requirements.
2.12.1 Types of Topside Supports

The primary functions of the foundation structures (module supports) and the spaces
adjoining them are to provide
support to the topside modules;

space for piping and equipment;
space to safeguard utility systems on the upper deck of the hull;
sufficient natural ventilation on the upper deck of the hull (e.g., to disperse
explosive gaseous mixtures);
a fire barrier between the topside and the upper deck of the hull and
a hazardous area subdivision for equipment (e.g., electrical equipment).
topside module
elevated deck
foundation upper deck
transverse frame
Figure 2.16 Topside module on the foundation of the upper deck of a ship-shaped offshore
structure
As topside modules increase in size, so do their effects on the hull (Mespaque et al.
2012). Accordingly, topside module-induced hull deflection must be adequately
accounted for in the design of structural interfaces, the module supporting structure,
the interconnecting pipework between modules and the lower parts of modules. Three
types of support arrangements are commonly used: multi-point support columns,
sliding or flexible support stools and transverse web-girder supports.
2.12.1.1 Multi-point Support Columns

In a multi-point support column arrangement, the topside structures are supported on
an array of vertical columns that are welded directly to the hull structures, usually at
intersections between longitudinal and transverse deck-strength members. The column
sections may comprise tubular or square hollow sections or prismatic ‘I’ sections. The
columns are more slender than typical columns and contain the minimum amount of
diagonal bracing in the longitudinal direction that is required to adequately mitigate
topside module-induced hull deflections. This diagonal bracing may be located at the
centre of the structure to act as a point of ‘fixity’ and prevent excessive deformation of
the outermost columns.
This type of support arrangement is used with small-to-medium sized ‘pancake’-
type topside structures, as it is relatively simple to fabricate and reasonably well suited
for integration with hull structures. This characteristic is important for the conversion
of trading tankers to ship-shaped offshore structures. Numerous supports are used, and
thus the topside deadweight is maximised and fairly well distributed over the vessel
deck. Minimal under-deck strengthening is required, that is, only reinforcement of the
deck girders is needed, as a result of the use of web stiffeners. Furthermore, this
arrangement has a high level of redundancy, which ensures that the failure of any one
individual support is unlikely to lead to structural collapse of the entire topside.
However, the large number of supports can hinder the accurate prediction of
support reaction loads and may necessitate refined analyses of numerous load cases.
The flexibility of the deck and topside structures, and associated construction toler-
ances are factors that may affect the magnitude and distribution of the support reaction
loads. These factors must be accounted for if the topside module is a pre-assembled
unit (PAU), that is, it is integrated with a support structure to form a single unit.
Consequently, topside PAUs are typically supported by only a few columns, which
may necessitate extensive corrective work at a later stage. Moreover, in a spread
moored hull, a complicated sheaving arrangement is used for anchor-line installation
to avoid interference of the line with the support columns. To enable pipe routing and
maintenance access, support-column congestion should also be avoided.
2.12.1.2 Flexible Support Stools

In a flexible support stool arrangement, fewer support points (typically four to six per
module) are required than in a multi-point support column arrangement. Each indi-
vidual support comprises a stool structure located on the vessel deck that is aligned
with a matching structure on the topside module. Two or more of these supports are
arranged to provide a laterally flexible connection, which comprises a low friction
coating and/or a composite elastomer material applied between the stool and module
mating surfaces. This type of support arrangement is often used for large-span PAU
modules, which are common in large new build ship-shaped offshore structures in
which standard bridge bearings are used. An array of roller and sliding joints are fitted
between the hull strong points and the PAU to isolate the latter from hull deform-
ations. If necessary, the support locations are fitted with limiting devices to resist uplift
and large transverse loadings.
Flexible support stool arrangements are useful for increasing the clearance between
the topside and vessel deck; this increases the accessibility for maintenance, primarily
as fewer supports are present. In addition, larger modules can be used to greatly reduce
the amount of between module hook-up work that is required at the end of the project.
Furthermore, the reaction loads can be accurately predicted, which enables the module
installation to be easily managed and controlled. However, the weight distribution of
the topside structures on the hull is less uniform, and some of the resulting support
reactions are high because the topside module must be self-supporting between the
limited number of stool points. Thus, significant strengthening may be required below
the vessel deck. This is typically not a major problem for new builds; however, in a
trading tanker conversion, the required amount of strengthening may dictate whether it
is feasible to use these types of supports and thus whether large PAUs can be used.
Furthermore, the accurate prediction of and compensation for all load effects is an
essential part of the design of these flexible support stools.
2.12.1.3 Transverse Web-Girder Supports

Transverse web-girder supports generally comprise rows of deep web T-sections
mounted transversely across the width of a vessel in line with the uppermost flange
sections, as shown in Figure 2.17. A typical transverse frame spacing in a hull is 5 m,
although this depends on the size of the vessel. The topside modules sit astride these
supports, and their weight is spread throughout the section web. A flexible joint may
be required between modules of a certain size and the top flange to better accommo-
date the vessel flexure effects.
Figure 2.17 Topside foundation supports comprising transverse girders
Transverse web-girder support arrangements are useful for enabling greater flexi-
bility in the design, layout and arrangement of the topside modules, as these arrange-
ments are relatively less reliant on the layout of the strength members below the vessel
deck. The T-sections and transverse girders form near-integral strength members
through which topside loads are transmitted and thus more evenly distributed. In
addition, the installation of modules is more easily controlled than when multi-point
support columns are used. However, access fore and aft on the vessel deck is limited
by the sizes of the access holes that can be safely incorporated into the section web. In
addition, piping arrangements are constrained by the limited space available.
Furthermore, because adjacent modules sitting on a common support are staggered
longitudinally, cross-link effects can occur, resulting in shear and fatigue problems in
the support structure.
2.12.2 Types of Topside Flooring

The layouts of the upper deck of the hull and the topside modules and of the
foundation structures, pipework, equipment, escape/access routes and mechanical
handling headers must be defined clearly as early as possible in the design process.
If different fabricators are used to assemble the hull and topside structures, these must
communicate fully to ensure that the correct interfacing works are performed. The
topside flooring must be selected to maximise both safety and functionality; typically,
either steel-plated or steel-grated flooring is used.
The advantages of a steel-plated floor are that it may function as a fire barrier
between the upper deck of the hull and the topsides. In addition, it can prevent gas
leaks and oil spillages on the topsides from spreading to the upper deck of the hull,
although systems are required to drain spills and leaks, rainwater, wash-down water,
firewater deluges and seawater. However, a plated topside deck means that the
pipework areas on the upper deck of the hull are extensively covered, which may
inhibit the natural ventilation of gas or gaseous mixtures and hence increase the risk of
fire and explosion. Furthermore, a steel-plated floor will lead to greater blast pressures
in an explosion, compared to a steel-grated floor.
2.12.3 Types of Topside Construction

Topside modules are constructed in two ways: on a built-in grillage deck or as a pre-
assembled unit (PAU).
2.12.3.1 Built-In Grillage Deck

In this approach, the topside deck is built at a certain elevation above the upper deck of
the hull. The facilities and equipment are then pre-packaged onto skids and lifted onto
the built-in grillage deck. Subsequently, piping, electrical and instrumentation systems
are connected to these facilities and equipment. This type of construction decreases
the need for challenging heavy lift operations but may be ineffective for the pre-
commissioning of topside facilities.
2.12.3.2 Pre-assembled Units

PAUs are single or multiple assemblies of topside modules that are constructed to
contain the necessary facilities and equipment and as much pre-connected piping,
electrical and instrumentation systems as possible. These are lifted onto the upper
deck of the hull via heavy lift operations (shown in Figure 2.18). It must be ensured
that the supports of the foundation structures are fully welded to the upper deck of the
hull without pre-gaps (shown in Figure 2.19), and that these are sufficiently well-
designed to prevent fatigue cracking. The type of welding (shown in Figure 2.19) is an
illustrative example. Better strength characteristics may be achieved by using partial-
penetration welding rather than fillet welding. In any event, building with PAUs is
useful for meeting fast-track project schedules.
Figure 2.18 Heavy lifting based assembly of large pre-assembled units for accommodation
facilities (left) and a topside module (right) (courtesy of Samsung Heavy Industries)
loading direction
foundation
plating
upper deck
plate
deck frame
fillet weld
loading direction
Figure 2.19 A schematic of unsuccessful fillet welding between the foot of a foundation structure
and an upper deck
2.13 Interface between the Hull and Topside Module
Three major aspects are relevant to the interface between a topside module and a hull,
(a) the strength of the topside module with respect to vessel motion and acceleration,
(b) the minimisation of the deformations of the topside supports and (c) the fatigue life
of the topside supports (Mespaque et al. 2012). Vessel motions, in terms of roll, pitch
and heave, and aspects of weathervaning associated with wind, waves and currents
can substantially affect the behaviour of topside modules. The effects of trim or heel
under normal operating and offloading conditions must be taken into account. Vessel
motion analyses are performed to identify the pertinent effects of motion and acceler-
ation under extreme weather conditions and under normal operating conditions, as
these effects influence the design of topside modules and interfaces. Site-specific
environmental data are used, when relevant, for motion analyses. The conditions
during transit to or from a site must also be considered.
Limits are placed on the tolerated roll, pitch and heave motions, such that the
normal operations of topside facilities are not restricted. Foundation structures may
deform as a result of the interactions of hull girder bending actions (shown in
Figure 2.20). Thus, a primary design concern is to ensure that the maximum alignment
of the foundation structure supports in free support frames does not exceed a specified
limit. This design criterion is critical to prevent failures of the pipework and electrical
cable runs mounted on the upper deck of the hull. The alignment of the foundation
structure supports in such cases must be within approximately 0.1 per cent of the
transverse frame spacing. Fatigue limit-state design requirements should also be
met along the interfaces between the vessel hull and topside modules, for example,
the supports of foundation structures. Although the design execution of hull structures
and topside modules by various contractors is not ideal, this situation is common in
reality, and thus there are often challenges concerning the interfaces between such
systems. Technical agreement in terms of the design and fabrication parameters
Topsides module
topside module
elevated deck
Elevated deck
‘ Free’support
‘free’ support frame
frame ‘ Fixed’
‘fixed’ support frame
support frame
Pitch
pitchstopper
stopper
transverse
Trans. frame deformationininhogging
Deformation hoggingof of
hullhull
frame Deformation
deformationininsagging of hull
sagging of hull
Maximum deck
maximum deck
elongation over alignment
over supports
supports
Figure 2.20 Deformation of the foundation structures due to hull girder bending
2.13 Interface between the Hull and Topside Module 77
between the hull contractor and the topside modules contractor is thus essential from
the earliest design stage to avoid expensive and complex troubleshooting at later
stages. If not, the hull, the topsides and their interfaces may need to be strengthened at
a later design stage or even at the fabrication stage.
Consistency in the design data with respect to loads is particularly critical. If an
adequate design is not achieved to ensure the support of foundation structures
against loads that are predicted to occur during transportation to the site and under
fatigue conditions, changes may be required because it will be too late in the process
to make substantial modifications to the conceptual design itself. These changes may
involve
increasing the size of the support columns;

adding haunch details at some of the joint connections;
tying-in the vertical cross-bracings to decks located at the upper levels and/or
grinding welds, chamfering bracket toes and other modifications.
Such measures may become necessary because the contractor might not wish to
modify the conceptual arrangement, which could require changes to the process
equipment layout. A possible scenario is as follows: During a meeting with the hull
contractor to discuss the fatigue strength criteria for the design of a hull deck, the
topside contractor may casually remark that it has been estimated that a large propor-
tion of the fatigue life of the topside structure will be used up during transportation of
the ship-shaped offshore installation to the site. This remark would initiate a series of
troubleshooting operations. Subsequently, the company may compare the proposed
design with the specified design criteria and express a concern that the casual remark
implies that either the design or a calculation process is in error. Further meetings and
a more detailed review of the design process may conclude that the hull contractor,
who is responsible for determining the motions of the vessel and managing its
interface with topside modules, had possibly forwarded incorrect design information
to the topside contractor.
Another review of the design calculation documents issued a few months later
may show that although some of the original errors have been rectified, the max-
imum accelerations used in the design remain significantly lower than those
expected for the governing conditions required by the company specification.
Additional investigations may also show that incorrect design information has been
forwarded to the topside contractor. Accordingly, more detailed and refined analyses
and further design modifications will be required to ensure that the structure con-
forms adequately to the transportation and in-service requirements of the specifica-
tion, particularly with regard to fatigue strength. As materials will have already been
ordered, the layout and arrangement of the structure will have been largely finalised,
and fabrication will have already begun. This will create various difficulties in terms
of meeting the project schedule. The topside contractor may have investigated some
options for changing the layout of the support structure, particularly with respect to
forming a more efficient and less complicated bracing arrangement. However, the
resulting redistribution of support reactions may not be supportable by the deck, as
the deck may have already been designed without any significant reserve
strength capacity.
Ultimately, the structure that is fabricated may not be optimal in design, may be
inefficient in its use of material and in some instances may barely conform to the
specified requirements. For example, a certain minimal amount of bracing may be
required for very heavy column sections to maintain adequate flexural strength. As
such, complicated reinforced joint connections will be required to maintain adequate
fatigue strength, which can be challenging to fabricate. In addition, the decision to tie-
in the cross braces at the second and third deck levels may result in highly complex
and unusual details that are difficult to align and fabricate, thus necessitating very
detailed analyses to ensure compliance with the design criteria.
In industry practice, the limiting features (e.g., limited deck area) may effectively
dictate that a topside structure sits atop a multitude of support columns. This will
greatly decrease the space into which pipework must be fitted. In the aforementioned
case, the hull contractor is acting as the interface manager, which illustrates the
tendency for the hull design to dictate the layout and design of the topside because
this is most convenient for the hull contractor. In addition, little attempt has been made
to develop a more optimal solution for the unit as a whole, particularly with respect to
the access space and piping arrangements between the hull and process decks.
Ultimately, the derived solution is more akin to that expected from a conversion
project than from a new build design.
Overall, this scenario emphasises the fact that hull and topside contractors optimise
their respective designs at an early stage in the design process, and that these may be
based on preliminary and perhaps incorrect design information. Consequently, there
may be little allowance for error or improvements to the designs. To minimise the
chance of this occurring and to ensure that designs do not fall below certain standards,
it is recommended that a specified set of limiting loading criteria must be satisfied by
any key design of a project prior to confirmation and verification. Key elements of the
interface data passed between contractors must also be continually verified and
updated, and the design review should focus on more than just the limited number
of documents and amount of design information periodically issued by each set of
contractors to the company. In summary, a formal interface management system must
be established to comprise a register of interface design and construction data that can
be reviewed and updated by all parties on an ongoing basis, as this will facilitate an
efficient and accurate design process.
References
Bodner, S. R. and Symonds, P. S. (1962). ‘Experimental and theoretical investigation of the
plastic deformation of cantilever beams subjected to impulsive loading’. Journal of Applied
Mechanics, 29: 719–728.
Brokenbrough, R. L. and Johnston, B. G. (1981). USS Steel Design Manual. United States Steel
Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA.
References 79
BSI (2019). BS EN 10025-2: Hot-Rolled Products of Non-alloy Structural Steels: Technical

Delivery Conditions for Non-alloy Structural Steels. British Standard Institute, London.
Cowper, G. R. and Symonds, O. S. (1957). ‘Strain-hardening and strain-rate effects in the
impact loading of cantilever beams’. Technical Report No. 28, Division of Applied
Mathematics, Brown University, Providence, RI.
DNV (2015). Fabrication and Testing of Offshore Structures. Offshore Standard DNV-OS-
C401, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Dowling, N. E. (2012). Mechanical Behavior of Materials. 4th Edition, Pearson, London.
ECCS (1982). European Recommendations for the Fire Safety of Steel Structures. ECCS
Technical Committee, 3, European Convention for Constructional Steelwork, Brussels.
EN 1993-1-2 (2005). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures: Part 1–2: General Rules:
Structural Fre Design. European Standard, Brussels.
Forrestal, M. J. and Sagartz, M. J. (1978). ‘Elastic-plastic response of 304 stainless steel beams
to impulse loads’. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 45: 685–687.
Hsu, S. S. and Jones, N. (2004). ‘Dynamic axial crushing of aluminum alloy 6063–T6 circular
tubes’. Latin American Journal of Solids and Structures, 1(3): 277–296.
Hughes, O. F. and Paik, J. K. (2010). Ship Structural Analysis and Design. The Society of Naval
Architects and Marine Engineers, Alexandria, VA.
IACS (2017). Normal and Higher Strength Hull Structural Steels (UR W11). International
Jones, N. (2012). Structural Impact. 2nd Edition, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Ko, Y. G., Kim, S. J. and Paik, J. K. (2018). ‘Effects of a deformable striking ship’s bow on the
structural crashworthiness in ship-ship collisions’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 13(S1):
S228–S250.
Mespaque, W., Frainer, V. J. and de Freitas Teixeira, P. R. (2012). ‘Analysis of hull-topside
interaction by experimental approach on floating production unit P-53’. Applied Ocean
Research, 37: 133–144.
NORSOK (2004). Design of Steel Structures. N-004, Revision 2, Standards Norway, Lysaker.
Paik, J. K. (2007a). ‘Practical techniques for finite element modelling to simulate structural
crashworthiness in ship collisions and grounding (part I: theory)’. Ships and Offshore
Structures, 2(1): 69–80.
Paik, J. K. (2007b). ‘Practical techniques for finite element modelling to simulate structural
crashworthiness in ship collisions and grounding (part II: verification)’. Ships and Offshore
Structures, 2(1): 81–85.
Paik, J. K. (2010). ‘Chapter 8: Nonlinear finite element analysis’. Ship Structural Analysis and
Design, edited by O. F. Hughes and J. K. Paik, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, Alexandria, VA.
Paik, J. K. and Chung, J. Y. (1999). ‘A basic study on static and dynamic crushing behavior of a
steel stiffened tube’. Transactions of the Korean Society of Automotive Engineers, 7(1):
219–238 (in Korean).
Paik, J. K., Kim, K. J., Lee, J. H., Jung, B. G. and Kim, S. J. (2017). ‘Test database of the
mechanical properties of mild, high-tensile and stainless steel and aluminum alloy associated
with cold temperatures and strain rates’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 12(S1): S230–S256.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Noh, S. H., Park, D. K. and Ringsberg, J. W. (2020a). ‘Full-scale
collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under cyclic axial-compressive loading’.
Structures, 26: 996–1009.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Noh, S. H., Park, D. K. and Ringsberg, J.W. (2020b). ‘Full-scale
collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading triggered
by brittle fracture at cryogenic condition’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 15(S1): S29–S45.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Park, D. K. and Ringsberg, J. W. (2021a). ‘Full-scale collapse testing of
a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading at a temperature of 80 C’.
Paik, J. K., Ryu, M. G., He, K., Lee, D. H., Lee, S. Y., Park, D. K. and Thomas, G. (2021b).
‘Full-scale fire testing to collapse of steel stiffened plate structures under lateral patch loading
(part 1): Without passive fire protection’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(3): 227–242.
Paik, J. K., Ryu, M. G., He, K., Lee, D. H., Lee, S. Y., Park, D. K. and Thomas, G. (2021c).
(part 2): With passive fire protection’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(3): 243–254.
Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A. K. (2000). ‘Buckling strength of steel plating with elastically
restrained edges’. Thin-Walled Structures, 37: 27–55.
Rajput, A. and Paik, J. K. (2021). ‘Effects of naturally-progressed corrosion on the chemical and
mechanical properties of structural steels’. Structures, 29: 2120–2139.
Smith, C. S., Davidson, P. C., Chapman, J. C. and Dowling, P. J. (1988). ‘Strength and stiffness
of ships’ plating under in-plane compression and tension’. Transactions of the Royal
Institution of Naval Architects, 130: 277–296.
Symonds, P. S. and Chon, C. T. (1974). ‘Approximation techniques for impulsive loading of
structures of time-dependent plastic behaviour with finite-deflections’. Mechanical
Properties of Materials at High Rates of Strain, Conference Series, edited by J. E.
Harding. American Institute of Physics, New York, 21: 299–316.
Symonds, P. S. and Jones, N. (1972). ‘Impulsive loading of fully clamped beams with finite
plastic deflections’. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 14: 49–69.
Umunnakwe, C. B. (2020). Numerical Simulation of Ship Grounding by Taking into
Consideration External Hydrodynamic Forces. Master Thesis, EMship+, University of
Liège, Liège.
Yi, M. S., Hyun, C. M. and Paik, J. K. (2019). ‘An empirical formulation for predicting
welding-induced biaxial compressive residual stresses on steel stiffened plate structures and
its application to thermal plate buckling prevention’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 14(S1):
S18–S33.
Yi, M. S., Lee, D. H., Lee, H. H. and Paik, J. K. (2020). ‘Direct measurements and numerical
predictions of welding-induced initial deformations in a full-scale steel stiffened plate
structure’. Thin-Walled Structures, 153: doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.106786.
Yi, M. S., Noh, S. H., Lee, D. H., Seo, D. H. and Paik, J. K. (2021). ‘Direct measurements,
numerical predictions and simple formula estimations of welding-induced biaxial residual
stresses in a full-scale steel stiffened plate structure’. Structures, 29: 2094–2105.
3 Ocean Environmental Conditions
3.1 Types of Ocean Environmental Conditions
Criteria that are relevant to the safety engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations
are influenced by ocean environmental conditions that affect the transit, operation,
survival and decommissioning of these installations. The actions of ocean environ-
mental conditions on ship-shaped offshore installations are different from their actions
on trading ships. Particularly, the nature and operation of the former mean that the
structures are substantially affected by the action of waves, winds and currents, whereas
the latter are primarily affected by waves only. Thus, accurate and efficient modelling of
ocean environmental conditions at the proposed sites of ship-shaped offshore instal-
lations is essential for safety engineering and long operational uptimes. Such infor-
mation is also critical for the performance of specialised weather-sensitive operations
(e.g., on site installation), the berthing of supply vessels and the design of mooring and
station-keeping systems. The types of ocean environmental conditions that are associ-
ated with the safety engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations include
wind;
waves and swell;
current;
tide;
sea surface temperature;
rain and squall;
humidity;
snow and ice;
marine growth and
seafloor earthquakes and tsunamis.
Each of these ocean environmental conditions has unique features, and their
parameters of influence must be characterised based on metocean (meteorological
oceanographic) databases of sea state measurements. Table 3.1 lists the parameters of
ocean environmental conditions that affect ship-shaped offshore installations. Reliable
data on various environmental conditions are critical for the design and operation of
the hull, topsides, moorings and risers of ship-shaped offshore installations. These
data are obtained in many different ways and from many sources (some more
commonly used than others), such as in situ instrumental measurements,
Table 3.1. Parameters of ocean environmental conditions that affect ship-shaped offshore installations
Condition(s) Sea state database Parameter
Wind Extreme wind speed and direction; vertical profile; gust Average time; height above
speeds and wind spectra; persistence sea level
Waves and swell Extreme wave crest elevation; extreme wave height, Water depth; current; length
direction and range of associated periods; cumulative of measurement period
frequency distribution of individual wave heights; joint
probability of significant wave height and period;
persistence of sea states; wave spectra and directional
spreading
Water depth and Depth below mean sea level; extreme still water Long-term change in water
sea-level variation level variation depth; tide and storm surge
Current Extreme current speed and direction; variation Tidal and other currents;
throughout the water depth; fatigue design current average time
speed
Temperature Extreme air and sea temperatures (maxima and Depth below sea surface
minima)
Rain and squall Intensity (cm/h) for a given return period Average time
Snow and ice Maximum thickness of snow and ice; density of Geographical area; season;
snow and ice part of structure affected
Marine growth Type of growth; permitted thickness; terminal Water depth; growth rate
thickness profile
remote-sensing measurements from satellites, visual observations (from ships and

platforms) and ocean environmental energy transport numerical modelling, which is
denoted ‘hindcasting’.
Extensive measurements of ocean environmental data that can be applied in the
safety engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations have been collected for the
UK and Norwegian sectors of the North Sea (Lonseth and Kvitrud 1997; HSE 2001).
In several other offshore areas for which data are not available, specific measurements
are routinely performed. Useful data may be obtained from the following sources (see
Barltrop (1998) for a more extensive list):
BMT Fluid Mechanics Ltd. (UK)

The British Antarctic Survey (UK)
The British Oceanographic Data Centre (UK)
The Canadian Hydrographic Service
Det Norske Meteorologiske Institutt (Norway)
The Norwegian Polar Institute
The United States National Oceanographic Data Center
Internal or external consultants are invariably employed to collate and recommend
data to be used in a project. These data depend on the proposed offshore ship-shaped
installation site, the season and other factors and reflect the specialised nature of the
projects. The more specific and extensive the data, the better. Similarly, the greater the
3.2 Return Period of Ocean Environmental Conditions 83
uncertainties in the ocean environment, the larger the safety factors that must be
applied to achieve a target level of structural adequacy and reliability.
Strictly speaking, sloshing, slamming and green water are the effects of both
environmental and operational conditions rather than environmental conditions in
their own right, but they are also dealt with as types of important actions which cause
structural damage.
3.2 Return Period of Ocean Environmental Conditions
The design environmental conditions of trading ships and ship-shaped offshore

installations are associated with certain return periods. Large trading ships on
unrestricted service are designated a service life of 25 years, while the offshore
industry uses an environmental event with a 100-year return period as the basis for
its structural designs. Notably, these service lives were not determined by any
rational assessment of the likelihood of failure during events to which offshore
installations are exposed, or by the quantification of societal expectations with
regard to loss of life or environmental pollution. A brief history of this concept is
therefore relevant.
In the early 1960s, a design wave height was selected on the basis of a twenty-year
return period. After several jacket platforms designed on this basis were substantially
damaged by wave action, a progressive increase to a wave height corresponding to a
fifty-year return period was made, which resulted in the design of more resilient
structures but still with insufficient integrity. Subsequently, a 100-year return period
was chosen, and no offshore installations designed to this criterion have been lost or
suffered major damage as a result of severe environmental actions.
If the exposure duration (service life) of a ship-shaped offshore installation in a
region/site is Y years, then the probability P of this installation being exposed to an R-
year return-period storm can be estimated as follows:

1 Y
P¼1 1 for a return period, (3.1a)
R

Y
P ¼ 1 exp for a Poisson's process, (3.1b)
R
where R is the return period in a year and Y is the exposure duration in a region/site in
a year. If the service life in a region/site is Y ¼ 25 years for a 100-year return-period
storm, that is, R ¼ 100, the probability P of the offshore installation being exposed to
such a storm becomes:

1 25
P¼1 1 ¼ 0:222 for a return period, (3.2a)
100

25
P ¼ 1 exp ¼ 0:221 for a Poisson's process, (3.2b)
100
where a probability greater than 22 per cent is high, but this does not necessarily mean
that this would be an unsafe region/site for such an installation. Here, the notional
probability of a storm occurrence is accounted for in the structural design of
an installation.
An increase in a return period usually results in an increase in loads. For example,
wave actions on offshore jacket structures are dominated by drag loading rather than
by inertia loading. Drag loading increases with wave height to the power of 2;
however, this power may also exceed 2, partly because of the complexity of
platform-framing patterns. The North Sea guidance on wave heights (DEn 1990)
showed that as the return period of waves doubles, the wave height increases by
approximately 5 per cent and thus the drag loading increases by approximately 10 per
cent. Consequently, there is a 22 per cent increase in drag loading if a return period
increases from 25 to 100 years. Although this is probably an underestimate, it leads to
a substantial increase in drag loading in a 100-year return period event compared to
that in a twenty-five-year return period event. However, there is only an approximately
10 per cent increase in drag loading in a 100-year return period event compared to a
fifty-year return period event. These data and experiences to date have shown the
acceptability of shifting design strategies from considering an event in which major
hurricane damage generally occurred to one in which major damage did not
generally occur.
In reality, physical damage causes downtime and has various subsequent societal
effects because of fuel supply disruptions that may result and persist for a time. The
perception of the risk of damage is subjective, and levels of acceptable risk can change
for various reasons. For example, a 100-year return period criterion is not universal in
structural design: a 10,000-year return period has also been considered for the survival
design of offshore structures (described in Section 4.9).
The following return periods may be chosen to establish the design environmental
conditions of a ship-shaped offshore installation and can be used to determine the
most severe actions during its entire service life:
100-year return period winds combined with 10-year return period waves and
current (for extreme conditions);
100-year return period waves combined with 10-year return period winds and
current (for extreme conditions);
a 100-year return period current combined with 10-year return period winds and
waves (for extreme conditions);
10,000-year return period waves (for survival conditions) or
100-year return period sea surface temperatures (for extreme conditions).
3.3 Wind
Wind is a primary metocean parameter that is critical to the design of a ship-shaped

offshore installation. Fundamentally, the structure of an offshore installation must
3.3 Wind 85
withstand the forces exerted by the wind itself, and this capacity depends on structural
characteristics, such as the windage area, and on the wind speed and direction. In
designs, an extreme wind speed for a certain return period is specified with a mean
time ranging from 3 s (i.e., an extreme gust) to 24 h. Wind speeds are measured at a
standard height of 10 m above mean sea level. The spectra of fluctuating wind gusts
are also recorded, as wind gusts can generate resonant oscillations within offshore
installations. In addition, slow-drift horizontal motions of moored offshore instal-
lations are caused by wind gusts, and vortex-induced vibrations in flare towers can be
generated by wind.
Figure 3.1 shows the cumulative distribution of the hourly mean wind speeds at
10 m above mean sea level on the northern North Sea, based on Faltinsen (1990),
where the 100-year return period extreme wind speed is approximately 41 m/s.
Table 3.2 contains data from HSE (1989) that indicate the relationship between the
extreme fifty-year return period wind speed and the extreme wind speeds of other
return periods. Table 3.3 lists illustrative 100-year return period design wind speeds
for UK waters (UKOOA 2002). It can be seen that wind speeds for the 10,000-year
return period are approximately 16 per cent greater than the those for the 100-year
return period. To calculate the wind speed variation with the height above sea level,
the formulations of NORSOK Standard N003 (NORSOK 1999) may be used.
0.99999 100
10
0.99995 1
0.9999
0.9995
0.999
Cumulative probability -weibull scale
0.995
Cumulative Probability
0.99
0.98
annual
Mean duringmean
a year
0.95
0.9 June-August
During June-August
0.8
0.7
During November-January
November-January
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.05
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 910 20 30 40 5060
Wind
WindSpeed (m/s)
speed (m/sec)
Figure 3.1 Hourly wind speeds in the northern North Sea
Table 3.2. Relationship between the fifty-year return period wind speed and extreme wind speeds at
other return periods
N (year) 2 5 10 20 50 100 200 500 1000

V N =V 50 0.75 0.83 0.88 0.93 1.00 1.05 1.11 1.17 1.23
N ¼ return period; V N ¼ N-year return-period wind speed; V 50 ¼ 50-year return period wind
speed; and V N ¼ 0:71ð1 þ 0:106 ln N ÞV 50 .
Table 3.3. Illustrative 100-year return period design wind speeds in UK waters
Wind duration Central North Sea Northern North Sea West of Shetlands
1 h mean 37 m/s 38 m/s 40 m/s

10 min mean 40 m/s 41 m/s 43 m/s
To determine the design values of wind loads, data must be collected that comprise
the variations of wind with height above sea level, the direction of wind and the joint
probability of waves and wind. Table 3.4 depicts the relationship between the wind
speed and significant wave height and wave period for open-sea areas of the North
Atlantic and North Pacific (Lee et al. 1985). The wind loads on each part of a ship-
shaped offshore installation may be estimated as follows:
F ¼ 0:0625Cs AV 2 , (3.3)
where F is the wind surface load in kgf, A is the projected area in m2 , V is the wind
speed in m/s and C s is the shape coefficient (as defined in Table 3.5).
Wind tunnel-based physical modelling is recommended for the engineering of
land-based high rise buildings or towers. Wind tunnel testing is also useful for the
design of floating offshore installations (Belloli et al. 2020), whereas computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are used to predict wind loads on ships (Janssen
et al. 2017; Saydam and Taylan 2018) and offshore wind turbines (Bangga et al.
2020; Burmester et al. 2020). Similar approaches are used in the design of ship-
shaped offshore installations. In industry practice, the wind load on an offshore
installation is approximated (a) as a constant value, with the wind speed taken as the
mean extreme 1-min mean wind speed or (b) as a fluctuating value based on the
extreme 1-h mean wind speed, which comprises a time-variant component calcu-
lated from a suitable wind gust spectrum. In both of these approximations, the
reference average wind period is 10 min and the reference height is 10 m above
sea level (DNV 2019).
An advanced approach for predicting wind loads on ship-shaped offshore instal-
lations involves the use of site-specific wind data combined with CFD simulations.
Notably, the parameters that affect wind loads – wind speed and direction – are
random and probabilistic. Based on the definition of wind direction shown in
Figure 3.2 and the site-specific data obtained from the Danish Hydraulic Institute
(DHI) metocean data portal (www.dhigroup.com/marine-water/metocean-data-portal),
Table 3.4. The relationship between wind and waves in the north Atlantic Ocean and the north Pacific Ocean
North Atlantic North Pacific

Significant wave Sustained wind
height (m) speed (knots)a Modal wave period(s) Modal wave period(s)
Sea state Percentage probability Most Percentage probability Most

No. Range Mean Range Mean of sea state Rangeb probablec of sea state Rangeb probablec
0–1 0–0.1 0.05 0–6 3 0.70 – – 1.30 – –

2 0.1–0.5 0.3 7–10 8.5 6.80 3.3–12.8 7.5 6.40 5.1–14.9 6.3
3 0.5–1.25 0.88 11–16 13.5 23.70 5.0–14.8 7.5 15.50 5.3–16.1 7.5
4 1.25–2.5 1.88 17–21 19 27.80 6.1–15.2 8.8 31.60 6.1–17.2 8.8
5 2.5–4 3.25 22–27 24.5 20.64 8.3–15.5 9.7 20.94 7.7–17.8 9.7
6 4–6 5 28–47 37.5 13.15 9.8–16.2 12.4 15.03 10.0–18.7 12.4
7 6–9 7.5 48–55 51.5 6.05 11.8–18.5 15.0 7.00 11.7–19.8 15.0
8 9–14 11.5 56–63 59.5 1.11 14.2–18.6 16.4 1.56 14.5–21.5 16.4
>8 >14 >14 >63 >63 0.05 18.0–23.7 20.0 0.07 16.4–22.5 20.0
a
Ambient wind sustained at 19.5 m above the sea surface, which generates fully developed seas. To convert to other altitudes, apply V ¼ V o ðH=19:5Þ1=7 ,
where V and H ¼ sustained wind speed (in knots) and altitude (in m), respectively, and V o ¼ sustained wind speed for H ¼ 19:5 m; b The minimum is the 5th
percentile and the maximum is the 95th percentile for periods within a given wave height range and c Obtained from periods associated with central frequencies
included in a US Navy hindcast climatology database.
Table 3.5. Shape coefficients for predicting wind loads
Large flat Support Isolated Clustered deck

Shape Sphere Cylinder surfacea membersb shapesc houses
Cs 0.40 0.50 1.00 1.30 1.50 1.10

a
Hull, deck house and smooth underdeck areas; b Exposed beams or underdeck girders and
c
Cranes, booms, etc.
Figure 3.2 Definition of wind direction
the wind roses (distributions of wind direction) for the six different seas (shown in
Figure 1.4) are presented in Figures 3.3–3.8. These figures show that the sea states are
distinct depending on locations. Table 3.6 lists the sample probabilities of wind speeds
according to wind direction.
3.4 Waves
Wave parameters are associated with the regularity and irregularity of sea states and
depend on the wave height, period and direction and probabilities and persistence
times. However, waves that induce the most severe responses in the global system of a
structure are not necessarily identical to those that induce the maximum response in
structural components, although both of these responses are wave period dependent.
The fatigue strength performance is governed by the wave frequency rather than by
extreme wave size, despite the smaller magnitudes of regular waves. For unrestricted
service in regular wave conditions, the wave height for a 100-year return period (H100)
is taken as follows (DNV 2020):
H 100 ¼ 32 m: (3.4)
As there is no known unique relation between the wave height and wave period, the
following relation is used in industry practice:

T 1:0 2:5
H¼ , (3.5)
4:1
where H is the wave height (in m) and T is the wave period (in s).
3.4 Waves 89
0°
330° 30°
fre 15
300° 60°
qu %
en
cy
(%
10
)
%
5%
270° 90°
240° 120°
210° 150°
180°
Figure 3.3 The wind rose of the North Sea
Wave periods longer than 18 s have little influence on the action effects of regular
waves (DNV 2020), and the limit of wave steepness in regular waves ðSr Þ is defined as
follows:
2π H
Sr ¼ Sr100 , (3.6a)
g T2
where g is the gravitational acceleration (9.8 m/s2) and Sr100 is the wave steepness for
100-year return period regular waves, which is given by
8
> 1
< for T d 6 s
Sr100 ¼ 7 0:93 2 (3.6b)
>
:7 þ T d 36 for T d > 6 s,
H max 100
8
< 0:22T d for T d 6 s
2
H max 100 ¼ T 2d (3.6c)

: 2 for T d > 6 s,
4:5 þ 0:02 T d 36
where H max 100 is the maximum wave height for a 100-year return period (in m) and
T d is the design wave period (in s).
The irregular wave parameters that affect wave loads on ship-shaped offshore
installations are significant wave height H s , average zero-up-crossing wave period,
0°
330° frequency (%)
Frequency (%) 30°
30%
300° 20% 60°
10%
270° 90°
240° 120°
210° 150°
180°
Figure 3.4 The wind rose of the Gulf of Mexico
T z (or wavelength λ) and wave heading angle (direction), θ. Like wind speed and
direction, these parameters are random and probabilistic in nature. Significant wave
height is defined as the mean height of the highest third of waves, average zero-up-
crossing wave period is defined as the wave duration over a specified length of time
and wave heading angle is defined as for wind direction.
More refined parameters or a greater number of parameters that affect waves (e.g.,
wind speed, wind direction, current speed and current direction) may be considered as
more statistical databases of wave information become available. The most probable
maximum wave height ðH max Þ in a specific sea state during a given period is taken as
follows (DNV 2020):
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
H max ¼ H s 0:5 ln N , (3.7a)
where N is the number of cycles in the sea state. As the persistence time of a storm is
usually a few hours and the number of cycles is on the order of 1 103 , H max in
Equation (3.7a) is given by
H max 1:85H s : (3.7b)
The limit of wave steepness in irregular waves ðSir Þ is defined as follows:
2π H s
Sir ¼ Sir100 , (3.8a)
g T 2z
3.4 Waves 91
0°
330° frequency (%) 30°
75%
300° 50% 60°
25%
270° 90°
240° 120°
210° 150°
180°
Figure 3.5 The wind rose of the western coast of Africa
where Sir100 is the wave steepness for a 100-year return period, which is given by
8
> 1
>
> for T z 6 s
>
< 10
Sir100 1 (3.8b)
>
> for T z 12 s
>
> 15
:
Linear interpolation for 6 s < T z < 12 s:
A relation between significant wave height and a zero-crossing wave period in
irregular waves is as follows (DNV 2020):
8
< 0:156T z for T z 6 s
2
>
H s ¼ 0:206T 2z 0:0086T 3z for 6 s < T z 12 s (3.9)
>
:
0:104T z for T z > 12 s:
2
The following relation between wave period T z and wavelength λ is used in

industry practice (Chakrabarti 2005):
gT 2z
: λ¼ (3.10)
2π
Equation (3.10) is useful for a ship-shaped offshore installation motion analysis if λ
is defined in advance. Other equations may become available for use if they are
confirmed to be adequate by additional wave statistical databases.
0°
15%
300° 10% 60°
5%
270° 90°
240° 120°
210° 150°
180°
Figure 3.6 The wind rose of the eastern coast of South America
0°
330° 30°
300° 60°
270° 90°
240° 120°
210° 150°
180°
Figure 3.7 The wind rose of the southeastern coast of Asia
3.4 Waves 93
0°
50%
40%
300° 30% 60°
20%
10%
270° 90°
240° 120°
210° 150°
180°
Figure 3.8 The wind rose of the northwestern coast of Australia
Three approximation methods are used to analyse the wave-induced maximum

actions and action effects: the extreme amplitude-based design wave method, the
extreme response-based design wave method and the wave energy spectra-based
method. Furthermore, the use of refined hydrodynamic simulations is standard indus-
try practice. An extreme amplitude-based design wave is defined for a 100-year return
period in the design of a ship-shaped offshore installation destined for long-term
deployment. General approaches for estimating the parameters of deep water design
waves for ship-shaped offshore installations are given in textbooks (e.g., Faltinsen
1990; Barltrop 1998). Wave data from which to predict the responses of ships and
offshore structures in a seaway are also available (Ochi 1978). For normal operations,
a ten-year return period may be specified but may be reduced to a one-year return
period for inspection and repair conditions.
In ship-shaped offshore installations, maximum actions may develop from a wave or
group of waves of relatively low amplitude because of the sensitivities of the concerned
actions to the involved wave frequencies. In addition, to determine the different types of
responses of interest, e.g., maximum roll and maximum vertical hull-girder bending
moments, several different design wave combinations must be considered from various
directions and frequencies, with crests and troughs at various locations.
3.4.1 UK Offshore Operators Association Guidance Notes

The UK Offshore Operators Association (UKOOA) guidance notes (UKOOA 2002)
describe generic wave data and their applications in UK Continental Shelf (UKCS)
Table 3.6. Sample probability of wind speed according to wind direction (%)
Wind Wind direction (clockwise from the East, )

speed
(m/s) 0–45 45–90 90–135 135–180 180–225 225–270 270–315 315–360 Total
0–2 2.242 2.307 2.484 3.920 1.340 2.421 2.081 1.597 18.392
2–4 4.359 5.518 6.114 6.743 6.196 2.808 5.835 7.905 45.478
4–6 1.372 4.308 7.246 5.538 1.565 0.689 2.195 4.262 27.175
6–8 0.424 0.544 4.662 0.275 1.108 0.194 0.122 0.465 7.794
8–10 0.048 0.194 0.290 0.097 0.048 0.048 0.097 0.000 0.822
10–12 0.000 0.194 0.000 0.048 0.000 0.000 0.097 0.000 0.339
12–14 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0
Total 8.445 13.065 20.796 16.621 10.257 6.160 10.427 14.229 100.0
waters and adjacent areas. These notes indicate that the wave information must cover a
range of the available combinations of wave height and period to enable the determin-
ation of the most severe loading conditions acting on offshore installations in this
region. The significant wave heights are stated as 14 m for the central North Sea, 16 m
for the northern North Sea and 18 m for west of the Shetlands, based on a 100-year
return period sea state. The 10,000-year significant wave height, based on an average
zero up-crossing analysis, is approximately 25 per cent greater than the corresponding
100-year return period value, and the corresponding wave period is approximately
5 per cent greater than the 100-year wave period. The wave mean zero-crossing period
lies in the following range:
Tz
3:2 < pffiffiffiffiffiffi < 3:6, (3.11)
Hs
where H s is the significant wave height (in m) and T z is the mean zero-crossing wave
period (in s). By ignoring the low risk (~1%) that waves with H max ¼ 2:5H s may
occur, the expected (most probable) maximum wave height is estimated by
H max ¼ 1:86H s , (3.12)
where H max is the most probable maximum wave height.

The wave period associated with the maximum wave height lies in the range of
1:05T z to 1:4T z . The design of a ship-shaped offshore installation accounts for the
wave influences related to all values within the range of periods. These are
the first-order motions of an offshore installation at wave frequencies in all

components of heave, surge, sway, roll, pitch and yaw;
low frequency motions, particularly surge and sway near the natural frequency of
the offshore installation and its mooring system and
steady or mean drift forces.
The UKOOA guidance notes suggest that wave-induced actions should be
predicted from model testing or a motion analysis using diffraction theory. The
3.4 Waves 95
two-dimensional strip theory may be also be used as an approximation for the initial
design. To determine the effects of bow wave and green water impacts, the responses
to short steep waves must be known. Fatigue calculations for a hull must account for
the number and distribution of wave encounters across all possible wave periods.
A scatter diagram of significant wave height versus the average zero-crossing periods
for the intended location of a ship-shaped offshore installation is used to obtain fatigue
design wave data.
3.4.2 American Petroleum Institute Recommended Practices

The American Petroleum Institute (API) Recommended Practices (API 1993a, 1993b)
specify environmental parameters for US waters. These include more than twenty
areas, such as the Gulf of Mexico, the West and East coasts of the United States and
the coast of Alaska. More detailed information is presented for the Gulf of Mexico,
comprising variations of the design wave height with the location and water depth,
and the directionality of waves associated with hurricanes (the term for tropical
cyclones that occur in the north Atlantic Ocean and northeast Pacific). Both API RP
2A-WSD (API 1993a) and API RP 2A-LRFD (API 1993b) deal with fixed offshore
structures, whereas API RP 2FPS deals with floating production systems.
A key parameter is the 100-year maximum wave height, which is determined using
two sets of environmental criteria: (a) the 100-year return period wave height, with
associated winds and current and (b) the 100-year return period wind, with associated
waves and current. The most severe directional combination of waves, wind and
current is specified and is consistent with the environmental conditions that will be
experienced at the operational field. In some cases, extreme waves and winds may
approach an operational field from different directions, such that a weathervaning
ship-shaped offshore installation would be exposed to higher actions than if these
factors acted in the same direction. The API Recommended Practices (API 1993a,
1993b) suggest that accurately measured or hindcast data are used to determine design
wave actions. The relationship between the wave height and wave period is critical,
particularly for the prediction of surge and sway amplitudes and mean drift forces,
which are significantly affected by the wave period. Notably, swell-induced wave
periods are approximately 40 per cent greater than wind-driven wave periods for a
given wave height. For any specific return period, the API data state that the ratio of
the maximum wave height to significant wave height is 1.70–1.90, while the UKOOA
design notes indicate that this ratio is 1.86.
3.4.3 DNV Recommended Practices

The DNV Recommended Practices DNV-RP-C205 (DNV 2019) contain environ-
mental parameters, such as waves, wind, current, snow, ice and temperature, for
various geographical areas worldwide. These areas are classified into two groups:
harsh and benign. In addition, separate sets of wave characteristics are given for
regular and irregular waves for the determination of design wave actions. Waves are
regarded as regular when their wave periods are in the following range:
Tz
2:55 < pffiffiffiffiffiffi < 3:32: (3.13)
Hs
Regular wave characteristics are described using relevant analytical or numerical

theories, which are classified depending on the ratio of the water depth to wavelength,
and are
the solitary wave theory (for d=L 0:1);

Stokes’ fifth-order wave theory (for 0:1 < d=L 0:3) and
the linear wave theory (e.g., Airy wave theory) for 0:3 < d=L, where d is the water
depth and L is the wavelength.
Short-term irregular sea states are described by a wave spectrum, in terms of the
power spectral density function of the vertical sea surface displacement. The Pierson–
Moskowitz spectrum is used for open seas, while the Joint North Sea Wave Project
(JONSWAP) spectrum is used for fetch-limited growing seas. Short-crested waves
(spreading waves) are regarded as relevant. In these cases, the peak period typically
lies in the following range:
Tz
3:81 < pffiffiffiffiffiffi < 5:0: (3.14)
Hs
In a visual observation, the highest crest elevation is approximately equal to the

significant wave height for an irregular short-term stationary sea state. The highest
individual crest-to-trough wave height is equal to 1:8H s . The DNV Recommended
Practices DNV-RP-C205 (DNV 2019) provide a great deal of information that is
useful for the estimation of long-term wave statistics associated with the geographical
location and storm duration.
3.4.4 Wave Energy Spectra

Wave energy spectra provide the basis for analyses of the actions and action effects of
waves. These spectra represent the distribution of the sea height variance as a function
of the frequency for a given sea state, with the wave height being proportional to the
transported wave energy. Such spectra are useful for determining design waves, the
relative abilities of waves of different frequencies to excite global system or structural
component responses and the stress-range response spectra of fatigue calculations
based on the spectral method.
Wind-driven waves in the immediate vicinity of a wind field are directly correlated
to the local wind field. Some of these waves travel a long distance to become swells,
and both waves and swells are critical considerations in the structural design of a ship-
shaped offshore installation at a given site. Compared to local waves, swells have
different wave energy spreading and directionality characteristics and (generally) a
3.4 Waves 97
longer period. These differences provide additional reasons why long-term site-spe-
cific measurements are optimal for the determination of site-specific wave spectra.
In the following section, some generalised spectral expressions that are useful to
the design of offshore ship-shaped installations are discussed. The expected number
of wave encounters that an offshore installation is likely to experience during its
service life is estimated as a function of the wave amplitude by using wave spectra in
a fatigue analysis. However, the direct application of such spectrum-based expres-
sions may inadequately account for the weathervaning of an offshore installation
fixed via a single-point mooring, as the relative orientation of the hull to the
approaching non-collinear waves, winds, current and swells would be volatile, and
such spectra do not accurately account for the effect of the resulting yaw of such an
offshore installation.
3.4.4.1 The Generalised Pierson–Moskowitz Spectrum

An early function that remains useful for describing wave spectra was formulated by
Pierson and Moskowitz (1964). A generalised form of this so-called Pierson–
Moskowitz spectral function is given as follows:

A B
SðxÞ ¼ 5 exp 4 , (3.15)
x x
where SðxÞ is the distribution of the sea surface variance (in m2/Hz), x is the wave
frequency and A and B are the variables to be determined for the prevailing sea state.
By replacing A and B with the sea state parameters, H s and T z , respectively, the
distribution of the sea surface variance is approximated as follows:
!
H 2s 1
SðxÞ ¼ 0:08 4 5 exp 0:318 4 4 : (3.16)
Tz x Tz x

The peak value xp of the wave frequency corresponding to the maximum value of
SðxÞ is determined as follows:
xp ¼ ð0:8T z Þ1=4 : (3.17)
3.4.4.2 The JONSWAP Spectrum

The JONSWAP spectrum was formulated using environmental data measured in the
North Sea off the coast of Denmark, and was originally used to describe fetch-limited
growing seas in the absence of swell (Hasselmann et al. 1976). It is given as follows:

Cγq D
SðxÞ ¼ 5 exp 4 , (3.18)
x x
where SðxÞ is the distribution of the sea surface variance (in m2/Hz), x is the wave
frequency, C and D are the variables to be determined for the prevailing sea state and γ
is the peak enhancement parameter for the region of interest. In addition, in the North
Sea, γ has a mean value of 3.3 and varies by more than 50%, while q is given by
" 2 #
x xp
q ¼ exp , (3.19)
2c2 x2p
where c is the constant for the region of interest; for example, in the North Sea,
c ¼ 0:07 for x xp and c ¼ 0:09 for x > xp .
Finally, the JONSWAP spectrum approach gives the distribution of the sea surface
variance ðSðxÞÞ and the peak wave frequency xp as follows:
!
H 2s 1
SðxÞ ¼ 0:0749 4 5 3:3 exp 0:4567 4 4 ,
q
(3.20a)
Tz x Tz x
1
xp ¼ , (3.20b)
Tp
h 2
i
where q ¼ exp ð1:286T
2c2
z x1Þ
and T p is the period at the peak frequency, which is
taken as T p ¼ 1:286T z for γ ¼ 3:3.
3.4.4.3 Directional Wave Spectrum

To account for the effect of the wave direction, the wave spectrum is modified as
follows:
ð þπ
SðxÞ ¼ Sðx; θÞdθ, (3.21)
π
where θ is the direction from which the wave components are travelling. Sðx; θÞ is split
into SðxÞ and Gðx; θÞ as follows:
Sðx; θÞ ¼ SðxÞGðx; θÞ, (3.22)

Ð þπ
where π Gðx; θÞdθ ¼ 1. Then, the spreading function Gðx; θÞ in Equation (3.22) is
expressed as follows:

θ θm
Gðx; θÞ ¼ N cos 2s , (3.23)
2
where θm is the dominant direction as a function of x, s is the spreading factor as a

function of x and N is the normalising constant, which ensures that Gðx; θÞ integrates
to 1.0. N is given by
1 Γ ð s þ 1Þ
N ¼ pffiffiffi , (3.24)
2 π Γðs þ 0:5Þ
where Γ is the gamma function. In a simple evaluation, s ¼ 10 if s is independent of

wave frequency, resulting in N ¼ 0:903. If the wave energy is more narrowly spread
about the predominant direction, such as in swells, a ‘cosine to the power of 4’
spreading function with s ¼ 2 is used, rather than the cosine-squared spreading
function that would normally be used.
3.6 Non-collinear Combination 99
3.5 Current
Together with waves and swells, current affects the orientation of a ship-shaped
offshore installation and thus influences the short-term and long-term loads imposed
on its hull and mooring system. In particular, current increases the hull drag forces to
levels greater than those generated by the wave system. Moreover, current ultimately
affects the station-keeping of an offshore installation and its mooring system, which
may include thrusters.
Current depends on local conditions, and several common types of current contrib-
ute to the overall current effects, namely oceanic current, eddy current, thermal
current, wind-driven current, tidal current, surge current and inertial current
(Barltrop 1998). These types of current are astronomical tide- and storm surge-related,
and site-specific measurement data are collected to study the tidal profiles of a
proposed site prior to the placement of a ship-shaped offshore installation. Table 3.7
lists generic surface current data for UK waters.
The hull of a ship-shaped offshore installation equipped with a mooring system is
affected by surface current, while the riser design must consider subsurface currents.
The major open ocean subsurface current is more predictable and less variable than the
surface current, although wind increases the variability of the uppermost section of the
subsurface current. However, there are many exceptions to these generalisations; in
the Indian Ocean and the China Sea, for instance, the current direction changes
seasonally and may reverse during monsoons.
Site-specific current data are obtained from measurements made at or close to a
proposed operational field for at least a year and are used to construct an accurate
profile of the current characteristics, including speed and direction. In the absence of
site-specific current data, a current profile is obtained as a sum of the tidal current and
wind-generated current profiles (DNV 2000). In industry practice, tidal current speed
is assumed to follow a 1/7th–power exponential decay over the water column, while
wind-generated current speed (in m/s) is assumed to decay linearly from 1.5 per cent
of the hourly mean wind speed at still water level to zero at a depth of 50 m.
3.6 Non-collinear Combination of Waves, Wind, Current and Swell
Ship-shaped offshore installations are subject to combined but non-collinear environ-

mental conditions, such as wind, waves, current and swell, as shown in Figure 3.9.
Table 3.7. Generic surface current data for UK waters
Central Northern West of

Location North Sea North Sea Shetlands
100-year return period surface current speed 1.03 m/s 0.99 m/s 2.00 m/s
1-year return period surface current speed 0.88 m/s 0.89 m/s 1.64 m/s
Current direction N/S N/S NE/SW
swell
wave nt
rre
cu
wind
Figure 3.9 Generalised representation of the non-collinear combination effects of wind, waves,
current and swell on a ship-shaped offshore installation
The interactions between these conditions, and the resultant effects on offshore instal-
lation motions, must be considered in the safety design and engineering of mooring
systems, among other structures. An alternative approach involves the use of double-
peaked or multiple-peaked spectra (Lucas et al. 2011; Akbari et al. 2020), which are
easily managed using CFD simulations.
3.7 Tide
The overall depth of water at any location is characterised by the mean depth and its
variance from the mean sea level. The mean water depth is defined as the vertical
distance between the seabed and an appropriate near-surface datum. Variations of
water depth are primarily due to tides and storm surges. Tidal variations are usually
regular and predictable and are classified in terms of the highest astronomical tide and
the lowest astronomical tide, while storm surges are irregular in nature. Thus, the
effect of tides is approximately superimposed on the effect of storm surges to estimate
the total mean water level in a given location. This level is above the highest
astronomical tidal level or below the lowest astronomical tidal level.
3.8 Sea Surface Temperature
Site-specific air temperature data are used to engineer adequate fracture toughness in
ship-shaped offshore installations that are to be used in sites exposed to sub-zero
temperatures, and to engineer corrosion protection in installations to be used in sites
exposed to high temperature and humidity. In addition, the performance of an offshore
installation is substantially affected by the sea surface temperature, and this factor
must be considered during design and construction. Thus, the concept of a probable
extreme sea surface temperature is used. This is defined as the sea surface temperature
3.9 Snow and Icing 101
that will probably never be exceeded, rather than as a statistical extreme value with a
specified return period. The probable extreme sea surface temperature is greater than
the extreme sea surface temperature during a relevant return period, such as 50 or 100
years, and occurs less frequently than the extreme air temperature. In industry practice,
the design air temperature is defined with reference to site-specific data (Bridges et al.
2018), which comprise
the mean daily high temperature;

the mean daily average temperature;
the lowest mean daily average temperature;
the mean daily low temperature;
the lowest mean daily low temperature;
the absolute maximum temperature and
the absolute minimum temperature.
In Arctic regions, the mean daily temperature in winter is 40 C, and the lowest
mean daily low temperature is reportedly 68 C (www.athropolis.com). As noted,
site-specific sea surface temperatures are used for the fracture toughness engineering
of ship-shaped offshore installations exposed to sub-zero temperatures. Fracture
toughness engineering is also critical to the design of various onboard systems and
structures that respond slowly to changes in air temperature. Furthermore, year-round
temperature and humidity data are critical for the engineering of heating and cooling
systems and for optimising corrosion control. In areas such as West Africa, for
example, temperature and humidity remain uniformly high year-round and are there-
fore key factors when considering the selection of a corrosion margin and a corrosion
protection scheme for an offshore installation.
3.9 Snow and Icing
The extent to which snow and ice may accumulate on a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation depends on its intended area of operation. Risk mitigation measures are
required, such as ensuring an offshore installation has adequate structural strength
and stability and is equipped with a local heating capability. Procedures for the
physical removal of snow and ice must be specified for use in locations where snow
and ice accumulate beyond the maximum permissible levels. Snow is more likely to
accumulate than ice, particularly on windward-facing non-horizontal parts of an
offshore installation. However, snow may freeze into ice, and thus excess accumulated
snow must be removed by blowing once it is dry or by other means. Ice forms when
the temperature of seawater is approximately 6 C or lower and the air temperature is
lower than 0 C. In these conditions, the breaking or spraying of water over the deck of
an offshore installation can lead to the formation of ice on the deck and topside areas.
This may reduce the metacentric height of an offshore installation and thus affect its
stability. As temperatures in Arctic areas can be lower than 35 C, icing is always a
problem when offshore installations operate in these regions.
Table 3.8. Mean ice thickness in various cold seas
Sea Mean ice thickness (mm)
Kara Sea (Arctic) 1800

Sea of Okhotsk (East Siberia/Sakhalin) 1400
Barents Sea (Arctic) 1200
White Sea 800
Black Sea (Sea of Azov) 700
Caspian Sea 700
Baltic Sea (Gulf of Finland/Gulf of Bothnia) 400–800
Offshore installations that operate in icebound areas may suffer impacts from
growlers, bergy bits and even entire icebergs, and this must be considered during
the structural design. The design of ice-strengthened structures is a specialised area of
the design of offshore installations that are destined for operation in areas with
seasonal or year-round ice, and is modelled as a problem of a collision between an
offshore installation or supply ship and an iceberg (described in Chapters 8 and 13).
There are similar hazards associated with the logistics of transporting spare parts and
supplies to offshore installations in such areas, which feature narrow non-ice-bound
time windows. The ice thickness and related pressures are critical parameters that
affect the structural design of icebreakers. Table 3.8 lists the ice thicknesses in various
cold seas.
3.10 Marine Growth
Like ships and all other marine structures, ship-shaped offshore installations are
invariably fouled with marine growth. Although the removal of marine growth is
straightforward during dry-docking, on site hull cleaning is expensive. During the
early life of an offshore installation, marine growth can be reduced or prevented by
using anti-fouling paints, although most such paints are more effective when used on
moving rather than stationary objects (Vinagre et al. 2020). For design purposes, a
marine growth profile is specified in terms of the growth thickness and roughness as a
function of water depth.
3.11 Seafloor Earthquakes and Tsunami
Seafloor earthquakes are a safety concern for both fixed offshore platforms and
floating offshore installations, as these may lead to hazards associated with damage
to sensitive equipment, for example, damaged nuclear reactors in a ship-shaped
nuclear power plant or a fire initiated by a broken gas line, riser and/or power line.
Useful textbooks have detailed the earthquake engineering of offshore and land-based
structures (Jia 2016; Estrada and Lee 2017; Pitilakis 2018; Jia and Paik 2019).
3.11 Seafloor Earthquakes and Tsunami 103
1500 x-component
1000 x-direction (surge)
500
0
–500
–1000
0 10 20 30 40
Acceleration (m/s2)
Time (s)
1000 y-component
500 y-direction (sway)
0
–500
–1000
–1500
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
800
z-direction (heave)
400
–400
–800
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
Figure 3.10 Three components of seafloor earthquake acceleration
However, although studies have explored the ultimate strength and seismic per-
formance against the pushover of fixed offshore platforms (Kayvani and Barzegar
1996; Asgarian and Agheshlui 2009; Golafshani et al. 2009; Konstandakopoulou et al.
2020), few have explored these aspects with regard to ship-shaped offshore instal-
lations; see Chapter 11 for details.
Seafloor earthquake data are available for shallow (Boore and Smith 1999) and
relatively deep waters (Ambraseys and Douglas 2003). Figure 3.10 presents an
example of the seafloor earthquake acceleration components in three directions, where
the persistence period of a seafloor earthquake is more than 40 s and the peak
accelerations last for a few s. The dynamic responses of a ship-shaped offshore
installation to a seafloor earthquake are simulated using a nonlinear finite element
method (described in Chapter 11), and the acceleration characteristics of sensitive
equipment inside the vessel are also identified. The geometric and material nonlinea-
rities of hull structures and soil are considered in a seismic response analysis. The
effects of the interactions between a hull, soil and surrounding water are taken into
account, with the distance between a hull bottom and the seafloor being a
crucial parameter.
A tsunami is generated by a seafloor earthquake. Tsunami wave impacts can cause
structural damage to the topside modules of ship-shaped offshore installations. Thus,
the motions of an offshore installation caused by a seafloor earthquake are first
characterised, and then safety engineering for green water is applied to account for the
effects of a tsunami wave impact.
3.12 Tank Sloshing
The acceleration arising from the motion of a ship in the seaway generates the sloshing
of liquid in partially filled tanks, which affects tank structures. The motions of liquid
cargo in partially filled oil or liquefied gas tanks may produce significant sloshing
actions, and the tank structures must be sufficiently strong to withstand these actions.
This is of particular concern in ship-shaped offshore installations formed by the
conversion of trading tankers; unlike ballast tanks, the cargo tanks of these trading
tankers may not have been designed to be partially filled. However, as the cargo tanks
of moored offshore installations are continuously loaded and unloaded, sloshing may
be unavoidable.
The development of resonance between the natural sloshing period of a partially
liquid-filled tank and the roll or pitch period of an entire offshore installation structure
is of primary concern. This problem may be exacerbated by the recent trend of using
large, wide tanks to reduce the number of required tanks and construction costs, as
larger tanks have a longer natural sloshing period. This trend may also complicate the
design for on site maintenance and repair, which may involve hot work, as a larger
number of tanks are generally preferable in this regard.
Sloshing causes impact pressure actions and consequent structural damage.
Increased non-impact pressures may also occur. This impact pressure problem has
been examined in hydrodynamics studies and structural mechanics studies. The
former have identified the impact pressure profile in terms of pressure versus time
histories, while the latter have identified dynamic structural responses, such as
damage from applied impact pressure actions. Although sloshing requirements are
addressed in classification society rules, structural efficiency necessitates the use of
more refined approaches based on impact pressure parameters, such as the peak
pressure and impact duration, as these comprehensively analyse problems caused by
the wave-impact, including structural damage. The current classification society
rules with respect to the structural criteria for designing against impact pressure
actions are based on a quasi-static equivalence concept, which defines an equivalent
quasi-static pressure situation instead of a real impact pressure situation. Thus, these
rules may not adequately reflect the impact pressure characteristics, such that the
estimates of sloshing-induced structural damage based on these rules are much too
low in some cases and too high in other cases. This observation demonstrates that
the use of a quasi-static equivalence concept does not provide a consistent strength
assessment in such scenarios. However, workable design procedures for cargo tanks
can be attained by appropriate calibration (i.e., by comparing designs that did and
did not incur sloshing damage).
For practical design purposes, the effect of impact pressure actions on structural
behaviour is idealised within three domains of structural response, depending on the
3.12 Tank Sloshing 105
ratio of the duration of the impact actions to the fundamental period of vibration of the
ship-shaped offshore installation structure (NORSOK 1999): These are
a quasi-static domain (when 3 t=T);

a dynamic/impact domain (when 0:3 t=T < 3) and
an impulsive domain (when t=T < 0:3),
where t is the duration of impact actions and T is the fundamental period of vibration
of the structure.
The profile of the impact pressure actions is characterised in terms of four param-
eters: (a) the rise time until the peak pressure is reached, (b) the peak pressure, (c) the
pressure decay beyond the peak pressure and (d) the pressure persistence (duration)
time. The peak pressure value may be two to three times the collapse pressure loads of
the structural components under quasi-static actions. The rise time is very short,
typically a few ms or less in duration, while the persistence time of the impact pressure
is often 10–50 ms. Despite these very short persistence times, an impulse may be very
large, and thus the impact pressure actions may cause substantial structural damage.
Adequate modelling and design are therefore critical to ensure that structurally sound
cargo tanks are obtained. In industry practice, impact pressure load profiles are often
idealised using a rectangular or triangular profile, as shown in Figure 3.11.
Another important aspect is damage accumulation. Sloshing impact pressure
actions are applied repeatedly, and thus the resulting structural damage is cumulative
and may lead to fatigue cracking and fracture in severe cases. In this regard,
hydrodynamics studies must also characterise structural responses in terms of the
short-term or long-term time history of impact pressure actions to enable low-cycle
fatigue and fracture analyses.
The sloshing impact mitigation measures used in the design of ship-shaped off-
shore installations are similar to those used in trading ships. For example, the size of a
tank or compartments that are exposed to sloshing impact can be decreased by
minimising bulkhead spacing or by fitting sloshing bulkheads, as this can alter the
natural period of sloshing resonance within a partially filled tank beyond the range of
hull resonance. Alternatively, or additionally, tank boundary scantlings can be
Impact Pressure Load
Impact Pressure Load
Time Time
Figure 3.11 Idealisations of impact pressure load profiles
strengthened to withstand sloshing impacts. This is a workable approach because not

all of a tank structure is adversely affected by sloshing. Thus, structural strengthening
is only required in certain parts of a tank and its support structure.
3.13 Slamming
Slamming may occur in transit or during the operation of a ship-shaped offshore

installation, resulting in structural damage, for example, buckling or tripping of local
members. In a benign site, the slamming impact pressure actions on an offshore
installation may be less severe than those on a trading tanker at sea. However,
slamming may become a significant safety concern in a harsh environment, particu-
larly when waves approach the bow or stern at a heading angle of 15 –30 . In
addition, the nature of a slamming impact depends on the shape of the bow or stern
of a hull. It is challenging to mitigate bow impact pressure loads on a hull with a full,
rounded shape that comprises a raised forecastle and bulwark. However, measures to
mitigate the impact of green water require increases in the height of the forecastle and
bulwark to prevent freeboard exceedance at the bow. The bow shape of a ship-shaped
offshore installation converted from a trading tanker cannot be changed, but that of a
new-build offshore installation can be optimised to mitigate bow-slamming impacts
and green water effects.
Two types of bow shape are relevant: a full rounded (or semi-ellipsoidal) bow and a
sharp bow with or without a rounded extremity. The former provides maximum
buoyancy for minimum steel weight, because of its low surface, and the maximised
buoyancy enhances the bow-rise in wave crests. This may also assist the natural
weathervaning capability of an offshore installation. However, a rounded bow has a
larger flat surface area, which may be more vulnerable to damage from slamming
impacts. A sharper bow minimises slamming impacts, although these may be rela-
tively severe in oblique seas with non-collinear wind, wave and current conditions.
Bows with a complex shape are expensive to construct and may have comparatively
less tank space and forward deck area, which would complicate the integration of
structures such as forward mounted turrets.
3.14 Green Water
Green water occurs when unbroken waves overtop the bow, side or stern structures of
a ship-shaped offshore installation. Its occurrence depends on various factors, such as
the relative motion of the waves and a hull, the wave speed, the freeboard of an
offshore installation and the harshness of the environment. Green water is a particular
safety problem on offshore installation sites in areas with harsh environmental condi-
tions, as it may cause damage to deck housing, deck-mounted equipment (e.g., switch
room compartments), watertight doors, walkway ladders and cable trays. Green water
may not pose a direct threat to the integrity of the hull, but it may make an offshore
3.14 Green Water 107
installation more vulnerable to unintended flooding during accidental events, and

would thus constitute a threat to onboard workers. Moreover, damage due to green
water must be repaired, which may require production downtime.
The bow and sides of a single-point moored ship-shaped offshore installation can
take on green water as a result of the actions of wind, waves and current. Green water
may also occur on an offshore installation without a poop deckhouse. The prediction
of freeboard exceedance at various locations around the deck of an offshore instal-
lation is highly dependent on the relative orientation of its hull to approaching waves.
It may be challenging to predict the quasi-static and dynamic components of the
heading of an offshore installation relative to the incoming waves, and such predic-
tions typically require the calculation of nonlinear ship motions or similar variables.
Physical model-based testing is also desirable. The profile of an impact pressure load
arising from green water is similar to that of a load resulting from sloshing or
slamming.
Green water commonly occurs on trading tankers in heavy weather and under laden
conditions but it does not usually affect transportation, except in the case of freak or
abnormal waves. The deck structures of trading tankers are designed to withstand
pressures approximately equivalent to those at a water depth of 2.44 m (8 ft), which
provides some strength against green water effects. This load criterion is based on the
real-life experiences of trading tankers. However, similar certainty is not available for
ship-shaped offshore installations, which are likely to be more affected by green
water. Accordingly, and because the design conditions for green water are difficult
to predict, a relatively conservative view, if possible, may be needed for the green
water design of offshore installations. For example, a high water head of 2.5–5 m is
applied in the design of some offshore installations.
With respect to green water events in terms of freeboard exceedance at the bow of
an offshore installation, head seas may have the most severe action effects, particu-
larly on deck housings, fixings and equipment located along the middle of the deck. In
this regard, the application of head sea data may afford somewhat conservative
practical results relevant to the bow equipment design because the waves at the bow
may approach from various heading angles of 30 . It is usually more difficult to
determine the design conditions for evaluating green water along the side or at the
stern of an offshore installation than at the bow. This is because the level of freeboard
exceedance along the side and the subsequent flow of water across or along the deck is
strongly influenced by the relative direction of the incoming wind-driven sea and by
the static heel and roll motions of the offshore installation.
Large roll motions often occur in beam seas or swells with a frequency close to the
roll frequency of an offshore installation. In addition, green water may enter over the
sides of an offshore installation as a result of severe roll motions caused by unusual
yaw motions of the offshore installation and/or a breakdown of the heading control
system, including the thrusters. If the maximum freeboard exceedance is known, other
aspects, such as the water height and impact pressure loads, are calculated based on
relationships determined from model tests. To mitigate the effects of green water
impacts, the deck structures and equipment may be designed to withstand green water
impact loads, and the freeboard may be increased to reduce the occurrence of
green water.
Physical and operational measures to protect against green water may include
installing bow and side protection structures, such as higher bulwarks;

increasing the height of the poop deck or bulwark;
increasing the height of equipment and piping;
installing protection for the process unit, deck equipment, cable trays, hydrant and
evacuation equipment;
operating with a stern trim when bow green water is of concern;
making heading changes to reduce wave incidence angles and green water
occurrence and/or
providing safe escape routes from green water zones for workers.
References
Akbari, H., Panahi, R. and Amani, L. (2020). ‘Improvement of double-peaked spectra:
Revisiting the combination of the Gaussian and the JONSWAP models’. Ocean
Engineering, 198, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.106965.
Ambraseys, N. N. and Douglas, J. (2003). ‘Near-field horizontal and vertical earthquake ground
motions’. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 23(1): 1–18.
API (1991). Recommended Practice for Design, Analysis and Maintenance for Mooring for
Floating Production Systems. API RP 2FP1, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
API (1993a). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms: Working Stress Design. API RP 2A-WSD, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington, DC.
API (1993b). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms: Load and Resistance Factor Design. API RP 2A-LRFD, American Petroleum
Institute, Washington, DC.
Asgarian, B. and Agheshlui, H. (2009). ‘Reliability-based earthquake design of jacket-type
offshore platforms considering pile-soil-structure interaction’. American Journal of Applied
Sciences, 6(4): 631–637.
Bangga, G., Dessoky, A., Wu, Z., Rogowski, K. (2020). ‘Accuracy and consistency of CFD and
engineering models for simulating vertical axis wind turbine loads’. Energy, 206, doi:
10.1016/j.energy.2020.118087.
Barltrop, N. D. P. (1998). Floating Structures: A Guide for Design and Analysis. The Centre for
Marine and Petroleum Technology (CMPT). Oilfield Publications Ltd., Herefordshire.
Belloli, M., Bayati, I., Facchinetti, A., Fontanella, A., Giberti, H., La Mura, F. and Tafuffi, F.
(2020). ‘A hybrid methodology for wind tunnel testing of floating offshore wind turbines’.
Ocean Engineering, 210, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107592.
Boore, D. M. and Smith, C. E. (1999). ‘Analysis of earthquake recordings obtained from the
seafloor earthquake measurement system (SEMS) instruments deployed off the cost of
southern California.’ Bulletin of the Seismological Society of America, 89(1): 260–274.
Bridges, R., Riska, K., Lu. L., du-Couedic-de-Kererant, M. and Aubert, J. M. (2018). ‘A study
on the specification of minimum design air temperature for ships and offshore structures’.
Ocean Engineering, 160: 478–489.
References 109
Burmester, S., Vaz, G. and Moctar, O. (2020). ‘Towards credible CFD simulations for floating
offshore wind turbines’. Ocean Engineering, 209, doi: 10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.107237.
Chakrabarti, S. K. (2005). Handbook of Offshore Engineering (Volume 1). Elsevier, London.
DEn (1990). Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification. The
Department of Energy, London.
DNV (2019). Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads. Recommended Practice
DNV-RP-C205, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2020). Offshore Standards: Structural Design of Offshore Ship-Shaped Units. Det
Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Estrada, H. and Lee, L. S. (2017). Introduction to Earthquake Engineering. CRC Press,
New York.
Faltinsen, O. M. (1990). Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures. Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.
Golafshani, A. A., Tabeshpour, M. R. and Komachi, Y. (2009). ‘FEMA approaches in seismic
assessment of jacket platforms (case study: resslat jacket of Persian Gulf )’. Journal of
Constructional Steel Research, 65(10–11): 1979–1986.
Hasselmann, K., Ross, B., Muller, P. and Sell, W. (1976). ‘A parametric wave prediction
model’. Journal of Physical Oceanography, 6: 200–228.
Hogben, N. and Lumb, F. E. (1967). Ocean Wave Statistics. HMSO, National Physical
Laboratory, London.
HSE (1989). Metocean parameters – Parameters other than waves – Supporting document to
‘Offshore installations: Guidance on design, construction and certification – Environmental
consideration’. Offshore Technology Report, OTH 1989/299, Health and Safety Executive,
London.
HSE (2001). Environmental Considerations. Offshore Technology Report, OTC 2001/010,
Health and Safety Executive, London.
Janssen, W. D., Blocken, B. and van Wijhe, H. J. (2017). ‘CFD simulations of wind loads on a
container ship: validation and impact of geometrical simplifications’. Journal of Wind
Engineering and Industrial Aerodynamics, 166: 106–116.
Jia, J. (2016). Modern Earthquake Engineering: Offshore and Land-Based Structures. Springer,
Berlin.
Jia, J. and Paik, J. K. (2019). Engineering Dynamics and Vibrations: Recent Developments.
CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, Boca Raton, FL.
Kayvani, K. and Barzegar, F. (1996). ‘Hysteric modelling of tubular members and offshore
platforms’. Engineering Structures, 18(2): 93–101.
Konstandakopoulou, F. D., Evangelinos, K. I., Nikolaou, I. E., Paragiannopoulos, G.A. and
Pnematikos, N. G. (2020). ‘Seismic analysis of offshore platforms subjected to pulse-type
ground motions compatible with European Standards’. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering, 129, doi: 10.1016/j.osildyn.2019.105713.
Lee, W. T., Bales, W. L. and Stowby, S. E. (1985). Standardized Wind and Wave Environments
for North Pacific Ocean Areas. DTNSRDC, R/SPD-0919-02, Washington, DC.
Lonseth, L. and Kvitrud, A. (1997). 20 Years of Metocean Data Collection on the Northern
Norwegian Continental Shelf. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 8270, Houston, TX,
5–8 May.
Lucas, C., Boukhanovsky, A. and Guedes Sores, C. (2011). ‘Modeling the climatic variability
of directional wave spectra’. Ocean Engineering, 38(11–12): 1283–1290.
NORSOK (1999). Design of Steel Structures: N004. Norwegian Standards, Oslo.
Ochi, M. K. (1978). ‘Wave statistics for the design of ships and ocean structures’. SNAME
Transactions, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Alexandria, VA, 86:
47–76.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Kim, S. J., Thomas, G. and Ma, M. (2019). ‘A new method for
determining the design values of wave-induced hull girder loads acting on ships’. Ships
and Offshore Structures, 14(S1): S63–S90.
Pierson, W. J. and Moskowitz, L. M. (1964). ‘A proposed spectral form for fully developed
wind, seas, etc’. Journal of Geophysical Research, 69: 5181–5190.
Pitilakis, K. (2018). Recent Advances in Earthquake Engineering in Europe. Springer, Berlin.
Saydam, A.Z. and Taylan, M. (2018). ‘Evaluation of wind loads on ships by CFD analysis’.
UKOOA (2002). FPSO Design Guidance Notes for UKCS Service. Offshore Operators
Association, London.
Vinage, P. A., Simas, T., Cruz, E., Pinori, E. and Svenson, J. (2020). ‘Marine biofouling: a
European database for the marine renewable energy sector.’ Journal of Marine Science and
Engineering, 8, doi: 10.3390/jmse8070495.
Zhang, Q. and Zheng, X. Y. (2019). ‘Offshore earthquake ground motions: Distinct features and
influence on the seismic design of marine structures’. Marine Structures, 65: 291–307.
4 Site-Specific Wave-Induced Hull
Girder Loads
4.1 Principles of Hull Girder Load Prediction
Site-specific wave-induced hull girder loads must be calculated to enable the ultimate
limit state (ULS) engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations (described in
Chapters 7 and 15). Unlike trading ships which are associated with sea states of the
twnenty-five-year unrestricted service condition in the North Atlantic Ocean, wave-
induced hull girder loads of ship-shaped offshore installations are defined in associ-
ation with survival conditions of most probable extreme waves for a one-hundred-year
return period as far as they always remain on site. However, ship-shaped offshore
installations with single-point or turret mooring systems can be disconnected if
extreme environmental loads are imminent, sailed to sheltered areas and then returned
to restart operation when the weather calms (described in Section 9.4). Also, environ-
mental conditions in some regions may be fully benign accommodating spread
mooring systems. In this case, their wave-induced hull girder loads may be defined
in association with benign conditions which represent similar environments to those of
trading ships but reflecting site-specific metocean data.
The design values of hull girder loads as functions of the principal dimensions can
be determined for trading ships by using various closed-form equations (IACS 2020),
while direct computations are obviously more refined to define wave-induced loads
taking into account the effects of environmental and operational conditions (Paik et al.
2019). However, similar design equations are not available for ship-shaped offshore
installations, which are subject to site-specific environmental conditions. Furthermore,
ocean environmental conditions are random and probabilistic in nature, and thus the
motions of offshore installations in combinations of waves, wind and current cannot
always be characterised via prescriptive approaches.
In industry practice, two approaches are used to determine the design structural
loads (shown in Figure 4.1) (Paik et al. 2019; Paik 2020). The first approach involves
the definition of design actions (e.g., design waves) that represent structural actions,
and then the determination of design structural loads by motion and load analyses of
the structures at the predefined design actions. The second approach involves the
selection of action scenarios that are associated with structural actions, and then
the performance of motion and load analyses for each of the selected scenarios. The
design structural loads are thereby determined from the relationship between the
112 Site-Specific Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads
Environment Structural Actions Operation
Characterisation of Random Parameters Affecting Structural Actions
Definition of Design Actions Selection of Action Scenarios
Motion and Load Analysis
Probability of Exceedance
Determination of Design Structural Actions
Figure 4.1 Two approaches for defining design structural loads
probability of exceedance and the structural load, with similar levels of risk accept-
ance applied to similar types of structural systems.
In the shipbuilding industry, structural loads have been determined using the first
approach, which may be difficult to apply to ship-shaped offshore installations that are
equipped with mooring systems and experience site-specific environmental condi-
tions. The second approach is more suitable, as it more precisely incorporates site-
specific metocean data and mooring system features. Figure 4.2 presents the details of
the second approach as applied for the determination of site-specific hull girder loads
acting on ship-shaped offshore installations. Design hull girder loads under extreme
environmental conditions that have a very low probability of occurring are determined
via a separate survival analysis described in Section 4.9 (shown in Figure 4.3).
However, structural scantlings that are constructed based on survival analyses are
too heavy and uneconomical. Instead, operational safety measures are applied to avoid
severe damage, such as the use of disconnectable mooring systems (described in
Chapter 9).
4.2 Parameters That Affect Hull Girder Loads
The hull girder loads of a ship-shaped offshore installation at site-specific sea states
are governed by seven parameters that are random in nature. These are
wind speed, X 1 ;
wind direction, X 2 ;
wave height, X 3 ;
4.2 Parameters That Affect Hull Girder Loads 113
Hull Form, Loading Condition, Load Waterline Hull Data Principal Dimensions, Structural Geometry, Equipment
Weight and Buoyancy Distributions 3D Hull FE Model Buoyancy, Trim, Centre of Gravity
Site-Specific Metocean Data Probability Density Functions of Random Parameters Wave Height, Wave Period, Wave Angle
Sampling Technique Probabilistic Selection of Scenarios
CFD Simulations Motion and Load Analysis
Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads
Acceptance Criteria Design Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads
Figure 4.2 Probabilistic procedure for determining the design hull girder loads acting on a
ship-shaped offshore installation (where 3D ¼ three dimensional and CFD ¼ computational
fluid dynamics)
Site-Specific Metocean Data Selection of Extreme Conditions Hydrodynamic Load Analysis
Safety Measures Structural Scantlings Hull Girder Loads
Figure 4.3 Procedure for predicting the design hull girder loads on a ship-shaped offshore
installation under extreme conditions
wave period, X 4 ;
wave direction, X 5 ;
current speed, X 6 and
current direction, X 7
The combined effects of waves, wind and current must be taken into account when
determining the hull girder loads acting on ship-shaped offshore installations,
although this is not required when determining the hull girder loads of trading ships.
Hull girder loads are also affected differently by various types of mooring systems
(described in Chapter 9), as the orientation of the load varies with the mooring system.
This is because ship-shaped offshore installations are moored such that they are
subject to head seas most likely to have a wave angle of 180 following the same
coordinate (showin in Figure 3.2).
4.3 Site-Specific Wave Data at Nautical Zones
Site-specific wave data at the nautical zones defined in Figure 4.4 are available in the
literature (DNV 2019). In industry practice, the probability density functions of the
significant wave height and average zero-up-crossing wave period are often assumed
to follow a two-parameter Weibull function and a log-normal function, respectively.
The two-parameter Weibull function for the significant wave height H s is as
follows:
" #
β H s β1 Hs β
f ðH s Þ ¼ exp , H s 0: (4.1a)
α α α
The log-normal function for the average zero-up-crossing wave period T z is as

follows:
" #
1 ð ln T z μÞ2
f ðT z Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , T z 0, (4.1b)
T z 2π σ 2σ 2
where α, β, μ and σ are the coefficients. DNV (2019) derived the coefficients of
Equation (4.1), with μ ¼ 0:70 þ a1 H as 2 and σ ¼ 0:07 þ b1 eb2 H s , for each of the naut-
ical zones indicated in Table 4.1.
4.4 Site-Specific Wave Database of Six Seas
Site-specific wave data are presented for the following six locations: the North Sea, the
Gulf of Mexico, the western coast of Africa, the eastern coast of South America, the
southeastern coast of Asia and the northwestern coast of Australia. The representative
floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) ship-shaped offshore installations
are sited at these locations (shown in Figure 4.5 and Table 4.2). The numbers of the
corresponding nautical zones are also indicated in Table 4.2. Tables 4.3–4.8 provide
the site-specific wave data obtained from the Danish Hydrological Institute (DHI)
metocean data portal (www.dhigroup.com/marine-water/metocean-data-portal), where
H s is the significant wave height in m and T z is the average zero-up-crossing wave
period in s.
4.5 Probability Density Functions of the Wave Parameters in Six Seas
The best-fit probability density functions of various wave parameters associated with
the site-specific wave data, such as the significant wave height, average zero-up-
crossing wave period and wave heading angle, are formulated using the methods
described in chapter 2 of Paik (2020). Figures 4.6–4.8 show the resulting probability
density distributions of the wave parameters at the six locations.
Longitude
180° 150° 120° 90° 60° 30° 0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°
90° 90°
1
2 3 4
60° 6 5 60°
8 9 10 11 12
12 7
15 16 17
20 13 14 18 19 20
23 24 25 26 27
30 21 28 29 30
30° 22
32 33 34 35 38 30°
43 31 39 41 42 43
36 37 40
44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53
Latitude
55 56 57 58 60 61 62 63
0° 54 59 0°
71 64 66 69 70 71
65 67 68
72 73
74 75 76 77 78 79 80
81 82 84
30° 83 85 30°
86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 86
102 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102

103 104
60° 60°
90° 90°
180° 150° 120° 90° 60° 30° 0° 30° 60° 90° 120° 150° 180°
Figure 4.4 Illustration of worldwide nautical zones

Table 4.1. Coefficients of Equation (4.1)
Zone α β a1 a2 b1 b2 Zone α β a1 a2 b1 b2
1 2.33 1.33 0.974 0.205 0.1263 0.0201 53 2.56 1.93 1.188 0.129 0.1041 0.0091
2 1.96 1.34 0.994 0.175 0.1414 0.0238 54 2.45 2.19 1.176 0.168 0.1097 0.0091
3 2.74 1.35 1.127 0.160 0.1255 0.0912 55 1.83 1.96 1.046 0.143 0.1542 0.0191
4 2.84 1.53 1.125 0.150 0.0978 0.0074 56 2.40 2.18 1.157 0.157 0.1067 0.0169
5 1.76 1.59 0.828 0.167 0.3449 0.2073 57 2.17 2.19 1.083 0.214 0.1202 0.0173
6 2.76 1.45 1.128 0.154 0.0964 0.0066 58 1.85 2.08 1.013 0.165 0.1578 0.0248
7 3.39 1.75 1.256 0.118 0.0809 0.0069 59 2.02 1.76 1.025 0.159 0.1432 0.0254
8 3.47 1.57 1.272 0.114 0.0728 0.0015 60 1.93 1.39 1.057 0.145 0.1349 0.0215
9 3.56 1.61 1.260 0.119 0.0755 0.0054 61 2.10 1.82 1.080 0.132 0.1300 0.0261
10 2.45 1.37 1.036 0.181 0.1166 0.0137 62 1.73 1.39 0.871 0.214 0.1941 0.0266
11 2.19 1.26 0.935 0.222 0.1386 0.0208 63 1.88 1.70 1.026 0.155 0.1477 0.0224
12 3.31 1.56 1.150 0.150 0.0934 0.0409 64 2.34 2.16 1.138 0.186 0.1134 0.0062
13 3.18 1.64 1.257 0.111 0.0850 0.0032 65 2.02 1.90 1.132 0.169 0.1187 0.0125
14 2.62 1.46 1.215 0.115 0.0976 0.0111 66 2.33 2.15 1.115 0.183 0.1192 0.0203
15 3.09 1.50 1.207 0.134 0.0855 0.0124 67 2.43 2.21 1.159 0.155 0.1056 0.0194
16 3.42 1.56 1.243 0.126 0.0898 0.0528 68 2.42 2.16 1.121 0.155 0.1243 0.0151
17 2.77 1.41 1.197 0.135 0.0954 0.0083 69 2.23 1.89 1.177 0.124 0.1176 0.0101
18 1.66 1.14 1.310 0.121 0.4006 0.2123 70 2.32 1.84 1.170 0.167 0.1659 0.2086
19 2.48 1.35 1.085 0.166 0.1071 0.0096 71 1.79 1.69 1.005 0.147 0.1602 0.0309
20 3.15 1.48 1.196 0.139 0.0914 0.0248 72 2.44 1.93 1.158 0.187 0.1068 0.011
21 2.97 1.69 1.249 0.111 0.1044 0.0452 73 2.80 2.26 1.174 0.182 0.1050 0.0493
22 2.29 1.72 1.139 0.117 0.1160 0.0177 74 2.23 1.69 1.143 0.148 0.1148 0.0087
23 2.23 1.39 1.039 0.167 0.1248 0.0131 75 2.69 1.67 1.216 0.118 0.0991 0.0103
24 2.95 1.48 1.211 0.131 0.0859 0.0059 76 2.86 1.77 1.218 0.143 0.1016 0.0251
25 2.90 1.61 1.268 0.096 0.1055 0.0521 77 3.04 1.83 1.213 0.152 0.0844 0
26 1.81 1.30 0.858 0.232 0.1955 0.0497 78 2.60 1.70 1.244 0.073 0.1060 0.0059
27 1.76 1.30 0.880 0.218 0.1879 0.0419 79 2.18 1.53 1.069 0.131 0.1286 0.0173
28 1.81 1.28 0.841 0.241 0.1977 0.0498 80 2.54 1.70 1.201 0.131 0.1019 0.0101
29 2.31 1.38 0.976 0.197 0.1288 0.0184 81 2.83 1.71 1.218 0.144 0.1017 0.0258
30 3.14 1.56 1.243 0.118 0.0861 0.0122 82 2.84 1.94 1.209 0.146 0.0911 0
31 2.62 1.79 1.219 0.126 0.1022 0.0116 83 2.60 1.83 1.214 0.132 0.1076 0.008
32 1.81 1.47 0.950 0.158 0.1685 0.0312 84 2.92 2.10 1.190 0.170 0.1018 0.0972
33 2.17 1.66 1.111 0.135 0.1191 0.0147 85 3.32 1.94 1.226 0.145 0.0947 0.0505
34 2.46 1.70 1.189 0.141 0.1059 0.0055 86 2.91 1.54 1.261 0.111 0.0865 0.0031
35 2.74 2.05 1.219 0.128 0.1097 0.0101 87 2.43 1.40 1.203 0.129 0.1009 0.0072
36 2.32 1.82 1.111 0.143 0.1165 0.0189 88 3.35 1.75 1.248 0.128 0.0842 0.0194
37 1.66 1.53 0.815 0.199 0.2754 0.1051 89 3.02 1.45 1.249 0.124 0.0938 0.0444
38 1.23 1.24 0.616 0.332 0.3204 0.0054 90 3.35 1.59 1.266 0.116 0.0766 0.0051
39 1.74 1.37 0.798 0.239 0.2571 0.0908 91 3.54 1.68 1.281 0.110 0.0829 0.04
40 2.36 1.42 0.975 0.195 0.1288 0.0214 92 3.42 1.71 1.283 0.105 0.0831 0.023
41 2.47 1.50 1.044 0.161 0.1166 0.0158 93 2.66 1.45 1.233 0.119 0.1011 0.0198
42 2.32 1.41 1.121 0.128 0.1159 0.0118 94 3.89 1.69 1.296 0.112 0.0632 0
43 2.78 1.78 1.222 0.124 0.1029 0.0078 95 3.71 1.93 1.256 0.131 0.0726 0.0022
44 2.83 2.17 1.181 0.149 0.1005 0.0124 96 2.65 1.47 1.200 0.110 0.0986 0.0103
45 2.60 2.07 1.177 0.173 0.1017 0.0258 97 3.61 1.63 1.279 0.114 0.0733 0.0029
46 1.76 1.44 1.070 0.139 0.1365 0.0306 98 3.53 1.70 1.248 0.135 0.0744 0.0025
47 2.30 1.78 1.058 0.149 0.1301 0.025 99 4.07 1.77 1.305 0.106 0.0614 0.0011
48 2.55 2.20 1.160 0.172 0.1048 0.0233 100 3.76 1.54 1.279 0.120 0.0636 0.0006
49 2.50 2.13 1.141 0.149 0.1223 0.0123 101 3.21 1.57 1.261 0.116 0.0934 0.0049
50 2.05 1.28 0.879 0.237 0.1651 0.0344 102 3.08 1.60 1.243 0.130 0.0833 0.0046
51 1.78 1.44 0.952 0.159 0.1763 0.0544 103 3.52 1.58 1.253 0.122 0.0758 0.0056
52 2.14 1.50 1.072 0.133 0.1271 0.0245 104 2.97 1.57 1.267 0.108 0.0847 0.0049
Table 4.2. Representative floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) ship-shaped offshore installations in
six seas
Nautical Length Breadth Depth

Location FPSO Latitude Longitude Zone (m) (m) (m)
North Sea PETROJARL 61.78 N 2.83 E 4 244.0 48.0 26.6

KNARR
Gulf of Mexico YÙUM K’AK’ 19.60 N 92.30 W 46 340.0 65.0 31.5
NÁAB
Western coast of EGINA 3.05 N 6.70 E 58 330.0 61.0 32.5
Africa
Eastern coast of South PETROBRAS-67 25.33 S 42.69 W 74 288.0 54.0 31.0
America
Southeastern coast PFLNG SATU 6.45 N 115.44 E 62 300.0 60.0 33.0
of Asia
Northwestern coast of PRELUDE 13.79 S 123.31 E 78 473.6 74.0 43.3
Australia
PETROJARL KNARR
(61.78oN, 2.83oE)
PFLNG SATU
(6.45oN, 115.44oE)
YÙUM K'AK' NÁAB
(19.60oN, 92.30oW)
EGINA
(3.05oN, 6.70oE) PRELUDE
(13.79oS, 123.31oE)
PETROBRAS
(25.33oS, 42.69oW)
Figure 4.5 Locations of the six representative floating production, storage and offloading
ship-shaped offshore installations
Table 4.3(a). Wave height (Hs) and period (Tz) data for the North Sea
Hs/Tz 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 Total
13.5–14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
13–13.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
12.5–13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
12–12.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.03
11.5–12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.03
11–11.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.04
10.5–11 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.06
10–10.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.03 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.08
9.5–10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.12
9–9.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.08 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.18
8.5–9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.27
8–8.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.16 0.11 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.33
7.5–8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.26 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.51
7–7.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.20 0.39 0.13 0.04 0.01 0.01 0.79
6.5–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.41 0.45 0.15 0.04 0.01 0.00 1.10
6–6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10 0.69 0.45 0.16 0.05 0.01 0.01 1.47
5.5–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 0.99 0.41 0.18 0.06 0.02 0.01 2.03
5–5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.89 1.17 0.44 0.22 0.07 0.03 0.00 2.85
4.5–5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 1.78 1.23 0.52 0.25 0.09 0.01 0.00 4.07
4–4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.78 2.42 1.11 0.56 0.32 0.10 0.00 0.00 5.30
3.5–4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 2.27 2.45 1.22 0.66 0.35 0.07 0.00 0.00 7.09
3–3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.58 3.75 2.19 1.31 0.80 0.26 0.03 0.01 0.00 8.92
2.5–3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03 2.96 4.07 2.22 1.59 0.73 0.13 0.01 0.00 0.00 11.76
2–2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.66 6.04 3.56 2.30 1.36 0.30 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.26
1.5–2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 4.81 6.24 3.43 2.01 0.47 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.03
1–1.5 0.00 0.00 0.01 1.55 7.89 4.19 2.38 0.56 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16.59
0.5–1 0.00 0.00 0.07 2.41 1.48 0.94 0.13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.02
0–0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
Total 0.00 0.00 0.08 4.02 14.90 21.03 20.55 17.29 11.90 6.38 2.79 0.80 0.20 0.05 100.00
Table 4.3(b). Wave direction data for the North Sea
Degree segment ( ) Occurrence (%)
345–15 12.354
15–45 6.206
45–75 0.519
75–105 0.322
105–135 0.376
135–165 1.461
165–195 11.972
195–225 10.759
225–255 14.069
255–285 18.256
285–315 11.256
315–345 12.450
Total 100.0
(a) North Sea

Significant wave height H s :
!
1 1 ð ln H s μÞ2
f ðH s Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 0:8742, σ ¼ 0:5607: (4.2a)
H s σ 2π 2σ 2
Average zero-up-crossing wave period T z :

α T z γ α1 Tz γ α
f ðT z Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 2:545, β ¼ 4:732, γ ¼ 2:441:
β β β
(4.2b)
Wind direction θ:

α θ γ α1 θγ α
f ðθ Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 3:634, β ¼ 238:3,
β β β (4.2c)

γ ¼ 61:33 ð75 θ 435 Þ,
where 360 is subtracted from the selected wind direction if it is greater

than 360 .
(b) Gulf of Mexico
!
1 1 ð ln H s μÞ2
f ðH s Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 0:0552, σ ¼ 0:4741: (4.3a)
H s σ 2π 2σ 2

!
1 1 ð ln T z μÞ2
f ðT z Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 1:323, σ ¼ 0:246: (4.3b)
T z σ 2π 2σ 2
Table 4.4(a). Wave height (Hs) and period (Tz) data for the Gulf of Mexico
Hs/Tz 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 Total
9.5–10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9–9.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.5–9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8–8.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7.5–8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7–7.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01
6.5–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
6–6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
5.5–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
5–5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
4.5–5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.10
4–4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.18
3.5–4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.35
3–3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.39 0.17 0.04 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.66
2.5–3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.60 0.17 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.24
2–2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.23 1.36 0.67 0.25 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 2.58
1.5–2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 4.90 2.05 0.75 0.27 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 8.07
1–1.5 0.00 0.00 0.01 14.16 12.78 1.48 0.60 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.07
0.5–1 0.00 0.01 11.08 36.21 5.19 0.49 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.98
0–0.5 0.00 0.02 2.88 1.74 0.04 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.67
Total 0.00 0.02 13.96 52.20 23.14 5.79 3.18 1.26 0.35 0.08 0.01 0.00 100.00
Table 4.4(b). Wave direction data for the Gulf of Mexico
345–15 9.552
15–45 19.918
45–75 32.683
75–105 19.651
105–135 10.887
135–165 1.103
165–195 0.188
195–225 0.160
225–255 0.219
255–285 0.283
285–315 0.830
315–345 4.526
Total 100.0
Wind direction θ:

f ðθ Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 7:830, β ¼ 310:3,
β β β (4.3c)

γ ¼ 123:5 ð195 θ 555 Þ,

than 360 .
(c) Western coast of Africa

α H s γ α1 Hs γ α
f ðH s Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 3:440, β ¼ 1:347, γ ¼ 0:243:
β β β
(4.4a)
!
1 1 ð ln T z μÞ2
T z σ 2π 2σ 2
Wind direction θ:
α
α θ α1 θ
f ðθ Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 29:06, β ¼ 210:2: (4.4c)
β β β
(d) Eastern coast of South America


f ðH s Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 2:172, β ¼ 1:428, γ ¼ 0:722:
β β β
(4.5a)
Table 4.5(a). The wave height (Hs) and period data (Tz) for the western coast of Africa
Hs/Tz 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 Total
4.5–5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4–4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.5–4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
3–3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
2.5–3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 0.33 0.21 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.80
2–2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.06 3.14 1.45 0.32 0.17 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.20
1.5–2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.35 19.15 8.24 1.58 0.64 0.14 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.12
1–1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.88 32.72 17.38 3.32 0.84 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 55.24
0.5–1 0.00 0.00 0.01 2.68 2.34 0.46 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.55
0–0.5 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
Total 0.00 0.00 0.03 3.56 37.41 38.05 14.96 4.21 1.30 0.38 0.09 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Table 4.5(b). Wave direction data for the western coast of Africa
345–15 0.000
15–45 0.000
45–75 0.000
75–105 0.000
105–135 0.000
135–165 0.000
165–195 11.170
195–225 88.549
225–255 0.281
255–285 0.000
285–315 0.000
315–345 0.000
Total 100.0

f ðT z Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 2:155, β ¼ 2:921, γ ¼ 3:451:
β β β
(4.5b)
Wind direction θ:

f ðθ Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 2:562, β ¼ 142:7, γ ¼ 6:438:
β β β
(4.5c)
(e) Southeastern coast of Asia
α
α H s α1 Hs
f ðH s Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 1:836, β ¼ 1:191: (4.6a)
β β β

!
1 1 ð ln T z μÞ2
T z σ 2π 2σ 2
Wind direction θ:

f ðθÞ ¼ exp with α ¼ 95:02,
β β β (4.6c)
β ¼ 5666, γ ¼ 5283 ð135 θ 495 Þ,

than 360 .
Table 4.6(a). Wave height (Hs) and period (Tz) data for the eastern coast of South America
Hs/Tz 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 Total
7.5–8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7–7.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6.5–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6–6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
5.5–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
5–5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
4.5–5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05 0.07 0.03 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17
4–4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.18 0.11 0.07 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.49
3.5–4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.46 0.41 0.23 0.17 0.12 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.48
3–3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.13 1.91 0.81 0.47 0.36 0.24 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.98
2.5–3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 3.16 4.09 1.80 1.05 0.63 0.20 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.94
2–2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.31 12.34 6.29 3.34 1.73 0.63 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.67
1.5–2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 8.39 16.66 7.23 3.98 1.11 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 37.42
1–1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 9.98 5.99 3.25 0.85 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.34
0.5–1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.17 0.13 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.45
0–0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Total 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.39 18.85 38.40 23.30 11.43 4.83 1.95 0.66 0.16 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 100.00
Table 4.6(b). Wave direction data for the eastern coast of

South America
345–15 0.118
15–45 7.280
45–75 19.476
75–105 14.420
105–135 16.260
135–165 17.635
165–195 17.613
195–225 6.285
225–255 0.661
255–285 0.161
285–315 0.052
315–345 0.039
Total 100.0
(f ) Northwestern coast of Australia


f ðH s Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 2:139, β ¼ 1:111, γ ¼ 0:249:
β β β
(4.7a)

f ðT z Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 2:566, β ¼ 2:718, γ ¼ 2:478:
β β β
(4.7b)
Wind direction θ:

f ðθ Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 277:2, β ¼ 11481, γ ¼ 11237:
β β β
(4.7c)
However, the probability density function of the wind direction for the
weathervaning of a ship-shaped offshore installation with a single-point or
turret mooring system is formulated based on a normal function, regardless of
the wind direction, as follows:
" #
1 ðθ μÞ2
f ðθÞ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 180:0, σ ¼ 45:0: (4.8)
2π σ 2σ 2
Equations (4.2)–(4.7) have been derived from the best-fit formulations of various
candidate functions (e.g., a three-parameter Weibull function, an exponential
Table 4.7(a). Wave height (Hs) and period (Tz) data for the southeastern coast of Asia
Hs/Tz 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 Total
7.5–8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7–7.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6.5–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6–6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.5–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5–5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.5–5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4–4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.03
3.5–4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.05 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16
3–3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.28 0.07 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.47
2.5–3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 0.67 0.19 0.13 0.12 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.74
2–2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.30 2.78 0.89 0.48 0.40 0.20 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.08
1.5–2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 6.00 4.14 1.24 0.89 0.50 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.85
1–1.5 0.00 0.00 0.01 6.04 13.25 3.02 1.62 0.66 0.06 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.65
0.5–1 0.00 0.00 8.30 22.66 6.37 2.36 0.32 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.03
0–0.5 0.00 0.03 8.03 6.25 0.65 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.96
Total 0.00 0.03 16.34 34.96 26.57 12.88 5.11 2.39 1.13 0.43 0.12 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Table 4.7(b). Wave direction data for the southeastern

coast of Asia
345–15 12.666
15–45 20.592
45–75 23.259
75–105 5.009
105–135 0.916
135–165 0.711
165–195 1.076
195–225 3.622
225–255 10.512
255–285 13.573
285–315 4.570
315–345 3.494
Total 100.0
function, a log-normal function, a logistic function or a log-logistic function),

rather than by following a presumed function used in current industry practice.
Figure 4.9 compares the probability density distributions from DNV-RP-C205
and from Equations (4.2a)–(4.7a) for the significant wave heights in the six seas.
This comparison shows that the probability density function presumed by current
industry practice does not always represent the site-specific sea states. It is
therefore highly desirable to formulate probability density functions directly
from site-specific metocean data.
4.6 Probabilistic Selection of Benign Wave Scenarios in Six Seas
The probabilistic sampling technique described in chapter 2 of Paik (2020) is used to

select the wave scenarios. For an installation which is disconnectable or fully benign,
wave parameters are defined by most probable values in benign conditions, although
most probable extreme values in survival conditions with a one-hundred-year return
period (described in Section 4.9) must be applied to define wave-induced hull girder
loads when the installation always remains on site regardless of storms or hurricanes.
Three types of mooring systems are used for ship-shaped offshore installations
(described in Chapter 9), and these lead to different motions in offshore installations.
An offshore installation with a spread mooring system directly encounters site-specific
wind directions, while an offshore installation with a single-point or turret mooring
system undergoes weathervaning. The probability density function of the wind
direction of an offshore installation with a spread mooring system varies with the
site-specific environmental conditions, while an offshore installation with a single-
point or turret mooring system is unaffected by these conditions, based on Equation
(4.8). It is assumed that the probability density function of wave direction equals that
Table 4.8(a). Wave height (Hs) and period (Tz) data for the northwestern coast of Australia
Hs/Tz 0–1 1–2 2–3 3–4 4–5 5–6 6–7 7–8 8–9 9–10 10–11 11–12 12–13 13–14 14–15 15–16 Total
9.5–10 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
9–9.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8.5–9 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
8–8.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7.5–8 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
7–7.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6.5–7 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
6–6.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
5.5–6 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02
5–5.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
4.5–5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.09
4–4.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.11 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16
3.5–4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.11 0.14 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.29
3–3.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.23 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38
2.5–3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.32 0.32 0.09 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.79
2–2.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.12 1.98 0.43 0.13 0.03 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.69
1.5–2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.11 6.50 1.57 0.66 0.25 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.13
1–1.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.05 29.09 11.69 5.55 1.30 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.75
0.5–1 0.00 0.00 0.09 12.84 10.87 5.88 0.9 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.59
0–0.5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.04
Total 0.00 0.00 0.09 15.92 45.2 26.39 9.13 2.62 0.55 0.08 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
Table 4.8(b). Wave direction data for the northwestern

coast of Australia
345–15 0.369
15–45 0.573
45–75 3.622
75–105 7.959
105–135 2.808
135–165 1.830
165–195 2.556
195–225 9.017
225–255 50.516
255–285 16.979
285–315 3.166
315–345 0.605
Total 100.0
of wave heading angle. Tables 4.9–4.14 present the wave scenarios in the six seas for
an offshore installation with spread mooring systems and for an installation with a
single-point or turret mooring system; the former are oriented such that they are
subject to the most probable head seas, while the effects of wind and current are
ignored. Figures 4.6–4.8 confirm that selected scenarios match well with the historical
(metocean) data and corresponding probability density distributions.
4.7 Analysis of Motions and Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads
MAESTRO software (www.maestromarine.com) is useful for simulating the motions

and wave-induced hull girder loads of ship-shaped offshore installations in the wave
scenarios (described in Section 4.6). Figure 1.20 shows the three-dimensional finite
element analysis model for an FPSO unit hull (described in Section 1.7.1). Four phase
angles of wave with 0 , 90 , 180 and 270 are considered in the MAESTRO
computations of this FPSO unit for each scenario. Figure 4.10 shows a schematic of
four phase angles, where the wavelength equals the FPSO unit length. The maximum
values of the wave-induced loads for each scenario are determined from the four sets
of computations by varying the phase angles. Figure 4.11 illustrates a schematic of the
wave elevations for different phase angles when the wavelength equals the FPSO unit
length (length between perpendiculars taken as 305 m), where the significant wave
height is assumed to be 6 m. Figure 4.12 shows a schematic of the wave elevations of
selected scenarios for a hypothetical FPSO hull.
MAESTRO simulates hull motions, calculating the total moment M t (which is the
sum of the still-water moment component M s and wave-induced moment component
M w , i.e., M t ¼ M s þ M w ) in association with weight distribution (including topside
weight) over the hull length. As M s can be calculated at the still-water condition
Log-Normal Distribution Log-Normal Distribution 3-Parameter Weibull Distribution

0. 4 1.2 1.2
probability density function probability density function probability density function
historical data 1.0 historical data 1.0 historical data
selected scenarios selected scenarios selected scenarios
Probability Density
Probability Density
Probability Density
0. 3
0.8 0.8
0. 2 0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0. 1 western coast
0.2 0.2 of Africa
North Sea Gulf of Mexico
0. 0 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2. 0 2.5 3.0 3. 5 4.0
Significant Wave Height, Hs (m) Significant Wave Height, Hs (m) Significant Wave Height, Hs (m)
3-Parameter Weibull Distribution 2-Parameter Weibull Distribution 3-Parameter Weibull Distribution

0. 8 0.9 1.2
0. 7 0.8
historical data historical data 1.0 historical data
0.7 selected scenarios
Probability Density
selected scenarios selected scenarios
Probability Density
Probability Density
0. 6
0.6 0.8
0. 5
0.5
0. 4 0.6
0.4
0. 3
0.3 0.4
0. 2 eastern coast of 0.2 southeastern coast northwestern coast
0. 1 south America of Asia 0.2 of Australia
0.1
0. 0 0.0 0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2. 0 2. 5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4. 5 5.0 0.0 0. 5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2. 5 3.0 3.5 4. 0 4. 5 5.0
Figure 4.6 Probability density functions of the significant wave heights at the six locations
3-Parameter Weibull Distribution Log-Normal Distribution Log-Normal Distribution

0.25 0.6 0.5
historical data selected scenarios 0.5 historical data historical data selected scenarios
0.20 0.4
Probability Density
Probability Density
selected scenarios
Probability Density
0.4
0.15 0.3
0.3
0.10 0.2
0.2
western coast
0.05 North Sea 0.1 Gulf of Mexico 0.1
of Africa
0.00 0.0 0.0

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (sec) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (sec) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (sec)
3-Parameter Weibull Distribution Log-Normal Distribution 3-Parameter Weibull Distribution

0. 4 0.4 0. 5
historical data historical data historical data
0. 4
Probability Density
Probability Density
Probability Density
0. 3 0.3 selected scenarios
0. 3
0. 2 0.2
0. 2
0. 1 eastern coast of 0.1 southeastern coast northwestern coast

of Asia 0. 1 of Australia
South America
0. 0 0.0 0. 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (sec) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (sec) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (sec)
Figure 4.7 Probability density functions of the average zero-up-crossing wave periods at the six locations

0.007 0.012 0.06
0.006 historical data historical data historical data
Probability Density
0.010 0.05
Probability Density
Probability Density
selected scenarios
0.005
0.008 0.04
0.004
North Sea 0.006 Gulf of Mexico 0.03 western coast
0.003 of Africa
0.004 0.02
0.002
0.001 0.002 0.01
0.000 0.000 0.00

75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 345 375 405 435 195 225 255 285 315 345 375 405 435 465 495 525 555 345 15 45 75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 345
Wave Heading Angle, θ (o) Wave Heading Angle, θ (o) Wave Heading Angle, θ (o)

0.009 0.008 0.018
0.008 historical data 0.007 historical data historical data
0.015
Probability Density
Probability Density
0.007 0.006 selected scenarios

Probability Density
0.006 0.012
0.005 southeastern coast
0.005 of Asia northwestern coast
0.004 0.009
0.004 of Australia
eastern coast of 0.003
0.003 South America 0.006
0.002
0.002
0.003
0.001 0.001
0.000 0.000 0.000

345 15 45 75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 345 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 345 375 405 435 465 495 345 15 45 75 105 135 165 195 225 255 285 315 345
Wave Heading Angle, θ (o) Wave Heading Angle, θ (o) Wave Heading Angle, θ (o)
Figure 4.8 Probability density functions of the wind directions at the six locations
wave data for the North Sea (nautical zone 4) wave data for the Gulf of Mexico (nautical zone 46) wave data for the western coast of Africa
(nautical zone 58)
Equation (4.4a)
Equation (4.3a) by 3-p Weibull function
by log-normal function
Equation (4.2a)
Probability Density
Probability Density
Probability Density
by log-normal function
DNV-RP-C205
DNV-RP-C205 DNV-RP-C205
by 2-p Weibull function
by 2-p Weibull function by 2-p Weibull function
Significant Wave Height, Hs (m) Significant Wave Height, Hs (m)

Significant Wave Height, Hs (m)
wave data for eastern coast of South America wave data for the southeastern coast of Asia wave data for the northwestern coast of
(nautical zone 74) (nautical zone 62) Australia (nautical zone 78)
Equation (4.6a)
Probability Density
Probability Density
Probability Density
Equation (4.5a) by 2-p Weibull function Equation (4.7a)

by 3-p Weibull function by 3-p Weibull function
DNV-RP-C205 DNV-RP-C205
DNV-RP-C205 by 2-p Weibull function
Figure 4.9 Comparison of the probability density distributions from DNV-RP-C205 and Equations (4.2a)–(4.7a) for the significant wave heights in the six seas
4.7 Analysis of Motions 135
Table 4.9(a). Wave scenarios in the North Sea for a ship-shaped offshore installation with a spread
mooring system
Scenario Hs (m) Tz (s) θ ðo Þ Scenario Hs (m) Tz (s) θ ðo Þ
1 1.246 6.679 271.6 26 1.071 7.478 175.2

2 1.008 5.935 100.2 27 1.301 7.704 106.2
3 2.493 6.493 206.4 28 2.081 5.647 226.0
4 5.713 9.399 77.5 29 1.516 7.164 182.0
5 1.131 6.308 86.1 30 1.623 5.547 111.7
6 4.506 7.948 168.3 31 3.520 6.123 250.5
7 4.032 8.369 116.9 32 2.653 6.215 221.8
8 3.382 6.774 239.7 33 1.787 4.886 146.8
9 2.571 5.841 130.8 34 3.842 8.905 217.8
10 1.677 7.589 281.4 35 2.144 7.823 126.4
11 0.866 4.128 135.0 36 2.020 5.745 210.1
12 1.732 6.400 157.8 37 1.409 5.123 52.6
13 1.960 7.266 154.2 38 1.355 6.029 161.4
14 1.569 4.474 234.9 39 3.137 8.707 256.7
15 0.940 3.173 150.6 40 0.675 3.636 121.8
16 3.672 5.234 244.9 41 4.251 9.131 192.3
17 1.901 5.446 188.8 42 2.418 4.758 294.4
18 2.926 5.007 195.7 43 3.255 6.869 93.6
19 4.814 9.736 316.0 44 0.496 4.622 185.4
20 1.462 7.064 199.2 45 2.739 8.220 25.7
21 1.844 6.966 263.6 46 5.199 10.213 164.9
22 2.830 7.370 139.0 47 2.346 8.530 178.6
23 6.472 11.251 66.9 48 2.277 6.586 230.3
24 1.189 3.912 213.9 49 3.028 5.342 202.8
25 2.209 8.080 171.8 50 0.781 4.312 143.0
Table 4.9(b). Wave scenarios in the North Sea for a ship-shaped offshore installation with a turret
mooring system
1 2.277 5.647 174.4 26 2.571 6.400 188.0

2 5.713 9.736 113.5 27 3.137 8.220 235.3
3 1.901 6.123 178.9 28 3.255 8.080 124.8
4 1.960 5.547 146.8 29 1.301 3.912 213.3
5 3.028 7.478 240.5 30 2.346 7.164 219.6
6 2.020 3.636 152.4 31 2.493 5.007 185.7
7 1.732 4.758 192.6 32 3.520 8.905 226.7
8 0.675 4.312 129.3 33 4.506 9.399 289.2
9 1.516 6.774 265.3 34 0.781 3.173 190.3
10 2.144 4.886 230.8 35 4.032 7.704 199.8
11 1.008 6.493 210.4 36 6.472 11.251 202.4
12 2.830 7.589 197.4 37 0.496 5.234 205.0
13 1.409 7.823 223.0 38 1.569 7.948 155.1
Table 4.9(b). (cont.)
14 2.653 6.215 140.5 39 3.382 8.530 71.2

15 1.787 7.064 165.1 40 1.462 6.869 183.4
16 1.246 6.029 95.1 41 3.842 6.308 181.2
17 2.418 6.679 160.2 42 1.355 7.266 137.1
18 2.926 7.370 167.5 43 0.866 6.586 207.6
19 1.071 5.841 133.4 44 4.814 9.131 157.7
20 1.677 4.474 254.4 45 2.739 5.935 143.7
21 4.251 8.369 119.6 46 2.081 6.966 216.4
22 0.940 5.745 246.6 47 1.189 5.123 149.7
23 1.623 4.128 195.0 48 5.199 10.213 172.1
24 1.844 5.342 105.9 49 3.672 8.707 176.6
25 1.131 4.622 162.7 50 2.209 5.446 169.8
Table 4.10(a). Wave scenarios in the Gulf of Mexico for a ship-shaped offshore installation with a
spread mooring system
1 0.578 3.835 110.7 26 1.870 3.970 198.4

2 0.559 2.591 214.8 27 0.67 3.017 104.4
3 0.497 4.448 120.9 28 1.045 3.770 218.2
4 1.609 5.811 172.0 29 1.168 4.358 116.1
5 0.597 4.881 174.2 30 0.761 4.115 132.9
6 1.336 2.902 42.0 31 0.900 3.646 208.7
7 1.134 1.603 193.7 32 0.652 2.843 205.9
8 0.968 4.647 226.6 33 1.288 2.179 222.1
9 0.272 5.170 139.5 34 1.103 2.448 96.8
10 1.719 5.345 203.3 35 0.518 5.017 167.7
11 0.724 2.722 169.9 36 1.451 3.073 187.1
12 0.615 3.468 125.2 37 0.634 3.586 182.8
13 1.523 5.553 153.5 38 1.018 6.674 176.4
14 0.858 2.279 211.6 39 0.992 4.544 150.9
15 1.073 3.129 196.0 40 0.922 2.658 180.6
16 0.742 2.368 163.1 41 2.766 8.012 191.5
17 1.389 3.241 156.0 42 0.799 3.527 142.6
18 0.388 2.060 145.5 43 0.688 4.041 129.2
19 0.706 3.901 200.8 44 0.449 3.185 184.9
20 1.244 3.411 189.3 45 0.838 3.298 254.6
21 0.879 4.273 239.5 46 0.474 4.759 165.4
22 2.112 6.153 178.5 47 0.780 2.522 232.0
23 0.818 3.354 160.8 48 0.944 3.707 148.3
24 1.205 4.192 73.2 49 0.539 1.903 136.3
25 0.421 2.960 158.4 50 0.346 2.783 87.1
Table 4.10(b). Wave scenarios in the Gulf of Mexico for a ship-shaped offshore installation with a turret
mooring system
1 1.244 3.468 140.5 26 1.451 5.017 207.6

2 0.742 3.411 216.4 27 0.879 4.448 157.7
3 1.288 3.970 254.4 28 1.336 4.647 230.8
4 0.615 2.279 265.3 29 0.992 4.041 160.2
5 0.900 3.017 152.4 30 0.518 2.179 210.4
6 0.838 4.881 146.8 31 1.103 3.835 178.9
7 0.858 3.241 124.8 32 1.168 3.354 169.8
8 0.388 3.707 219.6 33 0.539 4.273 240.5
9 1.870 4.544 165.1 34 0.688 3.527 223.0
10 0.799 5.345 137.1 35 1.045 5.553 71.2
11 0.780 2.060 199.8 36 0.272 2.448 190.3
12 1.073 2.368 105.9 37 0.346 2.902 113.5
13 2.766 8.012 133.4 38 0.578 3.901 183.4
14 0.706 1.903 192.6 39 0.761 2.783 162.7
15 1.134 2.658 181.2 40 0.597 2.591 155.1
16 0.497 3.129 235.3 41 1.205 3.073 195.0
17 0.449 2.843 174.4 42 0.421 3.646 197.4
18 0.922 4.759 167.5 43 0.670 2.96 119.6
19 0.634 3.185 185.7 44 1.018 1.603 289.2
20 1.389 2.522 172.1 45 2.112 5.170 95.1
21 1.523 6.153 188.0 46 0.474 2.722 213.3
22 0.724 3.770 246.6 47 0.559 3.586 129.3
23 1.609 6.674 205.0 48 0.944 4.358 226.7
24 0.968 4.192 176.6 49 1.719 5.811 143.7
25 0.818 4.115 149.7 50 0.652 3.298 202.4
Table 4.11(a). Wave scenarios in the western coast of Africa for a ship-shaped offshore installation
with a spread mooring system
1 0.964 3.540 186.9 26 1.383 5.971 180.3

2 1.465 5.888 171.5 27 2.195 7.158 172.7
3 2.103 6.151 175.7 28 1.181 4.343 183.6
4 1.155 4.528 159.7 29 2.386 8.892 181.1
5 1.069 5.100 190.0 30 1.444 5.337 184.6
6 0.810 4.062 179.9 31 1.362 4.760 178.3
7 1.485 7.441 177.1 32 1.778 4.986 165.2
8 1.099 4.137 172.1 33 2.038 4.645 174.8
9 1.547 3.891 176.2 34 1.610 5.399 162.0
10 1.424 5.594 178.7 35 1.903 7.863 176.6
11 0.871 4.816 183.2 36 1.205 4.406 177.9
12 1.868 5.043 186.2 37 1.505 5.158 170.1
13 1.341 5.217 181.5 38 1.526 4.873 177.5
Table 4.11(a). (cont.)
14 1.253 5.810 170.8 39 1.275 4.929 179.1

15 1.002 2.983 185.6 40 1.751 5.663 185.1
16 1.632 5.735 181.9 41 1.726 3.678 182.3
17 1.806 6.479 168.5 42 1.986 6.058 173.8
18 0.578 3.354 187.7 43 0.729 4.468 184.1
19 1.128 3.792 188.6 44 1.319 4.277 156.2
20 1.701 6.941 192.4 45 1.942 5.276 166.5
21 1.677 4.209 175.3 46 1.567 6.612 167.5
22 1.229 6.764 179.5 47 1.298 5.527 173.2
23 1.037 3.980 147.5 48 0.921 4.703 169.3
24 1.836 6.251 163.8 49 1.403 5.462 180.7
25 1.589 4.587 182.8 50 1.654 6.360 174.3
Table 4.11(b). Wave scenarios in the western coast of Africa for a ship-shaped offshore installation
with a turret mooring system
1 2.106 7.158 202.4 26 1.298 4.277 137.1

2 1.506 6.612 230.8 27 0.964 4.406 213.3
3 0.921 4.062 183.4 28 1.363 4.986 140.5
4 0.578 2.983 162.7 29 0.871 4.587 143.7
5 1.727 7.441 223.0 30 1.486 3.678 169.8
6 1.465 5.971 167.5 31 1.383 6.360 181.2
7 1.988 5.399 71.2 32 1.253 5.462 95.1
8 1.779 5.888 210.4 33 1.276 5.158 129.3
9 1.100 3.540 185.7 34 1.944 4.760 124.8
10 1.181 3.792 205.0 35 2.040 7.863 160.2
11 1.230 4.528 216.4 36 1.702 4.645 192.6
12 1.070 4.209 176.6 37 2.199 6.764 178.9
13 1.404 5.100 155.1 38 1.655 4.468 149.7
14 1.905 6.479 105.9 39 1.590 6.151 188.0
15 1.837 5.810 113.5 40 1.547 5.043 133.4
16 1.527 3.891 246.6 41 1.128 4.703 190.3
17 1.206 5.663 254.4 42 0.810 5.594 265.3
18 1.611 6.058 174.4 43 1.320 4.137 207.6
19 1.633 3.980 235.3 44 1.678 5.337 195.0
20 1.003 3.354 197.4 45 2.391 8.892 199.8
21 1.568 4.873 172.1 46 1.870 4.343 219.6
22 1.752 6.251 146.8 47 1.807 6.941 119.6
23 1.445 4.929 226.7 48 0.729 5.217 240.5
24 1.038 4.816 289.2 49 1.155 5.735 152.4
25 1.425 5.527 165.1 50 1.342 5.276 157.7
Table 4.12(a). Wave scenarios in the eastern coast of South America for a ship-shaped offshore
installation with a spread mooring system
1 1.787 6.084 156.3 26 2.478 4.621 179.2

2 1.627 6.763 128.5 27 2.148 4.528 187.5
3 1.420 6.366 176.4 28 1.007 5.623 257.0
4 2.300 6.440 204.8 29 1.341 3.777 224.6
5 3.285 9.555 196.0 30 2.113 5.753 143.6
6 1.381 5.950 193.1 31 1.085 6.152 263.7
7 2.529 6.946 181.9 32 2.868 5.688 113.7
8 2.011 4.708 207.9 33 1.457 5.493 240.9
9 1.692 5.160 98.9 34 1.253 6.517 327.4
10 2.184 5.558 132.6 35 3.099 7.674 184.7
11 1.527 5.428 162.3 36 1.149 5.818 107.2
12 1.298 4.186 201.8 37 2.643 6.853 119.2
13 2.384 7.522 271.7 38 2.584 7.045 214.2
14 1.818 5.883 124.1 39 1.755 7.264 296.1
15 2.430 6.016 85.2 40 2.221 4.791 198.9
16 2.078 5.228 211.0 41 2.341 8.059 168.0
17 0.884 4.427 153.3 42 1.882 6.596 136.5
18 2.970 8.324 173.6 43 1.724 5.090 146.9
19 1.492 4.945 251.0 44 2.260 4.869 217.6
20 1.561 7.387 170.8 45 2.709 7.151 232.3
21 3.697 8.705 236.4 46 1.978 4.315 150.2
22 1.913 6.678 221.0 47 2.044 6.222 245.7
23 1.204 5.296 281.8 48 1.660 5.019 165.1
24 2.783 7.849 228.3 49 1.946 6.293 140.1
25 1.595 4.026 159.3 50 1.850 5.362 190.3
Table 4.12(b). Wave scenarios in the eastern coast of South America for a ship-shaped offshore
installation with a turret mooring system
1 2.222 4.315 129.3 26 2.301 5.753 167.5

2 1.562 5.296 149.7 27 2.711 6.293 210.4
3 2.585 9.555 162.7 28 3.291 6.946 213.3
4 2.385 7.849 155.1 29 1.882 6.440 119.6
5 2.785 8.705 190.3 30 1.851 5.019 205.0
6 3.704 8.324 254.4 31 1.007 4.186 172.1
7 1.946 7.151 230.8 32 1.628 7.264 185.7
8 2.045 5.623 133.4 33 1.724 4.427 199.8
9 1.756 4.869 197.4 34 2.342 5.493 223.0
10 0.884 5.818 165.1 35 1.420 4.708 246.6
11 1.149 7.387 140.5 36 1.819 6.517 207.6
12 1.692 4.945 143.7 37 1.204 5.090 137.1
13 1.660 4.621 157.7 38 1.382 4.528 226.7
Table 4.12(b). (cont.)
14 2.113 4.026 113.5 39 1.299 6.596 188.0

15 1.457 6.152 174.4 40 2.530 7.674 176.6
16 1.086 5.160 95.1 41 1.914 6.222 105.9
17 1.528 5.428 289.2 42 2.185 6.016 169.8
18 1.595 5.558 219.6 43 1.787 6.853 240.5
19 2.149 7.045 265.3 44 2.645 6.084 192.6
20 1.253 3.777 183.4 45 1.341 5.688 178.9
21 2.079 6.678 124.8 46 2.973 8.059 235.3
22 2.012 5.362 195.0 47 2.431 7.522 181.2
23 3.103 5.883 152.4 48 2.479 6.366 146.8
24 1.979 5.95 160.2 49 1.493 4.791 216.4
25 2.261 5.228 71.2 50 2.870 6.763 202.4
Table 4.13(a). Wave scenarios in the southeastern coast of Asia for a ship-shaped offshore installation
with a spread mooring system
1 1.473 4.557 158.2 26 1.763 4.845 140.3

2 1.301 4.164 184.2 27 1.121 4.743 123.9
3 0.574 3.464 144.1 28 0.932 3.524 255.7
4 0.477 3.405 190.6 29 1.841 6.545 164.9
5 0.993 3.165 181.0 30 0.543 3.705 187.4
6 1.426 5.506 69.8 31 0.724 2.845 36.5
7 0.842 3.767 151.3 32 0.872 4.648 98.4
8 0.665 2.209 272.5 33 1.574 4.954 128.3
9 0.962 3.893 109.5 34 0.092 3.104 114.6
10 0.605 3.042 228.1 35 0.754 3.644 147.7
11 1.341 2.700 60.4 36 1.694 5.912 197.2
12 2.386 6.184 204.0 37 0.443 3.829 321.4
13 0.407 2.978 215.1 38 1.190 3.286 78.1
14 1.383 5.345 200.6 39 2.040 7.097 161.6
15 0.635 2.774 154.8 40 1.155 4.390 136.4
16 2.181 5.072 92.2 41 1.024 4.236 104.2
17 1.631 2.336 168.1 42 0.511 1.722 132.4
18 0.236 4.472 207.6 43 0.370 2.042 211.3
19 0.695 3.584 49.5 44 1.056 4.093 20.1
20 1.522 5.202 223.5 45 2.849 8.502 85.5
21 1.931 4.025 174.6 46 0.285 3.346 239.2
22 0.783 2.536 233.3 47 0.901 2.621 177.8
23 1.088 3.958 357.7 48 0.813 2.913 219.1
24 1.263 4.312 246.3 49 1.226 5.692 119.4
25 0.177 2.442 193.9 50 0.329 3.226 171.4
Table 4.13(b). Wave scenarios in the southeastern coast of Asia for a ship-shaped offshore installation
with a turret mooring system
1 1.763 3.405 185.7 26 0.329 4.025 213.3

2 1.574 3.705 192.6 27 0.783 4.557 129.3
3 0.477 3.226 235.3 28 0.962 2.336 155.1
4 1.522 3.644 149.7 29 0.872 1.722 240.5
5 0.635 5.692 146.8 30 0.901 3.829 113.5
6 1.631 4.743 176.6 31 0.285 3.893 71.2
7 1.121 4.312 188.0 32 0.092 2.774 178.9
8 1.841 4.954 197.4 33 1.024 3.958 190.3
9 1.088 2.536 160.2 34 0.932 3.165 172.1
10 0.695 2.042 174.4 35 1.263 5.072 223.0
11 2.849 7.097 119.6 36 0.177 2.442 165.1
12 0.443 3.286 216.4 37 1.694 5.202 219.6
13 0.724 2.700 195.0 38 1.190 2.978 167.5
14 1.226 5.912 265.3 39 1.383 2.913 181.2
15 0.511 2.209 95.1 40 1.473 4.472 246.6
16 0.993 4.648 183.4 41 0.665 3.104 157.7
17 0.813 4.164 289.2 42 1.341 2.621 226.7
18 2.181 8.502 124.8 43 0.754 4.093 169.8
19 0.842 3.584 105.9 44 2.040 6.184 137.1
20 0.370 2.845 162.7 45 1.155 5.506 207.6
21 1.426 4.845 140.5 46 0.605 3.346 210.4
22 2.386 5.345 202.4 47 1.056 3.524 133.4
23 0.236 4.390 205.0 48 1.931 6.545 143.7
24 1.301 3.464 254.4 49 0.407 3.767 230.8
25 0.543 3.042 152.4 50 0.574 4.236 199.8
Table 4.14(a). Wave scenarios in the northwestern coast of Australia for a ship-shaped offshore
installation with a spread mooring system
1 1.173 4.862 136.0 26 0.785 4.326 83.4

2 0.842 3.817 151.1 27 1.930 5.639 159.0
3 1.276 5.878 168.6 28 1.478 4.269 145.5
4 1.804 4.915 182.2 29 1.123 6.931 351.3
5 0.525 4.211 193.7 30 0.755 5.793 156.4
6 1.024 4.703 180.0 31 0.814 5.023 184.5
7 1.619 4.490 245.7 32 0.574 3.331 177.7
8 1.148 5.434 196.2 33 1.751 6.658 209.8
9 0.465 4.969 201.2 34 1.224 6.465 38.0
10 1.073 4.151 132.6 35 1.330 5.309 220.9
11 0.655 4.809 161.4 36 2.011 6.312 186.8
12 1.704 5.499 189.0 37 0.948 3.890 198.7
Table 4.14(a). (cont.)
13 0.973 4.026 72.8 38 1.198 4.650 203.9

14 1.511 5.135 124.9 39 2.595 7.527 166.2
15 0.724 3.739 116.1 40 1.049 5.192 225.9
16 1.387 3.561 142.5 41 1.581 4.597 120.7
17 1.250 3.960 58.9 42 0.370 3.455 148.3
18 0.922 5.250 206.8 43 0.999 2.905 153.8
19 1.545 6.071 105.5 44 2.265 5.970 99.2
20 1.358 4.090 213.1 45 0.617 3.654 111.1
21 1.303 5.371 173.2 46 1.862 4.544 216.7
22 0.870 4.436 232.6 47 2.115 6.184 163.9
23 1.098 5.714 175.5 48 1.447 4.756 191.4
24 1.416 5.079 139.3 49 1.660 5.567 92.0
25 0.691 4.381 170.9 50 0.896 3.172 128.9
Table 4.14(b). Wave scenarios in the northwestern coast of Australia for a ship-shaped offshore
installation with a turret mooring system
1 0.786 4.756 172.1 26 1.512 6.465 119.6

2 0.815 3.331 160.2 27 0.656 3.890 146.8
3 2.270 6.931 140.5 28 1.304 3.561 183.4
4 0.974 3.654 197.4 29 1.547 5.970 143.7
5 1.417 6.658 181.2 30 1.024 4.650 113.5
6 1.251 5.499 71.2 31 1.199 4.211 176.6
7 0.526 4.026 202.4 32 1.448 5.639 254.4
8 1.932 5.878 223.0 33 0.949 4.269 199.8
9 0.843 4.703 216.4 34 1.225 5.023 152.4
10 0.371 4.151 174.4 35 0.923 5.371 213.3
11 0.618 4.862 205.0 36 0.575 2.905 240.5
12 1.662 5.135 207.6 37 0.725 5.434 178.9
13 0.691 3.455 95.1 38 1.074 4.090 235.3
14 1.099 5.714 210.4 39 2.014 7.527 105.9
15 1.705 5.250 265.3 40 1.277 5.309 162.7
16 1.049 5.567 188.0 41 1.805 5.079 133.4
17 1.331 4.969 230.8 42 0.870 5.192 169.8
18 1.753 4.544 219.6 43 1.479 4.436 289.2
19 0.897 4.490 157.7 44 1.000 4.915 124.8
20 1.359 4.809 155.1 45 1.149 4.597 137.1
21 1.124 3.817 167.5 46 1.864 6.184 192.6
22 0.465 3.960 165.1 47 1.174 3.172 195.0
23 1.583 5.793 246.6 48 1.621 4.326 149.7
24 0.756 4.381 185.7 49 2.601 6.312 129.3
25 1.388 3.739 226.7 50 2.118 6.071 190.3
phase angle 0° phase angle 90° phase angle 180° phase angle 270°
Figure 4.10 A schematic for four types of wave phase angles obtained when the wavelength
equals the vessel length
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
Figure 4.11 A schematic of wave elevations for different phase angles when the wavelength
equals a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading unit length at phase angles of
(a) 0 , (b) 90 , (c) 180 and (d) 270
(a) (b)
Figure 4.12 Wave elevations of selected scenarios for a hypothetical floating production,
storage and offloading unit hull: (a) scenario 23 in the North Sea and (b) scenario 29 in the
western coast of Africa
without wave, M w is determined from M w ¼ M t M s . Figure 4.13 shows the distri-

butions of the total and wave-induced vertical bending moments for selected wave
scenarios along the FPSO unit length.
Figure 4.14 shows the probability density distributions of the maximum wave-induced
bending moments for a hypothetical FPSO hull in the six seas, which are expressed using
a two-parameter Weibull function with the coefficients indicated in Table 4.15.
" #
C 2 x C2 1 x C2
f ðxÞ ¼ exp , x 0: (4.9)
C1 C1 C1
4.8 Probability of Exceedance Diagrams
To establish the probability of exceedance diagrams for the maximum wave-induced

bending moments, the probabilities of individual wave-event scenarios are defined as
follows:
Pw ¼ Php Pa , (4.10)
where Pw is the probability (frequency) of a wave event, Php is the interacting

probability between a significant wave height and a zero-up-crossing wave period
and Pa is the probability of a wave heading angle. Php is estimated from an inter-
polation or extrapolation of the wave height–wave period data (e.g., Table 4.3(a))
(Paik et al. 2019; Paik 2020) and Pa is estimated from the following equation:
1 ∗
Pa ¼ P , (4.11)
Na a
where P∗a is the probability of wave heading angle occurrence which is determined from
the wave direction data. N a is the number of wave heading angle occurrence, which may
be estimated by assuming that the wind direction changes at sea every 3–6 h. In contrast
to trading ships, which have a design life of 25 years, the wave frequency of a
ship-shaped offshore installation is estimated based on a 100-year period. For a period
of 100 years, N a is defined as 100 365 24=3 ¼ 292, 000, where 3 h are taken.
Vertical Bending Moment (GN·m)
wave-induced
Wave-induced vertical
vertical bending
bending moment moment
totalvertical
Total vertical bending
bending moment
moment
Distance from Stern (m)
(a)
wave-induced vertical bending moment
total vertical bending moment
Distance from Stern (m)
(b)
Figure 4.13 Distributions of total and wave-induced vertical bending moments of a

hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading unit hull: (a) scenario 23 in the
North Sea and (b) scenario 29 in the western coast of Africa
North Sea Gulf of Mexico western coast of Africa

spread mooring spread mooring spread mooring
turret mooring turret mooring turret mooring
Probability Density
Probability Density
Probability Density
Maximum Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m) Maximum Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m) Maximum Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m)
eastern coast of South America southeastern coast of Asia northwestern coast of Australia
Probability Density
Probability Density
Probability Density
Maximum Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m) Maximum Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m) Maximum Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m)
Figure 4.14 Probability density distributions of the maximum wave-induced bending moments for a hypothetical floating production, storage
and offloading unit hull in the six seas
Table 4.15. Coefficients of Equation (4.9) together with mean and standard deviation for the probability density
distributions of maximum wave-induced bending moments
Spread Mooring System Turret Mooring System
μ σ μ σ
Location C1 C2 (GN·m) (GN·m) C1 C2 (GN·m) (GN·m)
North Sea 0.791 0.955 0.807 0.846 0.811 0.998 0.812 0.813
Gulf of Mexico 0.050 0.926 0.052 0.056 0.053 0.866 0.057 0.066
Western coast of Africa 0.178 1.047 0.175 0.167 0.158 0.936 0.163 0.174
Eastern coast of South America 0.507 1.313 0.467 0.359 0.423 1.363 0.387 0.287
Southeastern coast of Asia 0.089 1.109 0.086 0.077 0.103 0.908 0.108 0.119
Northwestern coast of Australia 0.122 0.863 0.132 0.153 0.115 1.056 0.113 0.107
μ ¼ mean and σ ¼ standard deviation.
Once the wave probability and the wave-induced hull girder loads are obtained for
individual scenarios, the probabilities of the exceedance diagrams are established
using the following four steps.
Step 1: Establish a table of frequencies (probabilities) and the maximum hull girder
loads for individual wave scenarios.
Step 2: Rearrange the order of scenarios in the table established in Step 1 to place the
scenario with the smallest hull girder load first and that with the largest hull girder
load last.
Step 3: On the table established in Step 2, calculate the cumulative probability
(frequency) from the bottom row associated with the largest hull girder load.
Table 4.16 indicates the procedure from Step 1 to Step 3 as a sample for a
hypothetical FPSO unit hull (described in Section 1.7.1) with a spread mooring
system in the North Sea.
Step 4: Determine the design value of the hull girder load from the exceedance
diagram at an acceptable level of exceedance probability.
The acceptance criteria
are defined in association with the expected number N p of wave peaks during the
entire lifetime (100 years) of a ship-shaped offshore installation and may be
estimated as N p ¼ 100 365 24 60 60=10 ¼ 315, 360, 000 or
N p ¼ 100 365 24 60 60=6 ¼ 525, 600, 000 if a wave peak occurs every
6–10 s. The probability of occurrence of the maximum wave peak is then in the
range of 1:903 109 to 3:171 109 . See chapter 4 of Paik (2020) for details on
establishing the probability of exceedance diagrams.
Figure 4.15 shows the resulting diagrams for the probability of exceedance versus
the maximum wave-induced bending moment amidship of a hypothetical FPSO unit
(described in Section 1.7.1), and compares the diagrams with spread mooring systems
to those with turret mooring systems. The horizontal line in Figure 4.15 indicates the
band width of the lower and upper bounds associated with the acceptance criteria of
1:903 109 to 3:171 109 . Figure 4.16 compares the maximum wave-induced
Table 4.16. Cumulative probability of the maximum vertical bending moment (VBM) for a hypothetical floating
production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit hull to establish the exceedance diagram (for a spread moored hull in the
North Sea)
VBM Wave Cumulative

Scenario (GN·m) Php P∗
a Pa probability probability
15 0.000 1.42 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 6.86 109 5.42 107
11 0.002 2.69 102 1.25 101 4.28 107 1.15 108 5.35 107
50 0.004 1.97 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 9.52 109 5.24 107
40 0.005 1.94 102 1.08 101 3.70 107 7.18 109 5.14 107
44 0.011 7.05 103 1.83 101 6.27 107 4.42 109 5.07 107
24 0.018 3.90 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 1.51 108 5.03 107
5 0.025 2.43 102 1.20 101 4.11 107 9.99 109 4.88 107
33 0.028 5.17 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 2.50 108 4.78 107
2 0.034 2.04 102 1.08 101 3.70 107 7.55 109 4.53 107
37 0.038 5.62 102 1.46 102 5.00 108 2.81 109 4.45 107
14 0.049 5.79 102 1.25 101 4.28 107 2.48 108 4.42 107
30 0.088 5.60 102 1.08 101 3.70 107 2.07 108 4.18 107
1 0.095 1.94 102 1.24 101 4.25 107 8.25 109 3.97 107
9 0.096 4.00 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 1.93 108 3.89 107
28 0.098 5.73 102 1.25 101 4.28 107 2.45 108 3.69 107
38 0.099 3.55 102 1.83 101 6.27 107 2.23 108 3.45 107
36 0.125 5.49 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 2.12 108 3.22 107
16 0.136 1.04 103 1.25 101 4.28 107 4.45 1010 3.01 107
42 0.152 1.62 102 6.21 102 2.13 107 3.45 109 3.01 107
31 0.171 1.95 102 1.24 101 4.25 107 8.29 109 2.97 107
48 0.213 3.48 102 1.25 101 4.28 107 1.49 108 2.89 107
32 0.227 3.85 102 1.25 101 4.28 107 1.65 108 2.74 107
21 0.238 2.81 102 1.24 101 4.25 107 1.19 108 2.58 107
3 0.293 3.81 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 1.47 108 2.46 107
29 0.301 1.87 102 1.83 101 6.27 107 1.17 108 2.31 107
12 0.335 3.67 102 1.83 101 6.27 107 2.30 108 2.19 107
26 0.351 3.86 103 1.83 101 6.27 107 2.42 109 1.96 107
20 0.367 1.89 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 7.31 109 1.94 107
13 0.450 2.45 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 1.18 108 1.87 107
18 0.455 1.09 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 4.22 109 1.75 107
25 0.499 4.54 102 1.83 101 6.27 107 2.85 108 1.71 107
17 0.512 6.04 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 2.34 108 1.42 107
49 0.517 1.38 102 1.13 101 3.87 107 5.34 109 1.19 107
35 0.527 1.89 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 9.13 109 1.13 107
8 0.568 3.06 102 1.25 101 4.28 107 1.31 108 1.04 107
43 0.632 3.17 102 1.20 101 4.11 107 1.30 108 9.12 108
22 0.677 2.45 102 1.41 101 4.83 107 1.18 108 7.82 108
10 0.688 1.67 102 6.21 102 2.13 107 3.56 109 6.64 108
47 0.854 1.37 102 1.83 101 6.27 107 8.59 109 6.28 108
6 0.980 4.20 102 1.83 101 6.27 107 2.63 108 5.42 108
45 1.045 1.76 102 3.76 103 1.29 108 2.27 1010 2.79 108
27 1.241 5.77 103 1.08 101 3.70 107 2.13 109 2.77 108
34 1.273 9.74 103 1.25 101 4.28 107 4.17 109 2.55 108
39 1.601 1.25 102 1.24 101 4.25 107 5.31 109 2.14 108
41 2.159 7.63 103 1.13 101 3.87 107 2.95 109 1.61 108
Table 4.16. (cont.)
VBM Wave Cumulative

Scenario (GN·m) Php P∗
a Pa probability probability
46 2.282 2.88 103 1.83 101 6.27 107 1.81 109 1.31 108
4 2.582 4.72 103 1.20 101 4.11 107 1.94 109 1.13 108
7 3.705 2.43 102 1.08 101 3.70 107 8.99 109 9.37 109
19 4.065 4.48 103 5.19 103 1.78 108 7.97 1011 3.80 1010
23 4.603 7.30 104 1.20 101 4.11 107 3.00 1010 3.00 1010
VBM ¼ vertical bending moment.
vertical bending moments for a hypothetical FPSO unit with a spread mooring system
and those with a turret mooring system at different locations. Here, it is obvious that
the wave-induced hull girder loads are significantly affected by the type of mooring
system and by the location. For a spread mooring case of the northwestern coast of
Australia, Figure 4.15 shows that the design wave-induced bending moment becomes
infinite and it is not determined from the probability of exceedance diagram. This may
be because a spread mooring system is unsuitable to weathervane in harsh environ-
mental conditions, see Alsobrooks et al. (2007) for hull structural designs of a LNG
FPSO (liquefied natural gas floating production, storage and offloading) unit located
in the northwestern coast of Australia.
Table 4.17 summarises the bending moments for a hypothetical FPSO unit hull
which is always in sagging condition. The wave-induced bending moment estimated
from the harmonised common structural rules (H-CSR) of IACS (2020) for trading
ships and from Equation (4.13) with Cb ¼ 0:975 is 11.115 GN·m in hogging and
11.075 GN·m in sagging, which is much greater than that of a hypothetical FPSO
unit hull in the North Sea. In Table 4.17, the still-water bending moment was
calculated in the full load condition, and it is 17.504 GN·m from MAESTRO, while
it is 5.211 GN·m in sagging or 6.071 GN·m in hogging from Equation (4.14) for
trading ships. The total bending moment of a hypothetical FPSO unit hull in sagging
obtained from the MAESTRO direct computations is greater than the H-CSR formula
estimations by 10–30 per cent. The wave-induced moment ðM w Þ is calculated by
M w ¼ total moment ðM t Þ – still-water moment ðM s Þ (described in Section 4.7), as
shown in Table 4.17.
In Table 4.18 and Figure 4.17, a comparison of the wave-induced hull girder loads
for a hypothetical FPSO unit hull with a turret mooring system in the North Sea
computed from the present method is made with the existing results of numerical
analysis or physical model test estimated from Sogstad (1995), Maerli et al. (2000)
and Guedes Soares et al. (2006), who studied wave-induced hull girder loads in
survival conditions (rather than benign conditions). Similar studies are also available
in the literature (Hamdan 2003; Fonseca et al. 2010; DNV 2020). The hulls are in the
full load condition, while their size and block coefficient are different from each other.
The physical model H to a real FPSO hull is at a scale of 1:81. In this regard, a length
scale factor of αL was defined as indicated in Table 4.18, and the scaled WBM
Figure 4.15 Probability of exceedance diagrams for a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading unit in six seas
Table 4.17. Summary of the MAESTRO bending moment calculations for a hypothetical floating production, storage
and offloading unit hull in the full load condition
Wave-induced moment
Total moment (GN·m) (GN·m)
Spread Turret Still-water Spread Turret

Region mooring mooring moment (GN·m) mooring mooring
North Sea 21.388 21.847 17.504 3.884 4.343

Gulf of Mexico 17.920 18.090 0.416 0.586
Western coast of Africa 18.887 18.697 1.383 1.193
Eastern coast of South America 19.985 19.352 2.481 1.848
Southeastern coast of Asia 17.958 18.934 0.454 1.430
Northwestern coast of Australia 18.009 0.505
spread mooring : spread mooring

turret mooring : turret mooring
A: North Sea
Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN·m)
A: North Sea
B: Gulf of Mexico B: Gulf of Mexico
C: western coast of Africa C: western coast of Africa
D: eastern coast of South America D: eastern coast of South America
E: southeastern coast of Asia E: southeastern coast of Asia
F: northwestern coast of Australia F: northwestern coast of Australia
undetermined
A B C D E F A B C D E F
Figure 4.16 Comparison of the maximum wave-induced bending moments of a hypothetical

floating production, storage and offloading unit with a spread mooring system and those with a
turret mooring system in six seas
(wave-induced bending moment) was estimated in propotion to α4L . It is obvious that

the present method result in benign (disconnectable) conditions is much lower than the
existing data in survival conditions.
4.9 Survival Conditions
If ship-shaped offshore installations are not allowed to sail to sheltered areas in

storm conditions, wave-induced hull girder loads should be defined by a survival
analysis (shown in Figure 4.3). Clasification societies (BV 2016; ABS 2021; DNV
Table 4.18. Comparison of wave-induced vertical bending moments between the present method and the existing results for FPSO unit hulls with a turret mooring system in
the North sea
Scaled WBM,
WBM αL4 WBM
Method L B D / T (m) Cb (GN·m) αL (GN·m) Remark
Present – benign condition A 305.0 60.0 32.0/23.3 0.975 4.34 1.00 4.34 Figure 4.2
Sogstad (1995) – survival condition B 200.6 36.8 20.8/14.0 0.84 4.05 1.52 21.64 Linear strip theory
C 227.6 44.0 26.6/15.2 0.83 5.72 1.34 18.45 Linear strip theory
D 242.0 41.0 25.0/18.7 0.79 6.12 1.26 15.44 Linear strip theory
Maerli et al. (2000) – survival condition E 233.0 42.0 21.3/14.7 3.05 1.31 8.96 Linear strip theory
Guedes Soares et al. (2006) – survival F 259.8 46.0 27.0/16.7 0.87 7.30 1.17 13.87 Linear long-term prediction
condition G 259.8 46.0 27.0/16.7 0.87 8.10 1.17 15.39 Nonlinear transfer function
H 3.47 0.6 0.3/0.2 0.87 5.10 1.17 9.69 1/81-scaled physical model
testing in the wave tank
L = length between perpendiculars; B = breadth; D = depth; T = design draught; Cb = block coefficient; αL = length scale factor and WBM = wave-induced
bending moment.
A: Present – benign condition

Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN.m)
B, C, D: Sogstad (1995)
E: Maerli et al. (2000)
F, G, H: Guedes Soares et al. (2006)
A B C D E F G H
Figure 4.17 Comparison of wave-induced vertical bending moments between the present method
and the existing results for FPSO unit hulls with a turret mooring system in the North Sea
2021; LR 2021) provide the details of the procedure for defining the design values
of wave-induced hull girder loads in survival conditions, which are expressed as a
mixture of most probable extreme values based on the site-specific metocean data
(with waves of one-hundred-year return period in heading angle) and also the
North Atlantic wave conditions (with twenty-five-year unrestricted service condi-
tion of trading ships).
To define survival conditions, various methods for calculating the sea state
contours from short-term data generated from probability density distributions of
sea states are available in the literature (Fonseca et al. 2010; Haselsteiner et al.
2017; Orimolade and Gudmestad 2017; Choi et al. 2019; DNV 2019; Vazirizade
et al. 2019). These are useful for selecting long-term extreme conditions when the
inverse first-order reliability method (IFORM) is used. In this method, the prob-
ability density distributions of sea state parameters are often presumed to follow a
Weibull function for the significant wave height and a log-normal function for the
average zero-up-crossing wave period, although the outcomes of this method may
be plausible but unrealistic, as the characteristics of these parameters are site-
specific and distinct between locations. For the six seas, the probability density
distributions of the wave parameters are formulated from Equation (4.12) and are
listed in Table 4.19.
" #
β H s γ β1 Hs γ β
f ðH s Þ ¼ exp , H S 0, (4.12a)
α α α
Table 4.19. Coefficients of Equation (4.12) in six seas
Location α β γ a1 a2 a3 b1 b2 b3
North Sea 2.875 1.674 0.249 0.956 2.518 0.122 0.051 0.181 0.181
Gulf of Mexico 0.948 1.610 0.210 0.254 1.135 0.307 0.966 1.160 0.023
Western coast of 1.348 3.440 0.243 0.862 0.641 0.599 0.971 1.144 0.020
Africa
Eastern coast of 1.428 2.172 0.722 0.564 1.021 0.279 0.887 1.115 0.023
South America
Southeastern coast of 1.191 1.836 0.0 0.109 1.337 0.259 0.887 1.115 0.023
Asia
Northwestern coast of 1.111 2.139 0.249 1.189 0.357 0.571 0.926 1.108 0.022
Australia
" #
1 ð ln T z μÞ2
f ðT z Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , T z 0, (4.12b)
T z 2π σ 2σ 2
where μ ¼ a1 þ a2 H aS3 and σ ¼ b1 þ b2 eb3 H S .

Figure 4.18 shows the extreme sea state contours in the six seas with return periods
of 100, 1,000 and 10,000 years, as calculated based on the IFORM techniques
presented in Appendix 4. The sea states in the six seas during the past two decades
(April 1999–April 2019) were obtained from the DHI metocean data portal (www
.dhigroup.com/marine-water/metocean-data-portal) and are plotted in Figure 4.18. As
shown, the IFORM-based wave contours do not always adequately represent the
storm conditions in the seas. Alternatively, site-specific metocean data measured
directly at specific locations can be used.
The two circles in each plot of Figure 4.18 indicate the candidate survival
conditions defined for a hypothetical FPSO unit. The largest wave-induced hull girder
loads occur at the wavelength with a magnitude closest to the hull length or at the
largest wave height. Based on Equation (3.10), the most unfavourable wave period for
the hypothetical FPSO unit is found to be 13.98 s, as the hull length or wavelength is
305 m. Such extreme sea states based on the corresponding wave period occur in the
North Sea, but not in other locations. In this regard, the extreme conditions that
generate the highest significant wave height or average zero-up-crossing wave period
may be used for the survival analysis (indicated in Table 4.20) and in the red circles in
the plots of Figure 4.18. The corresponding wave-induced hull girder loads can be
predicted for the selected sea states from the analysis of hull motions (described in
Section 4.7).
Table 4.21 and Figure 4.19 compare the design wave-induced vertical bending
moments in survival conditions for FPSO unit hulls with a turret mooring system in
the North Sea as dealt with in Table 4.18 and Figure 4.17. It is seen that the results of
classification society rules match with the IFORM solutions in survival conditions.
Again, the design wave-induced load values in benign conditions are much smaller
than those in survival conditions.
North Sea (April 1999 – April 2019) Gulf of Mexico western coast of Africa
(April 1999 – April 2019) (April 1999 – April 2019)
extreme condition
extreme condition extreme condition
for a hypothetical FPSO
for a hypothetical FPSO unit

unit for a hypothetical FPSO
unit 10000-year contour
10000-year contour 10000-year contour 1000-year contour
100-year contour
1000-year contour 1000-year contour
100-year contour 100-year contour
Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s)
eastern coast of South America southeastern coast of Asia northwestern coast of Australia
(April 1999 – April 2019) (April 1999 – April 2019) (April 1999 – April 2019)
10000-year contour
extreme condition extreme condition extreme condition
for a hypothetical 10000-year contour 1000-year contour
for a hypothetical

for a hypothetical FPSO
FPSO unit 1000-year contour FPSO unit 100-year contour unit
100-year contour
10000-year contour
1000-year contour
100-year contour
Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s) Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s)
Figure 4.18 The measured relation between the significant wave height and the average zero-up-crossing wave period for a hypothetical floating
production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit in six seas
Table 4.20. Extreme conditions determined from a survival analysis of a hypothetical floating
production, storage and offloading unit in six seas
Highest H s (m) Highest T z (s)
Location Hs Tz Hs Tz
North Sea 16.718 12.460 9.659 14.015

Gulf of Mexico 7.848 9.404 3.294 9.691
Western coast of Africa 3.676 10.945 2.704 11.870
Eastern coast of South America 6.721 9.753 4.401 13.145
Southeastern coast of Asia 4.344 7.116 3.794 11.608
Northwestern coast of Australia 8.609 8.991 7.688 11.365
Table 4.21. Comparison of wave-induced vertical bending moments in survival conditions between the
IFORM and the existing results for FPSO unit hulls with a turret mooring system in the North Sea
Method WBM (GN·m) Condition
Present A −4.34 Benign

IFORM B −19.54 Survival
Sogstad (1995) C −21.64 Survival
D −18.45 Survival
E −15.44 Survival
Maerli et al. (2000) F −8.96 Survival
Guedes Soares et al. (2006) G −13.87 Survival
H −15.39 Survival
I −9.69 Survival
ABS (2021) J −19.54 Survival
BV (2016) K −19.54 Survival
DNV (2021) L −21.03 Survival
LR (2021) M −17.72 Survival
4.10 Tow Conditions
Tow conditions are defined using a short-term sea state along the route during tow
(shown in Figure 4.20). Although the tow speed is usually not high, it affects the
wave-induced hull girder loads of ship-shaped offshore installations, in addition to the
effects of the significant wave height and the hull form. For a trading ship, the design
wave-induced vertical bending moment M w is determined using unified formulas to
represent a once-in-twenty-five-years occurrence under North Atlantic wave
conditions.
If the hogging moment is assumed to be positive and the sagging moment is
assumed to be negative, the applicable formulas of the wave-induced vertical bending
moment M w are expressed as follows (IACS 2020):
Wave-Induced Bending Moment (GN.m)

A: Benign condition
B: IFORM (100-year return period)
C, D, E: Sogstad (1995)
F: Maerli et al. (2000)
G, H, I: Guedes Soares et al. (2006)
J: ABS (2021)
K: BV (2016)
L: DNV (2021)
M: LR (2021)
A B C D E F G H I J K L M
Figure 4.19 Comparison of wave-induced vertical bending moments in survival conditions

between the IFORM and the existing results for FPSO unit hulls with a turret mooring system in
the North Sea
Figure 4.20 The floating production, storage and offloading ship-shaped offshore installation
Pazflor in tow from its construction yard to its operating site off the coast of Angola in West
Africa (courtesy of Daewoo Shipbuilding and Marine Engineering)
M w ¼ 0:19fnlvh fm fp Cw L2 BC b kNm for hogging, (4.13a)
M w ¼ 0:19fnlvs fm fp C w L2 BC b kNm for sagging, (4.13b)
where L is the ship’s length, B is the ship’s breadth and Cb is the block coefficient.
fnlvh is the coefficient considering nonlinear effects that is applied to hogging, which
is taken as fnlvh ¼ 1:0 for a strength and fatigue assessment. fnlvs is the coefficient
considering nonlinear effects that is applied to sagging, which is taken as
fnlvs ¼ 0:58ðC b þ 0:7Þ=Cb for a strength assessment and fnlvs ¼ 1:0 for a fatigue
assessment. fm is the distribution factor for the vertical wave-induced bending
moment along a ship’s length, which is taken as fm ¼ 1:0 between 0:4L and
0:65L. fp is taken as fp
¼ fps for a strength assessment and
fp ¼ 0:9 0:27 ð6 þ 4f T ÞL 105 for a fatigue assessment. fps is taken as
fps ¼ 1:0 for the extreme sea load design load scenario, f ps ¼ 0:8 for the ballast water
exchange design load scenario, fps ¼ 0:8 for the accidentally flooded design load
scenario at sea and fps ¼ 0:4 for the harbour or sheltered water design load scenario.
fT is the ratio between the draught at a loading condition and the scantling draught,
which is taken as fT ¼ T LC =T SC , and must be 0.5, where T LC is the draught (in m)
amidship for the considered load case and T SC is the scantling draught, which is taken
as T SC ¼ ΔC b =ð1:025LBÞ, where Δ is the total volume. Finally, Cw is the wave
coefficient, which is taken as C w ¼ 10:75 ½ð300 LÞ=100 1:5 for 90 m L 300 m,
C w ¼ 10:75 for 300 m L 350 m, and C w ¼ 10:75 ½ðL 350Þ=150 1:5 for
350 m L 500 m.
For a counterpart to Equation (4.13), the still water vertical bending moment of
trading ships is estimated as follows (IACS 2020):

M sw ¼ þ fsw 0:171C w L2 BðC b þ 0:7Þ 103 M wvhmid kNm for hogging,
(4.14a)

M sw ¼ 0:85fsw 0:171C w L2 BðC b þ 0:7Þ 103 þ M wvsmid kNm for sagging,
(4.14b)
where
8
> 0:0792L for L 90
>
>
< 10:75 ½ð300 LÞ=100 1:5 for 90 L 300
Cw ¼
>
> 10:75 for 300 < L 350
>
:
10:75 ½ðL 350Þ=150 1:5 for 350 < L 500,
8
>
> 0:0 for x 0
>
>
>
< 0:15 at x ¼ 0:1L
>
fsw ¼ 1:0 for 0:3L x 0:7L
>
>
>
> 0:15 at x ¼ 0:9L
>
>
:
0:0 for x L,
M wvhmid is the wave-induced vertical hogging bending moment for strength

assessment using fp ¼ fm ¼ 1:0 in Equation (4.13) and M wvsmid is the wave-induced
vertical sagging bending moment for strength assessment using fp ¼ fm ¼ 1:0.
Equation (4.13) does not reflect the effects of tow speed, sea states and operational
conditions (e.g., draught) on the wave-induced hull girder loads. Loukakis–
Chryssostomidis seakeeping tables (Loukakis and Chryssostomidis 1975) are useful
for predicting the wave-induced vertical bending moments of ship-shaped offshore
installations in tow, as these tables enable the determination of the root-mean-square

values of the wave-induced bending moments based on the significant wave height
H s , the B=T ratio (where B is the hull’s beam and T is the hull’s draught in tow), the
L=B ratio, the offshore installation speed V, the block coefficient C b and the sea state
persistence time (Paik et al. 1998). The most probable extreme value of the wave-
induced bending moment M w (mean value) and the standard deviation σ w are com-
puted from an up-crossing analysis:
" #
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 0:5772
Mw ¼ 2λo ln N p þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi ρgL4 1016 ðGNmÞ, (4.15a)
2λo ln N p
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
π λ0
σ w ¼ pffiffiffi ρgL4 1016 ðGNmÞ, (4.15b)
6 2 ln Np
pffiffiffiffi
where λo is the root-mean-square value of the short-term wave-induced bending
moment process, ρ is the density, g is the acceleration of gravity and N p is the
expected number of wave-bending peaks. This latter value is usually estimated as
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
N p ¼ S= 13H s 3600, where H s is the significant wave height (m) and S is the
storm persistence time (h). Alternatively, if a wave peak normally occurs every 6–10 s
during a 3 h storm, for example, N p ¼ 3 60 60=10
1, 000.
storm duration, ZH = 3 h
towing speed, V = 10 knots
Wave-Induced Vertical Bending Moment (GN·m)
IACS H-CSR, Equation (4.13)

hogging = 11.115 GN·m T=5m
T = 10 m
T = 15 m
T = 20 m
Significant Wave Height, HS (m)
Figure 4.21 Wave-induced vertical bending moment obtained using the Loukakis–Chryssostomis
table method (where T is the draught of a hypothetical floating production, storage and
offloading unit in tow)
Appendix 5 provides the source listing of the Fortran program USAS-L, which is
an automated version of the Loukakis–Chryssostomidis seakeeping tables used to
calculate the short-term wave-induced vertical bending moments of ship-shaped
offshore installations in tow. Figure 4.21 shows the variations of the wave-induced
bending moments of a hypothetical FPSO unit in tow at the location of 0:5L with
varying a significant wave height ðH s Þ and a draught ðT Þ during a storm persistence
time of 3 h when the tow speed is 10 knots; here, L ¼ 305 m, B ¼ 60 m and
C b ¼ 0:975. The hull is in sagging condition during a normal tow with a significant
wave height less than 3 m, but the wave-induced vertical bending moment changes to
the hogging condition in storm, increasing significantly with the significant wave
height while decreasing as the draught increases. The design wave-induced bending
moment estimated from the IACS H-CSR of Equation (4.13) for trading ships is
equivalent to significant wave heights of 11 m in a 10 m draught and for a 3 h storm.
References
ABS (2021). Rules for Building and Classing Floating Production Installation. American
Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX.
Alsobrooks, L., Camilli, W., Garrity, R., Krafft S., McElligott, D. and Ray, W. (2007). Design
of a Floating Liquefied Natural Gas Production Vessel for Timor Sea. OCEN 407 Design of
Ocean Engineering Facilities, Ocean Engineering Program, Texas A&M University, College
Station, TX.
BV (2016). Rules for the Classification of Offshore Units. Bureau Veritas, Paris.
Choi, J. H., Jang, B. S., Park, J. H., Kim, H. J. and Park, S. C. (2019). ‘Improved environmental
contour methods based on an optimization of hybrid models’. Applied Ocean Research, 91,
doi: 10.1016/j.apor.2019.101901.
DNV (2019). Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads. Recommended Practice
DNV-RP-C205, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2020). Offshore Standards: Structural Design of Offshore Ship-shaped Units. Det
Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2021). Offshore Standards: Structural Design of Offshore Ship-Shaped and Cylindrical
Units. Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Fonseca, N., Pascoal, R., Guedes Soares, C., Clauss, G. and Schmittner, C. (2010). ‘Numerical
and experimental analysis of extreme wave induced vertical bending moments on a FPSO’.
Applied Ocean Research, 32: 374–390.
Guedes Soares, C., Fonseca, N., Pascoal, R., Clauss, G. F., Schmittner, C. E. and Hennig, J.
(2006). ‘Analysis of wave induced loads on a FPSO due to abnormal waves’. Journal of
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 128: 241–247.
Hamdan, F. (2003). Margins of Safety in FPSO Hull Strength. Research Report 083, Health and
Safety Executive, London.
Haselsteiner, A. F., Ohkendorf, J., Wosniok, W. and Thoben, K. (2017). ‘Deriving environ-
mental contours from highest density regions’. Coastal Engineering, 123: 42–51.
References 161
Loukakis, T. A. and Chryssostomidis, C. (1975). ‘Seakeeping standard series for cruiser-stern

ships’. Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 83: 67–127.
LR (2021). Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Offshore Units. Lloyd and Regula,
Southampton.
Maerli, A., Das, P. and Smith, S. (2000). ‘A rationalization of failure surface equation for the
reliability analysis of FPSO structures’. International Shipbuilding Progress, 47: 215–225.
Orimolade, A. P. and Gudmestad, O. T. (2017). ‘On weather limitations for safe marine
operations in the Barents Sea’. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering,
276: doi: 10.1088/1757-899X/276/1/012018.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Kim, S. J., Thomas, G. and Ma, M. (2019). ‘A new method for
determining the design values of wave-induced hull girder loads acting on ships’. Ships
and Offshore Structures, 14(S1): S63–S90.
Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. K. and Yang, S. H. (1998). ‘Residual strength assessment of ships
after collision and grounding’. Marine Technology, 35(1): 38–54.
Sogstad, B. E. (1995). ‘A sensitivity study of hull girder wave loads for ship shaped oil
production and storage vessels’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 7769, Houston,
TX, 1–4 May.
Vazirizade, S. M., Haldar, A. and Gaxiola-Camacho, J. R. (2019). ‘Uncertainty quantification of
sea waves: An improved approach’. Oceanography & Fisheries, 9(5), doi: 10.19080/
OFOAJ.2019.09.555775.
5 Serviceability Limit States
5.1 Principles of Serviceability Limit States Engineering
The performance of a structure and its components is described using limit state
functions that separate desired from undesired states. The physical effects of
exceeding a limit state may be reversible or irreversible. If the effects are reversible,
the removal of the cause of the exceedance allows a structure to return to the desired
state. If the effects are irreversible, a return to the desired state is not possible, and
certain consequences, such as damage, may ensue depending on the nature of the limit
state. These consequences may themselves be reversible or irreversible. For example,
if consequential damage is limited, such as an undesired and localised permanent set,
it may be repairable (e.g., by replacing the affected parts). Limit states are examined
against different target safety levels, where the target to be attained for any particular
type of limit state is a function of the consequences of and ease of recovery from that
state. There are four important types of limit states, as follows (Paik 2018, 2020):
serviceability limit states (SLS), which are criteria that govern normal functional or
operational use;
ultimate limit states (ULS), which represent the failure of a structure and its
components, typically when subjected to extreme action or action effect values;
fatigue limit states (FLS), which represent damage accumulation under repetitive
actions, which lead to cracking when certain limits are exceeded and
accidental limit states (ALS), which are relevant to accidental or abnormal events.
SLS criteria that affect the operations of ship-shaped offshore installations are
classified in terms of their ability to increase downtime and thus (potentially) reduce
revenue. Some examples include
elastic deflection limits under quasi-static actions, elastic buckling limits or

permanent set limits under impact pressure actions arising from tank sloshing,
slamming, green water or ice formation;
unacceptable deformations that inhibit the efficient use of structural or non-
structural components, or the functioning of equipment affected by these
components;
local damage (e.g., corrosion wastage and denting) that reduces the durability of a
structure or decreases the efficiency of structural or non-structural components;
intact ship-shaped offshore installation stability and watertight integrity;

offshore installation station-keeping;
offshore installation weathervaning or heading control;
offshore installation motions (or excursions) that exceed the limitations of
equipment, mooring systems or risers;
vibration or noise that can injure or adversely affect the habitability of the offshore
installation and the performance of personnel, or affect the proper functioning of
equipment (especially if resonance also occurs);
vortex-induced vibrations and oscillations of risers or
deformations that may spoil the aesthetic appearance of a structure.
Individual types of SLS may be interlinked. For example, the excessive deform-
ation of a structure may be accompanied by excessive vibration or noise and elastic
buckling. However, these SLS are often dealt with separately to enable efficient
engineering. Acceptable SLS limits are defined by the operator of a ship-shaped
offshore installation, with the primary aim being efficient and economical in-service
performance, typically accompanied by a planned programme of maintenance.
The safety criteria for SLS engineering are expressible in a general form, as follows:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ 0, (5.1)
where g is the limit state function for SLS engineering and is a function of the
parameters x1 , x2 , , xn that affect SLS responses. Equation (5.1) can be given in
terms of the actions or action effects associated with SLS, as follows:
F max < F a , δmax < δa , (5.2)
where F max is the factored maximum-applied actions (loads), F a is the factored load-
carrying capacity, δmax is the factored maximum value of the serviceability parameter
in terms of actions effects (e.g., displacement and stress) and δa is the factored
serviceability limit value of the consistent parameter. A ‘factored’ value is obtained
by an appropriate factor of safety associated with uncertainties being multiplied for
application to loads and divided for application to strength. Acceptable limits neces-
sarily depend on the type, mission and arrangement of an offshore installation.
Furthermore, when defining such limits, even for structural behaviour, other designers
(such as of machinery and equipment) must also be consulted.
5.2 Structural Idealisations
Individual structural members that comprise the hull structures of a ship-shaped

offshore installation operate interactively, which leads to a high redundancy and
complexity in structural responses, in contrast to those of portal frames. Structural
idealisations are therefore required for the analysis of action effects (e.g., deformation
and stress). The number of required structural idealisations depends on the
analytical situation.
A more refined model produces a greater degree of accuracy than a simpler model.
A final check solution should be as accurate as circumstances allow, but a rapid,
reasonably accurate estimate is sometimes more important for initial engineering than
a highly accurate estimate. Structural modelling must be developed such that the
modelled structural behaviour is nearly the same as that exhibited by an actual structure.
In an action effects analysis, modern computational power enables the entire hull
structure of a ship-shaped offshore installation to be modelled (shown in Figure 1.20
or 1.24), in which plate-shell elements are used to idealise the plating between the
support members and the webs and flanges of stiffeners. In initial estimates, the stiffened
plate structures (shown in Figure 5.1) that are used in the deck, side shell and bottom
areas as primary strength parts for the hull of a ship-shaped offshore installation are
often idealised using a plate-stiffener combination model or a plate-stiffener separation
model (shown in Figure 5.2). See chapter 2 of Paik (2018) for details.
Three types of plate-stiffener combination model sections (shown in Figure 5.3) are
typically used for hull structures, where the longitudinal direction of a member is
taken as the x-axis and the length between transverse frames is denoted by a. The full
b b b
t t t
hwx h wx
h wx
transverse frame t wx t wx
t wx t fx t fx
x
bfx bfx
a
types of longitudinal stiffeners
a a a
a
y
b
L t t t
b
b a
b
b
longitudinal hwy hwy
hwy
b stiffener twy twy
B b twy
b a tfy tfy
b
b
bfy bfy
types of transverse frames
Figure 5.1 A stiffened plate structure used to form the hull of a ship-shaped offshore installation
(a)
(b)
Figure 5.2 Models of a continuous stiffened panel between strong transverse frames:
(a) a plate-stiffener combination model and (b) a plate-stiffener separation model
flat bar angle bar tee bar
Figure 5.3 Typical types of plate-stiffener combination model sections (where N.A. stands
for the neutral axis; be ¼ effective width or breadth of plating; hw ¼ height (depth) of a
stiffener web; bf ¼ breadth of a stiffener flange; t ¼ thickness of plating; tw ¼ thickness of
a stiffener web and t f ¼ thickness of a stiffener flange)
and effective breadths (widths) of the attached plating are denoted by b and be ,
respectively. Table 5.1 provides the relevant properties of a plate-stiffener combin-
ation model (shown in Figure 5.3).
For a plate-stiffener combination model, the effective breadth of the attached
plating due to shear lag associated with a predominantly lateral load is estimated, in
contrast to the effective plate width concept due to non-uniform membrane stress
distribution (described in Section 7.2.2), as follows:
8
> b
be < 1:0 for a 0:18
¼ (5.3)
b >
: 0:18 a for b > 0:18,
b a
where be is the effective plate breadth and b is the breadth of plating between the
longitudinal stiffeners (longitudinal stiffener spacing). For details of Equation (5.3),
see chapter 2 of Paik (2018).
The attached plating used in a plate-stiffener combination model is a plate element
between the support members (longitudinal stiffeners and transverse frames), which
can buckle under predominantly axial compressive loads. In this case, the effective
width of the buckled plate is expressed as a function of the applied axial-compressive
stress, as follows:
be σ xav
¼ , (5.4)
b σ x max
where σ xav is the average axial-compressive stress and σ x max is the maximum axial-
compressive stress developed in the plate edges, which is a function of σ xav . Equation
(5.4) is a nonlinear function with regard to σ xav , showing that the effective width of the
plate is not constant but rather varies nonlinearly with applied loads and initial
imperfections (see chapter 4 of Paik (2018) for details).
Table 5.1. Properties of a plate-stiffener combination section with full or effective plating
Property Expression
Cross-sectional area Full A ¼ Ap þ Aw þ Af , where Ap ¼ bt, Aw ¼ hw t w ,

plating Af ¼ bf t f
Effective Ae ¼ Ape þ Aw þ Af , where Ape ¼ be t, Aw ¼ hw t w ,
plating Af ¼ bf t f
Ap σ Yp þ Aw σ Yw þ Af σ Yf
Equivalent yield stress over the cross-section σ Yeq ¼
A

0:5bt 2 þ Aw ðt þ 0:5hw Þ þ Af t þ hw þ 0:5t f
Distance from outer surface of Full z0 ¼
A
attached plating to elastic horizontal plating
neutral axis 0:5be t 2 þ Aw ðt þ 0:5hw Þ þ Af t þ hw þ 0:5tf
Effective zp ¼
Ae
plating

bt 3
t 2 h3w tw hw 2
Moment of inertia Full I¼ þ A p z0 þ þ A w z0 t
plating 12 2 12 2
bf t 3f tf 2
þ þ A f t þ h w þ z0
12 2

be t 3
t 2 h3w tw hw 2
Effective Ie ¼ þ Ape zp þ þ A w zp t
plating 12 2 12 2
bf t f3 tf 2
þ þ Af t þ hw þ zp
rffiffiffi 12 2
I
Radius of gyration Full r¼
A
plating rffiffiffiffi
Ie
Effective re ¼
A
plating rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a σ Yeq
Column slenderness ratio Full λ¼
πr E
plating rffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
a σ Yeq
Effective λe ¼
πr e E
plating rffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b σ Yp
Plate slenderness ratio β¼
t E
a ¼ transverse frame spacing (plate length); b ¼ longitudinal stiffener spacing (plate breadth); t ¼ thickness
of plating; hw ¼ height (depth) of a stiffener web; bf ¼ breadth of a stiffener flange; t w ¼ thickness of a
stiffener web; tf ¼ thickness of a stiffener flange; σ Yp ¼ yield stress of plating; σ Yw ¼ yield stress of a stiffener
web; σ Yf ¼ yield stress of a stiffener flange; E ¼ elastic modulus and subscript “e” represents the effective
cross-section.
The end conditions (i.e., boundary conditions) of a plate-stiffener combination

model depend on the joining methods and rigidities of its transverse frames. In welded
structures, the ends of support members are subject to a certain degree of restraint with
respect to rotation and translation, and this degree is neither zero nor infinite. The
effect of elastically restrained end conditions is a topic of interest in engineering
research. The simple support condition of Equation (5.5a) represents extreme condi-
tions, that is, a zero degree of rotational restraint, while the fixed condition of Equation
5.3 Elastic Deflection Limits 167
(5.5b) represents an infinite degree of rotational restraint, where the lateral deflection
(translation) relative to the reference plane is prevented. These equations are expressed
as follows:
d2 w
w ¼ 0, ¼ 0, (5.5a)
dx2
dw
w ¼ 0, ¼ 0, (5.5b)
dx
where w is the lateral deflection. A fixed condition is strictly distinct from a clamped
condition, as the former involves an infinite degree of axial restraint developing into
membrane axial tension, while the latter allows free axial movement. In contrast, a
plate-stiffener combination model with a continuous plate structure allows a certain
degree of axial movement.
5.3 Elastic Deflection Limits under Quasi-static Actions
The hull of a ship-shaped offshore installation is subjected to longitudinal and vertical

elastic distortions due to static loads and static load variations, and to dynamic effects
of environmental conditions, such as wind and waves. Under normal service actions,
the maximum deflection of the structural components of an offshore installation must
not exceed certain acceptable limits, as formulated in Equation (5.2). The related load
effects are accounted for in the design of the equipment support structure. Total
maximum deflections in specific cases, such as crane supports, are specified by the
equipment vendors. In classification society rules, the relative deflection limits are
usually not specified for most major structural members within the hull, except in
special cases such as crane supports and in the vicinity of certain types of equipment.
This is simply because some or many relative deflection limits are implicitly considered
by other prescriptive aspects of the rules. However, these limits are explicitly defined or
otherwise implicitly considered in the first principles-based engineering of structures.
5.3.1 Support Members

A plate-stiffener combination model that represents support members, such as stiffen-
ers, frames or girders, is subjected to bending, axial loads or combinations thereof
(shown in Figure 5.4). A one-dimensional member is known as a ‘beam’ when it is
subjected to bending arising from a distributed lateral load q, a concentrated lateral
load Q or direct bending actions M A or M B . In contrast, it is known as a ‘column’
when it is predominantly subjected to axial compressive loads, or a ‘rod’ when it is
predominantly subjected to axial tension. Finally, when both bending and axial
compressive loads are simultaneously applied, it is known as a ‘beam-column’.
In Equation (5.2), the limiting value ðδa Þ of vertical deflection for a beam ranges
between a=500 and a=200. For a cantilever beam, the value of a may be twice the
Figure 5.4 Load components acting on a plate-stiffener combination model
projecting length of the cantilever. There are stricter limits for non-stationary equip-
ment than for stationary equipment, and the as-built limits are usually stricter than the
operational limits. In structures that support shipboard pedestal cranes, δa ¼ a=300 is
an example of a deflection limit. In ship-shaped offshore installations, δa ¼ a=200
may be applied to deck beams and δa ¼ a=250 to deck beams that support plaster or
other brittle finishes or non-flexible partitions (DNV 2016). The maximum deflection
ðδmax Þ of a beam is determined as follows:
δmax ¼ δ1 δ0 , (5.6)
where δ1 is the deflection of the beam under both dead and live loads, and δ0 is the
pre-camber.
For a beam that is simply supported at both ends and is under uniformly distributed
lateral loads, δ1 is calculated as follows:
5qa4
δ1 ¼ , (5.7a)
384EI e
where q is the uniform line load, which is taken as q ¼ pb, E is the elastic modulus of
the material and I e is the moment of inertia of the plate-stiffener combination model
section with effective attached plating.
For a beam that is fixed at one end and simply supported at the other end and is
under uniformly distributed lateral loads, δ1 is calculated as follows:
qc2 2
δ1 ¼ 3a 5ac þ 2c2 , (5.7b)
48EI e
pffiffiffiffi
where c ¼ 15 33
16 a.
For a beam that is fixed at both ends and is under uniformly distributed lateral
loads, δ1 is calculated as follows:
qc2 2
δ1 ¼ a 2ac þ c2 , (5.7c)
24EI e
where c ¼ a2.
Strong support members, such as deep girders or frames, have a large web depth,
which is typically greater than 20 per cent of the beam span (length). In this case, the
effect of shear cannot be neglected. For a beam that is simply supported at both ends
and under a concentrated lateral load at its mid-span, the lateral deflection must take
into account the shear effect and is thus calculated as follows:
5.3 Elastic Deflection Limits 169

Pa3 12αEI e
δ1 ¼ 1þ , (5.8a)
48EI e GAa2
where G ¼ E=½2ð1 þ n Þ, n is the Poisson’s ratio (¼ 0.3 for steel), A is the cross-
sectional area, P is the concentrated lateral load applied at the mid-span and α is the
ratio of shear stress at the neutral axis to the average shear stress over the web. For a
rectangular cross-sectional steel web beam, that is, without a flange, α ¼ 1:5 is used,
and Equation (5.8a) is simplified as follows:

Pa3 h2
δ1 ¼ 1 þ 3:9 w2 , (5.8b)
48EI e a
where hw is the depth (height) of the web.

Significant lateral deflections may occur in columns or beam-columns after the
inception of buckling and when axial compressive loads are predominant. In these
situations, the magnitude of lateral deflections is theoretically infinite, given the
behaviour suddenly after buckling, as predicted by small-deflection elastic theory.
This is typical of an instability problem that may be solved by linear theory. Note that
‘suddenly’ is relative to the prior deformation, such that if there are pre-existing
deformations, mathematical transformations must be applied to the ongoing deflection
records to identify the onset of bifurcation buckling (see chapter 2 of Paik (2018) for
details).
5.3.2 Plating between Support Members

The limiting value of the lateral deflection ðδa Þ for plating surrounded by longitudinal
stiffeners and transverse frames is assumed to be a few times the plating thickness.
The maximum deflection of plating ðδmax Þ under uniformly distributed lateral-pressure
loads is calculated as follows:
pd b4
δmax ¼ α 105 , (5.9)
D
where pd is the design value of the uniformly distributed lateral pressure in a quasi-
static condition, D ¼ Et 3p =½12ð1 n 2 Þ is the bending rigidity of the plate and α is a
coefficient that depends on the plate aspect ratio of a=b and the plate edge conditions
(denoted αs if all edges are simply supported and αf if all edges are fixed), the values
of which for steel (for which n ¼ 0:3) are given in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Definition of the coefficient α in Equation (5.9)
a
b 1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 ∞
αs 406 485 564 638 705 772 830 883 931 974 1013 1223 1282 1297 1302
αf 192 251 319 388 460 531 603 668 732 790 844 1168 – – 1302
5.4 Elastic Plate Buckling Limits
Figure 5.5 presents the load components on a plate. The plate deflection under lateral
pressure loads increases in a stable manner, whereas plate elements under buckling
loads (e.g., axial compressive loads) deflect in an unstable manner. In principle,
elastic plate buckling and related deflections must be prevented if they are likely to
lead to damage. However, a plate exhibits some reserve strength beyond elastic
buckling and before its ultimate strength is reached, and thus allowing elastic plate
buckling to occur in a controlled manner may lead to a more efficient structure in
some cases. For example, elastic plate buckling may be allowed to occur in topside
deck plates but should be prevented in hull plates. The elastic plate buckling
criterion is expressed in terms of the buckling interaction relationship, as a function
of the applied buckling load components and corresponding elastic buckling
strength components as follows:
ΓB 1, (5.10)
where ΓB is the elastic plate buckling interaction relationship. For details of Equation
(5.10), see chapter 3 of Paik (2018).
by
y
p
~t
bx x x bx x
y
by
Figure 5.5 Load components acting on a plate (where a ¼ plate length; b ¼ plate breadth;
t ¼ plate thickness; σ x ¼ longitudinal axial stress; σ y ¼ transverse axial stress; τ ¼ shear
stress; σ bx ¼ longitudinal in-plane bending stress; σ by ¼ transverse in-plane bending stress
and p ¼ lateral pressure loads)
5.5 Elastic Flange Buckling Limits 171
For example, the elastic buckling criteria of a plate under longitudinal axial
compressive stress ðσ xav Þ or under combined biaxial compressive stresses (σ xav and
σ yav ) are expressed as follows:
σ xav
1, (5.11a)
σ xE

σ xav α1 σ yav α2
þ 1, (5.11b)
σ xE σ yE
where σ xE is the elastic buckling stress under σ xav , σ yE is the elastic buckling stress
under σ yav , and α1 and α2 are the coefficients for the interaction effect, which are given
as a function of the plate aspect ratio. That is:
a pffiffiffi
α1 ¼ α2 ¼ 1, for 1 2
b
a3 a2 a 9
α1 ¼ 0:0293 þ 1:5854 1:0596 >
0:3364 =
b b b a pffiffiffi
a3 a2 for > 2,
a >
þ 0:6153 þ 0:8522 ;
b
α2 ¼ 0:0049 0:1183
b b b
π2 E t 2
σ xE ¼ kx , (5.12a)
12ð1 n 2 Þ b
π2 E t 2
σ yE ¼ ky , (5.12b)
12ð1 n Þ b
2
where kx and ky are the buckling coefficients under the corresponding load compon-
ent, σ xav or σ yav , which depend on the boundary conditions (e.g., simply supported,
fixed or elastically restrained conditions), cut-outs and load types. See chapter 3 of
Paik (2018) for details on the effects of more complex load combinations and
cut-outs.
5.5 Elastic Flange Buckling Limits
A stiffener flange is connected at three edges of transverse frames and a stiffener web,
with one edge left free. Elastic buckling must be prevented in a stiffener flange under
axial compressive loads, as shown in Figure 5.6 and described by the following
criterion:
!2
π2 E tf
σ xav kf , (5.13)
12ð1 n 2 Þ b∗
f
where kf ¼ 0:425 þ (b∗ ∗ 2

f =a) and bf ¼ bf for asymmetric angle stiffeners. Here,
b∗
f ¼ 0:5bf for symmetric tee-stiffeners, where bf is the breadth of a flange.
free tf
~
simply supported b*f
Figure 5.6 A stiffener flange with three simply supported edges and one free edge (where
b∗
f ¼ half breadth of a stiffener flange; t f ¼ thickness of a stiffener flange and a ¼ length of
a stiffener flange between transverse frames)
5.6 Permanently Set Plate-Deflection Limits under Impact Pressure Actions
Impact pressure actions arising from sloshing, slamming or green water (described in
Sections 3.12–3.14) may cause the excessive deflection of structural components on
ship-shaped offshore installations. The characteristics of such actions may be idealised
as quasi-static action problems if their action durations are significantly longer than
the natural period of a structure. This means that not all cases of sloshing, slamming or
green water will lead to impact pressure pulses; non-impact pressure variations are
more common and can usually be addressed in a quasi-static manner. However, when
the duration time of an action is short relative to the natural period of a structure, the
action must be addressed in the impact or impulsive domains. In this regard, the
following three-step procedure is used in SLS design and engineering to account for
impact pressure actions with short impact-duration times.
Step 1. Define the design profiles of impact pressure loads in terms of the pressure
versus time history. At least two action parameters, that is, the design value of the
peak pressure load ðpd Þ and the pressure duration time ðτ Þ for the design
environmental conditions, must be characterised by an analysis of offshore
installation motion using site-specific environmental data, where impulse values of
the design (idealised) profiles must be equal tothose of the actual situations.
Step 2. Calculate the permanent-set deflection wp resulting from the impact pressure
action using the two parameter values determined in Step 1.
Step 3. Optimise the structure such that the amount
of structural damage calculated in
Step 2 does not exceed the limiting value wpa prescribed according to the
structure type, the location and the severity of consequences, where wpa is taken to
be a few times the plate thickness.
The two action parameters, that is, peak pressure and pressure duration time, are
determined using various procedures, such as computational fluid dynamics simula-
tions. The type of local damage to structural components under the impact pressure
actions calculated in Step 2 is the permanent-set deflection, wp . Repeated impact
pressure actions may cause structural components to undergo low-cycle fatigue cracking
or rupture, which are considered separately in design and engineering if required.
Under the application of impact pressure actions, a plate with a length a, width b
and thickness t deflects between support members that are designed to provide it with
5.6 Permanently Set Plate-Deflection Limits 173
wp
Figure 5.7 Presumed collapse mode of a plate clamped at all (four) edges under lateral impact
pressure actions (where a ¼ plate length; b ¼ plate breadth; wp ¼ permanent-set plate deflection
and ϕ ¼ rotation along the plastic hinge lines)
sufficient support and to not fail before the plate. The adjacent plating deflects in the
same direction as the pressure loading, implying a large degree of rotational restraint
along the support member boundaries. As such, the plate is modelled as being
clamped along all of its edges. It is assumed that the material of the plate obeys the
Tresca-type yield criterion, that is, that shear forces do not affect its yielding
behaviour.
The assumed collapse mode of the plate is depicted in Figure 5.7. The material is
rigid perfectly plastic and the loaded plate is divided into several rigid sections
separated
by plastic hinge lines. In this case, the maximum permanent-set deflection
wp of the plate under impact pressure action but not exposed to a strain rate effect is
expressed for the lower-bound solution (see chapter 10 of Hughes and Paik (2010) for
details), as follows:
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ffi
wp α A1 A0 A1
¼ 2 λþ , (5.14)
t A2 A2 A2 A2
μV 2 b2 σ t2 pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where λ ¼ 4M0p t , V 0 ¼ pμd τ , M p ¼ Yp4 , μ ¼ ρt, tan ϕ ¼ 3 þ α2 α, β ¼ a=b,
α ¼ 1=β ¼ b=a, A0 ¼ 3=ð2 sin ϕ cos ϕÞ þ 1=α tan ϕ, A1 ¼ 1=ð3 sin ϕ cos ϕÞ þ
2= tan ϕ þ 2=α, A2 ¼ 4 ½1=ð sin ϕ cos ϕÞ þ 1= tan ϕ þ 4=α 3 tan ϕ, σ Yp is the material
yield stress of plating under static load (without allowance for the strain rate), pd is the
design value of peak pressure loads involving inherent and modelling uncertainties
and ρ ¼ γ=g is the mass per unit volume. Here, ρ ¼ 7:85 ðN s2 =mm4 Þ for steel with a
density of γ ¼ 7850 kg=m3 and g is the acceleration of gravity, which is 9.8 m=s2 .
For a square plate with β ¼ 1, A0 ¼ 3, A1 ¼ 14=3 and A2 ¼ 16, Equation (5.14) is
simplified as follows:
wp pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
¼ 0:1250λ 0:1024 0:2917: (5.15)
t
For impact loading, the strain-rate effect of a material must be taken into account
(described in Section 2.7). The dynamic yield stress is estimated from the Cowper–
Symonds equation (indicated in Equation (2.5)), as follows:
( 1=q )
ε_
σ Ypd ¼ 1þ σ Yp , (5.16)
C
where σ Ypd is the dynamic

yield stress of plating, σ Yp is the static yield stress of
plating, ε_ ¼ V 0 = 2wp is the strain rate (indicated in Equation (2.3)) and C and q are
the coefficients of the Cowper–Symonds equation, which are given by C ¼ 40:4=s
and q ¼ 5 for ordinary steel (grade A) and by C ¼ 3200=s and q ¼ 5 for high-strength
steel (described in Section 2.7.2).
To account for the strain rate effect, σ Yp in Equation (5.14) is replaced by σ Ypd in
Equation (5.16). In this case, the permanent-set plate deflection formula becomes a
_ which is itself a function of wp =t. A nonlinear function
function of the strain rate ε,
with regard to the permanent-set deflection is obtained as follows:
wp w
p
¼ f ðλ, ε_ Þ ¼ f λ; ; , (5.17)
t t
where λ ¼ pd 2 τ 2 b2 =ðσ Yd ρt 4 Þ.
The estimated permanent-set deflection wp under impact pressure loads ðpd Þ must
not be greater than the deflection that occurs when the pressure duration is equal to the
natural period of the plate, that is:
wp w∗
p, (5.18)
where w∗p ¼ wp at τ ¼ T with a natural period of T. The natural period of a steel plate
is approximated by the following calculation:
1
T¼ , (5.19)
fn
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where f n ¼ C N π D=ðρt Þ= 2b2 , D ¼ Et 3 =½12ð1 n 2 Þ, E is the elastic modulus, n
is the Poisson ratio (¼ 0.3 for steel) and CN is a constant that is defined for clamped-
edge conditions, as follows:
8 4 3 2
>
< 0:054 a 0:443 a þ 1:430 a 2:376 a þ 2:395 for 0 < a 3
CN ¼ b
a
b b b b
>
: 0:55 for > 3:
b
5.7 Stability of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
A ship-shaped offshore installation must be designed to have appropriate buoyancy,

such that it will float at the correct attitude and remain generally upright during normal
use and in accidental situations (e.g., unintended flooding). This necessitates using
gravitational stability and related criteria to judge the adequacy of this stability when
subject to internal loading and external upsetting hazards and during transit.
The stability design procedures used for a moored ship-shaped offshore installation
are similar to those used for a trading ship (Lewis 1988). Calm water (i.e., no wind or
5.7 Stability of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 175
righting moment curve

Moment
A
A
wind heeling moment
CC B
B
θ1 Angle of Head (θ) θR θD θ2
Figure 5.8 Intact stability criteria for a ship-shaped offshore installation with respect to
the angle of head
current) analytical frameworks are used, in which the stability of the offshore instal-
lation is assumed to be governed primarily by the state of the equilibria among its
weight (gravity forces), buoyancy and centre of gravity, among other factors. Its
inherent stability is judged on its own terms (i.e., based on known threshold values)
and with respect to safety margins against upsetting forces and wind heel moments,
which are predefined and service-proven. Notably, wind may have large external
actions on an offshore installation, and thus the curves of righting and wind heeling
moments (similar to Figure 5.8) must be examined and plotted for the most critical
cases. A full range of draughts, including those in transit (tow) conditions, is also
considered. When calculating the wind heeling moments, the maximum variable deck
and equipment loads in the most unfavourable condition and position are considered.
To ensure that the safest level of intact stability is obtained, all of the following
conditions (based on a set of criteria from HSE (2001a)) must be satisfied:
A þ B 1:4ðB þ CÞ, θ1 15 , θ2 30 , GM 0:3 m, GZ 0:5GM o sin θ,
(5.20)
where A, B and C are the areas illustrated in Figure 5.8; θ1 is the static angle of heel
due to wind; θ2 is the second intercept of the wind heeling and righting moment
curves; GZ is the righting lever; GM o is the minimum permissible GM (metacentric
height); θ is the angle in the range of 0 to a minimum of θD or θM or 15 , where θD is
the angle of the first down-flooding and θM is the angle of the maximum righting
lever. In calculating A, B and C, the following conditions must be satisfied:
θR θD , θ R θ2 , (5.21)
where θR is the angle to which the areas A, B and C are evaluated.

The curves of wind heeling moments are partly drawn using the distribution of the
wind loads, which are estimated from Equation (3.3) or by similar means. Wind loads
are significantly affected by the wind speed, which must therefore be determined from
site-specific environmental data. In situations where the wind speeds of a site are less
than the statutorily mandated wind speeds, the latter approach (similar means) is used
to determine the distribution of wind loads. The wind speeds for normal operational
conditions, transit (tow) and intermediate conditions and severe storm conditions are
considered. In addition, the areas of all surfaces exposed to wind caused by heeling or
trim are included in the calculations of the projected areas in the vertical plane.
Topsides and other deck structures may significantly affect the wind heeling moments
as a ship-shaped offshore installation is heeled, and thus these effects are also included
in the calculations.
In calculations of the wind heeling moments, the moment arm is defined as a
distance in the vertical direction from the centre of pressure of all exposed surfaces to
the centre of lateral resistance in the underwater body of a ship-shaped offshore
installation. When a dynamic positioning system is used, wind heeling moment curves
are determined to account for the difference in force between the maximum applied
thrust and the total wind force acting on the centre of lateral resistance. In such cases,
the maximum thrust is applied at the thruster elevation. A complete range of cases
with varying heeling angles is therefore evaluated to obtain the wind heeling moment
curves. The wind heeling moment curve for a ship-shaped offshore installation takes
the form of a cosine function (HSE 2001a).
A limiting value of the static heeling angle caused by wind (e.g., a 15 maximum)
is prescribed for any condition as an intact stability criterion. In addition, the ratio of
the area under the righting moment curve to the area under the heeling moment curve,
as illustrated in Figure 5.8, should not be less than a limiting value, which may be
approximately 1.4 for surface and self-elevating offshore platforms and 1.3 for
column-stabilised offshore platforms (HSE 2001a). These areas are measured from
the upright position to a heeling angle, which is taken as the first down-flooding angle
or the second intercept of the wind heeling and righting moment curves, whichever is
lower. Limits on metacentric heights are also usually specified for the intact condition.
Overall, a ship-shaped offshore installation must maintain a stable equilibrium across
a range of large angles (e.g., up to 30 ) of heel after damage.
5.8 Weathervaning and Heading Control of Ship-Shaped

Offshore Installations
In all design operating conditions, a dynamic positioning system (and occasionally tug
assistance) is used to ensure the correct heading of a ship-shaped offshore installation
equipped with a mooring system. Unlike a spread mooring system, a turret mooring
system has the advantage of enabling an offshore installation to rotate about the turret
to adopt the optimum orientation in response to environmental conditions, such as
wind, waves and current. This rotation about the turret is termed weathervaning and
occurs in two forms: free and partial. In the former, the offshore installation freely
rotates through 360 , while in the latter it rotates to approximately
270 (i.e., in one
5.9 Excessive Motion 177
direction and also in the other direction). Partial weathervaning is sometimes estab-
lished via a drag chain attachment. An offshore installation must also be subject to
heading control to mitigate motions and environmental actions, such as mooring loads
and problems caused by slamming and green water.
Severe storms tend to be unidirectional, although the wind direction may vary by

30 or more in a medium-to-severe storm. An abrupt change in the heading of an
offshore installation may substantially increase its roll motion before its heading can
be brought back to face the incoming wave. Thus, an offshore installation may
develop adverse roll motions that affect the operation of its machinery (e.g., power
generators) even if it is at a modest heading angle to a wind-driven wave, or if there is
a beam swell with waves close to the natural period in roll.
To enable accurate theoretical and numerical predictions of the wave heading of
an offshore installation, appropriate joint distributions of the relevant metocean
parameters are identified, or appropriate design values that are neither too extreme
nor too insignificant are determined, and used (with a consideration of the uncer-
tainties inherent to such an approach) to accurately predict the responses to
complex scenarios. Model testing is also recommended to reduce some of the
related uncertainties and to obtain better predictions of weathervaning and its
effects (HSE 2000).
If a dynamic positioning system is used in conjunction with a mooring system, an
analysis of the former system accounts for the effects and interactions of the latter
system, and vice versa. Thus, the failure of a mooring line is considered in the design
of thrusters, as a sudden mooring-line failure leads to changes in the heading and
mooring loads and may overload a dynamic positioning system. Similarly, a mooring
analysis takes into account the failure of a dynamic positioning system. In the event of
the failure of a main power-generating unit, sufficient power must remain available to
maintain the position of a ship-shaped offshore installation. A dynamic positioning
system for heading control is useful in this context, as it incorporates a device that
detects and records any position loss and gives a visual and/or audible warning when a
position loss exceeds certain threshold values.
Information about dynamic positioning systems and their implementation is given
in various guidelines and classification society rules. Some of these guidelines have
been developed in other contexts, for example, for diving support vessels, which lack
production equipment such as risers. In these cases, additional factors are considered
to control the maximum allowable excursions in relation to, for example, production
risers. Thus, whether a riser needs to be disconnected, and how this may be safely
achieved, may be an important design consideration.
5.9 Excessive Motion of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
The equipment on a ship-shaped offshore installation has certain operational limits

associated with motion velocities and accelerations. Offshore installation motions can
lead to sloshing, which can cause equipment failures if not properly considered in
design. As such, motions and excursions are limited to the prescribed values to meet
the operational requirements of an offshore installation.
Excessive motions, accelerations and excursions lead to increased downtime as a
result of the exceedance of limits associated with various functions, such as produc-
tion, mooring and station-keeping, and to the decreased efficiency or failure of the
structures and equipment associated with these functions. Of particular importance in
this regard are offshore installations comprising technology that is normally land-
based, such as gas de-propanisers. Large vessel motions of oil- or gas-producing
offshore installations may lead to problems with oil–water and gas–liquid separation
processes and with slamming and green water. In particular, lateral excursions and roll
motions may diminish the serviceability of production equipment and risers.
Furthermore, most operations involving personnel transfer are motion-sensitive.
In general, the topside equipment on a ship-shaped offshore installation causes a
centre of gravity relatively higher than that of a trading tanker, and consequently leads
to greater motion. In an offshore installation, motion exceedance is closely related to
heading control and station keeping. Offshore installations are also more likely to be
subjected to large lateral motions, particularly because of beam seas. Beam sea
conditions not only affect offshore installations equipped with a spread mooring
system but also affect those with a weathervaning system, as currents may act in
directions different to those of the wind and waves. Motion and hydrodynamic
analyses are readily performed for particular situations using modern refined methods
but do not include certain details, such as the input to the offshore installation
behaviour during rolling, which is significantly affected by nonlinear viscous roll-
damping. In such cases, experiments must be performed to obtain specific data. The
validation of analytical tools by comparing predicted and experimental data
is recommended.
A cost-effective method to increase roll damping and reduce roll motion involves
increasing the length and size of the bilge keels (HSE 2005). In such cases, model tests
are used to determine the optimum locations and sizes of the bilge keels and to
confirm their strength and fatigue performance.
Excessive motion prevents crew members from performing their tasks effectively.
Thus, the effects of motion on human performance, health and safety must be
evaluated. Human limitations can be greater than machinery limitations. Several
classes of human performance degradation associated with vessel motions are rele-
vant: postural stability, motion sickness, motion-induced fatigue and vibration effects
on the human body. Postural stability is related to low frequency vibrations, typically
below 0.5–1.0 Hz, as human postural stability is maintained by a complex musculo-
skeletal system comprising various controls. These low frequency vibrations also
cause motion sickness, the effects of which are different at sea than on land. Fatigue
leads to errors in critical tasks and thus affects the operational effectiveness of a crew
during prolonged periods aboard vessels at sea. High frequency vibrations also cause
mechanical resonance in humans, leading to discomfort and lack of concentration. The
effects of indoor climates and lighting on crew habitability also affect the rates of
human error.
5.10 Vibration and Noise 179
5.10 Vibration and Noise
Vibration is controlled on a ship-shaped offshore installation for the same reasons as on

a trading ship: to protect personnel health, to enable personnel to perform designated
tasks and to provide an acceptable environment for rest and recreation in accommoda-
tion areas. Similarly, noise is controlled (based on ISO 6954 (2000)) to minimise the
risk of hearing damage to personnel in work areas; to ensure that warning signals are
heard; to enable communication by speech, telephone and radio; to maintain working
efficiency and to create an acceptable rest and recreation environment. Vibration and
noise analyses and control methods for ship-shaped offshore installations are similar to
those used for trading ships, and comprise the prevention of resonance and placement of
acceptable limits on vibrational amplitudes, velocities, accelerations and noise levels.
The vibrations of ship-shaped offshore installations are caused by machinery,
thrusters, propulsion engines and propellers, and are usually of a higher frequency
than those of offshore installation motions. Slamming induces higher frequency
transient vibrations, known as ‘whipping’. Springing – a type of steady-state vibration
that is rare in trading ships and offshore installations – is related to the two-noded
mode of vibration of the hull girders. As offshore installations lack large machinery
such as main engines and a propeller (or these are not operational), only local
vibration effects are relevant.
Vibration and noise control must be considered during the selection and specifica-
tion of various equipment and pieces of machinery. Vendors are expected to supply
appropriate testing and documentary evidence of the vibration and noise levels
exhibited by their equipment and machinery. Vibration and noise limits that apply
to ship-shaped offshore installations are included in the technical specifications.
Vibration limits are divided into five categories, ranging from the recommended
vibration limits in living accommodation facilities (category V) to prohibited vibration
limits (greater than category I) (indicated in Table 5.3) (HSE 2001b). Sample vibration
limits for human exposure are presented in Figure 5.9 for the vertical and horizontal
Table 5.3. Vibration limit categories for ship-shaped offshore installations
Category Description
I Restricted-area (<4 min exposure) vibration limits. Short exposure to levels above these limits
may be a health hazard and cause difficulty in walking. These high levels of vibration usually
cause such alarm and discomfort that affected persons will leave an affected area intuitively.
Vibration levels above these limits are treated as ‘prohibited’.
II Acceptable only locally around equipment, although vibration limits for machinery itself may be
more restrictive than these levels. Annoyance and discomfort may be experienced.
III Recommended design vibration limits for all general work areas. Vibration levels are easily
detectable but not uncomfortable.
IV Recommended design vibration limits for offices, control rooms and similar areas.
V Recommended design vibration limits for sleeping, recreation and similar areas in living
accommodation. These vibration levels are only just detectable.
category I
Horizontal Acceleration Limit (rms) (m/s2)

Vertical Acceleration Limit (rms) (m/s2)
category I
category II
category III category II
category IV
category III
category V
category IV
category V
Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)
Figure 5.9 Vibration limits for the vertical and horizontal directions (where rms stands for the root mean square)
References 181
directions. Noise limits vary within different areas of ship-shaped offshore instal-
lations, such as in specific work areas or in sleeping and recreation areas. These noise
limits range from 45 to 70 dBA (HSE 2001b).
5.11 Vortex-Induced Vibrations
A unique source of vibration in ship-shaped offshore installations is the vortex

shedding that may occur in mooring lines or risers under heavy current conditions.
This behaviour is affected by the current velocity, which is significant even in deep
water at certain locations. Vortex shedding occurs when fluid separates and starts to
flow around and within a circular cylinder, thus generating a symmetric then asym-
metric wake pattern that leads to the successive developing and shedding of vortices
on either side of the cylinder. This causes oscillatory forces to be applied on the
cylinder. If there is resonance between these oscillatory forces and the cylinder
structure, the structural displacement will increase and can even perturb the mooring
line or riser functions in extreme cases. The vortex-shedding period for a vertically
oriented cylinder in a current is inversely proportional to the current velocity.
Problematic oscillations occur in a cylinder when its natural frequency is identical
to the vortex-shedding frequency. That is, in a certain range of the current velocity, the
vortex-shedding frequency locks in to the natural frequency of the cylinder. This
phenomenon is referred to as resonance or synchronisation.
Galloping is another oscillatory phenomenon that occurs when vortex-induced
hydrodynamic forces cause a sufficiently large negative damping of the oscillations.
Galloping instability oscillations can occur during lower current velocities than those
which generate lock-in instability oscillations. Structures may suffer fatigue damage
from either type of vortex-induced vibrations.
References
DNV (2016). Offshore Standards: Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General: LRFD Method.
Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
HSE (2000). Review of Model Testing Requirements for FPSOs. Offshore Technology Report,
OTO 2000/123, Health and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (2001a). Stability. Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2001/049, Health and Safety
Executive, London.
HSE (2001b). Noise and Vibration. Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2001/068, Health and
HSE (2005). Findings of Expert Panel Engaged to Conduct a Scoping Study on Survival Design
of Floating Production Storage and Offloading Vessels against Extreme Metocean
Conditions. Research Report No. 357, Health and Safety Executive, London.
Hughes, O. F. and Paik, J. K. (2010). Ship Structural Analysis and Design. The Society of Naval
ISO 6954 (2000). Mechanical Vibration: Guidelines for the Measurement, Reporting and
Evaluation of Vibration with Regard to Habitability on Passenger and Merchant Ships.
International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Lewis, E. V. (1988). Principles of Naval Architecture. The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Alexandria, VA.
6 Fatigue Limit States
6.1 Principles of Fatigue Limit States Engineering
Fatigue cracking damage is a primary reason why aging structures require expensive
repair work. In this context, fatigue limit states (FLS) are equally relevant among the four
types of limit states (described in Section 5.1). FLS describe conditions in which a
particular structural member or an entire structure fails to perform its designated function
because of the initiation and growth of cracking damage (Paik 2018, 2020). FLS are
associated with structural details that are vulnerable to stress concentration and crack
damage accumulation under repeated loading. Cracks also form as a result of defects that
are generated during the fabrication of a structure, and may remain undetected and
increase in size. Under further cyclic loading or monotonic extreme loading, such cracks
and defects grow with time, as shown in Figure 6.1. Large cracks may lead to the
progressive or catastrophic failure of a structure in association with ultimate limit states
(described in Chapter 7), and thus FLS design and engineering, coupled with close-up
survey and maintenance strategies, is needed to obtain crack-tolerant structures.
The initiation of fatigue cracks is affected by many factors, such as the properties of
materials, high levels of local stresses (e.g., stress concentration and residual stresses),
the size of components, the nature of stress variations (e.g., stress variations during the
loading and unloading cycles, and the number of wave-induced stress range cycles)
and environmental and operational factors (e.g., the corrosion and performance of
coatings). Flaws (e.g., poor materials, porosity, slag inclusions, undercuts, lack of
fusion and incomplete weld-root penetration) and misalignments also substantially
increase stress concentrations and initial defects at welds. Fatigue cracks grow pro-
gressively with time in ductile material but may become unstable in brittle (or even
ductile) material in certain conditions, such as low temperatures with impact loading.
Crack growth is affected by various parameters, such as the initial crack size, the
history of local nominal stresses, the load sequence, crack retardation, crack closure,
the crack growth threshold and the stress intensity range and factor at the crack tip
(which depends mainly on geometry and loading). To increase the fatigue perform-
ance of a structure, the effects of stress concentrations, flaws and structural degrad-
ation, such as corrosion and fatigue effects, must be avoided or minimised.
Minimisation is typically achieved by the monitoring and acceptable control of stress
concentrations, flaws and structural degradation during the design, construction and/or
service of structures. The effect of stress concentrations is assessed at the design stage
a(T) I: crack initiation stage a(T): crack size (length)

II: crack propagation stage ac(T): critical crack size
III: failure stage
I II III
ac, min
ac(T) fracture
(failure)
a(T)
ao
0 TI To TF Time T
Figure 6.1 Initiation and growth of a crack over time
to ensure that the fatigue life of a structure is longer than the design service life and
that there is an adequate margin of safety. Construction defects are monitored and
controlled based on appropriate construction standards. As such standards apply
generally to sea-going vessels, fatigue performance is usually enhanced according to
the structural characteristics of a specific ship-shaped offshore installation and associ-
ated economic factors.
Planned in-service inspection and maintenance regimes are related to fatigue
engineering and construction. It may be more economic to allow for a small level of
fatigue damage in a structure if it can be confirmed that the structure will continue to
perform its function after the fatigue symptoms are detected and until repairs are
made. This is because attempts to wholly prevent fatigue damage may require a much
heavier structure to be formed, thereby increasing the costs and decreasing the payload
capacity of a ship-shaped offshore installation. However, a lower tolerance of fatigue
damage may be necessary if it is inconvenient or difficult to inspect a structure or
interrupt production of an offshore installation, and/or the consequences of fatigue
cracking would be substantial.
The safety criteria for FLS engineering are expressible in a general form, as
follows:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ < 0, (6.1)
where g is the limit state function for FLS engineering, which is a function of the
parameters x1 , x2 , , xn affecting FLS responses. Equation (6.1) can also be
expressed in terms of actions or action effects, as follows:
σ σ cr , D Dcr , (6.2)
6.2 Approaches for Fatigue Limit States Engineering 185
where σ is the factored fatigue stress, σ cr is the critical fatigue stress, D is the fatigue
damage index and Dcr is the critical fatigue damage index.
Traditional FLS design and engineering approaches applied in classification society
rules for the routine fatigue design of trading tanker structures are basically used for
ship-shaped offshore installations with certain dominant profiles of environmental and
operational actions considered to be the main fatigue actions. However, these
approaches contain various adjustment factors (some obvious and some not) that are
typically obtained by a calibration exercise designed to prevent large departures from
certain ranges, based on the knowledge of existing trading tanker behaviours and steel
weights. Thus, these approaches are not fully adopted in the fatigue design of ship-
shaped offshore installations, as these structures require more specific design and
engineering approaches.
6.2 Approaches for Fatigue Limit States Engineering
The primary task of FLS engineering is to calculate the fatigue damage or expected
fatigue life, which is based on either crack initiation or crack growth. Three FLS
engineering-based approaches to determining crack initiation are relevant in this
context: the time-domain approach, the deterministic approach and the spectral
approach. The last approach is the most suitable for the FLS engineering of ship-
shaped offshore installations.
The time-domain approach involves the calculation of a time series of fatigue
stresses associated with a narrow-band Gaussian response, in which only the local
maxima or minima of stresses are used. Cycle-counting methods are required for the
calculation of more general fatigue stress time histories over effective stress ranges.
Four types of counting methods are used: peak counting, range counting, level-crossing
counting and rain-flow counting, of which the latter method is most commonly used in
the offshore installation industry. The deterministic approach is based on empirical
relationships between stress and time, with fatigue loading represented by several
loading cases, each with a defined time and number of cycles. A stress range for each
loading case is determined, and the total fatigue damage over time is estimated using
Miner’s rule. Finally, the spectral approach takes into account the characteristics of a
narrow-banded or broad-banded stress spectrum to determine the number of stress
cycles of a certain magnitude. In reality, a fatigue response is neither narrow-banded
nor broad-banded but somewhere in between. Correction factors are therefore used to
adjust the narrow-band based fatigue damage estimations by taking into account the
effects of broad-band responses (Wirsching and Light 1980; Chaudhary and Dover
1985; Hancock and Gall 1985; Kam and Dover 1988,1989).
Crack growth-based FLS engineering applies fracture mechanics approaches that
use the original or modified Paris–Erdogan law (Paris and Erdogan 1960; Lotsberg
2016; Paik 2018). This law determines the crack growth rate as a function of the stress
range by taking into account various parameters of influence, such as crack size and
stress cycle number.
6.3 Types of Critical Structural Details
FLS design and engineering are undertaken for every suspected location of fatigue
cracking, such as welded joints and local stress concentration areas. Notably, although
the overall geometric dimensions and properties of the hull structures of ship-shaped
offshore installations are similar to those of trading tankers, they are subject to action
effects with different characteristics. Furthermore, an offshore installation has unique
structural details at the connections between its hull and topside facilities, between its
hull and risers or mooring lines, such as topside supports, pipe racks and flare tower
foundations, and in its supports for offloading lines, risers and mooring lines.
Table 6.1 summarises the structural details and locations for the FLS assessment of
ship-shaped offshore installations and the sources of fatigue actions. Figure 6.2 shows
critical structural details that indicate the occurrence of fatigue cracks.
6.4 Safety Factors for Fatigue Limit States
It remains unclear how fatigue cracks are physically correlated with the fatigue test
data used in FLS design and engineering. Nevertheless, a structure must be ensured to
have an adequate fatigue life that is longer than the design service life by an acceptable
margin of safety. The predicted fatigue life is therefore a required input when planning
effective inspection programmes during the operation of a ship-shaped offshore
installation.
The design fatigue life for a ship-shaped offshore installation is specified by the
operator or owner, while that for a trading tanker is (at a minimum) specified by
classification societies or similar bodies. The design fatigue life for a new-build ship-
shaped offshore installation is twenty to sixty plus years (including safety factors),
while that for a trading tanker is twenty-five years. The fatigue safety factors of
Table 6.1. Types of critical structural details and sources of fatigue actions for ship-shaped offshore installations
Area type Structural details Sources of fatigue action
Structures specific to Topside module supports, flare tower Hull girder-bending actions, side shell
ship-shaped offshore foundations, riser porches, caissons, pressure variations, deck deformation,
installations crane pedestals, mooring foundations, riser actions, mooring actions, topside
deck penetrations, helideck-to-deck inertia actions, crane actions, wind
connections and turret structures actions and temperature actions
Longitudinal hull area; Doubling plates, bracket toes and Hull girder-bending and shear, wave
similar to trading tankers heels, rat holes and erection butts, deck pressure actions, internal fluid
openings, longitudinal girders and pressures, topside actions and stresses
structural terminations caused by loading and offloading
Transverse hull area; Shear lugs and cut outs, hopper Wave pressure actions, internal fluid
similar to trading tankers corners, transverse frames and gussets, pressures, topside actions and
and transverse bulkheads differential pressure actions
6.4 Safety Factors for Fatigue Limit States 187
Table 6.2. Safety factors for fatigue limit states of various structural locations
Structure Hull Topsides
Location All structures, excluding Side shell connections Non-inspectable areas, Uniform
side connections such as off-vessel throughout
mooring components
and I-tubes
Safety 1 for North Atlantic 2 for North Atlantic 10 2
factor conditions, and 3 for conditions, and 4 for
combined transit and on- combined transit and on
site conditions site conditions
(a) (b) (c)
(d) (e) (f)
Figure 6.2 Critical structural areas: (a) an intersection between a stiffener and brackets welded to
the flange of a longitudinal stiffener; (b) an intersection between a buckling stiffener and a
longitudinal stiffener welded to the web of a transverse frame; (c) topside supports; (d) pipe rack
supports; (e) riser line connections and (f ) an offloading line connection
new-build offshore installations vary from one to three or more and may occasionally
be as high as ten, depending on the maintenance philosophy applied in service, the
potential consequences of fatigue failure at a given location and the associated
production downtime for repair. The shorter the design fatigue life, the more fre-
quently inspections must be performed to ensure crack problem-free operation.
Table 6.2 lists the fatigue safety factors for various locations (ABS 2014). The
inability to dry-dock a ship-shaped offshore installation leads some owners to specify
fatigue safety factors greater than those for trading tankers, as the latter are dry-docked
every five years for extensive inspection and repairs. The hull structures of a ship-
shaped offshore installation converted from a trading tanker have fatigue safety factors
closer to those of the trading tanker, and thus these offshore installations must be
subject to an extensive in-service structural-integrity monitoring programme, espe-
cially when they are sited in harsh environments. However, trading tanker-conversion
offshore installations have shorter periods of on site service than their new-
build counterparts.
6.5 Types of Stresses at Structural Details
Three types of terminologies for stresses at structural details are relevant: nominal
stress, hotspot stress and notch stress. These are assessed in association with the
corresponding stress–number of cycles to failure (S–N) curve, which requires the
consistent determination of particular stresses (stress ranges) in a particular manner.
Figure 6.3 presents a schematic representation of the various types of stresses that
exist at a weld toe. The hotspot stress is the largest stress and results from the
extrapolation to a weld toe of the geometric stress distribution immediately outside
the region affected by the geometry of the weld. The notch stress is the total stress at a
weld toe, including the geometric stress (i.e., structural stress) and stress resulting
from the presence of the weld.
Nominal stress is considered in a sectional area by neglecting the stress concen-
trations caused by structural joint configuration and notches at a weld toe. However,
nominal stress must account for the ineffectiveness of the reduced effective plate
breadth because of stress diffusion or stress gradients resulting from cut-outs for
which the effects are not implicit in the S–N curve in the vicinity of the structural
detail (represented by geometric stress concentration factors). The nominal stress is
decomposed into two components: global stress and local bending stress; the former is
associated with the entire hull girder or sub-structures, and the latter is caused by the
local responses of structural components, such as plates and support members. When
the nominal stress in a particular structure is used in conjunction with the nominal
Stress
notch stress
geometric stress at hot spot
(hot-spot stress)
geometric stress
nominal stress
hot spot
Figure 6.3 Types of stresses at a weld toe
6.5 Types of Stresses at Structural Details 189
region affected by notch stress
hot-spot stress
hot-spot stress
Stress
extrapolation
hot spot 0.5t 1.5t

(weld toe) Distance from Weld Toe
Figure 6.4 Extrapolation of the geometric stress of a weld toe to calculate the hotspot stress
stress-based S–N curves, it must be multiplied by the appropriate geometric stress

concentration factors.
The hotspot stress implicitly represents the geometric stress at a weld toe by
accounting for the effect of the geometric stress concentration caused by structural
discontinuities and the presence of attachments. It excludes the localised increase in
notch stress resulting from the presence of the weld. Thus, the increased notch stress is
often included implicitly in the S–N curves, as it is needed to account for the effect of
fabrication-related imperfections (misalignment). However, nominal stress-based S–N
curves include safety factors to implicitly account for fabrication-related imperfec-
tions, and only separately consider fabrication-related imperfections that exceed
standard construction standards. In these situations, misalignments are re-examined
to determine whether they must be repaired.
The effects of notches on hotspot stress are approximately taken into account by
extrapolating the geometric stress to a weld toe (shown in Figure 6.4). The stress used
for such an extrapolation is beyond that affected by a weld notch but close enough to
incorporate geometry-related stress gradients. Hotspot stress is determined by linear
extrapolation, using the stress values calculated at points 0:5t and 1:5t from a weld toe
(or intersection line) and the application of a finite element analysis (FEA) with fine
meshes of t t at a hotspot region, where t is the plate thickness. This approach is
computationally accurate but has some disadvantages. First, time-consuming manual
work is required to derive the hotspot stresses for various locations. Second, it is
unclear whether the hotspot stresses are best derived from the Gaussian stresses in the
finite element (shown in Figure 6.5), or from the nodal stresses or an average stress at
the midpoint of the element, as FEA programs do not routinely calculate the desired
stresses at the required locations.
A simpler approach involves determining the hotspot stress at a position 0:5t from a
weld toe, which results in less scattered data. In this approach, the distance measure-
ment varies according to the finite element type. In shell elements, the distance to the
intersection line
hot spot plate
Gaussian
integration
point
0.5t
Figure 6.5 Schematic related to the calculations of hotspot stress from the Gaussian stresses
(•: nodal point, þ: integration point) associated with Figure 6.17
hotspot stress read-out point is measured from the mean intersection lines, as neither
the plate thickness nor the weld are included in the finite element model. FEA of solid
elements affords more certainty, as the distance to the hotspot stress read-out point is
measured from a readily identifiable upper surface and a weld toe because both the
plate thickness and the weld are included in the finite element model.
However, computational costs mean that solid elements cannot always be used in
practice. Thus, when shell elements are used to predict hotspot stress, it is assumed that
through-thickness stresses that give rise to the fatigue effect are linearly distributed
through the thickness. Thus, a linear extrapolation of the stresses to the hotspot (i.e.,
weld toe or intersection line) is made from the read-out points at 0:5t and 1:5t. Then, the
principal stress at the hotspot is calculated from the extrapolated component values, or
the hotspot stress is taken as the stress at the read-out point 0:5t away from the hotspot,
and multiplied by a value greater than unity, for example, 1.1 (DNV 2019).
6.6 Cyclic Stress Ranges
Wave-induced actions are the primary sources of fatigue in a ship-shaped offshore

installation. However, the effects of other types of loads must also be considered,
depending on the design and circumstances. These may include functional loads
related to the loading and offloading of cargo, wind loads, slamming loads, sloshing
loads and local loads arising from mooring and riser systems. Dry-docking conditions
on land or afloat and related damage conditions are considered in strength assessments
but are usually not considered in FLS assessments. All transit conditions of ship-
shaped offshore installations in tow to a field or to a shipyard for repair, and all on-site
operating conditions, must be considered in FLS design and engineering.
The stress range of structural details is determined from the maximum and min-
imum stresses (shown in Figure 6.6) rather than from the mean stress. The following
equation is used to calculate the stress range:
6.6 Cyclic Stress Ranges 191
max
mean Δσ = 2σa
a
0
Time
min
Figure 6.6 Cyclic stress range vs. time (where σ a ¼ cyclic stress amplitude; σ max ¼ cyclic
maximum stress; σ min ¼ cyclic minimum stress; σ mean ¼ cyclic mean stress and
Δσ ¼ stress range)
Δσ ¼ σ max σ min ¼ 2σ a , (6.3)
where Δσ is the stress range, σ max is the cyclic maximum stress, σ min is the cyclic
minimum stress and σ a is the cyclic stress amplitude. The mean stress, σ mean , as
defined in Equation (6.4), and the loading (stress) ratio, R, are the parameters used for
FLS assessment.
σ max þ σ min σ min
σ mean ¼ , R¼ : (6.4)
2 σ max
The fatigue characteristics are affected by the values of Δσ and R, but the effect of
the mean stress is neglected in an analysis of welded structures for two related reasons:
(a) yield magnitude tensile residual stresses will likely exist in the vicinity of a weld,
resulting in fatigue calculations indicating that the entire stress range was damaging
and (b) S–N curves are typically based on R ¼ 0 data. In non-welded structures, the R
value significantly affects fatigue characteristics. However, the fatigue performance of
a ship-shaped offshore installation is governed by welded details, except with respect
to cut-outs.
The relation between the nominal stress range and the hotspot stress range is given
as follows:
Δσ h ¼ KΔσ n , (6.5a)
where Δσ h is the hotspot stress range, Δσ n is the nominal stress range and K is the
stress concentration factor (also known as the K-factor) at a structural detail, which is
defined by the following specific K-factors:
K ¼ K gK eK aK n, (6.5b)
where K g is the K factor for the geometry, K e is the K-factor for the eccentricity of
butt-weld connections and cruciform joints, K a is the K-factor for the angular
Figure 6.7 Shear lag effect at a hopper corner knuckle
mismatch of plate connections and K n is the K-factor for the asymmetrical stiffeners
on laterally loaded panels. The stress is calculated by simple beam theory without
consideration of the stiffener rotation effects.
The effect of bending stress on the stress range is approximated by the following
equation:
Δσ ¼ Δσ m þ αΔσ b , (6.6)
where Δσ is the total stress range, Δσ m is the membrane component of the stress range,
Δσ b is the bending component of the stress range and α is the correlation constant. The
value of α is assumed to be less than 1.0, to account for the shear lag effect from
bending. This effect is significant in areas with a localised stress concentration such as
at a hopper corner knuckle (as shown in Figure 6.7), where α is often taken as 0.6.
When there is little stress variation along a weld, the shear lag effect is negligible and
thus α ¼ 0.
6.7 S–N Curves
FLS assessments are based on fatigue damage under repeated loading fluctuations, as
measured by the Palmgren–Miner cumulative damage rule, which is given as follows:
n1 n2 ni nk
þ þ þ þ þ ¼ 1, (6.7)
N1 N2 Ni Nk
where ni is the number of cycles at the ith stress range level, N i is the fatigue life at the
ith stress range level and k is the number of stress range levels.
6.7 S–N Curves 193
To design a structure such that there is a given safety factor, that is, a quantified
degree of certainty that cracks will not form, three steps are performed: (1) defining the
histogram of cyclic stress ranges, (2) selecting the relevant S–N curve and (3) calculat-
ing the cumulative fatigue damage. S–N curves have been established for various types
of weld joints based on fatigue tests of physical models of specific structural details
subjected to cyclic stress ranges of uniform amplitude, although actual in-service stress
cycle amplitudes are irregular and non-uniform. Fatigue damage accumulation is then
calculated after the individual stress levels and their values are quantified, to the extent
to which Miner’s rule is applicable. This approach is acceptable for the analysis of
structural effects in a stationary and relatively narrow-band Gaussian sea state.
Fatigue tests are conducted in air or seawater, and cathodic protection is typically
used in the latter case. The number of stress cycles until a crack initiates (or until
another predefined failure criterion is met, such as a small specimen breaking apart or
a certain percentage increase in compliance) is measured. S–N curves are plotted
based on the available fatigue test data for a variety of stress ranges, and are often
formulated as a bi-linear expression as shown in Figure 6.8 and represented in the
following equations:
NΔσ m1 ¼ A1 for N < Nc, (6.8a)
NΔσ m2 ¼ A2 for N Nc, (6.8b)
where Δσ is the corresponding stress range, N is the number of stress cycles within Δσ
until fatigue failure, m1 and m2 are the negative inverse slopes of the S–N curve,
log A1 ¼ log a1 2s1 , log A2 ¼ log a2 2s2 , a1 and a2 are the life intercepts of the
1000
Stress Range Δσ (MPa)
m
N( ) 1=A1
100
m
N( ) 2=A2
10
1.0 ´104 1.0 ´105 1.0 ´106 1.0 ´107 1.0 ´108
Number of Cycles (N)
Figure 6.8 A bi-linear form of an S–N curve
mean S–N curve, s1 and s2 are the standard deviations of log N that account for
scatter, Δσ c is the stress range at which the slope of the S–N curve changes or at
N ¼ N c and N c is the number of cycles at which the slope of the S–N curve changes.
The S–N curve shown in Figure 6.8 has two segments, which are obtained from the
mean by subtracting approximately two standard deviations of the data scatter of a
given stress range. The low stress, high cycle regime curve is not based on any
particular data but rather on a generic hypothesis of how the curve behaves in that
regime. The real data are in the first zone of the S–N curve. This is partly because of
the economics of testing, as the second-zone slope change is considered only when it
leads to better equivalence to failure under variable amplitude loading, based on the
hypothesis of Haibach (1970). The two segment S–N curve is therefore applied for
structural details in the air and is effectively protected from corrosion, typically by
coatings. If the primary corrosion protection system is cathodic protection, the first
zone is extrapolated to a long-life regime. Under freely corroding conditions, a penalty
factor of 2 to 3 is applied to fatigue life predictions based on in-air S–N curves.
In the FLS assessment of structures on ship-shaped offshore installations, the
typical types of weld connections and their associated stress features are classified
into the following four groups (also listed in Table 6.3): (1) flame-cut edges, with
modified nominal stress; (2) weld toes, with stress in the direction parallel to the weld
toe; (3) weld toes, with stress in the direction perpendicular to the weld toe and (4)
fillet welds, with root failure in shear. The D-type weld connections shown in
Table 6.3 are subjected to a hotspot stress-based FLS assessment (Moura Branco
and Guerra Rosa 1989). The classifications in this table are associated with various
Table 6.3. Typical types of weld connections
Type Detail Stress feature in S–N curves Remark
B Nominal stress multiplied by Machine-gas cut or sheared material

the stress concentration factor (drag lines, removed corners, visible
associated with local geometry, imperfections or corrosion pitting
such as cut-outs are not considered)
C Nominal stress multiplied by Thermally (machine) cut edges
the stress concentration factor
associated with local geometry,
such as cut-outs
Local stress parallel to the weld Weld connection with stress
parallel to the weld, and flush-
ground butt weld with stress normal
to the weld
D Local stress normal to the weld Weld connection with stress normal
to the weld toe (for welds proven
free of significant defects)
W Engineering shear stress in the Due to designed weld size (throat
weld throat thickness)
6.8 Criteria for Fatigue Limit States 195
codes and standards, such as the BS5400 standard code of practice for bridges (www
.bsi-global.com) and HSE (Health and Safety Executive) prescriptive fatigue guidance
for offshore platforms (www.hse.gov.uk). Table 6.3 follows the BS5400 code descrip-
tions but uses different S–N curves (from DNV-RP-C203 (2019)).
6.8 Criteria for Fatigue Limit States
After the long-term stress range distribution is determined, fatigue damage is accumu-
lated in a non-dimensional form (based on the Miner hypothesis) in an S–N histogram
that represents several constant amplitude stress ranges, Δσ i each with several stress
fluctuations, ni . This form is represented as
X
k
ni X
k1
ni X
k2
nj
D¼ ¼ Δσ m1 þ Δσ m2 , (6.9)
i¼1
Ni i¼1
A1 j¼1
A2
where D is the accumulated fatigue damage, k ¼ k 1 þ k2 are the total number of stress
levels, k1 is the number of stress levels for Δσ < Δσ c , k2 is the number of stress levels
for Δσ Δσ c , ni is the number of stress cycles in stress level i and N i is the number of
cycles until failure at the ith constant amplitude stress range, Δσ i .
To ensure an adequate margin of safety, the calculated fatigue damage accumula-
tion must be smaller than the target cumulative fatigue damage, that is:
D < Dcr , (6.10)
where Dcr is the target fatigue damage sum or usage factor. This is an inverse value of
the fatigue safety factor and depends on various circumstances, such as the required
long-term reliability, the feasibility of dry docking, the physical consequences of
failure, the ease of inspection, the ease of repair and the cost of downtime and
operational interruption. FLS guidance notes specify the target fatigue-damage sum.
Table 6.4 is an example of an inspection practice recommended for meeting a target
fatigue damage sum (ABS 2020).
Table 6.4. Recommended inspection practice to meet a target fatigue damage sum for a ship-shaped
offshore installation
Degree of accessibility for inspection, maintenance and repair
Consequence Not Underwater inspection2 Dry

of failure accessible2 inspection (3) inspection3
Critical1 0.1 0.25 0.5

Non-critical 0.2 0.5 1.0
1
Comprises loss of life, uncontrolled pollution, collision, sinking, other major damage to an
offshore installation and major production loss; 2 Comprises areas that can be inspected in dry or
underwater conditions, but that require dry-docking for repair and 3 Comprises areas that can be
inspected in dry conditions, but only with extensive preparation and substantial effects
on operation.
6.9 High Cycle Fatigue versus Low Cycle Fatigue
Fatigue damage to the structures of ship-shaped offshore installations is often caused

by high cycle fatigue actions, that is, those with greater than 1 104 loading cycles. In
comparison, low cycle fatigue occurs because of actions with fewer than 1 104
loading cycles. Most FLS assessment guidelines and practices are associated with high
cycle fatigue. Action effects (stresses) related to low cycle fatigue typically involve
plasticity at structural details (hotspot areas), while those caused by high cycle fatigue
typically occur within an elastic regime. Accordingly, nonlinear material behaviour
must be taken into account during low cycle fatigue analysis.
The structural design of ship-shaped offshore installations also considers other
types of limit states, such as ultimate limit states (ULS), such that a sufficient factor
of safety is achieved under extreme environmental and operational conditions and in
normal service. The effects of stresses resulting from local notches or at structural
details (hotspot areas) are not accounted for in a ULS assessment, but a ULS-based
design affords a structure with few stress ranges when exposed to extreme actions.
Nevertheless, low cycle fatigue is a critical aspect to consider in situations where
frequent dynamic actions lead to low cycle fatigue. One example is loading and
unloading, which occurs much more frequently in ship-shaped offshore installations
than in trading tankers, thereby generating greater hull girder loading variations in
the former.
If the number of loading and offloading cycles during the entire lifetime of an
offshore installation is less than a certain value, for example, 1,600, these actions may
not significantly affect the total fatigue damage (DNV 2019). However, low cycle
fatigue must be considered because the effect of the global bending and/or local
effects caused by continual loading and offloading may be significant (HSE 2004).
In particular, a low cycle fatigue assessment is required for transverse bulkheads
between tanks, as these structures experience a full load reversal during loading steps
(indicated in Table 6.5), and loading steps 2 and 4 may result in different stress ranges
because of the loading sequence. Low cycle fatigue effects are relatively more
significant in the structures of some ship-shaped offshore installations converted from
trading tankers if the loading patterns of the former are different from those of the
latter, because of the design of longitudinal bulkheads. This occurs if the longitudinal
bulkheads were designed for such that the tank on one side is full and the tank on the
Table 6.5. Loading sequence for low cycle fatigue

assessment at transverse bulkheads
Load step One tank Adjacent tank
1 Empty Empty
2 Full Empty
3 Full Full
4 Empty Full
6.10 Fatigue Limit States Assessment 197
other is empty (as may be the case in a trading tanker) rather than for a full tank load
(as is typical in a ship-shaped offshore installation). Consequently, low cycle fatigue
effects are more significant when a ship-shaped offshore installation converted from a
trading tanker has few remaining fatigue lives.
6.10 Fatigue Limit States Assessment of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
An FLS assessment of a ship-shaped offshore installation must take into account the
effects of various parameters and their associated environmental and operational
conditions. These are
the effects of waves, wind, swell and current;

the effects of weathervaning (when a single-point mooring is used) and drift
resulting from waves with off-head orientations;
the probability distribution of the environmental parameters of the actual site and
mooring conditions;
the load conditions during operation;
the effects of corrosion on the stress range;
the fatigue damage incurred during transit or tow and
the frequency and form effects in corrosion fatigue, if relevant.
Four methods are used for FLS assessment: the deterministic method, the semi-
probabilistic method, the stochastic method and the direct seakeeping analysis
method. The deterministic method is based on an analysis of extreme dynamic
responses that occur once over the design life. A certain number of wave cycles per
year is assumed based on the design life, and the extreme dynamic responses are used
to define a log-linear exceedance diagram of stresses. The fatigue damage is estimated
from the number of cycles corresponding to various stress ranges. This method is used
for the preliminary estimation of fatigue damage in simple cases of wave-induced
fatigue effects. The predicted fatigue life obtained using this method is significantly
affected by the fatigue load, the local stress determination and the applied S–N curves.
The semi-probabilistic method is the next highest level of approximation and
divides each sea state into a number of constituent waves of various heights and
periods. Then, the total responses are characterised as a sum of the individual
responses to the constituent waves. This method is more refined than the deterministic
method but has various limitations that are primarily because of its use of approxima-
tions of stress ranges. These are a function of the wave height in the form aH b , where
a and b are the coefficients and H is the wave height. More detailed and sophisticated
methods are required to determine field data-based accurate values for the coefficients
in this equation.
The stochastic analysis method involves the use of wave spectra applied in the
frequency domain. Figure 6.9 presents the flow of the stochastic analysis method used
for FLS assessment. Wave spectra representing statistical wave distributions are used
to calculate short-term and long-term responses. The motion, hydrodynamic loads and
Wave Spectrum Transfer Function Response Spectrum Short-Term Energy Operator
Fatigue Life Estimation S-N Curve Long-Term Stress Distribution Wave Scatter Diagram
Figure 6.9 Flow of the stochastic analysis method used for a finite limit states assessment (where
S–N ¼ stress–number of cycles to failure)
Operational Profile
Design Environment Seakeeping Analysis Global/Local FEA Transfer Function
Critical Structural Details
Fatigue Life Estimation S-N Curve Short-Term Stress Distribution Stress Energy Spectra
Figure 6.10 Flow of the direct seakeeping analysis method for a finite limit states assessment
(where S-N ¼ stress–number of cycles to failure and FEA ¼ finite element analysis)
accelerations of a ship-shaped offshore installation in regular waves are calculated for

several wavelengths and wave headings to define the transfer functions that represent
the stresses at structural details of interest. Then, response spectra are established from
a combination of different wave spectra associated with the motion, hydrodynamic
loads and stresses for different headings of an offshore installation. The short-term
response parameter (or Rayleigh parameter) and significant response is then calculated
to establish the energy operator by repeating the short-term response parameter
calculation process for various wave heights, wave periods and heading angles. The
most probable largest short-term response amplitude is then calculated as a function of
the Rayleigh parameter and the number of waves, and thus a specific sea state is
characterised in association with the occurrence of different wave headings. The long-
term stress distribution is defined based on the probability of different wave spectra,
the slope of which represents a key parameter that drives the fatigue performance.
Finally, by using predefined S–N curves, the fatigue lives of structural details
are estimated.
The direct seakeeping analysis method involves the use of a spectral approach in
the frequency domain (ABS 2014). Figure 6.10 shows the flow of the direct seakeep-
ing analysis method for FLS assessment. The wave characteristics are identified from
a direct analysis of the ship-shaped offshore installation motions at various sea states,
which accounts for the effects of non-collinear combinations of waves, wind, swell
and current. The dynamic responses of springing (global, vertical resonant hull-girder
vibrations) and slamming, in terms of the natural frequency of relevant portions of the
offshore installation, can also be addressed as part of the spectrum of exciting forces.
Then, based on the principal dimensions, weight distribution and other particulars of
100
SLOP1PS
90 SLOP1SB
CO1C
80
CO1SB
70 CO1PS
Filling Level (%)
CO2C
60 CO2SB
CO2PS
50 CO3C
40 CO4C
CO4SB
30 CO4PS
CO5C
20 CO5SB
10 CO5PS
WB3PS
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Loading/Offloading Stage
Figure 6.11 A sample record of the filling level variations of oil tanks in an oil-producing
ship-shaped offshore installation during loading and offloading (where CO ¼ cargo oil tank;
C ¼ centre tank; PS ¼ port side tank; SB ¼ starboard side tank and WB ¼ water ballast tank)
the offshore installation structure, the tow route or site-specific design environmental
and operational data are defined with consideration of the non-collinear environmental
effects of wind, waves, swell and currents. The effects of less important parameters at
the intended site of the offshore installation, such as temperature, may be neglected if
required. Scatter diagrams of the tow route and site-specific waves and swell data are
also required for the seakeeping analysis, while design operational conditions are
defined to reflect loading and offloading conditions.
Transit conditions for the towing or re-location of a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation from its construction yard to its operating site must also be defined. Three types
of operational conditions are typically considered: ballast conditions, full load condi-
tions and partial load conditions. The associated time distributions for these loading
conditions are usually taken as 25 per cent for ballast conditions, 25 per cent for full
load conditions and 50 per cent for partial load conditions. Transit is carried out under
ballast conditions, and thus the duration of the ballast condition is further sub-divided,
such as into 24 per cent for operational ballast conditions and 1 per cent for transit
ballast conditions.
The filling levels of oil tanks in the ship-shaped offshore installations used for oil
production usually change substantially during loading and offloading, and these
changes also affect the fatigue performance. Figure 6.11 shows a sample record of
the dependence of tank filling levels on loading and offloading in an oil-producing
ship-shaped offshore installation.
6.10.1 Analysis of Hull Motions

The main objective of a seakeeping analysis is to determine the motion and
hydrodynamic-load response amplitude operators (RAOs) of a ship-shaped offshore
installation for a range of wave frequencies and headings and for each of the loading
scenarios. The hydrodynamic loads obtained from the analysis are used as input data
for a global structural analysis. Rigid body vessel motions with six degrees of freedom
are typically considered. The wave load RAOs comprise those for hull girder loads,
external wave pressure loads, internal tank pressure loads resulting from accelerations
and inertia forces associated with masses of structural components and significant
items of process equipment. Traditional potential theory is sufficiently accurate for an
analysis of the first-order motion of an offshore installation but does not take into
account the effect of nonlinear roll damping, which is primarily characterised by the
roll angle, wave heading and wave frequency. As such, a strategy is required to
account for the effects of nonlinear roll damping, based on model test data and
including potential theory calculations as adjustment factors.
The effect of a mooring system is accounted for in the seakeeping analysis, and the
mooring system is also subject to a separate FLS assessment. Figures 6.12(a) and 6.12(b)
show the wave heading configurations for a ship-shaped offshore installation with a
single-point mooring system and a spread mooring system, respectively. The former
analysis allows the offshore installation to undergo yawing motion for weathervaning,
but the latter is performed with yawing prevented. Wave headings of 0 – 360 are
considered for ship-shaped offshore installations with spread moorings and those in
tow. In contrast, the wave headings that are considered for a single-point moored
installation are either head or following seas, and a limited angular sector about these
main headings is applied if the weathervaning system functions correctly. A greater
range of wave headings is recommended to reflect the effect of short-crested swell
waves. Thus, 10 wave headings, from –90 (port beam) to 90 (starboard beam) at
intervals of 18 , are typically used in industry practice for analyses of the on site
operational conditions of an offshore installation that is symmetric about its centreline,
as these are sufficient to describe the directional distribution of energy in short-crested
waves. The wave energy-spreading function during tow is different from that on site, as
transit conditions use a cosine squared rather than a cosine-power-4 spreading function.
All wave periods during tow are often assumed to be equal to or less than 40 s.
turret chain stopper

wave
ave
wave
Wave
hydraulic
jack
heading angle
mooring line mooringline

Mooring line
mooring line mooring lines
Mooringlines
mooring lines
Risers
risers
(a) (b)
Figure 6.12 Wave heading of a ship-shaped offshore installation with (a) a single-point mooring
system and (b) a spread mooring system
A substantial number of regular wave periods (or frequencies) are also considered
in the seakeeping analysis. This range of wave periods covers all relevant response
transfer functions, such as offshore installation motions, sectional loads, pressures and
drift forces, and twenty-five to thirty wave periods are required to smoothly describe
the transfer functions. The shortest wavelength (or lowest wave period) corresponds to
approximately 10 per cent of the offshore installation length. Motion-induced accel-
erations and inertial actions also play an important role in FLS assessment. The g
(acceleration of gravity) component induced by the pitch and roll motions of an
offshore installation is used to determine its accelerations in the longitudinal and
transverse directions. Large-amplitude motions resulting from large and very infre-
quent waves are neglected in the FLS assessment, although these are primary sources
of loads for a ULS assessment. This neglect is acceptable because the stress ranges at
lower action levels are typified by intermediate wave amplitudes, which are more
likely to contribute to the accumulation of fatigue damage.
Three-dimensional linear potential theory tends to underestimate the roll damping
that occurs at roll resonance, and its application to the calculation of the roll motion of
a ship-shape offshore installation will lead to overestimated results. A strategy is thus
required to reflect the nonlinear roll-damping effect within the calculations. Therefore,
vortex-induced damping (i.e., eddy formation) near sharp knuckles, the drag of the
hull as a result of skin friction and normal forces or flow separation from bilge keels
are all accounted for in the roll-motion analysis.
6.10.2 Global and Local Finite-Element Analyses

A global structural FEA of a ship-shaped offshore installation is based on its motions
and hydrodynamic loads that are identified from the seakeeping analysis, and it is
performed to calculate the load effects (stresses and displacements) of all of the
structures, namely the hull, topside modules, flare tower, pipe rack, accommodation
facilities, helideck, crane pedestal, caissons, fire pumps and fluid transfer line (shown
in Figure 6.13).
A global FEA is performed for each wave frequency and heading angle within a
relevant range to obtain the wave-induced cyclic stress-range transfer functions. The
forward speed in a transit situation is also a parameter of influence. Dynamic effects
from slamming, sloshing, green water and springing are taken into account as neces-
sary. Slamming results in a dynamic transient action (such as a damped oscillatory
response and whipping) within the structure of an offshore installation. The structures
that are most frequently exposed to slamming, particularly in a single-point moored
offshore installation, are the bow flare and any forward-located accommodation
facilities. In spread-moored offshore installations, the stern areas are also exposed to
slamming. The frequency and severity of slamming is governed by the offshore
installation draft and hull geometrical form (and speed, if in transit), the site environ-
ment and the wave heading. The effects of slamming-induced actions are considered
in terms of the hull girder loads (bending moments and shear forces), local strength
and limitations in the reduction of the ballast draft.
Figure 6.13 A global finite element analysis model for a ship-shaped offshore installation
(courtesy of Hyundai Heavy Industries)
The partial filling of tanks is often necessary (shown in Figure 6.11) and may lead
to the sloshing and subsequent accumulation of fatigue damage. The major factors that
govern the occurrence of sloshing include the tank size, tank filling levels, structural
arrangements inside a tank (e.g., configurations of swash bulkheads and web frames),
transverse metacentric height (GM) and the offshore installation draft and cargo and
the associated natural periods in roll and pitch motions. Sloshing effects are also
included in an FLS assessment, if warranted by the fatigue damage accumulation level
predicted solely from the sloshing loads. Sloshing-induced stresses are superimposed
on the stresses induced by other load sources, without considering any specific
correlations.
Local FEA is conducted to identify critical structural details that are defined by
fatigue screening of the highest stresses obtained from the global FEA (shown in
Figure 6.14). The results of the local FEA are used to define the stress-range transfer
function for each wave frequency and heading angle.
A linear-elastic finite element structural analysis is also performed to calculate
hotspot and nominal stresses, if required. Fabrication-related misalignments are usu-
ally not included in this FEA model. However, its extent is selected to be large enough
that boundary uncertainties are minimised. In a structural (stress) analysis, three
locations at which hotspot stresses may occur on weld toes are important (shown in
Figure 6.15) (DNV 2019): a weld toe on a plate surface at an ending attachment
(point 1), a weld toe around the plate edge of an ending attachment (point 2) and along
a weld of an attached plate or at weld toes on both the plate and attachment surface
(point 3).
direct hull
1. Direct motionanalysis
seakeeping analysis
overall
2. finite
Global FEA element analysis (FEA)
local FEA
4. Local FEA
fatigue screening
Figure 6.14 Local finite element analysis (FEA) of critical structural details defined by fatigue
screening of the highest stresses obtained from the global FEA
c3
b2
c3
a1
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6.15 Three hotspot points (1, 2 and 3) at which hotspot stresses may occur at a weld toe:
(a) three hotspot points; (b) shell element model and (c) solid element model
Figures 6.15(b) and 6.15(c) show typical shell and solid element FEA models,
respectively, of a weld toe. The shell element model is much simpler, but the solid
element model better reflects the steep stress gradients. These gradients around the
weld toe and out-of-plane bending deformation must be accurately analysed, despite
the application of a linear approximation of stress through the plate thickness. The
four-node shell elements include internal degrees of freedom to enable an improved
in-plane response. The element size of a four-node shell element model with a plate
thickness of t is acceptable if the t t rule of element size is met, while that for an
eight-node shell element model is up to 2t 2t (shown in Figure 6.16(a)).
An FEA model with a larger element size at a hotspot region tends to underestimate
the stress level. A three-dimensional solid element model is better for analysing
Intersection
intersection line
line
bracket
Bracket Plate
plate t
t
t Main stress
main stress
direction
direction
t
t Hot
hot spot
(a) (b)
Figure 6.16 Finite element analysis models: (a) eight-node shell element model and (b)
twenty-node solid element model
complex structural details, although such analyses are much more time consuming.
The element length of the two or three solid elements near a weld toe is selected to be
approximately equal to the plate thickness. The transverse element size parallel to the
plate breadth represents the plate thickness and must not exceed the width of the
attachment. A twenty-node isoparametric solid element model with mid-side nodes at
its edges is useful for the analysis of more complex cases in terms of geometric and
loading conditions (shown in Figure 6.16(b)). Only one twenty-node hexahedral
element model is needed for an application over the thickness to obtain a linear stress
distribution, although at least four elements are needed for the eight-node element
model. Another advantage of using three-dimensional solid elements is that these
more accurately model fillet welds, such that the local geometry and stiffness are
properly accounted for in the FEA.
The element aspect ratio (i.e., the ratio of the element length to the element breadth)
affects the computational accuracy and must be less than four to prevent the gener-
ation of significant errors. The stress analysis method also differs according to the
element type and size. The element size at a hotspot region typically follows the t t
rule. In a shell element model, the surface stress is defined at the corresponding mid-
side points, and the stresses at the mid-side nodes are taken as the stresses at the read-
out points 0:5t and 1:5t away from a weld toe. In a solid element model, the stress is
first extrapolated from the Gaussian points to the surface, and these stresses are then
interpolated linearly to the surface centre or extrapolated to the edges of the elements
(if the edges are aligned with the hot-spot stress area). If the element size exceeds the
t t rule, a second-order polynomial approximation of the element stresses is used.
6.10.3 Stress-Range Transfer Functions

A linear superposition of the responses of all regular wave components comprising an
irregular sea is used for a frequency domain analysis. The resulting stresses are
obtained as the sum of all contributing action effects. The linear frequency-domain
analysis approach is based on small-amplitude wave hydrodynamics, and thus the
effect of large waves is inaccurately represented. This is not a problem, however, as
fatigue damage is mostly caused by more moderate waves. A transfer function

represents the response to a sinusoidal wave that has a unit amplitude for a given
wave frequency, heading angle and speed and is calculated using linear potential
theory. Substantial numbers of wave frequencies and headings (and speeds, if rele-
vant) are considered to obtain a complete set of transfer functions. In addition, the
masses of all structural components and cargo are used to determine the motions in
and about the vertical, longitudinal and transverse directions of a ship-shaped
offshore installation.
The short-term wave response distribution is estimated using the identified site-
specific wave scatter diagram. After the transfer functions are calculated, the Pierson–
Moskowitz wave spectrum or another appropriate wave spectral density may be used
to obtain the response spectrum (described in Section 3.4.4). The stress range response
is assumed to follow a Rayleigh distribution function within each short-term sea state
condition. The stress range distribution for a given sea state and heading direction is
determined on the basis of the response spectrum. The fatigue damage within each sea
state and heading direction is calculated in a closed form if the stress range distribution
within each short-term condition is analytically determined to follow a Rayleigh
distribution function. The response to swell, if present, is evaluated similarly as wind
waves, but a different spectrum (e.g., the Joint North Sea Wave Project spectrum)
comprising appropriate factors is used. If the responses to wind and waves are
independent of those to swell, their combined effect is approximately evaluated by
summing the appropriate variances.
Low frequency responses associated with a riser or mooring system may also contrib-
ute to fatigue damage. Therefore, these systems should be included in a global structural
analysis. However, if these low frequency responses are evaluated separately from the
global analysis, the obtained stress ranges are combined with those from the wave and
swell effects. The long-term stress range distribution is calculated as a weighted sum of
all sea states and heading directions, rather than being based on the fatigue damage
accumulated according to the sea state. The fatigue damage is then calculated based on
this long-term distribution of stress ranges (Lotsberg 2016; DNV 2019).
6.10.4 Selection of S–N Curves

S–N curves relevant to types of stresses and structural details are established by
fatigue testing or selected from recognised standards and codes (Lotsberg 2016;
DNV 2019). The selection of S–N curve design is based on the actual geometry of
the structural details at a given weld toe or root, on the potential flaws at a weld or base
material and on the stress direction relative to a weld. The classification of weld
connections for S–N curves (indicated in Table 6.3), is widely applied in ship-related
and offshore practices (DNV 2019). Another widely used catalogue of S–N curves is
produced by the International Institute of Welding (www.iiw.org). The US Ship
Structure Committee (www.shipstructure.org) has also published useful reports on
S–N curves that may potentially be applicable to the development of structures for
ship-shaped offshore installations.
The following modification of the S–N curve expressions of Equation (6.9)

accounts for structural thicknesses greater than approximately 25 mm:
p
t
log N ¼ log A m log Δσ , (6.11)
tr
where A ¼ A1 or A2 , m ¼ m1 or m2 , t is the plate thickness, t r is the reference

thickness ðt r ¼ 25 mmÞ and p is the exponent of the thickness effect.
In current practice, S–N curves often follow the mean-minus-two-standard-devi-
ation lines (on a log–log scale) in analyses of relevant fatigue test data, which implies
that a 97.6 per cent probability of fatigue durability is achieved if only the S–N curve
and data scatter are considered. Tables 6.6 and 6.7 list the representative S–N curve
fatigue parameters for structural details in air and in seawater with cathodic protection,
respectively, based on Equations (6.8) or (6.11). Figure 6.17 shows the various S–N
curves that can be used for ship-shaped offshore structures under typical wind and
wave actions with a total number of cycles ðN Þ > 1 106 , based on DNV-RP-C203
(DNV 2019). A different S–N curve is used for a low cycle fatigue region (not
shown). Notably, the slope transition of the S–N curve occurs at N ¼ 1 107 in air
but at N ¼ 1 106 in seawater.
6.10.5 Fatigue Damage Calculations

Fatigue damage accumulation is calculated using the Palmgren–Miner rule (indicated
in Equation (6.7)). If a bi-linear or two-sloped S-N curve is used, the fatigue damage
Table 6.6. S–N curves for structural details in air, based on DNV-RP-C203
N < Nc N Nc
Fatigue limit at
S–N curve log A1 m1 log A2 m2 N ¼ N c (MPa) p
B1 15.117 4.0 17.146 5.0 106.97 0.0

B2 14.885 4.0 16.856 5.0 93.59 0.0
C 12.592 3.0 16.320 5.0 73.10 0.15
C1 12.449 3.0 16.081 5.0 65.50 0.15
C2 12.301 3.0 15.835 5.0 58.48 0.15
D 12.164 3.0 15.606 5.0 52.63 0.20
E 12.010 3.0 15.350 5.0 46.78 0.20
F 11.855 3.0 15.091 5.0 41.52 0.25
F1 11.699 3.0 14.832 5.0 36.84 0.25
F3 11.546 3.0 14.576 5.0 32.75 0.25
G 11.398 3.0 14.330 5.0 29.24 0.25
W1 11.261 3.0 14.101 5.0 26.32 0.25
W2 11.107 3.0 13.845 5.0 23.39 0.25
W3 10.970 3.0 13.617 5.0 21.05 0.25
N c ¼ 1 107 for air; and p is the exponent for the thickness effect.
Table 6.7. S–N curves for structural details with cathodic protection in seawater, based on
DNV-RP-C203
N < Nc N Nc
Fatigue limit at
S–N curve log A1 m1 log A2 m2 N ¼ N c (MPa) p
B1 14.917 4.0 17.146 5.0 106.97 0.0

B2 14.685 4.0 16.856 5.0 93.59 0.0
C 12.192 3.0 16.320 5.0 73.10 0.15
C1 12.049 3.0 16.081 5.0 65.50 0.15
C2 11.901 3.0 15.835 5.0 58.48 0.15
D 11.764 3.0 15.606 5.0 52.63 0.20
E 11.610 3.0 15.350 5.0 46.78 0.20
F 11.455 3.0 15.091 5.0 41.52 0.25
F1 11.299 3.0 14.832 5.0 36.84 0.25
F3 11.146 3.0 14.576 5.0 32.75 0.25
G 10.998 3.0 14.330 5.0 29.24 0.25
W1 10.861 3.0 14.101 5.0 26.32 0.25
W2 10.707 3.0 13.845 5.0 23.39 0.25
W3 10.570 3.0 13.617 5.0 21.05 0.25
N c ¼ 1 107 for seawater; and p is the exponent for the thickness effect.
accumulation is calculated for a short-term response that is postulated to follow a

Weibull distribution, as follows:
" ! !#
Xk
qm 1 m1 Δσ c h qm 2 m2 Δσ c h
D ¼ f oT d Γ1 1 þ , þ Γ2 1 þ , , (6.12)
k¼1
A1 h q A2 h q
where k is the total number of stress levels (defined in Equation (6.9)), f o is the long-
term average response zero-up-crossing frequency, h is the Weibull stress range shape-
distribution parameter, q is the Weibull stress range scale-distribution parameter, Δσ c is
the stress range (defined in Equation (6.8)), A1 and m1 are the S–N fatigue parameters
for N < 1 107 , A2 and m2 are the S–N fatigue parameters for N 1 107 and Γ1
and Γ2 are the complementary incomplete gamma function and incomplete gamma
function, respectively. For the global hull response, the zero-up-crossing frequency, f o ,
in Equation (6.12) is approximated by the following calculation:
1
fo ¼ , (6.13)
4 log 10 L
where L is the ship-shaped offshore installation length in m. For an offshore instal-
lation with L ¼ 350 m, f o ¼ 0:098=s is used. If h is known, the allowable stress range
for a Miner sum of unity is determined as a function of the S–N curve types (or
welding connection types). The corresponding allowable stress range at a probability
level of 1 108 is obtained for a given S–N curve and Weibull parameter (shown in
Figure 6.18(a)) for structural details in air, and in Figure 6.18(b) for cathodic-protected
structural details in seawater, based on DNV-RP-C203 (DNV 2019).
1000 1000

100 100
B1 B1
B2 B2
C C
C1
C2 C1
C2
D D
E E
F
F F1
F1 F3
F3 G
G W1
W1 W2
W2 W3
10
W3
10
1.0 104 1.0 105 1.0 106 1.0 107 1.0 108
1.0 104
1.0E+004 1.0 105
1.0E+005 1.0 106
1.0E+006 1.0 107
1.0E+007 1.0 108
1.0E+008 1.0E+004 1.0E+005 1.0E+006 1.0E+007 1.0E+008
Number of cycles N Number of cycles N
Number of Cycles (N) Number of Cycles (N)
(a) (b)
Figure 6.17 S–N curves for structural details, based on DNV-RP-C203, in (a) air; and (b) seawater with cathodic protection
800 800
B1
B2 B1
700 700
C
Allowable Stress Range (MPa)

Allowable Stress Range (MPa)
B2
C1
600 C2 600 C
D
C1
E C2
500 F
500 D
F1 E
F3 F
400 G 400 F1
W1 F3
W2 G
W3
300 300 W1
W2
W3
200 200
100 100
0 0
0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0 1.1 1.2
Weibull shape parameter h Weibull shape parameter h
Shape Parameter (h ) of Weibull Function Shape Parameter (h) of Weibull Function
(a) (b)
Figure 6.18 Allowable stress range for structural details, based on DNV-RP-C203, in (a) air and (b) seawater with cathodic protection
The parameter q in Equation (6.12) is defined as follows:
Δσ o
q¼ , (6.14)
ð ln no Þ1=h
where h is the shape parameter, Δσ o is the stress range that occurs once in the total
number of cycles involved and no is the total number of cycles during the considered
time period.
If a linear or one-sloped S–N curve is used, the fatigue damage accumulation
formula can be simplified as follows:
f oT d X
k m1
D¼ qm 1 Γ 1 þ , (6.15)
A1 k¼1 h
where ΓðÞ is the gamma function and k is the total number of stress levels (defined in
Equation (6.9)).
In a case where long-term stress ranges arise from a series of short-term sea states
that follow the Rayleigh distribution, the fatigue damage accumulation is calculated
for the different loading conditions involved. The calculation is based on a bi-linear or
two-sloped S–N curve application and is expressed as follows:
" pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m1 0 !2 1
X
I, J
2 2moij m1 Δσ c
D ¼ f oT d r ij Γ 1 @1 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A
i¼1, j¼1
A 1 2 2 2moij
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
m2 0 !2 1#
2 2moij m Δσ
Γ 2 @1 þ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi A ,
2 c
þ (6.16)
A2 2 2 2moij
where r ij is the relative number of stress cycles in the short-term conditions, i, j, A1 and
m1 are the S–N fatigue parameters for N < 1 107 , A2 and m2 are the S–N fatigue
parameters for N 1 107 , i is the total number of sea state conditions, j is the total
number of wave headings and moij is the zero spectral moment of the stress
response process.
In some FLS engineering approaches, one portion of the fatigue damage in a given
hotspot area may arise from a particular fatigue action process, and another portion of
fatigue damage in the same area may be caused by a different fatigue action process.
In these cases, the fatigue damage caused by two different fatigue processes must be
combined adequately, as a linear superposition would not necessarily provide a
conservative FLS assessment (Lotsberg 2016). Therefore, to combine the fatigue
damage caused by two different dynamic processes, the following equation is applied
for a one-sloped S–N curve.
" 1=m #m
n2 D1 1=m D2
D ¼ D1 1 þ n2 þ , (6.17)
n1 n1 n2
6.11 Crack Growth Models 211
where D1 is the fatigue damage resulting from one dynamic process, D2 is the fatigue
damage from another dynamic process, n1 is the mean zero-up-crossing frequency for
one dynamic process, n2 is the mean zero-up-crossing frequency for another dynamic
process and m is the inverse slope of a one-sloped S–N curve. Both D1 and D2 are
calculated from the corresponding one-sloped S–N curves.
Equation (6.17) remains applicable for two-sloped S–N curves of predominantly
high cycle fatigue, in which the region of N N c represents the main contribution to
overall fatigue damage. However, the inverse slope of a two-sloped S–N curve at
N N c occurs when m ¼ 5, as defined in Tables 6.6 and 6.7 (Lotsberg 2016).
6.11 Crack Growth Models
Fatigue cracking progresses in three stages (shown in Figure 6.1) as defined in ISO
2394 (1998): initiation (stage I), propagation (stage II) and failure (fracture) (stage III).
If no initial defects exist, no cracking damage occurs until time T I . If any crack with a
size (length) of ao is detectable in an existing structure at time T o , ao denotes the initial
crack size.
The crack growth model is composed of three components: crack initiation (with a
related detection threshold), crack growth and failure. Macro crack initiation at a
critical structural detail is predicted using an S–N curve approach. Cracks at critical
joints and details are detected during inspection if the cracks are large enough (i.e.,
approximately 15–30 mm long or longer). In terms of the integrity of aged structures
on a ship-shaped offshore installation, a crack with length ao at a critical joint or detail
is regarded as having initiated at T o years, as mentioned previously. Crack growth is
evaluated by using a fracture mechanics approach to analyse one or more presumed
small-dimensional cracks and predict their detailed propagation, for example, coales-
cence and subsequent fracture (see chapter 9 of Paik (2018) for details). In this
approach, a key task is to pre-establish the relevant crack growth equations or ‘laws’
as a function of time (years) and other relevant parameters. The crack growth rate is
expressed as a function of the stress intensity factor at the crack tip, based on the
assumption that the yielded area around the crack tip is relatively small. The Paris–
Erdogan law is used for this purpose, and the function is represented as follows:
da
¼ C ðΔK Þm , (6.18)
dN
where ΔK is the stress intensity factor at the crack tip, C and m are the constants
determined from tests, a is the crack length and N is the number of stress cycles. For
stiffened steel panels, ΔK is calculated as follows (see chapter 9 of Paik (2018) for
details):
pffiffiffiffiffi
ΔK ¼ FΔσ πa, (6.19)
where Δσ is the stress range (or the double amplitude of the applied fatigue stress), a is
the crack size (length) and F is a geometric parameter that depends on the loading and
s s s
2a a a a
b b b
s s s
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 6.19 Typical crack locations in a steel plate under tensile stress: (a) a centre crack;
(b) a unilateral crack and (c) bilateral cracks (where 2a ¼ total crack length; b ¼ plate breadth
and σ ¼ axial tensile stress)
configuration of the crack body. For steel plates with typical types of cracks that are
under axial tension (shown in Figure 6.19), F is calculated as follows:
πa1=2
F ¼ sec for a centre crack, (6.20a)
b
a4 a3 a2 a
F ¼ 30:38 21:71 þ 10:55 0:23 þ 1:12 for a unilateral crack,
b b b b
(6.20b)
a 3 a2 a
F ¼ 15:44 4:78 þ 0:43 þ 1:12 for bilateral cracks: (6.20c)
b b b
Equation (6.20) is derived for use in idealised boundary conditions and does not
consider stiffening effects. Equation (6.20a) is based on laboratory test specimens, which
can generate rather severe crack growth, rather than real structures. Thus, in plates where
the geometry is large relative to the crack size, F in Equation (6.20a) can be set equal to
1.0. More refined stress-intensity factor solutions are available, as are methods for
calculating improved stress-intensity factors in particular situations that are based on
nonlinear finite element methods or the Green’s function technique (Lostberg 2016).
In a time-dependent reliability analysis that considers the growth of fatigue cracks,
it is more efficient to express crack growth behaviour in a closed form. The crack
length aðT Þ as a function of time T is calculated by integrating Equation (6.18) with
respect to the stress cycle N, where the geometric parameter F is held constant, that is,
it is assumed that F is unchanged during crack propagation. This assumption is
reasonable if ao is small. In such a case, substituting Equation (6.19) into Equation
(6.18) and then integrating affords the following equation:
8h
< 1m=2 m pffiffiffi
m i 1
þ 1 C ΔσF π ðT T o Þω
1m=2
ao for m 6¼ 2
að T Þ ¼ 2 (6.21)
: a exp CΔσ 2 F 2 π ðT T Þω for m ¼ 2,
o o
where ao is the initial crack size and a is the crack size at time T.
References 213
0.8
b 0.8 m, a o 1.0 10 3 m
Crack Length / Plate Breadth (a/b) 30MPa
C 6.94 10 12 , m 3.07
0.6 da
C Km
dN
K F(a ) a
0.4
F(a) = constant at a = ao
F(a) = varied
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
N 106
Figure 6.20 A comparison of Equation (6.21) with a direct (numerical) integration of Equation
(6.18) for a small initial crack size, with nomelcature defined in Equations (6.20) and (6.21)
The expected number of wave load cycles occurs approximately once every 6–10 s,
and the total number of cycles after crack initiation may therefore be estimated as
follows:
N ¼ ðT T o Þ 365 24 60 60=10 ¼ ω ðT T o Þ, (6.22)
where ω ¼ 365 24 60 60=10, T is the structure age and T o is the age at the
initiation of the cracking, wherea ¼ ao .
Figure 6.20 compares a sample application of Equation (6.21) with the result of
directly integrating Equation (6.18). This illustrates how Equation (6.21) accounts for
the effect of crack growth on the variation of F over time. Here, Equation (6.21)
slightly overestimates the fracture life as the crack grows. This is expected, as
Equation (6.21) is derived based on the assumption that the geometric parameter F
remains unchanged with time. This overestimation is considered negligible for a small
initial crack size. Therefore, in such cases, Equation (6.21) is a reasonable tool for
crack growth assessment. However, this is certainly not true of a large initial crack
size, and in such cases a more rigorous approach must be used.
References
ABS (2014). Spectral-Based Fatigue Analysis for Floating Production, Storage and Offloading
(FPSO) Installations. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX.
ABS (2020). Rules for Building and Classing: Floating Production Installations. American
Chaudhary, G. K. and Dover, W. D. (1985). ‘Fatigue analysis of offshore platforms subjected to

sea wave loading’. Proceedings of the International Journal of Fatigue, 7(1): 13–19.
DNV (2019). Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures, Recommended Practice, DNV-RP-
C203. Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Haibach, E. (1970). Modified Linear Damage Accumulation Hypothesis Accounting for a
Decreasing Fatigue Strength during Increasing Fatigue Damage. Laboratorium für
Betriebsfestigkeit, Fraunhofer LBF, TM No.50, Darmstadt (in German).
Hancock, J. W. and Gall, D. S. (1985). ‘Fatigue under narrow and broad band stationary
loading’. Final Report of Cohesive Program of R&D into Fatigue of Offshore Structures.
Marine Technology Directorate Ltd., Surrey.
HSE (2004). Review of Low Cycle Fatigue Resistance. Research Report, No. 207, Health and
ISO 2394 (1998). General Principles on Reliability for Structures, International Standard.
Kam, J. C. P. and Dover, W. D. (1988). ‘Fast fatigue assessment procedure for offshore
structure under random time history’. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
85(Pt2): 689–700.
Kam, J. C. P. and Dover, W. D. (1989). ‘Advanced tool for fast assessment of fatigue under
offshore random wave stress history’. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers,
87(Pt2): 539–556.
Lotsberg, I. (2016). Fatigue Design of Marine Structures. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge.
Moura Branco, C. and Guerra Rosa, L. (1989). Advances in Fatigue Science and Technology.
Springer, Dordrecht.
Paris, P. C. and Erdogan, F. (1960). ‘A critical analysis of crack propagation law’. Journal of
Basic Engineering, 85(4): 528–534.
Wirsching, P. H. and Light, M. C. (1980). ‘Fatigue under wide band random loading’. Journal
of the Structural Design, American Society of Civil Engineers, 106(ST7): 1593–1607.
7 Ultimate Limit States
7.1 Principles of Ultimate Limit States Engineering
Ultimate limit states (ULS) are one of four types of limit states (described in
Section 5.1), and represent a condition in which a particular structural member or an
entire structure fails to perform its designated function as a result of progressive collapse
due to a loss of structural stiffness and strength caused by buckling, plasticity and
fracture (Paik 2018, 2020). If ULS are reached on a ship-shaped offshore installation,
catastrophic failures may occur, leading to human casualties, structural collapse and
environmental damage. Examples and results of this structural failure or damage are
the loss of load-carrying capacity in part or all of an offshore installation structure,

resulting in downtime or decommissioning;
the breakage of hull girders, resulting in sinking;
the growth of cracking damage in a storage tank, resulting in liquid gas release and
subsequent brittle fracture;
the leakage of gas, resulting in fires and explosions and
the loss of watertight integrity, resulting in flooding and subsequent overturning
or capsizing.
The safety criteria for ULS engineering are expressible in the following general
form:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ < 0, (7.1)
where g is the limit state function for ULS engineering and is a function of the
parameters x1 , x2 , , xn that affect ULS responses. A particular form of Equation
(7.1) is expressed in terms of actions or action effects, as follows:
Cd
C d > Dd or η¼ > 1, (7.2)
Dd
where C d is the design capacity, which is defined as Cd ¼ Cγ k , Dd is the design
C
demand, which is defined as Dd ¼ γD Dk , and η is the safety factor. The subscript d
denotes a design value involving inherent and modelling uncertainties. C k is the
characteristic value of capacity, Dk is the characteristic value of demand, γC is
the partial safety factor for capacity and γD is the partial safety factor for demand.
As the values of these partial safety factors are greater than 1.0, the design capacity is
always less than the characteristic capacity, while the design demand is always greater
than the characteristic demand.
In ULS engineering, the characteristic value of capacity is the ultimate strength and the
characteristic values of demand are the extreme loads or load effects. The extreme loads
are determined from hydrodynamic loads by an analysis of the motion of a ship-shaped
offshore installation under ocean environmental conditions (described in Chapter 3). The
load effects (i.e., stress and deformation) are calculated by a structural analysis of the
applied loads. A key task in the ULS assessment of a ship-shaped offshore installation is
to perform ultimate strength calculations of the plates, stiffened panels and hull girders
that comprise the hull structures under various conditions (see chapters 4, 6 and 8 of Paik
(2018) for details). The design value of the ultimate strength is expressible as a function of
nine random parameters (see chapter 1 of Paik (2020) for details), as follows:
C d ¼ f ðX 1 , X 2 , X 3 , X 4 , X 5 , X 6 , X 7 , X 8 , X 9 Þ, (7.3)
where X 1 is the random parameter associated with geometric properties, X 2 is the

random parameter associated with material properties, X 3 is the random parameter
associated with fabrication-related initial imperfections, X 4 is the random
parameter associated with the loads on various types of components, X 5 is the random
parameter associated with loading speed, X 6 is the random parameter associated with
temperature, X 7 is the random parameter associated with age-related degradation, X 8
is the random parameter associated with accident-induced damage and X 9 is the
random parameter associated with human error. Each of these random parameters
can be further divided into multiple sub-parameters.
The probabilistic characteristics of these random parameters are identified by
referencing a database of historical evidence (see chapter 2 of Paik (2020) for details),
and the mean values of the random variables X i are denoted as X i . The characteristic
value of the ultimate strength is expressed as a function of the mean values of the nine
random parameters, as follows:

Ck ¼ f X 1 ; X 2 ; X 3 ; X 4 ; X 5 ; X 6 ; X 7 ; X 8 ; X 9 : (7.4)
As ULS are primary criteria for the structural design of ship-shaped offshore
installation hulls, multiple-objective optimisation techniques are used to achieve both
structural weight minimisation and structural safety maximisation. MAESTRO soft-
ware (www.maestromarine.com) is useful for the purpose where ALPS/ULSAP
method and ALPS/HULL method are used for the ULS analyses of plate panels and
hull girders, respectively (shown in Figure 7.1) (Kim and Paik 2017).
7.2 Ultimate Strength of Plates
Plates are primary strength members in the hull structures of ship-shaped offshore
installations. They are subjected to combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads (shown
in Figure 7.2). A plate deflects as a result of buckling and/or lateral pressure loads. The
degree of rotational restraint along the edges of a plate in its welded intersection with
Prescriptive Requirement Minimum Requirement

• Local Strength • Minimum Thickness
• Longitudinal Strength • Stiffness and Properties
Finite Element Modelling

• Entire Hull Model
• 3-Cargo Hold Model
Hydrodynamic Loads Load Effect Analysis
ULS Analysis of Stiffened

Panels using ALPS/ULSAP
Partial Safety Factors Constraints
Weight Minimisation Iteration
ULS Analysis of Hull

Girder using ALPS/HULL
Hull Strength Check
Figure 7.1 Procedure for the multiple-objective structural optimisation of a ship-shaped

offshore installation hull (where ULS ¼ ultimate limit states)
another plate or a support member is neither zero nor infinite, as this variable depends on
the torsional rigidities of support members (longitudinal stiffeners and transverse
frames), as detailed in chapters 3 and 4 of Paik (2018). In addition, the membrane stress
distribution within a deflected plate is non-uniform: the maximum stresses develop at the
plate corners (plate-stiffener web junctions) and the minimum stresses develop in the
midpoints of the plate edges. The edges of a deflected plate within a continuous stiffened
plate structure typically remain straight. However, the edges yield if they cannot
maintain a straight condition (i.e., the plate exhibits ULS behaviour).
7.2.1 Ultimate Plate Strength under Combined Loads

The initial plastic yielding of a plate edge under a combined load tends to occur at one
of three locations (shown in Figure 7.3). The membrane stress distribution, which
comprises the maximum and minimum stresses, is calculated as a function of the
applied load components that also accounts for other factors of influence such as initial
imperfections, localised corrosion wastage, premised crack and local denting. The von
Figure 7.2 A rectangular plate subjected to combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads
(where σ xav ¼ longitudinal axial stress; σ yav ¼ transverse axial stress; τ av ¼ edge shear stress;
p ¼ lateral pressure loads; a ¼ plate length and b ¼ plate breadth)
simply supported simply supported simply supported

edges edges edges
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 7.3 Three probable locations of initial plate-edge yielding: (a) corners, (b) longitudinal
edges and (c) transverse edges (where •¼ yield point; C ¼ compression; T ¼ tension;
σ x max ¼ maximum stress in the x direction; σ x min ¼ minimum stress in the x direction;
σ y max ¼ maximum stress in the y direction and σ y min ¼ minimum stress in the y direction)
Mises yield criterion is used to formulate the ultimate strength criteria for these most
probable yield locations, as described here:
(1) Yielding at corners:
2
σ x max 2 σ x max σ y max σ y max 2 τ av
þ þ ¼ 1, (7.5a)
σY σY σY σY τY
(2) Yielding at longitudinal edges:

2
σ x max 2 σ x max σ y min σ y min 2 τ av
þ þ ¼ 1, (7.5b)
σY σY σY σY τY
(3) Yielding at transverse edges:

2 2 2
σ x min σ x min σ y max σ y max τ av
þ þ ¼ 1, (7.5c)
σY σY σY σY τY
where σ x max is the maximum stress in the x (plate length) direction, σ y max is the
maximum stress in the y (plate breadth) direction, σ x min is the minimum stress in the x
direction, σ y min is the minimum stress in the y direction,
pffiffiffi τ av is the edge shear stress, σ Y
is the yield stress of the material and τ Y ¼ σ Y = 3 is the shear yield stress.
The ultimate strength of a plate is defined as the smallest value of the applied load
(stress) component in the three solutions of Equation (7.5). The maximum and
minimum membrane stresses are derived by solving the two nonlinear governing
differential equations of large deflection plate theory, namely the equilibrium equation
and the compatibility equation, which are expressed as a function of the applied load
(stress) components and other influential factors (see chapter 4 of Paik (2018) for
details).
In the following, the simplest case study is presented for a plate with no initial
imperfections that is simply supported at all (four) edges and under uniaxial compres-
sive loads in the x direction. The long (plate length) direction is the x axis and the short
(plate breadth) direction is the y axis, and thus the plate aspect ratio is always greater
than 1, or a=b 1. The maximum and minimum membrane stresses of the plate in the
post-buckling regime are calculated as follows:
σ x max ¼ a1 σ xav þ a2 , σ x min ¼ b1 σ x av þ b2 , σ y max ¼ c1 σ xav þ c2 , σ y min ¼ d1 σ xav þ d 2 ,
(7.6)
where σ xav is the average axial-compressive stress in the x direction, and m is the
buckling
phalf-wave
ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi number which is the minimum integer that satisfies the condition
a=b mðm þ 1Þ. That is,
2
2m4 2m2 π 2 D m2 1
a1 ¼ 1 þ , a2 ¼ þ ,
a4 m4 =a4 þ 1=b4 a2 m4 =a4 þ 1=b4 t a2 b2
2
2m4 2m2 π 2 D m2 1
b1 ¼ 1 , b2 ¼ 2 4 4 þ ,
a4 m =a4 þ 1=b4
4 a m =a þ 1=b4 t a2 b2
2
2m2 2 π 2 D m2 1
c1 ¼ , c2 ¼ 2 4 4 þ ,
a2 b m4 =a4 þ 1=b4
2
b m =a þ 1=b4 t a2 b2
2m2
d1 ¼ 2 2 4 4 and
a b m =a þ 1=b4
2
π 2 D m2 1
2
d2 ¼ 2 4 4 þ ,
b m =a þ 1=b4 t a2 b2
in which a is the plate length, b is the plate breadth, t is the plate thickness,
D ¼ Et 3 =½12ð1 n 2 Þ, E is the elastic modulus of the material and n is the Poisson ratio.
ALPS/ULSAP software is available to calculate the ultimate strength of plates via
Equation (7.5), which is a main module of MAESTRO (www.maestromarine.com). It
is invaluable for ULS-based structural optimisation via the analytical determination of
the ultimate strengths of plates subjected to various conditions, such as welding-
induced initial imperfections, combined load conditions, cut-out and in-service
damage (e.g., corrosion, fatigue cracking and local denting).
7.2.2 Effective Plate Width and Ultimate Compressive Strength Formulation

The effective width concept is a useful means by which to evaluate the reduction of in-
plane stiffness within a deflected plate. If neither initial imperfections nor lateral
pressure are present, the effective width ðbe Þ for a simply supported plate under
uniaxial compressive loads in the x direction is formulated as a function of the average
compressive stress, as follows:
be σ xav σ x av
¼ ¼ , (7.7a)
b σ x max a1 σ x av þ a2
or as a function of the average axial-compressive strain (because σ x max ¼ Eεxav ), as
follows:

be 1 a2 1
¼ 1 , (7.7b)
b a1 E εx av
where εxav is the average axial-compressive strain in the x direction.

Similarly, the maximum and minimum stresses for a perfect plate under uniaxial
compressive loads in the y direction are obtained as follows:
σ x max ¼ e1 σ yav þ e2 , σ x min ¼ f 1 σ yav þ f 2 , σ y max ¼ g1 σ yav þ g2 , σ y min ¼ h1 σ yav þ h2 ,
(7.8)
where σ yav is the average axial-compressive stress in the y direction, n is the buckling
half-wave number in the y direction, which is taken as n ¼ 1 because a=b 1 and
2
2n2 2 π 2 D 1 n2
e1 ¼ 2 2 , e 2 ¼ þ ,
a b 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 a2 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 t a2 b2
2
2n2 2 π 2 D 1 n2
f 1 ¼ 2 2 , f 2 ¼ 2 þ ,
a b 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 a 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 t a2 b2
2
2n4 2n2 π 2 D 1 n2
g1 ¼ 1 þ 4 , g2 ¼ 2 þ ,
b 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 b 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 t a2 b2
2
2n4 2n2 π 2 D 1 n2
h1 ¼ 1 , h2 ¼ þ :
b 1=a þ n4 =b4
4 4 b 1=a4 þ n4 =b4 t
2 a2 b2
The effective length ðae Þ of a plate is formulated as a function of the applied axial-
compressive stress, as follows:
ae σ yav σ yav
¼ ¼ , (7.9a)
a σ y max g1 σ yav þ g2
or as a function of the average axial-compressive strain (because σ y max ¼ Eεyav ), as

follows:

ae 1 g2 1
¼ 1 , (7.9b)
a g1 E εy av
where εyav is the average axial-compressive strain in the y direction.

The ultimate effective width ðbeu Þ and ultimate effective length ðaeu Þ of a deflected
plate are determined under the following ultimate strength conditions:
beu σ xu
¼ u , (7.10a)
b σ x max
aeu σ yu
¼ u , (7.10b)
a σ y max
where σ xu is the ultimate compressive strength in the x direction, σ yu is the ultimate

compressive strength in the y direction, σ ux max ¼ σ x max at σ x av ¼ σ xu and
σ uy max ¼ σ y max at σ y av ¼ σ yu .
For further simplification, σ ux max ¼ σ uy max ¼ σ Y may be used in Equation (7.10) if
the unloaded edges do not remain straight, such that the associated membrane stresses
in the corresponding direction are not developed. This leads to the following
equations:
beu σ xu
¼ , (7.11a)
b σY
aeu σ yu
¼ : (7.11b)
a σY
where σ Y is the yield stress of the material.
Equations (7.10) or (7.11) deal explicitly with initial imperfections and lateral
pressure loads as parameters of influence and compute the effective width or effective
length of a deflected plate in which the edges remain straight (see chapter 4 of Paik
(2018) for details). Empirical formulations of the ultimate effective width or ultimate
effective length as a function of the plate slenderness ratio are also available (Faulkner
et al. 1973) for a plate that exhibits free in-plane movement of its unloaded edges and
therefore does not develop membrane stresses. Examples of these formulations are as
follows:
8
for β 1
beu < c
1:0
¼ 1 c2 , (7.12a)
b : β 2 for β > 1
β

aeu 0:9 b 1:9 0:9 a
¼ 2 þ 1 2 for 1:9, (7.12b)
a β a β β b
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where β ¼ ðb=t Þ σ Y =E is the plate slenderness ratio. Equation (7.12) implicitly
involves the influence of initial imperfections at an ‘average’ level and uses c1 ¼ 2
and c2 ¼ 1. Other design guidelines instead use c1 ¼ 1:8 and c2 ¼ 0:9. After the
ultimate effective width or ultimate effective length is determined using Equation
(7.12), the ultimate strength of a plate is estimated using Equation (7.10).
7.2.3 Effective Shear Modulus and Ultimate Shear Strength Formulation

The ultimate strength of a plate under edge shear loads is estimated from the Johnson–
Ostenfeld formulation, using a plasticity correction for the elastic buckling stress, as
follows:
8
< τE
for τ E 0:5τ Y
τu ¼ τY , (7.13)
: τY 1 for τ E > 0:5τ Y
4τ E
pffiffiffi
where τ u is the ultimate shear strength, τ Y ¼ σ Y = 3 is the shear yield stress of the
material, and τ E is the elastic shear buckling strength, which is given by
h i
b 2 2
τ E ¼ 12ðπ1n
2
E
2Þ 4 a þ 5:34 bt for a simply supported plate.
Empirical formulations of the ultimate shear strength of a plate have also been
devised (Paik et al. 2001; Paik 2018), such as:
8 τE τE
>
> 1:324 for 0 < 0:5
>
> τ τY
>
>
Y
3 2
τu <
τE τE τE τE
¼ 0:039 0:274 þ 0:676 þ 0:388 for 0:5 < 2:0
τY >> τ τ τ τY
>
>
Y Y Y
>
> τ
: 0:956 for E > 2:0,
τY
(7.14)
The ultimate strength behaviour of a plate under edge shear loads is analysed using
the effective shear modulus concept, which was originally proposed by Paik (1995,
2018). This concept involves evaluating the reduction in the in-plane stiffness of a
plate that has buckled under shear, and is similar to evaluating the effective width or
length. Thus,
τ av ¼ Ge γav , (7.15)
where Ge is the effective shear modulus and γav is the average edge shear strain.
The effective shear modulus of a perfect plate without initial imperfections
is empirically formulated as a function of the average edge shear stress, τ av , as
follows:
8 τ av
>
> 1:0 for 1
Ge < τE
¼ 2 (7.16)
G >
> τ av τ av τ av
: 0:015 0:118 þ 1:103 for > 1,
τE τE τE
where G ¼ E=½2ð1 þ n Þ is the shear modulus of the material.
7.2.4 Ultimate Plate Strength Formulation under Combined Loads

The ultimate strength interaction relationship between the combined biaxial and edge
shear loads is determined using the following type of von Mises yield condition
equation:
c3
σ x av c1 σ x av σ y av σ y av c2 τ av
þα þ þ ¼ 1, (7.17)
σx u σx u σy u σy u τu
where σ xu , σ yu and τ u are the ultimate strength components of the plate under single
load components of σ xav , σ yav and τ av , respectively. The effects of other influential
parameters, such as the initial imperfections and lateral pressure loads, are considered
in each ultimate strength calculation. The coefficients may be taken as c1 ¼ c2 ¼ 2
and α ¼ 0 when both σ xav and σ yav are compressive strength components and are
negative in sign, and as α ¼ 1 when either σ xav or σ yav , or both, are tensile strength
components and are positive in sign.
Figure 7.4 shows the relationship between the ultimate strength interactions of the
biaxial loads estimated using Equation (7.17), in terms of a comparison of the ALPS/
ULSAP and nonlinear finite-element method solutions for a plate with a=b ¼ 3 and
von Mises’ ellipse von Mises’ ellipse
Figure 7.4 Ultimate strength interaction relationship of a simply supported plate under biaxial
loads with a=b ¼ 3 and (a) β ¼ 2:25 or (b) β ¼ 1:35
β ¼ 2:25 or β ¼ 1:35; here, wopl is the maximum value of the initial deflection of
the plate.
7.2.5 The Average Stress–Average Strain Relation before

and after the Ultimate Strength
The relationship between the average stresses and average strains for a plate under
combined biaxial and edge shear loads and with edges that remain straight is formu-
lated as follows:
1
εxav ¼ σ x max vσ yav , (7.18a)
E
1
εyav ¼ vσ xav þ σ y max , (7.18b)
E
τ av
γav ¼ : (7.18c)
Ge
Equation (7.18) may be rewritten in the following incremental form:

8 9 8 9
<Δσ xav= <Δεxav=
Δσ ¼ Dp Δεyav , (7.19)
: yav; : ;
Δτ av Δγav

where the prefix Δ represents an increment of the variable and Dp is the formulated
plate status-dependent stress-strain matrix. Thus,
(a) in a pre-buckling or un-deflected regime,
2 3
E 1 n 0
E 4 5,
Dp ¼ n 1 0 (7.20a)
1 n2
0 0 ð1 n Þ=2
(b) in a post-buckling or deflected regime,

2 3
B B2 A2 0
1 4 B1
Dp ¼ A1 0 5, (7.20b)
A1 B2 A2 B1
0 0 1=C1

∂σ ∂σ
where A1 ¼ E1 ∂σ∂σxxmax , A2 ¼ E1 ∂σ x max
∂σ y av v , B1 ¼ E1 ∂σy xmax v , B2 ¼ E1 ∂σy ymax ,

av av av
C 1 ¼ G1e 1 τGave ∂τ
∂Ge
av
and
(c) in a post-ultimate strength regime,
2 3
U A1 0 0
Dp ¼ 4 0 A2 0 5, (7.20c)
0 0 A3
σu σu σ
where A1 ¼ x 2max Eεσ x2E , A2 ¼ y 2max Eεy2E and A3 ¼ G∗ ∗
e , and where Ge is the
x av y av
tangent shear modulus in the post-ultimate strength regime. When the unloading
behaviour caused by shear is not very significant, it is often assumed that G∗e ¼ 0.
For details of Equation (7.20), see chapter 4 of Paik (2018).
7.2.6 The Incremental Galerkin Method

The elastic large-deflection behaviour of a plate with initial deflection is analysed by
solving their governing differential equations which are composed of the equilibrium
equation and the compatibility equation as follows:
4
∂ w ∂4 w ∂4 w
ΦD þ 2 þ
∂x4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂y4
2 2 (7.21a)
∂ F ∂ ðw þ wo Þ ∂2 F ∂2 ðw þ wo Þ ∂ 2 F ∂2 ð w þ w o Þ p
þ 2 2 þ ¼ 0,
∂y2 ∂x2 ∂x ∂y2 ∂x∂y ∂x∂y t
∂4 F ∂4 F ∂4 F
þ 2 þ
∂x4 "∂y ∂y
∂x 2 2 4
#
2 (7.21b)
∂ w
2
∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 wo ∂2 w ∂2 wo ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 wo
E 2 2 þ2 2 ¼ 0,
∂y∂x ∂x ∂y ∂x∂y ∂x∂y ∂x ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2
where Φ is the potential energy variance (which should become zero to satisfy the
equilibrium equation), E is the elastic modulus of the material, D ¼ Et 3 =½12ð1 n 2 Þ
is the plate bending rigidity, t is the plate thickness, v is the Poisson ratio, w is the
added plate-deflection, wo is the initial plate-deflection, p is the lateral pressure loads
varying over the plate as p ¼ pðx; yÞ and F is the Airy stress function which is given as
follows:
2
∂2 F Ez ∂ w ∂2 w
σx ¼ 2 þ v , (7.22a)
∂y 1 v2 ∂x2 ∂y2
2
∂2 F Ez ∂ w ∂2 w
σy ¼ 2 þv 2 , (7.22b)
∂x 1 v2 ∂y2 ∂x
∂2 F Ez ∂2 w
τ ¼ τ xy ¼ , (7.22c)
∂x∂y 2ð1 þ vÞ ∂x∂y
where σ x is the normal stress in the x (plate length) direction, σ y is the normal stress in
the y (plate breadth) direction, τ ¼ τ xy is the shear stress and z is the coordinate in the
plate thickness direction.
To solve Equation (7.21), the added deflection function w (with unknown coeffi-
cients) and the initial deflection function wo (with known coefficients) are assumed
where the plate edge conditions should be satisfied. Under a given loading condition,
the Galerkin method (Fletcher 1984) is applied to obtain a set of third-order simultan-
eous equations with regard to the unknown coefficients of the assumed deflection
function. Solving the third-order simultaneous equations is not always easy because of
iteration process and computing time required.
In this case, an incremental approach is useful to more efficiently solve the non-
linear governing differential equations for a plate under combined loads (Ueda et al.
1987). In this approach, Equation (7.21) can be changed as follows:
4 2
∂ Δw ∂4 Δw ∂4 Δw ∂ F i1 ∂2 Δw ∂2 ΔF ∂2 ðwi1 þ wo Þ
ΔΦ ¼ D þ 2 þ t þ
∂x 4 ∂x ∂y
2 2 ∂y 4 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x2
∂2 F i1 ∂2 Δw ∂2 ΔF ∂2 ðwi1 þ wo Þ ∂2 F i1 ∂2 Δw

þ þ 2
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x∂y ∂x∂y

∂ ΔF ∂ ðwi1 þ wo Þ Δp
2 2
2 þ ¼ 0, (7.23a)
∂x∂y ∂x∂y t
2
∂4 ΔF ∂4 ΔF ∂4 ΔF ∂ ðwi1 þ wo Þ ∂2 Δw
þ 2 þ E 2
∂x4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂y4 ∂x∂y ∂x∂y
(7.23b)
∂ ðwi1 þ wo Þ ∂ Δw ∂ Δw ∂ ðwi1 þ wo Þ
2 2 2 2
¼ 0,
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2
where the prefix Δ represents an increment of the variable which is the variance
between the associated values in the ði 1Þth loading step and ith loading step as
wi ¼ wi1 þ Δw and F i ¼ F i1 þ ΔF.
Application of the Galerkin method to Equation (7.23) gives a set of linear
simultaneous equations for the unknown coefficients of the assumed deflection func-
tion. Solving these linear simultaneous equations is usually straightforward. The
effects of plasticity are accounted for using a numerical technique. ALPS/SPINE
software using the incremental Galerkin method is available to analyse the elastic-
plastic large deflection behaviour of a plate under a combination of biaxial loads, edge
shear loads and lateral pressure loads, which is a part of MAESTRO (www
.maestromarine.com). For details of the incremental Galerkin method for plates, see
7.3 Ultimate Strength of Stiffened Panels
7.3.1 Six Possible Collapse Modes

Consider a ‘longitudinally’ stiffened panel surrounded by longitudinal girders and
transverse frames that is part of the continuous stiffened-plate structure shown in
Figure 5.1. The panel is subjected to combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads, as
shown in Figure 7.5, where it is simply supported along all (four) edges. The in-plane
loads are the in-plane bending moments in two directions and the edge shear loads
arising from the actions of hull structures. The panel is an assembly of plate elements
and support members (longitudinal stiffeners), and thus its collapse modes are
Figure 7.5 A stiffened panel under combined in-plane and lateral pressure loads
governed by the interactions between the plate elements and support members, in
terms of geometric and material properties, the loading conditions and the initial
imperfections, among other factors.
The six possible collapse modes of the stiffened panel, as originally suggested by
Paik (Paik 2018), are categorised as follows:
(1) Collapse mode I: Overall collapse of the panel plating and stiffeners, as a unit
(2) Collapse mode II: Biaxial compressive collapse without failure of stiffeners
(3) Collapse mode III: Beam-column type collapse
(4) Collapse mode IV: Local buckling of the stiffener web (after the inception of
buckling collapse of the plating between the stiffeners)
(5) Collapse mode V: Flexural-torsional buckling or tripping of the stiffeners
(6) Collapse mode VI: Gross yielding
Collapse mode I represents the overall panel collapse that occurs after overall
buckling, during which the stiffeners buckle with the plating as a unit. Overall
buckling often occurs in an elastic regime. Collapse mode I typically occurs when
the stiffeners are weaker than the plating. Collapse mode II occurs when a panel is
predominantly subjected to biaxial compressive loads, which cause it to collapse
owing to yielding along the plate-stiffener intersection at panel edges, without distinct
stiffener failure. Mode II does not involve failure of the stiffeners, in contrast to the
possible behaviour of stiffeners in collapse modes III, IV or V. In this regard, one of
two possible events may occur, depending on the sturdiness of the plating. (1) If the
plating is strong, the plate corners may yield, resulting in a transfer of the load to the
stiffeners and their subsequent collapse by yielding or by columnar or torsional
buckling (as covered in collapse modes III, IV and V). Alternatively, the stiffeners
carry additional (but negligibly small) loads until the ultimate strength is reached. (2)
If the plating is weak, it may buckle under a relatively small load, and therefore the
ultimate strength of a panel is provided mainly by the stiffeners (as covered in collapse
modes III, IV and V). If the stiffeners are of intermediate (i.e., neither weak nor strong)
dimensions, a stiffened panel behaves as a plate-stiffener combination that is repre-
sentative of the panel. In this situation, the panel reaches ultimate strength and thus
fails via collapse mode III, that is, beam-column type collapse. If the ratio of the
stiffener web height to the thickness is large, local buckling occurs in the web and
indicates that collapse mode IV is operative; in other words, the stiffener web buckles
subsequent to the inception of failure in the plating between the stiffeners. If the
stiffener flange does not remain straight, the stiffener twists sideways in a phenom-
enon termed flexural-torsional buckling or tripping. Collapse mode V involves a panel
that has reached ultimate strength owing to lateral-torsional buckling or tripping of the
stiffeners. If a panel is very sturdy or under predominantly axial tensile loading,
neither local nor overall buckling occurs until its ultimate strength is reached by gross
yielding, as described by collapse mode VI.
These six collapse modes may interact and occur simultaneously, but it may be
presumed that the interacting effects between the individual collapse modes are
negligible, and thus a stiffened panel exhibits an ultimate strength with a single
dominant collapse mode, which occurs before any of the other collapse modes.
Therefore, in this method, the ultimate strength solutions for each of the six collapse
modes of a panel are calculated separately, and the solution with the smallest magni-
tude is used as the real ultimate strength of the panel.
The advantage of this method is that it enables a rapid estimation of the ultimate
strength of a panel, which can be used to predict its dominant collapse mode. See
chapters 5 and 6 of Paik (2018) for details. ALPS/ULSAP software is available to
calculate the ultimate strength of stiffened panels under combined loads via the
aforementioned method considering six collapse modes, which is a major module of
MAESTRO (www.maestromarine.com).
7.3.2 Ultimate Panel Strength Formulations under Axial Compressive Loads

Regardless of refined methods such as a nonlinear finite-element method and
ALPS/ULSAP method, closed-form expressions are useful to make a quick esti-
mation of the ultimate strength. Deck or bottom panels of ship-shaped offshore
installations are predominantly subjected to axial compressive loads in sagging or
hogging, respectively. For stiffened panels under axial compressive loads which
reach the ultimate strength following collapse mode III (described in Section
7.3.1), the plate-stiffener combination model (shown in Figure 5.2(a)) is useful
to predict the ultimate panel strength using closed-form formulations which enable
a rapid estimation of the behaviour of a stiffened panel under uniaxial compressive
loads. In this case, the effectiveness of the attached plating for the plate-stiffener
combination model is defined by the effective plate width concept (described in
Section 7.2.2).
7.3.2.1 The Paik–Thayamballi Empirical Formulation

One example of closed-form ultimate strength formulations is the Paik–Thayamballi
empirical formulation (Paik and Thayamballi 1997), which was derived by the curve-
fitting of a mechanical collapse test database for stiffened steel panels that contained
initial imperfections (initial deflections and residual stresses) and were under axial
compressive loads. This method is as follows:
σ xu 1 1
¼ pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi 2: (7.24)
σ Yeq 0:995 þ 0:936λ þ 0:170β þ 0:188λ β 0:067λ
2 2 2 2 4 λ
where σ xu is the ultimate compressive stress, σ Yeq is the equivalent yield stress of the
material, β is the plate slenderness ratio and λ is the column slenderness ratio (see
Table 5.1 for details).
The application of Equation (7.24) involves the use of a stiffened panel represented
by the plate-stiffener combination model in Figure 5.2(a). In addition, the ultimate
strength of a column cannot be greater than the elastic column buckling strength, and
thus σ xu =σ Yeq ¼ 1=λ2 if σ xu =σ Yeq 1=λ2 . Equation (7.24) was derived using a test
database that implicitly considered the effects of initial imperfections, as mentioned,
and thus incorporates parameter values for a full section (rather than an effective
section) of the attached plating to define the value of β and λ for the plate-stiffener
combination model, using the nomenclature of stiffener dimensions given in
Figure 7.6. Equation (7.24) gives a lower bound solution of the ultimate strength for
a stiffened panel under axial compressive loads (Paik 2007; Zhang 2015; Woloszyk
et al. 2020; Xu and Guedes Soares 2021).
b b b
flat bar angle bar tee bar
Figure 7.6 Nomenclature of stiffener dimensions with a fully effective plating (N.A. stands for
the neutral axis and zp ¼ distance from outer surface of plating to the neutral axis)
7.3.2.2 The Johnson–Ostenfeld Formulation

An alternative to predict the ultimate compressive strength of a stiffened panel without
accounting for the effect of initial imperfections is given from the Johnson–Ostenfeld
formulation, using a plasticity correction for the elastic buckling stress, as follows:
8
< σ xE for σ xE 0:5σ Yeq
σ xu ¼ σ Yeq , (7.25)
: σ Yeq 1 for σ xE > 0:5σ Yeq
4σ xE
where σ xu is the ultimate axial compressive stress, σ Yeq is the equivalent yield
stress, σ xE is the Euler buckling stress, which is given by σ xE ¼ A1 π aEI2 e for a column
2
simply supported at both ends. A is the total cross-sectional area of the plate-
stiffener combination model with a fully effective plate width ðbÞ and I e is the
moment of inertia of the plate-stiffener combination model with an effective plate
width ðbe Þ (described in Section 7.2.2). For details of the geometric properties, see
Table 5.1.
7.3.2.3 The Perry–Robertson Formulation

The Perry–Robertson formulation is also useful to estimate the ultimate strength of
the plate-stiffener combination model under axial compression where it is assumed
that a column (a one-dimensional member under axial compressive loads) col-
lapses if the maximum compressive stress at the outer surface (extreme fiber) of
the column cross-section reaches the material yield stress (see chapter 2 of Paik
(2018) for details).
! 2 !2 30:5
σ xu 1 1þη 1 1 þ η 1
¼ 1þ 2 4 1þ 2 25 , (7.26)
σ Yeq 2 λe 4 λe λe
where σ xu is the ultimate axial compressive stress, σ Yeq is the equivalent yield stress,-
η ¼ Aδ0 zc =I e ¼ δ0 zc =r 2e . zc is the distance from the elastic neutral axis to the outer
fiber of the compressed side of the plate-stiffener combination model. δ0 is the
amplitude (maximum value) of the initial deflection of the plate-stiffener combination
model. A is the total cross-sectional area of the plate-stiffener combinations for a full
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
section and re ¼ I e =A is the radius of gyration for the plate-stiffener combination
model with the effective plate width ðbe Þ (described in Section 7.2.2) and I e is the
moment of inertia for the effective section. See Table 5.1 for details of the
geometric properties.
Bottom panels of ship-shaped offshore installations in hogging are subjected to
combined axial compression and lateral pressure loads. The effects of lateral pressure
loads are modelled as shown in Figure 5.4, and the modified Perry–Robertson
formulation is used to estimate the ultimate strength of the plate-stiffener combination
model under combined uniaxial compression and lateral pressure loads (see chapter
2 of Paik (2018) for details).
7.3.3 Ultimate Panel Strength Formulation under Lateral Pressure Loads

Bottom stiffened panels of ship-shaped offshore installations are predominantly
subjected to lateral pressure loads. A stiffened panel under uniformly lateral
pressure loads is modelled as the plate-stiffener combination model under a
uniform line load, q ¼ pb (shown in Figure 5.4 with Figure 7.6). In this case,
the effectiveness of the attached plating is defined by the ‘effective plate breadth’
concept resulting from shear lag (defined in Equation (5.3)), unlike the ‘effective
plate width’ concept resulting from non-uniform membrane stress distribution
(described in Section 7.2.2).
The ultimate strength of the plate-stiffener combination model under uniformly
distributed lateral pressure loads is estimated using the plastic hinge method, as
shown in Figure 7.7, for a simple support beam at both ends. The reaction forces at
both ends and the bending moment distribution of the beam are calculated as
follows:
qa 1 1
RA ¼ RB ¼ , M ¼ RA x qx2 ¼ qxða xÞ, (7.27)
2 2 2
where q ¼ pb.
The maximum bending moment, M max , at the mid-span, that is, x ¼ a/2, is thus
obtained as follows:
qa2
M max ¼ : (7.28)
8
According to the plastic hinge method, a beam reaches the ultimate strength when
the maximum bending moment is equal to the plastic bending capacity, M P , that is,
8M P qc
M max ¼ M P or qc ¼ or pc ¼ , (7.29)
a2 b
where qc is the collapse line load, pc is the collapse pressure load, M P is the plastic
bending capacity of the plate-stiffener combination model with an effective plating,
which is given by (see chapter 2 of Paik (2018) for details)
a/2 a/2
Figure 7.7 Plastic hinge mechanism (collapse mode) of a plate-stiffener combination model
under a uniform line load
h t
zP t
M P ¼ be tσ Yp zP þ ðzP t Þt w σ Yw
2 2
hw þ t z P tf
þ ðhw þ t zP Þt w σ Yw þ bf t f σ Yf hw þ t zP þ
2 2
"
t
ðzP t Þ 2
ðhw þ t zP Þ 2 (7.30)
¼ be tσ Yp zP þ t w σ Yw þ t w σ Yw
2 2 2
t f
i
þ bf t f σ Yf hw þ t zP þ ,
2
0:5Ape σ Yp t þ Aw σ Yw ðt þ 0:5hw Þ þ Af σ Yf ðt þ hw þ 0:5t f Þ

where zP ¼ Ape σ Yp þ Aw σ Yw þ Af σ Yf is the distance from outer sur-
face of attached plating to the plastic horizontal neutral axis, and be is the effective
breadth of the attached plating due to shear lag (defined in Equation (5.3)). For details
of the geometric properties, see Table 5.1.
7.3.4 The Incremental Galerkin Method

The elastic large deflection behaviour of stiffened panels with initial deflections can be
analysed by solving the governing differential equations which are composed of the
equivalent equation and the compatibility equation as follows:
2 2
∂4 w ∂4 w ∂4 w ∂ F ∂ ðw þ wo Þ ∂2 F ∂2 ðw þ wo Þ
Φ¼D þ 2 þ t þ 2
∂x4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂y4 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂x ∂y2
Xnsx 2 2
∂ F ∂ ðw þ w o Þ
2 2
∂w4
∂F2
∂ F ∂ ð w þ wo Þ
2 þ EI ii 4 Aii n 2
∂x∂y ∂x∂y ii¼1
∂x ∂y2 ∂x ∂x2 y¼yii
Xn
sy
∂ w
4
∂ F
2
∂ F ∂ ðw þ w o Þ
2 2
þ EI jj 4 Ajj n 2 p ¼ 0,
jj¼1
∂y ∂x 2 ∂y ∂y2 x¼xjj
(7.31a)
" 2
∂4 F ∂4 F ∂4 F ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 wo ∂2 w
þ2 2 2þ 4 E þ2
∂x 4 ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂y∂x ∂x ∂y
2 2 ∂x∂y ∂x∂y
(7.31b)
∂2 wo ∂2 w ∂2 w ∂2 wo
2 ¼ 0,
∂x ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2
where the nomenclature of Equation (7.21) is applied. In addition, nsx is the

number of longitudinal stiffeners, nsy is the number of transverse stiffeners, I ii is
the moment of inertia of the iith longitudinal stiffener, Aii is the cross-sectional
area of the iith longitudinal stiffener, I jj is the moment of inertia of the jjth
transverse stiffener, Ajj is the cross-sectional area of the jjth transverse stiffener,
yii is the y-coordinate of the iith longitudinal stiffener and xjj is the x-coordinate of
the jjth transverse stiffener.
The incremental forms of Equation (7.31) are derived with wi ¼ wi1 þ Δw and
F i ¼ F i1 þ ΔF, as follows:
4 2
∂ Δw ∂4 Δw ∂4 Δw ∂ F i1 ∂2 Δw ∂2 ΔF ∂2 ðwi1 þ w0 Þ
ΔΦ ¼ D þ 2 þ t þ
∂x4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂y4 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x2

∂2 F i1 ∂2 Δw ∂2 ΔF ∂2 ðwi1 þ w0 Þ ∂2 F i1 ∂2 Δw ∂2 ΔF ∂2 ðwi1 þ w0 Þ
þ 2 2
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x∂y ∂x∂y ∂x∂y ∂x∂y
Xn 2
sx
∂ Δw
4
∂ F i1
2
∂2 F i1 ∂2 Δw ∂ ΔF ∂2 ΔF ∂2 ðwi1 þ w0 Þ
þ EI ii Aii n Aii n
ii¼1
∂x4 ∂y2 ∂x 2 ∂x 2 ∂y 2 ∂x 2 ∂x 2
y¼yii
Xn
sy
∂ Δw
4
∂ F i1
2
∂ F i1 ∂ Δw
2 2
∂ ΔF
2
∂ ΔF ∂ ðwi1 þ w0 Þ
2 2
þ EI jj Ajj n Ajj n
jj¼1
∂y4 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2 ∂y2 x¼xjj
Δp ¼ 0,
(7.32a)
2
∂4 ΔF ∂4 ΔF ∂4 ΔF ∂ ðwi1 þ w0 Þ ∂2 Δw
þ 2 þ E 2
∂x 4 ∂x ∂y
2 2 ∂y 4 ∂x∂y ∂x∂y
(7.32b)
∂ ðwi1 þ w0 Þ ∂ Δw ∂ Δw ∂ ðwi1 þ w0 Þ
2 2 2 2
¼ 0,
∂x2 ∂y2 ∂x2 ∂y2
where the nomenclature of Equation (7.23) is applied.

Application of the incremental Galerkin method to Equation (7.32) gives a set of
first-order simultaneous equations with regard to the unknown coefficients of the
assumed deflection function. The effects of plasticity are treated using a numerical
approach. ALPS/SPINE software as a part of MAESTRO (www.maestromarine.com)
is available to analyse the elastic-plastic large deflection behaviour of a stiffened panel
under combined loads using the incremental Galerkin method (see chapter 11 of Paik
(2018) for details).
7.4 Ultimate Strength of Hull Girders
To prevent hull girder collapse, the ultimate hull girder strength must be greater than
the maximum hull girder loads with a sufficient margin of safety.
7.4.1 Geometric Properties of Hull Cross-Sections

The neutral axial position of a hull cross-section is calculated as follows:
P
n
ai z i
i¼1
g¼ Pn , (7.33)
ai
i¼1
where g is the distance from the baseline of a hull cross-section to the neutral axial
position, ai is the cross-sectional area of the ith structural element (portion), zi is the
distance from the baseline to the neutral axis of the ith structural element (portion) and
n is the total number of members to be included in the cross-sectional property
calculation. The baseline is usually presumed to be located at the outer fibre of the
bottom (lower flange) plate. To automate the computation of Equation (7.33), the
cross-section of a hull girder is idealized as an assembly of pure plate element
(segment) models (see chapter 7 of Paik (2018) for details).
The moment of inertia I for a hull cross-section is calculated with g determined
from Equation (7.33) as follows:
X
n
I¼ ai z2i þ ii Ah g2 , (7.34)
i¼1
P
where Ah ¼ ni¼1 ai is the total area of a hull cross-section, ai , zi , g and n are defined in
Equation (7.33), and ii is the moment of inertia for the ith structural element (portion)
about its own neutral axis.
The neutral axis position of a full plastic hull cross-section under vertical bending is
determined as follows:
P
n
ai σ Yi zi
gp ¼ i¼1
Pn , (7.35)
ai σ Yi
i¼1
where gp is the distance from the baseline to the neutral axis position of the full plastic
hull cross-section and σ Yi is the material yield stress of the ith structural element.
With gp determined from Equation (7.35), the full plastic bending moment M P of a
hull girder cross-section is calculated as follows:
X
n
MP ¼ ai σ Yi zi gp : (7.36)
i¼1
7.4.2 The Modified Paik–Mansour Method

The modified Paik–Mansour method (Paik et al. 2013; Paik 2018) is useful to predict
the ultimate hull girder strength under vertical bending moment as it enables the rapid
estimation of the ultimate hull girder strength under vertical bending moments.
Figure 7.8 depicts the presumed distributions of bending stresses at the ultimate limit
states of a hull girder under vertical sagging or hogging bending moments, where
indicates axial tensile stresses, indicates axial compressive stresses and U, Y and E
denote the ultimate strength, yielding and elastic regions, respectively.
Under sagging conditions (shown in Figure 7.8(a)), regions 1 and 2 are under axial
tension, and regions 3 and 4 are under axial compression. Region 1 represents the
outer bottom panels, which yield to reach the yield stress σ Yx , and region 4 represents
the upper deck panels and the upper part of the vertical structures, which buckle and
collapse to reach the ultimate stress σ Ux . Regions 2 and 3, however, remain in a linear
elastic or unfailed state with an elastic stress of σ Ex . Under hogging conditions (shown
in Figure 7.8(b)), regions 1 and 2 are under compression, and regions 3 and 4 are
under tension. Region 1 (the outer bottom panels and the lower part of the vertical
(a) (b)
Figure 7.8 Presumed distribution of bending stresses at the ultimate limit states of a hull girder
under vertical bending moments: (a) sagging conditions and (b) hogging conditions
structures) buckles and collapses to reach the ultimate stress σ U x , and region 4 (the
upper deck panels) yields to reach the yield stress σ Yx . Regions 2 and 3 remain in the
linear elastic regime, with an elastic stress of σ Ex .
Depending on the geometric and/or material properties of the hull cross-sections,
the vertical members close to a tension flange may yield before a hull reaches its
ultimate limit state, where hY is the height of the yielded area under axial tension and
hC is the height of the collapsed area under axial compression. After buckling and
collapse, the height of region 4 (the upper part of the vertical structures) under sagging
conditions and that of region 1 (the lower part of the vertical structures) under hogging
conditions are assigned on the basis of the geometric and material properties of the
hull structure.
Under a vertical bending moment, the summation of axial forces over the entire
cross-section of the hull should become zero, that is,
ð
σ x dA ¼ 0, (7.37)
Ð
where ðÞdA is the integration across the entire cross-section of the hull. Thus, the
height of region 4 under sagging conditions or that of region 1 under hogging
conditions is defined by solving Equation (7.37).
The distance ðgu Þ from the baseline (reference position) of the ship-shaped offshore
installation to the horizontal neutral axis of the cross-section of the hull at its ultimate
limit state is calculated as follows:
P
n
jσ xi jai zi
i¼1
gu ¼ Pn , (7.38)
jσ xi jai
i¼1
where zi is the distance from the baseline (reference position) to the horizontal neutral
axis of the ith structural component, σ xi is the longitudinal stress of the ith structural
component following the presumed stress distribution, ai is the cross-sectional area of
the ith structural component and n is the total number of structural components. gu is
denoted by gus under sagging conditions and by guh under hogging conditions.
Finally, the ultimate bending moment is calculated as the first moment of the
bending stresses about the neutral axis position, as follows:
X
n
M us ¼ σ xi ai ðzi gus Þ, (7.39a)
i¼1
X
n
M uh ¼ σ xi ai ðzi guh Þ, (7.39b)
i¼1
where n is the total number of structural components and M us (negative value) and
M uh (positive value) are the ultimate vertical bending moments under sagging or
hogging conditions, respectively.
The following iterative process is performed to determine the yielded-region height
ðhY Þ and the collapsed-region height ðhC Þ (shown in Figure 7.8), as there is only one
conditional equation available (defined in Equation (7.37)).
(1) Develop the structural model with nodal points for the cross-section, using the
plate-stiffener combination elements and/or plate elements
(2) Calculate the ultimate axial compressive stresses of the individual elements
(3) Divide the depth into a number of segments (parts)
(4) Hold hY at a constant value, starting from hY ¼ 0, and increase hC , starting from
hC ¼ 0
(5) Linearly assign the linear elastic stresses of the individual elements in regions
2 and 3 between the average values of the ultimate stresses in the collapsed region
(i.e., region 4 under sagging conditions or region 1 under hogging conditions) and
the yield stresses in the yielded region (i.e., region 1 under sagging conditions or
region 4 under hogging conditions)
(6) Calculate the total axial forces (positive sign) under tension and the total axial
forces (negative sign) under compression across the entire cross-section
(7) Repeat steps 4 to 6 with variations of hC and hY until the difference between the
numerical values of these axial forces is acceptably small
The bending stress distribution over the hull cross-section at the ultimate limit
state under vertical bending moments is presumed to be as shown in Figure 7.8, and
thus the heights of the yielded and collapsed regions are determined. Additionally,
the distance gu from the baseline (reference position) of the ship-shaped offshore
Figure 7.9 The 1/3-scaled Frigate hull model tested under sagging conditions (where W ¼ web
of stiffener and F ¼ flange of stiffener)
installation to the horizontal neutral axis of the hull cross-section at the ultimate limit
state is calculated using Equation (7.38). Then, the ultimate strength of the hull
girder under vertical sagging or hogging bending moments is estimated using
Equation (7.39).
The Fortran source of the computer program USAS-S, which uses the modified
Paik–Mansour method, is listed in Appendix 6 together with an applied example of
the 1/3-scaled Dow’s Frigate hull model tested under sagging conditions (Dow 1991)
(shown in Figure 7.9). USAS-S uses the plate-stiffener combination model (shown in
Figures 5.2(a) and 7.10) to predict the ultimate compressive strength of the stiffened
panels using Equation (7.24). Table 7.1 indicates the coordinates of the nodes and the
dimensions of plating and stiffeners in the Dow’s test hull.
7.4.3 The Intelligent Supersize Finite-Element Method

The ALPS/HULL method of MAESTRO software (www.maestromarine.com) com-
prising the intelligent supersize finite-element method (ISFEM) is useful for the
progressive collapse analysis of hull structures under combined hull girder loads.
Figure 7.11(a) shows an ISFEM rectangular plate element that has four nodal points at
BF
HW AL
BP/2 BP/2 BP/2 BP/2 BP/2 BP/2
Figure 7.10 Parameters of the plate-stiffener combination model in the USAS-S model
(where AL ¼ plate length; BP ¼ plate breadth; HW ¼ stiffener web height and BF ¼ flange
breadth)
its corners, with six degrees of freedom at each node (see chapter 13 of Paik (2018) for
details). In the ALPS/HULL modelling approach, one ISFEM plate element is used to
model a plate member surrounded by longitudinal stiffeners and transverse frames or
web of support members, and flange of a T-type support member is modelled by two
ISFEM plate elements with one plate element for each side along the web (shown in
Figure 7.11(b)), while flange of an angle type support member is modelled by one
ISFEM plate element.
7.4.3.1 Dow’s Frigate Test Hull

In the USAS-S modelling approach, the parameters of the plate-stiffener combination
model between the transverse frames of a hull are defined as shown in Figure 7.10.
The input data of the USAS-S model of the Dow’s test hull section between two
transverse frames is presented in Appendix 6. The ALPS/HULL model takes a one-
bay hull section between two transverse frames as the extent of its analysis (showin in
Figure 7.12(a)), with initial imperfections, but a two-bay hull section including one
transverse frame is taken (shown in Figure 7.12(b)) if transverse frames may fail or
deform before ULS are reached (Lee and Paik 2020).
The yield stress of the material for the Dow’s test hull structures is 245 MPa, the
maximum value of the plate initial deflection is wopl ¼ 0:1t and the compressive
residual stress of plating in the x (plate length) direction is σ rcx ¼ 0:1σ Y , while the
support members have a low level of initial imperfections (described in Section
2.10). The full plastic bending moment (MP) of the Dow’s test hull cross-section is
13.467 MNm. Figure 7.13 compares the progressive collapse behaviour (i.e., the
relation between the bending moment, M, and curvature) of the Dow’s test hull
under sagging or hogging conditions with that determined by the USAS-S method
and the ISFEM, where a one-bay hull section (without one transverse frame) was
taken as the extent of analysis (shown in Figure 7.12(a)), as no distinct differences
between a one-bay model and a two-bay model were found. Table 7.2 summarises
the ultimate bending moments of the Dow’s test hull obtained using these
three methods.
Table 7.1. Coordinates and dimensions of the plate-stiffener combination models of the Dow’s test hull
Node y (mm) z (mm) Plate (mm) Web (mm) Flange (mm)
1 0.0 0.0 99.2 3 228.6 3 152.4 5

2 98.4 13.9 126.4 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
3 249.3 41.9 140.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
4 373.9 67.7 113.8 3 162.0 2 51.0 2
5 472.3 87.1 101.9 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
6 574.0 106.5 103.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
7 675.7 125.8 101.9 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
8 774.1 145.2 105.4 3 117.5 2 51.0 2
9 882.3 167.7 107.3 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
10 984.0 190.3 106.2 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
11 1089.0 216.1 109.7 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
12 1197.0 241.9 106.4 3 111 2 51.0 2
13 1292.0 277.4 105.1 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
14 1394.0 316.1 109.2 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
15 1492.4 364.5 109.7 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
16 1588.0 419.4 116.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
17 1686.0 493.5 100.7 3 114 5 44.5 9.5
18 1742.0 548.4 88.7 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
19 1807.0 622.6 101.2 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
20 1863.0 709.7 99.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
21 1909.0 793.5 96.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
22 1945.0 883.9 97.7 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
23 1975.0 977.4 100.0 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
24 1994.0 1077.4 100.0 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
25 2011.0 1174.2 99.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
26 2024.0 1274.2 97.4 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
27 2034.0 1367.7 98.8 3 114 5 44.5 9.5
28 2040.0 1471.0 151.9 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
29 2050.0 1671.0 198.5 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
30 2050.0 1867.7 196.8 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
31 2050.0 2064.5 198.4 3 – –
32 1904.0 2064.5 146.0 6 – –
33 1758.0 2064.5 120.0 6 – –
34 2050.0 2264.5 200.0 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
35 2050.0 2464.5 196.8 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
36 2050.0 2658.1 167.8 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
37 2050.0 2800.0 50.9 3 – –
38 1948.3 2800.0 112.9 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
39 1824.3 2800.0 163.4 3 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
40 1621.6 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
41 1418.9 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
42 1216.2 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
43 1013.5 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
44 810.8 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
45 608.1 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
46 405.4 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
47 202.7 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
48 0.0 2800.0 202.7 2 38.1 1.78 14.0 3.3
v2,qy2 v3,qy3
node w3,qz3
u2,qx2 u3,qx3
2 y 3
w2,qz2
x
z
t
~ b
w4,qz4
u1,qx1 1 4
u4,qx4
a node
w1,qz1
v1,qy1 v4,qy4
(a) (b)
Figure 7.11 (a) A rectangular plate element of the intelligent supersize finite-element method
and (b) the ALPS/HULL modelling
(a) (b)
Figure 7.12 The ALPS/HULL models of the Dow’s test hull: (a) one-bay hull section model
and (b) two-bay hull section model (including one transverse frame)
7.4.3.2 A Hypothetical Floating Production, Storage and Offloading

Installation Hull
Next, the USAS-S and ALPS/HULL methods are applied to analyse the hull structures
of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation (described in
Section 1.7.1). A one-bay hull section between two transverse frames is taken as the
extent of it analysis (shown in Figure 1.21), but a two-bay hull section (including one
transverse frame) may be taken if transverse frames may fail or deform before ULS are
reached (shown in Figure 7.14).
The full plastic bending moment (MP) of the hull cross-section is 30.496 GN·m
(Table 1.9). Figure 7.15 compares the progressive collapse behaviour of the hull, as
determined by the USAS-S and ALPS/HULL methods. The effects of low, average
and severe levels of initial imperfections for plating between longitudinal stiffeners
Table 7.2. Ultimate bending moments of the Dow’s test hull
Ultimate bending moment (MNm)
Method Hogging Sagging
Test – 9.953
USAS-S 10.338 9.329
ALPS/HULL 11.413 9.994
test (Dow 1991)

USAS-S
ALPS/HULL
hog
M/MP
sag
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 7.13 Comparison of the progressive collapse behaviour for the Dow’s test hull, as
determined by three methods
(with residual stress from Equation (2.11) and plate initial deflection from Equation
(2.12)) on the progressive collapse behaviour of the hull structures are investigated
using the ALPS/HULL method, where a low level of plate initial deflection (indicated
in Equation (2.12)) and zero residual stress for web and flange of longitudinal
stiffeners was applied. Table 7.3 summarises the ultimate bending moments of a
hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation hull, as deter-
mined from the USAS-S and ALPS/HULL methods.
7.4.4 Ultimate Hull Girder Strength Interaction Relations under Combined Loads
The hull girders of a ship-shaped offshore installation are subjected to combined
vertical bending, horizontal bending, shearing forces and torsional moments. The
interaction relations between two hull girder load components are given (see chapter
7 of Paik (2018) for details), as follows:
Frame spacing: 5,690 mm

Yield Stress:
- Ordinary steel: 235 MPa
- AH32: 315 MPa
z
y
x
Figure 7.14 The ALPS/HULL two-bay section model (including one transverse frame) of a
hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading installation hull

M V c1 M H c2
þ ¼1 (7.40a)
M Vu M Hu
c4
M V c3 F
þ ¼1 (7.40b)
M Vu Fu
c6
M H c5 F
þ ¼1 (7.40c)
M Hu Fu
where M V is the applied vertical bending moment, M H is the applied horizontal

bending moment, F is the applied shearing force, M Vu is the ultimate vertical bending
moment, M Hu is the ultimate horizontal bending moment and F u is the ultimate
shearing force. c1 c6 are the coefficients, which may be taken as c1 ¼ 1:85,
c2 ¼ 1:0, c3 ¼ 2:0, c4 ¼ 5:0, c5 ¼ 2:5 and c6 ¼ 5:5. Also, the ultimate shearing force
in Equation (7.40c) may be determined as follows:
X
n
Fu ¼ ai τ ui (7.41)
i¼1
where ai is the cross-sectional area of the ith structural element, τ ui is the ultimate
shear stress of the ith structural element and n is the total number of structural
elements.
Table 7.3. Ultimate bending moments of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading
installation hull
Ultimate bending moment (GN·m)
Method Hogging Sagging
USAS-S 23.719 24.840

ALPS/HULL Low level* 25.940 25.474
Average level 24.815 23.996
Severe level 18.987 17.984
* refers to the level of initial imperfections from Equations (2.11) and (2.12) with
Equation (2.14).
1.0 7 for hogging:

USAS-S 6 1. buckling collapse of lower outer-side
5
ALPS/HULL 4
shell plate and lower longitudinal
3 bulkhead plate
2 2. buckling collapse of lower
level of initial imperfections: 1 longitudinal bulkhead plate
1 : low 3. buckling collapse of lower outer-side
0.5 1 shell stiffener and longitudinal
2 : average
bulkhead stiffener
3 : severe 2
4. yielding of upper longitudinal
bulkhead plate
hog 5. yielding of upper outer-side shell
plate and longitudinal bulkhead plate
3
M/MP
6. buckling collapse of bottom plate

0.0 7. ultimate limit state
for sagging:
3 8. buckling collapse of upper outer-side
sag shell stiffener
9. buckling collapse of upper
longitudinal bulkhead plate
2 10. buckling collapse of upper
longitudinal bulkhead stiffener
−0.5 1 8 11. buckling collapse of upper outer-side
9
shell plate
10
11 12. yielding of lower outer-side shell
12 plate and longitudinal bulkhead plate
13 13. buckling collapse of deck plate
14. buckling collapse of deck stiffener
15 14
15. ultimate limit state
−1.0
−3 −2 −1 0 1 2 3
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 7.15 Comparison of the progressive collapse behaviour of a hypothetical floating

production, storage and offloading installation hull under vertical bending moments
The interaction relation between three hull girder load components is derived by
combining the interaction relations between two hull girder load components (see
chapter 7 of Paik (2018) for details), as follows:
c1 c2
MV MH
þ ¼1 (7.42)
M Vu F 1 M Hu F 2
where,
c4 1=c3 c6 1=c5
F F
F1 ¼ 1 , and F2 ¼ 1 :
Fu Fu
7.5 Structural Collapse Triggered by Fracture
The hull structures of ship-shaped offshore installations may be exposed to low (sub-
zero) temperatures or to cryogenic conditions owing to the accidental release of
liquefied gases, such as liquefied natural gas (LNG) or liquefied hydrogen.
Although structural steel is a ductile material (described in Section 2.1), it may fail
owing to brittle fracture at a temperature lower than the ductile-to-brittle fracture
transition temperature (DBTT), which is a function of the strain rate (loading speed).
Whether steel structures undergo ductile or brittle fracture at low temperatures
depends on the types of materials and the loading conditions (e.g., quasi-static or
impact), among other factors. For example, steel tubes subjected to quasi-static load
crush-testing at 60 C underwent ductile fracture (shown in Figure 7.16(a)) (Paik
et al. 2011; Park et al. 2015), whereas steel stiffened panels subjected to dropped-
object impact testing at 60 C underwent brittle fracture (shown in Figure 7.16(b))
(Kim et al. 2016). Furthermore, a full-scale collapse test of a stiffened steel plate
structure under axial-compressive loading revealed that it underwent brittle fracture,
thus triggering the ultimate limit states (shown in Figure 7.17) (Paik et al. 2020a,
2020b, 2021a).
Computational models used in the progressive collapse analysis of a hull structure
involving fracture behaviour must comprise relevant failure criteria. Numerous frac-
ture criteria associated with extreme loads (rather than repeated fatigue loads) have
been formulated, based on the hypothesis that a crack initiates when an equivalent
applied stress exceeds the critical stress of a material. These criteria are summarised
here.
(a) Maximum principal stress-based fracture criterion
This is one of the simplest criteria, and focuses on the fracture behaviour of brittle
materials under predominantly tensile loads. It states that brittle fracture occurs if the
largest principal normal stress reaches the ultimate tensile strength ðσ T Þ of a material,
as follows:
Max :ðjσ 1 j; jσ 2 j; jσ 3 jÞ ¼ σ T , (7.43)
where σ 1 , σ 2 and σ 3 are the principal stress components.

(b) The Coulomb–Mohr fracture criterion
This criterion is used for the analysis of brittle materials that have much greater
compressive strength than tensile strength, such as concrete and cast iron. It states that
(a)
(b)
Figure 7.16 (a) Ductile fracture of a square steel tube under quasi-static crushing loads at 60 C
and (b) brittle fracture of a stiffened steel panel under a dropped-object impact at 60 C
fracture occurs in the certain stress plane of a material when a critical value of
combined normal and shear stresses is achieved, as follows:
jτ j þ μσ ¼ τ i , (7.44)
where τ is the shear stress, σ is the normal stress, and μ and τ i are material constants.
(c) The Johnson–Holmquist damage model
This criterion is used for brittle materials such as ceramics and glass, and accounts
for the effects of strain rate (Johnson and Holmquist 1994). It is stated as follows:

σ∗ ¼ σ∗i D σ ∗
i σ ∗
f , (7.45a)
where σ ∗ ∗
i is the fracture stress of the intact material, σ f is the fracture stress of the
completely fractured material and D is the variable of damage accumulation.
(a) (b)
(c) (d)
Figure 7.17 (a) Set-up of a full-scale axial-compressive collapse test of a stiffened steel plate
structure; (b) collapse by a flexural-torsional buckling at 20 C; (c) collapse by a flexural-
torsional buckling at 80 C and (d) collapse by a brittle fracture at 160 C

dεp
σ∗
i
∗ ∗ n
¼ Aðp þ T Þ 1 þ C ln , (7.45b)
dt

dεp
σ∗
f
∗ m
¼ Bðp Þ 1 þ C ln , (7.45c)
dt
dD 1 dεp
¼ , (7.45d)
dt εf dt
where A, B, C, m and n are material constants; t is time; εp is inelastic strain and εf is

the strain to fracture. The asterisks indicate quantities that are normalised, as follows:
σ p T
σ∗ ¼ , p∗ ¼ , T∗ ¼ (7.45e)
σ HEL pHEL pHEL
where σ is normal stress, p is pressure and T is tensile hydrostatic pressure. The

subscript HEL denotes a quantity at the Hugoniot elastic limit, which is the point at
which a material transitions from a purely elastic state to an elastic-plastic state. The
pressure at which this transition occurs is denoted pHEL and ranges in value from 0.2 to
20 GPa. Above its Hugoniot elastic limit, a material loses shear strength and therefore
exhibits fluid-like behaviour.
The Johnson–Holmquist damage model has recently been modified (Deshpande
and Evans 2008; Bhat et al. 2012). One of these modified models involves a micro-
mechanics-based approach (Deshpande and Evans 2008) and is applied to the com-
putation of brittle fracture in ceramics. It is based on a constitutive model formulation
of inelastic deformation and energy dissipation, which assumes that the propagation of
an initial crack depends on the stress state, the fracture toughness and the flaw
characteristics. Thus, when an array of cracks grows in an isotropic linear elastic
medium under principal stresses σ 1 and σ 3 , the sliding force is given as follows:
F W ¼ ðτ þ μσ Þπa2 sin ψ ¼ ðA1 σ 1 A3 σ 3 Þa2 , (7.46a)
where F W is the sliding force, σ is the axial stress, τ is the shear stress, μ is the
coefficient of sliding friction, a is the initial crack radius, ψ is the initial crack angle,
and A1 and A3 are constants as defined by Ashby and Sammis (1990). The stress
intensity factor is then obtained, as follows:
FW 2 pffiffiffiffi pffiffiffiffiffi
KI ¼ þ σ 3 πl ¼ c1 πa½c2 ðA3 σ 3 A1 σ 1 Þ þ c3 σ 3 , (7.46b)
½π ðl þ βaÞ 3=2 π
where K I is the stress intensity factoer, β is the effective crack-length factor and c1 , c2
and c3 are material constants. The damage variables are then defined as follows:
4
D0 ¼ π ðαaÞ3 f , (7.46c)
3
4
D ¼ π ðl þ αaÞ3 f , (7.46d)
3
where D0 is the initial damage variable, D is the damage accumulation variable, f is
the crack density, l is the crack growth owing to impact and α cos ψ.
7.5.1 Fracture Criteria

A plausible and practical model is used to analyse a structural collapse triggered by
fracture at low (sub-zero) temperatures. This model comprises an elastic-perfectly
plastic material model that does not consider the strain-hardening effect and is used in
a similar way to a typical application at room temperature (20 C). However, material
behaviour under compression at low or cryogenic temperatures differs from that under
tension at these temperatures, as the Bauschinger effect is not negligible under low
temperature conditions, in contrast to the situation at room temperature (where
σ YC ¼ σ YT , εYc ¼ εYt and εfc ¼ εft ).

Thus, the criteria state that fracture occurs if the equivalent stress σ eq equals a
critical (fracture) stress that corresponds to the yield strength of the material at the
corresponding temperature. That is,
σ eq σ FT under tension with σ FT ¼ γt σ YT , (7.47a)
σ eq σ FC under compression with σ FC ¼ γc σ YC , (7.47b)
where σ eq is the equivalent stress, σ FT and σ YT are the respective fracture or yield
stresses under tension in cryogenic conditions or in the region of the ductile-to-brittle
fracture transition, σ FC and σ YC are the respective fracture or yield stresses under
compression in cryogenic conditions or in the region of the ductile-to-brittle fracture
transition and γt and γc are the respective test constants of the material under tension
and under compression; these depend on various parameters, such as the chemical
composition (grade), temperature and strain rate.
σ eq in Equation (7.47) is calculated as a function of principal stresses via the von
Mises stress equation, as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
σ eq ¼ pffiffiffi ðσ 1 σ 2 Þ2 þ ðσ 2 σ 3 Þ2 þ ðσ 3 σ 1 Þ2 : (7.48a)
2
For a plane stress state with σ 3 ¼ 0, Equation (7.48a) is simplified as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
1
σ eq ¼ pffiffiffi ðσ 1 σ 2 Þ2 þ σ 1 2 þ σ 22 : (7.48b)
2
7.5.2 The Relationship between Stress and Strain

The engineering stress–engineering strain relationship regarding fracture behaviour is
formulated according to the DBTT (ductile-to-brittle fracture transition temperature).
If the steel temperature ðT s Þ is greater or less than the DBTT, then the material
behaves with full or partial ductility in the ductile regime, and this is represented as
follows:
8
< Eε for σ < σ YT
σ ¼ σ YT for σ ¼ σ YT or ε ¼ εYt under tension, (7.49a)
:
0 for ε εft
8
< Eε for σ < σ YC
σ ¼ σ YC for σ ¼ σ YC or ε ¼ εYc under compression, (7.49b)
:
0 for ε εfc
where σ is the engineering stress of the material, ε is the engineering strain, E is the
elastic modulus, εYt is the yield strain in tension, εft is the fracture strain in tension, εYc
is the yield strain in compression and εfc is the fracture strain in compression.
Figure 7.18(a) illustrates the relationship between the engineering stress and the
engineering strain with full or partial ductility at room temperature and at sub-zero
temperatures.
tension tension
σYT σYT
E E
Stress, σ
Stress, σ
εfc εYc εYc
εYt εft εYt
E E
σYC σYC
compression compression
Strain, ε Strain, ε
(a) (b)
Figure 7.18 The engineering stress-engineering strain relationship in the (a) ductile region
and (b) brittle region
If T s DBTT, then the material exists solely within the brittle region and thus
exhibits only brittle fracture, as follows:

Eε for σ < σ FT
σ¼ under tension, (7.50a)
0 for σ σ FT

Eε for σ < σ FC
σ¼ under compression: (7.50b)
0 for σ σ FC
This means that the material exhibits no ductile behaviour, as is represented by

Figure 7.18(b). Thus, rather than undergoing elongation after reaching its yield stress
under tension or compression, the material exhibits immediate brittle fracture.
7.6 Structural Collapse in Fires
Fires occur when a combustible vapour or gas combines with an oxidiser in a

combustive process, resulting in the evolution of light and heat in the form of flames.
Hydrocarbon fires occasionally occur on ship-shaped offshore installations and are
caused by the spark-ignition of hydrocarbon leaks from flanges, valves, seals or
nozzles. The progressive collapse of structures during fires is primarily a result of
elevated temperatures. As such, fire safety engineering is performed to enhance the
ultimate strength of structures and thereby delay their collapse at elevated
temperatures, thus increasing the time available for escape and evacuation (see
chapters 8, 12 and 16 of Paik (2020) for details).
The mechanism of the fire-induced progressive collapse of plated structures, such

as ship-shaped offshore installations (Paik et al. 2013; Paik 2020; Ryu et al. 2021), is
very different from that of the portal frames of land-based structures. Figure 7.19
shows the deformed shape of a full-scale stiffened steel-plate structure without passive
fire protection after fire testing under lateral patch loading (Paik et al. 2021b).
The structural integrity of steel in fires is governed by thermal properties such as
specific heat and conductivity (shown in Figure 7.20). Notably, the mechanical
properties of steel significantly decrease at temperatures above 400 C (shown in
Figure 2.5). The heat from fire flows rapidly in steel, which is a better heat conductor
than materials such as concrete, and thus fire causes the progressive collapse of steel
Figure 7.19 Deformed shape of a full-scale stiffened steel-plate structure without passive fire
protection after its progressive collapse during fire testing under lateral patch loading
5000 60
Specific Heat, Ca (J/(kg K))
Conductivity (W/(m K))
4000
50
3000
40
2000
30
1000
0 20
0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200 0 200 400 600 800 1,000 1,200
Temperature (oC) Temperature (oC)
(a) (b)
Figure 7.20 Properties of steel at elevated temperatures: (a) specific heat and (b) thermal
conductivity
radiation hot smoke
heat flux
oxygen convection
(a) (b)
Figure 7.21 Fire load application: (a) constant application and (b) time- and space-variant
application
structures that are under large dead loads. In this regard, critical structural members
must be protected with passive fire protection (Paik et al. 2021c).
The conventional approach to the fire safety engineering of steel structures is based
on the hypothesis that a fire heats every area of a structure with the same intensity
(shown in Figure 7.21(a)); the heat intensity, in terms of the heat flux, remains
constant throughout the duration of a fire. However, this idealised model does not
accurately describe the physics of a real fire (shown in Figure 7.21(b)), which involves
time- and space-variant radiation and convection. This results in the generation of
continuously changing amounts of combustible gas throughout the duration of a fire.
Advanced procedures for a fire-induced progressive collapse analysis of ship-shaped
offshore structures comprise the following steps (Paik et al. 2013; Paik 2020; Ryu
et al. 2021): (1) fire computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations, (2) automated
interfacing between a fire load simulation and thermal response analysis, (3) a heat
transfer analysis for the prediction of steel temperature and (4) a nonlinear structural-
response analysis.
7.6.1 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations of Fires

CFD simulations of fire are used to characterise the gas cloud dispersion, gas cloud
temperature and heat flux in a time- and space-dependent fire. The fire load is then
physically correlated to the elevated temperatures and CFD-simulated heat fluxes in
the gas cloud. Thus, fire-associated radiation and convection play key roles in the
characterisation of fire loads.
A commonly adopted tool for CFD simulations of fire in offshore industry practice
is Kameleon FireEx (KFX) software (www.dnvgl.com/services/fire-simulation-soft
ware-cfd-simulation-kameleon-fireex-kfx-110598), a three-dimensional transient
finite-volume CFD program. KFX simulations can achieve acceptable engineering
accuracy by using a limited number of reasonably assigned monitoring points that
sufficiently represent the highly turbulent domains of heat fluxes. However, analysts
aim to obtain CFD simulations over an entire calculation domain. For details of CFD
simulations of fires, see chapter 8 of Paik (2020) for details.
7.6.2 Heat Transfer Analysis

A heat transfer analysis is performed to determine the temperature of steel in a fire,
based on the fact that heat flux is transferred gradually to the surrounding steel
structures during a fire, thereby increasing the steel temperature. This increase in the
temperature of steel is affected by various factors, such as the temperature of the gas
cloud, the area of steel exposed to the fire and the characteristics of fire protection.
Owing to the effects of radiation and convection, the gas cloud temperature is not
identical to the steel temperature. The thermal properties of steel are expressed as a
function of temperature, according to EN 1993-1-2 (2005), as follows:
8
>
> 425 þ 7:73 101 θa 1:69 103 θ2a þ 2:22 106 θ3a for 20 C θa < 600 C
>
< 666 þ 13002=ð738 θ Þ for 600 C θ < 735 C
a a
Ca ¼
>
> 545 þ 17820= ð θ 731 Þ for 735
C θ
a < 900 C
>
:
a
650 for 900 C θa < 1200 C,
(7.51)
(
54 3:33 102 θa for 20 C θa < 600 C
λa ¼ (7.52)
27:3 for 800 C θa < 1200 C,
where Ca is the specific heat of steel in J=ðkg K Þ, λa is the thermal conductivity of steel
in W=ðm K Þ and θa is the steel temperature in C.
The mechanical properties of steel vary with the temperature (shown in Figure 2.5).
For example, the elongation of steel is expressible as a function of temperature,
according to EN 1993-1-2 (2005), as follows:
8 5 8 2 4
>
< 1:2 10 θa þ 0:4 10 θa 2:416 10 for 20 C θa < 750 C
Δl=l ¼ 1:1 102 for 750 C θa < 860 C
>
:
2 105 θa 6:2 103 for 860 C θa < 1200 C,
(7.53)
where l is the original length of the element, Δl is the elongation of the element and
Δl=l is the thermal elongation of steel.
The Fire and Heat Transfer Simulations (FAHTS) code (www.usfos.com) is used to
perform heat transfer analyses based on the CFD simulations of fire generated by KFX
software. This conde involves the automatic export of gas cloud temperature and heat
flux data to FAHTS, which has full access to the KFX simulations across the entire
calculation domain, although the commercial version of KFX allows access to only a
limited number of monitoring points. Another example is LS-DYNA code (www
.ansys.com/products/structures/ansys-ls-dyna), a general purpose type of finite-
element method software for heat transfer analysis. Finally, KFX2DYNA code was
nodes node
(a) (b)
Figure 7.22 Finite-element models for heat transfer analysis: (a) a shell element model and
(b) a beam element model
developed in-house as a combination of KFX and LS-DYNA (Paik et al. 2013; Paik
2020), whereby the results of KFX simulations (e.g., gas temperature, soot concen-
tration visibility, gas velocity and radiation) are automatically exported to the input
data file of an LS-DYNA analysis.
In such heat transfer analyses, it is best to model plate members or stiffener webs
using shell elements because a beam model cannot precisely describe the distribution
of steel temperature (shown in Figure 7.22). The effect of passive fire protection is
also considered, as separate finite elements are used to model the fire-protective
material. Details of the finite-element method for modelling heat transfer are given
in chapter 12 of Paik (2020).
7.6.3 Fire Progressive Collapse Analysis

LS-DYNA code is useful for performing a nonlinear structural response analysis with
the same shell element models used to define the steel temperature in a heat transfer
analysis. This approach is advantageous because no change of the analysis models is
required. Alternatively, USFOS code (www.usfos.com) uses the results of a FAHTS
heat transfer analysis to simulate nonlinear structural responses; this involves some
approximation of the FAHTS computations because FAHTS uses shell elements to
model structures, whereas USFOS uses beam elements. For details of nonlinear finite-
element method modelling approaches, see chapter 12 of Paik (2020).
The relationship of Equation (7.54) between the engineering stress and engineering
strain of steel at elevated temperatures is idealised as shown in Figure 7.23, where E is
the elastic modulus of the material, σ p is the proportional limit, σ Y is the yield stress, εp
is the engineering strain at the proportional limit, εY is the yield strain, εT is the
limiting strain for the yield strength and εF is the fracture strain.
σ ¼ Eε for ε εp ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
b
σ ¼ σp c þ a2 ðεY εÞ2 for εp < ε < εY ,
a
σ ¼ σY for εY ε εT , (7.54)
Figure 7.23 Idealised relationship between the engineering stress and engineering strain of steel at
elevated temperatures

ε εT
σ ¼ σY 1 for ε T < ε < εF ,
εF εT
σ ¼ 0 for ε ¼ εF ,
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi
ðσY σp Þ
2
where a ¼ εY εp εY εp þ Ec , b ¼ c εY εp E þ c2 , c ¼ E ε ε 2 σ σ ,
σ ð Y pÞ ð Y pÞ
εp ¼ Ep , εY ¼ 0:02, εT ¼ 0:15 and εF ¼ 0:2.
7.7 Ultimate Strength under Cyclic Loading
Some types of ship-shaped offshore installations, such as floating production, storage

and offloading units, are subjected to frequent cyclic loading arising from significant
changes during loading and offloading. This may result in shakedown if a structure
responds steadily within appropriate limits after a few loading cycles. For details of
the shakedown limit states, see chapter 8 of Paik (2018).
Figure 7.24 presents the structural responses of a ship-shaped offshore installation
under cyclic loading at different load ranges. If the load is lower than the first yield
load of the structure, then the structural response is in the elastic range (shown in
Figure 7.24(a)). However, elastic buckling of local members may occur, and thus the
structure may fail due to cracking as a result of high-cyclic fatigue involving a large
number of load cycles, which are defined as fatigue limit states. If the cyclic load falls
between the first yield and the static ultimate load, three types of elastic-plastic
response are possible: (b) elastic shakedown (shown in Figure 7.24(b)), (c) plastic
shakedown (shown in Figure 7.24(c)) and (d) ratchetting (shown in Figure 7.24(d)).
Elastic shakedown involves plastic flow that occurs in the first or initial few cycles and
generates self-equilibrating residual stress or residual strain in the structure, such that
7.8 Ultimate Strength of Aged Structures 255
Load
Ultimate Load
Elastic Limit
Deformation
(a) (b) (c) (d)
Figure 7.24 Structural responses under cyclic loading at different ranges: (a) elastic; (b) elastic
shakedown; (c) plastic shakedown (cyclic collapse) and (d) ratchetting (incremental collapse)
the structure exhibits only an elastic response. In contrast, in plastic shakedown, each
loading cycle leads to elastic and plastic deformation of the structure, such that a
steady state of non-cumulative cyclic plasticity occurs in association with low-cyclic
fatigue comprising a finite number of loading cycles. Finally, ratchetting occurs if
each loading cycle generates net increments of plastic deformation, which accumulate
until structural collapse occurs.
A full-scale collapse test in association with the bottom structures of an as-built
1,900 twenty-foot equivalent unit containership under cyclic axial-compressive
loading was conducted by Paik et al. (2020a). This test revealed that the effects of
cyclic loading on the ultimate compressive strength of a stiffened steel-plate structure
are small if fatigue damage does not occur, due to the small number of load cycles. In
related work, Liu and Guedes Soares (2020) studied the ultimate hull girder strength
using a nonlinear finite-element method, and found that the ultimate strength of ship
hulls under cyclic loading is a maximum of 10 per cent less than that under monotonic
loading. Jagite et al. (2019, 2020) studied the dynamic ultimate strength of the
stiffened panels of a ship that were under cyclic loading owing to whipping and
determined that the effects of loading speed (strain rate) were negligible in
this context.
7.8 Ultimate Strength of Aged Structures
As the hull structures of ship-shaped offshore installations age, they suffer age-related
deterioration such as corrosion wastage, fatigue cracking and local denting, which
reduce their ultimate strength (Paik and Melchers 2008; Tekgoz et al. 2020). Thus,
health condition assessments of aged structures rely on the determination of residual
ultimate strength (described in Chapter 15). Similarly, the residual strength of a
corroded structure is examined in Chapter 14, and that of a cracked or dented structure
in Chapter 15. Equation (7.5) is used to calculate the ultimate strength interactions
between the load components of aged plates.
A purely illustrative case study for the ultimate strength behaviour of a corroded hull
under vertical bending moments is conducted. A hypothetical FPSO hull (described in
Section 1.7.1) is considered with gross scantlings including corrosion margins. The hull
structures have an average level of initial imperfections in the form of initial deform-
ation and welding-induced residual stress. Individual structural members have different
corrosion rates depending on their locations (described in Section 14.4) and their
corrosion rates are defined as shown in Figure 7.25, following Paik et al. (2003). It is
presumed that uniform corrosion wastage on individual structural members initiates
immediately after coating fails at the hull age of 7.5 years, as follows:
t c ¼ r c ðT T c Þ, (7.55)
where t c is the reduced thickness owing to corrosion, r c is the corrosion rate in mm/y,
T is the hull age in years and T c is the coating life in years. Equation (7.55) is used for
a purely illustrative purpose in this case study, but more refined corrosion behaviour
can be formulated as described in Section 14.6.
Figure 7.26 shows the ultimate strength behaviour of the corroded hull under
vertical bending moments with hull ages obtained from ALPS/HULL one-bay section
model analyses (shown in Figure 1.21), where no repairs of corroded parts are applied.
Design hull girder loads from H-CSR requirement (IACS 2020) and direct calcula-
tions in the North Sea with turret mooring (described in Chapter 4) are compared. It is
seen from this specific case study that the ultimate hull girder strength decreases over
10 per cent until an age of thirty years, indicating that lifetime care associated with
health condition monitoring and assessment is critical to ensure the structural integrity
(described in Chapter 15).
7.9 Dynamic Ultimate Strength of Plates under Impact Axial

Compressive Loads
Test data on the ultimate strength of steel plates under impact axial compressive loads
were obtained by Paik and Thayamballi (2003). Impact collapse tests on a box column
comprising four plate elements with a b ¼ 500 mm 500 mm (Figure 7.27) were
carried out where the plate thickness was t ¼ 1:6 mm, the material yield stress was
σ Y ¼ 251:8 MPa and the Young’s modulus was E ¼ 198:5 GPa. Loading speed, V o ,
was varied in the range of 0.05–400 mm/s, which corresponds to the strain rate in the
range of 10-4–0.8 /s where the strain rate ε_ is approximately determined as ε_ ¼ V o =a
(described in Section 2.7).
Figure 7.27 shows the ultimate strength behaviour of plates under axial compres-
sive loads with varying loading speeds. The material yield stress increases with the
strain rate (described in Section 2.7), and thus the ultimate strength increases with
loading speed. An empirical formula following the Cowper-Symonds equation
(Equation (2.5)) was derived based on the test data (shown in Figure 7.28):
DLB-W (0.2403 mm/y)

A/O-H (0.0581 mm/y) DLB-F (0.0588 mm/y)
A/B-H (0.1084 mm/y)
DLC-W (0.0716 mm/y) Water Ballast Tank

Water Ballast Tank
DLC-F (0.0588 mm/y)
A/B-V
LBLB-W (0.1960mm/y)
(0.0661 mm/y)
LBLB-F (0.1782 mm/y)
Crude Oil Tank Crude Oil Tank Design Draught Line Crude Oil Tank Crude Oil Tank
B/S-V SSLB-W (0.1413 mm/y)

O/O-V O/B-V (0.0622 mm/y) SSLB-F (0.0882 mm/y)
(0.0577 mm/y) (0.1012 mm/y)
LBLC-W (0.0550 mm/y)

SSTLB-W (0.1960 mm/y)
LBLC-F (0.0508 mm/y)
B/B-H SSTLB-F (0.1782 mm/y)
(0.1408 mm/y)
BSLC-W (0.0466 mm/y)
BSLC-F (0.0437 mm/y)
BSLB-W (0.1367 mm/y)
BSLB-F (0.1127 mm/y)
O/S-H (0.0607 mm/y) B/S-H (0.0597 mm/y)
(a) (b)
Figure 7.25 Presumed corrosion rates of individual plating and stiffeners (where types of structural members are defined in Figure 14.5) (a) for plating and
(b) for stiffeners
T = 0, 10, 15, 20, 30 years
Ultimate Strength Reduction Rate (%)

sagging
hog
H-CSR requirement
in hog
H-CSR requirement
in sag hogging
sag
design load at North Sea

(with turret mooring)
Time (year)
Curvature (1/km)
Figure 7.26 Ultimate strength behaviour of the corroded hull under vertical bending moments
(where the H-CSR requirement indicates the values for trading tankers (IACS 2020); the design
load at the North Sea with turret mooring is determined from Chapter 4; T ¼ hull age and the
ultimate strength reduction rate is the ratio of the ultimate hull girder strength for the corroded
hull to that for the intact hull)
60 Vo = 400 mm/s
50 Vo = 300 mm/s
40
Load (kN)
Vo = 100 mm/s
30 Vo = 0.05 mm/s
a
20
10
b b
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
Deflection (mm)
Figure 7.27 Ultimate strength behaviour of a steel plate under impact axial compressive loads
1=q 1=q
σ ud ε_ Vo
¼ 1:0 þ ¼ 1:0 þ , (7.56)
σu C aC
where σ ud is the dynamic ultimate compressive strength of a plate, σ u is the quasi-

static ultimate compressive strength of a plate, ε_ ¼ V o =a, V o is the loading speed
(mm/s), a is the plate length, and C and q are the coefficients which are taken as
C ¼ 5:41=s and q ¼ 2:21 for a steel plate under axial compressive loads. For a
References 259
2.0
1.5
1.0 Equation (7.56)
0.5
experiment
0.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Strain Rate (1/s)
Figure 7.28 An empirical formula for predicting the dynamic ultimate compressive strength
of a steel plate
conservative safety assessment, however, the effects of the strain rate on the ultimate
strength are usually neglected as far as a ductile or brittle fracture does not occur.
References
Ashby, M. F. and Sammis, C. G. (1990). ‘The damage mechanics of brittle solids in compres-
sion’. Pure and Applied Geophysics, 133: 489–521.
Bhat, H. S., Rosakis, A. J. and Sammis, C. G. (2012). ‘A micromechanics based constitutive
model for brittle failure at high strain rates’. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 79(3): doi:
10.1115/1.4005897.
Deshpande, V. S. and Evans, A. G. (2008). ‘Inelastic deformation and energy dissipation in
ceramics: A mechanism-based constitutive model’. Journal of Mechanics and Physics of
Solids, 56(10): 3077–3100.
Dow, R. S. (1991). ‘Testing and analysis of 1/3-scale welded steel frigate model’.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Marine Structures.
Dunfermline, 749–773.
EN 1993-1-2 (2005). Eurocode 3: Design of Steel Structures: Part 1-2: General Rules:
Structural Fre Design. European Standard, Brussels.
Faulkner, D., Adamchak, J. C., Snyder, G. J. and Vetter, M. F. (1973). ‘Synthesis of welded
grillages to withstand compression and normal loads’. Computers & Structures, 3: 221–246.
Fletcher, C. A. J. (1984). Computational Galerkin Method. Springer, New York.
Jagite, G., Bigot, F., Derbanne, Q., Malenica, S., Le Sourne, H., de Lauzon, J. and Cartraud, P.
(2019). ‘Numerical investigation on dynamic ultimate strength of stiffened panels consider-
ing real loading scenarios’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 14(S1): 374–386.
Jagite, G., Bigot, F., Derbanne, Q., Malenica, S., Le Sourne, H., de Lauzon, J. and Cartraud, P.
(2020). ‘A parametric study on the dynamic ultimate strength of a stiffened panel subjected to
wave- and whipping-induced stresses’. Ships and Offshore Structures, doi: 10.1080/
17445302.2020.1790985.
Johnson, G. R. and Holmquist, T. J. (1994). An Improved Computational Constitutive Model for
Brittle Materials. High-Pressure Science and Technology, American Institute of Physics,
College Park, MD.
Kim, D. H. and Paik, J. K. (2017). ‘Ultimate limit state-based multi-objective optimum design
technology for hull structural scantlings of merchant cargo ships’. Ocean Engineering, 129:
318–334.
Kim, K. J., Lee, J. H., Park, D. K., Jung, B. K., Han, X. and Paik, J. K. (2016). ‘An experimental
and numerical study on nonlinear impact responses of steel-plated structures in an Arctic
environment’. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 93: 99–115.
Lee, D. H. and Paik, J. K. (2020). ‘Ultimate strength characteristics of as-built ultra-large
containership hull structures under combined vertical bending and torsion’. Ships and
Offshore Structures, 15(S1): S143–S160.
Liu, B. and Guedes Soares, C. (2020). ‘Ultimate strength assessment of ship hull structures
subjected to cyclic bending moments’. Ocean Engineering, 215, doi: 10.1016/j.
oceaneng.2020.107685.
Paik, J. K. (1995). ‘A new concept of the effective shear modulus for a plate buckled in shear’.
Journal of Ship Research, 39(1): 70–75.
Paik, J. K. (2007). ‘The effective use of experimental and numerical data for validating
simplified expressions of stiffened steel panel ultimate compressive strength’. Marine
Technology and SNAME News, 44(2): 93–105.
Paik, J. K., Kim, B. J., Park, D. K. and Jang, B. S. (2011). ‘On quasi-static crushing of thin-
walled steel structures in cold temperature: Experiment and numerical studies’. International
Journal of Impact Engineering, 38: 13–28.
Paik, J. K., Kim, J. H., Park, S. I., Islam, S. and Lee, D. H. (2013). ‘A new procedure for the
nonlinear structural response analysis of offshore installations in fires.’ Proceedings of
Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Bellevue, WA,
6–8 November.
Paik, J. K., Kim, D. K., Park, D. H., Kim, H. B., Mansour, A. E. and Caldwell, J. B. (2013).
‘Modified Paik-Mansour formula for ultimate strength calculations of ship hulls’. Ships and
Offshore Structures, 8(3–4): 245–260.
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M., Hwang, J. S. and Park, Y. I. (2003). ‘A time-dependent corrosion
wastage model for the structures of single- and double-hull tankers and FSOs and FPSOs’.
Marine Technology, 40(3): 201–217.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Noh, S. H., Park, D. K. and Ringsberg, J. W. (2020a). ‘Full-scale
collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under cyclic axial-compressive loading’.
Structures, 26: 996–1009.
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Noh, S. H., Park, D. K. and Ringsberg, J. W. (2020b). ‘Full-scale
collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading trig-
gered by brittle fracture at cryogenic condition’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 15(S1):
S29–S45.
References 261
Paik, J. K., Lee, D. H., Park, D. K. and Ringsberg, J. W. (2021a). ‘Full-scale collapse testing of
a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading at a temperature of -80 C’.
Paik, J. K. and Melchers, R. E. (2008). Condition Assessment of Aged Structures. CRC Press,
Boca Raton, FL.
(Part 1): Without passive fire protection’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(3): 227–242.
Paik, J. K., Ryu, M. G., He, K., Lee, D. H., Lee, S. Y., Park, D. K. and Thomas, G. (2021c).
(Part 2): With passive fire protection’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(3): 243–254.
Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A. K. (1997). ‘An empirical formulation for predicting the ultimate
compressive strength of stiffened panels’. Proceedings of International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, Honolulu, HI, IV: 328–338, 25–30 May.
Paik, J. K. and Thayamballi, A. K. (2003). ‘An experimental investigation on the dynamic
ultimate compressive strength of ship plating’. International Journal of Impact Engineering,
28: 803–811.
Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. K. and Kim, B. J. (2001). ‘Advanced ultimate strength formulations
for ship plating under combined biaxial compression/tension, edge shear and lateral pressure
loads’. Marine Technology, 38(1): 9–25.
Park, D. K., Kim, D. K., Park, C. H., Jang, B. S., Kim, B. J. and Paik, J. K. (2015). ‘On the
crashworthiness of steel-plated structures in an Arctic environment: An experimental and
numerical study’. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 137: 051501-
1–051501-11.
Ryu, M. G., He, K., Lee, D. H., Park, S. I., Thomas, G. and Paik, J. K. (2021). ‘Finite element
modelling for the progressive collapse analysis of steel stiffened-plate structures in fires’.
Thin-Walled Structures, 159, doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.107262.
Tekgoz, M., Garbatov, Y. and Guedes Soares, C. (2020). ‘Review of ultimate strength assess-
ment of ageing and damaged ship structures’. Journal of Marine Science and Application, 19:
512–533.
Ueda, Y., Rashed, S. M. H. and Paik, J. K. (1987). ‘An incremental Galerkin method for plates
and stiffened plates’. Computers & Structures, 27(1): 147–156.
Woloszyk, K., Garbatov, Y., Kowalski, J. and Samson, L. (2020). ‘Experimental and numerical
investigations of ultimate strength of imperfect stiffened plates of different slenderness’.
Polish Maritime Research, 27(4): 120–129.
Xu, M. C. and Guedes Soares, C. (2021). ‘Numerical study on the influence of experimental
conditions on the collapse behaviour of stiffened panels’. Ocean Engineering, 220, doi:
10.1016/j.oceaneng.2020.108410.
Zhang, S. (2015). ‘A review and study on ultimate strength of steel plates and stiffened panels in
axial compression’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 11(1): 81–91.
8 Accidental Limit States
8.1 Principles of Accidental Limit States Engineering
Accidental limit states (ALS) are one of four types of limit states (described in Section
5.1), and they represent a condition in which a particular structural member or an
entire structure fails to perform its designated function as a result of excessive
structural damage, resulting from accidents such as unintended flooding, collisions,
fires or explosions (Paik 2018, 2020). A range of adverse events may ensue if ALS are
reached on a ship-shaped offshore installation, including severe injuries or loss of life
among the crew and severe damage to and/or loss of property, with consequent
substantial financial losses and environmental pollution.
The goal of ALS engineering is to ensure that the structure of a ship-shaped
offshore installation can withstand specific accidental events and that the integrity of
its designated functionality will persist for a sufficient period of time under specified
(usually reduced) environmental conditions. This period of time is necessary to allow
the activation of risk mitigation and recovery measures that enable
the evacuation of personnel from the structure;

the control of undesirable movement or motion of the structure;
the performance of temporary repairs;
firefighting from a place of safe refuge, in the case of fire and explosion and
the minimisation of the outflow of cargo or other hazardous material.
The analysis of structural resistance or capacity during and after an accidental
event requires the use of different methodologies or different levels of refinement of
the same methodology. ALS engineering is a key part of the framework of risk
assessment and management intended to prevent injury and loss of life on a ship-
shaped offshore installation or in the surrounding area, to reduce financial or
property losses and to prevent environmental pollution. ALS requirements must be
met to ensure that primary safety functions are not impaired during an accidental
event or within a certain acceptable period of time after an accident. Thus, ALS
criteria are set to limit the effects of the consequences of accidents, such as structural
damage, human injury or death and environmental pollution. This entails the use of a
range of risk mitigation measures to tailor the design features and operational
measures, such as the establishment of procedures for the training of crew members
and the cessation of production.
8.1 Principles of Accidental Limit States Engineering 263
Different types of accidents result in damaged structures with various characteris-

tics and behaviours, and risk perception is unique to individuals, societies and
circumstances. It is thus difficult to establish universally applicable ALS engineering
criteria. Consequently, accident scenarios and associated acceptance criteria are deter-
mined by risk assessments of a given type of structure. ALS performance levels must
also incorporate tolerance of a certain level of damage that is consistent with a greater
aim, such as survivability or adverse consequence minimisation, as levels that are too
stringent will result in the assembly of uneconomic structures. As mentioned earlier in
this chapter, it is critical that the main functions of escape routes and shelter areas are
not damaged during accidental events or within a certain period of time after such
events to enable rescue and evacuation operations to be performed.
Deterministic and probabilistic methods are relevant for ALS engineering. The
former are used to evaluate the safety level of the most unfavourable scenario, while
the latter are based on the risks associated with a set of realistic scenarios comprising a
wide range of random parameters that affect accidental events (described in Chapter 13).
The acceptance criteria for ship-shaped offshore installations address reserve stability,
damage extent, oil outflow quantity and residual load-carrying capacity.
The safety criteria for ALS engineering are expressible in the following general
form:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ < 0, (8.1)
where g is the limit state function for ALS engineering, a function of the parameters
x1 , x2 , , xn that affect ALS responses. Equation (8.1) is also expressed in terms of
action effects (e.g., deformation or strain) or structural crashworthiness (e.g., energy),
as follows:
δ < δa , E kd < E ad , (8.2)
where δ represents the factored action effects, δa represents the allowable (factored)
action effects, E kd ¼ γk E k is the design value of the kinetic energy, E ad ¼ Eγ a is the
a
design value of the absorbed energy, E k is the characteristic value of the kinetic
energy, E a is the characteristic value of the absorbed energy, γk is a partial safety
factor associated with uncertainties of the kinetic energy and γa is a partial safety
factor associated with uncertainties of the absorbed energy. The partial safety factors
used in Equation (8.2) are chosen to represent one or more (or all) of a set of
uncertainties. These uncertainties are
the natural variation of design variables;

the modelling uncertainties of the assessment method;
the return period of the accidental event;
the societal factors related to the accidental event, such as risk perception and
the consequences of the accidental event, such as economic factors.
As the partial safety factors are defined to be greater than unity, the design value of
the kinetic energy is always greater than the corresponding characteristic value, and
the design value of the absorbed energy is always less than the corresponding
characteristic value. In contrast to deterministic methods, probabilistic methods use

the risk-based format (described in Chapter 13).
8.2 Accidental Flooding
If one or more internal spaces of a vessel are opened to the sea via structural damage,
cargo leakage and/or water ingress occurs until a stable equilibrium is established
between these spaces and the sea. Accidental flooding and/or cargo leakage can thus
cause significant changes in the draft, trim and heel of a vessel. If such changes lead to
the immersion of non-watertight portions of a vessel, progressive flooding may
prevent the establishment of a stable equilibrium. This results in a vessel sinking,
with or without capsizing.
A flooded vessel tends to capsize if its remaining maximum righting moment, in
terms of its metacentric height and other stability characteristics (such as its righting
arm), is less than its existing heeling moment. Heeling forces may persist even if a
vessel is flooded symmetrically with respect to its centre line, owing to other unsym-
metrical weight distributions and/or wind, and thus capsizing may occur if the
metacentric height of a vessel is negative in this damaged condition. ALS engineering
is therefore performed to ensure that a vessel has sufficient reserve buoyancy to
survive with damaged stability resulting from accidental flooding. The resulting
reserve stability must be sufficient to withstand a wind-induced heeling moment
imposed from any direction.
The procedure used for the damage stability analysis of a ship-shaped offshore
installation is similar to that used for trading tankers, but it also considers the effect of
wind. Guidelines have been established for the damage stability criteria of ship-shaped
offshore installations (HSE 2001). A key aspect is that the curves of the damaged
righting moment and wind-induced heeling moment are plotted at a specific wind
velocity as a function of the heeling angle. Figure 8.1 shows the relationship between
the righting moment and heel angle. To determine the damage stability, the following
condition must be satisfied:
AþBBþC for θS 15 , (8.3)
where A, B and C are the shaded areas shown in Figure 8.1 and θS is the static heeling
angle after damage without wind. The areas A, B and C are calculated under the
following conditions:
θ R θD and θR θ2 , (8.4)
where θR is the angle from θS over the areas A, B and C, θD is the angle of first down-
flooding and θ2 is the second intercept of the righting moment-heel angle curves.
Such calculations typically do not account for restraints on the motion of a ship-
shaped offshore installation that result from its mooring system, as the aim is to
consider a sufficiently large number of heeling angles to afford a conservative risk
assessment. Similarly, the effects of various risk mitigation options to reduce heel
Moment damaged righting moment
wind heeling moment

A
C
B
0 S R D Angle of Heel, θ
Figure 8.1 The relationship between the righting moment and heel angle for damage stability
motion, such as pumping flooded water out or altering ballasting configurations, are
not considered, thus ensuring that the worst possible accidental flooding-generated
service conditions are assessed.
8.3 Collisions with Ships
Potentially, an offshore supply ship or a shuttle tanker may collide with a ship-shaped
offshore installation when these vessels are in a side-by-side working condition
(described in Section 13.8 and shown in Figure 1.16(b)). Similarly, a passing vessel
may accidentally collide with an offshore installation. In addition, a terrorist attack in
which an aircraft impacts an offshore installation at speed could conceivably occur
(described in Chapter 12). Collisions with offshore support vessels (Ritchie 2008) may
also be feasible at the stage of inspection and maintenance.
Typical collision damage is minor and limited to local denting (Ozguc 2017), and is
distinct from damage caused by a passing vessel collision or a terrorist attack.
However, any major damage must be repaired immediately after a collision accident,
which may require the prolonged shutdown of an offshore installation. Safety meas-
ures such as fenders (INA 2002) are applied to prevent structural damage by absorbing
and dampening impact energy (described in Section 13.8.3). Figure 8.2 shows applied
examples of fenders (www.mol-service.com/blog/fsru-captainreport-turkey; www
.trelleborg.com).
8.3.1 Selection of a Collision Scenario

Collisions are governed by multiple parameters of influence, which are random by
nature. Each random parameter is characterised in terms of a probability density
distribution that represents the findings of big data analyses of historical collisions.
Sampling techniques are used to select a set of realistic collision scenarios in a
Figure 8.2 Rubber hull fenders to absorb and dampen impact energy in a side-by-side collision
condition between ship-shaped offshore installations and shuttle tankers
probabilistic manner within a quantitative risk assessment and management frame-

work (see chapters 2 and 14 of Paik (2020) for details). Deterministic methods use the
‘most unfavourable’ scenario associated with the risk acceptance criteria.
8.3.2 Extent of Structural Crashworthiness Analysis

A nonlinear finite-element method is used for a structural crashworthiness analysis of
selected collision scenarios. Both the striking and struck bodies are included in the
extent of the collision analysis because their responses may be interactive, depending
on the deformations that occur during a collision, and may partially contribute to the
absorption of initial kinetic energy.
Modern computers are powerful enough to enable computational modelling of the
entire structures of both the struck body (a ship-shaped offshore installation) and the
striking body (a supply vessel, a shuttle tanker or an aircraft). However, impacted
areas are modelled using fine meshes, whereas remote areas are modelled using coarse
meshes (see chapter 11 of Paik (2020) for details). Figure 8.3 shows a finite-element
model of the collision of a SUEZMAX class shuttle tanker with a hypothetical floating
production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull (described in Section 1.7.1) when
these vessels are in a side-by-side offloading configuration.
8.3.3 Types of Finite Elements

Ship-shaped offshore structures comprise thin walls or plate elements with support
members composed of webs and flanges. To ensure the computational accuracy of
structural crashworthiness analyses of offshore installations during collisions, rectangu-
lar plate-shell elements (with an aspect ratio of almost unity), rather than beam elements,
are used to model plating and the webs and flanges of support members. In contrast,
triangular plate-shell elements are used to model joints or connections, but are some-
times omitted from the computational modelling of such analyses. If there are con-
straints on computational costs and processing times, beam elements may be used
Z
X Y
Figure 8.3 A finite-element model for a structural crashworthiness analysis of a shuttle tanker
collision with a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading hull
instead of plate-shell elements to model areas that are less relevant to collision loading.
Figure 8.3 shows a finite-element model comprising only plate-shell elements.
8.3.4 Size of Finite Elements

The optimal sizes of finite elements are determined by performing a convergence
study of the structural crashworthiness analysis in collisions with a range of element
sizes. However, convergence studies may be computationally expensive and do not
always provide appropriate guidelines, as the dimensions of local members may differ
according to the plate thickness. Thus, a simpler approach is required; accordingly,
one was proposed by Paik (2018, 2020), as described next.
To capture the crushing response of a thin-walled structure within a half-fold
length, at least eight plate elements are required (shown in Figure 8.4). The half-
fold length of the thin-walled structure is predicted as follows (Wierzbicki and
Abramowicz 1983):
H ¼ 0:983b2=3 t 1=3 , (8.5a)
where H is the half-fold length of a thin-walled structure, b is the breadth of plating

between stiffeners and t is the wall (plate) thickness. Optimally sized finite elements
are those that satisfy the following condition:
H
s ¼ 0:1228b2=3 t 1=3 , (8.5b)
8
Figure 8.4 A half-fold length of a thin-walled structure
where s is the optimal size of the finite element. For example, Figure 8.3 depicts a
finite-element model in which the areas of the striking and struck structures within 5 m
of the impact locations were modelled using fine meshes with a size of s.
8.3.5 Material Property Modelling

The true stress–true strain relations of materials are used for structural crashworthiness
analyses under the condition of a collision, rather than the engineering stress–
engineering strain relations of materials, which are used in ultimate strength analyses
(described in Section 2.3) but do not consider the strain-hardening effect. The effects
of elevated and sub-zero temperatures are modelled (described in Sections 2.5 and 2.6,
respectively).
Strain rates also have significant effects on structural crashworthiness in collisions.
Thus, the yield stress and fracture strain of steel under quasi-static loading conditions
are modified by accounting for the effect of the strain rate (described in Section 2.7).
8.3.6 Other Considerations in Finite-Element Modelling

The self-contact problem must also be solved in a structural crashworthiness analysis,
as a crash involves two adjacent walls coming into contact as a result of folding
(shown in Figure 8.5). Their overlap in computational modelling must be prevented
because the surface friction of striking and struck bodies affects their energy
absorption capability during a collision. The friction constant of a surface depends
on various factors, such as the collision speed, contact area and surface condition, and
a friction constant value of 0.1–0.3 for a ship–ship collision is used in
industry practice.
Another consideration is that in a collision, both the striking body (supply vessel or
shuttle tanker) and struck body (ship-shaped offshore installation) are afloat at sea,
and therefore the effects of the surrounding water are non-negligible because both
bodies move with additional masses that absorb part of the initial kinetic energy. Thus,
without self-contact
with self-contact
Figure 8.5 Self-contact problem in a structural crashworthiness analysis
LS-DYNA/MCOL software (www.eng-tips.com/viewthread.cfm?qid=451981) is

used to model the surrounding water effects in collisions.
8.3.7 Assessment of the Collision Energy Absorption Capability

If a ship-shaped offshore installation in tow or at site is struck by a trading vessel (e.g.,
a supply vessel, a shuttle tanker or a passing vessel) and both the striking vessel and
the offshore installation are considered to move as one body after the collision, the
collision can be described by the conservation of momentum principle, as follows:
ðM A þ ΔM A ÞV A sin θ þ ðM B þ ΔM B ÞV B ¼ ðM A þ ΔM A þ M B þ ΔM B ÞV T , (8.6a)
ðM A þ ΔM A ÞV A sin θ þ ðM B þ ΔM B ÞV B
VT ¼ , (8.6b)
M A þ ΔM A þ M B þ ΔM B
where M A is the mass of the striking vessel, M B is the mass of the offshore installation,
ΔM A is the added mass of the striking vessel, ΔM B is the added mass of the offshore
installation, V A is the initial velocity of the striking vessel, V B is the initial velocity of
the offshore installation, V T is the velocity of both the striking vessel and the offshore
installation, moving as one body after the collision, and θ is the collision angle
between the striking vessel and the offshore installation.
The loss of kinetic energy after the collision is estimated as follows:
1 1
Ek ¼ ðM A þ ΔM A ÞðV A sin θÞ2 ðM A þ ΔM A þ M B þ ΔM B ÞV 2T , (8.7)
2 2
where E k is the loss of kinetic energy. When the ship-shaped offshore installation is
located at a site, ΔM B ¼ 0 and V B ¼ 0. If M B is substantially greater than M A , it is
assumed that V T 0, which implies that both the striking vessel and the offshore
installation cease moving as one body after the collision.
8.3.8 Side-by-Side Collision between a Floating Production, Storage and

Offloading Hull and a Shuttle Tanker: Case Study
A case study on a side-by-side collision between a hypothetical floating production,
storage and offloading (FPSO) hull (described in Section 1.7.1) and a SUEZMAX
class shuttle tanker (length of all ¼ 270 m, breadth ¼ 48 m, depth 23.7 m, draught in
full load condition ¼ 16 m) is considered in a side-by-side offloading condition.
Figure 8.6 is the finite-element model of the problem. The fine plate-shell mesh zone
with 220 mm 220 mm extends 3,000 mm beyond the outer side shells of both
striking and struck bodies and the mesh size far from the collided region is 880 mm
880 mm. Table 8.1 summarises the size and number of meshes for both struck and
striking bodies.
The structural crashworthiness analysis was conducted at a 1-knot (0.52-m/s) or
2-knot (1.03-m/s) collision scenario using LS-DYNA software (without consideration
of surrounding water effects). The dynamic fracture strain applied for the structural
crashworthiness analysis was 0.076 for mild steel and 0.080 for high tensile steel at
the 2-knot collision, while the dynamic yield stress was 441.25 MPa for mild steel and
495.81 MPa for high tensile steel from the procedures described in Section 2.7
(indicated in Table 8.2). The frictional coefficient during collision was assumed to
be 0.3 in the analysis (Paik 2020). The LS-DYNA (www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna)
computing time using a computer equipped with Intel® Xeon® CPU E5–2670 V2
(with 20 cores, 20 threads, DDR3 64GB) was 21 h and 21 min. for a 10-s simulation.
Figures 8.7–8.10 show the results of the structural crashworthiness analysis for
the FPSO hull struck by the shuttle tanker at a 1-knot or 2-knot side-by-side collision
scenario. Figure 8.7 shows the collision simulations with time at a 2-knot scenario.
The striking body rotated with respect to its stern area, which was heavier than the
bow and contacted the struck hull. Figure 8.8 shows the collision damage of the
struck hull at a 2-knot scenario where the outer hull in the impacted area formed
Figure 8.6 The finite-element model and deformed shapes for a side-by-side collision between a
hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading hull and a SUEZMAX class shuttle
tanker
Table 8.1. Size and number of meshes for the structural crashworthiness analysis in a side-by-side collision between
a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull and a SUEZMAX class shuttle tanker
Fine mesh Coarse mesh Total mesh

Type Fine mesh size number Coarse mesh size number number
Striking shuttle 220 mm 220 mm 342,686 880 mm 880 mm 184,221 526,907

tanker hull
Struck FPSO hull 220 mm 220 mm 858,603 880 mm 880 mm 300,786 1,159,389
Table 8.2. Dynamic properties of steel applied for the structural crashworthiness analysis in a side-by-side collision
between a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading hull and a SUEZMAX class shuttle tanker
Collision Yield Dynamic Static Modified Dynamic

speed Strain stress yield stress fracture fracture fracture
(knot) rate (/s) Steel grade (MPa), σ Y (MPa), σ Yd strain, εf strain, εm strain, εfd
2 2.370 Mild steel 281.57 441.25 0.429 0.120 0.076

2 2.370 High tensile steel 400.97 495.81 0.324 0.099 0.080
C ¼ 40:4 (mild steel) or 3200 (high tensile) and q ¼ 5 were used for Equations (2.4) and (2.5). γ ¼ 0:3,
d1 ¼ 4:1, d2 ¼ 0:58, s ¼ 220 mm and t ¼ 17 or 20 mm were applied for Equation (2.6).
(a) 0 s
(b) 3 s
(c) 5 s
Figure 8.7 The structural crashworthiness simulations with time for a hypothetical floating
production, storage and offloading hull struck by a SUEZMAX class shuttle tanker at a 2-knot
side-by-side collision scenario
Figure 8.8 Collision damage of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading hull
struck by a SUEZMAX class shuttle tanker at a 2-knot side-by-side collision scenario
striking hull for a 2-knot collision

Maximum Penetration (m)
struck hull
for a 2-knot collision
striking hull for a 1-knot

collision
struck hull for a 1-knot collision
Time (s)
Figure 8.9 The maximum penetration-time relation curves for both the struck and striking hulls at
a 1-knot or 2-knot side-by-side collision scenario
2-knot side-by-side collision
sum of kinetic and absorbed energies

Energy (MN·m)
kinetic energy
total absorbed energy
energy absorbed energy absorbed

by a struck hull by a striking hull
Figure 8.10 The energy-time relation curves for both the struck and striking hulls at a 1-knot or
2-knot side-by-side collision scenario
local denting and side stringers and transverse floors have buckled. Figure 8.9 shows
the maximum penetration-time relation curves for both the struck and striking hulls
at a 1-knot or 2-knot side-by-side collision scenario. The maximum penetration can
be reduced significantly by lowering the collision speed, but it is obvious that the
collision damage is unavoidable and thus adequate safety measures such as fender
units should be arranged for the hull protection against vessel collision. Figure 8.10
shows the energy-time relation curves at a 2-knot side-by-side collision scenario.
The absorbed energy with time was obtained by integrating the strain energies of
individual finite elements. The kinetic energy was entirely consumed after 3 seconds
of collision by the damages of both the struck and striking hulls, where the
contributions of the energy absorption were 80.3 per cent by the struck hull and
19.7 per cent by the striking hull.
The ALS acceptance criteria are based on the maximum penetration, structural
damage (e.g., denting) or structural failure (e.g., buckling, crushing and fracture) that
occurs before the initial kinetic energy is entirely consumed, according to the post-
collision loss of kinetic energy defined in Equation (8.7).
8.3.9 Collision of a Supply Vessel with a Floating Production, Storage

and Offloading Hull: Case Study
A case study on a collision between the bow of a supply vessel (length of all ¼ 99.71 m,
breadth ¼ 23.25 m, draught in full load condition ¼ 7.1 m, deadweight ¼ 8546 tonnes)
(Mujeeb-Ahmed and Paik 2019, 2021; Mujeeb-Ahmed et al. 2020) and the side
structure of a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull

(described in Section 1.7.1) is considered, as shown in Figure 8.11. Only the bow
structures are included in the finite-element model for the supply vessel (shown in
Figure 8.12), although the vessel’s mass effect is accounted for in the structural
crashworthiness analysis. Fine plate-shell meshes with 220 mm 220 mm are used
to model contacted areas, while coarse plate-shell meshes with 880 mm 880 mm
are used to model for the remaining area (shown in Figure 8.13). Table 8.3 summar-
ises the size and number of meshes for both the striking and struck bodies. Similar
procedures to Section 8.3.8 are applied to define dynamic properties of steel
striking supply vessel struck FPSO hull
A flare deck tip
B bulbous bow tip

7.1 m
23.3 m
full load condition
Figure 8.11 A collision between the bow of a supply vessel and the side structure of a
hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull
8,896 mm 17,040 mm
14,893 mm
8,862 mm
Figure 8.12 The finite-element model of a supply vessel’s bow structure (with a global system
coordinate)
Table 8.3. Size and number of meshes for the structural crashworthiness analysis in a collision between a
hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull and a supply vessel
Fine mesh Coarse Total mesh

Type Fine mesh size number Coarse mesh size mesh number number
Striking supply 220 mm 220 mm 344,347 – – 344,347

vessel bow
Struck FPSO hull 220 mm 220 mm 143,469 880 mm 880 mm 299,002 442,471
Table 8.4. Dynamic properties of steel applied for the structural crashworthiness analysis in a head-on collision of a
supply vessel with a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading hull
Collision Strain Yield Dynamic Static Modified Dynamic

speed rate stress yield stress fracture fracture fracture
(knot) (/s) Steel grade (MPa), σ Y (MPa), σ Yd strain, εf strain, εm strain, εfd
5 6.953 Mild steel 281.57 479.61 0.429 0.120 0.070

5 6.953 High tensile steel 400.97 518.60 0.324 0.099 0.077
60 m
305 m 3m
127.97 m 51.21 m
Figure 8.13 The finite-element model of a hypothetical floating production, storage and
offloading hull struck by a supply vessel (with a global system coordinate)
(indicated in Table 8.4) at a 5-knot (2.57-m/s) collision scenario, while the same
properties as those of Table 8.2 can be used for a 2-knot collision scenario. The
LS-DYNA(www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna) computing time using a computer
equipped with Intel® Xeon® CPU E5–2670 V2 (with 20 cores, 20 threads and
DDR3 64GB) was 9 h and 38 min. for a 5-s simulation.
Typical design closing velocities of supply vessels under good weather conditions
are indicated in Table 13.9 as a function of the vessel size. Figures 8.14–8.16 show the
results of the structural crashworthiness analysis using LS-DYNA (without consider-
ation of surrounding water effects). Penetrations at the flare deck tip (location A) or
bulbous bow tip (location B) are significant, involving buckling and fracture at both
2-knot collision case 5-knot collision case

A
A
412 mm
450 mm
B B
384 mm
1,968 mm
3,000 mm 3,000 mm
Figure 8.14 Penetration of the flare deck tip (location A) and bulbous bow tip (location B) at the
end of the collision with a 2-knot or 5-knot collision scenario
2-knot location B 2-knot
location A
Resultant Force (MN)

location A location B
striking struck
supply vessel FPSO hull
Penetration (m) Penetration (m)
Figure 8.15 The resultant force-penetration relation curves for a collision between a supply
vessel and a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull at a 2-knot
scenario
2-knot and 5-knot head-on collision scenarios (shown in Figure 8.14). Maximum
penetration of location A is greater than that of location B at a 2-knot collision, but it
reverses at a 5-knot collision. This is because of the interaction between the struck
FPSO hull’s side structure and the striking supply vessel’s bow which are both
deformable (shown in Figure 8.15). Figure 8.16 shows the energy-time relation curves
8.4 Collisions with Icebergs 277
2-knot sum of kinetic and absorbed energies
total absorbed
energy
Energy (MN·m)
kinetic energy absorbed

energy by a struck
FPSO hull
energy absorbed
by a striking
supply vessel
Time (s)
Figure 8.16 The absorbed energy-time relation curves for a collision between a supply
vessel and a hypothetical floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) hull at a 2-knot
scenario
with individual contributions of both striking and struck bodies at a 2-knot collision.
The initial kinetic energy decreases as the striking body penetrates into the struck
body. The absorbed energy component of either striking or struck body was calculated
by summing up the strain energies of individual finite elements in the corresponding
body. The summation of both the kinetic energy and the absorbed energy slightly
decreases with time after fracture occurs in which fractured elements are removed. The
contribution to the energy absorption is 94.5 per cent by the struck body and 5.5 per
cent by the striking body at this specific collision scenario.
8.4 Collisions with Icebergs
Ship-shaped offshore installations that operate in Arctic areas are subjected to colli-
sions with icebergs. Although the speed of movement may be slow, an iceberg has a
large mass, and thus collision with an iceberg involves large energies. The structural
crashworthiness analysis of collisions between offshore installations and icebergs is
conducted while considering the interacting effects, as both types of objects are
deformable in collisions.
Nonlinear finite-element methods can be used to model such collisions, similar to
the modelling of collisions with ships (described in Section 8.3). Icebergs are also
addressed as structures made of sea ice, of which the mechanical properties are
affected by various parameters such as temperature, salinity and strain rate. Ince
et al. (2017a, 2017b) formulated a simplified material representation of sea ice by
classifying it into two models depending on strain rate ðε_Þ, that is, (a) a ductile model
and (b) a brittle model (Schulson 2001), as follows:
(a) when ε_ ε_cr :

8
< Eε for σ < σ F
σ ¼ σ F for σ ¼ σ F , (8.8a)
:
0 for δ δC
(b) when ε_ > ε_cr :

Eε for σ < σ F
σ¼ , (8.8b)
0 for δ δC
where σ is the engineering stress, ε is the engineering strain, E is the Young’s modulus
(which is taken as 9.7 GPa for both freshwater and seawater ice), σ F is the failure
stress, δ is the separation and δC is the crack-opening displacement. ε_cr is the critical
strain rate, which is taken as 1 102 =s. The Johnson–Cook constitutive equation
(Johnson and Cook 1983) is used to determine σ F by accounting for the effects of
strain rate and temperature. Ince et al. (2017a) formulated a modified Johnson–Cook
model to account for the effect of salinity, as follows:
rffiffiffiffiffiffi
ε_ T vb
σ ¼ A 1 þ B ln C D ln , (8.9)
ε_ o To vbo
where ε_ o is the reference strain rate, which is taken as 102/s, T is the temperature in

C and T o is the reference temperature, which is taken as 10 C. A, B, C and D are the
test coefficients of the material, and D is associated with the salinity, which is taken as
indicated in Table 8.5. vbo is the reference brine volume and vb is the brine volume,
which is defined by

49:185
vb ¼ S þ 0:532 for 22:9 C T 0:5 C, (8.10)
jT j
pffiffiffiffiffi
where S is the salt rate and T is the temperature in C. The root brine volume vb is
often used as the index of ice salinity.
Further simplifications are available to determine the σ F . Jones (2007) suggested
Equation (8.11a) to determine the σ F of materials exhibiting ductile behaviour, and
Ince et al. (2017a) suggested Equation (8.11b) to determine the σ F of materials
exhibiting brittle behaviour. Alternatively, Equation (8.11c) calculates σ F as a func-
tion of temperature.
Table 8.5. Test coefficients of Equation (8.9)
Coefficient Ductile region, ε_ < 102 Brittle region, ε_ 102
A 11.74 3.64
B 0.08 0.37
C 0.8 0.8
D 0.4 0.4
8.5. Dropped-Object Impacts 279
σ F ¼ 37:8ε_0:216 for ductile behaviour, (8.11a)
σ F ¼ 7:11ε_0:145 for brittle behaviour, (8.11b)
σ F ¼ 0:40T þ 0:9: (8.11c)
Finally, Timco and O’Brien (1994) suggested Equation (8.12) to determine σ F while
considering the effect of salinity:
pffiffiffi
σ F ¼ 1:76e5:88 vb : (8.12)
The value of δC in Equation (8.8) is determined using a fracture model, as follows:

G
δC ¼ , (8.13)
ATSLC σ max
where ATSLC is the area under the traction–separation curve and σ max is the maximum
traction force. G is the strain-energy release rate, which is given by
K 2 ð1 n 2 Þ
G¼ , (8.14)
E
where K is the fracture toughness, n is the Poisson ratio and E is the
elasticity modulus.
The stress–strain relation in Equation (8.8) is thus used to develop nonlinear finite-
element models for the structural crashworthiness analyses of collisions between ship-
shaped offshore installations and icebergs (Ince et al. 2017b).
8.5 Dropped-Object Impacts
Impacts owing to dropped objects and the swinging loads of cranes and lifting devices
can physically damage a ship-shaped offshore installation. This damage typically
involves local denting, the extent of which depends on the shape and sharpness of
the dropped object, and on its mass and impact speed. The impact velocity of a
dropped object in water (e.g., on subsea structures) is reduced prior to impact because
of the drag associated with hydrodynamic resistance during movement through water.
Dropped-object impacts may result in not only localised dents but also global
structural deformation. Nonlinear finite-element methods similar to those used for
structural crashworthiness analyses in collisions are used to compute denting damages
resulting from dropped-object impacts. The loss of kinetic energy for an object falling
in air is estimated as follows:
1
E k ¼ mV 2 , (8.15)
2
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
where E k is the loss of kinetic energy, m is the mass of the falling object, V ¼ 2gh is
the velocity of the falling object, h is the distance travelled from the drop position and
g ¼ 9:8 m=s is the acceleration of gravity.
The ALS assessment of a dented structure is performed using Equation (8.2) and,
with respect to a critical deformation, the strain until rupture occurs or the kinetic and
absorbed energies. In the latter analysis, the energy absorption capability until plating
is ruptured by denting is predicted by integrating the impact force versus the dent
damage curves obtained by numerical computations. Although the effects of local
denting may not be critical to the global structural integrity of a ship-shaped offshore
installation, dents can disrupt certain functions, and the residual ultimate strength of a
dented structure under an extreme load is often a source of concern (see chapter 4 of
Paik (2018) for details).
8.6 Fires
Fires may break out on a ship-shaped offshore installation owing to the ignition of
released hydrocarbon liquid or gas. The nature of a hydrocarbon liquid fire depends on
the state of the released liquid (Skallerud and Amdahl 2002), and may result in
a pool fire in the open air, owing to the ignition of liquid fuel spilled on a horizontal
solid surface, e.g., the ground;
a pool fire on the sea surface;
a pool fire in an enclosed area, owing to the ignition of liquid fuel spilled within an
enclosed space that may have various degrees of air deficiency;
a fireball, owing to the expansion of boiling liquid creating a vapour explosion
involving the immediate ignition of pressurised and liquefied fuel;
a running liquid fire, owing to the ignition of liquid fuel spilled on a non-horizontal
surface, e.g., the sloping walls of a tank container, resulting in fuel burning as it
flows down the surface or
a spray fire, owing to the ignition of a high-pressure spill of liquid fuel droplets.
In contrast, the nature of a hydrocarbon gas fire depends on the mode of gas
released and the delay in ignition. Examples of gas fires are given below.
A flash fire or cloud fire occurs because of the delayed ignition of gas or vapour,
which may have formed a cloud and dispersed downwind. This is extremely short-
lived and is primarily a thermal radiation hazard to human beings.
A jet fire or flare fire occurs owing to the ignition of a high-pressure leak of a
flammable gas. It is regarded as momentum controlled, as a large part of the flame
plume is controlled by momentum force rather than by buoyancy force.
A diffusive gas fire occurs as a result of the diffusive release of a flammable
gas via a relatively large opening. In contrast to a jet fire, a diffusive gas fire is
regarded as buoyancy controlled, as the entire flame plume is controlled by
buoyancy force.
The key structural hazards owing to fires are increases in the ambient temperature
and in steel temperatures, which may lead to structural collapse because the mechan-
ical properties of steel are significantly decreased at increased temperatures (described
8.6 Fires 281
in Section 2.5). The procedure for an ALS assessment for fires comprises the
following four steps: (1) the selection of fire scenarios; (2) a fire action analysis, that
is, the prediction of the ambient (gas cloud) temperature; (3) a heat transfer analysis,
that is, the prediction of the steel temperature and (4) a fire action effect analysis, that
is, the prediction of fire damage and structural collapse. Fires are governed by multiple
parameters of influence that are each random in nature and characterised by a
probability density distribution function based on a historical database of fire acci-
dents. Sampling techniques are used to select a set of realistic fire scenarios, see
chapters 2 and 16 of Paik (2020) for details.
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD) simulations are used to predict gas cloud
temperatures in fires. Kameleon FireEx (KFX) code (www.dnvgl.com/services/fire-
simulation-software-cfd-simulation-kameleon-fireex-kfx-110598) is useful for this
purpose. Only the CFD computations of gas cloud temperatures from selected
monitoring points are exported for analysis because of the vast amounts of output
data that are generated. Interacting programs, such as Fire And Heat Transfer
Simulations (FAHTS) code (www.computIT.no) and KFX2DYNA (Paik et al.
2013), are useful for automating the import of fire actions (e.g., gas cloud
temperatures) from KFX fire CFD computations for use as input data in a heat
transfer analysis. The gas cloud temperature analysis of fires is detailed in chapter
8 of Paik (2020).
Nonlinear finite-element methods are used for heat transfer and fire action effect
analyses. LS-DYNA code (www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna) with KFX2DYNA and
USFOS code (www.usfos.com) with FAHTS are useful for this purpose. LS-DYNA
creates models using shell elements, whereas USFOS uses beam elements. Thus, the
former affords more complex geometries and heat distributions. This is shown in
Figure 7.22, which depicts a model of an irregular heat distribution on a stiffener web
(Paik et al. 2013; Paik 2020). Beam element models are much less expensive to
construct than shell element models, but as most of the computational time required
for a fire analysis is used for CFD simulations in a gas-cloud temperature analysis
(indicated in Table 8.6) (Paik et al. 2013, 2020), shell elements are recommended
Table 8.6. Comparison of computational fluid dynamics (CFD) computing times in fire analyses using shell elements
with KFX2DYNA and LS-DYNA and beam elements with Fire and Heat Transfer Simulations (FAHTS) and USFOS
Computing time Computing Computing time for

for fire CFD time for heat action effect
simulations transfer (nonlinear structural Comparison
Model using KFX analysis response) analysis Total (%)
Shell elements 21 h 1h 22 h 103.5

with LS-DYNA
Beam elements with 5 min 10 min 21 h 15 min 100.0
FAHTS and USFOS
when modelling irregular heat distributions. Finite-element modelling for a fire action
effect (nonlinear structural response) analysis is detailed in chapter 12 of Paik (2020)
and Ryu et al. (2021).
8.7 Explosions
Explosions may occur on a ship-shaped offshore installation when accidentally

released hydrocarbon gas is ignited, resulting in a blast or a rapid increase in over-
pressure. Blast pressure loads arising from gas explosions can cause severe damage to
structures, equipment and personnel, thereby threatening structural integrity, human
life and the environment.
The procedure for an ALS assessment of explosions comprises the following five
steps: (1) the selection of gas leak scenarios, (2) a gas dispersion analysis, (3) the
selection of explosion scenarios, (4) an analysis of blast pressure loads and drag forces
and (5) an analysis of explosion damage and structural collapse. Similar to a fire
scenario, a gas leak scenario is governed by multiple parameters of influence, such as
the leak rate, the leak duration, the leak direction, the leak position, the wind direction
and the wind speed, all of which are random in nature. The probability density
function for each of these random parameters is formulated based on the probabilistic
distribution of historical data. Sampling techniques based on the probability density
functions are used to select a set of realistic gas-leak scenarios and other influential
parameters. For details of the selection of explosion scenarios, see chapters 2 and 17 of
Paik (2020).
CFD simulations are used to determine the size and density of a gas cloud
distribution for a gas dispersion analysis. FLACS code (www.gexcon.com/products-
services/flacs-software/) is useful for this purpose. CFD simulations are also used to
analyse explosion actions (i.e., blast pressure loads and drag forces). Structural
congestion is a key factor that affects blast pressure loads, and is measured in terms
of porosity (p), as follows:
Vs
p¼1 , (8.16)
Vt
where V t is the volume of the total space and V s is the volume of the structure.
Equation (8.9) indicates that the degree of structural congestion decreases with
increasing porosity. The porosity of the topside modules in ship-shaped offshore
installations used for oil or gas production is 0.7–0.9.
An explosion test of a large-scale pipe rack model within a topside module of a
ship-shaped offshore installation showed that overpressure loads increase with
structural congestion (Bae and Paik 2018). Figure 8.17 depicts the dimensions of
the explosion test module at the Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute test site
in Hadong, South Korea (www.icass.center). Figure 8.18 shows the location of the
pipe rack model and ignition point. Figure 8.19 compares the overpressure load-time
histories with and without pipes, showing that the peak value of the overpressure
8.7 Explosions 283
upper deck
(plated deck)
9m
mezzanine deck
(grating deck)
process deck
(plated deck)
20 m
15 m
Figure 8.17 Dimensions of the explosion test module at the Korea Ship and Offshore Research
Institute test site
Figure 8.18 Location of the pipe rack model and ignition point
loads in a congested structure increases sharply, in contrast to a non-

congested structure.
Shell elements are used to accurately model the non-uniform distributions of blast
pressure loads, whereas beam elements are used to approximately model the uniform
distributions of blast pressure loads (shown in Figure 8.20). Similar to a fire analysis,
interacting programs such as FLACS2DYNA (Paik et al. 2014) are useful for
with 48 pipes
Overpressure (bar)
no pipes
Time (s)
Figure 8.19 Effects of structural congestion on the overpressure load-time history
nodes
node
(a) (b)
Figure 8.20 Finite-element modelling of an irregular blast-pressure load distribution on a stiffener

web, using (a) shell elements with a non-uniform distribution and (b) beam elements with a
uniform distribution
automating the imported data of explosion actions (blast pressure loads and drag
forces) from the FLACS explosion CFD computations for use as input data for
explosion action effect (nonlinear structural response) analyses. For details of an
explosion action analysis, see chapter 9 of Paik (2020).
Nonlinear finite-element methods, such as LS-DYNA code (www.lstc.com/prod
ucts/ls-dyna) with FLACS2DYNA, are used for action effect (nonlinear structural
response) analyses. Shell element models are used to manage analyses of complex
geometries and non-uniform blast pressure distributions. In industry practice, actual
non-uniform blast pressure distributions are typically represented by average uniform
distributions. However, the latter may underestimate nonlinear structural responses
8.7 Explosions 285
(a) (b)
Figure 8.21 Deformed shapes of a topside module in an explosion under (a) an average uniform
blast pressure loading and (b) real-life, non-uniform blast pressure loading
average blast pressure load application

−200
Deflection (mm)
−400
actual blast pressure load application
−600
−800
0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0
Time (s)
Figure 8.22 Comparison of the deflection-time history for a topside module with an average
uniform blast pressure loading vs. a non-uniform blast pressure loading
(shown in Figures 8.21 and 8.22), which depict the response of a blast wall-equipped
topside module in a ship-shaped offshore installation during an explosion (Paik et al.
2014). For details of finite element modelling for an explosion action effect analysis,
see chapter 13 of Paik (2020).
In industry practice, the profile of an actual blast pressure loading (shown in
Figure 8.19) is often idealised as shown in Figure 8.23. The blast pressure loading
increases until it reaches a peak value, which occurs within a few milliseconds. After
reaching this peak value, the blast pressure loading decays according to a triangular
shape until it becomes zero during the duration of the blast impulse. A rebound over-
pressure with negative blast pressure loading subsequently occurs within the duration of
the rebound impulse. This loading profile is repeated until the explosion ends.
Overpressure
peak
overpressure
rebound
rise time
rise time Time
rebound peak
overpressure
blast impulse rebound impulse

duration duration
Figure 8.23 Idealised profile of blast pressure loading
References
Bae, M. H. and Paik, J. K. (2018). ‘Effects of structural congestion and surrounding obstacles
on the overpressure loads in explosions: experiment and CFD simulations’. Ships and
Offshore Structures, 13(2): 165–180.
HSE (2001). Stability. Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2001/049, Health and Safety
Executive, London.
INA (2002). Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems. Report of Working Group 33 of the
Maritime Navigation Commission, International Navigation Association, Brussels.
Ince, S. T., Kumar, A. and Paik, J. K. (2017a). ‘A new constitutive equation on ice materials’.
Ince, S. T., Kumar, A., Park, D. K. and Paik, J. K. (2017b). ‘An advanced technology for
structural crashworthiness analysis of a ship colliding with an ice-ridge: Numerical modelling
and experiments’. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 110: 112–122.
Johnson, G. R. and Cook, W. H. (1983). A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to
large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. Proceedings of 7th International
Symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, 541–547, 19–21 April.
Jones, S. J. (2007). ‘A review of the strength of iceberg and other freshwater ice and the effect of
temperature’. Cold Regions Science and Technology, 47(3): 256–262.
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M. P., Ince, S. T. and Paik, J. K. (2020). ‘Computational models for the
structural crashworthiness analysis of a fixed-type offshore platform in collisions with an
offshore supply vessel’. Thin-Walled Structures, 154, doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.106868.
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M. P. and Paik, J. K. (2019). ‘A probabilistic approach to determine design
loads for collision between an offshore supply vessel and offshore installations’. Ocean
Engineering, 173: 358–374.
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M. P. and Paik, J. K. (2021). ‘Quantitative collision risk assessment of a fixed-
type offshore platform with an offshore supply vessel’. Structures, 29: 2139–2161.
References 287
Ozguc, O. (2017). ‘Structural damage of ship–FPSO collisions’. Journal of Marine Engineering

& Technology, 18(1): 1–35.
Paik, J. K., Kim, S. J., Lee, J. C., Seo, J. K., Kim, B. J. and Ha, Y. C. (2014). ‘A new procedure
for the nonlinear structural response analysis of offshore installations in explosions’.
Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Houston, TX, 22–24 October.
nonlinear structural response analysis of offshore installations in fires’. Proceedings of
Annual Meeting of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Bellevue, WA,
6–8 November.
Ritchie, G. (2008). Offshore Support Vessels: A Practical Guide. The Nautical Institute,
London.
Schulson, E. M. (2001). ‘Brittle failure of ice’. Engineering Fracture Mechanics, 68:
1839–1887.
Skallerud, B. and Amdahl, J. (2002). Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures. Research
Studies Press, Baldock, Hertfordshire.
Timco, G. W. and O’Brien, S. (1994). ‘Flexural strength equation for sea ice’. Cold Regions
Science Technology, 22: 285–298.
Wierzbicki, T. and Abramowicz, W. (1983). ‘On the crushing mechanics of thin-walled
structures’. Journal of Applied Mechanics, 50: 727–734.
9 Mooring System Engineering
9.1 Principles of Mooring System Engineering
A mooring system, thrusters, a dynamic positioning system or a combination of

these elements is critical for the station-keeping of a floating structure in various
environmental conditions involving wind, waves and current. Thus, position
keeping and motion control are both required to enable the functional and
operational requirements of ship-shaped offshore installations to be met. The
analysis of the fluid dynamic behaviours of offshore installation structures above
sea level, which are subjected to wind, involves a different set of complications
from the analogous analysis of submerged parts, which are subjected to waves
and current.
Generally, moorings are the primary means of maintaining ship-shaped offshore
installations on station in all design conditions, including during the maximum
design storm conditions. In particular, for operational purposes, moorings must
restrain an offshore installation within certain excursion limits. These limits are
specified as a percentage of the water depth, such as 5–8 per cent in the case of an
intact spread mooring and a few additional percentage points in the case of a lost
mooring line. The integrity and performance of moorings are also crucial to the
smooth functioning of other systems, such as the risers connected to subsea
equipment.
Safety design and engineering require the calculation of mooring loads under all
pertinent operational and extreme design environmental conditions by model testing
and by theoretical and numerical simulations, as appropriate. Mooring loads that are
transferred to an offshore installation hull via mooring lines are considered during hull
structural design. In this design process, it is crucial to evaluate the extreme stresses on
and the load-carrying capacities of the mooring lines. The sudden failure of any single
mooring line must be prevented, as this may generate excessive loading in the
remaining lines and increased loads on the anchors. Procedures for fatigue design
are different depending on types of mooring system and the interacting effects
between the hull and the mooring system (DNV 2015).
Thrusters are generally supplementary to a mooring system and assist in the
reduction of mooring loads and the enhancement of heading control. A mooring
analysis therefore accounts for the beneficial effects of thruster-related reductions in
mooring line tensile forces, and for the possible detrimental effects of a sudden
thruster failure, to ensure that excessive mooring line tensions or excursions do not
occur. A similar consideration is applied to account for thruster removal for
maintenance or repair. In addition, serviceability limit state considerations are met
by establishing operational restrictions, rather than by further strengthening the
mooring system capability.
A mooring analysis is performed using site-specific environmental data and by
considering the occurrence of a relevant return period storm. Furthermore, motion
exceedance owing to lateral excursion, heeling or trim is controlled in the process of
meeting the requirements of motion limits for the operability of production systems,
risers and gangways between fixed platforms.
An appropriate scheme for the periodic inspection of mooring system components
and mooring lines while an offshore installation is in service is established, in addition
to procedures for deployment or redeployment. A specific strategy is required to
maintain the integrity of or replace a mooring system, particularly when the life of
the mooring system components is less than the overall expected life of an offshore
installation. Therefore, inspection plans must be established to check for damage,
wear, corrosion or fracture in the components of a mooring system, and for
component replacement.
9.2 Types of Mooring Systems
Mooring is required for the station-keeping of ship-shaped offshore installations. The

mooring systems that are used are classified into three groups: spread mooring
systems, single-point mooring systems and turret mooring systems. Additional com-
ponents, such as thrusters, are used to assist in the reduction of slow-drift movements
of offshore installations, particularly in the latter two groups of mooring systems. It is
also possible to use dynamic positioning systems as the sole means of station-keeping,
although this is not a common practice.
9.2.1 Spread Mooring Systems

Spread mooring systems comprise a combination of chains, wires and/or ropes fixed
in groups at strategic points on the floating hull of a ship-shaped offshore installation
to maintain its station, which is usually on a fixed position and heading (shown in
Figure 9.1(a)). In contrast to most turret mooring systems, spread mooring systems are
independent of the risers used for oil and gas production in offshore installations, and
instead use risers that are brought on board at convenient points on the hull and tied
into the process train or to a header. These systems are suitable and cost-effective for
offshore installations that are not exposed to intense wave-direction effects. However,
in a purely technical sense, it is usually best to allow an offshore installation to
weathervane around its mooring, such that roll motions and mooring forces
are minimised.
(a) (b)
Figure 9.1 (a) A spread mooring system (courtesy of Samsung Heavy Industries) and (b) a fixed-
tower mooring system (courtesy of SBM Offshore)
9.2.2 Single-Point Mooring Systems

Single-point mooring systems are attached at the bow of an offshore installation and
thus allow weathervaning. Various types of single-point mooring systems are
available, such as
fixed-tower systems;
the catenary anchor-leg mooring (CALM) buoy system;
the single anchor-leg mooring (SALM) buoy system;
the articulated loading platform (ALP) system and
the single-point and reservoir (SPAR) system.
Fixed-tower mooring systems are a relatively simple means of mooring a ship-shaped
offshore installation and also enable weathervaning (shown in Figure 9.1(b)). Hoses are
used to connect the tower with an offshore installation. Potentially, the offshore instal-
lation may collide with the tower, and therefore a fixed tower is not the preferred choice
in deep waters. An alternative is the CALM system, which uses a catenary mooring
buoy instead of a fixed tower, and floating flexible hoses for oil transfer (shown in
Figure 9.2). There is a lower risk of collision between an offshore installation and a
CALM mooring system than between the former and a fixed tower system, and thus
CALM mooring systems are utilised in deeper waters. However, there remains a
significant risk of damage to a CALM buoy owing to offshore installation impact,
which necessitates expensive maintenance and repair to the mooring and fluid swivels.
The SALM system uses a single vertically tensioned chain-mooring leg (shown in
Figure 9.3), instead of the multiple catenary anchor lines that are used in a CALM
system. The fluid swivels are placed on the seabed in shallow water but are attached
partway up the mooring leg in deep water. The placement of the swivels underwater
and below the keel level of a ship-shaped offshore installation is advantageous
because it minimises collision damage to the swivels, although there is a risk of minor
(but perhaps less expensive to repair) collision damage to the surface buoy. However,
the maintenance of underwater swivels is expensive and complex.
Figure 9.2 A catenary anchor-leg mooring system (courtesy of SBM Offshore)

Figure 9.3 A single anchor-leg mooring system (courtesy of SBM Offshore)
(a) (b)
Figure 9.4 (a) An articulated loading platform mooring system and (b) a single-point and
reservoir mooring system (courtesy of SBM Offshore)
The ALP system (shown in Figure 9.4(a)) is a combination of the fixed-tower

system and the SALM system but also includes a helideck. The swivels in the ALP
system are located above the water and are thus exposed to the risk of collision
damage. The bending moments of the ALP system are large in deep water, owing to
the dynamic equilibrium needs of the system, and the required maintenance is
not straightforward.
Finally, the SPAR system consists of a very large CALM buoy and is typically
used to support process equipment rather than for storage or to provide marker buoys.
Occasionally, this system may comprise a cylindrical storage tank (shown in
Figure 9.4(b)). The tank can store considerable quantities of oil, which is useful if the
ship-shaped offshore installation itself lacks sufficient storage capacity.
9.2.3 Turret Mooring Systems

A turret is a device directly built into a moored ship-shaped offshore installation. It is
attached to the seabed (typically by catenary anchor lines) and incorporates a bearing
arrangement to enable weathervaning. The moored section of the turret is fixed
relative to the sea bottom, and flexible risers are suspended from this section and
connected to pipeline end manifold arrangements or directly to wellheads, wherein a
swivel connects the flexible risers to the fixed piping mounted on the offshore instal-
lation. There are two main types of turrets: permanent and disconnectable. The former
are permanently incorporated within an offshore installation, while part of the latter
can be disconnected if certain design environmental conditions and associated limits
are (or are expected to be) exceeded. For example, they may be disconnected if a
severe hurricane is forecast to affect the area of operation.
There are three types of permanent turret systems: external bow/stern turret systems
(shown in Figure 9.5), internal turret systems (shown in Figure 9.6) and clamped riser
turret systems. External turret mooring systems are used in moderate to severe
environments and contain a maximum of 20 risers, which must be protected from
damage. Internal turret mooring systems are also used in moderate to severe environ-
ments; however, these comprise a turret inside an offshore installation, and can have a
maximum of 100 risers. The integration of a turret into the hull is an important
consideration in the hull structural design, which must ensure that the hull girder
strength is not reduced by the internal turret arrangement. The presence of an internal
turret also decreases the available topside deck area. A clamped riser turret system is a
type of external turret system that is used to protect flexible risers in splash zones. This
system consists of a turret structure mounted at the bow of an offshore installation, and
this structure comprises a cylinder supported by two bearing assemblies, one at deck
level and the other just above keel level. The chain table is mounted at the bottom of
the turret structure and remains submerged. This arrangement enables the protection of
flowlines and also decreases the possibility of interaction between the chains and the
hull of the offshore installation.
Disconnectable turret systems are used to enable disconnection in high sea states
and subsequent reconnection in calmer conditions (shown in Figure 9.5(b)), the anchor
legs and submarine hoses remain on a floating or submerged buoy to facilitate
reconnection. There are two types of disconnectable turret system: the riser turret
mooring (RTM) system and the buoy turret mooring (BTM) system. The RTM system
consists of a long slender tubular riser that is suspended from a rigid mooring arm
mounted at the bow of an offshore installation (shown in Figure 9.5(c)). The
mooring arm houses the main weathervaning apparatus in association with the long
mooring riser, which is suspended via an articulated joint. The catenary lines and the
fluid risers are attached to the structural riser. To disconnect the offshore installation
(during the disconnection of fluid lines, or field shutdown), a mechanical connector
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 9.5 (a) An external turret mooring system (courtesy of Samsung Heavy Industries); (b) an
external disconnectable turret system (courtesy of Samsung Heavy Industries) and (c) a riser
turret mooring system (courtesy of SBM Offshore)
just below the articulated joint is released to drop the riser, which has sufficient
buoyancy to stay afloat with the mooring chains and fluid risers attached. The risers
thus remain free floating at the sea surface when disconnected and must be resistant
to harsh environmental conditions. For reconnection, a cable is pulled up by a winch
arrangement that is mounted at the bow of the offshore installation. The BTM
system uses a relatively small buoy, which remains on site after disconnection.
Thus, the BTM system is more efficient for disconnection and reconnection than
the RTM system, which uses a very (~75–100 m) long cylinder with a fairly large
displacement (typically 2000 tonnes).
9.3 Selection of the Mooring System 295
Figure 9.6 An internal turret mooring system (courtesy of SBM Offshore)
9.3 Selection of the Mooring System
Spread mooring systems or turret mooring systems are most commonly used for the
station keeping of ship-shaped offshore installations. Spread mooring systems utilise
several lines or ropes to moor an offshore installation and are typically used in
moderately environmentally benign areas, such as West Africa and Indonesia. There
is little practical limit on the number of risers in such cases. Spread mooring systems
are often used with a CALM buoy during shuttle tanker export operations.
In contrast, turret mooring systems are used for offshore installations that are sited
in harsh environments, as these systems allow weathervaning.
The appropriate mooring system may vary from one project to another, as mooring
system engineering depends on a range of features and cost-benefit trade-offs associ-
ated with the environmental conditions, water depth, unloading frequency, export
tanker size, risks of collision, weather thresholds for disconnection and reconnection,
installation complexity, operation and maintenance, safety and reliability from the
standpoints of operation and survival, design and fabrication schedules, capital costs,
operating costs, downtime and emergency repairs.
Mooring system engineering has become increasingly specialised and complex, as
ship-shaped offshore installations are being used in increasingly deeper waters and in
environmental areas that are exposed to tropical cyclones (Villa-Caro et al. 2018; Ma
et al. 2019). Numerous critical aspects of mooring system engineering remain to be
resolved, such as
the line dynamics owing to six-degrees-of-freedom wave frequency offshore

installation motions in surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw;
the nature of low-frequency motions of offshore installations in surge, sway
and yaw;
the effects of non-collinear waves, wind and current on the responses of an offshore
installation and its mooring system, which will require motion and structural
response analysis of coupled deep-water systems under dynamic actions and
the potential increase in flow-induced vibration phenomena because of stronger
current loading and viscous forces resulting from the prolonged exposure of risers
and mooring systems.
Mooring lines are continuously exposed to corrosive attack, impact, abrasion,
fatigue, bending and tension, and therefore mooring systems degrade over time.
Mooring failure is thus a critical concern, as it may lead to the damage or rupture of
risers and the eventual shutdown of an offshore installation. The engineering premise
of the majority of ship-shaped offshore installations is the required ability to withstand
a single mooring-line failure without sustaining riser damage. However, if a single
mooring-line failure is undetected over time and/or if severe degradation exists,
multiple line failure may occur, especially in harsh weather conditions. The structural
differences of ship-shaped offshore installations from other floating offshore plat-
forms, such as submersibles, spars and tension leg platforms, with respect to motions
caused by heave, roll and pitch complicate the design and engineering of their
mooring and riser configurations.
Table 9.1 summarises the mooring systems that are used in ship-shaped offshore
installations for oil and gas production (floating production, storage and offloading
units) as of 2020 (Boggs et al. 2020; www.offshore-mag.com), depending on their
location of operation, as shown in Figure 1.8. Turret mooring systems are most
commonly used, followed by spread mooring systems. West African areas are known
to be benign environments, and spread mooring systems are most often used in these
regions, although turret systems are also used. In contrast, West Australian areas are
harsh environments, and thus turret systems are most frequently used in this region;
however, spread mooring systems are also used. Dynamic positioning systems are
only used in the Gulf of Mexico.
Table 9.1. Mooring systems used in ship-shaped offshore installations for oil and gas production in
various locations, as of 2020
Type of mooring system
Location Spread Single point Turret DP Total
North Sea 4 0 17 0 21
Gulf of Mexico 0 0 3 1 4
West coast of Africa 25 2 15 0 42
East coast of south America 30 2 16 0 48
Southeast coast of Asia 9 2 10 0 21
China Sea 0 4 8 0 12
West coast of Australia 1 0 5 0 6
Total 69 10 74 1 154
DP ¼ dynamic positioning.
9.4 Safety Engineering 297
9.4 Safety Engineering of Disconnectable Mooring Systems
As described previously, ship-shaped offshore installations with single-point or turret

mooring systems can be disconnected if extreme environmental loads are imminent,
then sailed to sheltered areas and returned to restart operation when the weather calms.
These disconnectable mooring systems have several advantages: reduced design
loads, reduced risks of asset damage, autonomous production of lost infrastructure
and eliminated need for helicopter evacuations (Daniel et al. 2013). However, com-
plex mechanisms are required for disconnection and reconnection (Shimamura 2002).
In summary, ship-shaped offshore installations equipped with disconnectable mooring
systems are disconnected when the threshold environmental disconnection criteria are
about to be reached (API 2001; Li et al. 2014). These installations then passage under
their own propulsion to areas away from severe storms (ABS 2014; LR 2016), return
when the weather settles and are reconnected.
In the following section, the procedure described by Cabrera-Miranda et al. (2018)
for the life-cycle cost-based safety engineering of a disconnectable mooring system
is presented.
9.4.1 Life-Cycle Cost Model

The life-cycle cost is a sum of the initial costs (engineering, purchase, fabrication and
installation costs) and future costs (failure, operation, maintenance and
decommissioning costs), as follows:
E½C T ¼ E½C I þ E ½C F , (9.1)
where E½ denotes the expected value, C T is the total cost, C I is the initial cost and C F
is the future cost. E ½CI CI is a reasonable approximation. By neglecting the failure-
independent operational expenditure, Equation (9.1) is rewritten as follows:
X
E ½C T ¼ C I þ ci Pfi , (9.2)
where ci is the expected future cost for the ith limit state as a function of the
corresponding annual probability of failure Pfi .
A holistic model proposed by De Leon and Ang (2008) is used and extended by
including reputational losses, which have been shown to be relevant to firms (Eckert
and Gatzert 2017). Each future cost (failure cost or risk expenditure) is thus estimated
as follows:

ci Pfi ¼ E½C Ri þ E½C Mi þ E½C Wi þ E½C Li þ E ½CEDi þ E ½C DPi þ E½C RDi , (9.3)
where the cost components comprise the replacement cost CRi , mobilisation cost CMi ,
wound cost C Wi , life loss cost CLi , environmental damage cost C EDi , deferred produc-
tion cost C DPi and reputational damage cost C RDi . To estimate the failure cost, six
types of limit states are considered in the model (indicated in Table 9.2) (HSE 2001).
Table 9.2. Six types of limit states used to calculate failure cost
Type of limit state Definition Assumption
(I) ULS hull at mid-ship Vertical bending moment The entire offshore installation is replaced,
section equals or exceeds the hull except for the subsea system
ultimate strength
(II) ULS mooring system Tension equals or exceeds the One mooring line is replaced
(single line failure) breaking load of one mooring
line
(III) ULS mooring system Tension equals or exceeds the The offshore installation drifts off position,
(two or more line breaking load of two or more causing breakage of subsea umbilicals and
failures) mooring lines risers
(IV) ULS green water in Abnormal wave access to Damage to accommodation area
accommodation area deck in accommodation area
(V) ULS green water not in Abnormal wave access to Damage to tanks and processing equipment
accommodation area deck in process or utility areas
(VI) Disconnection The installation is The installation is disconnected, mobilised
disconnected to avoid to port under self-propulsion, re-mobilised
expected extreme loads to site and reinstalled
ULS ¼ ultimate limit states.
The future cost at time t is estimated from the annual inflation rate (Stahl 1986), as
follows:
C Gi jt¼t ¼ C Gi exp ðrt Þ, (9.4)
where CGi is the future cost, C Gi is the equivalent cost of failure evaluated at t ¼ 0 and
r is the annual inflation rate. The future cost at t ¼ 0 is estimated using Equation (9.4),
as follows:
CGi jt¼0 ¼ CGi exp ðrt Þ exp ðjt Þ, (9.5)
where j is the annual discount rate.

The expected future cost for a period of the project life is estimated using the
following equation:
ðT
E ½CGi ¼ CGi Pfi exp ðkt Þ dt, (9.6)
0
where k ¼ j r is the net annual discount rate and T is the project life.
Solving the integral in Equation (9.6) gives the cost components in Equation (9.3)
as follows:
E ½C Ri ¼ CRi Pfi PVF, (9.7)
E ½C Mi ¼ CMi Pfi PVF, (9.8)
9.4 Safety Engineering 299
E ½C Wi ¼ CWi Pfi PVF, (9.9)
E ½CLi ¼ CLi Pfi PVF, (9.10)
E ½CEDi ¼ CEDi Pfi PVF, (9.11)
E ½CRDi ¼ CRDi Pfi PVF, (9.12)
where
PVF ¼ ½1 exp ðkT Þ=k (9.13)
is the present-value function.

If a ship-shaped offshore installation fails at t, the deferred production cost under
the assumption of replacement after failure is estimated as follows:
ðT ð TþΔT i
C DPi ðt Þ ¼ Rðτ Þ exp ½k ðτ t Þ dτ Rðτ Þ exp ½k ðτ t Þ dτ, (9.14)
t tþΔT i
where Rðt Þ is the revenue stream from the product exploitation at t and ΔT i is the
period of deferred production. The substitution of Equation (9.14) into Equation (9.6)
gives the expected value of the deferred production cost, as follows:
ðT
E½C DPi ¼ Pfi CDPi ðt Þ exp ðkt Þ dt: (9.15)
0
9.4.2 Probability of Failure

A ship-shaped offshore installation suffers functional failure in the following space
associated with environmental conditions:
HS < HL \ U < UL, (9.16)
where H S is the significant wave height, H L is the significant wave-height limit for
disconnection, U is the wind speed and U L is the wind-speed limit for disconnection.
The probability of failure in this space of failure is then calculated as follows:
n o
Pfi ¼ P Si R i \ H S < H L \ U < U L , (9.17)
where Pfg denotes the probability, Si is the solicitation (load or demand) and R i is the
resistance (strength or capacity) for the ith limit state.
For the limit state type (I), two failure modes are relevant: hogging and sagging
bending-moment failures. Thus, Equation (9.17) is rewritten as the following expression:
n
Pf 1 ¼ P R 1, hog S1, sw S1, wvhog 0 [ R 1, sag S1, sw S1, wvsag 0
o
\ HS < HL \ U < UL ,
(9.18)
where R 1, hog is the hull ultimate strength under hogging conditions, S1, sw is the still-
water bending moment, S1, wvhog is the hogging vertical wave-induced bending
moment, R 1, sag is the hull ultimate strength under sagging conditions and S1, wvsag
is the sagging vertical wave-induced bending moment.
Each line of the mooring system is a serial system composed of various sections.
The probability that one line is broken is approximately estimated as follows:
n o
Pf 2 ¼ P N ¼ 1 \ H S < H L \ U < U L , (9.19)
and the probability that two or more lines are broken is given by
n o
Pf 3 ¼ P N 2 \ H S < H L \ U < U L , (9.20)
where N is the number of broken lines.

The probability of the occurrence of green water in the accommodation area is
calculated as follows:
n o
P f 4 ¼ P S4 0 \ H S < H L \ U < U L , (9.21)
and the probability of the occurrence of green water in other areas is calculated as
follows:
n o
Pf 5 ¼ P S5 0 \ H S < H L \ U < U L (9.22)
where S4 and S5 are the vertical relative motion of the deck with respect to the wave
surface in the accommodation area and in other areas, respectively.
The failure space for limit state type (VI) is the complement of the connected event
space of the installation, and is given as follows:
n o
Pf 6 ¼ P H S H L [ U U L : (9.23)
The probability of failure is calculated in association with the long-term distribution of

environmental conditions to represent the envisaged life of a ship-shaped offshore
installation. Typically, an exponential form of the probability density distribution
is used.
9.4.3 Life-Cycle Cost-Based Optimisation

The optimum expected life-cycle cost is estimated as follows:
nX o
C Topt ¼ C I þ min C i Pfi ðH L , U L Þ , 8ðH L , U L Þ 2 ½0; ∞Þ ½0; ∞Þ, (9.24)
where CTopt is the optimum expected life-cycle cost, which is associated with an
optimum H L and an optimum U L . C Topt is determined as the minimum value of the
expected cost, as follows:
References 301

C Toptmoor ¼ min CTopt ðγÞ , 8γ 2 ½0; ∞Þ, (9.25)
where CToptmoor is the optimum expected life-cycle cost for an optimised mooring
system and γ is a function that characterises the mooring system resistance,
R moor .C I ¼ CI ðγÞ, CR2 ¼ C R2 ðγÞ, CM2 ¼ C M2 ðγÞ, C R3 ¼ CR3 ðγÞ, C M3 ¼ C M3 ðγÞ,
Pf 2 ¼ Pf 2 ðγÞ and Pf 3 ¼ Pf 3 ðγÞ are used. γðR moor Þ is the minimum breaking load of
the mooring line.
Limit state types (II) and (III)
are mutually exclusive, and thus the probability of
failure of the mooring system Pfmoor is calculated as follows:
Pfmoor ¼ Pf 2 þ Pf 3 , (9.26)
and the mooring system reliability index βmoor is defined as follows:

βmoor ¼ Φ1 Pfmoor , (9.27)
where Φ1 ðÞ is the inverse standard normal cumulative-distribution function. The

target βmoor is associated with C Toptmoor in Equation (9.25), as it minimises the life-
cycle cost of the disconnectable mooring system. For details of this procedure with
applied examples, refer to Cabrera-Miranda et al. (2018).
References
ABS (2014). Rules for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations. American
API (2001). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Floating
Production Systems. API Recommended Practice 2FPS, American Petroleum Institute.
Washington, DC.
Boggs, D., Barton, C., Albaugh, E. K. and Davis, D. (2020). ‘2020 worldwide survey of floating
production, storage and offloading (FPSO) units’. Offshore Magazine/Endeavor Business
Media, Houston, TX, August/September.
Cabrera-Miranda, J. M., Sakugawa, P. M., Corona-Tapia, R. and Paik, J. K. (2018). ‘On design
criteria for a disconnectable FPSO mooring system associated with expected life-cycle cost’.
Daniel, J., Mastrangelo, C. F. and Ganguly, P. (2013). ‘First floating production storage and
offloading vessel in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico’. Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 24112,
De Leon, D. and Ang, A. H. S. (2008). ‘Confidence bounds on structural reliability estimations
for offshore platforms’. Journal of Marine Science and Technology, 13: 308–315.
DNV (2015). Fatigue methodology of offshore ships: Recommended Practice, DNV-RP-C206,
Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Eckert, C. and Gatzert, N. (2017). ‘Modeling operational risk incorporating reputation risk: An
integrated analysis for financial firms’. Insurance: Mathematics and Economics, 72(C):
122–137.
HSE (2001). Rationalisation of FPSO design issues: Relative Reliability Levels Achieved
between Different FPSO Limit States. Health and Safety Executive, London.
Li, D., Yi, C., Xu, Z. and Bai, X. (2014). ‘Scenario research and design of FPSO in South
China’. Proceedings of the Twnenty-fourth International Ocean and Polar Engineering
Conference, Busan, 15–20 June.
LR (2016). Rules and Regulations for the Classification of Offshore Units. Lloyd’s Register,
Southampton.
Ma, K. T., Luo, Y., Kwan, T. and Wu, Y. (2019). Mooring System Engineering for Offshore
Structures. Gulf Professional Publishing, Cambridge, MA.
Shimamura, Y. (2002). ‘FPSO/FSO: State of the art’. Journal of Marine Science and
Technology, 7: 59–70.
Stahl, B. (1986). ‘Reliability engineering and risk analysis’. Planning and Design of Fixed
Offshore Platforms, edited by B. McClelland and M. D. Reifel. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New
York.
Villa-Caro, R., Carral, J. C., Fraguela, J. A., Lilla, M. and Carral, L. (2018). ‘A review of ship
mooring systems’. Brodogradnja/Shipbuilding/Open Access, 69(1): 123–149.
10 Sloshing Impact Engineering
10.1 Principles of Sloshing Impact Engineering
The liquid storage tanks of a ship-shaped offshore installation are periodically loaded
and unloaded, and the tanks are in motion. Consequently, sloshing occurs in the tanks
owing to resonance between the natural sloshing period of a partially filled liquid tank
and the roll or pitch period of the offshore installation itself. Notably, a larger and
wider tank has a longer natural period, which increases the risk of sloshing impacts
that may result in structural damage. Increased non-impact pressures may also be
created by sloshing. Thus, engineering approaches are required to mitigate the effects
of sloshing.
Sloshing impact engineering is classified into three steps (shown in Figure 10.1). In
step 1, the sloshing load profile of a tank is characterised in terms of the rise time until
the peak pressure is reached, the peak pressure, the type of impact-pressure decay that
occurs after the peak pressure is reached and the persistence (duration) time. In step 2,
the sloshing impact response of a tank, such as structural damage, is analysed. In step
3, safety design and engineering is performed to develop the optimum scantlings for
tank structures or sloshing mitigation options.
The safety criteria for sloshing impact engineering are expressible in a general
form, as follows:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ < 0, (10.1)
where g is the limit state function for sloshing impact engineering, which is a
function of the parameters x1 , x2 , , xn that affect sloshing impact responses.
A particular form of Equation (10.1) is expressed in association with serviceability,
ultimate or fatigue limit states in terms of the sloshing actions or action effects of
local members (Paik et al. 2004; Paik and Shin 2006; Hughes and Paik 2010; Paik
2018), as follows.
Step 1: Characterisation of Step 2: Analysis of Step 3: Safety Design and

Sloshing Load Profile Sloshing Impact Responses Engineering
Figure 10.1 Procedure for sloshing impact engineering
Start
Significant Comparative
Design Change or Assessment by Model Test or
New Design ? No Sloshing Analysis ?
Yes
Ocean Environmental Hydrodynamic Analysis

Conditions
Ship-Shaped Offshore Sloshing Model Test
Installation Configuration
Loading Condition Data Processing
Design Sloshing Load
Figure 10.2 General procedure for determining design sloshing loads
Scenario Selection
Site-Specific • Scenario Sampling Method Loading Condition
Metocean Data
• Filling Rate (X8)
• Wind Speed (X1)
• Wind Direction (X2) Wind & Current Load Calculation
• Wave Height (X3)
• CFD Simulations Hydrodynamic
• Wave Period (X 4)
• Wave Direction (X5) Calculation
• Current Speed (X6)
• Current Direction (X7) Motion and Load Analysis Frequency Domain
• Added Mass
• CFD Simulations with six-DOF Time Series
• Damping Coefficient
• RAOs
CFD Simulation
Time Domain
Step 1: Screening Motion Selection • Pierson-Moskowitz Wave
• ISO Wind
• Pressure on Tank Wall • 10 Periods of six-DOF, Including Maximum Roll and Pitch
• Time Series of 6-DOF
• Sum of Velocity at FS
• Free Surface Motion
Sloshing Simulation
• CFD Simulations for a Full-Scale Tank Sloshing
Step 2: Detailed Simulation Motion Probability
• Time Step: 1.0 ms
• Detailed Simulation Six-DOF PDF
• Pressure-Time History
Sloshing Load Characteristics
• Goodness-of-Fit Test
• Peak Pressure, Rise and Duration Time, Impulse • Interval Study
Sloshing Probability
Design Sloshing Load
= Σ Motion Prob. × Filling Rate
• Probability Exceedance Curves of Peak Pressure and Impulse
Figure 10.3 A probabilistic procedure for determining design sloshing loads

(where CFD ¼ computational fluid dynamics)
Normal
Normal
wave direction
wave period filling rate

Weibull
wave height current direction

Weibull Normal
Weibull
wind direction current speed
wind speed
Figure 10.4 Probabilistic selection of sloshing scenarios comprising the probability density functions of eight random parameters that
affect sloshing
Table 10.1. A set of 30 sloshing scenarios selected as an example
Wind Wind Wave Wave Wave Current Current Filling

speed direction height period direction speed (m/ direction ratio
Scenario (m/s) ( ) (m) (s) ( ) s) ( ) (%)
1 19.22 276.6 3.72 10.31 310.3 0.130 222.0 48.67

2 14.65 293.2 3.49 10.14 139.6 0.092 174.0 24.67
3 16.03 180.7 0.98 9.16 172.5 0.141 138.0 22.00
4 13.02 347.2 1.95 11.04 203.1 0.096 150.0 72.68
5 9.89 219.0 1.46 8.27 108.7 0.153 270.1 16.67
6 16.55 206.9 3.95 8.84 133.1 0.107 102.0 78.01
7 15.54 213.0 2.63 7.69 167.4 0.134 114.0 86.02
8 10.71 165.4 1.10 9.05 151.5 0.165 18.0 80.68
9 17.11 225.0 7.37 9.27 97.3 0.087 162.0 54.01
10 13.41 243.0 4.89 8.39 162.3 0.124 78.0 75.35
11 10.31 236.9 0.72 7.86 262.8 0.109 306.1 35.34
12 13.81 249.3 4.21 9.73 118.0 0.116 210.0 32.67
13 7.92 230.9 5.36 9.38 208.6 0.138 42.0 62.01
14 21.46 255.7 1.22 7.50 214.3 0.111 126.0 11.33
15 20.19 135.6 1.70 8.51 251.4 0.136 354.0 64.68
16 15.08 314.2 1.34 8.14 187.5 0.118 6.0 88.67
17 17.73 63.2 1.58 11.54 278.6 0.128 198.0 67.35
18 12.25 146.9 2.79 6.46 81.6 0.144 342.1 38.01
19 11.49 102.3 4.52 10.50 197.8 0.148 54.0 30.00
20 8.49 262.3 0.85 9.86 49.9 0.119 186.0 27.34
21 23.44 284.5 2.35 6.97 226.9 0.076 234.0 59.34
22 12.64 187.6 0.57 9.99 182.5 0.123 318.1 70.01
23 6.21 302.9 1.83 8.95 234.1 0.132 330.1 14.00
24 9.45 173.3 3.12 8.62 145.7 0.099 30.0 19.34
25 8.99 156.7 6.04 9.49 242.1 0.121 282.1 43.34
26 11.10 194.2 2.95 10.73 220.4 0.114 66.0 56.68
27 18.42 269.2 2.21 8.73 126.0 0.112 246.1 83.35
28 11.87 328.2 2.08 7.27 177.5 0.104 258.1 51.34
29 7.23 121.6 3.30 8.01 192.6 0.126 294.1 40.67
30 14.22 200.6 2.49 9.61 156.9 0.102 90.0 46.01
wp Pd Id
1, 1, 1, (10.2)
wpa Pu Iu
where wp is the factored permanent-set deformation (deflection) and wpa is the
allowable (factored) target value of permanent-set deformation (deflection), which is
taken as a few times the plate thickness. Pd and I d are the design (factored) peak
pressure load and impulse, respectively, and Pu and I u are the factored ultimate impact
pressure load and impulse capacity, respectively. The permanent deflection of plating
can be estimated (described in Section 5.6), after defining the sloshing impact pressure
load ðpd Þ and the duration time ðτ Þ, where the sloshing impact pressure load profile is
idealised as shown in Figure 3.11. Ultimate limit states engineering is used to resolve
sloshing impact scenarios that lead to an enormous reduction in ultimate strength.
α = 0o β = 0o
wind Ccurrent
x x
α β
α = 270o α = 90o β = 270o β = 90o
y CG y CG
α = 180o β = 180o
Figure 10.5 The coordinate system of the computational models used to predict wind- and
current-induced forces
0.00 0.00
0.0 deg
α V= 0° VW
β =0.00°deg
y
W= 10.0 m/s wind VC= 0.1 m/s
Vw = 10 m/s Wind
Vc = 0.1 m/s CG x VC
β
–0.05 –0.25
x
No. No. Mesh (103)
Force (MN)
α
Force (N)
W1 304 Current
W2 500 y
curren
CG
–0.10 W3 1,337 –0.50
W4 1,795
W5 2,483 No. No. Mesh (103)
C1 34
– 0.15 –0.75 C2 63
C3 388
C4 867
C5 2,759
– 0.20 –1.00
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 0.00 1.0 2.0 3.0
Number of Meshes ¥ 106 Number of Meshes ¥ 106
Figure 10.6 Sample results of the mesh convergence studies of wind- and current-induced
force simulations
Analogously, fatigue limit states engineering is used to ensure that structural safety is
retained despite cracking damage owing to sloshing impact-generated low-cycle
fatigue. This scenario may occur in the structures of tanks containing liquefied gases
under cryogenic conditions.
10.2 Procedure for Sloshing Load Analysis
The design sloshing loads of partially filled liquid tanks in a ship-shaped offshore
installation are determined (shown in Figure 10.2). If the comparative design approach
(shown in Figure 1.9) is not used, the direct approach is used, as shown. An alternative
0.00 0.00
Drag Coefficient ¥ 10–2

–0.02
–0.10
Drag Coefficient
–0.04
–0.20
y
y
–0.06
CG x VW VC
–0.30 α CG x
β=0.0
= 0o β
α = 0o –0.08
Vw = 10 m/s VVCc=0.1
= 0.1m/s
m/s
Wind
No. of Meshes = 1,340,000 wind No.
No.of
ofMeshes=
Meshes = 0.86 Million
860,000 curren
Current
–0.40 –0.10
0.0 4.0 8.0 12.0 16.0 0.00 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.20
Wind Speed (m/s) Current Speed (m/s)
Figure 10.7 Sample results for the effects of wind and current speeds on the drag coefficient
Figure 10.8 Mesh models for wind-force (left) and current-force (right) computational fluid
dynamics simulations
Pressure (Pa) Pressure (Pa)

–373.69 –285.79 –197.89 –109.99 –22.088 65.813 –11.056 –7.8889 –4.7222 –1.5554 1.6113 4.7780
Figure 10.9 Examples of the pressure distributions of wind (left) and current (right) forces
ðα ¼ β ¼ 30∘ Þ
3.0 120
surge
Surge roll
Roll
sway
Sway pitch
Pitch
2.0 80 yaw
Heave
heave Yaw
Moment (MNm)
Force (MN)
1.0 40
0.0 0
y
–1.0 –40 y
CG x VW
α
CG x VW
–2.0 –80 α
Wind wind wind

Wind
–3.0 –120
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Wind Direction, α (o) Wind Direction, α (o)
Figure 10.10 Sample results for the wind-force coefficients for forces (left) and moments (right)
12.0 y 8.0 y
surge
Surge roll
Roll
sway
Sway VC
pitch
Pitch
CG x VC
Heave β yaw
Yaw CG
β
x
heave
Moment (MNm)
6.0 4.0
Force (N)
Current current
current Current
0.0 0.0
–6.0 –4.0
–12.0 –8.0
0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360 0 45 90 135 180 225 270 315 360
Current Direction, β (o) Current Direction, β (o)
Figure 10.11 Sample results for the current-force coefficients for forces (left) and moments (right)
approach is given in Figure 10.3, which depicts a probabilistic procedure for deter-
mining the design sloshing loads of offshore installations (Paik et al. 2015). Eight
parameters that affect sloshing are considered: wind speed ðX 1 Þ, wind direction ðX 2 Þ,
significant wave height ðX 3 Þ, wave period ðX 4 Þ, wave direction ðX 5 Þ, current speed
ðX 6 Þ, current direction ðX 7 Þ and tank filling ratio ðX 8 Þ. Probability density functions
(PDFs) are formulated for all of the individual parameters. A probabilistic sampling
technique is used to select a set of sloshing scenarios. Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) simulations are performed to analyse offshore installation motions in terms of
six degrees of freedom: surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw. CFD simulations are
performed for each scenario to characterise the profiles of sloshing impact-pressure
loads in terms of the rise time, the peak pressure, the decay type and the duration
time. The relationship between the probability of exceedance and the sloshing
Figure 10.12 A motion analysis model for a ship-shaped offshore installation with an external
turret mooring system
impact-pressure loads is established to determine how often the sloshing risk is

exceeded, in terms of the sloshing peak pressure, impulse or rise time. Risk acceptance
criteria are applied to identify the nominal values of tank sloshing loads for safety
design and engineering.
10.3 Probabilistic Selection of Sloshing Scenarios
In contrast to the structural loads determined for a trading ship, those determined for a
ship-shaped offshore installation are specific to the ocean environmental conditions of
the site, in terms of the wave, wind and current conditions. The eight parameters
considered to affect the sloshing responses of ship-shaped offshore installations are
the wind speed, X 1 ;

the wind direction, X 2 ;
the wave height, X 3 ;
the wave period, X 4 ;
the wave direction, X 5 ;
the current speed, X 6 ;
the current direction, X 7 and
the tank filling ratio, X 8 .
The PDFs of these parameters are identified based on their values in the metocean
database for the offshore installation site and on expert knowledge. The site-specific
metocean databases for these parameters are presented as a histogram (shown in
Figure 10.4), where the best-fit distributions are also shown. If parameters are not
present in metocean databases, their PDFs are assigned based on the knowledge of
experts, and the PDFs of the current direction and the tank filling ratio may be
assumed to be uniform, for the purposes of simplicity.
Based on the PDFs of the eight parameters defined previously, a set of sloshing
scenarios are selected using sampling techniques. Table 10.1 shows 30 sloshing
surge sway heave

Number of wave frequencies= 50 Number of wave frequencies= 50 Number of wave frequencies= 50
0 degree 0 degree 0 degree
Number of wave directions= 23 Number of wave directions= 23 Number of wave directions= 23
Roll
roll pitch
Pitch ya
Yaw
Number of wave frequencies= 50 Number of wave frequencies= 50
Number of wave directions= 23 Number of wave directions= 23
Number of wave frequencies= 50

Number of wave directions= 23
Figure 10.13 Sample results of response amplitude operators for the six degrees of freedom in ship-shaped offshore installation motions
Table 10.2. Sample properties of catenary mooring lines for a single-point mooring system
Properties Section 1 Section 2 Section 3
Mass/unit length (kg/m) 50.7 248.5 143.4

Equivalent cross-section area (m2) 0.006 0.009 0.006
Stiffness (MN) 974.8 690.2 794.8
Maximum tension (MN) 9.58 9.58 6.52
Length (m) 130 1,270 45
scenarios selected as an illustrative example. For details of the best-fit PDF formula-
tions and probabilistic sampling techniques, see chapter 2 of Paik (2020).
10.4 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Wind and Current Forces
The effects of wind and current-induced forces are considered in the motion analysis
of a ship-shaped offshore installation. Figure 10.5 shows the coordinate system of the
computational models that are used. A mesh convergence study is undertaken to
determine the ‘best’ mesh size (shown in Figure 10.6). Each mesh convergence test
includes numerous mesh sizes, and in this example, the W3 mesh model and the C4
model are used for wind and current, respectively, in the CFD simulations. Figure 10.7
shows examples of the effects of site-specific wind or current speeds on the drag
forces; 10 and 0.1 m/s are used for the wind speed and the current speed, respectively,
in the CFD simulations.
Figure 10.8 shows sample mesh models for wind and current load CFD simulations
generated by the STAR-CCMþ computer program (www.plm.automation.siemens
.com/global/en/products/simcenter/STAR-CCM.html). The boundary conditions are
considered according to the velocity inlet, with a uniform distribution normal to the
inlet boundary, and the pressure outlet, with a non-slip condition at a solid boundary
with a standard wall function. Figure 10.9 depicts an example of the pressure
distributions of wind- and current-induced force predictions. Full-scale wind force
simulations are performed at 15 intervals of the wind direction. More than 1.5 million
volume cells may be used. Figure 10.10 shows the sample results for the force and
moment components of wind forces, where the current force simulations are per-
formed in a 1/100th-scale model at 15 intervals of the current direction. More than
0.9 million volume cells may be used. Figure 10.11 shows sample results for the force
and moment components of current-induced forces.
10.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Hull Motions

in Waves, Wind and Current
Ship-shaped offshore installation motions in each individual sloshing scenario are
analysed, and either the frequency or time-domain characteristics are identified. The
surge sway heave

Scenario-10 Scenario-10 Scenario-10
Heave (m)
Surge (m)
Sway (m)
Time (s) Time (s) Time (s)
Roll
roll pitch yaw
Scenario-10 Scenario-10 Scenario-10
Yaw (o)
Pitch (o)
Roll (o)
Figure 10.14 Sample results for the effects of wind and current forces on ship-shaped offshore installation motion
15.00 maximum
10.00
5.00
0.00
−5 −5.00
−10 −10.00
5 periods 5 periods
−15 −15.00
0 40 80 120 160
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 10.15 A schematic representation of a selection of ship-shaped offshore installation

motion components
analysis methods apply a three-dimensional panel method based on potential theory,

which enables time-domain computations to include extreme wave conditions that
account for the nonlinear hydrodynamic effects associated with variably wetted
surfaces and the fully coupled dynamic features of cables. This process enables the
inclusion of both mooring-line drag and inertial characteristics. The motions of
offshore installations in irregular waves with slow drift are also analysed by using,
for example, a 3 h period. As more site-specific sea states become available, the
spectra of waves, wind and current can be identified, although the wave and wind
spectra (described in Chapter 3) are often used for simplicity. The motion analysis
must also account for the effects of mooring lines, while more refined simulations also
account for the effects of tank sloshing coupled with offshore installation motions and
tank-loading sequence effects.
The water depth of the site of an offshore installation is also defined. The assigned
number of panels depends on the type of offshore installation. For example, 2,334
panels are used for 50 frequencies and 23 wave directions (15 of wave-heading
intervals) in an offshore installation with an external turret-mooring system (shown in
Figure 10.12). Figure 10.13 shows sample results for the response amplitude operators
of the six degrees of freedom in offshore installation motion. In the time-domain
response for motion, an irregular wave response with slow drift is used for the second-
order irregular wave effect.
Table 10.2 shows the sample properties of the mooring lines of an offshore instal-
lation moored via a single-point system with multiple (e.g., nine) catenary mooring
lines composed of multiple (e.g., three) sections. The coupled effects of cable dynam-
ics may be neglected to simplify the simulation. The effects of viscous damping on the
roll motion and its maximum angles are important, particularly in an analysis of the
side-by-side motions of multiple floating bodies (i.e., a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation and a shuttle ship). The effect of viscous damping is considered if viscous
damping coefficients are known. Figure 10.14 shows sample results for the effects of
50.00 320.00 11.00
10.00
40.00 280.00
Surge (m)
Sway (m)
9.00
Heave (m)
30.00 240.00
8.00
20.00 200.00
7.00
10.00 160.00
6.00
0.00 120.00 5.00

0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
15.00 0.60 −10.00
10.00 0.40 −20.00
5.00 0.20 −30.00

Pitch (o)
Yaw (o)
Roll (o)
0.00 0.00 −40.00
−5.00 −0.20 −50.00
−10.00 −0.40 −60.00
−15.00 −0.60 −70.00

0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Figure 10.16 Sample selection of motion components of a ship-shaped offshore installation

global mesh size: 3 m

number of cells: 1,200,000
Mesh size: 0.8

mesh size: 0.8mm mesh size: 0.4 m
Meshsize:
mesh size:0.20.2
mm
mesh size: 0.2 m
Mesh
meshsize:
size:0.4
0.4mm Mesh
meshsize:
size:0.1
0.1m
m
Figure 10.17 Mesh modelling of the areas of local refinement and cross sections for sloshing
simulations
wind- and current-induced forces on offshore installation motion, indicating that the
wind effect is significant while the current effect is negligible, as the effects of coupled
dynamics on the mooring-line drag and inertial forces are not included in the
motion analysis.
10.6 Decomposition of the Hull Motion Components of a Ship-Shaped

Offshore Installation
The motion components of a ship-shaped offshore installation in each of the individual
sloshing scenarios are identified from CFD simulations. Roll and pitch motions are the
primary components that affect sloshing and lead to violent resonant motion. This is
induced by a combination of sway motions coupled with pitch and roll or surge. In this
example, several periods (e.g., 10) of motion time-series are selected, comprising
several hours (e.g., 3 h) wherein either a maximum roll or a maximum pitch angle
occurs. Thus, Figure 10.15 shows an example of offshore installation motion compon-
ents taken from a 3 h short-term motion time-series for 10 periods of a specific scenario.
If the maximum roll angle is monitored for a specific period of time (e.g., 80 s), the time
at which zero-crossing motion generates the maximum roll angle can be determined.
Several periods (e.g., 10) can be selected in terms of the back-and-forth zero-crossing
time for several half-periods (e.g., 5). The remaining motions, such as surge, sway,
heave, pitch and yaw, are taken from the same time zone (shown in Figure 10.16).
10.7 Computational Fluid Dynamics Simulations for Tank Sloshing
CFD simulations of the sloshing actions of target tanks are conducted using the
motion components identified in Section 10.6. The k-ε turbulent model, the volume
10.7 Simulations for Tank Sloshing 317
10.00 D
Time step= 1.0ms
8.00 A
Inner iteration= 5 1.0m
Inner iteration= 10
Pressure (bar)
Inner iteration= 15
V
Inner iteration= 20 X
6.00 Inner iteration= 25 Z U
W
Y
4.00
Maximum Peak Pressure (bar)
Location
5 10 15 20 25
2.00 7.5438 7.5588 7.5387 7.5336 7.5438
Peak
(1.000) (1.002) (0.999) (0.999) (1.000)
0.00
124 126 128 130
Time (s)
10.00 D
No. of inner iterations= 5.0
8.00 A
dt= 0.1ms 1.0m
dt= 0.5ms
dt= 1.0ms V
dt= 5.0ms X
U
6.00 dt= 10.0ms Z
W
Y
4.00 Maximum Peak Pressure (bar) & Impulse (bar*s)

Location
0.1ms 0.5ms 1.0ms 5.0ms 10.0ms
8.4968 7.8016 7.4597 4.4623 3.6910
Peak
(1.000) (0.918) (0.878) (0.525) (0.434)
2.00 4.6286 4.6086 4.6006 4.4226 4.5307
Impul
(1.000) (0.996) (0.994) (0.956) (0.979)
0.00
124 126 128 130
Figure 10.18 Convergence studies associated with the number of iterations and the size
of a step for a specific scenario
of fluid method and the forced motion method are often used for sloshing simulations.
A second-order scheme may be used for temporal and spatial discretisation, and an
unstructured hexahedral cell mesh may be used for mesh generation. Figure 10.17
shows an example of mesh modelling, in which a local refinement is defined for six
volumetric regions and 1.2 million mesh cells are generated. As the height of the free
surface varies, the area of local refinement containing the free surface must also vary.
The depth is set at 5 m, which gives a relatively broad range compared with the mesh
size of 0.2 m. Convergence studies are performed to determine the minimum number
of iterations and the required size of the time-step and thus minimise the computa-
tional costs. Figure 10.18 shows sample results of the convergence studies associated
2.0 6.00
Average Velocity (m/s)

Sum of Velocity (m/s) 1.6
4.00
1.2
0.8
2.00
0.4
0.0 0.00
0 40 80 120 160 0 40 80 120 160
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 10.19 An example of the sum and average velocity at the free surface of the tank
with the number of iterations and the size of the time steps, in terms of the peak
pressure and impulse data obtained from the sloshing simulations. In this example, the
number of iterations is five and the size of the time step is 1.0 ms.
The sum and average values of the free surface velocity, the free surface motion
and the pressure on the tank wall are monitored to identify the characteristic locations
and times of peak pressures on the tank wall. Figure 10.19 presents the sample results
for a scenario in which the peak points of velocity are defined at the free surface.
Figure 10.20 shows an example of the distributions of sloshing pressure loads with
time in a specific scenario. Based on these computations, the times and locations of the
peak pressure loads are identified. If the first two points and the fifth point are selected
from the average free-surface velocity, the corresponding times are found to be
approximately 72, 80 and 124.4 s. For these selected times, the maximum peak
pressure loads are found to be 1.40, 1.74 and 3.55 bar, respectively.
The maximum sloshing pressure loads do not necessarily correspond to the motion
of the ship-shaped offshore installation in this example. The maximum roll angle
occurs at approximately 80 s, while the maximum pressure occurs at approximately
124.4 s. This is because the free surface of the contained fluid changes with time. The
momentum within the tank is dissipated by either wave breaking or wave impact on
the tank wall, whereas the roll and pitch angles of offshore installation motion affect
tank sloshing but do not necessarily affect the maximum sloshing pressure loads. The
expected times and locations of the maximum sloshing pressure loads are identified,
and detailed simulations are performed with a time step of 0.1 ms. Figure 10.21 shows
a sample profile of the sloshing pressure loads. Figure 10.22 defines the sloshing
impact locations from the sloshing simulations.
Sloshing load profiles are characterised for each of the sloshing scenarios in terms
of four parameters: the rise time ðt 0 Þ until the peak pressure is reached, the peak
pressure ðP0 Þ, the type of pressure decay beyond the peak pressure and the pressure
duration time ðt dur Þ (shown in Figure 10.23). The peak pressure value is typically two
to three times the collapse pressure loads of the plate elements under quasi-static
pressure loads (Hughes and Paik 2010). The rise time until the peak pressure loads are
time = 122.0 s
time = 121.0 s
time = 120.5 s
time = 120.4 s
Figure 10.20 An example of the free surface motion and the sloshing pressure on the tank wall
time = 120.3 s
time = 120.2 s
time = 120.1 s
time = 120.0 s
time = 119.5 s
C
10 .0 Scenario-12 Peak(bar)
B
U12 3.5077
U13 5.9764
U14 6.2638
8.0 U15 7.4597
U16 6.0383 A
D
6.0
A Scenario 12
0
20.5m
4.0
z U
13 15
2.0 x
y 12 14
16 270 90
0.0
180
124.0 124.4 124.8 125.2 125.6 126.0
Figure 10.21 A sample profile of the sloshing pressure loads in a specific scenario
(where wind speed ¼ 13.81 m/s; significant wave height ¼ 4.21 m; wave period ¼ 9.73;
current speed ¼ 0.116 m/s and filling rate ¼ 32.67%)
C S19
S25 S04
B
S24
S13
D
A
S14
S02 S12
Figure 10.22 Definition of sloshing impact locations
reached is usually very short (i.e., a few ms or less). The duration of the sloshing
pressure loads is typically 10–50 ms, depending on the tank size and offshore instal-
lation motion, among other factors. The structural damage owing to the sloshing
pressure loads is governed by impulse, in addition to the peak pressure (Paik et al.
2004; Paik and Shin 2006; Hughes and Paik 2010). Accordingly, the entire profile of
the sloshing pressure loads, which comprises data for all four parameters, should be
evaluated to define the design sloshing pressure loads.
Sample results of the sloshing impact load characteristics for the aforementioned
30 scenarios are summarised in Table 10.3. Note that the maximum peak pressure, the
10.9 Procedure for Sloshing Response Analysis 321
Sloshing Pressure
Po
tdec
to tdur
Time
Figure 10.23 The profile of sloshing pressure loads in terms of four characteristic parameters
maximum impulse and the minimum rise time occur in scenarios 2, 25 and 4, respect-
ively. Twenty-two of the thirty scenarios do not exhibit in-tank sloshing impacts,
meaning that only eight scenarios exhibit sloshing behaviour in this illustrative example.
Therefore, a greater number of scenarios are required to enable more accurate determin-
ation of sloshing loads. This chapter therefore describes the application of a procedure to
determine the structural design loads, based on the available data.
10.8 Determination of Design Sloshing Pressure Loads
The design values of sloshing pressure loads are determined from the probability of
the exceedance curves associated with various physical parameters, such as the rise
time, peak pressure and impulse. Thus, the frequency of sloshing for each scenario
must be defined. This frequency is a product of the motion frequency and the tank
filling ratio frequency, as follows:
Sloshing frequency ¼ Frequency of motion Frequency of tank Filling ratio,
(10.3)
where the frequency of motion for each sloshing scenario is determined from the CFD
simulations of the time–domain motions and the frequency of the tank filling ratio
defined for each scenario. The design values of sloshing pressure loads are determined
from the probability of the exceedance curves, according to the acceptance criteria that
are applied. Figure 10.24 shows the sample results of the sloshing probability excee-
dance curves in terms of peak pressure, impulse and rise time.
10.9 Procedure for Sloshing Response Analysis
Figure 10.25 shows a typical procedure for the sloshing response analysis. A nonlinear
finite element method is used to analyse the structural responses of tanks under
Table 10.3. Sample results of the sloshing load characteristics
Rise Time Peak Pressure Decay Time Rise Time Peak Pressure Decay Time
Scenario (ms) (bar) (ms) ImpulseðbarsÞ Scenario (s) (bar) (s) ImpulseðbarsÞ
1 – 1.4075 – – 16 – 2.5725 – –
2 18 15.3124 292 0.9456 17 – 1.9512 – –
3 – 0.6432 – – 18 – 1.0977 – –
4 10 1.3236 195 0.0583 19 27 5.3614 578 0.9255
5 – 0.4753 – – 20 – 0.7860 – –
6 – 2.2630 – – 21 – 1.7188 – –
7 – 2.4960 – – 22 – 2.0289 – –
8 – 0.4753 – – 23 – 0.3976 – –
9 – 1.5628 – – 24 22 0.5916 769 0.0935
10 – 2.1843 – – 25 34 8.5872 966 1.5017
11 – 1.0191 – – 26 – 1.6405 – –
12 67 7.4597 1,388 1.3294 27 – 2.4173 – –
13 18 3.2253 269 0.1738 28 – 1.4852 – –
14 35 0.7125 643 0.0993 29 – 1.1745 – –
15 – 1.8736 – – 30 – 1.3298 – –
0.12
0.09
0.06
1/Rise Time (1/s)
0.03
0.00
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
2.0
1.5
1.0
Io
Impulse (bar·s)
0.5
0.0
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
20
15
Po
10
5
Peak Pressure (bar)
0
1
0.1
0.01
0.001
Figure 10.24 Sample results of the sloshing probability of exceedance curves

CFD Simulation
Step 1: Screening
• Max. Pressure on Tank Wall
• Max. Velocity on Tank Wall
• Sum of Velocity at Free Surface
• Free Surface Motion
Step 2: Detailed Simulation

• Time Step: 1.0 ms
Sloshing Simulation
• Detailed Simulation • Full Scale Tank Sloshing Simulation
• Pressure-Time History
• Locations of Sloshing Impact
FEM Modelling Sloshing Load Characteristics Nonlinear FEA

Geometry • Peak Pressure, Rise and Duration Time, Impulse Actual Sloshing Loads
• One-Cargo-Hold Model
• One-Cargo-Hold Model
• Identified Locations
Material Modelling Finite Element Method • Actual Sloshing Loads
• Bilinear Model
• Mesh Model and Loading Conditions
• Cowper-Symonds Coefficients Structural Response
• Thermal Loads (Y or N)
• Fracture Criteria (Y or N) • Total Deformation
• Permanent Deformation
Nonlinear Impact Response Analysis
Boundary Conditions
• Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis
• Actual Sloshing Loads • Global and Local Structural Response Analysis P-I Diagram
• Best-Fit Curves for
Load Cases Structural Damage
Additional Load Cases Pressure-Impulse Diagram
• Define Impulsive Loads
• Define Quasi-Static Loads • Additional Load Cases for P-I diagram
• Derivation of P-I Diagram
Figure 10.25 A procedure for a sloshing response analysis (where CFD ¼ computational fluid
dynamics; P–I diagram ¼ pressure–impulse diagram; FEM ¼ finite-element method and
FEA ¼ finite-element analysis)
Po Po Po measured
measured
Measured Pressure idealised
Idealized Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
Pressure
pressure pressure
idealised
Io'= Io Io
Io Io'
tdur = Io'/(0.5Po)
to to tdur to tdur
Time Time Time
Figure 10.26 An idealised representation of a sloshing impact load profile
sloshing impacts. Three domains of the sloshing response analysis are relevant and
depend on the duration of the sloshing impacts (described in Section 3.12). The
sloshing impact profile is often idealised as a triangular shape (shown in
Figure 10.26). Figure 10.27 shows a typical sloshing impact-pressure versus impulse
plot, which can be obtained using nonlinear element method computations.
References 325
20
impulsive
domain
15
Pressure (bar)
10
dynamic
quasi-static
Quasi-static
domain quasi-static
asymptote
asymptotic Quasi-static
domain
domain
5
impulsive
Impul sive
asymptotic
asymptote
0
0.0 0 .5 1.0 1 .5 2.0 2 .5 3.0
Impulse (bar ⋅ s)
Figure 10.27 A typical plot of the sloshing impact pressure versus impulse
negligible intermediate
low high extreme
extreme
Pressure (bar)
high
intermediate
low
negligible
Impulse (bar ⋅ s)
Figure 10.28 A pressure–impulse diagram indicating structural damage levels
Figure 10.28 shows the structural damage levels of the pressure–impulse diagram
associated with the sloshing impacts. Structural damage is negligible when either the
pressure or impulse is small in magnitude, but becomes significant when both the
pressure and impulse increase in magnitude. Sloshing impact pressure–impulse dia-
grams of a hypothetical liquefied natural gas floating production, storage and offload-
ing unit are given in Lee et al. (2015) and Lee and Paik (2018).
References
Hughes, O. F. and Paik, J. K. (2010). Ship Structural Analysis and Design: The Society of Naval
Lee, S. E., Kim, B. J., Seo, J. K., Ha, Y. C., Matsumoto, T., Byeon, S. H. and Paik, J. K. (2015).
‘Nonlinear impact response analysis of LNG FPSO cargo tank structures under sloshing
loads’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 10(5): 510–532.
Lee, S. E. and Paik, J. K. (2018). ‘Pressure-impulse diagram of the FLNG tanks under sloshing
loads’. International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 160(A2): 109–120.
Paik, J. K., Lee, S. E., Kim, B. J., Seo, J. K., Ha, Y. C., Matsumoto, T. and Byeon, S. H. (2015).
‘Toward a probabilistic approach to determine nominal values of tank sloshing loads in
structural design of liquefied natural gas FPSOs’. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, 137: 021801-1–021801-17.
Paik, J. K. and Shin, Y. S. (2006). ‘Structural damage and strength criteria for ship stiffened
panels under impact pressure actions arising from sloshing, slamming and green water
loading’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 1(3): 249–256.
Paik, J. K., Shin, Y. S. and Wang, G. (2004). ‘Design principles and criteria for ship structures
under impact pressure actions arising from sloshing, slamming and green seas’. Transaction
of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, 112: 292–313.
11 Seismic Impact Engineering
11.1 Principles of Seismic Impact Engineering
Ship-shaped offshore installations that are operated in shallow water (e.g., at depths of
10 m deep or less) are used for various purposes, such as oil terminals, floating storage
and regasification units (FSRUs), power plants and bunkering. These usually remain
afloat in operation, with a gap between the seabed and the bottom of the hull. In other
situations, such as those for ship-shaped offshore power plant facilities containing
nuclear reactors, hull bottoms are touched down onto the seabed by using heavy
ballasting materials, such as concrete or sand. However, offshore installations are not
fixed to the seabed and move under the effects of environmental actions, but may
be moored.
Clearly, an offshore installation must be located at a site where earthquakes are
unlikely. However, as with other types of ocean environmental conditions (described
in Chapter 3), the characteristics of seismic hazards depend on site-specific conditions.
This means that safety should be secured by including a design tolerance for earth-
quakes, as hull structures may exhibit not only movement but also relative displace-
ments and accelerations owing to seismic excitation of the seabed, resulting in impact
damage to sensitive equipment, such as the regasification devices of FSRUs or the
turbo-generators or reactor cans of floating offshore nuclear power plants. Under
seismic loading owing to earthquakes, elastic waves of excitation are generated in
soils, and the resulting energy is radiated. The responses of hull structures and soils to
such energy are governed by sway and heave motions and the effects of surrounding
seawater.
Seismic impact engineering of ship-shaped offshore installations is undertaken to
meet ultimate limit states (ULS) requirements for low-intensity frequent earthquakes
and accidental (abnormal) limit states (ALS) requirements for high-intensity rare
earthquakes. ULS requirements are used to design structural scantlings with a suffi-
cient strength and stiffness to withstand an extreme strength earthquake that has a
reasonable probability of occurrence during the design service life, thereby preventing
significant structural damage. ALS requirements are used to ensure that offshore
installations have sufficient reserve capacities of strength, displacement and energy
dissipation to sustain large inelastic displacement reversals without a complete loss of
integrity (leading to structural collapse, loss of life and/or environmental pollution),
although some structural damage is allowed. A seismic ALS event is considered for an
abnormal-level earthquake that has a very low probability of occurring during the
design service life. The safety criteria for seismic impact engineering are expressible
in a general form, as follows:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ < 0, (11.1)
where g is the limit state function for seismic impact engineering, which is a function
of the parameters x1 , x2 , , xn that affect seismic impact responses. A particular form
of Equation (11.1) is expressed in terms of seismic actions or action effects, as
follows:
a < acr , δ < δcr , (11.2)
where a is the factored acceleration, acr is the critical acceleration, δ is the deformation
and δcr is the critical deformation.
Site-specific metocean data of seismic accelerations are used for such engineering,
together with detailed seismic hazard investigations. ISO 19901-2 (2017) provides
guidance for evaluating seismic actions according to the seismic risk category (SRC)
of a ship-shaped offshore installation.
Site seismic zones are classified into five groups in terms of accelerations and are
based on world seismic maps (indicated in Table 11.1). Three exposure levels are
considered for an offshore installation, together with the target annual probability of
failure (indicated in Table 11.2). Evacuation is usually not possible prior to an
earthquake, and thus all manned offshore installations are categorised as exposure
level L1. Unmanned installations are categorised as exposure level L2 if a minimum
amount of time is available for escape and evacuation. The SRC is defined after the
site seismic zone and the exposure level are determined (indicated in Table 11.3).
Relevant seismic engineering procedures are applied, depending on the SRC (indi-
cated in Table 11.4). A simplified procedure for the analysis of seismic actions
involves the use of the design seismic acceleration spectra, whereas a detailed
procedure involves a deterministic or probabilistic seismic hazard analysis. For an
Table 11.1. Site seismic zones of ship-shaped offshore installations
Zone 0 1 2 3 4
Acceleration, a < 0:03g 0:03 g a < 0:10 g 0:10 g a < 0:25 g 0:25 g a 0:45 g a > 0:45 g
a
Table 11.2. Target annual probability of failure ðP f Þ
Exposure level
Target probability of failure L1 L2 L3
Pf 1 1 1
4 104 ¼ 1 103 ¼ 2:5 103 ¼
2500 1000 400
11.2 Computational Modelling 329
Table 11.3. Seismic risk category (SRC)
Seismic zone
Exposure level 0 1 2 3 4
L1 SRC 1 SRC 3 SRC 4 SRC 4 SRC 4

Table 11.4. The International Organization for Standardization (ISO) guidance for seismic impact engineering
Seismic action Nonlinear seismic-response

SRC analysis Seismic data analysis
1 None None None

2 Simplified ISO maps or regional maps Permitted
3 3a Simplified Site-specific, ISO maps or regional maps Recommended
3b Detailed Site-specific Recommended
4 Detailed Site-specific Required
SRC 3 installation, either simplified or detailed procedures may be used to identify

seismic actions, with the results of the former being more conservative than those of
the latter.
In seismic impact engineering, seabed (ground) motion, in terms of accelerations,
velocities or displacements owing to seismic waves radiating away from earthquake
sources, is considered as a primary factor that affects the responses of offshore
installation features such as the hull, sensitive equipment and pipelines and risers.
Other factors may also be considered, such as soil liquefaction (increased soil fluidity
due to increases in pore pressures), seabed slide, fault movement, mud volcanoes
(diapiric intrusions of plastic clay that cause high-pressure gas–water seepages that
carry mud and rock fragments to the surface), shock waves and tsunamis. Seismic
engineering must meet both functional requirements and health, safety and environ-
ment requirements, of which the latter are dictated by the national (or regional)
regulations of the country where an offshore installation is sited. For example,
Norwegian regulations stipulate that all offshore installations operating in
Norwegian waters must meet the exposure level L1 seismic engineering requirements
and have a target annual failure probability of 1 104 , which is actually a probabil-
ity intermediate between those of exposure levels L1 and L2.
11.2 Computational Modelling for Seismic Response Analysis
ISO 19901-2 (2017) lists the requisite procedures and criteria for the seismic
engineering of fixed offshore structures. However, seismic impact engineering for a
ship-shaped (floating) offshore installation differs from that for a fixed offshore
platform or land-based structure (Chopra 1995; Marshall et al. 1996; Rijken and
Leverette 2007; Chen and Duan 2014; Bai and Jin 2016; Jia 2017, 2018; Jia and
Paik 2019) because the former must account for the effects of geometric, material and
boundary nonlinearities (i.e., interactions between the hull, soil and surrounding
seawater) on seismic responses.
Figure 11.1 depicts a floating structure–seabed–seawater system under seismic
impacts. Computational models are used to analyse the seismic responses of ship-
shaped offshore installations in this system (shown in Figures 11.2 and 11.3) with a
hull length L, hull breadth B, hull freeboard df , hull draught d, length of seabed LE ,
breadth of seabed BE , depth of water layer (the gap between the hull and the seabed)
dw and depth of seabed Ds .
sea surface
ship-shaped
offshore installation ship-shaped
seawater
offshore installation
seabed
z
y
x
three directions of seismic waves
Figure 11.1 A floating structure–seabed–seawater system under seismic impact
seawater boundary df d
dw
d
L Ds
B
LE
BE
z
x seabed boundary
y
Figure 11.2 A computational model for a seismic response analysis of a ship-shaped offshore
installation (where L ¼ length of the hull; B ¼ breadth of the hull; d ¼ draught of the huill;
df ¼ freeboard of the hull; LE ¼ length of the extent for the computational model; BE ¼ breadth
of the extent for the computational model; d w ¼ depth (gap) between the hull and the seabed
and Ds ¼ depth of the soil)
11.3 Procedure for Nonlinear Seismic Response Analysis 331
hull
seawater boundary df
d
dw
Ds
seabed boundary
Figure 11.3 Artificial boundaries of a floating structure–seabed–seawater system
The hull structure is subject to gravity in the z-direction, which influences the
responses of the soil and the entire system. In addition, the buoyancy and resistance of
the surrounding seawater affects the structural responses, with buoyancy reducing the
effects of gravity on the hull. A finite-element model is therefore used to account for
the effects of interactions between the floating structure, the soil and the surrounding
seawater. Artificial boundaries are allocated for the seabed and seawater in the system
(shown in Figures 11.2 and 11.3) where the numerical space of the system is
maximised compared to the size of the ship-shaped offshore installation to minimise
the artificial boundary effects. Contact elements with friction effects are used to model
the relative responses between two contacting bodies, that is, the hull and the soil, the
hull and the seawater or the soil and the seawater. The resulting computations reveal
the displacements and the total acceleration, which are primary factors in seismic
responses. The stresses, strains and failure of local members of hull structures are also
calculated to afford a perspective on structural safety, as seismic safety engineering
focuses on enhancing the structural integrity of a system during an earthquake.
11.3 Procedure for Nonlinear Seismic Response Analysis
Figure 11.4 shows a procedure for a nonlinear seismic response analysis of a ship-
shaped offshore installation. The structural system of the offshore installation is
defined in association with its operational and site-specific environmental conditions.
Site-specific seismic load profiles are determined using three directional components
that correspond to the three translational degrees of freedom of the structural system.
Seismic loads arising from earthquakes are transmitted to hull structures via the
seabed at varying amplitudes of acceleration over a short period of time. As such,
the seismic load profile may be represented by a single-cycle load profile rather than a
range of cyclic load profiles, where this single-cycle load profile is presumed to repeat
for the total persistence time. The representative total persistence time of an earth-
quake and the maximum peak of acceleration and duration time of a seismic load cycle
are determined based on the design seismic load profiles or site-specific data. This
technique is similar to that used to model blast-pressure load profiles in explosions
(Paik 2020).
The structural safety assessment of a seismic impact follows similar methods as
those used for typical ULS and ALS approaches (Paik 2018). However, the seismic
Definition of Ship- Environmental Condition

Structural Characteristics Shaped Offshore
Installation Operational Condition
Seismic Load Profiles

(with Three Directional Components)
Maximum Peak of Acceleration Total Number of Cycles

Design Seismic Load Profile
Duration Time of a Seismic Load Cycle Total Persistence Time of Earthquake
Soil Modelling
Hull Modelling Finite Element Modelling
Surrounding Seawater Modelling
Boundary Condition
Interaction Effects Between Hull, Soil and Surrounding Seawater
Loading Condition
Frictional Coefficients Between Two Contacting Bodies
Nonlinear Finite Element Method
Stresses and Strains

Hull Motion
Resulting Computations Local Deformations
Total Acceleration
Failure (Yielding, Fracture)
Redesign Safety Engineering Enhancement of Structural Integrity
Figure 11.4 A procedure for a nonlinear seismic response analysis of a ship-shaped offshore
installation
safety design requirements of a ship-shaped offshore installation may pay particular

attention to structural discontinuities (e.g., joints) and incorporate non-structural
elements to limit accelerations at sensitive locations.
11.4 Modelling of Site-Specific Seismic Load Profiles
Data from site-specific metocean databases are used to determine seismic load profiles
in terms of the acceleration vs. time histories. An example of the seismic load profile is
presented in Section 3.11, using three directional components that were artificially
generated to fulfil the seismic design requirements for offshore structures (Jia 2018).
The seismic load data given in Section 3.11 were recorded over a period of 40 s,
although high accelerations were observed for 5–10 s. This observation reveals that the
seismic loads caused by real earthquakes occur cyclically over a ‘long’ period of time
(e.g., 40 s) with varying excitation amplitudes. Nonlinear finite-element method compu-
tations of seismic structural responses that persist for such a long period require an
extremely long period of CPU time, for example, several months. Thus, the original
seismic load profiles are simplified as a representative load profile with only one cycle of
impulse, which is presumed to repeat for an equivalent persistence time. Such simplifi-
cations are also used in industry practice for explosion (blast load) safety engineering.
11.4 Site-Specific Seismic Load Profiles 333
Figure 11.5 shows a schematic representation that defines a seismic load profile
with a single impulse cycle composed of three directional components. The maximum
impulse peaks are denoted by ax , ay and az in the corresponding directional compon-
ents. The duration time of the maximum peak cycle is t. The total persistence time of
the earthquake is T p . The total number of seismic load cycles is N c . It is presumed that
an identical cycle of acceleration will be repeated throughout the entire persistence
time period (shown in Figure 11.6).
Finite-element method computations are used to determine a seismic load profile
with one impulse cycle, in which the three directional components, namely ax , ay and
az , are combined. The equivalent value of computed accelerations at a monitoring
point in a structure is then defined as follows:
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
2 ffi
2
a∗
eq ¼ a ∗
x þ ( a ∗ ) þ a∗ 2 ,
y z (11.3)
where the asterisk indicates the computed components of accelerations corresponding

to ax , ay and az .
Based on the linear superposition principle, the accumulated accelerations for the
total number of seismic load cycles (N c ) are obtained as follows:
X
Nc
Aeq ¼ a∗
eqi , (11.4)
i¼1
where Aeq is the accumulated value of the equivalent accelerations during the persist-
ence time period, that is, over a total number of N c cycles, and a∗
eqi is the resulting
equivalent acceleration for the ith seismic load profile with one impulse cycle, which
x-component y-component z-component

ax ay az
0 0.25t 0.5t 0.75t t 0 0.25t 0.5t 0.75t t 0 0.25t 0.5t 0.75t t
–ax –ay –az
Figure 11.5 Schematic definition of a seismic load profile with three components for one cycle of
acceleration
aeq
Acceleration
0 Time
–aeq
Figure 11.6 Modelling of an entire seismic load application with an identical profile
is obtained from the finite-element method computations. As the individual seismic

load profiles are presumed to be identical and repeated for an entire period of
persistence time, Equation (11.4) is simplified as follows:
X
Nc
Aeq ¼ a∗ ∗
eqi N c aeq : (11.5)
i¼1
Obviously, this approach may yield a pessimistic safety assessment (i.e., one that
contains overestimated acceleration values) because the number of impulse cycles is
determined based on a linear system without energy consumption. However, the more
rapid simulation time of this approach is extremely useful, and the results provide a
reasonable approximation of reality.
These calculations are made at various monitoring points of interest in structures
examined using finite-element method computations. This approach is often used in
industry practice for explosion safety engineering, as many impulse events occur in
association with blast-pressure load profiles. A simple model designed to prove that
the structural responses obtained by a single impulse event are close to those
predicted using full-duration excitations, and that the inertia effects during the entire
time history (transient) match those measured by impulse summation, would
be useful.
11.5 Finite-Element Modelling
Nonlinear finite-element method software, such as LS-DYNA code (www.ansys.com/

products/structures/ansys-ls-dyna), is used to compute the seismic response analysis
of a floating structure–seabed–seawater system. Figure 1.24 shows the LS-DYNA
model for a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull structure (described in
Section 1.7.2).
11.5.1 Modelling of the Hull

Hull structures are modelled using finite elements. As nonlinear structural
responses that include both geometric and material nonlinearities are considered,
the ‘best size’ of the finite elements must be determined from convergence
studies (Paik 2018, 2020). In the finite element model (shown in Figure 1.24),
only plate-shell elements are used for plating and support members (webs and
flanges), and the size of the elements is 1000 mm 1000 mm. Beam elements
may be used for support members (stiffeners) to reduce the computational costs,
but plate-shell finite elements are used (including for support members) to
precisely investigate the aspects of nonlinear seismic responses, regardless of
the computation expense.
The responses of a hull structure are dynamic, and thus the dynamic effects of the
materials and structural members must be considered. Table 11.5 summarises the
Table 11.5. Mechanical properties of materials used for a hypothetical hull structure
Material property Ordinary steel (grade A) High -strength steel (AH36)
Density, ρ ðton=m3 Þ 7.85 7.85

Young’s modulus, E ðMPaÞ 205,800 205,800
Poisson’s ratio, n 0.3 0.3
Yield stress, σ Y ðMPaÞ 235 355
Ultimate tensile stress, σ T ðMPaÞ 451.7 530.5
Quasi-static fracture strain, εf 0.427 0.348
true S-S curve of AH36 steel
true S-S curve of

ordinary steel
Stress (MPa)
engineering S-S curve

of AH36 steel
engineering S-S curve of ordinary steel
Strain
Figure 11.7 Relationships between the stress and strain of hull materials
(where S-S curve ¼ stress-strain curve)
mechanical properties of mild and high tensile steels under a quasi-static loading
condition used for a hypothetical hull structure. Figure 11.7 presents the relationships
between the engineering stress vs. engineering strain and the true stress vs. true strain
of materials. The effects of the strain rate on the mechanical properties of steel are
described in Section 2.7. It is usually assumed that seismic loading may not cause
fracture failures, but that buckling and plastic collapse may occur in local structural
members. However, structural crashworthiness considerations may be necessary in
analyses of extreme conditions and accidents, in which both crushing and fracture may
occur. In these cases, the dynamic fracture strain must be determined more explicitly
(i.e., in terms of its dependence on finite element sizes in addition to strain rates) (Paik
2018, 2020).
11.5.2 Modelling of the Seabed

The material card MAT_147_FHWA_SOIL of the LS-DYNA program is used to
model the seabed, which is composed of soil that is regarded as sand. Seismic loads
(in terms of accelerations) are applied to the soil layer. Hexahedral solid elements
with a mesh size of 500 mm 500 mm 500 mm are used to model the soil.
Table 11.6 provides the definition of the LS-DYNA soil card as an illustrative
example. Because sand is brittle by nature, the ‘erode’ option is applied
(Trentacoste 2004). Table 11.7 provides the details of the soil card variables in
dry and wet conditions (FHWA 2004).
Table 11.6. The material card of the LS-DYNA program used for modelling of soil
Variable Description
MID Material identification. A unique number or label not exceeding eight characters must be
specified.
RO Mass density
NPLOT Controls what is written as component 7 to the d3plot database;
LS-PrePost always blindly labels this component as effective plastic strain.
EQ.1: effective strain
EQ.2: damage criterion threshold
EQ.3: damage
EQ.4: current damage criterion
EQ.5: pore-water pressure
EQ.6: current friction angle (phi)
SPFRAV Specific gravity of soil: used to determine porosity
RHOWATt Density of water in model units: used to determine air-void strain
VN Viscoplasticity parameter (strain-rate enhanced strength)
GAMMAr Viscoplasticity parameter (strain-rate enhanced strength)
ITERMAXx Maximum number of plasticity iterations (default ¼ 1)
K Bulk modulus (non-zero)
G Shear modulus (non-zero)
PHIMAX Peak shear-strength angle (friction angle; in radians)
AHYP Coefficient A for modified Drucker–Prager surface
COH Cohesion in shear strength at zero confinement (overburden)
ECCEN Eccentricity parameter for third invariant effects
AN Strain-hardening percentage of phi max, where nonlinear effects occur
MCONT Moisture content of soil (determines amount of air voids; range ¼ 0.0–1.00)
PWD1 Parameter representing pore-water effects on bulk modulus
PWKSK Skeleton bulk modulus; pore-water parameter n set to zero to eliminate its effects
PWD2 Parameter for pore-water effects on the effective pressure (confinement)
PHIRES The minimum internal friction angle (residual shear strength; in radians)
DINT Volumetric strain at initial damage threshold, EMBED equation.3
VDFM Void formation energy (akin to fracture energy)
DAMLEV Level of damage that will cause element deletion (0.0–1.00)
EPSMAX Maximum principal failure strain
Table 11.7. Specific values of the soil material card variables (Units: kg, mm, ms)
Value Value
Variable Dry soil Wet soil Variable Dry soil Wet soil
6 6
RO 2:35 10 2:78 10 ECCEN 0.7 0.7
NPLOT 3 3 AN 0 0
SPFRAV 2.79 2.79 ET 10 10
RHOWATt 1:025 106 1:025 106 MCONT 0.034 0.034
VN 1.1 1.1 PWD1 0 0
GAMMAr 0 0 PWKSK 0 0
ITERMAXx 10 10 PWD2 0 0
K 0.01495 0.02990 PHIRES 0 0
G 0.00897 0.01794 DINT 5:0 105 5:0 105
PHIMAX 1.1 1.1 VDFN 1:0 109 1:0 109
AHYP 1:0 107 1:0 107 DAMLEV 0.8 0.8
COH 1:0 106 1:0 106 EPSMAX 0.03 0.03
11.5.3 Modelling of Seawater

The surrounding seawater effects are modelled using the Arbitrary Lagrangian Eulerian
(ALE) method of the LS-DYNA program. The ALE method combines Eulerian and
Lagrangian solution methods by coupling their respective algorithms. The application
of the ALE method in fluid-structure interaction analysis has been validated based on
previous studies (Bae and Zakki 2011; Tokura 2015; Song et al. 2017; Rudan et al.
2019). The ALE method involves the generation of a Lagrangian structural mesh
within a Eulerian fluid mesh. The interaction between these meshes, for example,
between seawater and a hull or soil and seawater, is modelled by the parameters defined
within the *CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGIAN_IN_SOLID_ EDGE LS- DYNA key-
word. The values of the parameters for the interaction are those described by Rudan
et al. (2019). Hexahedral solid elements of 1000 mm 1000 mm 1000 mm are
used to model the geometry of the surrounding seawater. The material properties
of surrounding seawater are modelled using the *MAT_001_NULL and
*EOS_LINEAR_POLYNOMIAL of the LS-DYNA program.
The equation of state (EOS) is related via pressure to the specific rate of change of
volume of a material. If tracking of the propagation of energy and pressure in water is
not required, the EOS linear polynomial is used with the parameter values described
by Bae and Zakki (2011). Tables 11.8 and 11.9 provide details of the keywords used
to model seawater.
11.5.4 Modelling of Boundary and Contact Conditions

Fixed boundary conditions are artificially assigned to all boundaries of the seabed and
the seawater, such that all six degrees of freedom (i.e., three translational and three
rotational components) along the boundaries are fixed. The bottom of the lower layer
Table 11.8. The keywords of the LS-DYNA program used to model seawater
*CONSTRAINED_LAGRANGIAN_IN_SOLID_EDGE
NQUAD Number of coupling points distributed over each coupled Lagrangian surface segment.
CTYPE Fluid-structure coupling method.
PFAC Scale factor for scaling the estimated stiffness of the interacting (coupling) system.
PLEAK Leakage control penalty factor
*MAT_001_NULL
MID Material identification. A unique number or label not exceeding eight characters
must be specified.
RO Mass density
PC Pressure cut-off (0.0)
MU Dynamic viscosity, µ (optional)
V
TEROD Relative volume, V0 , for erosion in tension. Typically, values greater than unity are
used; if the value is zero, erosion in tension is inactive.
V
CEROD Relative volume, V0 , for erosion in compression. Typically, values less than unity
are used; if the value is zero, erosion in compression is inactive.
YM Young’s modulus (used for null beams and shells only)
*EOS_LINEAR_POLYNOMIAL
C0 The 0th polynomial equation coefficient
C1 The 1st polynomial equation coefficient
C2 The 2nd polynomial equation coefficient
C3 The 3rd polynomial equation coefficient
E0 Initial internal energy per unit reference volume
V0 Initial relative volume
Table 11.9. Specific values of the seawater material card variables (Units: kg, mm, ms)
Variable Value Variable Value
NQUAD 2 CTYPE 2
PFAC 0.1 PLEAK 0.1
RO 1:025 106 TEROD 0
PC 100 CEROD 0
MU 8:9 1013 YM 0
C0 2.002 C1 8.436
C3 8.010 C2 0.4394
C5 1.3937 C6 0
E0 0 V0 1
11.6 Seismic Responses 339
of the seabed is also fully fixed. To minimise the boundary effects, the extent of a
floating structure–seabed–seawater system must be as large as possible.
Friction between two contacting surfaces, for example, between the soil and the
hull, can affect the responses of the entire system. Thus, contact elements are used to
model the friction effects between two contacting bodies. The frictional force of an
object sliding across a surface is defined as follows (Paik 2020):
F frictional ¼ μF normal , (11.6)
where F frictional is the frictional force, F normal is the normal force and μ is the friction
constant of the two materials. Defining the friction constant μ is difficult because it
depends on various factors, such as velocity, contact area, surface grain features,
moisture and temperature. In industry practice, μ ¼ 0:1 0:3 is often used to simplify
calculations. Here, μ ¼ 0:3 is used for the value of µ between the soil and the hull, and
μ ¼ 0:15 is used for the corresponding value between the surrounding seawater and
the hull or the soil.
11.5.5 Modelling of the Seismic Load Application

The seismic load profile with a single impulse cycle is applied to the lower layer of
soil, in terms of the acceleration vs. time history. For example, to determine the
seismic load profiles described in Section 3.14, ax ¼ 12 m=s2 , ay ¼ 10 m=s2 and
az ¼ 8 m=s2 are used. In addition, the total persistence time of an earthquake is taken
as T p ¼ 12:5 s, which yields ‘pessimistic’ magnitudes for the accelerations with peak
amplitudes. The total number of amplitudes or cycles are N c ¼ 123 during a period of
12.5 s, and the duration time of the maximum peak cycle is taken as t ¼ 0:1 s because
123 seismic cycles occur during 12.5 s. Figure 11.8 shows the three components of the
seismic load profile, determined using the above values.
11.6 Seismic Responses of a Ship-Shaped Nuclear Power Plant Hull
Figure 11.9 and Table 11.10 indicate the extent of the floating structure–seabed–
seawater system for a hypothetical ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull (described in
Section 1.7.2). Three case studies were conducted (indicated in Figure 11.10 and
Table 11.11). Cases 1-1 and 1-2 consist of a hull standing under gravity on land-based
soil (dry or wet soil) without surrounding seawater. Case 2 represents a situation in
which the hull stands on the seabed (wet soil) in the middle of a body of seawater, with
the hull bottom and the soil in contact. Case 3 represents a situation in which the hull
is afloat in the middle of a body of seawater, with a gap of 1 m between the hull
bottom and the soil. In Cases 2 and 3, the effect of gravity on the hull can be reduced
by buoyancy. However, a full gravity effect must be applied in Case 1. The computing
time using a computer equipped with Intel® Xeon® CPU E5–2670 V2 (with 20 cores,
20 threads, DDR3 64GB) was 30 min. for a 0.1-s simulation.
Stresses in the hull structural members were calculated to be small enough to
prevent yielding, and no structural failures of the hull were predicted in the illustrative
0.1
0.075
Time (s)
–2 0 0.05
0.025
–4
–6
–8
8
6
4
2
0
–10
10
Acceleration, az (m/s2)
0.1
0.075
Time (s)
Figure 11.8 An example of a simplified seismic load profile with one impulse cycle
0.05
0.025
0
5
–10
–15
15
10
–5
Acceleration, ay (m/s2)
0.1
0.075
Time (s)
0.05
0.025
0
5
–10
–15
15
10
–5
Acceleration, ax (m/s2)
Table 11.10. Extent of the floating structure–seabed–seawater

system in the illustrative example
Variable Dimension
Length of soil, LE 238 m

Breadth of soil, BE 129 m
Hull draught, d 10 m
Depth of water layer, d w 0 or 1 m
Depth of soil, Ds 10 m
df = 23 m d = 10 m
dw = 1 m
174 m d = 10 m
Ds = 10 m
B= L=
65 m
m
238
BE = LE =
129
m
z
y x
Figure 11.9 Extent of the floating structure–seabed–seawater system in the illustrative example
33 m
10 m
(a)
23 m
10 m
10 m
(b)
23 m
10 m 1 m
10 m
(c)
Figure 11.10 Case studies of the seismic response analysis: (a) Case 1-1 and Case 1-2 (no
surrounding seawater); (b) Case 2 (surrounding seawater and no gap between the soil and the
hull bottom) and (c) Case 3 (surrounding seawater and a 1-m gap between the soil and the hull
bottom
Table 11.11. Conditions of the case studies
Condition Case 1-1 Case 1-2 Case 2 Case 3
Surrounding seawater No Yes Yes

Soil type Dry Wet Wet Wet
Gap between soil and hull bottom 0 0 1m
20 10
von Mises stress (Pa)
Shear stress (Pa)

15
6 port and starboard
10 port and starboard
4
bow bow
5
2
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time (s) Time (s)
(a)
20 10
port and starboard
port and starboard

8
Shear stress (Pa)
15
6
10
bow 4 bow
5
2
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time (s) Time (s)
(b)
20 10
8
Shear stress (Pa)
15
6
10
4
5 port, starboard and bow port, starboard and bow
2
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time (s) Time (s)
(c)
Figure 11.11 Stresses on the surface of the seabed in (a) Case 1-1; (b) Case 1-2 and (c)
Cases 2 and 3
2 1
0.8
Shear stress (Pa)

1.5
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time (s) Time (s)
(a)
2 1
0.8
Shear stress (Pa)

1.5
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time (s) Time (s)
(b)
2 1
0.8
Shear stress (Pa)
1.5
0.6
1
0.4
0.5
0.2
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
Time (s) Time (s)
(c)
Figure 11.12 Stresses at a depth of 5 m below the seabed in (a) Case 1-1; (b) Case 1-2 and
(c) Cases 2 and 3
example. Figures 11.11 and 11.12 show the computed results of the von Mises and
shear stresses over time at the surface of the soil or at a soil depth of 5 m, respectively.
Figure 11.13 shows the computed results for the total movement of the hull when a
single impulse cycle was applied during a persistence time of 0.1 s, where three
directional components and the equivalent value are compared. Here, the presence of
seawater and a gap between the hull and the seabed have significant effects on the
seismic responses. The results of Cases 1 and 2, in which the hull and soil are in
contact, are similar. However, Case 3 shows different responses compared to those in
Table 11.12. Computed results of hull structural responses for the three case studies
Case 1
Variable Case 1-1 Case 1-2 Case 2 Case 3
x-component of movement 0.820 mm 0.815 mm 0.414 mm 0.016 mm

y-component of movement 0.736 mm 0.734 mm 0.367 mm 0.002 mm
z-component of movement 0.479 mm 0.478 mm 0.239 mm 0.001 mm
Equivalent movement 0.001202 m 0.001196 m 0.000603 m 0.000016 m
Equivalent acceleration for a single 0.12019 m/s2 0.12002 m/s2 0.0603 m/s2 0.0016 m/s2
impulse cycle 0.012019 g 0.012002 g 0.00603 g 0.0002 g
Equivalent acceleration for 1.478 g 1.476 g 0.742 g 0.025 g
123 impulse cycles
1.5 Hull Movement (mm) 1.5

Hull Movement (mm)
1 equivalent 1 equivalent
0.5 0.5
z-component z-component
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.07 .1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
–0.5 –0.5
x-component x-component
y-component y-component
–1 –1
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b)
1.5 1.5
Hull Movement (mm)
Hull Movement (mm)
1 1
equivalent
0.5 0.5 equivalent x, y, z-component
z-component
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.07 .1 0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1
–0.5 x-component –0.5
y-component
–1 –1
Time (s) Time (s)
(c) (d)
Figure 11.13 Movement of the hull in (a) Case 1-1; (b) Case 1-2; (c) Case 2 and (d) Case 3
which the hull movement owing to seismic loading is negligible. Table 11.12 sum-
marises the computed results of the seismic responses of the hull in the three case
studies. These reveal that the acceleration of the hull is 0.984 g in Case 2 and 0.025 g
in Case 3. This is consistent with the fact that ship-shaped offshore installations are
usually safe in a seismic event because they are afloat, although the effects of other
factors (such as tsunami and shock waves) may also need to be evaluated.
References 345
Ship-shaped offshore structures may exhibit geometric and material nonlineari-

ties owing to seismic loads arising from earthquakes. A nonlinear finite-element
method can be used to simulate the nonlinear seismic responses of offshore struc-
tures operating in shallow water. This approach can provide precise values of the
stresses and strains for ULS- and ALS-based safety assessments of structural
members, and acceleration values for use in the seismic safety design of non-
structural elements at sensitive locations. Crucially, a nonlinear finite-element
method precisely accounts for the effects of the interaction between the hull, the
soil and the surrounding seawater, which enables the details of the hull and soil
structural responses to be computed.
A simplified method may be used to model seismic load profiles with multiple
impulse cycles, in which a single impulse cycle is defined as representative. This
approach is commonly used in industry practice to model blast-pressure load profiles
in explosion safety engineering, as it can be rapidly simulated and affords a reasonable
approximation of a real situation. Similar to the modelling of the hull structure with
finite elements, the seabed (soil) is regarded as a structure composed of sand, and
hexahedral solid elements are used in the soil material card of the nonlinear finite-
element method. Surrounding seawater is also regarded as a ‘virtual structure’ and is
modelled using hexahedral solid elements that accommodate the material properties of
seawater. The presence of a gap between the soil and the hull is shown to have a
significant effect on seismic loads, suggesting that these loads are directly transmitted
from the soil to the hull if these elements are in contact.
References
Bae, D. M. and Zakki, A. (2011). ‘Comparisons of multi material ALE and single material ALE
in LS-DYNA for estimation of acceleration response of free-fall lifeboat’. Journal of the
Society of Naval Architects of Korea, 48(6): 552–559.
Bai, Y. and Jin, W. L. (2016). Marine Structural Design. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford.
Chen, W. F. and Duan, L. (2014). Seismic Design: Bridge Engineering Handbook. Second
Edition, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Chopra, A. K. (1995). Dynamics of Structures: Theory and Applications to Earthquake
Engineering. Prentice Hall, New York
FHWA (2004). Evaluation of LS-DYNA Soil Material Model 147. Federal Highway
Administration, McLean, VA.
ISO 19901-2 (2017). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Specific Requirements for
Offshore Structures: Part 2: Seismic Design Procedures and Criteria. International
Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
Jia, J. (2017). Modern Earthquake Engineering: Offshore and Land-Based Structures. Springer-
Verlag, Berlin.
Jia, J. (2018). Soil Dynamics and Foundation Modeling: Offshore and Earthquake Engineering.
Springer-Verlag, Berlin.
Jia, J. and Paik, J. K. (2019). Engineering Dynamics and Vibrations: Recent Developments.
CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Marshall, P. and Chang, B. (1996). ‘Structural design considerations’. Offshore Technology

Conference, OTC 8107: 781–793.
Rijken, O. and Leverette, S. (2007). ‘Tension leg platform response to earthquake in Gulf of
Mexico’. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Offshore Polar Engineering
Conference, Lisbon, 1–6 July.
Rudan, S., Ćatipović, I., Berg, R., Völkner, S. and Pregeg, P. (2019). ‘Numerical study on the
consequences of different’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 14: 387–400.
Song, M., Ma, J. and Huang, Y. (2017). ‘Fluid-structure interaction analysis of ship-ship
collisions’. Marine Structures, 55: 121–136.
Tokura, S. (2015). ‘Validation of fluid analysis capabilities in LS-DYNA based on experimental
result’. Proceedings of 10th European LS-DYAN Conference, Wurzburg, 15–17 June.
Trentacoste, M. F. (2004). Evaluation of LS-DYNA Soil Material Model 147. US Department of
Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
12 Aircraft Impact Engineering
12.1 Principles of Aircraft Impact Engineering
Ship-shaped nuclear power plants may be subjected to aircraft impacts from terrorist
attacks or accidents. Even in such a hazard scenario, the catastrophic consequences of
casualties, property damage and environmental pollution must be prevented or
minimised (Paik 2020).
The impact crashworthiness of a hull structure that has been struck by an aeroplane
can be computed using a nonlinear finite-element method. The structural safety of a
hull structure is ensured if these computations reveal that the initial kinetic energy of
such an event is entirely consumed before sensitive equipment or the nuclear reactor is
damaged. Ballasting materials (such as concrete or sand) may be added into the space
between the double sides of the hull structures to resist penetration by a striking
aeroplane, and therefore these are included in structural modelling for a crashworthi-
ness analysis. It is also important to adequately model the striking aeroplane.
The hull structures of a ship-shaped nuclear power plant are much stronger than the
fuselage structures of an aeroplane, and thus the initial kinetic energy of the collision
of an aeroplane with this type of offshore installation is mainly absorbed by the struck
hull structures. In a related empirical test, a McDonnell F-4 Phantom jet fighter was
collided with an essentially rigid, reinforced concrete wall (shown in Figure 12.1). In
this test, which was performed by Sandia National Laboratories, United States (www
.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ8uvQk1H9I), the aircraft was accelerated on a 600-m long
two-rail rocket rail to a maximum velocity of 215 m/s (Sugano et al. 1993). It was
observed that the fuselage turned to dust-like fragments on impact and thus did not
absorb any initial kinetic energy, whereas the relatively strong engine behaved as the
concentrated mass of the striking body. This test event can be modelled as an impact
problem between the rigid (or concrete) wall and the engine, without the fuselage.
This was done by Itoh et al. (2005), who used a nonlinear finite-element method in
which the engine was regarded as a deformable body.
However, in a larger and stronger aeroplane, such as a Boeing 767 or 777, both the
fuselage and the engine may absorb impact energy. The impact crashworthiness
between the World Trade Center building and a Boeing 767 in the September
11 terrorist attacks in New York was studied by Wierzbicki et al. (2002) and
Wierzbicki and Teng (2003). The incident was modelled as an impact problem
between the wing of the striking aeroplane and the exterior columns of the World
Figure 12.1 Impact test of a McDonnell F-4 Phantom jet fighter collided with a concrete wall
Trade Center, which were thin-walled box beams made of high strength steel. The
problem was solved as a rigid mass (aeroplane wing) travelling with a velocity of
240 m/s into a hollow box-like vertical member. The solutions of the problem showed
that the critical impact velocity to fracture the impacted structure was 155 m/s, and
that the wing of the aeroplane cut through the outer column of the building. In
addition, the energy absorbed by the plastic deformation and fracture of the column
accounted for only 6.7 per cent of the initial kinetic energy of the impact.
Aircraft impact engineering is performed to ensure the safety of important equip-
ment and the reactors inside a ship-shaped nuclear power plant in a scenario involving
a terrorist attack using a passenger jet aeroplane. The safety criteria for aircraft impact
engineering are expressible in a general form, as follows:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ < 0, (12.1)
where g is the limit state function for aircraft impact engineering, which is a function
of the parameters x1 , x2 , , xn that affect aircraft impact responses. A particular form
of Equation (12.1) is expressed in terms of the aircraft impact actions or action effects,
as follows:
δ < δcr , E a < E acr , (12.2)
where δ is the maximum penetration of the aircraft, δcr is the critical penetration, E a is
the energy absorbed by struck structures until the initial kinetic energy is entirely
consumed and E acr is the critical energy absorption capability. The critical penetration
or energy must be determined to ensure the safety of sensitive equipment and facilities
inside the hull of the ship-shaped nuclear power plant.
An alternative simpler approach for modelling a collision between an aeroplane and
hull structures assumes that only the aeroplane engines strike the hull structures, that
12.2 Procedures for Aircraft Impact Engineering 349
is, the fuselage does not absorb any initial kinetic energy. Although aeroplane engines
are deformable in reality, they are often regarded as a rigid body. A further, more
refined modelling approach assumes that the entire aeroplane, which comprises a
deformable fuselage and engines, strikes the hull structures. The former approach is
less expensive but less accurate, whereas the latter is more expensive but
more accurate.
12.2 Procedures for Aircraft Impact Engineering
Figure 12.2 shows a procedure for aircraft impact engineering. The characteristics of
the struck body and the striking body are defined in terms of the geometric and
material properties, where the struck body is a ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull
structure and the striking body is an aeroplane. The mechanical properties of the
ballasting materials that are used to fill the spaces between the double sides of the
hull structures are defined. Impact scenarios of a terrorist attack using an aeroplane
are selected and defined in terms of the impact location, speed and direction.
Figure 12.3 shows a scenario in which an aeroplane strikes the hull structures of a
ship-shaped nuclear power plant. The structural crashworthiness on impact between
the striking aeroplane and the struck hull is computed using a nonlinear finite-
element method. The safety of the equipment and the reactor are assessed from
Characterisation of Both Structural Modelling for

Selection of Scenarios
Struck and Striking Bodies Crashworthiness Analysis
Safety Measures and Risk Safety Design and Safety Assessment of

Mitigation Options Engineering Equipment and Reactor
Figure 12.2 Procedure for aircraft impact engineering
Figure 12.3 A collision event between an aeroplane and a ship-shaped nuclear power plant
hull structure
the results of the structural crashworthiness analysis, in terms of the penetration of

the striking body and the excitation and damage of the struck body. Safety measures
and risk mitigation options are then evaluated to determine the optimal approach to
secure the safety of the equipment and the nuclear reactor of the ship-shaped nuclear
power plant.
12.3 Modelling of the Striking Body
Techniques similar to those described in Section 8.3 are used to model the striking
body of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane (length ¼ 73.9 m, breadth ¼ 64.8 m,
depth ¼ 6.4 m) with two jet engines (shown in Figure 12.4). The total mass of the
entire aeroplane (including the engines) is 158 tons, and the mass of each engine is
8.282 tons. The maximum collision speed of the aeroplane is 200 m/s for both an
entire fuselage model and a simpler model with only a single engine. The fuselage of
the striking aeroplane is constructed from very thin shells and may be considered to
absorb either a negligible or a non-negligible amount of the initial kinetic energy of
the impact. In the former case, only the impacts of the two engines are considered in
the structural crashworthiness assessment; in the latter case, the impacts of both the
fuselage and the engines are considered.
12.3.1 A Single-Engine Model of a Hypothetical Boeing 777 Aeroplane

A simple safety study, in which the fuselage absorbs a negligible amount of the initial
kinetic energy of the impact (Paik and Park 2020) and only a single engine is
18.5 m
5.9 m
31.2 m
73.1 m
73.9 m
64.8 m
21.5 m
6.2 m
Figure 12.4 Principal dimensions of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane
12.3 Modelling of the Striking Body 351
3,162 mm
Area = 10 m2
Figure 12.5 A rectangular parallelepiped model of a Boeing 777 aeroplane engine
involved, can be performed using a model of a deformable body composed of solid

elements. The engine is thus modelled as a 6,000 mm 3,162 mm 3,162 mm
rectangular parallelepiped body with a cross-sectional area of 10 m2 (shown in
Figure 12.5). The two engines are well separated, and thus may be addressed indi-
vidually to determine each of their contributions to the structural crashworthiness.
A convergence study is used to determine the mesh sizes of the deformable engine,
resulting in the use of fine meshes ð100 mm 100 mm 100 mmÞ to model the
3,000-mm front section, and coarser meshes ð300 mm 300 mm 100 mmÞ to
model the rear section. A total of 30,720 fine-solid elements and 6,432 coarse-solid
elements are used to model the engine (shown in Figure 12.5), which is regarded as a
deformable body. In reality, however, the engine of an aeroplane is not a solid body
but is mostly composed of thin cylinders. As observed in the full-scale collision test
using a McDonnell F-4 Phantom jet fighter (Sugano et al. 1993), the F-4 is a larger,
stronger and more concentrated mass than the high bypass turbofan engine of a
passenger jet. Thus, the engine body of a Boeing 777 jet aeroplane may be easily
crushed instead of continuing to penetrate the hull structure, as the striking aeroplane
may not bounce off after a collision. Consequently, computations using this engine
model may give conservative results regarding the safety of hull structures during an
aircraft strike.
12.3.2 The Entire Fuselage Model of a Hypothetical Boeing 777 Aeroplane

In a refined safety study, the striking body comprises the entire fuselage and two
engines. Table 12.1 indicates the structural scantlings of a hypothetical Boeing 777
aeroplane. The fuselage structures are modelled using plate-shell elements, and the
two engines are modelled using solid elements. Fine plate-shell meshes of
200 mm 200 mm are used to model the plating and the webs and flanges of support
members (shown in Figure 12.6). Fine solid meshes of 200 mm 200 mm 200 mm
are used to model the engine bodies, and fine plate-shell meshes of 200 mm 200 mm
Table 12.1. Structural scantlings of the fuselage and wings of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane
Member Thickness (mm) Member Thickness (mm)
Outer skin 6 Deck 10

Inner skin 6 Bulkhead (BHD) 20
Frame 10 Rudder 6
Stringer 6 Stabiliser 6
11.6 m
frame BHD
BHD
BHD
6.4 m
Deck
inner skin
Figure 12.6 Finite-element model of the fuselage structures of a hypothetical Boeing

777 aeroplane (where BHD stands for bulkhead)
plate-shell element model

for 6-mm thick engine skin
solid element model for jet-engine body
Figure 12.7 Finite-element model of an engine of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane
are used to model the engine skins (shown in Figure 12.7). Figure 12.8 shows a finite
element model of an entire Boeing 777 aeroplane used in an impact crashworthiness
analysis, which is composed of 129,857 plate-shell elements and 4,608 solid
elements.
12.4 Modelling of Ballasting Materials 353
wing skin
wing spar
wing ribs
Figure 12.8 An entire fuselage model, including two engines and two wings
double side
Figure 12.9 Space within the double-sided hull of a ship-shaped nuclear power plant
12.4 Modelling of Ballasting Materials
Ship-shaped nuclear power plants are ballasted with concrete or sand to enable the
hulls to touch down on the seabed in shallow water. This ballast is added into the
space between the double sides of the hull (shown in Figure 12.9). The impact energy
of an aeroplane strike is partly absorbed by such ballasting materials, and thus the
contributions of these materials should be considered in an impact crashworthiness
analysis.
In LS-DYNA code (www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna), concrete is modelled using
solid elements with a mesh size of 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm. Material cards for
concrete are available in the LS-DYNA code, namely:
MAT 72R3 (*MAT_CONCRETE_DAMAGE_REL3);

MAT 111 (*MAT_JOHNSON_HOLMQUIST_CONCRETE) and
MAT 159 (*MAT_CSCM_CONCRETE).
The MAT 72R3, MAT 111 and MAT 159 cards model concrete as a brittle
material, a plastic material and an eroded material, respectively. Erosion criteria
are formulated based on the strain energies of elements (Fan et al. 2011). The
MAT 72R3 model maximises the damaged region by spreading out the striking
location. The MAT 111 model affords a limited damage region located around the
perforation of the striking body. The MAR 159 model concentrates the damage at
the exit of the striking body. In the illustrative example in this chapter, the MAT
159 card is used to model concrete with a mass density of 2,300 kg/m3 and a
compressive strength of 30.44 MPa. This represents a pessimistic perspective, as
the penetration of the striking body is maximised such that it reaches the nuclear
equipment inside the hull structures. Reinforced (rigid) concrete may be used to
strengthen double-sided structures surrounding the silo of a floating nuclear power
plant, as this must be protected against external impacts. In this case, appropriate
material properties must be used for modelling reinforced concrete (Fang and
Wu 2017).
Sand is also modelled using solid elements with a mesh size of
100 mm 100 mm 100 mm. As with modelling concrete, there are uncertainties
inherent to the modelling of sand (Trentacoste 2004), but a nonlinear finite-
element method code such as LS-DYNA remains useful in this context (FHA
2004). The resulting sand model may comprise undrained sand (i.e., sand that
contains water) if the MAT 147.FHWA_SOIL option is used, with a mass density
of 2,350 kg/m3 in the LS-DYNA code.
12.5 Modelling of the Struck Body
Techniques similar to those described in Section 8.3 are used to model the struck body
of a ship-shaped nuclear power plant hull. An illustrative example of a collision
between a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane and a hypothetical nuclear power plant
hull (described in Section 1.7.2) is considered.
12.5.1 Extent of the Analysis

A simple safety study may be performed involving only a single engine as a striking
body and the collided zone of the hull structures as the full extent of the impact for the
impact crashworthiness analysis (shown in Figure 12.10). In this example, a length of
30 m, a width of 32 m and a depth of 33 m in a 126–156 m range of the hull are taken,
as indicated by the silo. The mesh size around the 17-m long and 8-m wide collided
region is 100 mm 100 mm, as determined from the convergence study (shown in
Figure 12.11). Figure 12.12 depicts a complete model of this simpler safety study,
which comprises a single engine and partial hull structures in which the fine mesh
zone extends 8,000 mm beyond the outer side shell. The mesh size far from the
collided region is much greater where one shell element is used between stiffeners, in
a stiffener web or in a stiffener flange.
Figure 12.10 Extent of the impact crashworthiness in a simple safety study
10 20
Mesh size
8 50mm 16
Absorbed Energy (MJ)
500mm
100mm
Penetration (m)
6 12
200mm
1000mm
4 50mm
8
100mm
200mm
2 500mm
4
1000mm
Penetration
Absorbed energy
0 0
0 20 40 60 80
Number of Elements 105
Figure 12.11 Convergence study to determine the best mesh size
In contrast, Figure 12.13 presents a complete model for a refined safety study,
which comprises an entire aeroplane and hull structures. The entire hull is included in
the model; here, fine plate-shell meshes of 200 mm 200 mm are used to model an
86-m long 10-m wide 20-m deep impacted space around the silo of a floating
nuclear power plant, and coarse plate-shell meshes of 1,000 mm 1,000 mm are used
8,000 mm
Figure 12.12 A complete model for a simple safety study, comprising a single engine and
partial hull structures
silo
coarse meshes fine meshes
32.4 m
55 m 31 m
86 m
Figure 12.13 A complete model of a refined safety study, comprising an entire aeroplane
(with two engines) and an entire hull structure
to model the remaining area. This illustrative example comprises a total of 795,728
fine meshes and 563,213 coarse meshes.
12.5.2 Material Modelling

An ultimate strength analysis uses an elastic–perfectly plastic material model associ-
ated with the engineering stress–engineering strain relation of a material, and does not
consider the strain-hardening effect. However, a structural crashworthiness analysis
involving crushing and fracture uses the true stress–true strain relation of a material
and considers the effects of strain hardening and necking, as large plastic strains may
occur during crashes. The dynamic yield strength and dynamic fracture strain are also
affected by the strain rate.
12.5.2.1 Fuselage Structures of a Hypothetical Boeing 777 Aeroplane

In this example, the fuselage structures of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane are
composed of aluminium alloy 2024-T3. Table 12.2 indicates the mechanical proper-
ties of the materials involved in aeroplane impacts. The dynamic yield stress and
dynamic fracture strain are determined as a function of the strain rate, using the
procedure (described in Section 2.7). The strain rates of individual finite elements
vary over time, as the initial kinetic energy is consumed. If the two coefficients (C and
q) of the Cowper–Symonds Equation (2.5) are predefined, the LS-DYNA software
automatically accounts for the effect of strain-rate on the dynamic yield stress of
materials. However, the dynamic fracture strain should be defined before the structural
crashworthiness analysis is performed.
Figure 12.14 shows the strain rates over time at the nose of a hypothetical
Boeing 777 aeroplane collided with a hypothetical floating nuclear power plant
hull (described in Section 1.7.2) at 200 m/s, revealing that the average strain rate
during the initial impact is 150/s. To obtain a pessimistic prediction of the dynamic
fracture strain, this initial maximum strain rate is applied to all of the elements and
remains unchanged. Table 12.3 summarises the dynamic yield stresses and
dynamic fracture strains for the materials used in the structural crashworthiness
analysis of this illustrative example, where the dynamic yield stress at the initial
maximum strain rate is given as a reference. The dynamic fracture strain in
Table 12.3 is determined from Equations (2.6) and (2.7), with d1 ¼ 4:1,
d2 ¼ 0:58 and γ ¼ 0:4.
12.5.2.2 Jet Engines

The engine is composed of ordinary steel that has the mechanical properties indicated
in Table 12.2. The striking engine is deformable, and crushing and fracture are
allowed to occur as the penetration of the striking body proceeds. The effect of the
strain rate on the material properties of jet engines is accounted for with a strain rate of
Table 12.2. Mechanical properties of materials used for aeroplane impact engineering
Yield Fracture
Density Elastic stress C in q in strain, εf ,
(kg/m3), modulus Poisson’s (MPa), Equation Equation in Equation
Material ρ (GPa), E ratio, n σY (2.5) (2.5) (2.6)
Al 2024-T3 2850 72 0.33 400 610.4 3.6 0.40

Ordinary steel 7850 205.8 0.3 235 40.4 5 0.428
(engine and hull)
High strength 7850 205.8 0.3 355 3200 5 0.347
steel (DH36)
Table 12.3. Strain rate effect on the mechanical properties of materials
Strain Yield Dynamic yield Modified Dynamic

rate (/s), stress stress (MPa), Fracture fracture fracture
Material ε_ (MPa), σ Y σ Yd strain, εf strain, εm strain, εfd
Al 2024-T3 150 400 670.8 0.40 0.086 0.051

Ordinary steel 12 235 419.3 0.428 0.21 0.11
(engine and hull)
High strength 20 355 419.3 0.347 0.11 0.082
steel (DH)
nose 2
nose 1
Strain Rate (/s)
150/s
nose 3
nose 4
Time (s)
Figure 12.14 Strain rates over time at the nose of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane collided
with a hypothetical floating nuclear power plant hull at 200 m/s
12/s (defined in Table 12.3). In the LS-DYNA computations, the ‘Contact-Eroding-

Surface-To-Surface’ option is used, such that new contact surfaces appear as parts of
the striking engine fail.
12.5.2.3 Hull Structures of a Hypothetical Floating Nuclear

Power Plant
The hull structures of a hypothetical floating nuclear power plant (described in Section
1.7.2) are composed of ordinary steel (MS24) and high strength steel (DH36).
Table 12.2 indicates the mechanical properties of the materials. The average
high-strength
steel
20/s for high-strength steel

Strain Rate (/s)
12/s for ordinary steel
ordinary
steel
Time (s)
Figure 12.15 Variation in the strain rates of ordinary and high strength steels over time in a
hypothetical floating nuclear power plant hull impacted by a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane
travelling at 200 m/s
4,500 mm
Striking body
Silo Silo
3,000 mm
Figure 12.16 The threat to the safety of the silo in the ship-shaped nuclear power plant
hull from a striking body
maximum strain rates of the hull structures at the initial impact (according to the
LS-DYNA computations) are 12/s for ordinary steel and 20/s for high strength steel
(shown in Figure 12.15). Table 12.3 summarises the strain rate effect on
material properties.
12.6 Analysis of Computational Results
12.6.1 Model of a Single Engine Striking a Partial Hull Structure

The LS-DYNA (www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna) computing time for a 1-s simulation
using a computer equipped with an Intel® Xeon® CPU E5–2660 V2 (with 20 cores,
20 threads and DDR3 64GB) was 13 h. The results of the impact crashworthiness
analysis are used for the safety engineering of sensitive equipment and the nuclear
reactor. In the illustrative example involving a single engine striking partial hull
structures, the safety of the silo located 4,500 mm inside the outer hull with a
double-side width of 3,000 mm is a concern (shown in Figure 12.16). A comparison
concrete ballast

sand ballast
concrete ballast
non-ballast
non-ballast
F-4 test
sand ballast
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)
Figure 12.17 Comparison of the impact crashworthiness of hull structures containing no ballast,
sand ballast or concrete ballast when impacted by a deformable engine, in terms of (a) the
resultant force–time relation and (b) the absorbed energy–time relation
17.7 m
73.9 m
11.7 m
64.8 m
Figure 12.18 A comparison of the body sizes of a McDonnell F-4 Phantom jet fighter and a
Boeing 777 passenger jet

Penetration (mm) Penetration (mm)

(a)

(b)
Figure 12.19 Relations between the resultant force or absorbed energy and penetration, under (a)
non-ballasted conditions; (b) sand-ballasted conditions and (c) concrete-ballasted conditions
outer side shell
inner side shell
striking engine
sand ballast
(a) (b)
outer side shell
inner side shell
concrete ballast striking engine
(c)
Figure 12.20 Damage and failure status of hull structures with a deformable striking model under
(a) non-ballasted conditions; (b) sand-ballasted conditions and (c) concrete-ballasted conditions
of the resultant force and the absorbed energy responses of the hull structures over
time is shown in Figure 12.17 for situations in which hull structures containing no
ballast, sand ballast or concrete ballast are struck by a deformable engine. The result of
the McDonnell F-4 Phantom jet fighter test are also compared in Figure 12.17(a). The
fuselage of the McDonnell F-4 Phantom is much smaller than that of the Boeing 777
(shown in Figure 12.18), but the mass of its engine is comparable to that of the Boeing
777. At the beginning of the impact, the resultant forces of the McDonnell F-4
Phantom are very small, meaning that the contribution of the fuselage of the
McDonnell F-4 Phantom jet fighter to the impact is negligible.
The resultant force–time relation is combined with the penetration–time relation to
afford the resultant force–penetration relation. By integrating the area below the
resultant force–penetration curve, the relation between the kinetic energy (absorbed
by hull structures) and penetration is obtained (shown in Figure 12.19). The ‘pene-
tration’ shown in Figure 12.19 is measured with respect to the tip of the striking
silo silo silo
silo
(a) (b)
silo silo silo
(c)
Figure 12.21 Deformation pattern of the inner side shell in a deformable striking engine model
under (a) non-ballasted conditions; (b) sand-ballasted conditions and (c) concrete-ballasted
conditions
120
Inner Side Shell Displacement
Toward the Silo (mm)
80
concrete ballast
40
sand ballast
–40
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Time (s)
Figure 12.22 Maximum deflection of the inner side shell towards the silo with a deformable
striking engine model
engine, and is not necessarily equal to the indented distance from the outer hull to the
silo (shown in Figure 12.16). If concrete ballasting material is used (shown in
Figure 12.19(c)), the relation between the resultant force versus penetration is linear
at the beginning of impact and the absorbed energy is very small. This may be
Table 12.4. Benchmarking structural crashworthiness analysis (using nonlinear finite-element methods) of a model
comprising an entire fuselage plus two engines striking rigid wall models
Impact Dynamic
Type of striking Total mass Length velocity fracture
Reference aeroplane (tonne) (m) (m/s) strain, εfd
Sadiq et al. (2020) Boeing 767 179 48.5 150 0.1

Fang and Wu (2017) Airbus A320 72.2 38.0 218 0.25
Lee et al. (2013) Boeing 747 240 70.0 150 0.55
Present case 1 Boeing 777 158 74.0 200 No fracture
Present case 2 Boeing 777 158 74.0 200 0.23
Present case 3 Boeing 777 158 74.0 200 0.05
Boeing 747
Boeing 777
Boeing 767
Airbus A320
Figure 12.23 Relative sizes of various striking aeroplane fuselages
because at this stage, neither the concrete nor hull structures have deformed, and the
deformable striking engine is absorbing most of the energy.
Figure 12.20 presents the deformation and failure status of the hull structures with
no ballast, sand ballast or concrete ballast when struck by a deformable engine. During
the impact, the inner side shell merely deforms towards the silo when ballast materials
are present, as shown in Figures 12.21(b) and 12.21(c); in contrast, the striking body
passes through the double-sided structures under no-ballast conditions, as shown in
Figure 12.21(a). The maximum deflection of the inner side shell is greater under the
concrete-ballasted conditions than under the sand-ballasted conditions, as shown in
Figure 12.22, but it is small enough to protect the silo from damage.
Mass Distribution ´ 103 (kg/m)
Length (m)
Figure 12.24 Mass distribution of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane fuselage
40
Riera solution
present case 1
Boeing 777
30 present case 2
Initial Kinetic Energy (GJ)
Boeing 747
Lee et al. (2013)
Impulse (MNs)
present case 3
Boeing 767
20
Airbus A320 Sadiq et al. (2020)
10
Fang and Wu (2017)
Time (s)
Figure 12.25 Comparison of initial kinetic energies and impulses among the study cases
12.6.2 Model of an Entire Fuselage Striking a Rigid Wall

To validate the entire fuselage structure model (i.e., comprising the fuselage plus the
two engines) presented in this chapter, a benchmarking study of a collision between a
rigid wall and different-sized aeroplane fuselages is conducted (summarised in
Table 12.4 with the fuselages shown in Figure 12.23). The initial kinetic energy is
estimated from the following equation:

sum of kinetic and absorbed energies energy absorbed by a
fuselage (without two
engines and two wings)
Energy (GJ)
Energy (GJ)
energy absorbed by
kinetic energy two striking wings
energy absorbed by
two striking engines
total energy absorbed
by a striking body
Time (s) Time (s)
Figure 12.26 Energy–time relations for an entire fuselage striking a rigid wall obtained from the
present case 3
silo
unreinforced concrete ballast reinforced (rigid) concrete
Figure 12.27 Study case 3, with unreinforced concrete ballast material in the double side space in
all areas except for around the silo, where rigid body-like reinforced concrete is used instead
1
Ek ¼ M t V 2o , (12.3)
2
where E k is the initial kinetic energy, M t is the total mass of a striking body and V o is
the impact velocity at the beginning of impact.
0.0 s 0.07 s 0.11 s
0.02 s 0.08 s 0.12 s
0.04 s 0.09 s 0.13 s
0.06 s 0.10 s 0.14 s
Figure 12.28 Study case 2, showing the penetration of a striking hypothetical Boeing
777 aeroplane into the side structures of a hypothetical floating nuclear power plant hull
over time
As the initial kinetic energy is consumed solely by the striking aeroplane structures,
the total reaction force over time t is given by the following equation (Riera 1968):
Rðt Þ ¼ Pc ½xðt Þ þ M ½xðt ÞV 2 ðt Þ, (12.4)

Ðt
where Rðt Þ is the total reaction force, xðt Þ ¼ 0 V ðξ Þdξ is the distance from the nose of
the striking aeroplane body to structures that will be struck, Pc ðxÞ is the load required
to crush or deform the fuselage, M ðxÞ is the mass distribution of the striking aeroplane
fuselage per unit length and V ðt Þ is the velocity of an intact (uncrushed) portion of the
striking aeroplane body.
Figure 12.24 shows the mass distribution of a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane
fuselage. Pc ðxÞ along the length of the aeroplane can be calculated as a function of
wall thickness and material properties (Paik 2018), but for simplicity, Sugano et al.
(1993) suggested that Pc ðxÞ is taken as 7 per cent of the total reaction force.
Figure 12.25 compares the impulse-time relation curves for study cases, where the
Riera theoretical solution for a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane was obtained using
the assumption of Sugano et al. All other study cases were computed using nonlinear
finite-element methods with their own modelling techniques. As shown, the dynamic
fracture strain (via three present cases) significantly affects the structural
crashworthiness. Despite the different conditions of the study cases, the entire fuselage
model presented in this chapter affords reasonable approximations. Figure 12.26
shows the energy–time relations for an entire fuselage striking a rigid wall obtained
Case 1 Case 1 sum of kinetic and absorbed energies

Case 1
Penetration (m)
Energy (GJ)
kinetic energy

energy absorbed
by a struck hull
energy absorbed by a
striking body
Time (s)
Time (s) Time (s)
(a) (b) (c)
Figure 12.29 Case 1: resultant force–time relation, penetration–time relation and energy–time relation for a hypothetical nuclear power plant
hull struck by a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane travelling at 200 m/s
Case 2 Case 2 sum of kinetic and absorbed energies

kinetic energy
Case 2
Penetration (m)
Energy (GJ)
energy absorbed by a striking body
energy absorbed by a
struck body

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 12.30 Case 2: resultant force–time relation, penetration–time relation and energy–time relation for a hypothetical nuclear power plant
hull struck by a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane travelling at 200 m/s
Case 3 sum of kinetic and absorbed energies

Penetration (m)
kinetic energy
Energy (GJ)
Case 3
energy
absorbed by
a striking
body
energy absorbed by a struck hull
Case 3

(a) (b) (c)
Figure 12.31 Case 3: resultant force–time relation, penetration–time relation and energy–time relation for a hypothetical nuclear power
plant hull struck by a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane travelling at 200 m/s
from the present case 3. Major contribution to the kinetic energy absorption is to the
result of the damage of a fuselage structure, but two engines and two wings also
absorb the kinetic energy as they come into contact with the wall. The LS-DYNA
(www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna) computing time for a 0.5-s present-case simulation
20 threads and DDR3 64GB) was 2 h and 52 min.
12.6.3 Model of an Entire Fuselage Striking an Entire Hull Structure

Three cases are studied. In Case 1, the space in the double side is void of ballasting
materials; in Case 2, it is filled with unreinforced concrete ballast material; and in Case
3, it is filled with unreinforced concrete ballast material in all areas but those around
the silo, where rigid body-like concrete is used instead (shown in Figure 12.27). The
LS-DYNA (www.lstc.com/products/ls-dyna) computing time for a 0.5-s simulation
20 threads and DDR3 64GB) was 18 h and 5 min.
Figure 12.28 shows the penetration of a striking hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane
into the side structures of a hypothetical floating nuclear power plant hull (described in
Section 1.7.2). Figures 12.29–12.31 show the curves of the resultant force-time
relation, penetration-time relation and energy-time relation for cases 1, 2 and 3,
respectively. Figure 12.32 shows the contributions of indivividual structures to energy
absorption in case 2, indicating that the fuselage structures absorb a large amount of
total energy absorbed by both striking and

struck bodies
total energy absorbed by a striking body
energy absorbed by a struck body

Energy (GJ)
energy absorbed by two

striking engines
energy absorbed by
striking fuselage
structures (without
engines and wings)
energy absorbed by
two striking wings
Time (s)
Figure 12.32 Contributions of individual structures to energy absorption in case 2 for a

hypothetical nuclear power plant hull struck by a hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane travelling
at 200 m/s
case 1
case 2
Penetration (m)
case 1
case 2
case 3
case 3
Time (s) Time (s)

(a) (b)
Figure 12.33 Comparison of the resultant force–time relation and the peneration–time relation in
cases 1, 2 and 3 of a hypothetical nuclear power plant hull struck by a hypothetical Boeing
777 aeroplane travelling at 200 m/s
kinetic energy, and that the two engines also absorb energy as they strike hull
structures. Figure 12.33 compares the resultant force–time relations and the
penetration–time relations of the three study cases. As shown, case 3 secures the
safety of the silo inside the hypothetical floating nuclear power plant impacted by a
hypothetical Boeing 777 aeroplane travelling at 200 m/s.
References
Fan, J., Zhang, J., Chen, H. and Jin, Z. (2011). ‘Advances in heterogeneous material mechan-
ics’. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Heterogeneous Material Mechanics,
Shanghai, 22–26 May.
Fang, Q. and Wu, H. (2017). Concrete Structures under Projectile Impact. Springer, Singapore.
FHA (2004). Manual for LS-DYNA Soil Material Model 147. Report No. FHWA-HRT-04-095,
Turner-Fairbank Research Center, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, VA.
Itoh, M., Katayama, M. and Rainsberger, R. (2005). ‘Computer simulation of an F-4 Phantom
crashing into a reinforced concrete wall’. WIT Transactions on Modelling and Simulations,
40: 207–217.
Lee, K. S., Han, S. E. and Hong, J. W. (2013). ‘Analysis of impact of large commercial aircraft
on a prestressed containment building’. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 265: 431–449.
References 373
Paik, J. K. and Park, J. H. (2020). ‘Impact crashworthiness of a floating offshore nuclear power
plant hull structure in a terrorist attack with an aircraft strike’. Ships and Offshore Structures,
15(S1): S176–S189.
Riera, J. D. (1968). ‘On the stress analysis of structures subjected to aircraft impact forces’.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 8(4): 415–426.
Sadiq, M., Khushnood, R. A., Ilyas, M., Khaliq, W., Khan, S. A. and Rong, P. (2020).
‘Comparative assessment of impact analysis methods applied to large commercial aircraft
crash on reinforced concrete containment’. PLOS One, 15(10), doi: 10.1371/journal.
pone.0237264.
Sugano, T., Tsubota, H., Kasai, Y., Koshika, N., Orui, S., von Riesemann, W. A., Bickel, D. C.
and Parks, M. B. (1993). ‘Full-scale aircraft impact test for evaluation of impact force’.
Nuclear Engineering and Design, 140: 373–385.
Trentacoste, M. F. (2004). Evaluation of LS-DYNA Soil Material Model 147. U.S. Department
of Transportation Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Wierzbicki, T. and Teng, X. (2003). ‘How the airplane wing cut through the exterior columns of
the World Trade Center’. International Journal of Impact Engineering, 28(6): 601–625.
Wierzbicki, T., Xue, L. and Hendry-Brogan, M. (2002). ‘Chapter 4 Aircraft impact damage.’
World Trade Center Building Performance Study: Data Collection, Preliminary
Observations, and Recommendations, FEMA 403 Report, The Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE),
Hyattsville, MD.
13 Quantitative Risk Assessment
and Management
13.1 Principles of Risk-Based Safety Engineering
Despite substantial preventive efforts, severe accidents continue to occur on engineering

structures, resulting in catastrophic effects on personnel, assets and the environment.
These accidents are caused by volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous (VUCA)
environmental and operational conditions. The types of hazards associated with engin-
eering structures, including ship-shaped offshore installations, are (Paik 2020)
heating and cooling processes during flame-cutting and welding in fabrication;

extreme actions from rogue waves and storms at sea;
dynamic pressure arising from sloshing, slamming and green water;
cold (sub-zero) temperatures in Arctic regions;
cold (sub-zero) temperatures from liquefied petroleum gas (LPG);
cryogenic conditions from to liquefied natural gas (LNG) and liquid hydrogen;
ultrahigh pressures during subsea operations;
ultrahigh pressures caused by compressed gases (e.g., compressed petroleum,
natural or hydrogen gas);
elevated temperatures during fires;
springing and whipping caused by abnormal waves or underwater explosions;
blast pressures during explosions or detonations;
impact actions during collisions;
raking during grounding owing to running over a hard object (e.g., rock) with
forward speed;
penetration during collisions or stranding;
shaking, landslides, liquefaction and tsunamis caused by earthquakes;
corrosion owing to aging;
cracking owing to fatigue actions;
denting caused by the dropping of objects and
terrorist attacks (in physical or cyber forms).
Risk is present wherever potential hazards exist in association with VUCA environ-
ments. The use of risk-based methods and probabilistic characterisations of all aspects
is recognised as the best way to effectively manage VUCA environments and ultim-
ately resolve challenges related to risk (Paik 2020). In the engineering community,
risk is defined as follows:
13.1 Principles of Risk-Based Safety Engineering 375
R ¼ F a C b < Ra , (13.1)
where R is the risk, F is the frequency of the hazard, C is the severity of the
consequences, Ra is the acceptable level of risk and a and b are ascending constants
(which are often taken as a ¼ b ¼ 1). To weight the frequency or consequences, a or b
may be allocated a value greater than unity. R is classified into three categories:
casualty (fatality), asset damage and environmental pollution (e.g., oil spill or radio-
activity spread). To reduce R, either F or C, or both, must be reduced. To meet the
risk-acceptance criteria, R must be smaller than Ra , the value of which may vary from
one industry to another depending on various factors (e.g., the type of accident, the
severity of consequences or sensitivity of the public and media). The task of risk
calculation is termed risk assessment, while the task of risk mitigation is termed
risk management.
Two approaches are used to calculate risk: the qualitative approach and the
quantitative approach. The qualitative approach determines F and C using simple
methods, based on past experience and insights. For example, F is scored between 1
(rare) and 5 (almost certain) and C is scored between 1 (negligible) and 5 (severe).
Thus, the minimum and maximum scores from Equation (13.1) are 1 and 25,
respectively, when a ¼ b ¼ 1. If the calculated R is greater than Ra , F or C or both
must be managed to reduce R and sufficiently lower the risk of the hazard. Although
this approach is simple, it is difficult to incorporate detailed VUCA environmental
considerations into qualitative risk assessment and management processes.
Figure 13.1 shows a sample calculation of risk using the qualitative appraoch, where
the level of calculated risk is termed ‘low’ for R 4, ‘medium’ for 4 < R 12 and
‘high’ for R > 12. A low risk is acceptable but must be routinely monitored.
5
Almost 5 10 15 20 25
certain Medium Medium High High High
>10−2
4
4 8 12 16 20
Likely
Low Medium Medium High High
10−3 – 10−2
3
3 6 9 12 15
Possible
Frequency
Low Medium Medium Medium High

10 – 10−3
−4
2
2 4 6 8 10
Unlikely
Low Low Medium Medium Medium
10−5 – 10−4
1
1 2 3 4 5
Rare
Low Low Low Low Medium
<10−5
1
2 3 4 5
Negligible
Low Moderate High Severe
Consequence Level
Figure 13.1 A sample calculation of risk using the qualitative approach
376 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management
Definition of Structural System
Hazard Identification
Probabilistic Selection of Scenarios
Analysis of Frequency Analysis of Consequences
Risk Acceptance Risk Assessment

Criteria
Probability of Exceedance Diagrams
Cost-Benefit
Options for Risk Mitigation
Analysis
Figure 13.2 Procedure for quantitative risk assessment and management
A medium risk may be acceptable but must be closely monitored, and risk-mitigation
options must be considered. A high risk is unacceptable, and risk-mitigation options
must be immediately identified and implemented.
In contrast, the quantitative approach is a refined and sophisticated approach based
on historical evidence and the extensive characterisation of consequences involving
multiple physical processes, scales and criteria in association with VUCA
environments. The quantitative approach is therefore far more appropriate than the
qualitative approach for advanced safety studies of ship-shaped offshore installations
at every stage of their design, construction, operation and decommissioning.
Figure 13.2 shows the procedure for quantitative risk assessment and management.
Details of advanced safety studies of engineering structures, which are based on
quantitative risk assessment and management and under various types of extreme
conditions and accidents, are given in Paik (2020).
13.2 Probabilistic Selection of Event Scenarios
Hazard identification is performed to anatomise a hazardous event, such that it can be

formulated as the following function of influential parameters:
Event ¼ f ðx1 , x2 ; xi , xn Þ, (13.2)
where x1 , x2 , xi , xn are the random parameters that characterise the event.

Databases of accident statistics, that is, their causes and consequences (e.g.,
casualties, property damage and environmental pollution) are collated to characterise
each parameter in Equation (13.2). A statistical analysis of these databases gives the
best-fit probability density functions for each parameter. These probability density
functions are used together with a sampling technique to select a limited number of
realistic (probabilistic) event scenarios. For details of the selection of probabilistic
scenarios, see chapter 2 of Paik (2020).
13.3 Analyses of Frequency and Consequences
To calculate the frequency of an event, a substantial volume of data from historical

evidence and direct measurements in operation must be collected, as the frequency is
defined as the total number of occurences per exposure time to an event, as follows:
NH
F¼ , (13.3)
HH
where N H is the total number of occurrences and H H is the total exposure time (in
years). These data are obtained from historical measurements or evidence. However, if
such historical evidence is insufficient, relevant databases may be generated artificially
using virtual reality methods and digital twins. In this case, the frequency is calculated
from a combination of historical and generated databases, as follows:
NH þ NG
F¼ , (13.4)
HH þ HG
where N G is the total number of occurrences obtained from artificially generated
databases and H G is the total exposure time obtained from artificially generated
databases.
Consequences are computed in terms of risks to personnel, assets and the environ-
ment. Numerical algorithms that account for the effects of multiple physical processes,
scales and criteria are used to identify the consequences. Data from physical tests of
full-scale prototypes, or at least of large-scale models, are used to validate the results
generated by numerical algorithms. Analyses of frequencies and consequences are
conducted within a quantitative risk assessment and management framework for each
of the selected scenarios (described in Section 13.2).
13.4 Probability of Exceedance Diagrams
A key benefit of a quantitative risk assessment and management is that it enables the
determination of optimum design parameters at an acceptable risk level. Probability of
exceedance diagrams are used for this purpose, as these depict the relationships
between the probabilities of exceedance and various physical parameters. The
following five steps are performed to determine the optimum design values of target
parameters, using probability of exceedance diagrams established from computations
of the frequencies and consequences of specific scenarios (Paik 2020):
Step 1. Establish a table to represent the relationship between the frequency and the
target parameter, using data from analyses of the frequencies and consequences of
all of the selected scenarios;
Step 2. Rearrange the parameter values in the table in order of decreasing magnitude,
and calculate the cumulative frequency;
Step 3. Calculate the probability of exceedance (the total frequency minus the
cumulative frequency) for each scenario;
Step 4. Construct a probability of exceedance diagram that depicts the relationship
between the frequency and the target parameter (see Section 4.8 and Table 4.16 for
an applied example) and
Step 5. Determine the optimum design value of the target parameter associated with
the risk acceptance criteria.
13.5 Fire Risk on Topsides
Fire is a combustive process involving the evolution of light and heat, which results
from the ignition of a mixture of a combustible vapour or gas with an oxidiser. Heat
transfer in fires occurs via conduction, convection and radiation. Conduction is
heat transfer that occurs within solids or between contacting solids. Convection
is heat transfer that occurs by the movement of liquids or gases. Radiation is heat
transfer that occurs via electromagnetic waves.
Hydrocarbons such as oil or gas are a major energy source in structural engineering
applications, and therefore there is a risk of fire on the topsides of ship-shaped
offshore installations owing to the ignition of hydrocarbon leaks. Such fire risks are
minimised by fire safety engineering, which examines how fires start, spread and grow
and how they can injure personnel or damage structures and the environment. For
details on fire safety studies of engineering structures, see chapters 8, 12 and 16 of
Paik (2020). Other textbooks on fire engineering are also available (Nolan 1996;
Cameron and Raman 2005; Purkis 2006; Vinnem 2007; Franssen and Real 2010;
Drysdale 2011).
13.5.1 Fire Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection

On the topsides of ship-shaped offshore installations, hydrocarbon leaks from flanges,
valves, seals and nozzles are fire hazards, and various types of sparks in electrical
facilities (such as generators) are ignition hazards. Data on the causes of fire accidents
and failures in offshore installations are available in the literature (Hare et al. 2017),
and such data are collated into databases that are used to identify fire hazards (Crawley
and Tyler 2003) in terms of various factors, such as:
the oil or gas leak characteristics (i.e., source, size, speed, location, direction and
leak-hole type);
the ignition characteristics (i.e., source, location and type);
13.5 Fire Risk on Topsides 379
the concentrations of fuel and oxidiser;

the amount and composition of combustible gas;
the turbulence of the flow field;
the difference in the volume blockage ratio;
the site-specific environmental conditions (e.g., wind speed and direction) and
the ventilation.
Hazard identification is performed to define the parameters that affect fires on the
topsides of offshore installations. The eight parameters are
the wind direction ðX 1 Þ;

the wind speed ðX 2 Þ;
the gas leak rate (speed; X 3 );
the gas leak duration ðX 4 Þ;
the gas leak direction ðX 5 Þ;
the gas leak location in the x-direction ðX 6 Þ;
the gas leak location in the y-direction ðX 7 Þ and
the gas leak location in the z-direction ðX 8 Þ.
These parameters are random in nature, and each is expressed in the form of a
probability density function, which is determined as a best-fit distribution of relevant
data from a database. A limited number of fire scenarios are selected using a sampling
technique. For illustrative examples, see chapter 16 of Paik (2020).
13.5.2 Analyses of Fire Frequency and Consequences

Fire frequency (F) is defined as the product of gas leak probability and ignition
probability, as follows:
F ¼ FL FC FI , (13.5)
where F L is the frequency of a gas or liquid fuel leak, F C is the frequency of a gas
concentration (which is often taken as F C ¼ 1:0) and F I is the frequency of ignition.
The leak frequency is associated with leak characteristics, such as the rate and
duration, and thus the resulting fire frequency varies depending on the fire scenario,
even if the ignition source is identical. The leak frequency may also differ from those
listed in the inventories of topside structures that are used in ship-shaped
offshore installations.
A fire consequence analysis is composed of the following three parts: part 1: a fire
action analysis, part 2: a heat transfer analysis and part 3: a fire action-effect (nonlinear
structural response) analysis (described in Section 8.6). Computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) simulations are performed to characterise the fire actions (fire loads) for each of
the scenarios under investigation. Kameleon FireEx code (www.dnvgl.com/services/
fire-simulation-software-cfd-simulation-kameleon-fireex-kfx-110598) is useful for
this purpose. These CFD simulations provide information on the ambient temperature
distributions and the gas temperature that is transferred to the structures. The finite
element method is used for the heat transfer analysis, which considers the effect of
passive fire protection (PFP) on heat transfer. Nonlinear finite-element method models
are used for the fire action effect analysis, which examines the situation before and
after the structures reach ultimate or accidental limit states under both transferred heat
and external loads (Ryu et al. 2021).
Paik et al. (2021a, 2021b) subjected stiffened steel-plate structures to full-scale fire
tests to progressive collapse under lateral patch loading, without or with the applica-
tion of PFP materials, and measured the ambient temperature distributions and
structural deformations. The resulting full-scale test databases may be used to validate
the computational models used for the analysis of progressive structural collapses
caused by fires. For details on finite-element modelling in the analysis of nonlinear
structural responses, refer to Paik et al. (2013) and chapter 12 of Paik (2020).
Both CFD and nonlinear finite-element method computations are performed for all
selected fire scenarios. The resulting data are used to construct probability of excee-
dance diagrams for the fire design parameters to determine, for example, the tempera-
tures at specific locations or the time required for an entire structure to reach ultimate
or accidental limit states (Paik 2018, 2020).
13.5.3 Fire Risk Management

There are two types of measures for fire risk management: active measures and
passive measures. Active measures are used to prevent the occurrence of fires and/
or minimise the frequency of fires owing to gas leaks and ignition. For example,
sensors are used to detect gas leaks, and processes that tend to generate sparks
are avoided.
Passive measures are used to minimise the severity of fire consequences, often by
enhancing structural safety in fires, increasing structural dimensions or using anti-fire
materials or responses. For example, fire walls are widely used to prevent heat transfer
from fire sources to accommodation or working areas, while water deluge systems are
effective for fire suppression. Furthermore, escape routes and shelters must be
installed if the fatality risk exceeds the ‘as low as reasonably practicable’ level.
A cost-benefit assessment of the various measures for fire risk management is a
critical part of the process to optimise fire safety on a ship-shaped offshore installation.
13.6 Fire Risk on Helicopter Decks
There is a fire risk on the helicopter decks of ship-shaped offshore installations owing
to the hazard of a helicopter crash on landing or take-off, which would lead to oil and
fuel leaks and ignition and pool fires (IAOGP 2010a). Helicopter deck structures are
often made of aluminium alloys, which are more vulnerable than steel structures to
heat and deformation damage in fires as they have lower specific heat capacities and
mechanical properties at elevated temperatures. Helicopter decks are usually octag-
onal in shape (shown in Figure 13.3).
2 3
1 4
6 7 8 9
5 10
11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22
23 28
24 25 26 27
28 32
30 31
Figure 13.3 Section-numbered profile of a typical octagonal helicopter deck
13.6.1 Fire Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection

A database of fire accidents on helicopter decks is used for fire hazard identification.
The four random parameters that are recognised as affecting fires on helicopter
decks are:

the wind speed ðX 2 Þ;
the leak amount ðX 3 Þ and
the leak location ðX 4 Þ.
Figure 13.4 shows a sample ‘wind rose’ (indicating the probability of wind direc-
tion) for the western coast of Africa, while Table 13.1 lists the sample probabilities of
X 1 and X 2 in this region. Analogous representations of site-specific metocean data
may be developed for other regions, as necessary.
The best-fit probability density functions for X 1 and X 2 are formulated as follows:
" #
1 ð X 1 μÞ 2
f ðX 1 Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 180:9 and σ ¼ 50:57, (13.6)
2π σ 2σ 2
" #
β X 2 β1 X2 β
f ðX 2 Þ ¼ exp , α ¼ 4:808, β ¼ 2:64: (13.7)
α α α
The magnitude of X 3 depends on the sizes of the fuel tanks and engines of the
helicopter, as a full fuel condition is common on departure from land. The required
and remaining amounts of fuel are determined from the flight distance between the
land departure location and the offshore installation, together with the fuel efficiency,
as it is considered that the full amount of remaining fuel will leak. Table 13.2 indicates
Table 13.1. Sample probabilities of the wind direction ðX 1 Þ and speed ðX 2 Þ for the west coast of Africa
X 1 ( ) Probability (%) X 2 (m/s) Probability (%)
0–45 2.137 0–2 9.508

45–90 1.501 2–4 33.831
90–135 8.101 4–6 40.270
135–180 38.775 6–8 14.870
180–225 33.628 8–10 1.446
225–270 10.572 10–12 0.065
270–315 3.420 12–14 0.010
315–360 1.871 14+ 0.005
Total 100.005 Total 100.005
Table 13.2. Sample data of the leak amount from a helicopter using JP-8 fuel
Volume of fuel tank (L) 2877

Fuel efficiency (km/L) 0.35
Density of fuel (kg/L) 0.811
0°
315° 45°
270° 90°
225° 135°
180°
Figure 13.4 Sample wind rose for the western coast of Africa
the sample data regarding a leak amount from a helicopter using JP-8 fuel. Table 13.3
lists examples of the data used to calculate X 3 . Table 13.4 indicates sample investi-
gations of the required and remaining amounts of fuel. Eight groups of X 3 may be
classified according to their respective probabilites of occurrence, as indicated in
Table 13.3. Example of data used to calculate the leak amount ðX 3 Þ
Index Leak amount (kg) Probability (%)
0-1 1700–1800 0.00

1-2 1800–1900 3.85
2-3 1500–1600 7.69
3-4 2100–2200 23.08
4-5 2000–2100 42.31
5-6 2200–2300 11.54
6-7 1600–1700 7.69
7-8 1900–2000 3.88
Total 100.00
Table 13.4. Sample investigations of the required and remaining amounts

of fuel
Distance between Required Remaining

Installation land and installation amount (L) amount (L)
1 332.00 948.57 1928.43

2 322.58 921.66 1955.34
3 296.77 847.91 2029.09
4 282.76 807.89 2069.11
5 202.94 579.83 2297.17
6 180.00 514.29 2362.71
7 138.00 394.29 2482.71
8 135.71 387.74 2489.26
9 123.48 352.80 2524.20
10 123.33 352.37 2524.63
11 122.58 350.23 2526.77
12 120.00 342.86 2534.14
13 113.00 322.86 2554.14
14 111.29 317.97 2559.03
15 110.00 314.29 2562.71
16 108.00 308.57 2568.43
17 106.00 302.86 2574.14
18 93.00 265.71 2611.29
19 88.24 252.11 2624.89
20 87.10 248.86 2628.14
21 84.38 241.09 2635.91
22 81.67 233.34 2643.66
23 60.00 171.43 2705.57
24 53.33 152.37 2724.63
25 45.00 128.57 2748.43
26 40.00 114.29 2762.71
Table 13.5. Eight categories of leak amounts ðX 3 Þ and their

associate probabilities of occurrence
Index X 3 (kg) Probability (%)
0–1 1700–1800 0.0

1–2 1800–1900 3.85
2–3 1500–1600 7.69
3–4 2100–2200 23.08
4–5 2000–2100 42.31
5–6 2200–2300 11.54
6–7 1600–1700 7.69
7–8 1900–2000 3.88
Total 100.00
Table 13.5. The best-fit probability density function for X 3 is formulated using the
probability distribution of Table 13.4, which is given by
" #
1 ðX 3 μÞ2
f ðX 3 Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 4:375, σ ¼ 1:225: (13.8)
2π σ 2σ 2
The probability distribution of X 4 owing to a helicopter crash, as per the section

numbers defined in Figure 13.2, is assumed to follow a normal function, that is,
" #
1 ðX 4 μÞ2
f ðX 4 Þ ¼ pffiffiffiffiffi exp , μ ¼ 16:0, σ ¼ 7:406: (13.9)
2π σ 2σ 2
A sampling technique is used with the probability density functions defined by

Equations (13.6)–(13.9) to select the 50 fire scenarios listed in Table 13.6.
13.6.2 Analyses of Fire Frequency and Consequences

F is calculated using Equation (13.5). Helicopter crash statistics (IAOGP 2010a) are
used to define the frequency of leaks (indicated in Table 13.7). The probability of
ignition depends on the release rate (shown in Figure 13.5) (IAOGP 2010b). The
‘FPSO liquid model’ proposed by IAOGP (2010b) is used to define the ignition
probability where an insignificant flash fraction (10 per cent or less) exists, that is,
all fuel is considered to leak from the tank during a short period of time and, for
example, F I ¼ 2:8 102 .
CFD simulations are also performed using Kameleon FireEx code for all of the fire
scenarios and the computational model shown in Figure 13.6 to yield a greater depth
of analysis with 1,800,000 control volumes (Kim et al. 2016). Figure 13.7 shows the
fluid dynamics computations of the ambient temperature at section 13 of scenario 15,
where three heat-source elevations are compared. The ambient temperature decreases
significantly as the elevation increases. Figure 13.8 shows the ambient temperatures at
Table 13.6. Sample selection of fire scenarios on helicopter decks
Scenario X1 ( ) X2 (m/s) X3 (kg) X4 (section no.) Scenario X 1 ( ) X2 (m/s) X3 (kg) X4 (section no.)
1 237.975 6.219 2129.880 18 26 195.070 5.380 2287.220 13

2 255.749 2.636 2084.500 25 27 225.376 2.868 2235.960 20
3 211.951 4.630 2146.910 3 28 85.563 5.502 2040.420 19
4 187.294 2.977 2046.570 10 29 169.419 8.991 2169.620 26
5 118.887 3.083 2065.200 12 30 179.666 4.532 2138.640 12
6 218.334 2.243 2162.340 23 31 143.556 3.961 2275.010 6
7 182.203 3.288 1556.610 7 32 197.730 3.867 2196.740 12
8 140.139 5.263 2071.540 20 33 192.450 4.730 1573.180 13
9 184.744 2.513 2219.840 14 34 166.800 5.042 1923.560 8
10 155.847 1.738 1842.790 24 35 264.405 6.599 1666.840 18
11 123.955 6.056 2077.960 21 36 233.411 1.517 2009.510 9
12 106.260 0.758 2205.040 10 37 243.060 3.678 2244.690 16
13 172.008 7.929 2183.510 1 38 208.941 7.101 2098.010 11
14 189.860 4.832 2021.980 4 39 164.144 4.244 2212.310 15
15 206.029 3.388 1638.110 14 40 177.124 2.754 1617.560 11
16 59.249 2.382 2190.190 27 41 146.810 3.187 2254.000 18
17 97.668 5.904 2091.170 21 42 149.930 1.234 1599.450 15
18 221.756 4.149 2227.710 19 43 128.505 3.485 2058.940 5
19 215.074 5.151 1601.130 30 44 203.198 7.443 2110.470 13
20 158.678 4.339 1587.180 17 45 248.867 4.935 2003.170 19
21 113.104 3.773 2120.540 8 46 302.975 5.762 2154.790 16
22 161.440 1.926 1506.490 23 47 152.936 5.628 2264.040 9
23 174.574 6.399 2028.150 22 48 229.241 4.055 1535.800 16
24 276.660 6.829 2052.730 17 49 136.523 2.092 2015.770 15
25 200.436 3.582 2034.290 22 50 132.665 4.435 2176.660 28
X 1 ¼ wind direction; X 2 ¼ wind speed; X 3 ¼ leak amount; and X 4 ¼ leak location.
Table 13.7. International Association of Oil and Gas Producers data of helicopter crashes on offshore installations
Region Phase of flight Leak frequency per year Leak frequency per 50 years
North Sea In-flight 8:5 106 1:7 107

Take-off and landing 4:3 107 8:6 109
Gulf of Mexico In-flight 8:5 106 1:7 107
Rest of world In-flight 8:5 106 1:7 107
Frequency of Ignition
Release Rate (kg/s)
Figure 13.5 Sample probability of ignition vs. release rate
the centres of all sections for all of the fire scenarios (Kim et al. 2016). The structural
failure of a helicopter deck over time is computed using a nonlinear finite-element
method and steel temperatures obtained from a heat transfer analysis at
ambient temperatures.
13.6.3 Fire Probability of Exceedance Diagrams

The four steps (described in Section 13.4) are applied to establish the fire probability
of exceedance diagrams at ambient temperatures on the helicopter decks (at elevation
z ¼ 0.05 m) of ship-shaped offshore installations. This is shown in Figure 13.9, where
two regions (Gulf of Mexico and North Sea) are compared. Helicopter crashes are
more frequent in the Gulf of Mexico than in the North Sea, and thus the fire
probability of exceedance in the former region is 10 times that in the latter region
20.0 m
Figure 13.6 Sample computational fluid dynamics model for helicopter deck structures in fires
1200
section 13 at scenario 15
elevation z = 0.05 m
900
Ambient Temperature (°C)
600
300
elevation z = 0.5 m
elevation z = 1.0 m
0
0 4 8 12 16
Time (s)
Figure 13.7 Fluid dynamics computations of the ambient temperature vs. time at section 13 of
scenario 15, with varying elevations
(Kim et al. 2016). The fire design value at ambient temperature for a helicopter crash
can be determined from the probability of exceedance diagrams associated with the
risk acceptance criteria. As data on the structural failure responses over time become
available from action effect analyses, the related probability of exceedance diagrams
Fire Scenario Number
Figure 13.8 Ambient temperatures at the centre of each section for all of the
fire scenarios
10−7
Fire Probability of Exceedance per year
Gulf of Mexico
10−8
North Sea
10−9
10−10
Figure 13.9 Fire probability of exceedance diagrams at ambient temperature and an elevation
z ¼ 0.05 m on the helicopter decks of ship-shaped offshore installations
13.7 Explosion Risk on Topsides 389
can be established for structural damage or the critical time at which a helicopter deck
completely fails.
13.6.4 Fire Risk Management

Fire safety measures, such as fire extinguishers, water sprays and fire-resistant equip-
ment, are used to reduce the risk of fire on the helicopter decks of ship-shaped offshore
installations (API 2006; DNV 2015). In addition, fire-fighting appliances listed in
Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) regulation 18 for helicopter facilities are installed
(SOLAS 2015).
13.7 Explosion Risk on Topsides
A hydrocarbon explosion risk also exists on the topsides of ship-shaped offshore

installations. Leaked hydrocarbons are a hazard because they may ignite, and if com-
bustion temperatures rise to the point at which hydrocarbon molecules react spontan-
eously with an oxidiser (usually oxygen or air), an explosion occurs. In a hydrocarbon
explosion, the gas cloud volume rapidly increases, which releases large amounts of
energy and thus results in a blast and extremely rapid increases in overpressure.
Explosions often accompany fires in engineering structures, but their underlying
physical mechanisms are completely different. The physics of explosions are meas-
ured in terms of impulsive forces (blast pressures and drag forces), reaction speeds and
heat evolution or fragmentation, whereas those of fires are measured in terms of
elevated temperatures and heat energy. For details on advanced safety studies of
engineering structures in hydrocarbon explosions, see chapters 9, 13 and 17 of Paik
(2020).
13.7.1 Explosion Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection

Hydrocarbon explosions are caused by various factors in association with chemical,
electrical and vapour actions, among others. The analyses of actions (explosion loads)
and action effects (nonlinear structural responses) of hydrocarbon explosions are
categorised into three steps: step 1: gas dispersion analysis, step 2: explosion load
analysis and step 3: nonlinear structural response analysis. A gas dispersion analysis
identifies the distribution of the dispersed gas cloud volume in terms of the gas
concentration ratio over the affected structures. The parameters that affect gas disper-
sion are exactly the same as those that affect fires (described in Section 13.5.1), and
gas dispersion scenarios are selected in a similar way to fires. An explosion load
analysis is carried out based on the results of a gas dispersion analysis. The eight
parameters used to characterise the explosion loads are
the gas volume ðY 1 Þ;

the gas cloud position in the x-direction ðY 2 Þ;
the gas cloud position in the y-direction ðY 3 Þ;

the gas cloud position in the z-direction ðY 4 Þ;
the gas cloud size in the x-direction ðY 5 Þ;
the gas cloud size in the y-direction ðY 6 Þ;
the gas cloud size in the z-direction ðY 7 Þ and
the gas concentration ratio ðY 8 Þ.
These parameters are obtained from a gas dispersion analysis of individual scen-
arios, but they are also random variables that must be addressed in a probabilistic
manner. Y 8 is often treated as a constant value if an equivalent gas cloud volume is
used for the explosion load analysis. The best-fit probability density functions for
these parameters are formulated based on the results of a gas dispersion analysis, and a
sampling technique is used to select a limited number of realistic scenarios for use in
an explosion load analysis.
13.7.2 Analyses of Explosion Frequency and Consequences

The frequency of a hydrocarbon explosion (F) is defined as follows:
F ¼ FG FC FI , (13.10)
where FG is the frequency of a gas cloud, FC is the frequency of a gas concentration

and FI is the frequency of ignition. FG is associated with the gas dispersion scenarios
and the gas leak frequency. FI may be taken as a constant value, regardless of the gas
cloud size. Useful practices for determining FG and FI are presented in chapter 17 of
Paik (2020).
An explosion consequence analysis is composed of three parts: part 1: gas
dispersion analysis, part 2: explosion action analysis and part 3: explosion action
effect analysis (described in Section 8.7). CFD simulations are performed for gas
dispersion analyses of selected scenarios. In general, a gas cloud volume reaches a
peak value and then decays with time, depending on the effects of wind and ventila-
tion, and the gas concentration is not uniform throughout a gas cloud. For simplicity,
the actual (flammable) gas cloud volume with a non-uniform concentration ratio is
replaced by an equivalent gas cloud volume with a uniform concentration ratio,
as follows:

mfuel =moxygen actual V fuel =V oxygen actual
ER ¼ ¼ , (13.11)
mfuel =moxygen stoichiometric V fuel =V oxygen stoichiometric
where ER is the equivalent ratio, m is the mass of the gas cloud and V is the volume of
the gas cloud. The ratio of fuel to oxygen is used in terms of both mass and volume.
ER ¼ 1 represents the stoichiometric condition at which the blast pressure loads are at
a maximum.
CFD simulations are also performed for explosion action analyses, and a nonlinear
finite-element method is used for the explosion action effect (nonlinear structural
response) analysis (described in Section 8.7). For details on the use of finite-element
modelling in a nonlinear structural response analysis, see Paik et al. (2014) and
13.7.3 Explosion Risk Management

Active options for explosion risk management are used to prevent the occurrence of
explosions. Active safety measures include the removal of gas leaks and ignition
sources, and gas leaks are detected as soon as possible after they begin. Passive
options for explosion risk mitigation include the installation of blast walls and escape
routes or shelters to reduce the risk of explosion-related casualties in living quarters
and working areas (Paik 2020).
13.8 Collision Risk with Vessels
Depending on the operational and environmental conditions, ship-shaped offshore

installations may be subjected to collisions with supply vessels transporting food,
chemicals and equipment or side-by-side collisions with shuttle tankers (described in
Section 8.3). Structural damage owing to such collisions may be minor (e.g., local
denting), but repairs are nevertheless costly. Supply ships approach an installation
from outside the field, and thus their transit speed is a hazard because of the risk of a
head-on impact caused by a watchkeeping failure (HSE 2000). Furthermore, the
introduction of modern supply ships with increased sizes and new bow shapes for
operations in deep and ultra-deep waters may increase the collision impact energies,
resulting in greater structural damage that involves not only plasticity and large
deformation but also crushing and fracture. As such, quantitative risk assessment
and management of collisions between ship-shaped offshore installations and supply
ships are needed (Mujeeb-Ahmed and Paik 2021).
13.8.1 Collision Hazard Identification and Scenario Selection

The primary causes of collisions between ship-shaped offshore installations and
supply ships are human error, engine and equipment disorder or failure and harsh
environmental conditions, owing to the essentiality of offshore logistics operations
(HSE 2000). The 11 parameters that affect collisions are
the significant wave height ðX 1 Þ;

the zero-up-crossing wave period ðX 2 Þ;
the wave direction ðX 3 Þ;
the 1-h average wind speed ðX 4 Þ;
the surface current velocity ðX 6 Þ;
the surface current direction ðX 7 Þ;
the stillwater level ðX 8 Þ;
the ship speed ðX 9 Þ;
safety zone
speed < 1.5 m/s
installation
speed < 0.5 m/s
Figure 13.10 The approach of an offshore supply vessel (OSV) to a ship-shaped offshore
installation within the 500-m safety zone
the ship position (impact location; X 10 ) and

the ship heading (collision angle; X 11 ).
Water depth at a site is regarded as constant. X 8 includes the combined actions of
tide and surge. Site-specific metocean data and supply-ship operational data are used
to formulate the probability density functions of each parameter. The course of an
offshore supply vessel (OSV) within the 500-m safety zone around an offshore
installation may be divided into three operations, namely on-approach, ship manoeuv-
ring and transfer (Spouge 1999), and supply ships must manoeuvre at low speeds
around offshore installations (IMCA 2018).
Figure 13.10 shows a schematic representation of the approach of an OSV to a
ship-shaped offshore installation within the 500-m safety zone (Step Change in Safety
2017). The maximum speed of a supply ship may be limited to, for example, 1.5 m/s
in the 200–500-m zone and 0.5 m/s in the 200-m zone. A sampling technique and
formulated probability density functions are used to select a limited number of
realistic collision scenarios, which are represented by the 11 parameters.
13.8.2 Analyses of Frequency and Consequences

The frequency of collisions between offshore installations and supply ships is calcu-
lated from historical evidence. For example, Mujeeb-Ahmed and Paik (2019) used
statistical data (HSE 2002) on the number of collision accidents between offshore
installations and visiting/passing vessels during 1970–2014 to show that the average
collision frequency is 8:3 104 per platform-year (shown in Figure 13.11). More
recent data may be added to calculate an updated frequency of collision.
collision between visiting vessel

Number of Collision Accident and offshore platform
collision between passing vessel

and offshore platform
Year
Figure 13.11 The number of collision accidents between ship-shaped offshore installations and
visiting/passing vessels during 1970–2014
Figure 13.12 Sample supply ship with a bulbous bow
A consequence analysis consists of two parts: part 1: collision action (collision

load) analysis and part 2: collision action-effect (structural damage) analysis.
Figure 13.12 shows a sample supply ship with a bulbous bow (described in Section
8.3.9). In a collision action analysis, CFD (computational fluid dynamics) simulations
are performed to characterise the motions of such a supply ship in collision scenarios.
ANSYS AQWA code (www.ansys.com/products/structures/ansys-aqwa) is useful for
this purpose, in which the equation for ship motion is solved in the frequency-domain
collision occurs at t = 270.8 s collision occurs at t = 270.8 s collision occurs at t = 270.8 s

Velocity (m/s)
Pitch (o)
Yaw (o)
Figure 13.13 Sample time histories of ship motions: (a) ship velocity; (b) pitch and (c) yaw
using the AQWA-LINE module, followed by a nonlinear time-domain analysis of

ship motions in the AQWA-NAUT module. A two-stage predictor–corrector method
is used at each time-step to obtain the time histories of velocities and positions of ship
motions by integrating acceleration owing to the forces of wind, waves and currents.
The input wave frequencies and directions may range from 0.0159 to 0.245 Hz
(20 frequency intervals) and from 180 to þ180 in 45 intervals, respectively.
The Pierson–Moskowitz (P–M) spectrum may be used to define the constant of
irregular waves. A constant wind speed and current are considered during the simula-
tion. For simplicity, the initial rotational velocities and fluid-structure interactions are
often disregarded if the centre of a ship’s gravity is located on its centre-line amidship.
A mesh convergence study generates the best panel elements, for example, a total of
4,851 panel elements (2-m mesh size), to model a supply-ship hull structure.
Figure 13.13 shows sample time histories of the ship velocity, pitch and yaw angle
obtained from CFD simulations of a collision scenario in which the supply ship is in
contact with the installation at time t ¼ 270 s (Mujeeb-Ahmed and Paik 2019).
Various ship characteristics (e.g., mass with hydrodynamic added mass, velocity,
collision angle and location at the instant of impact) and environmental conditions are
incorporated into the CFD computations. The initial kinetic (impact) energy of a
collision between an offshore installation and a supply ship is approximately pre-
dicted, as follows (Pedersen and Zhang 1999):
1
Ek ¼ M ð1 þ m1 Þ sin2 α þ 1 þ m2 cos2 α V 2 , (13.12)
2
where E k is the initial kinetic energy; M is the mass of the supply ship; m1 is the surge-
added mass coefficient, which is taken as 1.1; m2 is the sway-added mass coefficient,
which is taken as 1.4; V is the velocity of the supply ship and α is the collision angle
between the supply ship and the offshore installation.
These CFD computations reveal the collision action characteristics in terms of the
impact speed, impact angle, horizontal impact location and vertical impact location.
The collision angle represents the yaw motion of the ship with respect to the offshore
installation. All of the parameters represent the exact moment when the supply ship
contacts the hull of the offshore installation. A nonlinear finite-element method is used
for the collision action-effect analysis. LS-DYNA code (www.lstc.com/products/ls-
dyna) is useful for this purpose. Computational models similar to those described in
Section 8.3 are used (Mujeeb-Ahmed et al. 2020).
The collision consequences are presented in terms of the extent of structural
damage and the repair costs (Mujeeb-Ahmed and Paik 2021). To this end, both
CFD and nonlinear finite element method computations are performed for all of the
selected collision scenarios. Based on these computations, probability of exceedance
diagrams are established for the collision design parameters in terms of the collision
damage characteristics and impact energies.
13.8.3 Collision Risk Management

The high level causal factors of a large proportion of impacts between supply ships
and ship-shaped offshore installations that cause structural damages requiring repair
are: a lack of adequate marine experience and a lack of understanding of an offshore
installation; poor communications between the offshore installation and the supply
ship; and inadequate design of the offshore installation to minimise the probability of
in-field ship collisions (e.g., an insufficient reach and/or number of cranes in oper-
ation, a lack of effective visible references on the offshore installation to assist the
master of a supply ship to monitor and control the relative position of a ship alongside
an offshore installation and inadequate fendering and other protections of key struc-
tural and hydrocarbon-carrying systems). Other causal factors include hoses of incor-
rect lengths (i.e., too long or too short), insufficient supply-ship crew knowledge about
the motion characteristics of an offshore installation and the reluctance of a supply-
ship master to cancel a close-proximity operation in marginal conditions. All of these
causation factors must be addressed and minimised. For more details on the causal
factors of collisions between offshore installations and supply ships, see HSE (2000).
For side-by-side collisions of ship-shaped offshore installations with shuttle tankers
(described in Section 8.3.8) or collisions with supply vessels (described in Section
8.3.9), INA (2002) provides the guidelines for the design of fender systems which
should be determined from not only the energy absorption characteristics but also the
hull pressure loads of a berthing ship and the reaction forces to the structure to ensure
damage protection of both striking and struck structures. The primary considerations
for the design of fender systems are as follows:
stand-off distance;
berthing energy absorption charcateristics;
type of fender and
sea states and operational conditions.
The stand-off distance between a ship-shaped offshore installation and a shuttle
tanker or a supply vessel should be large enough to keep them from collisions.
Table 13.8 gives stand-off distances in good weather conditions which are a function
an equivalent vessel size as follows:
Table 13.8. Stand-off distance between a ship-shaped offshore

installation and a closing vessel
Equivalent vessel size, M eq (tonnes) Stand-off distance (m)
500 0.9–1.0
1,000 0.9–1.4
3,000 1.2–1.7
6,000 1.2–2.0
10,000 1.5–2.2
25,000 1.5–2.2
50,000 1.8–2.5
100,000 2.4–3.3
200,000 2.4–3.7
330,000 3.3–4.0
470,000 4.0–4.5
790,000 4.2–4.5
Table 13.9. Typical design closing velocities of berthing vessels
Vessel size (displacement) (tonnes) Closing velocity (m/s)
500–8,000 0.3–0.5
10,000–45,000 0.25–0.4
50,000–85,000 0.2–0.3
100,000–200,000 0.2–0.25
>330,000 0.15–0.25
2M a M b
M eq ¼ , (13.13)
Ma þ Mb
where M eq is the equivalent vessel size, M a is the displacement of a ship-shaped
offshore installation in tonnes and M b is the displacement of a closing (striking) vessel
in tonnes.
Structural crashworthiness analyses can be used to characterise the berthing
energy in collisions between a ship-shaped offshore inatlaltion and a shuttle tanker
(described in Section 8.3.8) or a supply vessel (described in Section 8.3.9), which is
proportional to the square of the closing velocity (defined in Equation 8.7).
Table 13.9 provides design closing velocities of berthing vessels as a function of
the size (INA 2002). Fender systems should be designed so that the entire berthing
energy shall be absorbed by fenders to prevent structural damage in both striking
and struck structures. The structural crashworthiness analyses are undertaken by
taking into account the interacting effects between a ship-shaped offshore instal-
lation, a closing vessel and fenders.
Two catergories of fenders are relevant: (1) primary fenders positioned along the
main body to protect hull structures and (2) secondary fenders to protect bow and stern
References 397
Table 13.10. Number and size of pneumatic rubber fenders in ship–ship operations
Vessel size Relative berthing Estimated berthing Number Size of fenders,

(tonnes) velocity (m/s) energy (kN·m) of fenders diameter (m) length (m)
1,000 0.3 24 >3 1:0 2:0

3,000 0.3 74 >3 1:5 3:0
6,000 0.3 140 >3 2:5 5:5
10,000 0.25 170 >3 2:5 5:5
30,000 0.25 400 >4 3:3 6:5
50,000 0.2 480 >4 3:3 6:5
100,000 0.15 540 >4 3:3 6:5
150,000 0.15 710 >5 3:3 6:5
200,000 0.15 930 >5 3:3 6:5
330,000 0.15 1,550 >4 4:5 9:0
500,000 0.15 2,310 >4 4:5 9:0
damage in berthing and unberthing. Fenders in ship–ship operations are typically

made of pneumatic or foam-filled rubber. INA (2002) recommends using the number
and size of pneumatic rubber fenders (shown in Figure 8.2) depending on the vessel
size, as indicated in Table 13.10. Finally, the design of fender systems is affected by
operational conditions of a shuttle tanker or a supply vessel associated with sea states
and loading conditions. For a given closing velocity, the berthing energy of a light
ship is less than that of a laden ship. However, the windage area of a light ship is
greater than that of a laden ship and thus it is more difficult to manoeuvre in a laden
ship. Also, the effect of waves on a light ship is greater than on a laden ship.
References
API (2006). Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Heliports for
Fixed Offshore Platforms. American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
Cameron, I. T. and Raman, R. (2005). Process Systems Risk Management. Elsevier, Oxford.
Crawley, F. and Tyler, B. (2003). Hazard Identification Methods. Institution of Chemical
Engineers, Warwickshire.
DNV (2015). Offshore Standard: Helicopter Decks. DNV-OS-E401, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Drysdale, D. (2011). An Introduction to Fire Dynamics. 3rd Edition, John Wiley & Sons,
Chichester.
Franssen, J. M. and Real, P. V. (2010). Fire Design of Steel Structures: ECCS Eurocode Design
Manuals. Ernst & Sohn, Berlin.
Hare, J., Goff, R., Burrel, G. and McGillivray, A. (2017). Offshore Accident and Failure
Frequency Data Sources: Review and Recommendations. Research Report RR1114, Health
and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (2000). Effective Collision Risk Management for Offshore Installations. Offshore
Technology Report OTO 1999 052, Health and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (2002). Marine Risk Assessment. Offshore Technology Report OTO 2001 063, Health and
IAOGP (2010a). Risk Assessment Data Directory: Aviation Transport Accident Statistics.
Report No. 434-11.1, International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London.
IAOGP (2010b). Risk Assessment Data Directory: Ignition Probabilities. Report No. 434-6.1,
International Association of Oil & Gas Producers, London.
IMCA (2018). International Guidelines for the Safe Operation of Dynamically Positioned
Offshore Supply Vessels. International Marine Contractors Association, London.
INA (2002). Guidelines for the Design of Fender Systems. Report of Working Group 33 of the
Maritime Navigation Commission, International Navigation Association, Brussels.
Kim, S. J., Lee, J., Paik, J. K., Seo, J. K., Shin, W. H. and Park, J. S. (2016). ‘A study on fire
design accidental loads for aluminum safety helidecks’. International Journal of Naval
Architecture and Ocean Engineering, 8(6): 519–529.
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M. P., Ince, S. T. and Paik, J. K. (2020). ‘Computational models for the
structural crashworthiness analysis of a fixed-type offshore platform in collisions with an
offshore supply vessel’. Thin-Walled Structures, 154, doi: 10.1016/j.tws.2020.106868.
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M. P. and Paik, J. K. (2019). ‘A probabilistic approach to determine design
loads for collision between an offshore supply vessel and offshore installations’. Ocean
Mujeeb-Ahmed, M. P. and Paik, J. K. (2021). ‘Quantitative collision risk assessment of a fixed-
type offshore platform with an offshore supply vessel’. Structures, 29: 2139–2161.
Nolan, D. P. (1996). Handbook of Fire and Explosion Protection Engineering Principles for
Oil, Gas, Chemical, and Related Facilities. Noyes Publications, Westwood, NJ.
nonlinear structural response analysis of offshore installations in fires’. Proceedings of
Annual Meeting of the US Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Bellevue,
WA, 6–8 November.
Paik, J. K., Kim, S. J., Lee, J. C., Seo, J. K., Kim, B. J. and Ha, Y. C. (2014). ‘A new procedure
for the nonlinear structural response analysis of offshore installations in explosions’.
Proceedings of Annual Meeting of the US Society of Naval Architects and Marine
Engineers, Houston, TX, 22–24 October.
Paik, J. K., Ryu, M. G., He, K., Lee, D. H., Lee, S. Y., Park, D. K. and Thomas, G. (2021a).
‘Full-scale fire testing to collapse of steel stiffened plate structures under lateral patch
loading (Part 1): Without passive fire protection’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(3):
227–242.
(Part 2): With passive fire protection’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 16(3): 243–254.
Pedersen, P. T. and Zhang, S. (1999). ‘On impact mechanics in ship collisions’. Marine
Structures, 11(10): 429–449.
Purkis, J. A. (2006). Fire Safety Engineering: Design of Structures. 2nd Edition, Elsevier, New
York.
References 399
SOLAS (2015). Construction: Fire Protection, Fire Detection and Fire Extinction. Chapter II-
2. International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, International Maritime Organization,
London.
Spouge, J. (1999). A Guide to Quantitative Risk Assessment for Offshore Installations. The
Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology, London.
Step Change in Safety (2017). Marine Operations: 500 m Safety Zone. Aberdeen.
Vinnem, J. E. (2007). Offshore risk assessment: Principles, Modelling and Application of QRA
Studies. Springer, Stavanger.
14 Life-Cycle Corrosion Assessment
and Management
14.1 Principles of Life-Cycle Corrosion Engineering
Ship-shaped offshore installations deteriorate over time. This deterioration leads to

significant problems in terms of safety, health and the environment and may require
substantial financial expenditure to remedy. Moreover, age-related deterioration has
reportedly been a factor in many failures (including total losses) of ships and
offshore structures.
Corrosion wastage is a key form of age-related deterioration that affects the safety
and integrity of a ship-shaped offshore installation. Localised corrosion wastage (e.g.,
pitting or grooving) and general (uniform) corrosion may cause leakage at oiltight and
watertight boundaries, leading to pollution, cargo mixing or gas accumulation in
enclosed spaces. Severe corrosion may lead to significant downtime costs owing to
production losses during steel renewal and high levels of related direct and
indirect expenditures.
Offshore installations are therefore subjected to periodic health-monitoring
surveys to detect corrosion wastage and estimate the remaining thicknesses of
structural members before replacement is required. Close-up surveys and gauging
inspections must be performed to detect threshold levels of corrosion, such that
affected plates can be repaired if necessary. In a life-cycle corrosion assessment and
management scheme for aging structures, both operational serviceability and struc-
tural safety are of prime concern. In trading tankers, corrosion mainly occurs inside
cargo holds and ballast tanks, rather than on the outer surfaces of hulls, as the latter
are well coated and regularly maintained in dry-dock (typically at five-year inter-
vals). In an offshore installation, however, corrosion may also occur on the under-
water hull. Furthermore, as coatings begin to fail after approximately 10 years, the
minimisation of corrosion effects requires a high level of quality control of the
initial surface preparation and coating application processes, plus the regular
renewal of backup anodes. The external hull is usually protected by coatings and
an impressed current corrosion-protection (ICCP) system, although the primary
structures are typically protected only by anodes. Important parts of cargo spaces,
such as the deck head and the bottom or inner bottom, must also be coated before
their first use.
In addition to anticorrosion measures, two other approaches are critical for life-
cycle corrosion engineering: the timely renewal of heavily corroded structural
14.1 Principles of Life-Cycle Corrosion Engineering 401
members, and/or the prior addition of corrosion margins to newly built structures.
These approaches depend on an ability to define the amount of corrosion that can be
tolerated before structural member renewal is required. Based on strength consider-
ations, industry practice recommends using local plate thickness reductions of
approximately 20–25 per cent as limiting values for corrosion wastage, the excee-
dance of which should trigger plate replacement. The use of a corrosion margin to
prevent the need for steel renewals entirely during service is even more attractive,
especially if the renewal of corroded areas is difficult because of the cost and/or the
difficulty of dry-docking and repair at the sites of ship-shaped offshore installations.
Thus, predictions of likely future corrosion losses must be made for aging structures,
as this will enable the necessary margins or allowances to be maintained as offshore
installations age. Certain questions must therefore be answered during the life-cycle
corrosion assessment and management of an offshore installation, namely:
where is the corrosion likely to occur?

when does the corrosion start?
what is the life of the coating?
what is the extent of the corrosion?
what is the rate of progression of corrosion?
what are the effects of corrosion on health conditions associated with serviceability,
safety and structural integrity? and
what are the options for corrosion management?
Life-cycle corrosion engineering aims to answer all of these questions and thereby
maintain an offshore installation in good health for its entire lifetime by preventing the
development of corrosion-related problems.
Although corrosion does not affect the chemical composition and mechanical
properties of steels (Rajput and Paik 2021), it substantially affects their geometric
factor-related structural performance. The safety criteria for life-cycle corrosion
engineering are expressed in a general form, as follows:
g ¼ gðx1 , x2 ; xi Þ < 0, (14.1)
where g is the limit state function and x1 , x2 , xi are the parameters that affect the
serviceability, safety and integrity of offshore installations with corrosion wastage.
A particular form of Equation (14.1) is expressed in terms of the corrosion size,
localised corrosion intensity and residual strength, as follows:
σu
d c < dca , I c < I ca , > ηc , (14.2)
σ uo
where dc is the depth of corrosion damage, which is represented by the reduced plate
thickness t r , dca is the allowable depth of corrosion, I c is the intensity of localised
corrosion, which is defined by Equation (14.3), I ca is the allowable intensity of
localised corrosion, σ u is the residual (ultimate) strength of the corroded structure,
σ uo is the ultimate strength of the intact structure and ηc is the adequacy of the residual
strength.
402 Life-Cycle Corrosion Assessment and Management
14.2 Phenomenological Actions Causing Corrosion
Corrosion inevitably occurs in engineering structures that are exposed to a corrosive

environment. The initiation of corrosion can be prevented by the application of
coatings or the use of anticorrosive materials. Corrosion wastage results from one or
a combination of phenomenological actions, namely:
electrochemical actions;
galvanic actions;
intergranular actions;
crevice actions;
erosion actions and/or
microbial actions.
Electrochemical actions cause corrosion in a metal if it functions as an anode in
combination with a cathode and an electrolyte. In the resulting electrochemical
process, ions are transferred between the anode and the cathode, and thus electrons
flow from the anode to the cathode, which causes preferential corrosion of the anode.
Cathodic protection is used to prevent the electrochemical corrosion of metals by
driving their potential below the corrosion potential. This is achieved by the use of a
non-corroding anode or emitter plate as part of an ICCP system.
Galvanic actions cause corrosion when two dissimilar metals immersed in an
electrolyte, such as seawater, are connected directly or by a metallic path.
Intergranular actions lead to a microscopic form of corrosion that is caused by a
potential difference between metal grain bodies and boundaries. That is, if grain
bodies are anodic relative to grain boundaries, corrosion occurs along the boundaries,
for example, along weld zones.
Crevice actions cause corrosion in relatively confined spaces, such as slightly open
joints (e.g., crevices) and under nuts, bolt heads and washers.
Erosive actions cause corrosion under the high velocity seawater flows that occur in
the bends and elbows of pipes and at strike plates. Corrosion resulting from cavitation
can also be erosive, although the mechanism of initiation results from more than just
flow velocity.
Microbial actions cause corrosion if microbes are present in biofilms on the
surfaces of materials. Sulfide-reducing bacteria function under both anaerobic and
aerobic conditions to produce hydrogen sulphide, which can corrode metals.
A different type of bacteria produces hydrogen sulfide under aerobic conditions.
Aerobic bacteria cause biogenic sulfide corrosion, and anaerobic bacteria produce
hydrogen sulfide, which accelerates the growth of corrosion. In contrast to anaerobic
corrosion that occurs spontaneously, metals corrode owing to a redox reaction that
generates molecular hydrogen from hydrogen ions associated with bacteria. Metals are
composed of iron (Fe), which changes to Fe2+ in a humid environment and anoxic
conditions.
Fe þ 2 Hþ ! Fe2þ þ H2
14.3 Types of Corrosion 403
As metals are oxidised under anaerobic condition by the protons of H2O, H+ ions
are reduced to form molecular hydrogen H2.
Fe þ 2 H2 O ! Fe ðOHÞ2 þ H2
A thin film of molecular hydrogen usually forms on the metal, and sulfide-reducing
bacteria oxidise the molecular hydrogen to produce hydrogen sulfide ions (HS) and
water as follows:
4 H2 þ SO4 2 ! HS þ 3 H2 O þ OH
The ions of the metal change to partly iron sulfide FeS and partly iron hydroxide
from a reaction with H2O.
Fe2þ þ HS ! FeS þ Hþ
3 Fe2þ þ 6 H2 O ! 3 FeðOHÞ2 þ 6 Hþ
4 Fe þ SO4 2 þ Hþ þ 3 H2 O ! FeS þ 3 Fe ðOHÞ2 þ OH
Corrosion associated with sulfide-reducing bacteria is much more hazardous than

anaerobic corrosion. Various corrosion inhibitors are used to prevent microbial corro-
sion (described in Section 14.8.5).
14.3 Types of Corrosion in Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations
The corrosion of metal structures generates hydrated oxides and hydroxides of iron,
which are either hard and protective or friable and non-protective. Friable rust tends to
occur on internal surfaces that do not have a protective coating. Under certain
conditions, for example, with abrasion or excessive metal flexing, the rust scale can
break off, exposing fresh metal to corrosive attack. Rust is also removed by dissol-
ution in some types of liquids, such as petroleum products. However it occurs, the loss
of metal thickness owing to corrosion is not always visually distinguishable, and thus
ultrasonic inspection techniques must also be used.
The failure to remove mill scale from a steel surface during the structural assembly
of a ship-shaped offshore installation results in accelerated corrosion during service.
Severe corrosion can lead to a significant steel loss and oil or gas leakage, and the
mild- and low-alloy steels used in offshore installations may exhibit the following
types of corrosion wastage (shown in Figure 14.1):
uniform (general) corrosion;

pitting corrosion;
grooving corrosion and/or
weld metal corrosion
stiffener
grooving corrosion web grooving corrosion

grooving grooving
corrosion weld bead corrosion
general corrosion pitting corrosion
steel plate
Figure 14.1 Types of corrosion in a ship-shaped offshore installation
14.3.1 General Corrosion

General (uniform) corrosion forms almost uniformly on a steel surface (shown in
Figure 14.2(a)). It occurs if a surface is uncoated or if its coating has failed (shown in
Figure 14.3) (SRAJ 2002). This figure illustrates the initiation and progression of
general corrosion on the surfaces of steel plates of oil tanks, where various chemical
compounds, such as H2O, O2, CO2, H2, S and SOx, originate from the combination of
oil with unreactive (noble) gases such as helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and
radon. First, day–night temperature fluctuations lead to the collection of dew atop a
layer of iron oxide (FeO(OH)) on the exterior of the steel plate. Next, elemental sulfur
(S) is generated from SO2 via a FeO(OH)-catalysed process and is deposited on the
plate surface to create a stratified corrosion product consisting of S and iron rust. The
characteristics of this corrosion progress depend on the concentration of H2S, among
other factors. Although iron rust repeatedly flakes off from this layer of S, chemical
analyses have shown that accelerated corrosion rates are not solely the result of
repeated flake-off (Dante 2017).
A corrosion margin is added to guard against uniform corrosion and other types of
quasi-uniform corrosion loss over relatively large local areas (i.e., a few plate panels
between stiffeners and web frames). Severe uniform corrosion significantly reduces
structural strength. The residual strength of uniformly corroded structures corresponds
to their thickness, which is calculated by subtracting the uniform reduction or corro-
sion loss from the original plate thickness.
14.3.2 Pitting Corrosion

Pitting is a localised form of corrosion (shown in Figure 14.2(b)). In a ship-shaped
offshore installation, pitting occurs on the bottom plating or other horizontal surfaces
and in structural locations that trap water, for example, the aft-most bays of tanks
when the offshore installation is trimmed aft to enable drainage. Pitting initiates from a
14.3 Types of Corrosion 405
(a) upper deck plate (b) upper deck plate (c) upper deck plate
Dew
dew FeO(OH) deposition
deposition of elemental
of elemental S S
Dew
dew FeO(OH)
2H2O+ O2＋４ｅ- 4OH- SOSO ++ H22O
2 2 O H SO3 3 SS
H22SO
2H2O + O2 + 4e 4OH-
2 2H
H2S+O
2S +2 O2
2S+2H
2S +2O2H(FeOOH
2O
The) deposition of elemental S occurs
a deposition of elemental S is
3 3 αDFeO(OH)
2+
Fe FeFe2+ +Fe2e- +2e-Fe(OH)
Fｅ(OH) Fe00H
H2S+SO
2 2H 3S+2H
2S + SO2
2 3S 2+O2H2O independently of corrosion
independent reactions
of a corrosion reaction
(d) upper deck plate (e) upper deck plate
inertInert
gas:GasH2H O,
2O OO22, SO
SO22,CO
CO
2 2
crude oil:OilH2HS,2SHH22O
Crude O
inside a tank
Inside the Tank
flake
flakingoff
off H2S +H2O 2+
S+O H2O2Ocoexistance
2 +H coexistence
elemental
elemental SS FeO(OH)
The formation of FeO(OH)
forming new FeOOH on the outer on FeO(OH)/S
flaking off oflayer flake-off
the FeOOH due
/ S layer
thesurface
outer by diffusion
surface Fe2+ throughof
byof diffusion S by the vibration
to vibration or deformation
and deformation
Fe 2+ through S
Figure 14.2 Mechanism of general corrosion on the surfaces of steel plates of oil tanks
initiation ofofpitting
Generation Pitting corrosion
Corrosion growth
Progressofofpitting corrosion
Pitting Corrosion
sludge, heavy oil coat

damage by COW oil coat (cathode)
water water
defect of mill- scale mill-scale sulfuretted iron film

water water
(cathode)
drop of dew, deposit, film

flow of water water water elemental S FeOOH (cathode)
Fe 2++2e -
S 0+2e - S 2-
Fe Fe 3++e- Fe 2+
Figure 14.3 Mechanism of pitting corrosion on the surfaces of steel plates of oil tanks
(where COW stands for crude oil washing)
defect in a protective covering, such as an oil coat, a mill-scale or a corrosion product

(shown in Figure 14.3) (SRAJ 2002). The initial damage to the protective covering is
caused by the flow of crude oil, local moisture, crude-oil washing or seawater
washing. Defective areas in paint coatings lead to pitting corrosion, whereas areas
without paint coatings are more likely to experience general corrosion.
The diameters, depths and densities of pits (i.e., the number of pits per unit of area)
vary. The pit profile also varies with depth, and sometimes has a staircase-like
appearance. A pit density beyond a certain value (e.g., 30 per cent) creates a uniform
corrosion-like situation in terms of the strength assessment. In contrast, low density
pitting is primarily a cause of leakage. Pit repair and plate renewal are the only viable
options in such cases. The addition of specific pit-related corrosion margins at the
design stage is often difficult to justify economically, as the occurrence and density of
pitting is not highly predictable and the process involved is not well understood.
The rates of pit growth may be many times the rate of general corrosion growth.
This is attributable to the acidic environment at the pit bottom and an ‘area effect’ in
coated surfaces, such as a local breakdown in a coating layer in association with an
increased corrosion rate. Bacterial corrosion owing to microbial actions also typically
generates pitting. The surface degree of pitting intensity (SDOP) is used to represent
the size of corrosion wastage, as follows:
1 Xn
SDOP ¼ Api 100 ð%Þ, (14.3a)
ab i¼1
where Api is the surface area of the ith pit and is calculated as Api ¼ πd2ri =4, with dri
representing the diameter of the ith pit with a circular shape. n is the total number of
pits, a is the plate length and b is the plate breadth. The volumetric degree of pitting
intensity (VDOP) may also be used, and is defined as follows:
1 X n
VDOP ¼ V pi 100 ð%Þ, (14.3b)
abt i¼1
where V pi is the volume of the ith pit, represented as V pi ¼ t ri Api in which t ri ¼ dci is
the depth (or reduced thickness) of the ith pit and t is the plate thickness.
The depth and distribution of pits over the surface of a plate are highly variable. Pits
are generally circular in shape, with a maximum diameter of 25–80 mm in steel
corroded by marine immersion (Daidola et al. 1997), although lower maxima are more
common. Figure 14.4 shows sample diagrams of various SDOPs in steel plates
of ships.
14.3.3 Grooving Corrosion

Grooving corrosion is a form of localised corrosion that occurs along welded lines in
structural intersections where water or heavy moisture collects or flows. As such, it is
also termed an ‘in-line pitting attack’. Groove formation is exacerbated by structural
flexibility, resulting in the loss of corrosive scale. In industry practice, it is usually
(a) 10% SDOP (b) 20% SDOP
(c) 30% SDOP (d) 50% SDOP
Figure 14.4 Sample diagrams of various surface degrees of pitting intensity (SDOPs) on the steel
plates of ships
uneconomical to add corrosion margins to compensate for pitting or grooving. Instead,

periodic surveys are conducted to detect corrosion, and maintenance and repair is
performed as necessary.
14.3.4 Weld Metal Corrosion

Weld metal corrosion manifests as localised corrosion. This typically results from
galvanic actions between weld metal(s) and the base metal, which initially lead to
pitting and grooving.
Weld metal corrosion is more likely to occur in hand welds than in machine welds.
Sufficient corrosion margins may exist inherently in welds to minimise the effects of
weld metal corrosion, in addition to the corrosion margin that is applied to base
materials to minimise general corrosion.
14.4 Operational Factors Affecting Corrosion
The corrosion characteristics of a ship-shaped offshore installation are distinct from

those of land-based and stationary immersed structures (e.g., steel piles at sea). Marine
corrosion in the enclosed or open spaces of trading tankers and ship-shaped offshore
installations is affected by various operational factors, namely:
the type of structural material, e.g., steel or aluminium alloy;

the corrosion-protection scheme, e.g., coatings, anodes or ICCP;
the type of cargo or stored material, e.g., oil or seawater, and the composition, e.g.,
wax content, oxygen content or salinity;
the dry–wet cycles related to loading/offloading of cargo or stored material;
the humidity;
the temperature;
the oxygen concentration and
the water velocity.
In offshore installations, five types of cargo tank and ballast tank spaces are
considered as areas where corrosion may be a problem, namely:
ballast-only spaces;
cargo-only spaces;
spaces used for cargo or clean ballast;
spaces used for cargo or dirty ballast and
spaces used for cargo or storm ballast.
The frequency with which ballast tanks in trading tankers are filled is determined
by economic factors, trade route characteristics and weather conditions. During the
storage of cargo in offshore installations or the corresponding offload, empty cargo
holds are sometimes partially filled with ballast water to adjust the freeboard or trim,
which increases the number of wet–dry cycles in these areas and may thus increase
corrosion. It is therefore preferable to achieve such draft and trim control by ballast
changes within dedicated ballast spaces, including peak spaces, rather than within
empty cargo holds.
The rate of corrosion growth is also affected by the type of cargo. For example,
sour crude oil is more likely to cause corrosion than sweet crude oil, and more highly
oxygenated cargo, such as gasoline, may lead to higher corrosion rates. Conversely,
the deposition of wax from high wax-content crude ameliorates corrosion effects.
The spaces most prone to corrosion in an offshore installation are the dedicated
ballast tanks because of their repeated exposure to seawater, humidity, a saline
atmosphere when empty and increases in temperature when the deck and sides are
exposed to sunlight. Combined ballast and cargo tanks are usually relatively less
prone to corrosion, even though they are exposed to water-washing that may destroy
the protective oil films that tend to remain on their surfaces and thus expose unpro-
tected steel. The sides and the top of a cargo-only tank are normally afforded some
protection by a layer of oil and a blanket of noble gases, but the bottom area is exposed
to highly acidic water that has separated from oil, and thus deck heads are usually
prone to corrosion.
The initiation and progression of corrosion wastage varies according to the corro-
sion environment and the corrosion protection measures that are used. Consequently,
the extent of corrosion wastage may vary according to the location of corrosion on a
structural member, even within the same structure. In ballast tanks, which are normally
coated, corrosion starts where a coating breakdown occurs, such as in high stress zones
at structural details and at the free edges of cut-outs. Moreover, structural members in
ballast tanks adjacent to heated cargo tanks or those containing consumables usually
suffer severe corrosion. Furthermore, corrosion rates are higher in areas with greater
structural flexibility, as this accelerates scale loss in aggressive corrosion environments
and in areas with structural discontinuities. Figure 14.5 and Tables 14.1 and 14.2
Table 14.1. The 14 types of members used to construct plating
Plate Member type
B/S-H Bottom shell plating (ballast tank)

A/B-H Deck plating (ballast tank)
A/B-V Side shell plating above draft line (ballast tank)
B/S-V Side shell plating below draft line (ballast tank)
BLGB Bilge plating (ballast tank)
O/B-V Longitudinal bulkhead plating (ballast tank)
B/B-H Stringer plating (ballast tank)
O/S-H Bottom shell plating (cargo oil tank)
A/O-H Deck plating (cargo oil tank)
A/O-V Side shell plating above draft line (cargo oil tank)
O/S-V Side shell plating below draft line (cargo oil tank)
BLGC Bilge plating (cargo oil tank)
O/O-V Longitudinal bulkhead plating (cargo oil tank)
O/O-H Stringer plating (cargo oil tank)
A/B
-H
A/O
-H
V DLC
A/B-V B- (W),
O/ DLC
(F)
DLB
B/B-H (W)
V LBLC(W),
B-
O/ LBLC(F)
B/S-V V
B-
O/ O/O-V
SSLB(W),
LBLB(W), SSLB(F)
LBLB(F)
BLGB
B/S-H B/B -
H
BSLB(W),
SSLB BSLB(F)
(
SSLB W),
(F)
Figure 14.5 The 34 types of structural members used to form double-hulled structures
(with the abbreviations defined in Tables 14.1 and 14.2)
describe the 34 structural member types that are used to form the double-hulled
structures of trading tankers and ship-shaped offshore installations (Paik et al. 2003a;
Paik 2018). Specific life-cycle corrosion assessment and management procedures are
established for each member type.
Table 14.2. The 20 types of members used to construct stiffener webs and flanges
Web Member description Flange Member description
BSLBW Bottom shell longitudinal stiffeners in BSLBF Bottom shell longitudinal stiffeners in
ballast tank: web ballast tank: flange
SSLBW Side shell longitudinal stiffeners in SSLBF Side shell longitudinal stiffeners in
ballast tank: web ballast tank: flange
LBLBW Longitudinal bulkhead longitudinal LBLBF Longitudinal bulkhead longitudinal
stiffeners in ballast tank: web stiffeners in ballast tank: flange
BSLCW Bottom shell longitudinal stiffeners in BSLCF Bottom shell longitudinal stiffeners in
cargo oil tank: web cargo oil tank: flange
DLCW Deck longitudinal stiffeners in cargo oil DLCF Deck longitudinal stiffeners in cargo oil
tank: web tank: flange
SSLCW Side shell longitudinal stiffeners in SSLCF Side shell longitudinal stiffeners in cargo
cargo oil tank: web oil tank: flange
LBLCW Longitudinal bulkhead longitudinal LBLCF Longitudinal bulkhead longitudinal
stiffeners in cargo oil tank: web stiffeners in cargo oil tank: flange
BGLCW Bottom girder longitudinal stiffeners in BGLCF Bottom girder longitudinal stiffeners in
DGLCW Deck girder longitudinal stiffeners in DGLCF Deck girder longitudinal stiffeners in
DLBW Deck longitudinal stiffeners in ballast
tank: web
SSTLCW Side stringer longitudinal stiffeners in
cargo oil tank: web
14.5 Life-Cycle Behaviour of Corrosion
The depth of corrosion increases over time, although it does not begin on coating-
protected surfaces until a breakdown occurs in the coating. A similar logic applies to
other types of corrosion protection, such as the relatively rare use of anodes as the
primary means of protection. These features are represented schematically by the three
regions (shown in Figure 14.6), namely (a) the durability or life of the coating, (b) the
period of transition and (c) the progression of corrosion. This discussion assumes that
a coating is the primary means of corrosion protection and that anodic or ICCP
systems are secondary methods.
The extent of coating breakdown is usually estimated visually in terms of the
percentage of a surface that is blistered, cracked, finely corroded or coarsely corroded.
Although various factors affect the deterioration of a coating, including electrochem-
ical factors (current and voltage) and/or mechanical (strain) reactions (Paik and
Melchers 2008), industry practice has widely revealed that a breakdown of a coating
occurs gradually, followed by the initiation and subsequent progression of corrosion
over a surface (Melchers and Jiang 2006).
In industry practice, the life of a coating is determined by measuring the approxi-
mate average time required for a predefined extent of corrosion to occur on a surface.
14.5 Life-Cycle Behaviour of Corrosion 411
transition
durability progress of
of coating corrosion
Corrosion Depth
type A (convex)
type B (concave)
type C (linear)
Tc Tc+ Tt
Exposure Time
Figure 14.6 A schematic of life-cycle corrosion behaviour
This life depends on the nature of the coating system, the preparation of the surface
prior to coating, the mechanism of coating application (e.g., the application of stripe
coats, the thickness of the coating film, and the humidity and salt control during
application) and maintenance, among other factors. Subsequent to the local loss of
nominal effectiveness or life of a coating, there is a transition period during which
corrosion initiates over a large enough area to become measurable. If the transition
time is zero, this means that corrosion begins immediately after local coating effect-
iveness has been lost.
Three curves depicting the different types of corrosion behaviour (A–C) are
presented in Figure 14.6. The convex curve of type A describes the corrosion rate
(i.e., the curve gradient), which decreases as corrosion progresses. Such behaviour is
common in many corrosive environments, particularly under conditions of stationary
immersion, and results from the gradual build-up of protective rust layers. The
concave curve of type B describes the acceleration of the corrosion rate over time.
This occurs when a metal surface is subject to a fluctuating strain resulting from the
flexure of dynamically loaded structures and the significant thinning of structural
members, which results in the continual shedding of surface rust layers and the
acceleration of corrosion rates, as unprotected surfaces are continually exposed to
corrosive attacks (Melchers and Paik 2009). The curve of type C represents a linear
situation in which the rust layers are continually removed, but insignificant dynamic
flexing occurs. These three types of corrosion behaviour are recognized to occur
concurrently, and therefore mathematical models are used to estimate the behaviour
of life-cycle corrosion and predict the characteristics of corrosion wastage (Paik and
Melchers 2008; Melchers 2018).
The corrosion rate is a key parameter in the assessment and management of life-
cycle corrosion, and is defined as the gradient of the life-cycle corrosion behaviour
over time, expressed in mm/y. Corrosion rates typically vary with time, although
they are constant in situations that are represented by linear curve C (shown in
Figure 14.6). The corrosion rates of ship-shaped offshore installations differ from
those of structures that are subject to stationary immersion corrosion, such as steel
piles, because of differences in their respective environmental and operational
circumstances. For example, during the storage of cargo in offshore installations
and respective offloading, ballasting and deballasting are used to adjust the free-
board or trim. These ballasting cycles accelerate the rate of corrosion because they
expose steel surfaces to repeated wet–dry cycles. In addition, the progress of
corrosion in coatings depends on the respective degradation characteristics, and
frequent maintenance is required to ensure the effectiveness of such corrosion
protection systems. Finally, temperature, including water temperature, has a signifi-
cant effect on corrosion wastage. In particular, the temperature inside the ballast or
cargo tanks of an offshore installation is higher than that of the sea, and therefore
corrosion rates are generally higher inside tanks. Conversely, corrosion rates are
generally moderate in sub-zero temperatures, such as inside liquid-gas tanks or in
Arctic regions (Rajput et al. 2020).
The corrosion of steel in natural seawater occurs within a harsh and complex biotic
environment, which is not reproduced by the artificial seawaters used in laboratory
testing. For example, macrofouling (e.g., seaweed) and microfouling (e.g., bacterial)
biofilms begin to form on a steel surface immediately on its exposure to natural
seawater, leading to considerable changes in the local pH. For example, pH values
as low as 2 occur under biofilms at steel surfaces (Paik and Melchers 2008). Microbial
actions thus play an important role from the very beginning of exposure, and this is
difficult to replicate in the laboratory. Furthermore, laboratory testing uses artificially
accelerated corrosion techniques, which may generate different outcomes to natural
corrosion, which occurs over a long period of time. Laboratory testing should there-
fore be conducted using real seawater and the naturally progressing corrosion tech-
nique (Rajput et al. 2020).
14.6 Prediction of Life-Cycle Corrosion Behaviour
The prediction of life-cycle corrosion behaviour over time is essential for the assess-
ment and management of corrosion. Phenomenological models have been developed
to account for the influences of phenomenological actions and material factors (Paik
and Melchers 2008; Melchers 2018). However, it is very challenging to formulate
time-variant corrosion-prediction models as a function of volatile, unpredictable,
complex and ambiguous phenomenological actions. In this context, empirical formu-
lations based on past data and corrosion wastage measurements are better for predict-
ing corrosion wastage over time.
Examinations of corrosion-wastage measurement databases have revealed a
highly scattered distribution of corrosion wastage statistics for structural members
at all corrosion-exposure times, which varies over time (Paik and Melchers 2008;
Paik and Kim 2012). Accordingly, the effect of this statistical scatter must be
considered during the development of empirical formulations of corrosion
wastage.
14.6.1 Procedure for Developing an Empirical Corrosion Prediction Formulation

Figure 14.7 depicts a five-step procedure for the development of an empirical formu-
lation to predict time-variant corrosion wastages. These steps are detailed next.
Step 1. Collection of target structure corrosion measurement data, i.e, the pit depth or
reduction in the plate thickness at various corrosion exposure times.
Step 2. Statistical analysis of the collected data for each exposure time. The corrosion
damage interval has a significant effect on statistical properties, and this variable is
therefore determined to ensure that the mean corrosion wastage value occurs at the
maximum interval and the standard deviation is the minimum interval (see chapter
2 of Paik (2020) for details). Figure 14.8 shows a schematic representation of the
process used to select an exposure interval that minimises the coefficient of
variation (COV), which is affected by the exposure interval among other factors.
This does not necessarily indicate that a longer exposure interval will reduce the
COV, but it does indicate that the minimum COV value is associated with the
exposure interval. Figure 14.9 shows a schematic of the probability of corrosion
wastage vs. exposure time and depth, which is volatile and random.
Corrosion Data Collection Data Analysis Formulation of Probability Density Functions
Time-Variant Empirical Corrosion-Prediction Formulation Formulation of Coefficients
Figure 14.7 Procedure for the development of a time-variant empirical corrosion prediction
formulation
Mean and COV
COV
coefficient
of variation (COV)
Mean bestofinterval
mean Best value interval
Interval of Corrosion Wastage
Figure 14.8 Determination of the best interval for a corrosion data analysis
(where COV ¼ standard deviation/mean)
1.6
1.2
Probability
0.8
0.4
0.0 4.0
3.5
3.0
m)
0 3 6 2.5
m
Expos 9 12 2.0 h(
ure Tim 15 18 1.0
1.5
D ept
e (yea 21 24
.5 ion
rs) 27 30 0 s
rro
Co
Figure 14.9 A schematic representation of the probability of corrosion wastage vs. exposure
time and corrosion depth
Step 3. Formulation of the probability density function of corrosion wastage as a

function of time, based on the corrosion data analysis in Step 2. The probability
density function of the time-variant corrosion formulation is given as follows:
dc ¼ f ðT; T c , C1 , C2 ; , C i Þ at T ¼ T i, (14.4)
where d c is the depth of corrosion wastage, which is also denoted by t r (reduced

plate thickness), T is the age of the structure in years, T i is the exposure time of the
ith year, T c is the life of the coating in years and C1 , C2 C i are the coefficients of
the probability density function at T ¼ T i .
Step 4. Formulation of a continuous function for the coefficients of the probability
density functions formulated in Step 3.
Step 5. Completion of the time-variant empirical corrosion prediction formulation for
a target structure, by combining Equation (14.4) with the coefficient function
determined from Step 4.
14.6.2 Applied Example of the Procedure for Developing an Empirical

Corrosion Prediction Formulation
The life-cycle corrosion behaviour of plating in ballast tanks is considered as an
applied example of this procedure. A total of 1,935 corrosion measurements were
obtained for trading tankers with an age range of 11–27 years (indicated in Table 14.3)
(Paik 2004; Paik et al. 2004). Figure 14.10 shows the scatter of corrosion depth vs.
exposure time for the plating in the ballast tanks of these tankers. The interval
exposure time is determined as 0.5 years. The best-fit probability density function of
the corrosion depth is formulated as a Weibull function, as follows:
Table 14.3. Collection of corrosion wastage data for plating in real ballast tanks
Pit depth or reduction of plate thickness (mm)

Age
(years) 0.0–0.5 0.5–1.0 1.0–1.5 1.5–2.0 2.0–2.5 2.5–3.0 3.0–3.5 3.5–4.0
11.0–11.5 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
11.5–12.0 18 5 0 0 0 0 0 0
12.0–12.5 6 3 9 0 0 0 0 0
12.5–13.0 23 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
13.0–13.5 16 28 30 2 0 0 0 0
13.5–14.0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
14.0–14.5 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0
14.5–15.0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0
15.0–15.5 22 13 10 3 2 0 0 0
15.5–16.0 9 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
16.0–16.5 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
16.5–17.0 12 8 5 2 1 1 0 0
17.0–17.5 19 1 0 0 0 0 0 0
17.5–18.0 84 1 2 4 0 0 0 0
18.0–18.5 34 26 37 9 4 3 0 0
18.5–19.0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0
19.0–19.5 53 11 11 8 7 2 0 1
19.5–20.0 84 9 1 0 2 0 0 0
20.0–20.5 169 48 11 3 1 0 0 0
20.5–21.0 10 14 11 10 16 2 0 0
21.0–21.5 105 115 27 24 5 6 0 0
21.5–22.0 9 1 1 2 2 0 0 0
22.0–22.5 44 39 4 9 7 5 3 0
22.5–23.0 8 18 1 3 0 0 0 0
23.0–23.5 67 46 11 5 3 5 0 0
23.5–24.0 8 3 1 0 0 0 0 0
24.0–24.5 41 27 8 2 0 0 0 0
24.5–25.0 18 15 2 0 0 0 0 0
25.0–25.5 30 49 48 57 40 2 2 1
25.5–26.0 10 1 1 2 0 0 0 2
26.0–26.5 8 8 1 0 0 0 0 0
26.5–27.0 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0

α T e γ α1 Te γ α
dc ¼ exp , (14.5)
β β β
where d c is the depth of corrosion wastage, α is the shape parameter, β is the scale
parameter, γ is the location parameter and T e ¼ T T c is the exposure time after
coating breakdown. The coating life remains unknown, and thus T c ¼ 0 may be
applied. The applicability of other types of candidate functions (such as lognormal,
logistic and log-logistic functions) must be explored to find the best-fit distribution of
the corrosion depth with time (see chapter 2 of Paik (2020) for details). In this specific
3
Corrosion Depth (mm)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Exposure Time (years)
Figure 14.10 Scatter of corrosion depth vs. exposure time for plating in real ballast tanks
example, γ ¼ 0 provides the best fit, resulting in the following two-parameter Weibull
function:
α
α T e α1 Te
dc ¼ exp : (14.6)
β β β
The shape and scale parameters of the probability density functions are calculated at
each exposure time and formulated as a continuous function of the exposure time, as
follows:
α ¼ 0:0020T 3e 0:0994T 2e þ 1:5604T e 6:0025, (14.7a)
β ¼ 0:0004T 3e 0:0248T 2e þ 0:4793T e 2:3812: (14.7b)
Table 14.4 lists the determination of the shape and scale parameters for the
probability density functions at the means of the exposure times. Figure 14.11
shows the probability density functions of corrosion depth for the plating in the
ballast tanks, indicating that these are unrelated to the exposure time. Figure 14.12
shows a formulation of the probability density functions (PDFs) with respect to
corrosion depth, in which the original curve represents the best-fit PDFs and the
approximate curve represents PDFs with the shape and scale parameters of
Equation (14.7), the formulations of which are shown in Figure 14.13.
Figures 14.14 and 14.15 show the change of corrosion depth with exposure time,
which reveals that the original corrosion depth in the tanks decreases with increas-
ing exposure time. This may be the result of the repair or renewal of severely
corroded plates in these real tanks.
Table 14.4. Determination of shape and scale parameters
Original Approximate
Age (years) α β Mean COV α β Mean COV
11–12 1.9220 0.3987 0.3537 0.5417 1.7981 0.5103 0.4538 0.5754

12–13 1.3940 0.5739 0.5234 0.7266 1.8260 0.5823 0.5175 0.5675
13–14 1.9650 0.9064 0.8036 0.5311 1.8032 0.6372 0.5666 0.5739
14–15 2.3500 0.5988 0.5306 0.4523 1.7415 0.6779 0.6039 0.5923
15–16 1.3470 0.7420 0.6807 0.7503 1.6528 0.7068 0.6319 0.6213
16–17 1.2590 0.7972 0.7413 0.7995 1.5488 0.7266 0.6536 0.6593
17–18 1.4030 0.3705 0.3376 0.7222 1.4415 0.7399 0.6714 0.7043
18–19 1.5780 1.0580 0.9498 0.6481 1.3427 0.7493 0.6878 0.7525
19–20 1.1040 0.5966 0.5750 0.9070 1.2641 0.7575 0.7038 0.7964
20–21 1.2020 0.6745 0.6342 0.8355 1.2178 0.7670 0.7188 0.8253
21–22 1.4200 0.8515 0.7744 0.7142 1.2154 0.7805 0.7318 0.8267
22–23 1.2700 0.9417 0.8740 0.7930 1.2690 0.8006 0.7432 0.7936
23–24 1.2830 0.7303 0.6763 0.7855 1.3902 0.8299 0.7572 0.7285
24–25 1.6410 0.6209 0.5555 0.6252 1.5910 0.8710 0.7813 0.6433
25–26 1.8040 1.4890 1.3240 0.5737 1.8832 0.9265 0.8224 0.5518
26–27 2.3220 0.7122 0.6310 0.4572 2.2786 0.9991 0.8850 0.4650
COV ¼ coefficient of variation ¼ standard deviation/mean.
2.5
2.0
Probability
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0 4.0
3.5
0 3.0 )
3 2.5
6 9 2.0 mm
12 h(
Expo
sure 15 18
21 1.0
1.5
D ept
Time 0.5 n
(year 24 27
sio
s) 30 rro
Co
Figure 14.11 Probability of the corrosion depth vs. exposure time for plating in real ballast tanks
14.7 Residual Strength of Corroded Structures
Corrosion wastage reduces the ultimate strength of a structure. For health condition
assessments associated with life-cycle corrosion, the residual strengths of corroded
structures should be calculated over time in terms of the ultimate limit states associ-
ated with Equation (7.2) or (14.2).
2.5 1.5 Te=20.5

= 20 toyear
1.5 Te=26.5
= 26 toyear
Te =11.5 year Age 21 years Age 27 years
Probability Density
Probability Density
2.0
Probability Density
original original
Original
1.0 1.0
1.5 original
approximate
1.0
0.5 0.5 approximate
approximate
0.5
0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0
Corrosion Depth (mm) Corrosion Depth (mm) Corrosion Depth (mm)
Figure 14.12 Formulation of the probability density functions for the corrosion depth
of plating in real ballast tanks
5.0 3.0
4.5
2.5
4.0
Shape Parameter, α
Scale Parameter, β
3.5
0.0020 Te3 e30.0994
= 0.0020Y Te2e2 +1.5604
- 0.0994Y Tee - 6.0025
1.5604Y 6.0025 2.0
3.0 0.0004eT3e- 0.0248Y
= 0.0004Y 2T
0.0248 0.4793Te 2.3812
3
e + e0.4793Ye -2.3812
2
2.5 1.5
2.0
1.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.5
0.0 0.0
8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30
Exposure Time (years) Exposure Time (years)
Figure 14.13 Formulation of shape and scale parameters for the probability density
functions of the corrosion depth in real ballast tanks
4 4
mean
Me andsta
an and standard deviation
nda rd deviation meanand
Mean andstandard
standard deviation
deviation
originaldadata
Original ta original data
Approximate
3 3
2 2
1 1
0 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 14.14 Change in corrosion depth versus exposure time in real ballast tanks
mean 4
Mean meanand
Mean andstandard
standard deviation
deviation
originaldata
Original
approximate
Approximate original
Original data

Approximate
3
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Figure 14.15 Comparison of original and approximate corrosion depth data vs. exposure time
in real ballast tanks
t
Localized
pitting corrosion
corrosion
z y
br
b
yr
ar
x
x
tr
pitting corrosion
t
Pitting corrosion region

xr
a
Figure 14.16 A schematic of a plate with a single rectangular pit under axial compression,
and a finite-element model of this system
14.7.1 Residual Strength Behaviour of Corroded Plates

The finite-element method is useful for calculating the residual strengths of corroded
structures. Figure 14.16 shows both a plate containing a single rectangular pit under
axial compressive loads and a finite-element model of this plate, in which the plate is
modelled with multiple layers in the thickness direction to represent the depth of the
pit. The size of the pit is ar br t r , the corrosion depth (dc) equals tr and the centre
of the pit is located at ðxr , yr Þ. Figure 14.17 depicts the relationship between the
average stress ðσ xav Þ and the average strain ðεxav Þ of this corroded plate under axial
compressive loads before and after the ultimate strength is reached, with variations in
the location and size (depth) of the pit. The details of material properties, such as the
elastic modulus
ðE Þ, the yield stress ðσ Y Þ, Poisson’s ratio ðn Þ, the plate initial
deflection wopl and the welding-induced residual stresses in the x and y directions
(σ rx and σ ry ), are presented in Chapter 2. Figure 14.17 shows that the single small pit
does not significantly reduce the ultimate strength of this plate, no matter where the pit
250 250
Uncorroded
uncorroded (t(tr=0)
r =0 ) Uncorroded = 0)
uncorroded (trr=0)
200 200
General corrosion General
generalcorrosion
corrosion
general(tcorrosion
r =1.5 mm (t)r=1.5 mm) (t (t
r =1.5mm )
r=1.5 mm)
x r=a/4, y r=b/4
xav (MPa)
xav (MPa)
150 t r =1.5 mm 150 x r=a/20, y r=b/20
Localized
localised
t r =7.5 mm Localized
localised corrosion
corrosion
t r =12 mm corrosion
corrosion
x r=a/2, y r=b/2
General corrosion t r =15 mm
general corrosion x r=a/2, y r=b/4
(t r =7.5 mm ) x r=a/2, y r=b/20
100 (tr=7.5 mm) 100
General
general corrosion
corrosion
r =12
(t (t =12mmmm))
r E=205.8 GPa, =0.3 a b t=2,400 800 15 mm E=205.8 GPa, =0.3
Y =352.8 MPa, rx = ry =0 a r b r t r =240 80 1.5 mm Y =352.8 MPa, rx = ry =0
50 w op l =0.1 2 t (buckling mode) 50 w op l=0.1 2 t (buckling mode)
a b t=2,400 800 15 mm
a r b r =240 80 mm b Y b Y
x r =a/2, y r =b/2 t E t E
Allplate
All plateedges
edgesareare simply
simply supported,
supported, keeping them straight.
remaining them straight. Allplate
All plateedges
edgesareare simply
simply supported,
supported, keeping themthem
remaining straight.
straight.
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 0 2 4 6 8 10
–3 –3 )
xav ( 10 ) xav ( 10
Figure 14.17 Effects of the location and size of a single pit on the ultimate compressive strength behaviour of a plate
b = 800 mm
ar br tr = 80 mm 80 mm 7.5 mm
a = 2,400 mm
Figure 14.18 A corroded plate with a 30 per cent surface degree of pitting intensity
is located. However, this single through-thickness pit does affect the post-ultimate
strength behaviour of the plate, as its unloading path in the post-ultimate regime is
more rapid than that of the plate with uniform corrosion, implying that this single pit
generates more unstable behaviour in the plate. This is attributable to the fact that out-
of-plane bending causes eccentric loading around such localised corrosion. These
results also confirm that the use of an ‘equivalent’ general corrosion-based approxi-
mation to represent a plate with low-intensity pitting may lead to an underestimate of
its residual strength, although it may afford a reasonable estimate of its post-ultimate
strength behaviour.
Next, the effect of high intensity pitting corrosion on the residual strength behav-
iour of a plate under axial compressive loads is considered. Figure 14.18 shows a
corroded plate with 30 per cent SDOP, in which the size of the rectangular pits is
ar br t r ¼ 80 mm 80 mm 7:5 mm . Figure 14.19 shows the ultimate compres-
sive strength behaviour of the plate at various intensities of pitting. As the SDOP
increases, the residual strength of the plate decreases significantly. A general
corrosion-based prediction of the plate residual strength correlates well with that of
the 30 per cent SDOP plate, if the pit depth does not change. In industry practice, a
plate with an SDOP greater than 30 per cent must be repaired or renewed.

Compression or Tension
In the analysis of general (uniform) corrosion, the ultimate strength of a plate is
calculated by accounting for the thickness lost to corrosion. However, in cases of
localised corrosion, such as pitting or grooving, ultimate strength calculations may be
more complex. Thus, the equivalent general corrosion approach is often used, as this
provides a useful (albeit underestimated) assessment of the ultimate strength.
An alternative approach was devised by Chapkis (1967), who proposed the
following definition for the equivalent thickness of a pitted plate, which considers
the reduction in ultimate strength owing to pit loss:
250
uncorroded (tr=0)
Uncorroded (tr= 0)
200 general corrosion

(tr=7.5 mm)
10% DOP
10% SDOP
20% DOP
20% SDOP
150
xav(MPa)
localised
corrosion
30%SDOP
30% DOP
100 50% DOP
50% SDOP
a b t=2,400 800 15 mm E=205.8 GPa, =0.3

ar br tr =80 80 7.5 mm Y=352.8 MPa, rx= ry=0
50 wopl=0.1 2t (buckling mode)
b Y
t E
All plate
All plate edges
edgesareare
simply supported,
simply keepingremaining
supported, them straight.
them straight.
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
xav( 10 –3)
Figure 14.19 The ultimate compressive strength behaviour of a plate with varying surface
degrees of pitting intensity (SDOPs)
t up
te ¼ , k¼ , (14.8)
k uo
where t e is the equivalent remaining thickness of the plate, t is the original thickness of
the plate, uo is the average edge deformation of the non-pitted plate and up is the
average edge deformation of the pitted plate. Chapkis (1967) performed tensile tests to
define the mean edge deformations of steel plates. However, the determination of the
coefficient k at the ultimate limit state is not an easy task.
Flaka (1978) proposed a mathematical method to calculate the ultimate tensile
strength of a pitted aluminium plate, based on a coefficient that accounts for the loss of
yield strength, ultimate tensile strength and hardness in tension and was derived using
experimental methods for the analysis of naturally corroded aluminium plates. Boon
et al. (1998) calculated an effective thickness ðt e Þ at the smallest cross-section for use
in calculations of the ultimate tensile strength of pitted plates, where t e is given as
Ao Ar
te ¼ , (14.9)
b
where Ao is the original cross-sectional area of the plate and Ar is the cross-sectional
area of the largest pit loss (shown in Figure 14.20).
An equivalent plate-thickness formula was devised to calculate the strength of a
pitted steel plate under bending conditions as a function of various parameters, such as
the bending stiffness, mass, boundary condition, pitting features and plate dimensions
(Daidola et al. 1997). In complementary work, Stambaugh and Knecht (1988) and
Daidola et al. (1997) calculated the strength of a pitted plate under compression by
using a model of the equivalent general-corrosion approximation, in which a uniform
Figure 14.20 The smallest cross-section of a pitted plate

910
block
Block
1,545
4,420
580
actuator
Actuator
1,000
t = 4.4
load cell
Load Cell
jig
Jig
specimen
Specimen
580
500
unit: mm
Figure 14.21 The setup used for the ultimate compressive strength testing of pitted box-columns
thickness reduction was applied. This was based on the assumption that the total
volume of lost steel is lost evenly from the entire area of a plate.
Instead of developing an equivalent general-corrosion approximation, Paik et al.
(2003b) derived empirical formulations based on experimental and numerical data to
predict the ultimate compressive strength of pitted plates. Figure 14.21 shows the
setup that was used for the ultimate compressive strength testing of pitted box-
columns composed of four identical plate elements. Equidistant circular pits (with a
diameter of 40 mm) were formed through the thickness of the plates. To maintain the
planarity of the cross-section at the end of the box-column, a thick plate was attached
by tack welding (shown in Figure 14.21). Residual stresses were developed in both
directions, as four plate sheets were welded at the corners and two diaphragms were
welded at the ends. The SDOP of the tested plates was 4.87 per cent or 10.24 per cent,
and a non-pitted (intact) plate was also tested (shown in Figure 14.22). Finite-element
method (FEM) solutions were also obtained, in which the effects of welding-induced
residual stresses in both directions were considered by using the parameters defined in
Chapter 2 (shown in Figure 14.23). The ultimate compressive strength behaviours of
the test structures obtained from the experiment and the FEM solutions are shown in
Figure 14.24. The residual strength of a pitted plate was taken as the mean value of the
unit: mm unit: mm
110
98
90
115
580
580
90
64
90
Ø30×4×5 64
Ø30×6×7
500 500
(a) 4.87% SDOP (b) 10.24% SDOP
Figure 14.22 Surface degree of pitting intensity (SDOP) of the test box-columns
y at at
a-2at
y
bt
at a-2at compressiveat
stress
bt
tack welded
Tack weld Comp.
rcy
Tack welded Comp.

rcy
b-2bt
b-2bt
rty
rty
Tens.Tens. tensile
stress
bt
bt
x
rtx
rtx rcx
rcx
Welded
continuous
Welded weldx
Figure 14.23 An idealised distribution of welding-induced residual stresses on a plate element
ultimate compressive strengths for the four identical plates, and was found to signifi-
cantly decrease as the SDOP increased (shown in Figure 14.25).
A series of finite-element analyses were conducted for equidistantly pitted plates
with varying SDOPs. The plates were simply supported at four boundaries and were
under axial compression (shown in Figure 14.26). The effects of initial deflection and
120
intact
4.87% SDOP
80 10.24% SDOP
Stress (MPa)
(a) ultimate limit state at 4.87% SDOP

experiment
FEM
40 a× b× t =580× 500× 4.4 (mm)
tr =t (through thickness)
E= 197.50 GPa, v =0.3
Y = 245.45 MPa
rcx = 0.15 Y, rcy= 0.05 Y
0
(b ultimate limit state at 10.24% SDOP
0 1 2 3 4 5
Strain ( × 10-3)
Figure 14.24 The ultimate compressive strength behaviour of test box-columns with different
surface degree of pitting intensity (SDOP) values, or no pitting (intact)
0.5
0.4
0.3
sxu/sY
0.2
aaｉ×bｪtb ×=580ｪ500ｪ4.4
t = 580 × 500 (mm)
× 4.4 (mm)
0.1 tr =t (through thickness)
E= 197.50 GPa, v =0.3
Y = 245.45 MPa experiment
rcx = 0.15 Y, rcy = 0.05 Y FEM
0
0 4 8 12
SDOP (%)
Figure 14.25 Variation of the plate ultimate compressive strength with the surface degree of
pitting intensity (SDOP)
residual stresses were considered at an average level. Given the symmetric condition
of the behaviour, a quarter of a plate was modelled (shown in Figure 14.27).
The membrane stress distribution and deflected shape of a pitted plate are different
from those of an intact plate. Figures 14.28 and 14.29 show the ultimate compressive
y
pitting corrosion
x x
b
(a) 4.9% SDOP (b) 9.6% SDOP (c) 15.9% SDOP
simply supported
tr x
t
a (d) 23.8% SDOP (e) 33.2% SDOP
Figure 14.26 A simply supported plate with various surface degrees of pitting intensity (SDOPs)
section B-B
membrane stress distribution and deflected shape

at ultimate limit state for an intact (non-pitted)
plate and a pitted (33.2% SDOP) plate.
section A-A
Figure 14.27 Membrane stress distribution and deflected shape for a quarter finite-element model
of an intact plate and a pitted plate (32 per cent surface degree of pitting intensity (SDOP))
at their respective ultimate limit states
strength behaviours of pitted plates with varying pit depths. The equivalent remaining
thickness of a pitted plate that is associated with its ultimate compressive strength is
empirically formulated as follows (shown in Figure 14.30):

Ao Ar c
te ¼ t, c ¼ 1:0 or 1:6, (14.10)
Ao
where Ar is the cross-sectional area measured at the cross section of the largest pit loss,
Ao ¼ bt is the cross-sectional area of an intact plate and c ¼ 1:0 for thin plates and
c ¼ 1:6 for thick plates.
250 250 250
intact intact
4.91% SDOP intact
200 200 4.91% SDOP
200
9.62% SDOP
15.90% SDOP 4.91% SDOP
9.62% SDOP 23.75% SDOP 9.62% SDOP
15.90% SDOP
150 33.20% SDOP
23.75% SDOP 150 150 15.90% SDOP
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
33.20% SDOP 23.75% SDOP
33.20% SDOP
100 100 100
a b t =800 800 15 (mm) a b t =800 800 15 (mm)
dr=40 mm, tr=0.5t a b t =800 800 15 (mm)
dr=40 mm, tr=0.25t
50 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3 dr=40 mm,tr=t(through thickness)
50 50 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3
Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0
Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0
wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode) Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0
wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode) wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode)
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Strain ( ¥ 10−3) Strain (¥ 10−3) Strain ( ¥ 10−3)
(a) t r = 0.25t (b) t r = 0.5t (c) t r = t
Figure 14.28 The ultimate compressive strength behaviours of pitted plates of varying pit depths
250 250
intact intact
200 tr= 0.25t 200
tr= 0.50t tr= 0.25t
tr= 0.75t
tr= 0.50t
Stress (MPa)
Stress (MPa)
tr= t 150
150
tr= 0.75t
tr= t
100 100
a ¥ b ¥ t = 800 ¥ 800 ¥ 15 (mm) a ¥ b ¥ t = 800 ¥ 800 ¥15 (mm)

SDOP=15.90%, dr = 40 mm SDOP=33.18%, dr = 40 mm
50 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3 50 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3
Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0 Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0
wo= 0.1 2 t (buckling mode) wo= 0.1 2 t (buckling mode)
0 0
0 2 4 6 0 2 4 6
Strain ( ¥ 10−3) Strain ( ¥ 10−3)
(a) 15.9% SDOP (b) 33.18% SDOP
Figure 14.29 The ultimate compressive strength behaviours of pitted plates with different
surface degrees of pitting intensity (SDOPs)
1 1
te Ao Ar
t Ao
tr=0.25t 1.60
0.8 te Ao Ar
0.8
tr=0.5t t Ao
FEM
tr=0.75t t= 10 mm
0.6 0.6
xu/ xuo
t= 15 mm
te/t
t= 20 mm
tr= t experiment
Exp.
0.4 0.4 t= 4.4 mm
t=10 mm
t=15 mm
t=20 mm
0.2 a × b=800×800
a×b×t = 800 (mm)
mm 0.2 a×b =800×800 (mm)
E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3
Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0 Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0
wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode) wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode)
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
(Ao-Ar)/Ao
SDOP (%)
Figure 14.30 The equivalent remaining thicknesses of pitted plates used for the prediction of
ultimate compressive
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi strength (where SDOP ¼ surface degree of pitting intensity;
β ¼ ðb=t Þ σ Y =E ¼ plate slenderness ratio; E ¼ elastic modulus; σ Y ¼ material yield stress;
n ¼ Poisson’s ratio; wo ¼ plate initial deflection; b ¼ plate breadth; t ¼ plate thickness and
tr ¼ reduced thickness owing to corrosion)
1.0 1.2
experiment
1.0
0.8
Equation (14.11)
0.8
xu / xuo
0.6
Equation (14.12)
Eq.(6)
Y
0.6
xu/
Ref. IV 21
Ref. IV 22
Rx =
Ref. IV 23
0.4 Ref. IV 24
FEM t= 10 mm 0.4 Ref. IV 62
Ref. IV 67
t= 15 mm Ref. IV 68
Ref. IV 69
t= 20 mm Ref. IV 85
0.2 × b =800ｪ800 0.2
aa bｪt = 800 (mm)
(mm) : FEM
E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3 wopl = 0.1 2t (buckling mode initial deflection)
Y = 352.8 MPa, rcx = 0 rcx= -0.15 Y, rcy= -0.05 Y
wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode) 0.0
0.0
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
b
(Ao-Ar)/Ao Y
t E
Figure 14.31 The reduction factor used for the prediction of the ultimate compressive strengths of
pitted plates, using reference test data extracted from Ellinas et al. (1984)
The reduction factor for the ultimate compressive-strength prediction of pitted

plates is empirically derived, as follows (shown in Figure 14.31):
0:73
σ xu Ao Ar
Rx ¼ ¼ , (14.11)
σ xuo Ao
where Rx is the strength reduction factor in longitudinal compression, σ xu is the

ultimate compressive strength of a pitted plate and σ xuo is the ultimate compressive
strength of an intact plate. The latter two variables are given as follows (Paik 2018):
8
>
< 0:032β þ 0:002β þ 1:0 for β 1:5
4 2
σ xuo
¼ 1:274=β for 1:5 < β 3:0 , (14.12)
σY >
:
1:248=β þ 0:283
2
for β > 3:0
pffiffiffiffi
where β ¼ bt σEY is the plate slenderness ratio. This equation gives the ultimate
compressive strength for a plate with an average level of initial imperfections, as
shown in Figure 14.31, using reference test data extracted from Ellinas et al.
(1984).
Equation (14.11) was derived for plates with regular, identically sized and equidis-
tant pits. However, the locations and sizes of real pits are random. Thus, the applic-
ability of Equation (14.11) to randomly pitted plates was confirmed (shown in
Figure 14.32). Notably, this illustrates that a larger pitting intensity does not necessar-
ily result in a greater reduction in the cross-sectional area. Experimental studies on the
residual ultimate strength of corroded plate panels are always encouraged to investi-
gate more realistic aspects of structural failure behaviour associated with localised
corrosion (Park et al. 2020).
1.0
0.8 tr= t 50 40
20
tr= 0.5t 30
xu / xuo
0.6
Smallest cross section
Equation (14.11) (a) 4.5% SDOP, (Ao–Ar)/Ao = 0.81

Rx =
0.4
0.2 a ´ b = 800 (mm)

E 205.8 GPa , 0.3
Y 352.8 MPa 40
w o 0.1 2 t (buckling mod e) 50

30 60
0.0
Smallest cross section
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
(Ao-Ar)/Ao (b) 11.3% SDOP, (Ao–A r)/Ao = 0.56
Figure 14.32 The applicability of Equation (14.11) to the prediction of the ultimate
compressive strength of a plate with randomly sized and located pits (where SDOP ¼ surface
degree of pitting intensity)
y y pitting corrosion
pitting corrosion
simply supported
b
b
t
simply supported
~ x
x
tr
a t
a
Figure 14.33 A simply supported plate with pitting, under edge shear conditions

Edge Shear
A series of finite-element analyses of pitted plates under edge shear were conducted
(shown in Figure 14.33) (Paik et al. 2004). Each plate was simply supported at four
boundaries and contained regular, equidistant and circular pits (40 mm in diameter).
The analyses considered an average level of initial imperfections and varied corrosion
depths and surface degrees of pitting intensity. Figure 14.34 shows the membrane
stress distribution and deflected shape at the ultimate limit state under edge shear for
(a) Intact plate (b) Pitted plate with 33.2% SDOP and tr = t
Figure 14.34 Membrane stress distribution and deflected shape at the ultimate limit state for an
intact plate and a pitted plate, under edge shear conditions (where SDOP ¼ surface degree of
pitting intensity)
240 240
tr= 0.5t a ´ b ´ t = 800 mm ´ 800 mm ´ 15 (mm)
t r= t (through thickness) dr=40 mm, 33.2% SDOP
200 intact 200 intact
160 160
4.9 % SDOP
(MPa)
( MPa)
9.6 % SDOP tr= 0.25t

120 120
15.9 % SDOP tr= 0.5t
tr= t
80 23.8 % SDOP 80
33.2 % SDOP
a ´bｪbt´=800
aｉ t = 800 mm
ｪ 800 ´ (mm)
ｪ 15 800 mm ´ 15 (mm)
40 40 E= 205.8 GPa, v =0.3,
d r =40 mm, E= 205.8 GPa , v =0.3
Y= 203.7 MPa
Y = 203.7 MPa
wo= 0.1 2t (buckling mode)
w o = 0.1 2 t (buckling mode)
0 0
0 2 4 6 8 0 2 4 6 8
(´ 10-3) (´ 10-3)
Figure 14.35 The ultimate shear strength behaviour of pitted plates under edge shear conditions
(where SDOP ¼ surface degree of pitting intensity)
an intact plate and a pitted plate, and reveals the differences between the two.
Figure 14.35 shows the ultimate shear-strength behaviours of pitted plates in terms
of shear stress ðτ Þ vs. shear strain ðγÞ for a range of pit depths and surface degrees of
pitting intensity.
The reduction factor for the ultimate shear-strength prediction of a pitted plate is
empirically derived, as follows (shown in Figure 14.36):

τu 1:0 for α 1:0
Rτ ¼ ¼ , (14.13)
τ uo 0:18 ln α þ 1:0 for α > 1:0
1.0
0.8 tr= t
Equation (14.13) t=10 mm
t=15 mm
t=20 mm
u / uo
0.6 tr= 0.5t

t=15 mm
t r= 0.25t
R=
t=15 mm
0.4
E= 205.8 GPa , v = 0.3

Y = 203.7 MPa
0.2 w o = 0.1 2 t (buckling mode)
a´b =800 ´800 (mm)
d r=40 mm
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50
SDOP (%)
Figure 14.36 The reduction factor for the prediction of the ultimate shear strength of pitted
plates (where SDOP ¼ surface degree of pitting intensity; E ¼ elastic modulus; n ¼ Poisson’s
ratio; wo ¼ plate initial deflection; d r ¼ diameter of pit and τ Y ¼ shear yield stress)
1.0
random distribution regular distribution
tr= t tr = t
t=15 mm t=10 mm
t=15 mm
0.8
t=20 mm
tr= 0.5t
t=15 mm
tr= 0.25t
u / uo
0.6 t=15 mm
(a) 1.9% SDOP (b) 4.5% SDOP (c) 9.8% SDOP

R=
0.4 E= 205.8 GPa, v = 0.3

Y = 203.7 MPa
w o = 0.1 2t (buckling mode)
a´b =800 ´800 (mm)
0.2
Equation (14.13)
R 1 ( for SDOP 1)
R 0 .18 ln(SDOP) 1 .00 ( for SDOP 1)
0.0
0 10 20 30 40
(d) 15.5% SDOP (e) 20.7% SDOP (e) 33.4% SDOP
SDOP (%)
Figure 14.37 The ultimate shear strength of plates with a range of SDOPs (surface degrees of
pitting intensity) and randomly sized and located pits
where τ u is the ultimate shear strength of the pitted plate, τ uo is the ultimate shear
strength of an intact plate and α is the surface degree of pitting intensity (defined in
Equation (14.3a)). τ uo is calculated from Equations (7.13) or (7.14). As shown in
Figure 14.37, Equation (14.13) is applicable to randomly pitted plates under edge
shear conditions.
14.8 Options for Life-Cycle Corrosion Management
There are various options for life-cycle corrosion management, namely:
the addition of corrosion margins;

the application of coatings;
the use of cathodic protection;
the deoxygenation of ballast water and
the use of chemical inhibitors.
14.8.1 Addition of Corrosion Margins

To reduce the costs associated with downtime for the repair and renewal of corroded
structural components, corrosion margins are added during the construction of newly
built structures for ship-shaped offshore installations, similar to the practice during the
construction of a trading ship. Furthermore, the combined use of corrosion margins
and corrosion protection schemes virtually eliminates the need for steel renewals
during the operational lifetimes of some offshore installations. The design value of a
corrosion margin is the maximum loss of plate thickness that is predicted to occur
across the entire life of the offshore installation.
14.8.2 Coating
The protection of metal surfaces by the addition of a coating (e.g., paint) is the most
common form of corrosion control used on ship-shaped offshore installations and
trading ships. However, the in situ lifetime of a paint coating may be as short as a few
years. Accordingly, worn, scratched or chipped areas must be routinely repaired to
sustain the conditions of these coatings for the required period of time. Usefully,
paints with longer lifetimes (e.g., 15 or 20 years) have become commercially available
in recent years.
14.8.2.1 Types of Coating

In industry practice, an appropriate coating is applied to most surfaces on a ship-
shaped offshore installation, such as all ballast tank surfaces and cargo tank tops and
bottoms. Antifouling coatings are applied to the external hull, in addition to the
corrosion margins that are added in design. Permanent means of access (e.g., walk-
ways and enlarged stringers) must be constructed in new-built offshore installations to
enable the inspection and maintenance of corrosion protection measures. The antic-
orrosive paints and antifouling paints used on underwater hull surfaces are similar to
those used on trading ships. However, the purpose of applying antifouling paints to
offshore installations is to delay corrosion by reducing the growth of fouling organ-
isms, rather than to maintain the smoothness of the underwater hull surfaces (as is the
objective of anti-fouling treatments applied to trading-ship hulls). Table 14.5 lists the
Table 14.5. Features of types of coatings used for marine corrosion protection
Type of coating Feature
Epoxy paints Coal tar-based epoxy paints offer good resistance to water, soil and
inorganic acids, but are no longer preferred; polyamide-hardened epoxy
paints are more resistant to moisture but less resistant to acids; amine-
hardened epoxy paints are more resistant to chemicals; epoxy-ester paints
are easier to apply but less corrosion resistant
Silicon paints Excellent water repellence; maximum tolerated temperature of 650 C; poor
chemical resistance
Zinc paints Good galvanic protection; less surface preparation required prior to the
application of paints containing organic zinc compounds, whereas those
containing inorganic zinc compounds are easier to topcoat; effective in
neutral and slightly alkaline solutions; inorganic types are more heat
resistant
Oil-based Easily applied; relatively inexpensive; permeable; recommended for use in
paints mild atmospheric conditions
Alkyd paints Must be baked to dry; better corrosion resistance than oil-based paints; poor
chemical resistance
Urethane paints Good resistance to abrasion; corrosion resistance similar to that of vinyl and
epoxy paints
Vinyl paints Better corrosion resistance than oil and alkyd paints; adherence and wetting
often poor; good resistance to aqueous acids and alkalis; maximum tolerated
temperature of 65 C
characteristics of selected types of coatings used for marine corrosion protection

(Randall 1997).
As paints containing biocidal compounds have fallen out of favour or have been
banned (e.g., organotin-based paints), it is difficult to establish an antifouling coating
that retains adequate effectiveness for five years or longer. Alternatively, silicon-based
‘foul release’-type coatings have been used on trading and naval ships, liquefied
natural gas carriers and fast ferries. These coatings form a highly non-adhesive,
Teflon-like surface, thereby substantially preventing the attachment of fouling organ-
isms, and can be cleaned of any marine growth that does become established. As these
coatings are free of biocides, they are also environmentally ideal and, unlike ordinary
antifouling coatings that dissolve in water and are therefore consumed over time, they
do not need to be re-applied except for local damage repair.
In a large shipyard, it is common for several ships to be under construction at the
same time, and thus any overspray of silicon-based paints from the blocks or hulls of
ship-shaped offshore installations under construction may contaminate the coatings of
nearby conventional blocks. Shipyards are therefore reluctant to apply silicon-based
paints. In contrast, repair yards have fewer concerns about contamination, as they are
generally more amenable to applying silicon-based paints to commercial ships during
periodic overhauls or conversions. The application of silicon-based foul-release coat-
ings to new-build offshore installations may also be possible at a different dry-dock to
that where the offshore installation is constructed.
Notably, closely spaced support blocks prevent treatment of the entire bottom area
of the hull of offshore installations. These structures require relatively more blocks
than trading ships to support their heavier hull weights, which are caused by the
presence of topside facilities. Ballast and cargo tanks must be adequately coated to
prevent rapid corrosion and pitting. To aid inspection, these coatings should be of a
light colour. The consideration of alternatives to coatings, such as thicker scantlings or
secondary cathodic protection, is always recommended, but high quality coatings are
nevertheless essential because these are uniquely efficient at inhibiting the rapid
progress of localised corrosion (e.g., pitting and grooving) and subsequent failures
at welded joints.
However, no coating system is completely fail-proof across the expected long
service life of an offshore installation. Therefore, backup systems are used.
Typically, ICCP is used for an underwater hull and sacrificial zinc anodes are used
in ballast tanks. However, the design of an ICCP system creates challenges associated
with dry-docking. In addition, ICCP systems must be backed up by spare anodes and
reference electrodes kept on-hand for activation if the working units fail. Another
possible complication is that the offshore installations are continuously grounded via
their mooring chains. This means that any associated stray current must be analysed
and controlled to ensure that an ICCP system protects only the hull and does not
transform other parts into anodes, thereby causing a current drain through the mooring
chains. Finally, the antifouling paints used on offshore installations have limited
lifetimes in water, and thus dry-docking for hull re-coating may be necessary after a
long on-site service period. In any event, a high quality underwater hull coating is
critical to achieve a long on-site lifetime.
The coating system for a new-build hull is selected and specified based on the
required service life of the offshore installation and the associated maintenance and
upkeep philosophy. The coating systems for cargo tanks, slop tanks, reception tanks,
off-specification tanks and similar structures must be compatible with the expected
temperatures of the cargo liquids. Abrasion-resistant epoxies are preferred for use on
the external hull and ballast spaces. Soft coating systems are not used for hull
structures, although skid-resistant coatings are applied to selected locations, such as
walkways and stairways around equipment and along important access routes.
Coating specifications cover the intended service period, the required performance
standards, the surface preparation to be achieved and various environmental and
human safety matters, such as avoidance of tin-containing paints and coal tar-
containing epoxies. These specifications also dictate the required dry-film thicknesses
and number of coats for various areas, the allowable variability in the design of dry-
film thicknesses and the measurement and control of the same.
Freshwater washing is used to remove salt residue from surfaces before surface
preparation or coating application. Coatings are applied in accordance with all manu-
facturer recommendations. It is recommended to test a coating system against various
applicable standards with respect to its thickness, adhesion, brittleness and osmotic
properties to determine its overall effectiveness. The resulting applied coating system
is warranted for a specific period, for example, five years.
14.8.2.2 Surface Preparation prior to Coating Application

The durability of a coating is affected significantly by the quality of the surface
preparation (Rajput et al. 2019). The requirements for surface preparation vary, and
Devanney (2006) is a readable and useful guide to the processes involved. All
structural steel must be blasted before coating, as per ISO 8501-1 (Sa3), and immedi-
ately shop-primed with an inorganic zinc primer with a minimum dry-film thickness of
20 microns. Sharp edges that result from steel cutting (e.g., with plasma arc torches)
must be treated by grinding to form a reasonably smooth arc with a minimum radius of
at least 2 mm. Otherwise, paint may stick to these sharp edges and then be removed
from a corner by surface tension forces via a phenomenon known as ‘pull-back’, the
magnitude of which is inversely proportional to the radius of a corner. Secondary
surface preparation is also required at the block and erection stages. For example,
ballast tanks, slop tanks and the bottom half-metres of cargo tanks are re-blasted (as
per ISO 8501-1 (Sa3)) to a surface profile of 75–125 microns (as per NACE RP 0287)
prior to coating.
Several blasting methods may be used for surface preparation, namely:
dry (open) grit blasting;
water-enclosed grit blasting;
slurry blasting;
ultrahigh pressure water jetting and
jet systems.
Dry grit blasting is the most common method used in the shipbuilding industry
for the preparation of large surface areas. It is relatively fast and produces good
surface profiles for subsequent coating but may not be as efficient or effective for
the removal of contaminants, such as salts, from weathered-steel surfaces.
Additional treatments, such as washing and drying, may be required in these cases,
which increases the cost and work timeline. Open blasting is a noisy and dusty
operation that may not be allowed or possible in some areas. Water-enclosed grit
blasting is similar to open blasting but includes the use of a water shroud to reduce
the amount of dust that is generated. This latter procedure also more effectively
removes salt contaminants from the substrate, thus producing a cleaner surface
than that achieved with dry blasting. In both methods, run-off water and used grit
must be collected, separated and treated before disposal. Slurry-blasting involves
combining water and grit at the blast pot, and the resulting mixture serves as the
cleaning medium. Ultrahigh pressure water jetting uses water at a pressure greater
than 1,500 bar. This technique generates no dust and very effectively removes salts
from contaminated surfaces, but it is noisy and slower than dry-grit blasting.
Finally, jet systems increase the mechanical impact of cleaning particles on a
surface during dry blasting by accelerating an abrasive (that initially travels at
a normal velocity from a blast pot) several times before impact. This can provide a
higher cleaning efficiency.
As mentioned previously, surface preparation standards require all steel plates,
profiles and fittings to be grit-blasted to give a finish equal to ISO 8501-1 (Sa2.5) and
subsequently to be coated immediately with shop primer. The minimum water-

washing pressure and required remaining salt measurement are also specified, as these
must be controlled to ensure long-lasting coating adhesion. Water from the washing
process must be removed physically and completely from all washed spaces, rather
than being allowed to evaporate. Appropriate edge preparation is also required. For
example, all edges of structures in tanks, void spaces and the exterior hull must be
ground to a certain radius before coating and then stripe-coated prior to the application
of each full coat.
14.8.2.3 Selection Criteria for Coating Materials

The coating material for a ship-shaped offshore installation is selected according to
certain criteria, with respect to its:
adhesive strength;
permeability;
glass transition temperature;
lack of solvent and
comprising the correct filler.
Adhesion is a measure of the ability of a coating to resist being lifted off a surface
by corrosion or bubbling. The greater the adhesion of a coating, the greater its
adhesive strength. As such, a coating with an adhesion of at least 140 bar is required
(as per ASTM D4541). Permeability is a measure of the ease with which water can
work its way through a coating: the lower the permeability, the greater the durability
of the coating.
Most epoxy coatings become semiplastic when heated to a critical temperature of
50–60 C, which is denoted the glass transition temperature (GTT). In tropical areas of
the world, the temperature at the top of a ballast tank is 55–65 C, which partly
explains why coating breakdown sometimes begins at the tops of ballast tanks. As it
is important to keep the tops of ballast tanks as cool as possible, coatings with a GTT
of at least 55 C should be applied to these areas.
Notably, modern catalyst-activated coating technology means that solventless or
entirely solid coatings are feasible and desirable for environmental friendliness.
Finally, the use of hygroscopic fillers, such as clay or calcium carbonate, is not
recommended because these attract water, which weakens the coating. Instead, alu-
minium or aluminium oxide fillers should be used.
14.8.2.4 Prediction of Coating Life

For life-cycle corrosion management associated with coatings, and for the residual
strength assessment of corroding structures, the expected life of a protective coating
must be determined. Guidelines for the application of a protective coating as a
function of the expected life are used in the maritime industry (DNV 2017a; TSCF
2002). Some of these guidelines also provide methods to estimate the expected lives of
various types of coatings as a function of the application protocol.
The durability of a coating is affected by various parameters, such as the applied

coating system itself, but is generally difficult to predict. A pragmatic approach is thus
used in industry practice, whereby in situ coatings are periodically inspected to estimate
the coating condition, the remaining life of the coating and the time until remedial action
is likely to be required. Reliability-based approaches are better for probabilistic esti-
mates of coating life (Martin et al. 1996; Faber and Melchers 2001), although there is a
lack of data suitable for such purposes (Melchers and Jiang 2006). However, it is
expected that reliability-based approaches will become increasingly useful as more data
become available, particularly data from the enhanced survey programme for tankers,
which has been in place for many years, and from more detailed recordings of periodic
coating inspections (Paik et al. 2006). The various factors that affect the life of coatings
on marine structures (Melchers and Jiang 2006) are
the nature of the surface preparation, including the condition of the surface
immediately prior to coating application and the surface salt content;
the obtained dry-film thickness and its variability over the surface, with
consideration of possible ‘holidays’, ‘peel-backs’ and other shortcomings at plate
edges, holes and discontinuities and welds and
the severity of the (local) environment, including the temperature range and relative
humidity, both during the coating application process and the coating life, and
chemical exposure.
Surface preparation has a primary influence on the durability of a coating (Staff 1996;
Flores and Morcillo 1999). The coating thickness has an important bearing on the
moisture permeability of the protective coating. Relatively thicker coatings tend to have
longer effective lives, provided that they are applied in multiple layers, but not so thick
as to lead to coating cracking (Lambourne and Strivens 1999; Friar 2001). Johnson
(1999) indicated that most coating breakdown is to the result of inadequate surface
preparation or erroneous coating application, in addition to the local corrosive environ-
ment. For example, horizontal stiffeners are more prone to corrosion than vertical
surfaces because the former are more likely to trap moisture than the latter.
The breakdown of a coating begins with the formation of small defects that grow in
size and severity over time. The level of coating deterioration is measured in terms of the
percentage of a surface that is deteriorated. Fatigue cracking is a possible source of
initiation for coating deterioration (Perera 1995, Eliasson 2003). In industry practice, the
coating condition is evaluated qualitatively using categories such as ‘good’, ‘fair’ and
‘poor’, based on the percentage of the deteriorated surface area (IACS 2017). When 1–2
per cent coating deterioration is observed, maintenance measures (particularly recoating)
are triggered, although such a modest level of deterioration is not necessarily considered
to be a failure criterion for coatings associated with the use of backup anodes.
Relevant data on the coating life for reliability modelling purposes are obtained
from direct field observations (Rolli 1995) and from laboratory testing (Scully and
Hensley 1994). Martin et al. (1996) reviewed several prescriptive and reliability-based
methods for predicting coating life. Emi et al. (1994) developed a procedure for
coating-life prediction based on a knowledge-based system. The progress of coating
50 100
users/clients users/clients mean + one standard deviation
(group A) (group B)
Surface Coating Breakdown (%)
40 80
independent expert mean- one standard mean
Intact Surface Area (%)

(group E) deviation
30 60
20 40
guesstimation
applicator/supplier
(group C)
10 20
applicator/supplier
(group D)
5 10 15 20 25 30 5 10 15 20 25
Figure 14.38 The results of surveys of users, suppliers and independent experts on coatings
breakdown is also time-variant in nature. Therefore, some investigators (Pirogov et al.

1993; Sakhnenko 1997; Yamamoto and Ikegami 1998; Zhang et al. 2020) proposed
mathematical models for evaluating coating breakdown, wherein coating life is
handled as a random variable that follows the normal function of a probability
density distribution.
Melchers and Jiang (2006) surveyed the opinions of users (groups A and B),
suppliers (groups C and D), and independent experts (group E) on the coating
breakdown times for trading ships via a questionnaire. Figure 14.38 summarises the
survey results, which indicate that the users tended to be more pessimistic and the
contractors and suppliers tended to be more optimistic in their estimates, compared
with those of the independent experts. In reality, the percentage of intact surface area
immediately begins to decrease and then decreases markedly during 10–15 years of
exposure time.
14.8.3 Cathodic Protection

Cathodic protection is the most common form of corrosion protection used for large
areas of submerged steel, as it is applied together with coatings and acts as a backup in
cases where the coating breakdown reaches a specified level. Two types of cathodic
protection are relevant: impressed current systems and galvanic systems. The former
type is a more reliable long-term protection system, although it requires continuous
external electrical power. The latter type uses aluminium, magnesium or zinc anodes
that are attached to the steel material exposed to corrosion in seawater. This causes the
steel material to become the cathode, which prevents it from corroding.
For offshore applications, such as offshore platforms, pipelines and mooring
chains, aluminium or aluminium-zinc anodes are usually used. Aluminium anodes
are more durable than zinc anodes, as former have a greater current-to-weight ratio
and corrode less in brackish water over time. However, aluminium anodes may
generate sparking if they become detached and strike another metallic surface.
Anodes must be replaced when they have deteriorated.
The outer surfaces of hulls and the submerged parts of ship-shaped offshore
installations are usually protected by a cathodic method. The process for the design
of a cathodic protection system involves (Randall 1997; DNV 2017b):
the determination of the design current density, based on geographical location;

the calculation of the surface areas to be protected;
the calculation of the total anode material (number of anodes) required for the
selected life of the system (structure);
the determination of anode geometry and initial current density, assuming an
adequate driving potential, e.g., 0.45 V, between the steel and aluminium alloy
anodes;
the determination of the durability (life) of anodes for polarised material, based on a
potential (e.g., 0.25 V) for polarised steel and
the distribution of the anodes evenly over the areas to be protected.
A self-regulating ICCP system comprising multiple anodes and multiple reference
electrodes is used to protect the underwater surfaces of the hull, the turret, the hull parts
adjacent to the mooring system and the risers. The cathodic potential must be within
certain limits, for example, 800 mV to 1,000 mV (Ag/AgCl). An ICCP system
specified for the hull must be compatible with the corresponding systems to be used for
the mooring and subsea arrangements. The design current densities for a hull are based
on its full-load draft and a specified level of coating damage. The required anode life is
specified based on the required service life of an external hull. In cargo and ballast tanks,
replaceable sacrificial zinc anodes are installed if this is consistent with the maintenance
philosophy. The distribution and number of anodes must be appropriately designed, as
an ICCP system and sacrificial anodes (including those attached to the external hull)
must be as maintainable as possible during offshore installation service.
14.8.4 Ballast Water Deoxygenation

The presence of oxygen in ballast-water tanks promotes corrosion, and thus the
deoxygenation of ballast water may prevent or mitigate corrosion wastage
(Tamburri et al. 2003; Abu-Khader et al. 2011; Miller et al. 2011; Zekos and Stack
2019; Lee et al. 2020). Ballast-water deoxygenation systems can decrease the corro-
sion rate by as much as 90 per cent if oxygen concentrations are reduced and
maintained below 0.5 per cent (Tamburri et al. 2003). Deoxygenation is performed
by using evacuation, biological processes or inert gases (Devanney 2006), of which
the latter is one of the most effective methods (Tamburri and Ruiz 2005). To ensure
crew safety, the oxygen level in the ballast water tanks is measured and controlled to
meet tank entry requirements.
Figure 14.39 shows a ballast-water deoxygenation system. Nitrogen gas is pumped
into the ballast water through pipes installed into the ballast tank (Matsuda et al.
References 441
oxygen analyzer
inert
Inert gas
generator
generator
dissolved
oxygen
mete
injector
Injector
ballast pump ballast tank
Figure 14.39 A ballast-water deoxygenation process
1999). Specifically, a seal must be present at the deck to permit nitrogen to purge the
headspace without leakage. Deoxygenation is achieved as nitrogen bubbles combine
with and remove water and by a nitrogen ‘blanket’ that prevents the diffusion of
oxygen through the water surface. Using this method, approximately one to two days
are required to deoxygenate the ballast water of a tank. This method is expensive
because of the large volumes of gas that must be pumped into the tanks.
A more efficient and cost-effective method for deoxygenation is to introduce
microfine bubbles of an inert gas into the water as it is being pumped into the tanks
(Tamburri et al. 2003; Tamburri and Ruitz 2005), which deoxygenates the ballast
water before it enters the tanks. The efficiency of this system increases as the bubble
size decreases because this leads to increases in the gas-to-water contact surface area.
Deoxygenated water is relatively benign when discharged, and is reoxygenated and
mixed with water prior to disposal, if necessary.
14.8.5 Chemical Inhibitors

Corrosion in a closed system, such as an engine or boiler, is prevented by using
chemical inhibitors. Five broad types of inhibitors are used: absorption inhibitors,
hydrogen evolution ‘poisons’, scavengers, oxidation (rust) inhibitors and vapour-
phase inhibitors. Absorption inhibitors affect anodic and cathodic reactions, while
scavengers remove the oxygen needed for the cathodic reaction. The first four types of
inhibitors are used for the corrosion protection of metals. Rust inhibitors are often
introduced to reduce the corrosion of engines and radiators.
References
Abu–Khader, M. M., Badran, O. and Attarakih, M. (2011). ‘Ballast water treatment technolo-
gies: Hydrocyclonic a viable option’. Clean Technologies and Environmental Policy, 13:
403–413.
Boon, B., Buisman, B. C., Luijendijk, T. and Vonk, R. (1998). ‘The influence of corrosion on
the strength of ship structures’. Proceedings of the 1998 European Corrosion Congress,
Utrecht, 28 September–1 October.
Chapkis, D. T. (1967). ‘Simulation of pitting corrosion of hull plating under static loading’.
Trudy TSNIIMF, 82: 34–50.
Daidola, J. C., Parente, J., Mat, K. T. and Orisamolu, I. R. (1997). Residual Strength Assessment
of Pitted Plate Panels. Report No. SSC–394, Ship Structure Committee, Washington, DC.
Dante, J. (2017). Accelerated Dynamic Corrosion Test Method Development. Final Report of
SERDP Project WP-1673 for Department of Defense Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, TX.
Devanney, J. (2006). The Tankship Tromedy: The Impending Disasters in Tankers. Center for
Tankship Excellence (CTX) Press, Tavernier, FL.
DNV (2017a). Corrosion Protection of Ships. Class Guideline DNV–CG–0288, Det Norske
Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2017b). Cathodic Protection Design. DNV–RP–B401, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
Eliasson, J. (2003). ‘Economics of coatings / corrosion protection of ships’. Proceedings of
Lloyd’s Register Conference on the Prevention and Management of Marine Corrosion,
London, 2–3 April.
Ellinas, C. P., Supple, W. J. and Walker, A. C. (1984). Buckling of Offshore Structures: A State-
of-the-Art Review. Gulf Publishing Company, Houston, TX.
Emi, H., Matoba, M., Arima, T. and Umino, M. (1994). ‘Corrosion protection system for long
ships’ water ballast tanks’. Proceedings of International Conference on Marine Corrosion
Prevention, Paper No. 15, The Royal Institution of Naval Architects, London, 11–12 October.
Faber, M. H. and Melchers, R. E. (2001). ‘Aspects of safety in design and assessment of
deteriorating structures safety’. Proceedings of the 2001 IABSE Conference on Trends in
Engineering, International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering, Malta,
161–166, 21–23 March.
Flaks, V. Y. (1978). ‘Correlation of pitting corrosion of aluminum plates and reduction of load-
bearing capacity under tension’. Fiziko–Khimicheskaya Mekhanika Materialov, 14(1): 89–93.
Flores, S. and Morcillo, M. (1999). ‘Anticipated levels of soluble salts remaining on rusty steel
prior to painting’. Surface Coatings International, 82(1): 19–25.
Friar, D. E. (2001). ‘A new concept in corrosion protection for ships hulls’. Proceedings of
International Conference on Marine Corrosion Prevention, Paper No. 8, The Royal Institution
of Naval Architects, London, 11–12 October.
IACS (2017). Bulk Carriers: Gguidelines for Surveys, Assessments, and Repair of Hull
Structures. International Association of Classification Societies, London.
Johnson, J. R. (1999). ‘A primary cause of coating failure’. Materials Performance, 38(6):
48–49.
Lambourne, R. and Strivens, T. A. (1999). Paint and Surface Coatings: Theory and Practice.
William Andrew Publishing, Norwich, NY.
Lee, J., Baek, S., Boo, C., Son, A., Jung, H., Park, S. S. and Hong, S. W. (2020). ‘Water
deoxygenation using a hollow fiber membrane contactor to prevent pipe corrosion for
sustainable management of district heating systems: A pilot-scale study’. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 277, doi: 0.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124049.
Martin, J. W., Saunders, S. C., Floyd, F. L. and Wineburg, J. P. (1996). Methodologies for
Predicting the Service Lives of Coating Systems. Federation of Societies for Coatings
Technology, Blue Bell, PA.
References 443
Matsuda, M., Kobayashi, S., Miyuki, H. and Yoshida, S. (1999). An Anticorrosion Method for
Ballast Tanks Using Nitrogen Gas. Ship and Ocean Foundation, Tokyo.
Melchers, R. E. (2018). ‘Progress in developing realistic corrosion models’. Structure and
Infrastructure, 14(7): 843–853.
Melchers, R. E. and Jiang, X. (2006). ‘Estimation of models for durability of epoxy coatings in
water ballast tanks’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 1(1): 61–70.
Melchers, R. E. and Paik, J. K. (2009). ‘Effect of tensile strain on the rate of marine corrosion of
steel plates’. Corrosion Science, 51: 2298–2303.
Miller, A. W., Frazier, M., Smith, G. E., Perry, E. S., Ruiz, G. M. and Tamburri, M. N. (2011).
‘Enumerating sparse organisms in ship’s ballast water: Why counting to 10 is not so easy’.
Environmental Science & Technology, 45: 3539–3546.
Paik, J. K. (2004). ‘Corrosion analysis of seawater ballast tanks’. International Journal of
Maritime Engineering, 146(Part A1): 1–12.
Paik, J. K., Brennan, F., Carlsen, C. A., Daley, C., Garbatov, Y., Ivanov, L., Rizzo, C. M.,
Simonsen, B. C., Yamamoto, N. and Zhuang, H. Z. (2006). Condition Assessment of Aged
Ships. Report of the ISSC Specialist Committee V.6, International Ship and Offshore
Structures Congress, Southampton University Press, Southampton.
Paik, J. K. and Kim, D. K. (2012). ‘Advanced method for the development of an
empirical model to predict time-dependent corrosion wastage’. Corrosion Science, 63:
51–58.
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M., Hwang, J. S. and Park, Y. I. (2003). ‘A time-dependent corrosion
wastage model for the structures of single– and double–hull tankers and FSOs and FPSOs’.
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M., Hwang, J. S. and Park, Y. I. (2003a). ‘A time-dependent corrosion
wastage model for the structures of single- and double-hull tankers and FSOs and FPSOs’.
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M. and Ko, M. J. (2003b). ‘Ultimate compressive strength of plate elements
with pit corrosion wastage’. Journal of Engineering for the Maritime Environment, 217(M4):
185–200.
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M. and Ko, M. J. (2004). ‘Ultimate shear strength of plate elements with pit
corrosion wastage’. Thin–Walled Structures, 42(8): 1161–1176.
New York.
Paik, J. K., Thayamballi, A. K., Park, Y. I. and Hwang, J. S. (2004). ‘A time-dependent
corrosion wastage model for seawater ballast tank structures of ships’. Corrosion Science,
46: 471–486.
Park, S. H., Shin, H. K., Kim, J. S., Cho, S. R., Jang, Y. S., Baek, N. K. and Park, D. K. (2020).
‘Experimental investigations on the residual strength of corroded steel-stiffened plates’.
Proceedings of the 39thInternational Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic
Engineering, doi: 10.1115/OMAE2020-19122, 3–7 August (Online).
Perera, D. Y. (1995). ‘Stress phenomena in organic coatings’. Paint and Coating Testing
Manual: Gardner–Sward Handbook, ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials)
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
Pirogov, V. D., Lyublinskii, E. Y., Samsonov, A. L., Shevchuk, P. R., Galapats, B. P. and
Shevchuk, V. A. (1993). ‘Analytical method for calculating the life of ship paint coatings’.
Protection of Metals, 29(2): 291–296.
Rajput, A., Ak, M., Kim, S. J., Noh, S. H., Park, J. H. and Paik, J. K. (2019). ‘Effects of the
surface preparation on the life of epoxy coating in steel ship plates: An experimental study’.
Ships and Offshore Structures, 14(S1): 199–206.
Rajput, A. and Paik, J. K. (2021). ‘Effects of naturally-progressed corrosion on the chemical and
mechanical properties of structural steels’. Structures, 29: 2120–2138.
Rajput, A., Park, J. H., Noh, S. H. and Paik, J. K. (2020). ‘Fresh and sea water immersion
corrosion testing on marine structural steel at low temperature’. Ships and Offshore
Structures, 15(6): 661–669.
Randall, R. E. (1997). Elements of Ocean Engineering. The Society of Naval Architects and
Marine Engineers, Alexandria, VA.
Rolli, M. S. (1995). ‘A reliable method for predicting long-term coatings performance’.
Corrosion Management, 4(1): 4–7.
Sakhnenko, N. D. (1997). ‘Imitation model form predicting the lifetime of paint coatings’.
Protection of Metals, 33(4): 393–397.
Scully, J. R. and Hensley, S. T. (1994). ‘Lifetime prediction for organic coatings on steel and a
magnesium alloy using electrochemical impedance methods’. Corrosion, 50(9): 705–716.
SRAJ (2002). Study on Cargo Oil Tank Corrosion of Oil Tanker. Report of Ship Research Panel
242, The Shipbuilding Research Association of Japan, Tokyo.
Staff, C. M. (1996). ‘Surface preparation: The key to coating performance on steel’. Corrosion
Management, 5(1): 23–32.
Stambaugh, A. and Knecht, J. C. (1988). Corrosion Experience Data Requirements. Report No.
SSC–348, Ship Structure Committee, Washington, DC.
Tamburri, M. N., Little, B. J., Ruiz, G. M., Lee, J. S. and McNulty, P. D. (2003). ‘Evaluations of
Venturi Oxygen Stripping™ as a ballast water treatment to prevent aquatic invasions and ship
corrosion’. Proceedings of the 2nd International Ballast Water Treatment R&D Symposium,
International Maritime Organization, London, 21–23 July.
Tamburri, M. N. and Ruiz, G. M. (2005). ‘Evaluation of a ballast water treatment to stop
invasive species and tank corrosion’. Proceedings of the 2005 SNAME Annual Meeting, The
Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, Houston, TX, 19–21 October.
TSCF (2002). ‘Guidelines for ballast tank coatings systems and surface preparation’. Tanker
Structures Co-operative Forum, Witherby & Co., London.
Yamamoto, N. and Ikegami, K. (1998). ‘A study on the degradation of coating and corrosion of
ship’s hull based on the probabilistic approach’. Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Zekos, I. and Stack, M. M. (2019). ‘A note of a design protocol for deoxygenation of water’.
Electrochemistry Communications, 103: 12–16.
Zhang, Z., Wu, J., Zhao, X., Zhang, Y., Wu, Y., Su, T. and Deng, H. (2020). ‘Life evaluation of
organic coatings on hydraulic metal structures’. Progress in Organic Coatings, 148, doi:
10.1016/j.porgcoat.2020.105848.
15 Lifetime Healthcare and Safe
Decommissioning
15.1 Principles of Lifetime Healthcare
Both human bodies and engineering structures must receive regular and proper care
through ongoing health monitoring, periodic condition assessments and predictions of
likely future health conditions (shown in Figure 15.1) (Paik 2020). Refined and
sophisticated technologies are used to minimise errors in human judgement during
these processes, although simple and rapidly effective tools remain useful.
Human bodies are regularly subjected to medical examinations for health monitor-
ing, both before and after birth. Visual examinations are performed by medical
professionals, and advanced imaging modalities, such as ultrasonography and mag-
netic resonance imaging, are used to observe the internal anatomy and symptoms of
illness and disease. Such health monitoring is used to determine physical and mental
well-being and whether physical, medical or surgical treatments are required. Modern
technologies also enable possible future health conditions, such as disease, to be
predicted from analyses of a patient’s genome. Consequently, in some cases, certain
medical treatments can be used proactively to prevent the development of disease.
Conceptual design, detailed design and construction are performed during the
engineering of structures such as ship-shaped offshore installations to ensure that
the resulting structures comply with their intended functions. Health monitoring is
conducted to detect in-service damage and age-related deterioration through close-up
visual inspections assisted by advanced equipment. Health conditions are assessed to
quantify reductions in structural safety and integrity owing to such damage and
deterioration and thereby determine whether repair or renewal procedures are
required. Likely future damage (e.g., corrosion wastage) is predicted, and appropriate
proactive safety measures are taken e.g., the addition of corrosion margins (described
in Chapter 14). Offshore installations must also be safely decommissioned at the end
of their lifetimes to minimise adverse effects on human and environmental health and
safety. Consequently, the following questions must be answered to optimise the
lifetime healthcare and/or safe decommissioning of an offshore installation.
What are its structural features?

What materials does it contain that may be hazardous to humans and/or the
environment?
What are its intended functions and operational conditions?
HumanBodies
Human Body
Birth Health Monitoring Health Condition Medication or Surgery Prediction of Future

(Medical Examination) Assessment Health Condition
Engineering Structures
Design and Health Monitoring Health Condition Repair or Renewal Prediction of Future
Construction (Inspection) Assessment Structure Condition
Figure 15.1 Lifetime healthcare processes for human bodies and engineering structures
15.2 Types of In-Service Damage 447
What are the site-specific ocean environmental conditions that will cause in-service
damage and possibly decrease structural safety?
What type of in-service damage and age-related deterioration is it likely to suffer
and how can this be monitored and detected, and how often should this monitoring
be performed?
How should its health condition be assessed in terms of structural safety and
integrity and what advanced methodologies should be used to assess the residual
strength of its aged structures?
How can the likely future in-service damage it will suffer be predicted?
What advanced methodologies should be used to remedy its damaged structures?
How can the effects of structural damage be prevented, mitigated or cured?
What methodologies will enable its safe end-of-life decommissioning?
Safety engineering for the lifetime healthcare and safer decommissioning of an
offshore installation involves the identification of strategies to address these questions
and thereby prevent human casualties, asset damage and environmental pollution.
Safety measures must also be established for accidental events, such as fires,
explosions and collisions, as part of the lifetime healthcare. These measures are
closely associated with risk assessment and management (described in Chapter 13).
Two aspects are crucial to the lifetime healthcare of an offshore installation:
inspection and maintenance. Inspection is an activity performed during the service
life of a functioning offshore installation to detect and evaluate deteriorations in its
structural components or equipment by visual, electronic and/or other means.
Maintenance is the total set of activities, aside from inspection, that are undertaken
to enable an offshore installation to remain fit-for-service, namely repair, replacement,
adjustment and modification. Inspection and maintenance play a significant role in the
operation of offshore installations, as they do in other types of structures. Furthermore,
the frequency of inspection and maintenance, and the methods and acceptance criteria
that are used, significantly affect the structural integrity of these installations.
15.2 Types of In-Service Damage
Health monitoring involves the inspection and detection of in-service damage that
arises from age-related deterioration. The types of in-service damage that occur in
ship-shaped offshore installations are
corrosion wastage;
fatigue cracking;
mechanical damage, such as local denting and
coating breakdown.
Corrosion wastage is a type of general or localised deterioration (described in
Chapter 14). Fatigue cracking is caused by dynamic actions arising from ocean
environmental and operational conditions, and its initiation and growth are accelerated
448 Lifetime Healthcare and Safe Decommissioning
Table 15.1. Causes of in-service damage to ship-shaped offshore installations
Damage Cause
Bow damage Inadequate structural design and inadequate consideration of

environmental loading
Caisson damage Improper material selection
Flare damage Inadequate structural design and inadequate consideration of
environmental loading
Tank damage Inadequate consideration of environmental loading or error in the design
process; unsatisfactory construction techniques; site-specific loading not
incorporated in the design process
Breakdown of coating system Poor surface preparation or poor coating system selection and/or application
Swivel damage Improper use of new technology
(a) (b)
Figure 15.2 Examples of mechanical damage (a) local denting and (b) corrosion due to coating
damage caused by local denting
by high local stresses and hard spots. Sub-zero temperature exposure may cause
cracking under impact loading, as exposure to low temperatures and cryogenic
conditions tends to embrittle materials (described in Chapter 2). Impact dents are
caused by objects dropped onto deck plates during craning operations. The extent of
such denting is limited to localised regions, but such mechanical damage may lead to
cracking and residual stresses or strains as a result of plastic deformation or coating
damage, ultimately causing pit corrosion (shown in Figure 15.2). Almost all signifi-
cant and expensive failures on offshore installations are attributable to detectable and
soluble causes (indicated in Table 15.1).
15.3 Methods for Damage Detection
An inspection is conducted to detect and measure in-service damage and deterioration in

association with health monitoring. A visual examination and close-up tool-aided exam-
ination are commonly performed. Non-destructive examination (NDE) technologies are
used to determine the location, size, shape and extent of in-service damage that is difficult
15.3 Methods for Damage Detection 449
Table 15.2. Methods for the detection of in-service damage and deterioration
Type of deterioration
Method Corrosion Crack Denting Remark
Visual examination, close-up √ √ √ Small equipment items are required, such as a

tool-aided examination hammer, flashlight, callipers and measuring
tape
Digital imaging √ √ √ Automatic processing is usually required
Leak or pressure testing √ √ Detects pit corrosion and small cracks
Dye-penetrant testing, √ Affected by cleanliness
chemical sensor examination
Ultrasonic testing √ √ Time consuming
Magnetic particle detection √ Applicable only for magnetic materials;
detects only (sub)surface defects
Strain gauge-based √ √ Detects reductions in stiffness caused by
assessment damage
Electromagnetic field √ Detects heat-treatment variations, steel
examination thickness, coating thickness, crack depth and
surface and subsurface cracks at weld seams,
X-radiometry √ Risk of exposure to X-radiation; requires
specialised operator expertise
Acoustic emission or natural √ √ Used for preliminary assessments; performed
frequency testing by specialised companies
Thermal imaging √ Applicable to a limited range of materials and
situations
Moiré contouring √ Reveals deformation patterns of dents; an
emerging technique
Replica construction and √ Simple and cost-effective: records surface
testing defects
Test coupon √ Preliminary calibration required to ensure
precise detection
or impossible to detect by a visual survey. Table 15.2 summarises the methods used for
the detection and measurement of in-service damage and other deterioration.
15.3.1 Corrosion Wastage

Ultrasonic sensor-based detection is widely used to measure corrosion wastage.
However, it is a time-consuming method that requires surface and coupling medium
preparation and a point-by-point examination. In addition, it may be difficult to
remove heavy rust from structures with many corrosion pits to obtain a thickness
measurement, and such measurements may be inaccurate because the surface remains
uneven after rust is removed. Specialised NDE wastage-assessment technology may
instead be used, if there is no substantial coating. Advanced methods, such as acoustic
emission and natural-frequency measurements, are inexpensive and reliable means for
the detection of significant changes in structural responses and can be tailored for the
detection of general and pitting corrosion. Radiographic methods detect variations in
the thicknesses of metallic components, while thermal-imaging methods are useful for
detecting hidden corrosion. The weight-loss coupon method periodically monitors the
weight lost from a coupon exposed to corrosion.
Galvanic thin-film microsensors are used for the in situ monitoring of coating durabil-
ity and hidden corrosion. Electrochemical impedance spectroscopy is used to measure the
early-stage deterioration of coatings and substrate corrosion underneath (typically paint)
coatings, although electrochemical techniques are affected by temperature and pH,
among other factors. Eddy current arrays provide a rapid high-resolution readout,
although these may be difficult to apply to an examination of large and geometrically
complex structures. Hydrogen probes are used to measure the concentrations of hydrogen
that are generated in some corrosion scenarios. In a magnetic flux measurement, a sensor
is immersed in seawater to sense the current flow between the anodic and cathodic areas
of submerged structures, which enables metal losses to be measured. These data are then
computer processed to characterise corrosion wastage distributions.
Chemical sensor-based methods, particularly dye-penetrant methods that rely on
the detection of fluorescence or colour changes, have not proven practical for the
assessment of widespread corrosion. Strain gauge-based methods are also impractical,
as these must be calibrated with respect to non-corroded elements, and the gauges
themselves are affected by the corrosive environment because large quantities of strain
gauges need to be bonded to a structure under examination.
15.3.2 Cracking Damage

Cracking occurs repeatedly at geometrically similar locations. It is therefore prudent to
be aware of critical areas that are prone to cracking damage, before such damage
occurs. This is an easy task with regard to standard structural details but becomes
more difficult with regard to new types of structures, as it requires a detailed analysis
of stress and fatigue. Visual inspection is the primary method used to detect cracks
where in situ crack identification is required and crack-propagation likelihoods must
be determined. Dye-penetrant and magnetic-particle testing may subsequently be used
to afford approximate measurements of the surface crack lengths, but it is difficult to
measure the crack depth without removing the affected material.
NDE methods are useful for detecting and measuring cracking, as summarised in
Table 15.3. More advanced NDE techniques are available, such as acoustic emission
testing, infrared thermography, laser shearography, potential drop testing, alternating
current-field measurements, crack-propagation gauge measurements and automated
ball indentation methods. Eddy current testing, ultrasonic testing and potential-drop
testing characterise crack dimensions and locations to different levels of accuracy.
Ultrasonic surface-guided waves may be used to detect open cracks, based on
dynamic responses. Digital photogrammetric techniques enable real-time three-dimen-
sional measurements of local-area cracking and deformation. All of these methods
Table 15.3. Comparison of non-destructive examination methods used for crack detection
Factor Ultrasonic X-ray Eddy current Magnetic particle Liquid penetrant
Capital costs Medium to high High Low to medium Medium Low

Consumable costs Very low High Low Medium Medium
Result availability Immediate Delayed Immediate Short delay Short delay
Geometry effects Important Important Important Less important Less important
Accessibility Important Important Important Important Important
Defect-type applicability Internal Most External External Surface-breaking
Relative sensitivity High Medium High Low Low
Formal-record availability Extensive Standard Extensive Low Low
Operator skill required High High Medium Low Low
Operator training Important Important Important Important Important
Level of training required High High Medium Low Low
Equipment portability High Low High to medium High to medium High
Dependence on material composition High High High High (magnetic material only) Low
Automatability Good Fair Good Fair Fair
Assessment capability Thickness gauging Thickness gauging Thickness gauging Defects only Defects only
have advantages and disadvantages, and inspectors select the appropriate method(s)
based on cost-benefit analyses.
15.3.3 Mechanical Damage

A close-up visual inspection is conducted to detect mechanical damage (e.g., local
denting) if deformations are within the specified limits (e.g., dent extension and depth)
such that the inspection can be made safely. Mechanical damage is usually accom-
panied by other types of deterioration, such as cracking and coating damage, and this
damage must also be detected. Guided wave techniques are used to measure mechan-
ical damage and afford an approximate image of damage in the form of a discontinuity
locus map, owing to the reflection of guided waves from the damage. A magnetic flux
leakage-inspection technique is also used to detect mechanical damage arising from
geometry and stress effects.
15.3.4 Probability of Detection

There are inherent uncertainties in the methods used for damage detection. The
probability of detection (POD) increases as the area of damage increases, but it is
challenging to find small areas of damage at a low POD. As it is essential to detect
damage before it results in catastrophic consequences, there is a demand for advanced
technologies for health monitoring.
Uncertainties associated with the detection and measurement of deterioration originate
from many sources, such as the geometry, the material properties, the structural com-
ponent location, the coating life, the cargo type, the operational conditions, the loading
cycle number, seawater, temperature, humidity, the environment, sensors, lighting and
accessibility. Major sources of data scatter are the operator’s skill level and practical
difficulties, rather than the measuring equipment performance. For example, errors in
gauging measurements of remaining thickness are mainly because of the difficulty of
determining the location of a sensor, and are not easy to quantify in the post-inspection
stages of damage evaluation. The uncertainties associated with damage detection and
measurement are thus characterised in terms of POD by the use of statistical distribu-
tions. Figure 15.3 shows the POD for fatigue cracking in ship structures (Fujimoto et al.
1996) and ship-shaped offshore installation structures (HSE 1997a, 2000a) as a function
of the crack size. The larger the crack size, the higher the POD of cracking. For cracks at
structural details that are difficult to access, the POD is low.
15.4 Health Condition Monitoring
The technologies used for the health condition monitoring of ship-shaped offshore
installations are based on those used for the health condition monitoring of trading
ships as well as fixed offshore structures (HSE 2009), but are modified to suit the role
of the offshore installation under assessment. The frequency of health condition
1.0 1.0
easy
moderate
0.8 hard 0.8
Probability of Detection
Probability of Detection
0.6 0.6
Easy Moderate Hard
2a
2a
0.4
2a 0.4
2a Pad 2a
0.2 0.2
2a 2a
2a
0 0
0 100 200 300 400 0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Crack Length, 2a (mm) Crack Size (mm)
Figure 15.3 Probability of detection as a function of crack size
monitoring is determined largely by prescribed time intervals specific to the age of an

offshore installation, although more flexible risk-based approaches are also used.
Industry practice has developed from operational experience with generic classes of
structures, and follows the regulatory requirements and classification society guide-
lines that are relevant to particular classes of offshore installations and sets of
circumstances. However, this practice may not explicitly account for the likelihood
(frequency) of structural failure nor the effects (consequences) of failure. Furthermore,
there may be a lack of operational experience with certain offshore installations under
particular circumstances. This can result in excessive or insufficient inspection activ-
ity. There is also a lack of specific measures to ensure that inspection activities are
commensurate with any improvement in safety and integrity above the minimum
requirements, and thus full cost-benefit analyses of such activities cannot
be performed.
A systematic approach to the health monitoring of offshore installations is therefore
required to achieve a balance among risks, costs and benefits. Risk-based inspection
technologies are a more refined tool for evaluating the frequencies and consequences
of structural failures. Such evaluations afford an optimum inspection process that
effectively reduces the risk of failure and maintains inspection-associated lifecycle
costs at an appropriate level. These technologies should also be applied to the
maintenance associated with remedial actions, as this enables the desired maintenance
methods to be used on a predefined time schedule, together with predictive mainten-
ance technologies and health condition monitoring. Similarly, risk-based (including
reliability-centred) maintenance schemes involve a systematic maintenance approach
that applies risk-management and risk-control techniques to meet maintenance needs
in a rational manner. Inspection schemes that have been used to assess trading ships
are also useful for the health monitoring of offshore installations.
Table 15.4 lists the practical applications of inspection techniques for ship-shaped
offshore installations in terms of the usage percentages (LR 2003). Special inspections
Table 15.4 Methods used to examine ship-shaped offshore installations during inspection
Average inspection interval (months)
Magnetic particle inspection (%)
Remotely operated vehicle (%)
Vibration monitoring (%)

Anode inspection (%)
Close-up visual (%)
Grease analysis (%)

General visual (%)
Radiographic (%)
Rocking test (%)

System test (%)
Ultrasonic (%)
Coating (%)
General (%)
Examination method
System Component
Ballast water Pipework 60
system GRP 48 67
Cunifer 48 17
Carbon steel 54 100 83 33 17
Tank WB tank 54 17 83 100 83 100 100 17
WB tank 120 17
Fore-peak 54 17 83 100 83 100 100 17
Fore-peak 120 17
After-peak 54 17 83 100 83 100 100 17
After-peak 120 17
Pump 25 100 100
Control system 34 100 100
Oil storage Pipework Carbon steel 54 100 83 50
system Tank Cargo tank 53 17 83 83 83 100
Cargo tank 120 17
Slops tank 43 17 83 83 83 100
Slops tank 120 17
Pump 25 83 83
Control system 27 100 100
Hull Tank and above Continuous survey 72

water of hull
Subsea 30
External Sea chest 33 83 83 100 100 100
Internal Sea chest 45
External Turret 27 100 83 100 50
Cathodic protection 30 83 83
Wind and water 25 100 17 100
area
Caisson 52 33 33 33 17 33 17
Deck structure Pallet 33 100 83 17
Walkway 33 100 17
Deck plating 38 100 100 17
Tank-venting 19
system
Pipework 50 100 83 83
P/V valve 34 100 17
Seal 26 100 17
Crane 42 100 33 33
Grease sampling 3 100
Rocking test 6 100
Thruster 33 67 83 17 17 33 17
Swivel and drag 21 67
chain Swivel leak 1 33 33 33
recuperation
Swivel 54 33 33
instrumentation
Swivel stack 60 33 33
(mechanical)
Chain/stopper/ 33 33 33 33
anchor
GRP ¼ glass-reinforced plastic and WB tank ¼ water ballast tank.
of offshore installations that store crude oil cargo that is regularly offloaded (similar to
trading tankers) also involve a significant amount of close-up visual inspection, and
this is usually carried out on site, rather than in a dry dock (HSE 2000b). Inspection
for fatigue cracks is typically first performed visually. Non-destructive examination
methods (DNV 2016), such as ultrasonic inspection or magnetic particle techniques,
are useful for the detailed examination of selected high stressed and fatigue-prone
areas and for a better size assessment of defects. Irrespective of the inspection method
used, note that the probability of detection or quantifiability of defects may depend on
the crack sizes, general visibility, accessibility, inspector training, surface conditions
(e.g., painted, corroded, oil covered, marine growth- or slime-covered) and other
parameters.
An inspection for corrosion, such as pitting, is also usually first performed visually,
followed by thickness measurements in selected areas using ultrasonic thickness
gauging. In theory, destructive methods, such as drilling and cutting, may be used
to obtain more accurate measurements, but these methods are not convenient unless
the study material has already been removed from a structure, for example, in the case
of an accident investigation.
Inspection planning is based on either a deterministic or a probabilistic approach. In
both approaches, the inspection interval is determined such that the next inspection
must be undertaken before the largest undetected defect reaches a specified critical
size. In the probabilistic approach, however, there are explicit limitations on
consequences, such that an allowable risk level must also be determined.
15.4.1 International Standards and Codes

The health condition monitoring of primary structural members and frames is priori-
tised to detect corrosion wastage, fatigue cracking, local denting and excessive marine
growth. ISO 19902 (2020) presents in-service inspection and structural integrity
management of fixed steel offshore structures which can also be applied for ship-
shaped offshore structures, where various types of monitoring techniques can be used
depending on the monitoring purposes (indicated in Table 15.5) (HSE 2009). API RP
2A (API 2004) presents recommended practices for the structural integrity monitoring
and management of fixed offshore structures which may also be useful for ship-shaped
offshore installations, where non-destructive examination methods can be used for the
monitoring of cracking damage as an acceptable alternative to analytical verification.
NORSOK N-005 (2017) presents health condition monitoring of offshore structures,
stating that IBCM (instrumentation-based condition monitoring) can be used as a cost-
effective alternative to conventional inspection methods, particularly for monitoring
areas with limited accessibility, as a supplementary means to verify novel design
solutions, using monitoring techniques such as strain monitoring. ISO 16587 (2019)
describes the performance parameters for monitoring and assessing the health condi-
tion of engineering structures, where data acquisition parameters and their measure-
ment and processing guidance are presented. ISO 19901-3 (2014) presents the health
condition monitoring for topsides of offshore installations of which main items should
Table 15.5. Types of monitoring techniques with their purposes
Type of monitoring techniques Monitoring purpose
Air gap monitoring Loss of air gap

Acoustic emission Fatigue crack initiation; fatigue crack growth; corrosion
detection
Continuous flooding Member leak detection; through-thickness crack detection;
through-thickness corrosion detection
Leak detection Breach of water-tight integrity; through-thickness crack
detection; through-thickness corrosion detection
Natural frequency response monitoring Member severance; significant damage to member and joints
Riser and anchor chain monitoring Loss of mooring line tension
Acoustic fingerprinting Through-thickness crack detection (full-severed members)
Strain monitoring Local stress and loading pattern
include main deck girders and stiffened panels; leg transitions to sub-structures for
fatigue cracking and fabrication defects; module trusses and support points; accom-
modation module, anti-vibrating mountings and support points; bridges; flare booms
and vent stacks; cranes; helideck; fire protection systems and coatings; access routes,
floors and gratings; and supports for equipment of safety critical systems.
15.4.2 Enhanced Survey Programme

The enhanced survey programme (ESP), which was developed by the International
Association of Classification Societies (IACS 2015), is the standard scheme used to
inspect trading tankers, as required by classification societies and the International
Maritime Organization (IMO). ESP procedures contain detailed and prescribed close-
up inspection methods and thickness measurements that must be used to identify
ongoing deterioration processes, and these inspection and measurement requirements
increase in scope according to the age of a vessel. ESP requirements have been
extended over time, typically in the aftermath of major incidents such as those
involving the Erika (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Erika) and the Prestige (en
.wikipedia.org/wiki/MV_Prestige), but may also be extended proactively. Such
requirements represent a minimum inspection regime, as the owners or operators are
finally and continually responsible for the development and implementation of
adequate health-monitoring schemes for their trading tankers. All damage data must
be reported to the relevant classification society to identify the key areas for future
inspections and adequate follow-up. Ship owners are also responsible for arranging
safe access facilities for close-up surveys.
Special periodical surveys (SPSs) of trading tankers are usually conducted every
five years, subsequent to two weeks of preparation to enable close access to critical
structures. Such surveys of trading tankers are performed in dry docks, and the extent
of the survey increases with the age of a vessel. SPSs are supplemented by the use of
intermediate surveys (ISs) and annual surveys (ASs). The IS requirements vary
Table 15.6. Required frequency of inspection for ballast water tanks
Year 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
‘Good’ S – – I – S – – I – S – – I – S
‘Fair’ or ‘poor’ S A A I A S A A I A S A A I A S
S ¼ special survey; I ¼ intermediate survey; and A ¼ annual survey.
depending on the age of the vessel and other circumstances, such as its history. ASs
are typically carried out to determine the general condition of a vessel, and their scope
may be altered depending on the circumstances. For instance, the ASs of ballast water
tanks are performed when the protective coating is in less than ‘good’ condition, such
that substantial corrosion is present, or if they have no protective coating. Table 15.6
indicates the required frequency of inspection for ballast water tanks. The coating
condition is qualitatively characterised as ‘good’, ‘fair’ or ‘poor’, according to IACS
Recommendation 87 (IACS 2015) for trading tankers. ‘Substantial corrosion’ is
usually defined as a depth of corrosion wastage that is greater than 75 per cent of
the corrosion margin.
Table 15.7 lists the structural parts of trading tankers that must be subjected to
close-up surveys, according to the Tanker Structure Cooperative Forum (TSCF)
guidelines (TSCF 2019). The quality of a close-up survey determines the confidence
that one may place on the results of thickness measurements (gauging). Thus, a special
certification scheme has been implemented as part of the ESP to cover the competence
of thickness measurement companies. Guidelines for ultrasonic thickness
measurements are given by DNV (2016). ESP requirements are often used by default
for the inspection of ship-shaped offshore installations, as this is considered good
practice or it is mandated by the classification society involved, or for a combination
of reasons. However, the operators of offshore installations are increasingly replacing
prescriptive ESP requirements with individually developed and tailored risk-based
schemes for inspection and maintenance.
15.4.3 Ship Inspection Report Programme

The Ship Inspection Report Programme (SIRE) was initiated in 1993 by the Oil
Companies International Marine Forum (OCIMF) as a transparent database of ship
conditions to aid the vessel-vetting process. The SIRE requires a detailed question-
naire on the health condition of a ship to be filled out by specially trained inspectors.
This questionnaire assesses the systems related to quality, safety and the crew. The
results are made available to oil majors and others on a centralised computer database
for use in their vessel-vetting processes. The questionnaire also addresses the general
condition and repair history of ship hull structures, with reference to the ESP results
and ship class and the statutory certificates and status required by the appropriate
classification society. An original aim of the programme was to reduce the need for
multiple inspections by various vetting interests. The SIRE scheme may also be used
Table 15.7. Structural parts of trading tankers that require close-up survey
Class Ship age 5 years 5 years < ship age 10 years 10 years < ship age 15 years Ship age > 15 years
A One web frame in a ballast wing All web-frame rings in ballast wing All web-frame wings in all Complete a periodical survey as
tank, if any, or a cargo wing tank tanks, if any, or a cargo wing tank ballast tanks, a cargo wing tank, before, plus a deck transverse (if
used primarily for water ballast used primarily for water ballast and all remaining cargo wing deemed necessary by the
tanks classification society)
B One deck transverse in a cargo oil One deck transverse in each
tank remaining ballast tank, if any, or a
cargo wing tank and two cargo
centre tanks
C Both transverse bulkheads in a wing All transverse bulkheads in all
ballast tank, if any, or a cargo wing cargo and ballast tanks
tank used primarily for water ballast
D One transverse bulkhead in a One transverse bulkhead in each
ballast tank, a cargo-oil wing tank remaining ballast tank, a cargo-oil
and a cargo-oil centre tank wing tank and two cargo-oil centre
tanks
E One deck and bottom transverse
in each cargo centre tank
F As considered necessary by the
surveyor
Class A ¼ complete transverse web-frame ring, including adjacent structural members; Class B ¼ deck transverse, including adjacent deck structural members;
Class C ¼ complete transverse bulkhead, including the girder system and adjacent members; Class D ¼ transverse bulkhead lower part, including the girder
system and adjacent members; Class E ¼ deck and bottom transverse, including the adjacent structural members; and Class F ¼ additional complete transverse
web-frame ring.
as part of the vetting and clearing process related to the berthing and offloading of
shuttle tankers from ship-shaped offshore installations.
15.4.4 Risk-Based Inspection

Inspection aids in the detection of deterioration in a ship-shaped offshore installation
before a catastrophic, polluting and/or expensive failure occurs. Although inspections
themselves do not affect the frequency of structural deterioration, any excessive
deterioration is found by adequate inspection, which enables the necessary subsequent
actions (i.e., repair, replacement or adjustment) to be taken. If such potential problems
are identified in a timely manner, risk-corrective or risk-preventive measures can be
applied to reduce the likelihood of structural failure. Although risk can never be
reduced to zero, it can be managed and controlled at an acceptable level (described
in Chapter 13).
A risk-based inspection (RBI) comprises an inspection plan that applies risk
assessment and mitigation technologies to help to prevent or greatly reduce the
occurrence of structural failures that decrease safety or adversely affect the environ-
ment or economic viability. Effective and specific inspection programmes must be
developed, and these must include the identification of the required inspection fre-
quency and practices. Figure 15.4 shows the main steps involved in developing an
RBI programme (ABS 2003, 2013) for a ship-shaped offshore installation. The first
step involves setting up an RBI team to establish the goals of the programme and
deciding the overall RBI approach to develop the correct inspection plan. The second
step involves component grouping and baselining, in which the components to be
inspected are identified and grouped. This requires the collection and examination of
the in-service damage data and structural design features of these components. The
third step involves a risk assessment followed by a risk-based prioritisation, such that
the components are ranked from highest to lowest risk. The fourth step involves the
development of an inspection plan based on the results of the risk prioritisation to
ensure that the risk of failure is kept at an acceptable level. In the fifth step, the next
required inspection is executed and the inspection results are evaluated. This infor-
mation is required for the identification and implementation of measures for the
continued operation of the offshore installation until its next inspection. In the final
Component Grouping Risk-Based Inspection Plan

RBI Team Setup
and Baselining Prioritisation Development
RBI Programme Analysis of Inspection

Inspection Execution
Updating Results
Figure 15.4 A process for the development of a risk-based inspection (RBI) programme
step, the RBI plan is updated for future inspections, based on the inspection results and
deterioration mechanisms and prior experience.
15.4.4.1 RBI Team Setup

The composition of an RBI team depends on the complexity of the project, the type of
offshore installation, the scope of the RBI programme and any applicable regulatory
requirements that may need to be satisfied. Experts who are familiar with risk assess-
ment, such as the identification of the potential causes of failure and the determination of
the likelihood and consequences of failure, must be involved. An RBI team therefore
consists of individuals who have expertise in the core disciplines of
risk assessment;
maintenance and inspection;
structural deterioration and related failure mechanisms;
structural integrity and reliability determination;
operational hazard identification and management;
production process hazard identification and management;
health and safety and
the selection and application of materials.
All of the RBI team members must be involved in all tasks to develop the RBI plan.
Brainstorming is an essential process that is used to identify items pertinent to the
RBI exercise.
15.4.4.2 Component Grouping and Baselining

Various forms of information are required to execute this step of an RBI scheme.
These comprise data on the original design and construction of the ship-shaped
offshore installation, its subsequent structural modifications, its inspection and
maintenance records and its operational history. When information is lacking or is
of low accuracy, a conservative approach that depends on certain assumptions is
taken. The baseline data are obtained from an initial baseline condition survey and
specific measurement data, or from previous inspection records for the structure
concerned and (to a lesser extent) for similar structures. These data are thoroughly
examined to identify and formulate the various component groups present in the
offshore installation in question. The frequencies and consequences of hazards
resulting from the deterioration of these groups of components are identified and used
for risk calculations.
Certain logical groupings of components are defined as items that are suitable for
inspection. Such items must be large enough to exhibit significant effects from
deterioration, but sufficiently similar in size that they have similar load effects and
deterioration mechanism exposures. Examples of items in offshore installations that
are suitable for high-level inspection are
cargo tanks;
ballast tanks;
void spaces;
watertight compartments;
spaces with through-hull connections and
pump rooms.
15.4.4.3 Risk-Based Prioritisation

A risk prioritisation is established based on the results of risk calculations. It involves
the ranking of the component groups to be subjected to RBI inspection from highest to
lowest risk. This prioritisation is influenced by additional factors, such as anomalies,
repairs or scheduled shutdown programmes.
15.4.4.4 Inspection Plan Development

Once a risk-prioritised list of inspectable items is developed, appropriate inspection
strategies are selected to identify the required damage-detection methods and the
inspection scope (e.g., the sample size, location and extent of inspection) and frequency.
15.4.4.5 Inspection Strategy

The inspection strategy answers the following questions:
Which items are susceptible to deterioration and where are they located?
What inspection methods will be used to deliver the required inspection results?
How effective are the selected inspection methods at detecting the possible
deterioration mechanisms?
How extensive must an inspection be to achieve the target inspection effectiveness?
What frequency of inspection is required for each inspectable item or component?
15.4.4.6 Scope of Inspection

An inspection plan stipulates where and how much to inspect in terms of the sample
size (number of test points) and the location and extent of the inspection, with the
intent to measure the level of activity of the deterioration process. The risk of failure
increases as the inspectable items deteriorate over time. In addition, as the number of
items affected by the same deterioration mechanism increases, the associated prob-
ability of integrity loss increases.
Most types of deterioration are time-variant, and thus the risk of failure tends to be
higher for older and more intensely used items. The sample size (number of test
points) must therefore be large enough to be representative of the entire example of
deterioration. For example, if the corrosion rate of an inspectable item is of concern,
its uniform corrosion-wastage characteristics must be measured at a sufficient number
of appropriately distributed points on its surface. Inspections of the localised deterior-
ation (e.g., pitting or cracking) of items must comprise a greater number of points, but
prioritisation among them is possible if certain types of structural analysis data and
past observations are available. Inspection locations are defined and selected such that
common features that are susceptible to deterioration are considered within each
inspectable item, such as:
weld seams and heat-affected zones;

hard spots and complex connections involving structural components;
heat-affected zones on welds on component surfaces (e.g., welded pipe supports);
vapour spaces in deck heads;
process internals and phase boundaries;
difficult-to-inspect internal structural components and
areas subject to water impingement.
The required extent of an inspection of a component or inspectable item is dictated
by the size of the component and the uniformity of the deterioration environment.
Appropriate areas of a larger component or item must be selected for inspection based
on efficiency and economy, whereas the entire area of a small item or component may
be inspected. The areas of a larger component or item are selected to adequately
represent the deterioration behaviour of the entire component or item and, by exten-
sion, that of the structure as a whole across its service life.
15.4.4.7 Frequency of Inspection

The frequency of inspection is related to the time interval between planned inspec-
tions, which depends on the expected deterioration rate and the overall health
condition of a given structural component as identified at an inspection. Subsequent
to the first few inspections, the characteristics and the rate of deterioration should be
sufficiently recognisable that the inspection frequency can be optimised.
15.4.4.8 Inspection Execution

A developed inspection plan must be executed correctly to afford a successful RBI, as
the results of each inspection have a substantial effect on the perceived integrity of on
offshore installation and the accuracy of the subsequent RBI programme updates. This
is because inspections are the primary means of gathering deterioration data. The
prerequisites for a successful RBI execution are
a pre-defined, unambiguous and concise scope for inspection work, including

inspection-control procedures;
a standardised reporting format;
well-qualified inspectors;
precise inspection equipment;
unambiguous anomaly criteria and an associated reporting process;
an unambiguous process to manage any possible change in the inspection
procedure, which is sufficiently flexible to respond to findings on a real-time
basis and
clear safety guidelines and policies.
15.4.4.9 Analysis of Inspection Results

Next, the inspection results are analysed to obtain information for the development of
future inspection plans. If anomalous data fall outside of the normal operational
boundaries or are above the acceptable risk level, remedial actions are taken. These
may involve
re-inspection to resolve errors in data capture, measurement or input;

additional broader inspections, possibly using more invasive techniques, to refine
the extent of the anomalous condition;
a technical analysis of the ship-shaped offshore installation and its components to
determine their fitness-for-purpose for continued service (comprising, for example,
corrosion predictions using more accurate corrosion-wastage models, refined
fatigue analyses, fatigue crack-growth analysis and fracture mechanics analysis);
repairs and modifications to restore the structure or its components to a state that is
suitable for safe operation or
modification of the RBI plan to increase and/or modify the inspection scope
and frequency.
The analysis of the inspection results also provides trend information on the
deterioration mechanisms, which are compared to the expected trends established
from data and previous inspections. This information reveals whether the expected
trends remain appropriate or must be modified.
15.4.4.10 RBI Programme Updating

Continuous feedback and inspection data analyses are used to update the RBI pro-
gramme and improve its effectiveness. Most types of deterioration in a ship-shaped
offshore installation are time-variant, and an RBI programme is thus periodically
modified (including at important stages) during the service life of an offshore instal-
lation. The updating of an RBI programme involves many of the steps used during its
development, such as risk calculation, risk prioritisation and inspection plan develop-
ment. Real-time inspection data must be used for this updating process, as these data
reflect the operative deterioration mechanisms and therefore help to improve the future
accuracy of the RBI programme in terms of
the risk ranking of components;

the inspection methods and
the inspection frequency and/or scope.
15.5 Health Condition Assessment
To prevent the need for dry-docking or major remedy activities (e.g., on-site steel
renewals) during its service life, a ship-shaped offshore installation must be subjected
to regular health condition assessments. Two types of scheme are used for health
condition assessments: qualitative schemes and quantitative schemes. In qualitative
schemes, the results of health monitoring are used for health condition assessments to
afford a qualitative rating (from ‘excellent’ to ‘poor’). This approach may be inad-
equate, as it is hard to identify the characteristics of reduced structural safety and
integrity that result from in-service damage. Quantitative schemes are more refined
because they use computational models to characterise and quantitatively assess the
health condition of an offshore installation in terms of the limit states and residual
strength. The primary parameters used for health condition assessments are defined
from the results of health monitoring, and may include
coating breakdown;
corrosion wastage and remaining thickness and degree of pitting intensity;
fatigue cracking and residual fatigue lives;
local denting and
the residual strengths of primary structural components and hull girders.
The health condition assessment of an offshore installation exhibiting coating
breakdown and corrosion wastage is described in Chapter 14, and that of structures
exhibiting other types of in-service damage, such as cracking and denting, is described
in this chapter. The USAS-L programme presented in Appendix 5 is used to predict
the wave-induced hull girder bending moment associated with a short-term storm
persistence time for a residual ultimate strength-based health condition assessment of
an aged hull structure.
15.5.1 Residual Strengths of Cracked Plates under Tension or Compression

A series of ultimate strength tests of cracked steel plates subjected to axial tension,
with a range of crack sizes and plate thicknesses, were carried out (shown in
Figure 15.5). The following empirical formula for predicting the ultimate tensile
strengths of cracked plates was derived from the experimental data (Paik et al. 2005):
σ xu Ac
Rxc ¼ ¼ , (15.1)
σ xuo Ao
where Rxc is the strength reduction factor for the cracked plate under tension, σ xu is the
ultimate strength of the cracked plate under tension, σ xuo is the ultimate strength of an
w
artificial
crack
c
0
b
= 50
= 0
50 L 70
0
68
0
(unit: mm)
Figure 15.5 A cracked plate under axial tension
1.2
Ultimate Tensile Strength-Reduction Factor

1.0
0.8
Equation (15.1)
0.6 experiment
Experiment:
: =1.6mm
t = 1.6 mm
: =2.0mm
t = 2.0 mm
0.4 : =2.2mm
t = 2.2 mm
:Simplifiedmodel
0.2
0
0 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25
Crack Size, c/b
Figure 15.6 Reduction in the ultimate tensile strength of a cracked plate vs. crack size
(where c ¼ crack length; b ¼ plate breadth and t ¼ plate thickness)
intact plate under tension (which is taken as σ Y , i.e., the yield strength of the material),
Ac is the remaining cross-sectional area of the cracked plate and Ao is the original
cross-sectional area of an intact plate. Figure 15.6 depicts a plot of Equation (15.1)
using experimental data.
A series of tests of the ultimate compressive strengths of steel box columns were
conducted under the conditions of cracks of different sizes at various locations (Paik
2008) (shown in Figures 15.7 and 15.8). These tests revealed that Equation (15.1) is
also applicable to the prediction of the ultimate compressive strength of a cracked
plate, whereas the ultimate compressive strength of an intact plate is estimated from
Equation (14.12), as shown in Figure 15.9. For details on the prediction of the ultimate
strengths of cracked plates, see chapter 9 of Paik (2018).
15.5.2 Residual Strengths of Dented Plates under Compression

A series of finite-element analyses of the ultimate compressive strengths of dented
plates were conducted using various dent sizes (Paik et al. 2003a). Two types of dent
shape were considered (shown in Figure 15.10). Based on the numerical computa-
tions, the following empirical formula was derived for the prediction of the ultimate
compressive strength of a dented plate as a function of the dent characteristics (shown
in in Figure 15.11):

σ xu Dd
Rxd ¼ ¼ C 3 C 1 ln þ C2 , (15.2)
σ xuo t
2 2
dd dd dd dd
C 1 ¼ 0:042 0:105 þ 0:015, C 2 ¼ 0:138 0:302 þ 1:042,
b b b b
x
910
block
Block
1,545
4,420
580
actuator
Actuator
ck
We Cra
lded
1,000
loadCell
Load cell
t = 4.4
jigJig ~ 0
Tag 50 0
crack We
lde
60
Specimen
Test
test Model
model d
580
500
(unit: mm)
(Unit: mm)
(unit: mm)
Figure 15.7 Setup for testing the ultimate compressive strength of a cracked steel-box column
c c c/2 c/2
a =580 mm
2c 2c c c
a = 580 mm
a =580 mm
s =290 mm
G
G
G
h=250 mm
s=290 mm
s=290 mm
s =290 mm
t t t
b=500 mm b=500 mm b=500 mm
Figure 15.8 Various crack locations on test steel-box columns

Ultimate Compressive Strength-Reduction Factor
0.8
0.6 Equation (15.1)
0.4
0.2
symbols: experiment
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Crack Size, c/b
Figure 15.9 Reduction of the ultimate compressive strength of a cracked plate vs. crack size
(a) (b)
Figure 15.10 Types of dent shapes on a plate (a) spherical object and (b) conical object
y
a
dd
b dd
s h Dd
a x
Figure 15.11 Geometric parameters of a local dent on a plate
1.2 1.0 1.2
1.0 1.0
0.8 Dd /t=1
Strength Factor
Strength Factor
Strength Factor
Dd /t=3
0.8 0.8 Dd /t=10

0.6
0.6 0.6 Equation(15.3)
0.4
0.4 0.4
FE M
Spherical Conical 0.2 : For dented plat
e
0.2 a×b×t = 2400×800×10
symbols: finitemm
element
t=10mm t=20mm analysis
t=10mm t=20mm symbols: finite element analysis 0.2 symbols: finitee element analysis
dd/b = 0.4,wo = 0.1 2t : For perforated plat
solid
=
line: Equation (15.2)
352.8MPa
solid line: Equation (15.2) solid line:
( Paik Equation) (15.2)
& Thayamballi2003
Y
0 0 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Dd /t h/b dd /b
Figure 15.12 Variation of the ultimate compressive strength factor of a dented plate, with respect
to dent size and location
2
H H
C 3 ¼ 0:144 þ 1:74 þ 0:49,
b b
where Rxd is the ultimate strength-deduction factor of the dented plate under
compression, σ xu is the ultimate compressive strength of the dented plate, σ xuo is
the ultimate compressive strength of an intact plate (described in Section 7.2.2),
dd is the diameter of the dent (which is smaller than b or dd < b), Dd is the
depth of the dent, b is the plate breadth, t is the plate thickness and
H ¼ h for h b2 and H ¼ b h for h > b2. Figure 15.12 shows the variation in the
ultimate compressive strength factor ðσ xu =σ xuo Þ for a dented plate with varying dent
sizes and locations. σ xu is the smallest when a dent is located at the plate centre. As
Dd increases, σ xu approaches the perforated plate strength (Paik 2018), which is
given as follows:
2
σ xu dh dh
¼ 0:7 0:365 þ 1:0, (15.3)
σ xuo b b
where dh is the diameter of the hole on the perforated plate, which is located at the
plate centre. For details of the ultimate strength for a dented plate, see chapter 4 of
Paik (2018).
15.5.3 Emergency Response Services

Emergency response services (ERSs) are special schemes that are used to conduct
health condition assessments of post-emergency events, such as collisions, grounding,
fires, explosions and heavy weather damage. ERSs are used to safeguard a ship-
shaped offshore installation, her crew and the environment. Although ERSs are
optional, they may be mandated in some jurisdictions. In addition, most major
operators of ship-shaped offshore installations contract providers to develop ERS
capabilities as part of the standard procedure.
ERSs may involve the use of standard naval architectural calculations and more
sophisticated numerical simulations that are based on accidental limit states engineer-
ing under damaged conditions, and serviceability limit states and ultimate limit states
engineering under damaged and recovery conditions. Considerations may include the
stability of a damaged offshore installation, hull girder collapse and structural damage
owing to accidental flooding, emergency ballasting, the float-off of grounded offshore
installations, temporary repairs and rescue operations.
15.6 Remedial Actions
The results of health condition assessments are used to plan remedial actions such as
maintenance, repair or steel renewal. To minimise financial expenditure, a systematic
scheme is established to maintain the safety and integrity of structural components and
hull girders to the required levels. Classification societies provide useful schemes for
the maintenance and repair of ship-shaped offshore installations (BV 2013; DNV
2015). For the effective maintenance and repair of offshore installations, the following
must be achieved to the requisite level:
repair in situ without departing the field or dry-docking;
repair that affects only the target area without functional stoppage or interruption to,
for example, the production storage areas and offloading in other areas;
repair without hot work, such as cutting or welding;
rapid and cost-effective repair;
repair using easy-to-apply and readily/locally available technologies and
personnel and
reliable repair methods backed up by a large amount of experience.
Table 15.8 lists examples of the repair and modification of ship-shaped offshore
installations operating on the UK Continental Shelf (LR 2003). In addition to the use
of remedial actions for age-related deterioration, such as fatigue cracks and corrosion,
several modifications are usually required to improve the serviceability and operability
of an offshore installation. For example, those developed via trading tanker conver-
sion may contain original structures with designs considered inadequate under site-
specific environmental and operational conditions.
Unlike the five-yearly dry-docking of trading tankers, the dry-docking of a ship-
shaped offshore installation is usually not planned. Instead, offshore installations are
15.6 Remedial Actions 471
Table 15.8. Selected examples of ship-shaped offshore installation repair and modification
Damage or inadequacy Remedial actions
Fatigue cracks in water-ballast Fatigue cracks detected in lower flume openings after 2–3 years of
tank frames operation as a converted floating production, storage and offloading
unit, subsequent to approximately 15 years of operation as a trading
tanker. The cracks were drilled and ground. Modifications were made
via rope access. These are now subject to annual monitoring.
Defects in cargo oil tanks Defects found in two starboard cargo tanks associated with the
transverse lower-support brackets. These were repaired using additional
brackets and new insert plates. A high level of non-destructive
examination and strict welding control is required.
Breakdown of paint coating Breakdown of paint coating was found in various areas of hull
structures. This was perhaps caused by inadequate selection and
application of coating. Recoating was necessary.
Corrosion in caissons Extensive corrosion of seawater and firewater caissons in water ballast
tanks, mainly caused by coating breakdown. Repairs by means of
external plugs and recoating were partially successful. In some severe
cases, repairs were attempted by recoating and by grouting a larger
annular sleeve, but these efforts were not successful. Consequently,
cement leaked into and blocked the bases of caissons to a depth of 1–2 m.
Bow damage Heavy-weather damage was found on the plating and internals of the
bow. The plating was indented between stiffeners to various extents,
with internal brackets sprung. On-site repairs were made using heavier
section bulb bar and larger brackets with strict welding control. Tears in
the way of the inner deck were faired and rewelded.
Green water impacts Green water impact effects were observed. Additional green water
protection was added to protect the process equipment pallets aft of the
forecastle.
Deformation on main deck Process module main deck foundations and supports were found to be
foundations and supports too small, after a structural motion analysis showed that the
accelerations and forces attributable to offshore installation movement
were in excess of the original design limits. Modifications involved
substantial strengthening.
Excessive roll motions Bilge keels were added to alleviate the excessive roll of the offshore
installation during heavy swells.
designed to operate for at least 10 years, and sometimes up to 20 years, without

requiring dry-docking repair. In addition, in situ repair using welding or flame cutting,
which is commonly used to repair trading tankers, is challenging to perform on
offshore installations owing to the high risks of fire and explosion. Large portions
of an offshore installation must be isolated and/or closed during welding, which is
very costly. Finally, it is challenging to ensure that these hot work repairs are
conducted according to standard industry safety guidelines (ICS/OCIMF/IAPH
1996), and thus all remedial actions must be addressed by considering the circum-
stances and using risk-based approaches to identify the required safety measures.
If extensive areas of an offshore installation require repair by welding, the

installation must cease production, transit to a repair yard, undergo dry-docking
for repair, transit back to the field and be recommissioned. This may take several
months. The on-site welding repair of small areas is usually accomplishable by
waiting for mild weather and involves limited production shutdown, repair and then
production restart. Even small repairs may take several weeks. The best way to
minimise the need for expensive on-site repairs is by building in additional structural
design safety margins at the outset of construction. These margins must be as large
as possible and much larger than those of trading tankers, given their five-yearly dry-
docking period.
An alternative to welding-based repair methods is to use adhesive patches. Notably,
these are applied without hot work and thus present no fire hazard. For example,
composite (fibre–reinforced plastic) patches may be bonded or laminated over struc-
tures to bridge and reinforce corroded or cracked areas. However, such adhesive
patching may not restore the lost strength, and imperfectly bonded parts may accumu-
late cargo and gas. However, adhesive patches may prevent corrosion-associated
leakage. Composite patch-based repair methods have been successfully used to
service naval ships, bridges and some infrastructures, and thus such methods should
be considered for remediating damage in ship-shaped offshore installations.
Another repair technology is the sandwich plate system (SPS), which consists of
two metal plates bonded to a compact elastomer core (www.spstechnology.com). The
elastomer provides continuous support to the plates, stops local plate buckling and
eliminates the need for stiffeners. The SPS can be used to replace conventional
stiffened steel plates in naval, offshore, mechanical and civil engineering structures.
The SPS is also used for repair and modification, wherein the SPS overlay bonds a
new top plate to an existing structure in a relatively rapid and economical process. SPS
technology is certified by several classification societies and is becoming more widely
used in the new construction of barges and the repair of parallel mid-body-damaged
hull parts, although the required levels of shear strength and fatigue performance
remain to be achieved in routine practice.
SPS structural arrangement
conventional stiffened steel plate structure
Figure 15.13 A comparison between a sandwich plate system (SPS) and a conventional
stiffened-steel plate structure
15.7 Likely Future Health Condition Assessment 473
15.7 Likely Future Health Condition Assessment and Management:

Case Study
Engineering structures suffer age-related damage, meaning that their structural condi-
tions and characteristics vary with time. If engineering models of health conditions
associated with structural damage (e.g., corrosion wastage, fatigue cracking and local
denting) are available, the health conditions of structures can be predicted and
managed in conjunction with relevant inspection and maintenance schemes. The
prediction of likely future health conditions is crucial to structural longevity.
A range of useful engineering models for predicting time-variant age-related
damage have been developed (Paik and Melchers 2008). The time-variant residual
ultimate strength or reduced load-carrying capacity of structures with evident damage
can be predicted (Paik 2018). In addition, the effects of time-variant age-related
deterioration on the ultimate hull girder strength reliability of a ship-shaped offshore
installation have been described (Paik et al. 2003b).
15.7.1 Sea States and Operational Conditions

The hull girder actions of ship-shaped offshore installations during tow or while on
site depend on site-specific environmental and operational conditions. The still-water
bending moments of the hull of an offshore installation are determined under the most
onerous permitted still-water conditions, as the installation will be exposed to these
conditions for short periods on site. In addition, a long-term reliability analysis is
planned in a design context to determine the entire range of still-water bending
moments that are possible across all conditions, and to account for the effects of
different types of hull behaviour (i.e., hogging and sagging).
For convenience, still-water bending moments may be estimated by using the
empirical formula used to estimate those of trading tankers. However, wave-induced
bending moments are obtained using site-specific environmental and operational
conditions (described in Chapter 4).
15.7.2 Time-Variant Corrosion Wastage

Age-related structural degradation and its effects must be determined as a function of the
age of an offshore installation under the most onerous still-water conditions and
reasonably severe short-term storm conditions. In addition, as the installation gets older,
it is subjected to selected generic patterns of corrosion and idealised crack scenarios.
Corrosion models are developed for different groups of structural members,
depending on their type and location and with consideration of plating, stiffener webs
and flanges (described in Chapter 14). These models are used to predict the corrosion
depths in the primary members of an offshore installation as it ages. It is often
assumed that corrosion begins immediately after the breakdown of coating, without
a transition time. General (or uniform) corrosion that reduces the thickness of
members over large areas is considered an idealised type of corrosion, as localised
2.5
2.0 upper deck plate on ballast tank

Depth of Corrosion (mm)
inner bottom plate

1.5
1.0
0.5
outer bottom plate
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Hull Age (years)
Figure 15.14 Sample models of the corrosion progress in selected members with age
corrosion (such as pitting) is more likely to be observed in offshore installations. The

ultimate strength behaviour subsequent to pitting corrosion is different from that
subsequent to general corrosion, and thus a more realistic assessment is obtained by
accounting for the effects of both types of corrosion. Figure 15.14 shows sample
models of the corrosion progress in selected members with age, as determined using
the approach (described in Chapter 14).
15.7.3 Time-Variant Fatigue Cracking

Time-dependent crack propagation models have also been developed for ship-shaped
offshore installations. The length of a crack in a critical area is predicted as a function
of the age of an offshore installation, using a closed-form formula. The crack initiation
time and an initial detectable crack size (e.g., 1.0 mm) must be defined for specific
member locations.
Cracking damage usually begins as surface cracks, which subsequently progress
through the thickness of the plating, although surface cracks may not simultaneously
occur in all stiffeners and plating. It is rational to assume that structures have been
designed based on adequate fatigue limit states associated with detailed knowledge of
crack initiation processes, and that cracks therefore begin to form at a specific time
(e.g., five years) during the service of an offshore installation. The constants of the
Paris–Erdogan equation are usually applied to the analysis of all joints, although the
crack growth characteristics of the joints are non-identical. This is attributable to the
varying stress ranges and different stress-intensity factors to which the joints are
exposed, owing to differences in geometry, crack location and load effects.
Fatigue-loading characteristics are random in nature, and the sequence in which
they develop is unknown, although long-term fatigue-loading distributions are
commonly known. Therefore, methodologies have been developed to generate a
15.7 Likely Future Health Condition Assessment 475
1. bottom joints 2. side shell joints 3. deck joints
300 300
2 2
3 3 1 1
Crack Length (mm)
Crack Length (mm)

200 200
100 100
0 0
5.00 5.04 5.08 5.12 5.16 5.20 5 10 15 20
Hull Age (years) Hull Age (years)
Figure 15.15 Sample models of the crack growth with age in selected critical joints (where solid
or dotted lines indicate different locations)
random loading sequence. For example, in an offshore installation of a given age,

the ultimate strengths of structural members with known (or assumed) fatigue
cracking damage can be predicted by the strength-reduction factor approach. In this
approach, fracture is predicted to occur if the size (length) of a crack in a member
reaches a critical crack size, which must be smaller than the plate breadth and
stiffener web height. Figure 15.15 shows sample models of crack growth with age
(developed using the approach described in Section 6.11) in selected critical joints of
hull structures.
15.7.4 Time-Variant Mechanical Damage

Mechanical damage, such as local denting, may or may not be time-variant. However,
physical models have nevertheless been developed to predict the size and location of
local denting in relation to the age of an offshore installation. The residual ultimate
strength of a dented member is estimated using closed-form formulations that are
expressed as a function of the denting features.
15.7.5 Time-Variant Ultimate Hull Strength

The ultimate limit state function for hull strength is formulated as a function of the
random variables associated with age-related deterioration, in addition to all of the
relevant geometric and material properties, and is expressed as follows:
gðx1 , x2 ; , xn Þ ¼ 0, (15.4)
where g is the ultimate limit state function for the health condition assessment and is a
function of the parameters x1 , x2 , , xn that affect the residual strength, similar to
Equation (7.2).
Figure 15.16 shows sample presentations of the ultimate hull girder strength of a
ship-shaped offshore installation over time, where M u is the ultimate bending moment
of the damaged hull and M uo is the ultimate bending moment of the intact hull. M u =M uo
decreases over time owing to the accumulation of in-service damage. If an acceptance
criterion of structural safety stipulates a minimum M u =M uo of 0.9, then the hull becomes
unsafe after approximately 15 years. To maintain the safety of an offshore installation at
or above a certain level, a sound and cost-effective scheme for remedial actions must be
established. In particular, repair strategies must be developed for structural members that
are expected to be heavily damaged by corrosion and fatigue cracking. Figure 15.17
depicts the effect of repairing heavily damaged structural members to maintain a hull
1.00 1.00
pitting
Pitting corrosion
corrosion pitting
Pitting corrosion
corrosion
0.95 0.95
minimum pitting
Pitting + crack
corrosion with crack
minimum pitting
Pitting + crack
corrosion with crack
requirement
IMO requirement requirement
IMO requirement
0.90 0.90
uo
/Muouo
u/Muo
MMu/M
MMuu/M
0.85 0.85
0.80 0.80
0.75 FPSO 0.75 FPSO

Sagging Hogging
sagging
Average condition
corrosion rate hogging
Average condition
corrosion rate
0.70 0.70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ship age (years) Ship age (years)
Figure 15.16 Sample presentation of the variation in ultimate hull girder strength for a ship-
shaped offshore installation over time (where M u ¼ ultimate bending moment of an aged hull
and M uo ¼ ultimate bending moment of an intact hull)
1.00 1.00
0.95 0.95
minimum minimum
IMO requirement
requirement IMO requirement
requirement
0.90 0.90
remedial action remedial action
uo
uo
/Muo
/Muo
MMuu/M
MMuu/M
0.85 0.85
no remedial action
No repair No repair
no remedial action
0.80 0.80
FPSO FPSO
0.75 Sagging 0.75 Hogging
Average corrosion rate Average corrosion rate
sagging
Pitting condition
corrosion with crack hogging condition
Pitting corrosion with crack
0.70 0.70
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Ship age (years) Ship age (years)
Figure 15.17 Remedial actions to recover the health condition of an aging hull (where M u ¼
ultimate bending moment of an aged hull and M uo ¼ ultimate bending moment of an intact hull)
15.8 Regulatory Framework for Safe Decommissioning 477
girder ultimate strength at 90 per cent or more of its original value. To achieve this, more
heavily damaged members may be renewed to their as-built state.
15.8 Regulatory Framework for Safe Decommissioning
More than 7,000 floating offshore installations and fixed offshore platforms are in
operation around the world. At some point in time, these will be decommissioned, and
this must be done in a way that does not adversely affect the marine environment or
the navigation of other vessels.
The decommissioning of a ship-shaped offshore installation is necessary when it
has reached the end of its available life, or when an oil or gas field is exhausted (Ekins
et al. 2005). The aspects of decommissioning are becoming as important as those
related to construction or operation, with the main aim of decommissioning being to
determine and design the best way to shut down an installation at the end of its field
life and the removal and/or reuse and/or disposal of some or all of its facilities and
components, as appropriate. Decommissioning typically also involves work to contain
and remove harmful materials (e.g., asbestos) that may cause environmental pollution
or pose threats to health and safety. Clearly, it is optimal to avoid the use of such
materials at the design stage.
Various technological and economic challenges must also be resolved during
decommissioning activities. International or national regulations have been developed
for decommissioning processes with respect to health, safety and environmental
effects (OGUK 2013). It is therefore crucial that the planning, approval and conduc-
tion of decommissioning is monitored effectively and in detail by all parties con-
cerned, as the process may be technically difficult, dangerous and potentially harmful
to the environment. Decommissioning strategies are thus developed on a case-by-case
basis to achieve an acceptable balance of the technical feasibility, safety and health
aspects, the environmental effects and the cost-effectiveness.
Partial or complete removal of a ship-shaped offshore installation must be made
in accordance with global and regional rules. International authorities have recog-
nised that the decommissioning of offshore installations may affect health, safety
and the environment. Thus, various international authorities have established a
range of regulations (Trevisanut 2020). Regional authorities are also developing
similar regulations, or plan to do so in the immediate future. Key relevant
conventions and considerations are listed here in order of the year in which they
were established:
The Geneva Convention (1958)

The London Dumping Convention (1972)
The Oslo Convention (1972)
The Convention for the Protection of the North-East Atlantic (1972–1998)
The Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment and the Coastal
Region of the Mediterranean Sea (1976)
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)

The Bonn Agreement: An Agreement for Cooperation in Dealing with Pollution of
the North Sea by Oil and Other Harmful Substances (1983)
The Vienna Convention for the Protection of the Ozone Layer (1985)
The Guidelines and Standards of the IMO (1988)
The Basel Convention on the Control of the Trans-Boundary Movements of
Hazardous Wastes, and Their Disposal (1989)
The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (1992)
The Convention on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea
Area (1992)
The Convention on the Protection of the Black Sea against Pollution (1992)
The Protocol of the 1972 London Convention (1996)
International standards typically comprise minimum rules for the decommission-
ing of offshore installations, whereas regional regulations are usually more strin-
gent. Coastal countries review proposals for decommissioning on a case-by-case
basis by examining aspects related to health, safety and environmental effects.
International oil companies also consider these matters extensively, as they are
important to the development and execution of their decommissioning plans and
drive the development of new laws or the strengthening of existing laws regarding
decommissioning.
The generally adopted international rules and standards for the decommission-
ing of offshore installations are the 1989 IMO guidelines (IMO 1989; Beckman
2013) and those of the London Dumping Convention (1972) and its 1996 protocol.
Four regional standards are also applied (Trevisanut 2020): the offshore protocols
of the Protocol Concerning Marine Pollution Resulting from Exploration and
Exploitation of the Continental Shelf (the 1989 Kuwait Protocol), the dumping
and offshore protocols of the Convention for the Protection of the Mediterranean
Sea against Pollution (the 1976 Barcelona Convention), the Helsinki Convention
on the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Baltic Sea Area (the
1992 Helsinki Convention) and the Convention for the Protection of the Marine
Environment of the North-East Atlantic (the Oslo and Paris (OSPAR) Convention,
1992; www.ospar.org).
Some regional regulators are exploring the feasibility of supporting alternatives to a
total removal policy in association with perceived social, environmental and economic
benefits, where leaving in situ, partial removal or nearby relocation may be adopted
(Chandler et al. 2017; Fam et al. 2018).
15.9 Challenges for Safe Decommissioning
15.9.1 Technical Challenges

Technical challenges arise when there is a lack of experience with the decommis-
sioning of a given type of offshore installation. Even with experience, the
15.9 Challenges for Safe Decommissioning 479
decommissioning of some types of offshore platforms, such as those which contain

fixed deep-water structures (e.g., large steel jackets or concrete gravity structures),
may present technical challenges. A key challenge during removal is to safely and
efficiently cut heavy steel-walled sections by explosive or mechanical means (e.g.,
diamond wire cutting or abrasive water jets). Other challenges are related to the lifting
and transportation of heavy sections, the removal of large integrated or hybrid topside
features and the behaviour of the platform during toppling operations.
Much is now known about the removal and disposal of shallow-water steel jackets,
as so many of these operations have been performed. As such, the cutting and lifting
techniques used in these operations may be applied to the decommissioning of larger
platforms. These techniques involve the cutting of the platform and its removal in
several stages by a semi-submersible crane barge, and the details of such operations
are carefully organised in each decommissioning case. In some remote areas, how-
ever, there may be a lack of infrastructure (e.g., large crane vessels or barges) for
deconstruction. In addition, barges carrying equipment and process facilities in the
process of being decommissioned may not be allowed entry into ports, while suitable
recycling facilities are often remote.
Onshore disposal is an option, but it requires considerable road transport. Onshore
recycling or disposal may also be undesirable in terms of the economic and environ-
mental aspects, and it is associated with its own unique set of concerns and challenges.
For these reasons, deep-water disposal may be a practical option. Thus, high value
components (e.g., pressure vessels or turbines) and individual modules (e.g., topsides)
may be considered for reuse, rather than the entire facility. The use of decommis-
sioned offshore platforms as artificial reefs is also being considered.
Deep-water disposal involves the cleaning of offshore platforms, followed by their
transport to and disposal in deep-water areas. However, as mentioned previously, the
wider public does not favour deep-water disposal, and several problems related to
disposal at sea remain to be resolved.
Finally, even when lifting vessels and equipment are available to facilitate the
removal and transport of heavy items, many technical challenges in the decommis-
sioning of large fixed offshore platforms remain to be resolved, such as
the determination of reliable and cost-effective cutting methods;

the development of remote-operated vehicle capability to decrease the need for
divers and
the development of alternatives to large-capacity crane barges (e.g., controlled
auxiliary buoyancy systems).
In comparison to fixed offshore platforms, ship-shaped offshore installations are
operated in deep-water areas, which afford greater flexibility in the selection of
methods for their decommissioning. Deep-water disposal is one of the easiest options,
as the structures can simply be sunk after relevant treatment (e.g., the cleaning and
removal of oily materials inside cargo tanks). Alternatively, they can be towed to
conversion yards to enable the reuse of most equipment and process facilities, or they
may be broken up in a similar manner to ships.
15.9.2 Personnel Health and Safety

Safety and health risks arise during decommissioning activities owing to the presence
of hazardous materials, the use of explosives, the exposure of divers and the perform-
ance of multiple heavy lifts, among other reasons. These risks may be exacerbated by
uncertainties regarding the structural integrity or the precise weights and centres of
gravity of the components or equipment of an offshore installation, as these may have
changed during the operational life. There is considerably more risk to personnel
during the total removal of a structure than during its partial removal because of the
greater exposure of personnel to hazards during the former process.
15.9.3 Environmental Safety

Although terrestrial and atmospheric environments must be considered when planning
and performing the decommissioning of a ship-shaped offshore installation, the most
critical considerations are those related to the marine environment, especially its
potential contamination by oily materials. A thorough assessment of the possible
environmental effects of decommissioning must therefore be undertaken in every
case. Deep-sea disposal is the most practical environmental option, provided that the
necessary pre-disposal treatments (e.g., cleaning and removal of harmful and hazard-
ous materials) are rigorously performed.
It is ideal to recycle and reuse all of the equipment and process facilities (e.g.,
topsides) of an offshore installation, and this should be a goal for the future (Kaiser
2010). This may be easier to achieve with ship-shaped offshore installations than with
other kinds of facilities.
15.10 Decommissioning Practices
Decommissioning is a formal process to remove an installation from an active

status at the end of its service life, for some safety reasons or because it is judged
to be damaged beyond economical repair. Figure 15.18 presents a process for safe
decommissioning of ship-shaped offshore installations. The process starts with
approval of the decommissioning plan from regional authorities and ends with
disposal of removed materials on land after towing of decommissioned instal-
lations to harbour or terminal. Partial decommissioning in situ may also happen.
Decommissioning Plan Approval Well Plugging and Abandonment Pipeline, Umbilical, Flowline and Riser Removal
Harmful Material
Hull Towing to Harbour Site Clearance and Verification Mooring System Removal
Removal and Disposal
Partial In Situ Decommissioning
Figure 15.18 A process for safe decommissioning of ship-shaped offshore installations
15.10 Decommissioning Practices 481
These activities include cleaning and recovering materials and equipment for
recycling. Offshore support vessels (Ritchie 2008) may also be used for safe
decommissioning as well as equipment installation, health condition monitoring
and remedial actions.
The decommissioning of a ship-shaped offshore installation is easier and less
expensive than that of a fixed offshore platform, as the structures of the former are
floating and mobile. During the decommissioning of an offshore installation, all
moorings, flexible flowlines and risers are disconnected, and wells on the seabed are
capped and abandoned. The offshore installation is then towed to a conversion yard
for disassembly, with some or all of its parts being reused.
Equipment or process facilities that are suitable for reuse may be upgraded or
refitted in dry dock before recommissioning in another field on the same or another
offshore installation. More than two-thirds of the offshore installations that have been
decommissioned worldwide were subsequently reused in other fields. Such reuse is
the most desirable way to mitigate the environmental effects and save resources and
energy. It is also in keeping with the obligation on every engineering professional to
be sensitive to and appropriately serve the needs of society.
15.10.1 Well Plugging and Abandonment

For a ship-shaped offshore installation in decommissioning which has been used for
developing oil and gas, its wellsite is plugged and abandoned when the end of
operational life is reached for economical or engineering reasons. This operation is
the most costly and hazardous work in the decommissioning process. Plugging and
abandoning operations include (www.osha.gov/SLTC/etools/oilandgas/abandon
ing_well):
preparing the wellsite for abandonment;

removing and salvaging available wellbore casing, tubulars and other equipment;
removing stuck tubulars above the cut fishing tools while tubulars below the cut are
left in the wellbore;
placing cement plugs in the borehole and testing to prevent migration of liquids and
gases between the different formations and
returning the site to specified conditions.
Preparing a wellsite for abandonment includes removal and salvaging activities of

equipment such as staging, movement and demolition which can cause hazards
leading to fires and explosions as a result of releases of liquids, gases or vapors from
the well. Quantitative risk assessment and management should be conducted to
prevent such incidents.
A rig is used to remove tubulars and plug the well. When the wellbore is accessed,
it should be assured that there is no residual pressure and hazardous materials are not
discharged. On cutting and removing the wellhead, the maximum depth of tubulars is
determined for optimal recovery using electric wireline services (known as freepoints/
backoffs) or from a stretch method for tubulars under applied loads or simply by
industry guidance. The freepoint/backoff method determines the location of a point in
which tubulars are stuck and not removed owing to downhole conditions. The stretch
method measures the length of stretch on the string when the rig is pulling on the
tubulars. During activities of removing tubulars, rig equipment such as casing jacks,
power tongs or casing elevators can hit, leading to fires and explosions.
Stuck tubulars are removed from the wellbore with a rig assist or with casing jacks
once they are freed downhole. The latter method with casing jacks is applied to pull
casing if a rig assist is unsafe when the string weight is too heavy to operate the rig or
the casing structure is not stable. In some cases, it may not be possible to remove the
tubulars using the rig, and fishing tools such as hydraulic jars, spears or overshots are
required for removal by inserting them into the wellbore through a drill string
or wireline.
Cement plugs are placed in the borehole to prevent the migration of fluids or gases
between the different formations. Pressure testing is required to ensure tight plugs,
where air is monitored above the plugs for releases of hydrocarbon gas, vapor
or liquids.
The wellhead is excavated around the surface casing and the casing cut off below
ground level after all tubulars are removed and cement plugs are set with pressure
testing. A cap is put in place to cover the well to prevent unwanted future exposure to
the surface.
15.10.2 Pipeline, Umbilical, Flowline and Riser Removal

A pipeline system is composed of flowlines, infield pipelines and trunk pipelines with
equipment such as water injection, gas lift, chemical injection and hydraulic controls.
Prior to removal of subsea pipelines, they are purged and cleaned internally using
cleaning and separation pigs propelled by a suitable liquid, gas, gel or foam (HSE
1997b). Safe disposal of product is critical and product in flowlines is pumped out or
reinjected into the reservoir. Infield pipelines are also pumped into trunk pipelines
which are discharged to an onshore reception facility. Hydraulic controls are discon-
nected for recovery of hydraulic fluids. A special ship equipped with suitable facilities
is used to collect the pipeline contents using flexible hoses and to discharge them at a
harbour or terminal afterwards.
Subsea pipelines are subjected to combined current- and wave-induced loads
together with the effects of subsea bottom subsidence and scour, and they are designed
to be stable with limits of lateral movement, which are achieved by friction between
the pipeline and the seabed as well as plastic deformation of the supporting soil. If
subsea pipelines are removed from the seabed, they will behave as a beam, which may
exhibit lateral deformation, thin-walled buckling or vortex-induced vibration owing to
seabed currents. For safe removal of subsea pipelines, therefore, their stability on the
seabed and the permissible pipeline span length are critical factors (HSE 1997b).
As far as pipelines are not hazardous to navigation or commercial fishing oper-
ations, and donot unduly interfere with other users, they may be abandoned in place
15.11 Decommissioning Cost Estimation 483
after flushing, filling with seawater and plugging with the ends buried at least 3 ft
below the mudline, typically under sand bags or concrete-type mats (Federal Register
2002). Umbilicals, flowlines and risers are cut and detached from the structure and
removed from the seabed using marine vessels and remotely operated vessels (Kaiser
and Liu 2015). A reverse technique to install and hookup can be used for their
removal operations.
15.10.3 Mooring System Removal

For removal of spread mooring systems, mooring lines and tendons are cut and suction
caissons and anchors will be recovered for reuse using dive support and other
construction vessels. A reverse technique to install suction caissons is used to recover
them in association with overpressure in place of anchors between the underside of the
mud mat plate and the top of the seabed soil plug. The pile system of mooring lines and
tendons may be abandoned in place or removed after cutting 15 ft below the mudline.
Removal of external turret moorings or single point moorings are much more
challenging in terms of their heavy weight and wave-induced motions which are
critical factors for safe decommissioning. For example, a cylinder-shaped single point
mooring (Section 9.2.2) consists of a column and topside connected to the seabed
structure by means of a uni-joint, where the weight of the column with a length of
182 m from the uni-joint is over 7,150 tonnes (including solid ballast) and the topside
weighs about 519 tonnes (Sjöbris 2012). Decommissioned mooring columns behave
as a buoy which is significantly affected by waves, and thus the optimum hydro-
dynamic loading conditions in waves with suitable ballast conditions should be
determined before the removal process of moorings commence.
15.10.4 Site Clearance and Verification

Debris is removed from the site, which may have been fallen during not only
decommissioning but also installation and production for the years. The area of the
site clearance is defined by regulation as a 90 m radius for wells drilled with a mobile
offshore drilling unit and 400 m radius for platform wells (Federal Register 2002). The
work area is surveyed using a boat equipped with scan sonar system and a dive boat
with a remotely operated vehicle and/or dive crew remove debris.
15.11 Decommissioning Cost Estimation
The costs of decommissioning depend on the complexities of preparing a structure for

removal or disposal, such as strengthening to ensure the structural integrity under tow
and cleaning to remove harmful and hazardous materials, and on the costs of leasing
large lift vessels or supporting equipment (Twomey 2010; ICF International 2015;
Kaiser and Liu (2015). In addition, long-term monitoring costs will be incurred if any
structures are left in situ. These costs will depend on the amount of material remaining
Table 15.9. Factors for decommissioning cost estimation of floating offshore installations
Stage Cost factor
Well plugging and abandonment Dry tree Water depth, number of wells
Wet tree Rig or rigless method
Pipeline decommissioning Water depth, diameter, length, volume
Umbilical and flowline removal Water depth, length
Riser removal Length
Mooring removal Length
Preparation and removal of structure Structure type
Deck removal Weight
Hull removal Structure type
offshore and its distance from shore and the related regulatory requirements and
similar considerations, and may be substantial.
Decommissioning costs also vary according to the structural characteristics (size
and weight) and disposal options, in terms of the amount of cleaning required and
other factors, and are also closely related to the availability of labour and the required
decommissioning equipment. Large cost savings may be realised in the decommis-
sioning of fixed offshore platforms by performing partial removal and toppling in situ,
rather than total removal in situ, as the former option greatly reduces the offshore
deconstruction time and the need for large lift vessels or supporting equipment. The
costs of disposal of a fixed offshore platform increase rapidly with water depth, as the
operations become more complex. Thus, the disposal of ship-shaped offshore instal-
lations is more flexible and less expensive than that of fixed offshore platforms.
Kaiser and Liu (2015) proposed useful algorithms with realistic exercises for decom-
missioning cost estimation using regression models which are based on decommis-
sioning practices for floating offshore installations in the Gulf of Mexico. It was realised
that the total decommissioning cost comprises 7 per cent for management and engineer-
ing, 56 per cent for well plugging and abandonment, 16 per cent for structure removal,
16 per cent for pipeline removal, 4 per cent for umbilical, flowline, riser and mooring
removal, and 1 per cent for site clearance and verification. Table 15.9 indicates factors
for decommissioning cost estimation of floating offshore installations.
15.12 Digital Twins for Lifetime Healthcare
A digital twin is a virtual system that represents the real-time characteristics and
properties of a physical system. Such systems use a set of mathematical models and
data streams to process and manipulate situational parameters in digital form. Digital
twin technology is distinct from that of virtual reality, as it generates situational
simulations from computational models of real systems. Digital twin is a widespread
concept in association with the Industry 4.0 ecosystem of ships and offshore instal-
lations (Fernandez and Cosma 2020).
References 485
Hydrodynamic Loads Residual Strength
Health Condition
Assessment
Real-Time Wireless Transmission
Health Condition Sea-State and Damage Future Health

Real System Digital Twin
Monitoring Data Streams Condition Prediction
Display
Time-Variant
Remedial Actions Damage Models
Decommissioning
Figure 15.19 A digital twin system-based process for the lifetime healthcare of ship-shaped
offshore installations
Figure 15.19 shows a digital twin system-based process that may be used for the
lifetime healthcare of ship-shaped offshore installations. Data streams in health con-
dition monitoring are generated by Internet of Things-linked sensors in real time that
measure sea states and detect in-service damage (e.g., corrosion wastage, fatigue
cracking and local denting) on an offshore installation, of which data are transmitted
to a land-based digital twin via a wireless system such as a fifth-generation mobile
network or satellite. Refined computational models based on nonlinear hydrodynamic
theory and a nonlinear finite-element method are used for a health condition assess-
ment which is conducted by the analyses of hydrodynamic loads and residual strength
under the sea states and structural damage measured from health condition
monitoring. Closed-form expressions may also be used to rapidly estimate the hydro-
dynamic loads and residual strengths of damaged structural members and hull girders.
Remedial actions such as repair or renewal are offered from the results of health
condition assessment. Mathematical models are applied to predict future damage and
forecast the likely future health conditions of an offshore installation. This enables the
efficient and effective maintenance of structural safety and integrity over the lifetime
of the installation, thus minimising long-term financial expenditure. Finally,
decommissioning may also be offered for commercial and engineering reasons.
References
ABS (2003). Guide for Surveys Using Risk-Based Inspection for the Offshore Industry.
American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX.
ABS (2013). Facilities on Offshore Installations. Rules for Building and Classing, American
API (2004). Offshore Structures Design Practice. API RP 2A, American Petroleum Institute,
Washington DC.
Beckman, R. (2013). ‘Global legal regime on the decommissioning of offshore installations and
structures’. M. Nordquist et al. (eds.), The Regulation of Continental Shelf Development,
Rethinking International Standards. Martinus Nijhoff, Leiden.
BV (2013). Rules for the Classification of Offshore Units. Bureau Veritas, Paris.
Chandler, J., White, D., Techera, E. J., Gourvenec, S. and Draper, S. (2017). ‘Engineering and
legal considerations for decommissioning of offshore oil and gas infrastructure in Australia’.
DNV (2015). Rules for Classification: Floating Production, Storage and Loading Units. DNV-
RU-OU-0102, Det Norske Veritas, Oslo.
DNV (2016). Ultrasonic Thickness Measurements of Ships. DNV-CG-0285, Det Norske
Veritas, Oslo.
Ekins, P., Vanner, R. and Firebrace, J. (2005). Decommissioning of Offshore Oil and Gas
Facilities: A Comparative Assessment of Different Scenarios. Elsevier, London.
Fam, M. L., Konovessis, D., Ong, L. S. and Tan, H. K. (2018). ‘A review of offshore
decommissioning regularions in five countries: Strengths and weaknesses’. Ocean
Federal Register (2002). Oil and Gas and Sulphur Operations in the Outer Continental Shelf:
Decommissioning Activities. Final Rule, 30 CFR Parts 250, 256, 67(96), 35398-35412,
Minerals Management Service (Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation and
Enforcement), Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Fernandez, R. P. and Cosma, E. P. (2020). ‘A future foretaste: Shipbuilding industrial tenden-
cies’. International Journal of Maritime Engineering, 162 (Part A4): 397–420.
Fujimoto, Y., Kim, S. C., Shintaku, E. and Ohtaka, K. (1996). ‘Study on fatigue reliability and
inspection of ship structures based on an enquete information’. Journal of Society of Naval
Architects of Japan, 180: 601–609.
HSE (1997a). A Review of Monohull FSUs and FPSUs. Offshore Technology Report, OTO
1997/800, Health and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (1997b). The Abandonment of Offshore Pipelines: Methods and Procedures for
Abandonment. Offshore Technology Report, OTH 535, Health and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (2000a). POD/POS Curves for Non-destructive Examination. Offshore Technology
Report, OTO 2000-018, Health and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (2000b). Review of Current Inspection Practices for Topsides Structural Components.
Offshore Technology Report, OTO 2000/027, Health and Safety Executive, London.
HSE (2009). Structural Integrity Monitoring: Review and Appraisal of Current Technologies
for Offshore Applications. Research Report, RR 685, Health and Safety Executive, London.
IACS (2015). Guidelines for Coating Maintenance & Repair for Ballast Tanks and Combined
Cargo/Ballast Tanks on Oil Tankers. Recommendation 87, International Association of
Classification Societies, London.
ICF International (2015). Decommissioning Methodology and Cost Evaluation. BPA No.
E13PA00010, Prepared for the US Department of the Interior Bureau of Safety and
Environmental Enforcement, Fairfax, VA.
ICS/OCIMF/IAPH (1996). International Safety Guide for Oil Tankers and Terminals
(ISGOTT). ICS (International Chamber of Shipping), OCIMF (Oil Companies International
Marine Forum), and IAPH (International Association of Ports and Harbors), Witherby & Co.,
London.
IMO (1989). Resolution A.672, paras 3.6, 3.8 and 3.12. International Maritime Organization,
London.
References 487
ISO 16587 (2019). Mechanical Vibration and Shock: Performance Parameters for Condition
Monitoring of Structures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva.
ISO 19901-3 (2014). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Specific Requirements for Offshore
Structures: Part 3: Topsides Structures. International Organization for Standardization,
Geneva.
ISO 19902 (2020). Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries: Fixed Steel Offshore Structures.
Kaiser, M. J. (2010). ‘Steel waste streams associated with decommissioning offshore structures in
the Gulf of Mexico’. International Journal of Oil, Gas and Coal Technology, 3(2): 113–143.
Kaiser, M. J. and Liu, M. (2015). ‘Decommissioning cost estimation for deepwater floating
structures in the US Gulf of Mexico’. Ships and Offshore Structures, 10(4): 436–455.
LR (2003). FPSO Inspection, Repair, and Maintenance: Study into Best Practice. R20821–5-
UKOOA, Lloyd’s Register, Southampton.
NORSOK N-005 (2017). In-Service Integrity Management of Structures and Maritime Systems.
Standards Norway, Oslo.
OGUK (2013). Guidelines on Stakeholder Engagement for Decommissioning Activities. Oil &
Gas UK, London.
Paik, J. K. (2008). ‘Residual ultimate strength of steel plates with longitudinal cracks under
axial compression: Experiments’. Ocean Engineering, 35: 1775–1783.
Paik, J. K., Lee, J. M. and Lee, D. H. (2003a). ‘Ultimate strength of dented steel plates under
axial compressive loads’. International Journal of Mechanical Sciences, 45: 433–448.
New York.
Paik, J. K., Satish Kumar, Y. V. and Lee, J. M. (2005). ‘Ultimate strength of cracked plate
elements under axial compression or tension’. Thin-Walled Structures, 43: 237–272.
Paik, J. K., Wang, G., Thayamballi, A. K., Lee, J. M. and Park, Y. I. (2003b). ‘Time-dependent
risk assessment of aging ships accounting for general/pit corrosion, fatigue cracking and local
dent damage’. Transactions SNAME, The Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers,
Alexandria, VA, 111: 159–197.
Ritchie, G. (2008). Offshore Support Vessels: A Practical Guide. The Nautical Institute,
London.
Sjöbris, C. (2012). Decommissioning of SPM buoy. Master of Science Thesis, Department of
Shipping and Marine Technology, Division of Marine Design, Chalmers University of
Technology, Gothenburg.
Trevisanut, S. (2020). ‘Chapter 18: Decommissioning of offshore installations: A fragmented
and ineffective international regulatory framework’. The Law of the Seabed, Brill-Nijhoff,
Leiden, doi: 10.1163/9789004391567_020.
TSCF (2019). Guidance Manual for Tanker Structures. The Tanker Structure Cooperative
Forum, Witherby, Edinburgh.
Twomey, B. G. (2010). ‘Study assesses Asia-Pacific offshore decommissioning costs’. Oil &
Gas Journal, 15: 51–55, 15 March.
Appendix 1 Glossary of Maritime
Engineering Terms
For maritime engineering, the following terms and definitions are relevant. The terms
described here generally follow international standards, regulations and recognised
guidelines.
Abnormal action: Actions larger than expected action or normal action, for example,
abnormal waves.
Accident: A circumstance that gives rise to injury or fatality or environmental or
property damage, or production losses or loss of facility. According to IMO
(International Maritime Organization), an accident is an unintended event involving
fatality, injury, vessel loss or damage, other property loss, damage or environmental
damage. An accident scenario consists of a specific sequence of events from an
initiating event to an undesired consequence. An accident category is a designation
of accidents according to their nature, for example, fire, explosion, collision or
grounding, and examples may include the following:
Contact: striking any fixed or floating object other than those included under
‘collision’;
Collision: striking or being struck by another vessel, regardless of whether under
way, anchored or moored;
Fire or explosion: accidents where fire or explosion is the initial event;
Loss of structural integrity: structural failure that can result in the ingress of water
and/or loss of strength and/or stability and
Flooding: the ingress of water that can result in foundering or sinking of the vessel.
Accidental action: Action applied in the event of accidents such as capsizing,

collision, grounding, fire and explosion.
Accidental limit states (ALS): Limit states that represent accidental or abnormal events.
Action: External load applied to the structure (direct action) or an imposed deformation
or acceleration (indirect action), for example, an imposed deformation can be caused
by fabrication tolerances, settlement or temperature change. Also known as ‘load’.
Action effect: Effect of actions on a global structure or structural component, for
example, internal force, moment, deformation, stress or strain. Also known as
‘load effect’.
Aged structure: An existing structure which may suffer age-related degradation such
as corrosion and fatigue cracks.
Appendices 489
ALARP: As-low-as-reasonably-practicable; refers to a level of risk that is neither

negligibly low nor intolerably high, for which further investment of resources for
risk reduction is not justifiable. The ALARP principle states that risk should be
reduced to an ALARP level considering the cost effectiveness of the risk control
options. See ‘risk acceptance criteria’.
ALP: Articulated loading platform. Also termed ‘ALC’ (articulated loading column).
Availability: Availability of a system or equipment is the probability that it is not in a
failed state at a point in time.
Average zero-up-crossing period: See ‘wave period’ and ‘zero-up-crossing wave’.
Basic variable: One of a specified set of variables representing physical quantities
which characterise actions, material properties or geometrical parameters.
Beaufort scale: A numerical scale first adopted by Admiral Beaufort in 1808 relating
wind speed to the state of the sea.
Bunkering: The supplying of fuel for use by ships or power plants at sea.
CALM: Catenary anchor leg mooring.
Catenary mooring: Mooring system where the restoring action is provided by the
distributed weight of mooring lines.
Certainty: Confidence regarding a set of assumptions or results, for example, in
frequency assessments carried out as part of risk analysis.
Certification: This is the process of obtaining written evidence that a structure, item
of equipment or other arrangement has been designed, constructed, installed or
maintained in a prescribed manner. The ‘prescribed manner’ is normally docu-
mented in the regulations, which are defined as orders or rules issued by a regula-
tory regime such as a governmental authority. The ‘written evidence’ may be in the
form of any certificate or other document issued by the certifier who is authorised to
do so by the appropriate cognizant body or agency.
Characteristic value: Value assigned to a basic variable associated with a prescribed
probability of not being violated by unfavourable values during some reference
period. The characteristic value is the main representative value. In some design
situations a variable can have more than one characteristic value, for example, an
upper and a lower value.
Charterer: A buyer of vessel transportation services who is a vessel owner’s cus-
tomer. ‘Charter’ is a contract between vessel owner and charterer by which vessel
owner agrees to provide cargo transportation services. For trading tankers, charters
can be for a specified number of voyages known as ‘voyage charter’ or for a period
of time known as ‘term charter’. A voyage charter for a single voyage commencing
within a few weeks of the charter agreement is often termed a ‘spot charter’.
Classification: This is a form of design and construction oversight carried out by a
classification society in accordance with the published rules and guidance of the
selected classification society. The classification process may consist of the review
and approval of technical submittals in accordance with relevant class rules, physical
confirmation of manufacture, fabrication, assembly or installation of components or
finished item in accordance with approved drawings and details, subsequent testing as
490 Appendices
required by the rules and associated issuance of documents attesting to the degree of
compliance with the requirements of the classification society.
Consequences: The effects of an accidental event such as injuries, fatalities, and
environmental and property damage.
Corrective measures: Engineering or administrative and operational procedures
activated to reduce the likelihood of a failure.
Cost-benefit analysis: An analysis for assessing the benefit of an equipment or
system per a manufacturing cost.
Crushing: A structural failure mode in which thin walls are folded by large deform-
ations under a compressive load. Also termed ‘folding’.
Current: A flow of water past a fixed location: more precisely described as an
Eulerian current. A Lagrangian current is measured by following the movement
of a water particle. Currents are usually measured by speed and direction; measure-
ments are usually analysed in terms of the tidal current and residual currents.
Current speed: The horizontal speed of the current for any direction. The speed
varies throughout the water column. Depth-averaged current speed is the speed of
the current averaged throughout the water column or over a specified depth of it.
Damage stability: Stability of a vessel in damaged condition owing to accidental
flooding and also termed ‘damaged vessel stability’; see ‘stability’.
Damage tolerance: A capacity of a structure to sustain damage and deterioration
safely until repair is affected.
Decommissioning: Process of shutting down a structure and removing hazardous
materials at the end of its service life.
Design condition: Set of physical situations occurring over a certain time interval for
which the design needs to demonstrate that relevant limit states are not exceeded.
Design criteria: Quantitative formulations with acceptability threshold values that
result in acceptable or unacceptable designations for a set of limit states governing a
design, and used in support of decision-making. Also termed ‘safety criteria’.
Design service life: Assumed period for which a structure is to be used for its intended
purpose with anticipated maintenance, but without substantial repair being necessary.
Design situation: Set of physical conditions representing real conditions during a
certain time interval for which the design will demonstrate that relevant limit states
are not exceeded.
Design value: Value derived from the representative value for use in the design
checking procedure, which accounts for the uncertainties associated with the
representative value.
Design variables: Design parameters driving the responses of a system under envir-
onmental and operational conditions.
Design wave: Extreme amplitude design wave is the periodic wave having the same
height as the extreme wave with the return period required by the specification. Used
as the initial design condition for an offshore structure. It may have a range of wave
periods associated with it and its expected direction(s) may be specified. Extreme
response design wave or waves may be different from the extreme amplitude design
Appendices 491
wave and produce a different loading on the structure. The latter are derived to
represent certain levels and types of response, or more commonly, ship motions and
sea loads.
DICAS: Differential compliance anchoring system, which achieves partial weath-
ervaning through uneven mooring line tensioning.
Digital twin: A virtual system that represents the real-time characteristics and proper-
ties of a physical system. A set of mathematical models and data streams are used to
process and manipulate situational parameters in a digital form.
Dynamic action: Action that induces acceleration of a structure or a structural
component of a magnitude sufficient so as to require specific consideration.
Dynamic positioning: Station-keeping technique consisting primarily of a system of
automatically controlled on-board thrusters, which generate appropriate thrust
vectors to counter the mean and slowly varying actions induced by wind, waves
and current.
Dynamic pressure: Pressure from water impacts or explosive events which give rise
to a pressure-time history acting on the exposed area of a structure, for example,
pressure loads arising from slamming or sloshing.
Event tree: A graphical representation of the relation between a primary cause
(initiating) event and the final undesired events. Event trees are generally time
dependent and rely on a sequence of events.
Expected value: First-order statistical moment of the probability density function for
the considered variable; in the case of a time-dependent parameter, the expected
value may be obtained to represent a specific reference period.
Extreme actions: Maximum actions applied to a structure during its design service life.
Extreme conditions: Environmental and operational conditions which give rise to
extreme actions.
Extreme value: An estimate of the value of a metocean variable with a stated return
period. Other definitions are also possible.
Failure criterion: Threshold value considered in a limit state that separates success
and failure.
Fatigue limit states (FLS): Limit states that represent damage accumulation which
leads to cracking when certain limits are exceeded under repetitive actions.
Fault tree: A graphical method of describing the combination of events leading to a
defined failure.
Flag of convenience: A country which admits the vessel registration regardless of the
owner’s nationality (perhaps for reasons of tonnage fees).
Flag state: The country where the vessel is registered.
Floating structure: Structure where the full weight is supported by buoyancy. The
full weight includes lightship weight, mooring system weight, any riser pre-tension
or operating weight.
Fluid transfer system: A system to transport the produced oil of floating, production,
storage and offloading installations (via the subsea pipeline and through the single
point mooring’s own piping arrangement) to the shuttle tanker.
492 Appendices
FPSO: Floating production, storage and offloading installation. A marine vessel

usually moored to the seabed or using an internal or external turret system, allowing
direct production, storage and offloading of process fluids from subsea installations.
Fracture: A structural failure mode by initiation and growth of cracking damage.
Three types of fracture modes are relevant: brittle fracture, ductile fracture and
rupture. When fracture occurs at a very small strain, it is brittle fracture. When the
material fails by necking with a large strain, it is rupture. Ductile fracture is an
intermediate fracture mode between brittle fracture and rupture.
Frequency: A score indicating the expected number of occurrences per unit time
(e.g., year) of an event such as an accident. Also termed ‘likelihood’.
FSA: Formal safety assessment. A formal, structured and systematic methodology that
was developed to assist in risk assessment and to facilitate proactive risk control.
FSO: Floating storage and offloading installation. Similar to FPSO but no production
capability is provided. It stores oil and gas products that can be offloaded to
pipelines or shuttle tankers.
FSU: Floating storage unit. Generic term for floating installations, including FPSOs
and FSOs.
Gale ballast tank: A cargo tank which is allowed to contain ballast water for reasons
of safety.
General corrosion: Corrosion wastage in which the thickness of structural members
is idealised to be uniformly reduced. Also termed ‘uniform corrosion’.
Global structure: An entire structure or an assembly of structural components.
Hawser: Marine rope. The most common materials of hawsers are polyester, polypropyl-
ene and nylon (polyamide). Polyester offers the best fatigue properties of the three
materials and does not lose strength when submerged in water, but it has the lowest
elastic properties and is not buoyant like nylon. Polypropylene is the only material
which is self-floating and can be inspected without having floaters removed, but it is the
weakest and least abrasion resistant of the three fibres. Polypropylene is less elastic than
nylon and degrades in strength when exposed to sunlight, but it makes winching-in of
the hawser easy so that it often used for mooring pick-up ropes. Nylon offers high
strength and good abrasion resistance together with good elastic properties, but it is less
fatigue resistant than the other two fibres, and its breaking strength can be reduced when
wet. Nylon is not buoyant and needs buoyancy tanks or floaters if required to float.
Hazard: An event with the potential to cause injuries and fatalities, environmental
damage or property damage. According to the IMO, examples of an event with a
potential to threaten human life, health, property or the environment are as follows:
Hazards external to the vessel: storms, lightning, poor visibility, uncharted
submerged objects, other ships, war, sabotage etc.;
Hazards on board a vessel:
o In accommodation areas: combustible furnishings, cleaning material in stores,
oil/fat in galley equipment etc.;
o In deck areas: cargo, slippery deck due to paint / oils / grease / water, hatch
covers, electrical connections etc.;
Appendices 493
o In machinery spaces: cabling, fuel and diesel oil for engines, boilers, fuel oil
piping and valves, oily bilge, refrigerants etc.;
o Sources of ignition: naked flame, electrical appliances, hot surface, sparks
from hot work or funnel exhaust, deck and engine room machinery;
Operational hazards to personnel: Long working hours, working on deck at sea,
cargo operation, tank surveys, on-board repairs, etc.
Health condition: The condition of a structure, in part or all, in which it performs its
intended functions normally or properly.
Health condition assessment: Assessment of health conditions to quantify reductions
in structural safety and integrity owing to damage and deterioration and thereby
determine whether repair or renewal procedures are required.
Health condition monitoring: Scheduled diagnostic technologies used to monitor the
system condition to anticipate and detect a potential failure.
Heeling: Inclination of the vessel from the upright in any direction. A heeling moment
exists at any inclination of the vessel where the forces of weight and buoyancy are
not aligned and act to move the vessel away from the upright position.
Heeling moment: See ‘heeling’.
Hotwork: Welding or steel flame cutting.
ICCP system: Impressed current corrosion protection system.
Impact: Actions resulting from accidental or abnormal events, usually during a very
short period of time, for example, dropped objects, collision and explosion.
Impulsive action: Dynamic or impact action with a very short duration (t) of action
persistence, for example, explosion compared to the natural period (T) of the exposed
structure. The impulsive action profile can usually be characterised by two param-
eters, namely impact load and its duration time. It is often considered that a dynamic
action problem needs to be dealt with in the impulsive domain when t 0:3T.
Incremental Galerkin method (IGM): The Galerkin method using an incremental
approach to more efficiently solve the nonlinear governing differential equations.
Inerting: The process of pumping inert gas (low oxygen gas) into a tank (perhaps in
the empty portion). Inert gas contains less than 5 per cent oxygen, usually obtained
from the boiler exhaust.
Initiating event: Hardware failure, control system failure, human error, extreme
weather or geophysical event, which could lead to a hazard being realised.
In-service damage: Damage occurring while in service of a structure, for example,
corrosion wastage, fatigue cracking, mechanical damage (local denting) or
coating breakdown.
In situ: A specific offshore field or location.
Inspection: Activity to detect and evaluate deterioration in components, structure,
equipment or plants by visual, electronic or other means.
Intact stability: Stability of a ship-shaped offshore installation in intact condition,
also termed ‘intact vessel stability’; see ‘stability’.
Intelligent supersize finite-element method (ISFEM): A nonlinear finite-element
method using large sized elements which were ‘educated’ or formulated in advance,
494 Appendices
generating a high level of intelligence in terms of judging the structural failure

status and modes of such large elements.
Joint probability: When two or more variables interact in producing a response on a
structure, it may be necessary to determine the probabilities with which various
combinations of them occur, that is, their joint probability of occurrence.
Likelihood: See ‘frequency’.
Limit state: A condition for which a structure or structural component fails to perform
its intended function.
Localised corrosion: A type of corrosion wastage which occurs in local regions, for
example, pitting or grooving.
Maintenance: Total set of activities performed during the design service life of a
structure to enable it to remain fit-for purpose, which includes replacement, repair
or adjustment.
MARPOL tanker: A single-skin tanker meeting the requirements of IMO MARPOL/
78 segregated ballast. A pre-MARPOL tanker is a single-skin tanker built before the
MARPOL/78 segregated ballast requirements.
Mean sea level: The average level of the sea over a period of time long enough to
remove variations in level caused by waves, tides and storm surges.
Mean water depth: See ‘water depth’.
Merchant cargo ship: A ship carrying merchant cargo.
Metacenter: see ‘metacentric height’.
Metacentric height (GM): The centre of buoyancy of a heeled installation is moved
off the installation’s centreline as the result of inclination, and the lines along which
the resultants of weight and buoyancy act are separated by a distance corresponding
to the righting arm. A vertical line through the centre of buoyancy at a heeled
condition intersects the original vertical line through the centre of gravity at a point
in the vessel’s centreline plane, known as the metacenter. The distance from the
centre of gravity (G) of a vessel to its metacenter (M) is termed ‘metacentric height’
(GM). At relatively small angles of heeling, GM is used as an important index of
stability. GM is positive when metacenter is above the centre of gravity, and
negative when metacenter is below the centre of gravity. A larger GM represents
greater initial stability against overturning, but a larger GM causes a shorter period
of roll motion, which makes passengers uncomfortable.
Metocean: Abbreviation of ‘meteorological and oceanographic’.
Minimum breaking strength: Breaking strength of chain and for wire and other
materials. It is the certified breaking strength.
Mobile mooring system: Mooring systems, generally retrievable, intended for
deployment at a specific location for a short-term operation, such as those for
mobile offshore units.
Mobile offshore drilling units: Floating structure capable of engaging in drilling
operations for exploration or exploitation of subsea petroleum resources.
Mobile offshore unit: Floating structure intended to be frequently relocated to
perform a particular function.
Appendices 495
Mooring components: General class of components such as chain, steel wire rope,
synthetic fibre rope, clump weight, buoy, winch/windlass, fairlead and anchor.
Non-destructive examination (NDE): A technique to evaluate the properties of a
material, component or system without causing damage.
Neutral equilibrium: See ‘stability’.
Nominal value: Value assigned to a basic variable determined on a non-statistical
basis, typically from acquired experience or physical conditions.
Offshore service vessel (OSV): See ‘offshore support vessel’.
Offshore supply vessel (OSV): A ship, boat or barge which transports supplies,
materials and personnel to and from an offshore installation. Also termed ‘offshore
support vessel’.
Offshore support vessel (OSV): A ship specially designed for the logistical servicing
of offshore platforms and subsea installations, from installation through the full
service life of offshore fields. Also termed ‘offshore service vessel’.
Owner: Representative of the owner or owners of a development, who may be the
operator on behalf of co-licensees.
Partial safety factor: A factor normally greater than unity applied to a representative
value of a strength or action to determine its corresponding design value.
PAU: Pre-assembled unit.
Peak frequency: See ‘wave energy spectrum’.
Permanent mooring systems: Systems normally used to moor floating structures
deployed for long-term operations, such as those for a floating production system.
PLEM: Pipeline end manifold.
Port state: The country where the vessel loads or offloads.
Pre-MARPOL tanker: See ‘MARPOL tanker’.
Probability: The likelihood of occurrence of a specific event. It is also termed
‘frequency’.
Probability of detection (POD): The probability of structural damage detection, as
uncertainties associated with the detection and measurement of deterioration ori-
ginate from many sources such as the geometry, the material properties, the
structural component locations, sensors or accessibility.
Probability of exceedance: Probability that a certain value is exceeded in a prede-
fined future period of time. Also termed ‘exceedance probability’ or ‘frequency of
exceedance’ or ‘annual rate of exceedance’. It is calculated as the number of times
that a stochastic process exceeds a critical value far from the mean value per unit
time. The exceedance probability curve is a diagram relating an exceedance prob-
ability and a parameter driving a hazardous event, and it is used to define the design
value of an influencing parameter in association with risk acceptance criteria.
Probability of joint occurrence: See ‘joint probability’.
Purging: The process of replacing the inert gas or hydrocarbon mixture in a tank with
normal air for tank inspection or repair.
Qualitative risk assessment: Risk assessment using simple models such as risk
matrix that do not include refined computations or physical model testing.
496 Appendices
Quantitative risk assessment: Risk assessment using sophisticated methods to simu-

late the essence of the hazards associated with accidental events in volatile, uncer-
tain, complex and ambiguous environments.
Quasi-static action: Action that will not cause significant acceleration of the structure
or structural component. Dynamic structural action problems may be approximately
dealt with in the quasi-static domain when the action duration time (t) is long
enough compared to the natural period (T) of the exposed structure, say t 3T.
Random failure: failure caused by sudden stresses, extreme conditions or
random errors.
Recognised classification societies: member of the International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS), with recognised and relevant competence and
experience in floating structures, and with established rules and procedures for
classification/certification of installations used in petroleum-related activities.
Reference period: Period of time used as the basis for determining values of
basic variables.
Reliability: Probability that an item or system will adequately perform a required
function under stated conditions of use and maintenance for a stated period of time.
Reliability is the probability of desired performance over time in a specified
condition, for example, machinery or system reliability, structural reliability, human
reliability. Reliability = 1 – Failure Probability.
Repetitive actions: Repeatedly applied actions.
Representative value: Value assigned to a basic variable for verification of a
limit state.
Return period: Reciprocal of the probability of exceeding an event during a particu-
lar period of time, that is, the average period of time between exceedance of a stated
value of a variable.
Residual currents: The components of a current other than tidal current. The residual
currents may be predominantly storm surge currents.
Residual strength: Remaining load-carrying capacity of a structural member or entire
system after damage is premised.
Righting moment: A right moment exists at any angle of inclination of the vessel
where the forces of weight and buoyancy act to move the vessel toward the
upright position.
Riser: Piping connecting the process facilities or drilling equipment on the floating
structure with the subsea facilities or pipelines, or reservoir.
Risk: The product of the probability of occurrence (termed ‘frequency’ or ‘likeli-
hood’) of a hazardous event and its consequence(s), that is, Risk = Frequency(F)
Consequence(C). Risk is a measure of the likelihood that an undesirable event will
occur together with a measure of the resulting consequence within a specified time,
that is, the combination of the frequency and the severity of the consequence. This
can be either a quantitative or qualitative measure.
Risk acceptance criteria: Criteria that the overall risk level is acceptable during a
defined activity period of time. They are associated with a reference for risk
Appendices 497
mitigation options, and thus should be defined prior to the risk assessment. See ‘risk
management’.
Risk assessment: An array of techniques that can successfully integrate diverse
aspects of design and operation to assess risk; it may address three key questions,
namely (1) Scenario: what can go wrong, (2) Likelihood: how likely is it, and (3)
Impact: what are the impacts. Risk assessment tools comprise a vast of techniques,
including those for reliability, availability and maintainability engineering, statis-
tics, decision theory, systems engineering and human behaviour, performance and
error. It is often termed ‘safety study’.
Risk-based decision making: A process that organises information about the possi-
bility of one or more unwanted outcomes into a broad, orderly structure that helps
decision makers make more informed management choices on the basis of risk.
Risk communication: Interaction process of exchanging information and opinion
among individuals, groups and institutions involving multiple messages about the
nature of risk.
Risk control options: See ‘risk mitigation options’.
Risk index number: A relative measure of the overall risk associated with
a deviation.
Risk management: Risk mitigation options are applied if the risk acceptance criteria
are not satisfied or if the risk exceeds the ALARP (as-low-as-reasonably-
practical) level.
Risk matrix: A matrix depicting the risk profile. Each cell in the matrix indicates the
number of accidents having that frequency and consequence. It is used for the
qualitative risk assessment.
Risk mitigation options: Safety measures to mitigate the risk level. Also termed ‘risk
control options’. See ‘safety measures’.
Safeguards: Engineered systems (hardware) or administrative controls for reducing
the frequency of occurrence or mitigating the severity of accidents.
Safety: Relates to the degree of risk. Because no activity is free of risk, an activity is
considered safe when the level of risk is within acceptable limits.
Safety criteria: See ‘design criteria’.
Safety factor: A simple measure of safety margin normally defined as the ratio of
design strength to design action effect. ‘Partial safety factor’ is a measure of safety
margin partially associated with the safety components such as demand (loads) and
capacity (strength).
Safety margin: A difference between structural strength and maximum value of an
action effect, by which a structure or component reserve with respect to failure can
be quantified.
Safety measures: Measures for safety to reduce the risk level. Two types of safety
measures are relevant: active safety measures and passive safety measures. The
former are those that can avoid the occurrence of accidents themselves, while the
latter are those that help mitigate the severity of the consequences associated
with accidents.
498 Appendices
Safety study: An engineering activity to measure whether a structure reaches undesired

states in which its intended functions fail to perform. See ‘risk assessment’.
SALM: Single anchor leg mooring.
Scantlings: Size and thickness of structural components.
Sea state: A general term for the wave conditions at a particular time and place.
Parameters such as significant wave height and mean zero-up-crossing wave period
are often referred to as ‘sea state parameters’. A sea state is usually assumed to stay
statistically stationary for a period of a few hours depending on the underlying data
analyses; for example, 3 hrs.
Sea surface variance: The mean-square elevation of the sea surface (with respect to
still water level) owing to waves. Proportional to the energy density per unit area of
sea surface.
Segregated ballast tank system: Sea water ballast should not be carried out in cargo
oil tanks.
Semi-submersible: Floating structure normally consisting of a deck structure with a
number of widely spaced, large cross-section, supporting columns connected to
submerged pontoons.
Serviceability: Ability of a structure or structural component to perform adequately
for normal functional use for a period of time. Also termed ‘operability’.
Serviceability limit states (SLS): Limit states that represent the criteria governing
normal functional or operational use.
Ship-shaped offshore structures: Floating offshore structures which have similar
shapes to tanker-type ships in terms of geometry and functions.
Shuttle tanker: Trading tankers which transport oil from a ship-shaped offshore
installation to shore. The shuttle tanker will be moored to a single buoy mooring
or in tandem to a ship-shaped offshore installation. While ordinary trading tankers
are only equipped for oil transfer at midship, the shuttle tanker accommodates a
long floating hose from a single buoy mooring to the loading position. It requires to
have the capacity to provide a reverse thrust in order to prevent collision with the
single point mooring or a floating storage unit and to keep the hawser tight.
Significant wave height: See ‘wave height’.
Single buoy mooring: Mooring by a single buoy.
Single point mooring (SPM): Mooring system at a single location (point) that allows
the floating structure to which it is connected to vary its heading (weathervane).
Site-specific environmental conditions: Metocean conditions and their variables
observed at the location or proposed location of an offshore installation.
Slamming: A phenomenon in which the local area of a structure is exposed to
dynamic water pressure. Bottom slamming occurs when the trading ship’s bottom
emerges from the water because of pitching, possibly combined with the occurrence
of a wave. Bow flare slamming occurs because of the plunging of the upper flared
portion of the bow deeper into the water.
Slew: A complex irregular yaw motion. A slewing ring is required in most single-
point mooring applications to control slew motion during weathervaning.
Appendices 499
Sloshing: Actions arising from the motion of liquids in partially filled tanks.
Spar platform: Deep draught, vertically floating structure.
Spectrum: See ‘wave energy spectrum’.
Sponson: Enclosed attachments to the side structure of a single-skin tanker to be
converted to a ship-shaped offshore installation so as to be equivalent to double-
side arrangements.
Spread mooring: Mooring system consisting of multiple mooring lines terminating at
different locations on a floating structure, and extending outwards and anchored to
the seabed, providing an almost constant structure heading.
Stability: Ability of a ship-shaped offshore installation hull to maintain proper
floating attitude, usually upright, when subject to weight and buoyancy actions.
In dealing with static floating body stability, equilibrium is a condition in which the
resultant of all gravity forces (weights) acting downwards and the resultant of the
buoyancy forces acting upwards on the body are of equal magnitude and are applied
in the same vertical line. Stable equilibrium is that in which a floating body with an
angular attitude change owing to an external moment can return to its original
position on removal of the external moment. On the other hand, if the inclined body
remains in that displaced position even after the external moment is removed, it is
known as neutral equilibrium. Unstable equilibrium is a situation in which a
floating body displaced from its original position by an external moment continues
to move after the force is removed. See ‘metacentric height’.
Stable equilibrium: See ‘stability’.
Station-keeping system: System capable of limiting the excursions of a ship-shaped
offshore installation within prescribed limits.
Still-water level: The level of the surface of the sea in the absence of surface waves
generated by the wind. Variations in still-water level are principally caused by tides
and storm surges.
Still-water loads: Actions arising from the difference between weight and buoyancy
for a stationary structure.
Storm surge: Irregular movement of the sea brought about by wind and atmospheric
pressure variations. Storm surge elevation is the change from the predicted tidal level
as a result of a storm surge. It can be positive or negative, and for design purposes it is
usually defined by an extreme value. Storm surge current is the current resulting from
a storm surge. An extreme value is usually required for design purposes.
Structural capacity: Equivalent to structural resistance or structural strength.
Structural component: Structural element or physically distinguishable part of a
structure, for example, column, beam, stiffeners, plating, stiffened panel. In terms
of terminology for structural mechanics, a plate panel between stiffeners is termed
‘plating’ or ‘plate’, and the plating with stiffeners is termed a ‘stiffened panel’. A one-
dimensional member is termed a ‘column’ under axial compressive loads, while it is
termed a ‘beam’ under bending or lateral loads. When a one-dimensional member is
used for resisting combined axial compression and bending (or lateral loads), it is
termed a ‘beam-column’. A large stiffened panel supported by heavy support
500 Appendices
members is sometimes idealised by a grillage, which in concept is essentially a set of

intersecting beam members. Strong main support members are normally termed
‘girders’ when they are located in the primary loading direction (i.e., longitudinal
direction in a box girder or a vessel hull), while they are sometimes termed ‘frames’
when they are located in the direction normal to the primary load direction (i.e., in the
transverse direction in a box girder or a ship-shaped offshore installation hull).
Structural crashworthiness: Structural response involving crushing and fracture
under accidental actions such as collision, grounding, fire and explosion. It is used
to describe the performance of a structure impacted by objects or dynamic or
impulsive loads. Structural crashworthiness analysis aims to identify resultant
forces and energy absorption characteristics together with damage and survivability
of involving structures.
Structural demand: Equivalent to structural loads.
Structural failure: Insufficient strength or inadequate serviceability of a structure or
structural component.
Structural resistance: Equivalent to structural strength.
Structural strength: Capacity of a structure or structural component to withstand an
action effect.
Structural system: Load-bearing components of a structure, including the way in
which these components function together.
Structure: Organised combination of connected parts designed to withstand actions
and provide adequate rigidity.
Surface wind drift: The current, in the top few metres of the water column, generated
in direct response to the local wind blowing over the surface of the sea.
Survey: The inspection of classification society. ‘Surveyor’ is the classification
society inspector.
Survival condition: An extreme environmental condition that has a very low prob-
ability occurrence. Structural scantlings based on survival conditions are too heavy
and uneconomical, and thus safety measures are instead applied to avoid
severe damage.
Swash bulkhead: Non-watertight partition in a tank designed for avoiding sloshing.
Swivel: A swivel assembly allows a vessel to weathervane during loading or offload-
ing, typically using electrical and hydraulic systems to power and control subsea
equipment through the riser system.
Taut-line mooring: Mooring system where the restoring action in tension is provided
by elastic deformation of mooring lines.
Thruster-assisted mooring: Station-keeping system consisting of mooring lines and
thrusters. The thrusters contribute to control of the structure’s heading and/or to
adjust mooring forces and structure offset.
Tide: Regular and predicable movement of the sea generated by astronomical forces.
They can be represented as the sum of a number of harmonic constituents, each with
different but known periods. Tidal current is the current resulting from the tides.
During a characteristic tidal current period, the current vector may describe an
Appendices 501
ellipse with a maximum current speed and associated direction and a minimum
speed and direction.
Trading tanker: A ship designed to transport or store liquids or gases in bulk.
Turret: A cylindrical single-point mooring system geo-stationary with the seabed
allowing rotation of a ship-shaped offshore installation in response to wave and
wind conditions (weathervaning).
Ultimate limit states (ULS): Limit states that represent the failure of a structure in
part or all, which usually occurs on being subjected to extreme actions or action
effects. Also termed ‘ultimate strength’ or ‘maximum load-carrying capacity’.
Uncertainty: Lack of certainty owing to limited knowledge of an event. It makes
impossible to exactly predict consequences or outcomes. Uncertainties comprise
inherent uncertainties and modelling uncertainties, the former being owing to
natural variability and the latter being owing to inaccuracy in procedures used for
the evaluation and control.
Underwriters: Insurers of ship-shaped offshore installations.
Unstable equilibrium: See ‘stability’.
Validation: A process to confirm the performance of a model by comparison with
reference solutions and physical test data.
Verification: A process to certify the performance of related activities by a third-party
agent before the said agent issues a certificate attesting to the degree of compliance
of a structure, item of equipment or other arrangement with any regulation
or standard.
Vetting: Tanker inspections by oil company personnel.
VUCA environments: Volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environments.
Water depth: The vertical distance between the seabed and a defined datum near the
sea surface, for example, mean sea level.
Waves: Movements on the sea surface generated by wind and with wave periods of
less than about 25 s.
Wave crest elevation: The vertical distance between the crest of a wave and still-
water level.
Wave direction: The mean direction from which wave energy is travelling.
Wave energy spectrum: A frequency domain description related to the energy in a
whole wave system (or sea state). The wave system is assumed to consist of a large
number of long-crested sinusoidal wave trains travelling independently but superim-
posed on each other. The omnidirectional spectral density function Sðf Þ is defined
such that Sðf Þδf is the sum of the sea surface variances (proportional to energy per unit
area) of the wave trains with frequencies between f and f þ δf , where δf is a small
frequency interval. Peak frequency of a spectrum is the wave frequency corresponding
to the maximum value of the omni-directional spectral density function.
Wave exceedance diagram: A plot of the proportion of time for which the wave
height is less than the value specified on the abscissa. It can be presented on a
seasonal or all-year basis. Also known as the cumulative frequency distribution of
wave height.
502 Appendices
Wave frequency: The number of waves passing a fixed point in unit time.
Wave height: The vertical distance between the crest of one wave and the preceding
trough. In idealised circumstances, it is exactly twice the wave crest elevation. The
height of a zero-up-crossing wave is the vertical distance between the highest and
lowest points on the water surface of a particular zero-up-crossing wave. Significant
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
wave height ðH s Þ is 4 mo , where mo is the sea surface variance. In sea states with
only a narrow band of wave frequencies, H s is approximately equal to H 1=3 , which
is the mean height of the largest third of the zero-up-crossing waves. Extreme
significant wave height ðH sN Þ is the significant wave height with a return period of
N years (e.g., 100 years for H s100 ). Extreme wave height ðH N Þ is the individual
wave height (generally the zero-up-crossing wave height) with a return period of N
years (e.g., 100 years for H 100 ).
Wave hindcasting: Estimating the wave characteristics using meteorological data and
numerical models for wave generation and energy transport.
Wave loads: Actions on a structure or component arising from waves.
Wave period: The time interval between successive waves. The period of a zero-up-
crossing wave is the time interval between the two zero-up-crossing waves which
bound it. See also ‘wave frequency’. Mean zero-up-crossing period ðT z Þ is calcu-
lated for a random sea by dividing the wave sampling period by the number of zero-
up-crossing waves in the sampling period.
Wave sampling period: The relatively short period of time (usually 1,000 s) for which
wave elevation and/or other wave variables are measured in order to define the
sea state.
Wave spectrum: See ‘wave energy spectrum’.
Wave steepness: The ratio of the wave height to the wave length. Significant wave
steepness in deep water is the ratio of the significant wave height to the wave length
of a periodic wave whose period is the mean zero-up-crossing wave period.
Wear-in failure: Failure of weak components associated with problems such as
manufacturing defects and installation/maintenance errors, also defined as burn in
or infant mortality.
Wear-out failure: End of useful life failure.
Weathervaning: Rotation of a ship-shaped offshore installation about the turret in
response to environmental actions such as winds and waves.
Yoke: A rigid-articulated connection system in the form of a lattice or box structure
between a mooring column and a ship-shaped offshore installation.
Zero-up-crossing wave: The portion of a wave record (the time history of wave
elevation) between adjacent zero-up-crossings. A zero-up-crossing occurs when the
sea surface rises (rather than falls) through the still-water level. Wave records are
conventionally analysed on the basis of the zero-up-crossing waves they contain.
For height of a zero-up-crossing wave, see ‘wave height’. For zero-up-crossing
period, see ‘wave period’.
Appendix 1 Glossary of Maritime
Engineering Terms
For maritime engineering, the following terms and definitions are relevant. The terms
described here generally follow international standards, regulations and recognised
guidelines.
Abnormal action: Actions larger than expected action or normal action, for example,
abnormal waves.
Accident: A circumstance that gives rise to injury or fatality or environmental or
property damage, or production losses or loss of facility. According to IMO
(International Maritime Organization), an accident is an unintended event involving
fatality, injury, vessel loss or damage, other property loss, damage or environmental
damage. An accident scenario consists of a specific sequence of events from an
initiating event to an undesired consequence. An accident category is a designation
of accidents according to their nature, for example, fire, explosion, collision or
grounding, and examples may include the following:
Contact: striking any fixed or floating object other than those included under
‘collision’;
Collision: striking or being struck by another vessel, regardless of whether under
way, anchored or moored;
Fire or explosion: accidents where fire or explosion is the initial event;
Loss of structural integrity: structural failure that can result in the ingress of water
and/or loss of strength and/or stability and
Flooding: the ingress of water that can result in foundering or sinking of the vessel.
Accidental action: Action applied in the event of accidents such as capsizing,

collision, grounding, fire and explosion.
Accidental limit states (ALS): Limit states that represent accidental or abnormal events.
Action: External load applied to the structure (direct action) or an imposed deformation
or acceleration (indirect action), for example, an imposed deformation can be caused
by fabrication tolerances, settlement or temperature change. Also known as ‘load’.
Action effect: Effect of actions on a global structure or structural component, for
example, internal force, moment, deformation, stress or strain. Also known as
‘load effect’.
Aged structure: An existing structure which may suffer age-related degradation such
as corrosion and fatigue cracks.
Appendices 489
ALARP: As-low-as-reasonably-practicable; refers to a level of risk that is neither

negligibly low nor intolerably high, for which further investment of resources for
risk reduction is not justifiable. The ALARP principle states that risk should be
reduced to an ALARP level considering the cost effectiveness of the risk control
options. See ‘risk acceptance criteria’.
ALP: Articulated loading platform. Also termed ‘ALC’ (articulated loading column).
Availability: Availability of a system or equipment is the probability that it is not in a
failed state at a point in time.
Average zero-up-crossing period: See ‘wave period’ and ‘zero-up-crossing wave’.
Basic variable: One of a specified set of variables representing physical quantities
which characterise actions, material properties or geometrical parameters.
Beaufort scale: A numerical scale first adopted by Admiral Beaufort in 1808 relating
wind speed to the state of the sea.
Bunkering: The supplying of fuel for use by ships or power plants at sea.
CALM: Catenary anchor leg mooring.
Catenary mooring: Mooring system where the restoring action is provided by the
distributed weight of mooring lines.
Certainty: Confidence regarding a set of assumptions or results, for example, in
frequency assessments carried out as part of risk analysis.
Certification: This is the process of obtaining written evidence that a structure, item
of equipment or other arrangement has been designed, constructed, installed or
maintained in a prescribed manner. The ‘prescribed manner’ is normally docu-
mented in the regulations, which are defined as orders or rules issued by a regula-
tory regime such as a governmental authority. The ‘written evidence’ may be in the
form of any certificate or other document issued by the certifier who is authorised to
do so by the appropriate cognizant body or agency.
Characteristic value: Value assigned to a basic variable associated with a prescribed
probability of not being violated by unfavourable values during some reference
period. The characteristic value is the main representative value. In some design
situations a variable can have more than one characteristic value, for example, an
upper and a lower value.
Charterer: A buyer of vessel transportation services who is a vessel owner’s cus-
tomer. ‘Charter’ is a contract between vessel owner and charterer by which vessel
owner agrees to provide cargo transportation services. For trading tankers, charters
can be for a specified number of voyages known as ‘voyage charter’ or for a period
of time known as ‘term charter’. A voyage charter for a single voyage commencing
within a few weeks of the charter agreement is often termed a ‘spot charter’.
Classification: This is a form of design and construction oversight carried out by a
classification society in accordance with the published rules and guidance of the
selected classification society. The classification process may consist of the review
and approval of technical submittals in accordance with relevant class rules, physical
confirmation of manufacture, fabrication, assembly or installation of components or
finished item in accordance with approved drawings and details, subsequent testing as
490 Appendices
required by the rules and associated issuance of documents attesting to the degree of
compliance with the requirements of the classification society.
Consequences: The effects of an accidental event such as injuries, fatalities, and
environmental and property damage.
Corrective measures: Engineering or administrative and operational procedures
activated to reduce the likelihood of a failure.
Cost-benefit analysis: An analysis for assessing the benefit of an equipment or
system per a manufacturing cost.
Crushing: A structural failure mode in which thin walls are folded by large deform-
ations under a compressive load. Also termed ‘folding’.
Current: A flow of water past a fixed location: more precisely described as an
Eulerian current. A Lagrangian current is measured by following the movement
of a water particle. Currents are usually measured by speed and direction; measure-
ments are usually analysed in terms of the tidal current and residual currents.
Current speed: The horizontal speed of the current for any direction. The speed
varies throughout the water column. Depth-averaged current speed is the speed of
the current averaged throughout the water column or over a specified depth of it.
Damage stability: Stability of a vessel in damaged condition owing to accidental
flooding and also termed ‘damaged vessel stability’; see ‘stability’.
Damage tolerance: A capacity of a structure to sustain damage and deterioration
safely until repair is affected.
Decommissioning: Process of shutting down a structure and removing hazardous
materials at the end of its service life.
Design condition: Set of physical situations occurring over a certain time interval for
which the design needs to demonstrate that relevant limit states are not exceeded.
Design criteria: Quantitative formulations with acceptability threshold values that
result in acceptable or unacceptable designations for a set of limit states governing a
design, and used in support of decision-making. Also termed ‘safety criteria’.
Design service life: Assumed period for which a structure is to be used for its intended
purpose with anticipated maintenance, but without substantial repair being necessary.
Design situation: Set of physical conditions representing real conditions during a
certain time interval for which the design will demonstrate that relevant limit states
are not exceeded.
Design value: Value derived from the representative value for use in the design
checking procedure, which accounts for the uncertainties associated with the
representative value.
Design variables: Design parameters driving the responses of a system under envir-
onmental and operational conditions.
Design wave: Extreme amplitude design wave is the periodic wave having the same
height as the extreme wave with the return period required by the specification. Used
as the initial design condition for an offshore structure. It may have a range of wave
periods associated with it and its expected direction(s) may be specified. Extreme
response design wave or waves may be different from the extreme amplitude design
Appendices 491
wave and produce a different loading on the structure. The latter are derived to
represent certain levels and types of response, or more commonly, ship motions and
sea loads.
DICAS: Differential compliance anchoring system, which achieves partial weath-
ervaning through uneven mooring line tensioning.
Digital twin: A virtual system that represents the real-time characteristics and proper-
ties of a physical system. A set of mathematical models and data streams are used to
process and manipulate situational parameters in a digital form.
Dynamic action: Action that induces acceleration of a structure or a structural
component of a magnitude sufficient so as to require specific consideration.
Dynamic positioning: Station-keeping technique consisting primarily of a system of
automatically controlled on-board thrusters, which generate appropriate thrust
vectors to counter the mean and slowly varying actions induced by wind, waves
and current.
Dynamic pressure: Pressure from water impacts or explosive events which give rise
to a pressure-time history acting on the exposed area of a structure, for example,
pressure loads arising from slamming or sloshing.
Event tree: A graphical representation of the relation between a primary cause
(initiating) event and the final undesired events. Event trees are generally time
dependent and rely on a sequence of events.
Expected value: First-order statistical moment of the probability density function for
the considered variable; in the case of a time-dependent parameter, the expected
value may be obtained to represent a specific reference period.
Extreme actions: Maximum actions applied to a structure during its design service life.
Extreme conditions: Environmental and operational conditions which give rise to
extreme actions.
Extreme value: An estimate of the value of a metocean variable with a stated return
period. Other definitions are also possible.
Failure criterion: Threshold value considered in a limit state that separates success
and failure.
Fatigue limit states (FLS): Limit states that represent damage accumulation which
leads to cracking when certain limits are exceeded under repetitive actions.
Fault tree: A graphical method of describing the combination of events leading to a
defined failure.
Flag of convenience: A country which admits the vessel registration regardless of the
owner’s nationality (perhaps for reasons of tonnage fees).
Flag state: The country where the vessel is registered.
Floating structure: Structure where the full weight is supported by buoyancy. The
full weight includes lightship weight, mooring system weight, any riser pre-tension
or operating weight.
Fluid transfer system: A system to transport the produced oil of floating, production,
storage and offloading installations (via the subsea pipeline and through the single
point mooring’s own piping arrangement) to the shuttle tanker.
492 Appendices
FPSO: Floating production, storage and offloading installation. A marine vessel

usually moored to the seabed or using an internal or external turret system, allowing
direct production, storage and offloading of process fluids from subsea installations.
Fracture: A structural failure mode by initiation and growth of cracking damage.
Three types of fracture modes are relevant: brittle fracture, ductile fracture and
rupture. When fracture occurs at a very small strain, it is brittle fracture. When the
material fails by necking with a large strain, it is rupture. Ductile fracture is an
intermediate fracture mode between brittle fracture and rupture.
Frequency: A score indicating the expected number of occurrences per unit time
(e.g., year) of an event such as an accident. Also termed ‘likelihood’.
FSA: Formal safety assessment. A formal, structured and systematic methodology that
was developed to assist in risk assessment and to facilitate proactive risk control.
FSO: Floating storage and offloading installation. Similar to FPSO but no production
capability is provided. It stores oil and gas products that can be offloaded to
pipelines or shuttle tankers.
FSU: Floating storage unit. Generic term for floating installations, including FPSOs
and FSOs.
Gale ballast tank: A cargo tank which is allowed to contain ballast water for reasons
of safety.
General corrosion: Corrosion wastage in which the thickness of structural members
is idealised to be uniformly reduced. Also termed ‘uniform corrosion’.
Global structure: An entire structure or an assembly of structural components.
Hawser: Marine rope. The most common materials of hawsers are polyester, polypropyl-
ene and nylon (polyamide). Polyester offers the best fatigue properties of the three
materials and does not lose strength when submerged in water, but it has the lowest
elastic properties and is not buoyant like nylon. Polypropylene is the only material
which is self-floating and can be inspected without having floaters removed, but it is the
weakest and least abrasion resistant of the three fibres. Polypropylene is less elastic than
nylon and degrades in strength when exposed to sunlight, but it makes winching-in of
the hawser easy so that it often used for mooring pick-up ropes. Nylon offers high
strength and good abrasion resistance together with good elastic properties, but it is less
fatigue resistant than the other two fibres, and its breaking strength can be reduced when
wet. Nylon is not buoyant and needs buoyancy tanks or floaters if required to float.
Hazard: An event with the potential to cause injuries and fatalities, environmental
damage or property damage. According to the IMO, examples of an event with a
potential to threaten human life, health, property or the environment are as follows:
Hazards external to the vessel: storms, lightning, poor visibility, uncharted
submerged objects, other ships, war, sabotage etc.;
Hazards on board a vessel:
o In accommodation areas: combustible furnishings, cleaning material in stores,
oil/fat in galley equipment etc.;
o In deck areas: cargo, slippery deck due to paint / oils / grease / water, hatch
covers, electrical connections etc.;
Appendices 493
o In machinery spaces: cabling, fuel and diesel oil for engines, boilers, fuel oil
piping and valves, oily bilge, refrigerants etc.;
o Sources of ignition: naked flame, electrical appliances, hot surface, sparks
from hot work or funnel exhaust, deck and engine room machinery;
Operational hazards to personnel: Long working hours, working on deck at sea,
cargo operation, tank surveys, on-board repairs, etc.
Health condition: The condition of a structure, in part or all, in which it performs its
intended functions normally or properly.
Health condition assessment: Assessment of health conditions to quantify reductions
in structural safety and integrity owing to damage and deterioration and thereby
determine whether repair or renewal procedures are required.
Health condition monitoring: Scheduled diagnostic technologies used to monitor the
system condition to anticipate and detect a potential failure.
Heeling: Inclination of the vessel from the upright in any direction. A heeling moment
exists at any inclination of the vessel where the forces of weight and buoyancy are
not aligned and act to move the vessel away from the upright position.
Heeling moment: See ‘heeling’.
Hotwork: Welding or steel flame cutting.
ICCP system: Impressed current corrosion protection system.
Impact: Actions resulting from accidental or abnormal events, usually during a very
short period of time, for example, dropped objects, collision and explosion.
Impulsive action: Dynamic or impact action with a very short duration (t) of action
persistence, for example, explosion compared to the natural period (T) of the exposed
structure. The impulsive action profile can usually be characterised by two param-
eters, namely impact load and its duration time. It is often considered that a dynamic
action problem needs to be dealt with in the impulsive domain when t 0:3T.
Incremental Galerkin method (IGM): The Galerkin method using an incremental
approach to more efficiently solve the nonlinear governing differential equations.
Inerting: The process of pumping inert gas (low oxygen gas) into a tank (perhaps in
the empty portion). Inert gas contains less than 5 per cent oxygen, usually obtained
from the boiler exhaust.
Initiating event: Hardware failure, control system failure, human error, extreme
weather or geophysical event, which could lead to a hazard being realised.
In-service damage: Damage occurring while in service of a structure, for example,
corrosion wastage, fatigue cracking, mechanical damage (local denting) or
coating breakdown.
In situ: A specific offshore field or location.
Inspection: Activity to detect and evaluate deterioration in components, structure,
equipment or plants by visual, electronic or other means.
Intact stability: Stability of a ship-shaped offshore installation in intact condition,
also termed ‘intact vessel stability’; see ‘stability’.
Intelligent supersize finite-element method (ISFEM): A nonlinear finite-element
method using large sized elements which were ‘educated’ or formulated in advance,
494 Appendices
generating a high level of intelligence in terms of judging the structural failure

status and modes of such large elements.
Joint probability: When two or more variables interact in producing a response on a
structure, it may be necessary to determine the probabilities with which various
combinations of them occur, that is, their joint probability of occurrence.
Likelihood: See ‘frequency’.
Limit state: A condition for which a structure or structural component fails to perform
its intended function.
Localised corrosion: A type of corrosion wastage which occurs in local regions, for
example, pitting or grooving.
Maintenance: Total set of activities performed during the design service life of a
structure to enable it to remain fit-for purpose, which includes replacement, repair
or adjustment.
MARPOL tanker: A single-skin tanker meeting the requirements of IMO MARPOL/
78 segregated ballast. A pre-MARPOL tanker is a single-skin tanker built before the
MARPOL/78 segregated ballast requirements.
Mean sea level: The average level of the sea over a period of time long enough to
remove variations in level caused by waves, tides and storm surges.
Mean water depth: See ‘water depth’.
Merchant cargo ship: A ship carrying merchant cargo.
Metacenter: see ‘metacentric height’.
Metacentric height (GM): The centre of buoyancy of a heeled installation is moved
off the installation’s centreline as the result of inclination, and the lines along which
the resultants of weight and buoyancy act are separated by a distance corresponding
to the righting arm. A vertical line through the centre of buoyancy at a heeled
condition intersects the original vertical line through the centre of gravity at a point
in the vessel’s centreline plane, known as the metacenter. The distance from the
centre of gravity (G) of a vessel to its metacenter (M) is termed ‘metacentric height’
(GM). At relatively small angles of heeling, GM is used as an important index of
stability. GM is positive when metacenter is above the centre of gravity, and
negative when metacenter is below the centre of gravity. A larger GM represents
greater initial stability against overturning, but a larger GM causes a shorter period
of roll motion, which makes passengers uncomfortable.
Metocean: Abbreviation of ‘meteorological and oceanographic’.
Minimum breaking strength: Breaking strength of chain and for wire and other
materials. It is the certified breaking strength.
Mobile mooring system: Mooring systems, generally retrievable, intended for
deployment at a specific location for a short-term operation, such as those for
mobile offshore units.
Mobile offshore drilling units: Floating structure capable of engaging in drilling
operations for exploration or exploitation of subsea petroleum resources.
Mobile offshore unit: Floating structure intended to be frequently relocated to
perform a particular function.
Appendices 495
Mooring components: General class of components such as chain, steel wire rope,
synthetic fibre rope, clump weight, buoy, winch/windlass, fairlead and anchor.
Non-destructive examination (NDE): A technique to evaluate the properties of a
material, component or system without causing damage.
Neutral equilibrium: See ‘stability’.
Nominal value: Value assigned to a basic variable determined on a non-statistical
basis, typically from acquired experience or physical conditions.
Offshore service vessel (OSV): See ‘offshore support vessel’.
Offshore supply vessel (OSV): A ship, boat or barge which transports supplies,
materials and personnel to and from an offshore installation. Also termed ‘offshore
support vessel’.
Offshore support vessel (OSV): A ship specially designed for the logistical servicing
of offshore platforms and subsea installations, from installation through the full
service life of offshore fields. Also termed ‘offshore service vessel’.
Owner: Representative of the owner or owners of a development, who may be the
operator on behalf of co-licensees.
Partial safety factor: A factor normally greater than unity applied to a representative
value of a strength or action to determine its corresponding design value.
PAU: Pre-assembled unit.
Peak frequency: See ‘wave energy spectrum’.
Permanent mooring systems: Systems normally used to moor floating structures
deployed for long-term operations, such as those for a floating production system.
PLEM: Pipeline end manifold.
Port state: The country where the vessel loads or offloads.
Pre-MARPOL tanker: See ‘MARPOL tanker’.
Probability: The likelihood of occurrence of a specific event. It is also termed
‘frequency’.
Probability of detection (POD): The probability of structural damage detection, as
uncertainties associated with the detection and measurement of deterioration ori-
ginate from many sources such as the geometry, the material properties, the
structural component locations, sensors or accessibility.
Probability of exceedance: Probability that a certain value is exceeded in a prede-
fined future period of time. Also termed ‘exceedance probability’ or ‘frequency of
exceedance’ or ‘annual rate of exceedance’. It is calculated as the number of times
that a stochastic process exceeds a critical value far from the mean value per unit
time. The exceedance probability curve is a diagram relating an exceedance prob-
ability and a parameter driving a hazardous event, and it is used to define the design
value of an influencing parameter in association with risk acceptance criteria.
Probability of joint occurrence: See ‘joint probability’.
Purging: The process of replacing the inert gas or hydrocarbon mixture in a tank with
normal air for tank inspection or repair.
Qualitative risk assessment: Risk assessment using simple models such as risk
matrix that do not include refined computations or physical model testing.
496 Appendices
Quantitative risk assessment: Risk assessment using sophisticated methods to simu-

late the essence of the hazards associated with accidental events in volatile, uncer-
tain, complex and ambiguous environments.
Quasi-static action: Action that will not cause significant acceleration of the structure
or structural component. Dynamic structural action problems may be approximately
dealt with in the quasi-static domain when the action duration time (t) is long
enough compared to the natural period (T) of the exposed structure, say t 3T.
Random failure: failure caused by sudden stresses, extreme conditions or
random errors.
Recognised classification societies: member of the International Association of
Classification Societies (IACS), with recognised and relevant competence and
experience in floating structures, and with established rules and procedures for
classification/certification of installations used in petroleum-related activities.
Reference period: Period of time used as the basis for determining values of
basic variables.
Reliability: Probability that an item or system will adequately perform a required
function under stated conditions of use and maintenance for a stated period of time.
Reliability is the probability of desired performance over time in a specified
condition, for example, machinery or system reliability, structural reliability, human
reliability. Reliability = 1 – Failure Probability.
Repetitive actions: Repeatedly applied actions.
Representative value: Value assigned to a basic variable for verification of a
limit state.
Return period: Reciprocal of the probability of exceeding an event during a particu-
lar period of time, that is, the average period of time between exceedance of a stated
value of a variable.
Residual currents: The components of a current other than tidal current. The residual
currents may be predominantly storm surge currents.
Residual strength: Remaining load-carrying capacity of a structural member or entire
system after damage is premised.
Righting moment: A right moment exists at any angle of inclination of the vessel
where the forces of weight and buoyancy act to move the vessel toward the
upright position.
Riser: Piping connecting the process facilities or drilling equipment on the floating
structure with the subsea facilities or pipelines, or reservoir.
Risk: The product of the probability of occurrence (termed ‘frequency’ or ‘likeli-
hood’) of a hazardous event and its consequence(s), that is, Risk = Frequency(F)
Consequence(C). Risk is a measure of the likelihood that an undesirable event will
occur together with a measure of the resulting consequence within a specified time,
that is, the combination of the frequency and the severity of the consequence. This
can be either a quantitative or qualitative measure.
Risk acceptance criteria: Criteria that the overall risk level is acceptable during a
defined activity period of time. They are associated with a reference for risk
Appendices 497
mitigation options, and thus should be defined prior to the risk assessment. See ‘risk
management’.
Risk assessment: An array of techniques that can successfully integrate diverse
aspects of design and operation to assess risk; it may address three key questions,
namely (1) Scenario: what can go wrong, (2) Likelihood: how likely is it, and (3)
Impact: what are the impacts. Risk assessment tools comprise a vast of techniques,
including those for reliability, availability and maintainability engineering, statis-
tics, decision theory, systems engineering and human behaviour, performance and
error. It is often termed ‘safety study’.
Risk-based decision making: A process that organises information about the possi-
bility of one or more unwanted outcomes into a broad, orderly structure that helps
decision makers make more informed management choices on the basis of risk.
Risk communication: Interaction process of exchanging information and opinion
among individuals, groups and institutions involving multiple messages about the
nature of risk.
Risk control options: See ‘risk mitigation options’.
Risk index number: A relative measure of the overall risk associated with
a deviation.
Risk management: Risk mitigation options are applied if the risk acceptance criteria
are not satisfied or if the risk exceeds the ALARP (as-low-as-reasonably-
practical) level.
Risk matrix: A matrix depicting the risk profile. Each cell in the matrix indicates the
number of accidents having that frequency and consequence. It is used for the
qualitative risk assessment.
Risk mitigation options: Safety measures to mitigate the risk level. Also termed ‘risk
control options’. See ‘safety measures’.
Safeguards: Engineered systems (hardware) or administrative controls for reducing
the frequency of occurrence or mitigating the severity of accidents.
Safety: Relates to the degree of risk. Because no activity is free of risk, an activity is
considered safe when the level of risk is within acceptable limits.
Safety criteria: See ‘design criteria’.
Safety factor: A simple measure of safety margin normally defined as the ratio of
design strength to design action effect. ‘Partial safety factor’ is a measure of safety
margin partially associated with the safety components such as demand (loads) and
capacity (strength).
Safety margin: A difference between structural strength and maximum value of an
action effect, by which a structure or component reserve with respect to failure can
be quantified.
Safety measures: Measures for safety to reduce the risk level. Two types of safety
measures are relevant: active safety measures and passive safety measures. The
former are those that can avoid the occurrence of accidents themselves, while the
latter are those that help mitigate the severity of the consequences associated
with accidents.
498 Appendices
Safety study: An engineering activity to measure whether a structure reaches undesired

states in which its intended functions fail to perform. See ‘risk assessment’.
SALM: Single anchor leg mooring.
Scantlings: Size and thickness of structural components.
Sea state: A general term for the wave conditions at a particular time and place.
Parameters such as significant wave height and mean zero-up-crossing wave period
are often referred to as ‘sea state parameters’. A sea state is usually assumed to stay
statistically stationary for a period of a few hours depending on the underlying data
analyses; for example, 3 hrs.
Sea surface variance: The mean-square elevation of the sea surface (with respect to
still water level) owing to waves. Proportional to the energy density per unit area of
sea surface.
Segregated ballast tank system: Sea water ballast should not be carried out in cargo
oil tanks.
Semi-submersible: Floating structure normally consisting of a deck structure with a
number of widely spaced, large cross-section, supporting columns connected to
submerged pontoons.
Serviceability: Ability of a structure or structural component to perform adequately
for normal functional use for a period of time. Also termed ‘operability’.
Serviceability limit states (SLS): Limit states that represent the criteria governing
normal functional or operational use.
Ship-shaped offshore structures: Floating offshore structures which have similar
shapes to tanker-type ships in terms of geometry and functions.
Shuttle tanker: Trading tankers which transport oil from a ship-shaped offshore
installation to shore. The shuttle tanker will be moored to a single buoy mooring
or in tandem to a ship-shaped offshore installation. While ordinary trading tankers
are only equipped for oil transfer at midship, the shuttle tanker accommodates a
long floating hose from a single buoy mooring to the loading position. It requires to
have the capacity to provide a reverse thrust in order to prevent collision with the
single point mooring or a floating storage unit and to keep the hawser tight.
Significant wave height: See ‘wave height’.
Single buoy mooring: Mooring by a single buoy.
Single point mooring (SPM): Mooring system at a single location (point) that allows
the floating structure to which it is connected to vary its heading (weathervane).
Site-specific environmental conditions: Metocean conditions and their variables
observed at the location or proposed location of an offshore installation.
Slamming: A phenomenon in which the local area of a structure is exposed to
dynamic water pressure. Bottom slamming occurs when the trading ship’s bottom
emerges from the water because of pitching, possibly combined with the occurrence
of a wave. Bow flare slamming occurs because of the plunging of the upper flared
portion of the bow deeper into the water.
Slew: A complex irregular yaw motion. A slewing ring is required in most single-
point mooring applications to control slew motion during weathervaning.
Appendices 499
Sloshing: Actions arising from the motion of liquids in partially filled tanks.
Spar platform: Deep draught, vertically floating structure.
Spectrum: See ‘wave energy spectrum’.
Sponson: Enclosed attachments to the side structure of a single-skin tanker to be
converted to a ship-shaped offshore installation so as to be equivalent to double-
side arrangements.
Spread mooring: Mooring system consisting of multiple mooring lines terminating at
different locations on a floating structure, and extending outwards and anchored to
the seabed, providing an almost constant structure heading.
Stability: Ability of a ship-shaped offshore installation hull to maintain proper
floating attitude, usually upright, when subject to weight and buoyancy actions.
In dealing with static floating body stability, equilibrium is a condition in which the
resultant of all gravity forces (weights) acting downwards and the resultant of the
buoyancy forces acting upwards on the body are of equal magnitude and are applied
in the same vertical line. Stable equilibrium is that in which a floating body with an
angular attitude change owing to an external moment can return to its original
position on removal of the external moment. On the other hand, if the inclined body
remains in that displaced position even after the external moment is removed, it is
known as neutral equilibrium. Unstable equilibrium is a situation in which a
floating body displaced from its original position by an external moment continues
to move after the force is removed. See ‘metacentric height’.
Stable equilibrium: See ‘stability’.
Station-keeping system: System capable of limiting the excursions of a ship-shaped
offshore installation within prescribed limits.
Still-water level: The level of the surface of the sea in the absence of surface waves
generated by the wind. Variations in still-water level are principally caused by tides
and storm surges.
Still-water loads: Actions arising from the difference between weight and buoyancy
for a stationary structure.
Storm surge: Irregular movement of the sea brought about by wind and atmospheric
pressure variations. Storm surge elevation is the change from the predicted tidal level
as a result of a storm surge. It can be positive or negative, and for design purposes it is
usually defined by an extreme value. Storm surge current is the current resulting from
a storm surge. An extreme value is usually required for design purposes.
Structural capacity: Equivalent to structural resistance or structural strength.
Structural component: Structural element or physically distinguishable part of a
structure, for example, column, beam, stiffeners, plating, stiffened panel. In terms
of terminology for structural mechanics, a plate panel between stiffeners is termed
‘plating’ or ‘plate’, and the plating with stiffeners is termed a ‘stiffened panel’. A one-
dimensional member is termed a ‘column’ under axial compressive loads, while it is
termed a ‘beam’ under bending or lateral loads. When a one-dimensional member is
used for resisting combined axial compression and bending (or lateral loads), it is
termed a ‘beam-column’. A large stiffened panel supported by heavy support
500 Appendices
members is sometimes idealised by a grillage, which in concept is essentially a set of

intersecting beam members. Strong main support members are normally termed
‘girders’ when they are located in the primary loading direction (i.e., longitudinal
direction in a box girder or a vessel hull), while they are sometimes termed ‘frames’
when they are located in the direction normal to the primary load direction (i.e., in the
transverse direction in a box girder or a ship-shaped offshore installation hull).
Structural crashworthiness: Structural response involving crushing and fracture
under accidental actions such as collision, grounding, fire and explosion. It is used
to describe the performance of a structure impacted by objects or dynamic or
impulsive loads. Structural crashworthiness analysis aims to identify resultant
forces and energy absorption characteristics together with damage and survivability
of involving structures.
Structural demand: Equivalent to structural loads.
Structural failure: Insufficient strength or inadequate serviceability of a structure or
structural component.
Structural resistance: Equivalent to structural strength.
Structural strength: Capacity of a structure or structural component to withstand an
action effect.
Structural system: Load-bearing components of a structure, including the way in
which these components function together.
Structure: Organised combination of connected parts designed to withstand actions
and provide adequate rigidity.
Surface wind drift: The current, in the top few metres of the water column, generated
in direct response to the local wind blowing over the surface of the sea.
Survey: The inspection of classification society. ‘Surveyor’ is the classification
society inspector.
Survival condition: An extreme environmental condition that has a very low prob-
ability occurrence. Structural scantlings based on survival conditions are too heavy
and uneconomical, and thus safety measures are instead applied to avoid
severe damage.
Swash bulkhead: Non-watertight partition in a tank designed for avoiding sloshing.
Swivel: A swivel assembly allows a vessel to weathervane during loading or offload-
ing, typically using electrical and hydraulic systems to power and control subsea
equipment through the riser system.
Taut-line mooring: Mooring system where the restoring action in tension is provided
by elastic deformation of mooring lines.
Thruster-assisted mooring: Station-keeping system consisting of mooring lines and
thrusters. The thrusters contribute to control of the structure’s heading and/or to
adjust mooring forces and structure offset.
Tide: Regular and predicable movement of the sea generated by astronomical forces.
They can be represented as the sum of a number of harmonic constituents, each with
different but known periods. Tidal current is the current resulting from the tides.
During a characteristic tidal current period, the current vector may describe an
Appendices 501
ellipse with a maximum current speed and associated direction and a minimum
speed and direction.
Trading tanker: A ship designed to transport or store liquids or gases in bulk.
Turret: A cylindrical single-point mooring system geo-stationary with the seabed
allowing rotation of a ship-shaped offshore installation in response to wave and
wind conditions (weathervaning).
Ultimate limit states (ULS): Limit states that represent the failure of a structure in
part or all, which usually occurs on being subjected to extreme actions or action
effects. Also termed ‘ultimate strength’ or ‘maximum load-carrying capacity’.
Uncertainty: Lack of certainty owing to limited knowledge of an event. It makes
impossible to exactly predict consequences or outcomes. Uncertainties comprise
inherent uncertainties and modelling uncertainties, the former being owing to
natural variability and the latter being owing to inaccuracy in procedures used for
the evaluation and control.
Underwriters: Insurers of ship-shaped offshore installations.
Unstable equilibrium: See ‘stability’.
Validation: A process to confirm the performance of a model by comparison with
reference solutions and physical test data.
Verification: A process to certify the performance of related activities by a third-party
agent before the said agent issues a certificate attesting to the degree of compliance
of a structure, item of equipment or other arrangement with any regulation
or standard.
Vetting: Tanker inspections by oil company personnel.
VUCA environments: Volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous environments.
Water depth: The vertical distance between the seabed and a defined datum near the
sea surface, for example, mean sea level.
Waves: Movements on the sea surface generated by wind and with wave periods of
less than about 25 s.
Wave crest elevation: The vertical distance between the crest of a wave and still-
water level.
Wave direction: The mean direction from which wave energy is travelling.
Wave energy spectrum: A frequency domain description related to the energy in a
whole wave system (or sea state). The wave system is assumed to consist of a large
number of long-crested sinusoidal wave trains travelling independently but superim-
posed on each other. The omnidirectional spectral density function Sðf Þ is defined
such that Sðf Þδf is the sum of the sea surface variances (proportional to energy per unit
area) of the wave trains with frequencies between f and f þ δf , where δf is a small
frequency interval. Peak frequency of a spectrum is the wave frequency corresponding
to the maximum value of the omni-directional spectral density function.
Wave exceedance diagram: A plot of the proportion of time for which the wave
height is less than the value specified on the abscissa. It can be presented on a
seasonal or all-year basis. Also known as the cumulative frequency distribution of
wave height.
502 Appendices
Wave frequency: The number of waves passing a fixed point in unit time.
Wave height: The vertical distance between the crest of one wave and the preceding
trough. In idealised circumstances, it is exactly twice the wave crest elevation. The
height of a zero-up-crossing wave is the vertical distance between the highest and
lowest points on the water surface of a particular zero-up-crossing wave. Significant
pffiffiffiffiffiffi
wave height ðH s Þ is 4 mo , where mo is the sea surface variance. In sea states with
only a narrow band of wave frequencies, H s is approximately equal to H 1=3 , which
is the mean height of the largest third of the zero-up-crossing waves. Extreme
significant wave height ðH sN Þ is the significant wave height with a return period of
N years (e.g., 100 years for H s100 ). Extreme wave height ðH N Þ is the individual
wave height (generally the zero-up-crossing wave height) with a return period of N
years (e.g., 100 years for H 100 ).
Wave hindcasting: Estimating the wave characteristics using meteorological data and
numerical models for wave generation and energy transport.
Wave loads: Actions on a structure or component arising from waves.
Wave period: The time interval between successive waves. The period of a zero-up-
crossing wave is the time interval between the two zero-up-crossing waves which
bound it. See also ‘wave frequency’. Mean zero-up-crossing period ðT z Þ is calcu-
lated for a random sea by dividing the wave sampling period by the number of zero-
up-crossing waves in the sampling period.
Wave sampling period: The relatively short period of time (usually 1,000 s) for which
wave elevation and/or other wave variables are measured in order to define the
sea state.
Wave spectrum: See ‘wave energy spectrum’.
Wave steepness: The ratio of the wave height to the wave length. Significant wave
steepness in deep water is the ratio of the significant wave height to the wave length
of a periodic wave whose period is the mean zero-up-crossing wave period.
Wear-in failure: Failure of weak components associated with problems such as
manufacturing defects and installation/maintenance errors, also defined as burn in
or infant mortality.
Wear-out failure: End of useful life failure.
Weathervaning: Rotation of a ship-shaped offshore installation about the turret in
response to environmental actions such as winds and waves.
Yoke: A rigid-articulated connection system in the form of a lattice or box structure
between a mooring column and a ship-shaped offshore installation.
Zero-up-crossing wave: The portion of a wave record (the time history of wave
elevation) between adjacent zero-up-crossings. A zero-up-crossing occurs when the
sea surface rises (rather than falls) through the still-water level. Wave records are
conventionally analysed on the basis of the zero-up-crossing waves they contain.
For height of a zero-up-crossing wave, see ‘wave height’. For zero-up-crossing
period, see ‘wave period’.
Appendix 2 Scale Definitions of Wind,
Waves and Swells
A2.1 Beaufort Wind Scale
Beaufort Mean wind Mean wind Probable mean

number Definition speed (knot) speed (m/s) wave height (m)
0 Calm <1 <0.5 0.0

1 Light air 1–3 0.5–1.7 0.1
2 Light breeze 4–6 1.8–3.3 0.2
3 Gentle breeze 7–10 3.4–5.4 0.6
4 Moderate breeze 11–16 5.5–8.4 1.0
5 Fresh breeze 17–21 8.5–11.0 2.0
6 Strong breeze 22–27 11.1–14.1 3.0
7 Near gale 28–33 14.2–17.2 4.0
8 Gale 34–40 17.3–20.8 5.5
9 Strong gale 41–47 20.9–24.4 7.0
10 Storm 48–55 24.5–28.5 9.0
11 Violent storm 56–63 28.6–32.6 11.5
12 Hurricane >64 >32.7 14.0
A2.2 Wave Scale
Definition Wave height (m)
Calm – glassy 0.0

Calm – rippled 0.0–0.1
Smooth wavelets 0.1–0.5
Slight 0.5–1.25
Moderate 1.25–2.5
Rough 2.5–4.0
Very rough 4.0–6.0
High 6.0–9.0
Very high 9.0–14.0
Phenomenal >14.0
504 Appendices
A2.3 Swell Scale
Definition (length) Length (m) Definition (height) Height (m)
Short 0–100 Low 0–2

Average 100–200 Moderate 2–4
Long >200 Heavy >4
Appendix 3 Sea State Data in Various
Ocean Regions
A3.1 Sea States in the North Atlantic Ocean
TZ
HS 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 Sum
0.5 0.0 0.0 1.3 133.7 865.6 1,186.0 634.2 186.3 36.9 5.6 0.7 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3,050
1.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 29.3 986.0 4,976.0 7,738.0 5,569.7 2,375.7 703.5 160.7 30.5 5.1 0.8 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 22,575
2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.2 197.5 2,158.8 6,230.0 7,449.5 4,860.4 2,066.0 644.5 160.2 33.7 6.3 1.1 0.2 0.0 0.0 23,810
3.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 34.9 695.5 3,226.5 5,675.0 5,099.1 2,838.0 1,114.1 337.7 84.3 18.2 3.5 0.6 0.1 0.0 19,128
4.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 6.0 196.1 1,354.3 3,288.5 3,857.5 2,685.5 1,275.2 455.1 130.9 31.9 6.9 1.3 0.2 0.0 13,289
5.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 51.0 498.4 1,602.9 2,372.7 2,008.3 1,126.0 463.6 150.9 41.0 9.7 2.1 0.4 0.1 8,328
6.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 12.6 167.0 690.3 1,257.9 1,268.6 825.9 386.8 140.8 42.2 10.9 2.5 0.5 0.1 4,806
7.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 52.1 270.1 594.4 703.2 524.9 276.7 111.7 36.7 10.2 2.5 0.6 0.1 2,586
8.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.7 15.4 97.9 255.9 350.6 296.9 174.6 77.6 27.7 8.4 2.2 0.5 0.1 1,309
9.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2 4.3 33.2 101.9 159.9 152.2 99.2 48.3 18.7 6.1 1.7 0.4 0.1 626
10.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.2 10.7 37.9 67.5 71.7 51.5 27.3 11.4 4.0 1.2 0.3 0.1 285
11.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.3 13.3 26.6 31.4 24.7 14.2 6.4 2.4 0.7 0.2 0.1 124
12.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 1.0 4.4 9.9 12.8 11.0 6.8 3.3 1.3 0.4 0.1 0.0 51
13.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 1.4 3.5 5.0 4.6 3.1 1.6 0.7 0.2 0.1 0.0 21
14.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 1.2 1.8 1.8 1.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.0 0.0 8
15.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.6 0.7 0.5 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 3
16.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 1
Sum 0 0 1 165 2,091 9,280 19,922 24,879 20,870 12,898 6,245 2,479 837 247 66 16 3 1 100,000
HS ¼ significant wave height (m) and TZ ¼ spectral peak period (s)

Appendices 507
A3.2 Annual Sea States in the North Atlantic Ocean

height (m) speed1 (knot) Modal wave period (s)
Sea state Probability of
number Range Mean Range Mean sea states (%) Range2 Most probable3
0.1 0.0–0.1 0.05 0–6 3.0 0.70 – –

2 0.1–0.5 0.3 7–10 8.5 6.80 3.3–12.8 7.5
3 0.5–1.25 0.88 11–16 13.5 23.70 5.0–14.8 7.5
4 1.25–2.5 1.88 17–21 19.0 27.80 6.1–15.2 8.8
5 2.5–4.0 3.25 22–27 24.5 20.64 8.3–15.5 9.7
6 4.0–6.0 5.0 28–47 37.5 13.15 9.8–16.2 12.4
7 6.0–9.0 7.5 48–55 51.5 6.05 11.8–18.5 15.0
8 9.0–14.0 11.5 56–63 59.5 1.11 14.2–18.6 16.4
>8 >14.0 >14.0 >63 >63 0.05 18.0–23.7 20.0
1
Ambient wind sustained at 19.5 m above surface to generate fully developed seas. To convert to another
altitude ðH 2 Þ, apply V 2 ¼ V 1 ðH 2 =19:5Þ1=7 ; 2 Minimum is 5% and maximum is 95% for periods given wave
height range and 3 Based on periods associated with central frequencies included in hindcast climatology.
Source: Lee, W., Bales, W. L., Sowby, S. E. (1985). Standardised wind and wave environments for North
Pacific ocean areas. R/SPD-0919-02, DTNSRDC, Washington, DC.
A3.3 Annual Sea States in the North Pacific Ocean

height (m) speed1 (knot) Modal wave period (s)
Sea state Probability of
number Range Mean Range Mean sea states (%) Range2 Most probable3
0.1 0.0–0.1 0.05 0–6 3.0 1.30 – –

2 0.1–0.5 0.3 7–10 8.5 6.40 5.1–14.9 6.3
3 0.5–1.25 0.88 11–16 13.5 15.50 5.3–16.1 7.5
4 1.25–2.5 1.88 17–21 19.0 31.60 6.1–17.2 8.8
5 2.5–4.0 3.25 22–27 24.5 20.94 7.7–17.8 9.7
6 4.0–6.0 5.0 28–47 37.5 15.03 10.0–18.7 12.4
7 6.0–9.0 7.5 48–55 51.5 7.60 11.7–19.8 15.0
8 9.0–14.0 11.5 56–63 59.5 1.56 14.5–21.5 16.4
>8 >14.0 >14.0 >63 >63 0.07 16.4–22.5 20.0
1
Ambient wind sustained at 19.5 m above surface to generate fully developed seas. To convert to another
altitude ðH 2 Þ, apply V 2 ¼ V 1 ðH 2 =19:5Þ1=7 ; 2 Minimum is 5% and maximum is 95% for periods given wave
height range and 3 Based on periods associated with central frequencies included in hindcast climatology.
Source: Lee, W., Bales, W. L., Sowby, S. E. (1985). Standardised wind and wave environments for North
Pacific ocean areas. R/SPD-0919-02, DTNSRDC, Washington, DC.
508 Appendices
A3.4 Characteristics of 100-Year Return Period Storms in Various

Ocean Regions
Property Gulf of Mexico North Sea West Africa Brazil Timor Sea
Wind speed (knot) 80 83 42 60 80

Current speed (knot) 2.1 2.8 1.7 3.2 4.2
Wave Hs ðmÞ 12.2 16.5 2.7 7.6 9.8
Hmax ðmÞ 22.8 30.8 5.1 14.2 18.2
Tz ðsÞ 14.0 17.5 7.6 14.3 12.4
Swell Hs ðmÞ - - 3.7 - -
Hmax ðmÞ - - 6.8 - -
Tz ðsÞ - - 13.9 - -
H s ¼ significant wave height; H max ¼ maximum wave height and T z ¼ period. This data is indicative of met-
ocean conditions for usual areas of operation of ship-shaped offshore installations.
A3.5 Extremes of Environmental Conditions in Various Ocean Regions
Southern Northern Canadian Northwest

Gulf of North North Georges coast of Beaufort Bass
Item Mexico Sea Sea Bank Australia Sea Newfoundland Strait
Wave height (m) 22 20 32 25 22 8 30 23

Wind (m/s) 70 40 45 50 70 40 60 50
Current (cm/s) 100 50 50 120 180 75 150 130
Tide (m) 1.5 2 2 2 4 0.5 2 1
Icing No No No Yes No Yes Yes No
Fog (%) 5 5–15 2–5 30–40 1 20 30–40 1
Source: Sharples, B. P. M., Stiff, J. J., Kalinowski, D. W., Tidmarsh, W. G. (1989). Statistical risk
methodology: application for pollution risks for Canadian Georges Bank drilling program. Offshore
Technology Conference, OTC 6082, Houston, TX, 1–4 May.
Appendix 4 Inverse First-Order Reliability
Method for Drawing Extreme Wave Contours
Figure A4.1 shows the flow of the inverse first-order reliability method (IFORM) for
drawing extreme wave contours where the probability density function (PDF) is
assumed to follow the 3-parameter Weibull function for the significant wave height
H s and the log-normal function for the average zero-up-crossing wave period T z .
The reliability index β is estimated from Figure A4.2 once the probability of failure
is defined as follows:
Metocean Data Wave Scatter Diagram
Time Interval of Recorded Wave Data Reliability Calculation Return Period
CDF of Standard Gaussian

Reliability Index
Distribution
U-Space Variables, , U-Space Coordinates
HS PDF by 3-parameter Weibull Function
U-Space Variable Transformation, →
Regression Analysis TZ Regression for HS Wave Scatter Diagram
TZ PDF by 2-parameter Lognormal Function for Regression Formulation
U-Space Variable Transformation, →
( , )
Figure A4.1 Flow of the inverse first-order reliability method (where PDF = probability density
function and CDF = cumulative density function)
510 Appendices
Standard Gaussian CDF
rR
u2
unsafe
Probability
u2
u1
u1
pF
Figure A4.2 Estimation of reliability index in U-shape coordinates associated with standard
Gaussian cumulative density function (CDF)
1 1
pF ¼ (A4.1)
24 T R
365
ts
where pF is the probability of failure, which is taken as pF ¼ 1 r R , T R is the return

period in years, and t s is the time interval of recorded wave data. r R is the reliability
associated with the corresponding return period.
A joint distribution of the significant wave height H s and the average zero-up-
crossing wave period T z is considered (shown in Figure A4.3).
f ðH s , T z Þ ¼ f H S ðH s Þf T Z j H S ðT z j HsÞ (A4.2)
C2 1 C2
C2 H s C3 H s C 3
where f ðH s Þ ¼ C1 C1 exp C1f T Z j H Z ðT z j H s Þ ¼ T σ1pffiffiffiffi
, 2π
z
h 2
i
exp ð ln T2σz μ
2
Þ
, C1 , C 2 and C 3 are the coefficients of Weibull function. μ is the
mean and σ is the standard deviation and both are functions of the significant wave
height that may be expressed by regression analysis as μ ¼ a1 þ a2 H as 3 ,
σ ¼ b1 þ b2 eb3 H s (shown in Figure A4.4).
The reliability index β is determined from the inverse of the cumulative probability
function using the standard Gaussian distribution (shown in Figure A4.2).
pffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
Φ1 ðr R Þ ¼ β ¼ u1i 2 þ u2i 2 (A4.3)
Appendices 511
TZ 0.5 1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5

HS
log-normal
Hs1
log-normal
Hs2
log-normal
Hs3
Figure A4.3 Wave scatter diagram for the development of a joint distribution between
H s and T z
b1 b2 b3
0.051 0.181 −0.181
Log-normal Parameter,
Log-normal Parameter,
a1 a2 a3
−0.956 2.518 0.122
Significant Wave Height, Hs (m) Significant Wave Height, Hs (m)
Figure A4.4 A schematic of the regression analysis
where Φ is the cumulative probability function of standard Gaussian distribution. The

relation between physical variables and U-space variables is given by
T i ¼ CDFT Z j H S 1 fΦðu1i Þg, H i ¼ CDFH S 1 fΦðu2i Þg (A4.4)
18
16
14
12
Log-normal CDF
10
Tz (s)
8
6
4
2
0
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
Probability
18
16
14
3-parameter Weibull CDF
12
10
Hs (m)
8
6
4
2
0
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Probability
6
4
Figure A4.5 Transformation of the variables

Standard Gaussian CDF
2
U
0
−2
−4
−6
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Probability
Appendices 513
u2

TR-year contour
u1 u1
Average Zero-Up-Crossing Wave Period, Tz (s)
Figure A4.6 Drawing of the wave contour in the H s -T z coordinate
where T i is the physical variable for the wave period and H i is the physical variable for
the significant wave height. CDF is the cumulative density function in the U-space,
which is used for the transformation of variables (shown in Figure A4.5).
CDF for Weibull function:
( )
H s C 3 C2
CDF ¼ 1 exp (A4.5a)
C1
CDF for log-normal function:

1 ln T z μ
CDF ¼ erfc pffiffiffi (A4.5b)
2 σ 2
where erfc is the complementary error function. If the transformation of variables in
U-space coordinates to the H s -T z coordinate is completed for a given return period,
the extreme wave contour can be drawn (shown in Figure A4.6).
Appendix 5 Source Listing of the FORTRAN
Computer Program USAS-L
This program calculates the wave-induced vertical bending moments of a ship-shaped

offshore installation hull in tow conditions with a short-term persistence time of storm
using the Loukakis–Chryssostomidis seakeeping tables (described in Section 4.10).
The program is also useful to predict the wave-induced hull girder bending moments
for the health condition assessment of damaged hull structures by comparison with
ultimate hull girder strength (described in Section 15.7). Hull’s principal dimensions
(length, breadth, draught and block coefficient), operational parameter (tow speed)
and sea states (significant wave height and storm-persistence time) are dealt with as
input data variables. The program also provides the still-water and wave-induced
vertical bending moment calculations from the IACS H-CSR formulations (described
in Section 4.10). It is noted that the statements with long characters such as those of
‘DATA’ in the below source listing should be rearranged to keep the FORTRAN
coding rules for a computer programming.
C
C*** PROGRAM USAS-L
C*** CALCULATION OF WAVE-INDUCED VERTICAL BENDING MOMENTS
C*** OF A SHIP-SHAPED OFFSHORE INSTALLATION HULL
C
C 1. SHORT-TERM RESPONSE USING THE MIT SEAKEEPING TABLES
C 2. LONG-TERM RESPONSE USING THE IACS H-CSR FORMULA
C
C DEVELOPED BY PROF JEOM KEE PAIK FREng
C (C) J.K. PAIK, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.
C
IMPLICIT REAL*8(A-H,O-Z)
COMMON /TABLE/TOLCHART(2,5),COLUMN1(32),COLUMN2(16),COLUMN3(8),
* COLUMN4(4),COLUMN5(2),NUMDATA(32),NUMCOL(32),
* NUMROW(32)
COMMON /IPDATA/CASENUM(72,3),DATA(72,5,8)
COMMON /CHDATA/INPCHART(32,5),CHART(32,5)
COMMON /DOMAIN/SDOM(8),CBDOM(8),PLBYBDOM(3),BBYTDOM(3),
* FNDOM(5)
IR=2
IW=3
Appendices 515
C OPEN(IR,FILE='STWAVEDATA.DAT')
OPEN(IW,FILE='STWAVE.OUT')
CALL INDATA(IR)
CALL INPUT(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,BPL,B,T)
CALL DETECTER(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB)
CALL PLANDMI(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,SPL,SMI,FNPL,FNMI,
* PLBYBPL,PLBYBMI,BBYTPL,BBYTMI,CBPL,CBMI)
CALL COEFF(S,SPL,SMI,SCOE)
CALL COEFF(FN,FNPL,FNMI,FNCOE)
CALL COEFF(PLBYB,PLBYBPL,PLBYBMI,PLBYBCOE)
CALL COEFF(BBYT,BBYTPL,BBYTMI,BBYTCOE)
CALL COEFF(CB,CBPL,CBMI,CBCOE)
CALL RESPONSE(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,SPL,SMI,FNPL,FNMI,
* PLBYBPL,PLBYBMI,BBYTPL,BBYTMI,CBPL,CBMI,
* SCOE,FNCOE,PLBYBCOE,BBYTCOE,CBCOE,RMS)
CALL OUTPUT(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,SPL,SMI,FNPL,FNMI,RMS,
* SCOE,FNCOE,PLBYBCOE,BBYTCOE,CBCOE,BPL,B,T)
CALL WAVEMOM(RMS,BPL)
STOP
END
C
SUBROUTINE INDATA(IR)
C FN: (0.10 - 0.30)
C S:SIGNIFICCAT WAVE HEIGHT/LBP (0.015 - 0.1)
C CB: (0.55 - 0.90) - CASENUM(I,1)
C PLBYB: (5.5 - 8.5) - CASENUM(I,2)
C BBYT: (2 - 4) - CASENUM(I,3)
C INTERPOLATION CHART: 1 FOR PLUS AND 0 FOR MINUS
C
* FNDOM(5)
COMMON ZN
C
C READ(IR,*)
C READ(IR,*) (SDOM(I),I=1,8)
C READ(IR,*)
C READ(IR,*) (CBDOM(I),I=1,8)
C READ(IR,*)
C READ(IR,*) (PLBYBDOM(I),I=1,3)
C READ(IR,*)
C READ(IR,*) (BBYTDOM(I),I=1,3)
C READ(IR,*)
C READ(IR,*) (FNDOM(I),I=1,5)
516 Appendices
C
DATA SDOM/1.5E-2,2.0E-2,2.5E-2,3.0E-2,4.0E-2,5.0E-2,7.5E-2,0.1/
DATA CBDOM/0.55,0.60,0.65,0.70,0.75,0.80,0.85,0.90/
DATA PLBYBDOM/5.5,7.0,8.5/
DATA BBYTDOM/2.0,3.0,4.0/
DATA FNDOM/0.10,0.15,0.20,0.25,0.30/
DATA CASENUM/0.55,0.55,0.55,0.55,0.55,0.55,0.55,0.55,0.55,0.60,
* 0.60,0.60,0.60,0.60,0.60,0.60,0.60,0.60,0.65,0.65,0.65,0.65,
* 0.65,0.65,0.65,0.65,0.65,0.70,0.70,0.70,0.70,0.70,0.70,0.70,
* 0.70,0.70,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.75,0.80,
* 0.80,0.80,0.80,0.80,0.80,0.80,0.80,0.80,0.85,0.85,0.85,0.85,
* 0.85,0.85,0.85,0.85,0.85,0.90,0.90,0.90,0.90,0.90,0.90,0.90,
* 0.90,0.90,
* 5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,8.5,8.5,8.5,5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,
* 8.5,8.5,8.5,5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,8.5,8.5,8.5,5.5,5.5,5.5,
* 7.0,7.0,7.0,8.5,8.5,8.5,5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,8.5,8.5,8.5,
* 5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,8.5,8.5,8.5,5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,
* 8.5,8.5,8.5,5.5,5.5,5.5,7.0,7.0,7.0,8.5,8.5,8.5,
* 2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,
* 2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,
* 2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,
* 2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,
* 2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0,2.0,3.0,4.0/
C
DATA DATA/37,53,62,39,50,54,39,45,46,42,58,66,44,54,57,43,48,49,45
* ,61,70,47,58,60,47,51,51,45,61,70,47,58,61,48,51,52,46,61,70
* ,47,60,62,49,53,54,49,63,71,49,61,64,50,54,56,49,61,70,49,61
* ,64,51,55,57,45,56,65,45,57,61,46,53,56,37,51,62,37,50,56,38
* ,46,49,41,56,67,42,56,60,42,51,52,43,59,70,45,59,64,45,54,55
* ,44,59,70,46,59,64,46,55,56,45,60,70,47,60,65,46,56,57,47,61
* ,70,49,60,66,47,57,58,47,60,68,49,60,65,47,57,59,45,56,64,46
* ,55,61,44,53,57,37,50,60,37,49,57,36,47,51,40,55,66,42,54,62
* ,40,52,55,42,58,68,44,57,65,43,55,58,43,59,68,45,57,65,44,55
* ,59,45,59,69,46,58,65,45,56,60,47,60,69,47,59,66,47,57,60,48
* ,59,68,47,58,65,48,56,60,46,56,64,45,55,61,45,52,57,37,50,59
* ,37,48,56,36,46,52,40,55,65,41,53,61,40,51,56,42,57,67,42,55
* ,64,43,54,59,44,58,68,44,56,64,44,54,60,45,59,69,45,57,65,45
* ,55,60,48,60,69,47,58,65,46,56,61,48,60,68,47,58,64,46,55,60
* ,47,58,65,46,55,61,44,53,58,38,49,59,37,47,55,36,45,52,41,54
* ,64,40,52,60,40,50,57,43,56,67,42,55,63,42,52,59,45,58,68,44
* ,56,63,43,53,60,47,59,69,45,57,64,44,54,60,49,61,69,47,58,64
* ,45,55,61,49,61,68,48,57,64,46,55,60,48,60,68,46,55,62,45,53
* ,58,72,97,108,73,86,90,68,74,77,83,107,117,83,95,97,77,80,82
* ,89,115,124,91,102,104,84,87,87,88,116,126,91,103,106,85,89
* ,90,87,116,128,92,106,110,87,92,94,90,119,131,94,110,114,90
* ,96,98,89,119,132,94,111,116,91,98,102,81,107,123,84,104,113
* ,83,95,101,68,98,112,73,90,97,70,79,82,78,109,123,83,100,105
Appendices 517
* ,79,87,88,83,117,130,90,108,112,87,94,94,83,117,131,90,109,114
* ,87,96,97,85,117,132,90,110,116,88,98,100,89,119,135,92,113
* ,120,90,102,104,91,118,134,92,113,121,91,103,106,90,108,125,83
* ,104,115,82,97,103,68,95,115,71,92,102,70,83,88,76,109,126,80
* ,103,111,80,92,95,82,116,133,86,110,118,87,99,101,85,116,134
* ,86,111,120,87,101,104,88,117,136,87,112,122,88,103,106,94,119
* ,137,89,114,124,90,105,109,96,118,137,90,114,125,89,106,111,95
* ,112,128,88,106,118,82,98,106,70,96,117,69,93,104,69,85,92,78
* ,108,128,77,104,115,78,95,100,84,114,135,82,111,122,84,102,107
* ,87,116,137,84,111,124,85,103,109,91,118,138,88,113,125,85,105
* ,111,96,121,140,92,115,127,87,107,114,99,122,139,95,115,128,88
* ,107,114,98,119,133,96,109,121,85,101,109,72,96,117,69,93,106
* ,67,86,94,80,107,130,77,104,117,76,96,104,85,113,136,82,110
* ,124,81,103,110,89,116,138,86,111,126,82,105,112,94,120,140,90
* ,114,128,85,106,124,99,124,143,95,116,130,88,108,117,102,126
* ,143,98,116,130,91,108,117,104,124,140,97,114,125,93,103,112
* ,106,136,147,103,117,122,93,100,103,123,151,160,118,128,131
* ,105,108,110,136,164,172,131,139,141,116,117,118,134,165,175
* ,131,143,145,118,121,123,134,168,180,133,147,151,121,126,129
* ,137,173,187,137,154,159,127,133,136,137,173,190,138,157,164
* ,130,138,142,122,156,178,122,148,160,119,134,142,106,141,157
* ,105,125,131,97,107,110,123,158,172,121,138,142,112,118,118
* ,135,471,184,134,151,153,124,128,127,134,172,187,133,153,157
* ,125,131,131,134,173,190,133,156,162,126,136,137,137,176,195
* ,136,161,168,130,141,143,138,176,197,136,163,172,131,145,148
* ,129,159,184,122,150,164,117,137,145,106,144,164,104,130,139
* ,99,114,118,123,163,181,121,146,153,115,127,128,133,175,194
* ,132,158,164,127,138,138,133,176,196,132,160,168,127,141,142
* ,133,177,199,133,163,172,128,144,146,137,180,204,136,166,177
* ,131,149,152,139,180,204,137,167,180,131,151,156,138,168,191
* ,129,154,170,118,140,150,107,146,170,105,134,146,100,119,125
* ,122,166,189,121,151,162,115,133,137,130,178,201,132,163,173
* ,126,145,148,133,180,204,133,164,177,127,147,151,136,183,208
* ,135,167,180,128,150,155,143,185,212,138,170,185,131,154,160
* ,149,187,212,140,171,187,132,155,163,158,180,203,136,161,177
* ,125,145,156,109,150,175,106,136,152,100,123,131,122,170,196
* ,122,154,169,115,138,145,131,182,208,131,166,181,125,149,155
* ,137,186,212,133,168,184,127,152,159,144,189,216,136,171,188
* ,129,155,163,154,193,220,140,175,193,133,158,168,162,196,222
* ,143,176,195,135,159,170,170,196,216,149,171,186,133,151,163
* ,137,167,179,128,141,146,112,120,123,160,187,195,148,155,158
* ,127,130,132,180,205,211,166,170,171,141,142,143,178,208,216
* ,167,175,177,144,147,149,178,213,224,170,182,186,149,155,158
* ,183,221,234,176,191,197,158,164,168,183,223,240,179,197,205
* ,163,172,177,162,202,228,156,187,201,151,168,177,140,178,192
* ,132,151,158,121,129,131,164,201,212,154,169,172,139,142,142
* ,182,219,229,172,185,186,156,155,154,179,220,234,171,189,192
518 Appendices
* ,158,160,160,178,223,240,172,195,199,160,166,167,182,228,248
* ,176,203,209,166,174,177,183,229,252,177,207,215,168,180,184
* ,168,207,235,158,191,206,148,172,181,140,185,206,135,162,169
* ,125,138,141,165,210,228,158,183,186,145,154,154,180,228,246
* ,175,199,202,161,168,167,179,230,250,175,202,207,161,173,173
* ,180,232,255,175,206,214,162,178,179,185,237,262,179,212,222
* ,166,186,188,189,238,265,180,214,227,167,190,194,186,219,248
* ,164,196,216,151,177,188,143,192,216,137,169,181,127,147,151
* ,167,219,241,160,191,200,148,165,166,182,237,260,176,208,217
* ,164,181,180,183,239,265,176,210,222,165,185,185,186,242,269
* ,177,214,228,167,189,192,193,246,276,180,220,235,170,194,200
* ,199,248,280,183,222,239,172,197,205,205,238,266,178,207,227
* ,158,183,197,149,199,226,139,174,191,130,154,160,173,228,254
* ,162,199,213,151,174,178,187,245,273,176,215,229,166,189,192
* ,191,249,279,178,219,235,167,193,198,196,254,285,181,223,240
* ,169,196,204,203,259,292,187,228,247,172,202,211,213,264,296
* ,192,231,251,174,205,216,232,263,289,198,221,241,169,193,207
* ,183,213,225,161,177,182,142,149,153,216,239,246,187,196,198
* ,161,163,165,247,264,269,212,216,216,181,178,179,248,270,279
* ,216,224,226,186,187,189,252,280,291,222,235,238,194,198,201
* ,262,294,308,235,250,255,207,213,217,266,302,320,242,260,269
* ,215,224,230,232,278,305,218,249,265,201,221,232,195,230,244
* ,173,191,197,150,161,163,232,260,270,202,214,216,174,178,177
* ,262,288,295,229,236,236,196,196,193,260,293,303,231,243,245
* ,200,203,202,259,300,314,235,252,256,206,213,213,266,311,329
* ,244,265,271,217,226,228,267,316,338,248,273,282,223,235,239
* ,234,286,319,218,255,273,202,226,237,200,246,264,182,205,213
* ,161,173,176,239,281,295,215,232,236,187,194,193,267,310,321
* ,243,256,257,211,213,210,264,314,330,243,262,266,214,220,218
* ,261,320,339,245,270,276,218,228,229,267,328,353,252,281,290
* ,226,240,242,271,332,361,255,288,300,230,248,253,257,303,339
* ,227,265,286,204,233,246,207,262,284,190,219,229,168,184,189
* ,246,301,319,225,250,255,197,208,209,273,331,347,251,275,278
* ,222,230,228,272,335,356,251,280,287,224,236,236,272,340,365
* ,250,288,297,227,244,246,278,347,378,255,297,310,234,255,259
* ,286,350,386,256,303,319,237,262,268,289,328,366,239,280,304
* ,216,244,258,218,279,303,196,231,244,175,196,202,257,322,343
* ,232,265,274,207,223,225,282,351,373,256,291,299,231,245,245
* ,284,357,384,256,297,308,233,252,254,287,363,394,257,305,318
* ,234,259,263,295,370,406,263,313,331,239,269,276,307,376,415
* ,269,319,340,241,275,285,329,369,401,269,300,325,223,257,274
* ,215,245,256,186,201,206,161,169,173,255,275,281,216,223,225
* ,183,185,188,294,307,309,246,247,246,206,204,205,296,316,322
* ,252,257,259,214,214,216,302,328,338,261,272,275,225,228,232
* ,318,348,361,278,291,297,242,247,252,327,360,377,288,306,314
* ,254,262,269,287,333,363,261,295,311,239,260,271,229,265,279
* ,199,218,223,173,181,184,275,302,310,234,245,245,200,201,201
Appendices 519
* ,314,336,341,268,272,269,227,222,219,313,343,352,271,280,280
* ,232,232,230,315,353,366,278,293,295,240,244,244,328,369,387
* ,291,310,315,254,261,263,335,379,401,299,322,330,263,275,278
* ,296,345,379,266,302,321,239,265,276,241,287,304,212,236,242
* ,184,196,198,291,329,341,252,267,269,215,220,218,330,365,374
* ,286,296,295,244,244,239,329,372,385,288,304,306,249,253,249
* ,329,380,398,291,315,319,255,264,262,339,393,417,302,330,338
* ,267,279,280,345,401,429,307,340,351,274,290,294,317,366,405
* ,273,315,337,246,274,287,255,308,329,223,252,262,195,211,214
* ,308,356,372,266,289,293,230,239,237,346,393,407,300,320,321
* ,260,265,260,344,400,419,301,327,332,264,273,271,342,408,432
* ,303,338,345,268,283,283,349,419,450,312,351,363,278,297,300
* ,355,427,463,318,360,376,283,306,313,343,398,439,292,334,359
* ,254,287,302,273,330,356,234,269,281,204,225,230,328,384,404
* ,279,310,317,242,256,257,363,422,442,312,343,347,272,284,282
* ,362,431,456,314,350,359,275,292,293,361,440,470,316,361,372
* ,278,302,305,365,451,487,324,373,389,286,315,321,377,460,501
* ,332,381,402,292,324,333,405,444,483,321,359,385,271,304,321
* ,257,287,298,219,233,239,186,196,201,308,324,330,255,260,263
* ,213,216,219,360,366,366,294,290,290,243,240,240,368,380,383
* ,304,305,307,254,254,256,381,400,407,320,325,329,270,273,276
* ,408,429,439,344,353,358,294,298,303,427,451,465,362,376,383
* ,313,320,325,381,422,451,333,365,382,298,319,330,280,314,326
* ,236,253,258,201,209,212,339,359,364,279,285,285,234,233,233
* ,394,404,404,322,319,315,268,260,256,398,416,420,329,332,330
* ,277,273,271,406,432,441,340,350,351,290,290,289,428,458,472
* ,362,375,378,310,314,315,444,476,494,377,395,301,326,333,336
* ,391,437,471,338,374,392,299,324,336,302,342,358,254,275,281
* ,216,226,228,368,396,403,304,314,312,255,255,252,423,444,446
* ,350,351,345,291,285,278,424,455,462,355,363,361,298,297,292
* ,427,470,482,363,379,380,308,313,310,445,492,511,381,401,406
* ,326,334,334,458,508,532,394,418,427,339,351,353,410,464,504
* ,350,389,412,306,334,347,323,373,392,272,298,306,231,245,247
* ,395,435,444,327,342,343,274,279,275,449,486,491,374,383,379
* ,313,311,303,447,497,509,378,393,394,320,323,317,447,510,529
* ,383,409,413,328,337,335,460,529,556,397,430,438,344,357,358
* ,473,544,577,408,445,458,355,372,376,447,504,549,370,414,440
* ,320,350,366,349,406,427,289,321,331,246,264,267,424,476,488
* ,349,371,374,294,302,299,477,528,539,396,414,413,334,337,330
* ,477,542,559,399,426,430,340,348,345,475,556,580,403,441,449
* ,346,362,362,484,573,607,415,461,474,359,381,384,500,589,630
* ,425,475,494,368,396,403,516,561,606,400,445,474,336,372,390
* ,279,307,319,234,249,256,199,210,215,335,349,354,274,279,282
* ,228,232,235,394,395,394,317,313,312,261,258,259,405,413,415
* ,331,330,331,275,274,276,423,437,443,350,354,357,294,296,299
* ,457,473,482,380,387,391,322,326,330,483,501,513,404,414,420
* ,345,351,356,435,473,500,376,404,420,332,351,0,304,336,348
520 Appendices
* ,254,269,275,215,223,227,370,386,390,301,305,305,250,249,249
* ,434,437,435,350,343,338,288,279,275,440,452,454,359,358,356
* ,299,294,291,453,473,480,374,380,379,315,314,313,483,505,516
* ,401,410,412,340,341,342,506,529,545,420,434,439,360,364,367
* ,449,489,522,380,413,431,334,356,0,330,369,383,274,294,299,232
* ,241,243,405,428,433,328,335,334,271,272,269,470,482,482,380
* ,377,370,315,305,297,473,496,501,387,391,388,324,319,313,479
* ,515,525,399,411,410,337,337,334,504,543,559,422,438,441,358
* ,363,362,523,565,586,440,460,467,375,384,385,466,518,557,394
* ,430,452,340,367,0,357,404,421,295,319,326,248,261,263,437
* ,471,479,356,368,366,296,297,293,501,529,532,409,413,407,339
* ,333,324,501,544,553,415,427,425,347,347,340,504,561,577,424
* ,445,447,357,364,360,523,587,610,444,470,477,377,388,387,542
* ,607,637,459,490,501,392,407,410,504,561,607,413,456,482,354
* ,384,0,388,442,462,316,346,354,265,282,284,474,519,529,393,401
* ,401,317,323,319,537,580,586,437,449,445,363,362,353,537,597
* ,609,442,463,464,370,376,370,537,614,635,447,481,486,379,392
* ,390,550,637,668,463,505,516,397,415,417,570,657,696,477,524
* ,541,411,433,439,576,623,670,446,492,521,375,408,0/
C
DATA INPCHART/0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,1
* ,0,1,0,1,0,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0
* ,0,1,1,0,0,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1
* ,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
* ,0,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1,1,1,1,1
* ,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1/
C
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE INPUT(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,BPL,B,T)
C
COMMON ZN
C
CALL LOGO(0)
WRITE(*,*) ' '
WRITE(*,*) ' LENGTH BETWEEN PERPENDICULARS (L) IN METER = ?'
READ(*,*) BPL
WRITE(*,*) ' BREADTH (B) IN METER = ?'
READ(*,*) B
WRITE(*,*) ' DRAFT (T) IN METER = ?'
READ(*,*) T
WRITE(*,*) ' BLOCK COEFFICIENT (CB) = ?'
READ(*,*) CB
WRITE(*,*) ' SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT (HS) IN METER = ? '
READ(*,*) HS
Appendices 521
WRITE(*,*) 'WAVE PERSISTANCE TIME (STORM DURATION, ZH)',

* ' IN HOURS = ?'
READ(*,*) ZH
WRITE(*,*) ' OPERATING SHIP SPEED (V) DURING THE STORM ',
* ' PERIOD IN KNOTS = ?'
READ(*,*) V
WRITE(*,*) 'FREQUENCY (FR) OF EVERY PEAK WAVE OCCURRENCE',
* ' IN SECONDS = ?'
WRITE(*,*) '(NOTE THAT A PEAK NORMALLY MAY OCCUR ONCE EVERY',
* ' 6-10 SECONDS)'
READ(*,*) FR
FR=SQRT(13.0*HS)
WRITE(*,111) FR
111 FORMAT(5X,'PEAK WAVE PERIOD = SQRT(13*HS) IN SECOND=', F9.3)
C
ZN = ZH*60.*60./FR
WRITE(*,112) ZN
112 FORMAT(5X,'NUMBER OF PEAK WAVES =',G15.3)
C
CALL DATAECHO(HS,CB,V,BPL,B,T,ZH,FR,ZN)
S=HS/BPL
FN=V*0.5144/SQRT(9.80665*BPL/0.980665)
PLBYB=BPL/B
BBYT=B/T
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE DETECTER(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB)
C FN: (0.10 - 0.30)
C S:SIGNIFICCAT WAVE HEIGHT/LBP (0.015 - 0.1)
C CB: (0.55 - 0.90)
C PLBYB: (5.5 - 8.5)
C BBYT: (2 - 4)
C
* FNDOM(5)
C
IF(S.LT.SDOM(1) .OR. S .GT. SDOM(8)) THEN
WRITE(3,4) S
WRITE(*,4) S
4 FORMAT(/,'MESSAGE: SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT/L ',
* /,' AVAILABLE RANGE: 0.015 - 0.1 ',
* /,' RESULT OF CALCULATION: ',E12.5)
ELSE
ENDIF
522 Appendices
C
IF(FN.LT.FNDOM(1) .OR. FN .GT. FNDOM(5)) THEN
WRITE(3,14) FN
WRITE(*,14) FN
14 FORMAT(/,'MESSAGE: FROUDE NUMBER ',
* /,' AVAILABLE RANGE: 0.10 - 0.30 ',
ELSE
ENDIF
C
IF(PLBYB.LT.PLBYBDOM(1) .OR. PLBYB
* .GT. PLBYBDOM(3)) THEN
WRITE(3,24) PLBYB
WRITE(*,24) PLBYB
24 FORMAT(/,'MESSAGE: L/B ',
* /,' AVAILABLE RANGE: 5.5 - 8.5 ',
ELSE
ENDIF
C
IF(BBYT.LT.BBYTDOM(1) .OR. BBYT
* .GT. BBYTDOM(3)) THEN
WRITE(3,34) BBYT
WRITE(*,34) BBYT
34 FORMAT(/,'MESSAGE: B/T ',
* /,' AVAILABLE RANGE: 2.0 - 4.0 ',
ELSE
ENDIF
C
IF(CB.LT.CBDOM(1) .OR. CB .GT. CBDOM(8)) THEN
WRITE(3,44) CB
WRITE(*,44) CB
44 FORMAT(/,'MESSAGE: CB ',
* /,' AVAILABLE RANGE: 0.55 - 0.90 ',
ELSE
ENDIF
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE LOGO(NN)
C
WRITE(NN,100)
100 FORMAT(/,5X,'———————————————————————————————',
* /,5X,' ',
Appendices 523
* /,5X,' <<< USAS-L >>> ',

* /,5X,' ',
* /,5X,' DEVELOPED BY J.K. PAIK ',
* /,5X,' ',
* /,5X,'(1) STILL-WATER MOMENT CALCULATION: ',
* /,5X,' BY THE IACS H-CSR FORMULA ',
* /,5X,'(2) WAVE-INDUCED MOMENT CALCULATION: ',
* /,5X,' -BY THE SHORT-TERM MOTION BASED DIRECT METHOD',
* /,5X,' USING THE MIT SEAKEEPING TABLES ',
* /,5X,' -BY THE IACS H-CSR FORMULA ',
* /,5X,' ',
* /,5X,'(C) J.K. PAIK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. ',
* /,5X,' ',
* /,5X,'——————————————————————————————————')
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE DATAECHO(HS,CB,V,BPL,B,T,ZH,FR,ZN)
C
C
CALL LOGO(3)
WRITE(3,110) BPL, B, T, CB, HS, ZH, V, FR, ZN
110 FORMAT(//,5X,'INPUT DATA ECHO:',
* //,5X,' 1. LENGTH BETWEEN PERPENDICULARS (M) .....',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 2. BREADTH (M) ....... .....',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 3. DRAFT (M) ..............',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 4. BLOCK COEFFICIENT .........',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 5. SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT (M).....',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 6. STORM DURATION (HOUR) .........',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 7. SPEED (KNOT) ..........',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 8. PERIOD OF WAVE PEAK (SECOND) ....',E12.5 ,
* /,5X,' 9. NUMBER OF WAVE OCCURRENCE .........',E12.5)
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE PLANDMI(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,SPL,SMI,FNPL,FNMI,
* PLBYBPL,PLBYBMI,BBYTPL,BBYTMI,CBPL,CBMI)
C
* FNDOM(5)
C
CALL PLUS(S,SDOM,SPL,SMI,8)
CALL PLUS(FN,FNDOM,FNPL,FNMI,5)
CALL PLUS(PLBYB,PLBYBDOM,PLBYBPL,PLBYBMI,3)
CALL PLUS(BBYT,BBYTDOM,BBYTPL,BBYTMI,3)
524 Appendices
CALL PLUS(CB,CBDOM,CBPL,CBMI,8)
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE PLUS(VAR,DOM,VARPLUS,VARMINUS,NUM)
C
DIMENSION DOM(1)
C
DO 2 I=1,NUM
COND=DOM(I)-VAR
IF(COND .GE. 0.) THEN
IF(I .EQ. 1) THEN
VARPLUS=DOM(2)
VARMINUS=DOM(1)
GOTO 32
ELSE
ENDIF
VARPLUS=DOM(I)
VARMINUS=DOM(I-1)
GOTO 32
ELSE
IF(I .EQ. NUM) THEN
VARPLUS=DOM(NUM)
VARMINUS=DOM(NUM-1)
ELSE
ENDIF
ENDIF
2 CONTINUE
32 RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE COEFF(VAR,VARPLUS,VARMINUS,VARCOE)
C
C
C OPEN(991,FILE='VARCOE.DAT')
VARCOE=(VAR-VARMINUS)/(VARPLUS-VARMINUS)
C WRITE(991,*) VARCOE
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE RESPONSE(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,SPL,SMI,FNPL,FNMI,
* SCOE,FNCOE,PLBYBCOE,BBYTCOE,CBCOE,RMS)
C
C INTERPOLATION CHART: 1 FOR PLUS AND 0 FOR MINUS
Appendices 525
C FN: INPCHART(I,1),CHART(I,1)
C S: INPCHART(I,2),CHART(I,2)
C B/T: INPCHART(I,3),CHART(I,3)
C L/B: INPCHART(I,4),CHART(I,4)
C CB: INPCHART(I,5),CHART(I,5)
C
* NUMROW(32)
* FNDOM(5)
C
TOLCHART(1,1)=FNMI
TOLCHART(1,2)=SMI
TOLCHART(1,3)=BBYTMI
TOLCHART(1,4)=PLBYBMI
TOLCHART(1,5)=CBMI
C
TOLCHART(2,1)=FNPL
TOLCHART(2,2)=SPL
TOLCHART(2,3)=BBYTPL
TOLCHART(2,4)=PLBYBPL
TOLCHART(2,5)=CBPL
C
DO 3 I=1,32
DO 33 J=1,5
NUMCHART=INPCHART(I,J)
IF(NUMCHART.EQ.0) THEN
CHART(I,J)=TOLCHART(1,J)
ELSE
CHART(I,J)=TOLCHART(2,J)
ENDIF
C
33 CONTINUE
3 CONTINUE
C
DO 43 I=1,32
DO 53 J=1,72
IF(CASENUM(J,3) .EQ. CHART(I,3) .AND.
* CASENUM(J,2) .EQ. CHART(I,4) .AND.
* CASENUM(J,1) .EQ. CHART(I,5)) THEN
NUMDATA(I)=J
GOTO 63
ELSE
526 Appendices
ENDIF
53 CONTINUE
C
63 DO 73 IK=1,8
IF(CHART(I,2) .EQ. SDOM(IK)) THEN
NUMCOL(I)=IK
GOTO 83
ELSE
ENDIF
73 CONTINUE
C
83 DO 93 IJ=1,5
IF(CHART(I,1) .EQ. FNDOM(IJ)) THEN
NUMROW(I)=IJ
GOTO 43
ELSE
ENDIF
93 CONTINUE
C
43 CONTINUE
C
DO 103 I=1,32
NDATA=NUMDATA(I)
NCOL=NUMCOL(I)
NROW=NUMROW(I)
COLUMN1(I)=DATA(NDATA,NROW,NCOL)
103 CONTINUE
C
DO 113 I=1,16
COLUMN2(I)=COLUMN1(2*I-1)+(COLUMN1(2*I)
* -COLUMN1(2*I-1))*FNCOE
113 CONTINUE
C
DO 123 I=1,8
* -COLUMN2(2*I-1))*SCOE
123 CONTINUE
C
DO 133 I=1,4
* -COLUMN3(2*I-1))*BBYTCOE
133 CONTINUE
C
DO 143 I=1,2
* -COLUMN4(2*I-1))*PLBYBCOE
143 CONTINUE
Appendices 527
C
RMS=COLUMN5(1)+(COLUMN5(2)-COLUMN5(1))*CBCOE
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE WAVEMOM(RMS,BPL)
C
PARAMETER(PI=3.141592654)
COMMON ZN
WAVEMEAN=(SQRT(2.0*LOG(ZN))*RMS+0.5772/SQRT(2.0
* *LOG(ZN))/RMS)
WAVESTD=PI/SQRT(6.)*RMS/SQRT(2.*LOG(ZN))
COV=WAVESTD/WAVEMEAN
C
RMS1=RMS*1024.7*BPL**4*9.80665/1E7/1E9
WAVEMEAN=WAVEMEAN*1024.7*BPL**4*9.80665/1E7/1E9
WAVESTD=WAVESTD*1024.7*BPL**4*9.80665/1E7/1E9
WRITE(3,4) RMS,RMS1,WAVEMEAN,WAVESTD,COV
WRITE(*,4) RMS,RMS1,WAVEMEAN,WAVESTD,COV
4 FORMAT(///,5X,'WAVE-INDUCED MOMENT CALCULATION',
* ' BY THE MIT SEAKEEPING TABLES:',
*//,5X,' 1. NON-DIMENSIONAL RMS = ',E12.5,
* /,5X,' 2. DIMENSIONAL RMS (GNM) . = ',E12.5,
* /,5X,' 3. BENDING MOMENT (MEAN) (GNM) . =',E20.11,
* /,5X,' 4. STANDARD DEVIATION (GNM) =',E20.11,
* /,5X,' 5. COEFFICIENT OF VARIATION = ',E12.5)
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE STILLMOM(BPL,B,T,CB,PMUSS,PMUSH)
C
C
IF(BPL.GE.90. .AND. BPL.LT.300.) C1=10.75
* -((300.-BPL)/100.)**1.5
* -((BPL-350.)/150.)**1.5
PMUWS1=-0.19*C1*BPL**2*B*0.58*(CB+0.7)/CB
PMUWH1=0.19*C1*BPL**2*B*CB
C
FSW=1.0
IF(BPL.LE.90.) C1=0.0792*BPL
* -((300.-BPL)/100.)**1.5
528 Appendices

* -((BPL-350.)/150.)**1.5
PMUSS=FSW*(0.171*C1*BPL**2*B*(CB+0.7)-PMUWH1)/1E6
PMUSH=-0.85*FSW*(0.171*C1*BPL**2*B*(CB+0.7)+PMUWS1)/1E6
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE WAVEM(BPL,B,T,CB,PMUWS,PMUWH)
C
C
* -((300.-BPL)/100.)**1.5
* -((BPL-350.)/150.)**1.5
PMUWS=-0.19*C1*BPL**2*B*0.58*(CB+0.7)/CB/1E6
PMUWH=0.19*C1*BPL**2*B*CB/1E6
RETURN
END
C
SUBROUTINE OUTPUT(S,FN,PLBYB,BBYT,CB,SPL,SMI,FNPL,FNMI,RMS,
* SCOE,FNCOE,PLBYBCOE,BBYTCOE,CBCOE,BPL,B,T)
C
* NUMROW(32)
C
WRITE(3,101)FN,S,BBYT,PLBYB,CB,FNPL,SPL,BBYTPL,PLBYBPL,CBPL,
* FNMI,SMI,BBYTMI,PLBYBMI,CBMI,FNCOE,SCOE,BBYTCOE,
* PLBYBCOE,CBCOE
101 FORMAT(/,5X,'>>> INTERPOLATION CHART OF SEAKEEPING TABLES <<<',
* //,'F =',F5.3,2X,'S =',F5.3,
* 2X,'B/T =',F5.3,2X,'L/B =',F5.3,
* 2X,'CB =',F5.3,
* /,'F+ =',F5.3,2X,'S+ =',F5.3,
* 2X,'B/T+ =',F5.3,2X,'L/B+ =',F5.3,
* 2X,'CB+ =',F5.3,
* /,'F- =',F5.3,2X,'S- =',F5.3,
* 2X,'B/T- =',F5.3,2X,'L/B- =',F5.3,
* 2X,'CB- =',F5.3,
* /,'F COEFF.=',F5.3,2X,'S COEFF.=',F5.3,
* 2X,'B/T COEFF.=',F5.3,2X,'L/B COEFF.=',F5.3,
* 2X,'CB COEFF.=',F5.3)
WRITE(3,102)
Appendices 529
102 FORMAT(//,5X,'COLUMN 1',5X,'COLUMN 2',5X,'COLUMN 3',

* 5X,'COLUMN 4',5X,'COLUMN 5',5X,'COLUMN 6')
WRITE(3,*)
C
WRITE(3,103) COLUMN1(1),COLUMN2(1),COLUMN3(1),COLUMN4(1)
* ,COLUMN5(1),RMS
103 FORMAT(5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3)
WRITE(3,104) COLUMN1(2),COLUMN2(2),COLUMN3(2),COLUMN4(2)
* ,COLUMN5(2)
104 FORMAT(5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3)
DO 80 I=3,4
WRITE(3,105) COLUMN1(I),COLUMN2(I),COLUMN3(I),COLUMN4(I)
105 FORMAT(5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3)
80 CONTINUE
DO 82 I=5,8
WRITE(3,106) COLUMN1(I),COLUMN2(I),COLUMN3(I)
106 FORMAT(5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3)
82 CONTINUE
DO 83 I=9,16
WRITE(3,107) COLUMN1(I),COLUMN2(I)
107 FORMAT(5X,F8.3,5X,F8.3)
83 CONTINUE
DO 84 I=17,32
WRITE(3,108) COLUMN1(I)
108 FORMAT(5X,F8.3)
84 CONTINUE
C
CALL STILLMOM(BPL,B,T,CB,PMUSS,PMUSH)
CALL WAVEM(BPL,B,T,CB,PMUWS,PMUWH)
C
PMUSS1=PMUSS*9.80665/1.0E6
PMUWS1=PMUWS*9.80665/1.0E6
PMUSH1=PMUSH*9.80665/1.0E6
PMUWH1=PMUWH*9.80665/1.0E6
WRITE(3,203)PMUSS1,PMUWS1,PMUSH1,PMUWH1
203 FORMAT(//,5X,'STILLWATER AND WAVE-INDUCED MOMENT CALCULATIONS',
* ' BY THE IACS H-CSR FORMULAE:',
* //,5X,'>> SAGGING CONDITION:',
* /,5X,'STILLWATER BENDING MOMENT (GNM) =',E20.11,
* /,5X,'WAVE-INDUCED BENDING MOMENT (GNM) =',E20.11,
* //,5X,'>> HOGGING CONDITION:',
* /,5X,'STILLWATER BENDING MOMENT (GNM) =',E20.11,
* /,5X,'WAVE-INDUCED BENDING MOMENT (GNM) =',E20.11)
RETURN
END
Appendix 6 Source Listing of the FORTRAN
Computer Program USAS-S
This program calculates the ultimate hull girder bending moments of a ship-shaped
offshore installation using the modified Paik–Mansour method (described in Section
7.4.2) together with Equation (7.24). It is noted that the statements with long charac-
ters in A6.1 should be rearranged to keep the FORTRAN coding rules for a
computer programming.
A6.1 Source Listing
C
*** PROGRAM USAS-S
C
C*** ULTIMATE HULL-GIRDER STRENGTH ANALYSIS
C*** USING THE MODIFIED PAIK-MANSOUR METHOD
C
C DEVELOPED BY PROFESSOR JEOM KEE PAIK FREng
C (C) J.K. PAIK. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
C
DIMENSION NODE(1000),IEL(1000),IHARD(1000)
DIMENSION SYP(1000),SYS(1000),SYEQ(1000)
DIMENSION XXG(1000,2)
DIMENSION BP(1000),TP(1000),HW(1000),TW(1000),BF(1000),TF(1000),
* AS(1000),ZO(1000),ZI(1000), AL(1000)
DIMENSION SIGU(1000),SSTRES(1000),HSTRES(1000)
CHARACTER SHIPNAME*81
C
PAI=4.0*ATAN(1.0)
C
IR=10
IW=11
OPEN(IR,FILE='usas-s.inp')
OPEN(IW,FILE='usas-s.out')
Appendices 531
C
WRITE(IW,901)
WRITE(*,901)
901 FORMAT(//,5X,'<< ULTIMATE HULL-GIRDER STRENGTH ANALYSIS’,
* 'USING THE MODIFIED PAIK-MANSOUR METHOD >>',//)
C
C*** READ INPUT DATA SET
C
WRITE(IW,801)
WRITE(*,801)
801 FORMAT(/,5X,'<<< INPUT DATA ECHO >>>')
C
READ(IR,802) HULLNAME
WRITE(IW,803) HULLNAME
WRITE(*,803) HULLNAME
802 FORMAT(A81)
803 FORMAT(//,5X,'HULL NAME: ',A81)
C
C*** DEPTH = SHIP DEPTH
C WIDTH = SHIP BREADTH
C SYD = EQUIVALENT YIELD STRESS OF DECK
C SYB = EQUIVALENT YIELD STRESS OF BOTTOM
C
READ(IR,*)
READ(IR,*) DEPTH,WIDTH,SYD,SYB
WRITE(IW,902) DEPTH,WIDTH,SYD,SYB
WRITE(*,902) DEPTH,WIDTH,SYD,SYB
902 FORMAT(/,5X,'SHIP DEPTH =',E12.5,
* /,5X,'SHIP WIDTH =',E12.5,
* /,5X,'EQUIVALENT YIELD STRESS AT DECK =',E12.5,
* /,5X,'EQUIVALENT YIELD STRESS AT OUTER BOTOM =',E12.5)
C
C*** NP = TOTAL NUMBER OF NODAL POINTS
C NE = TOTAL NUMBER OF ELEMENTS INCLUDING BOTH BEAMS AND PLATES
C IHALF = 1: FULL SHIP
C 2: HALF SHIP
C
READ(IR,*)
READ(IR,*) NP,NE,IHALF
WRITE(IW,903) NP,NE,IHALF
903 FORMAT(/,5X,'TOTAL NUMBER OF NODAL POINTS =',I5,
* /,5X,'TOTAL NUMBER OF ELEMENTS =',I5,
* /,5X,'OPTION FOR FULL OR HALF SHIP =',I5,
* /,5X,'(IHALF=1: FULL SHIP, IHALF=2: HALF SHIP')
C
C*** XXG(I,1) = Y-COORDINATE (SHIP BREADTH DIRECTION) STARTING FROM CENTERLINE
C XXG(I,2) = Z-COORDINATE (SHIP DEPTH DIRECTION) FROM BASELINE
532 Appendices
C
READ(IR,*)
READ(IR,*) ((XXG(I,J),J=1,2),I=1,NP)
WRITE(IW,904)
904 FORMAT(/,5X,'NODE Y-COORD. Z-COORD.')
WRITE(IW,905) (I,(XXG(I,J),J=1,2),I=1,NP)
905 FORMAT(5X,'(',I5,')',5X,2E12.5)
C
C*** E = MATERIAL YOUNG'S MODULUS
C PO = POISSON'S RATIO
C
READ(IR,*)
READ(IR,*) E,PO
WRITE(IW,906) E,PO
906 FORMAT(/,5X,'ELASTIC MODULUS =',E12.5,
* /,5X,'POISSON RATIO =',E12.5)
C
C*** NODE = NODAL NUMBER OF REFERENCE POINT
C
C*** IEL = 0: PLATE-STIFFENER COMBINATION ELEMENT
C = 1: PLATE ELEMENT
C
C*** IHARD = 0: NORMAL ELEMENT
C = 1: HARD ELEMENT
C
C NODE = NODAL POINT NUMBER
C IEL = ELEMENT TYPE OPTION
C IHARD = HARD CORNER OPTION
C AL = ELEMENT LENGTH
C BP = BREADTH OF ATTACHED PLATING
C TP = THICKNESS OF ATTACHED PLATING
C HW = WEB HEIGHT
C TW == THICKNESS OF WEB
C BF = FLANGE BREADTH
C TF = THICKNESS OF FLANGE
C SYP = YIELD STRESS OF ATTACHED PLATING
C SYS = YIELD STRESS OF STIFFENER
C
READ(IR,*)
WRITE(IW,907)
907 FORMAT(//5X,'NO.,NODE NUMBER, ELEMENT TYPE, HARD CORNER, ',
* 'AL,BP,TP,HW,TW,BF,TF,SYP,SYS',
* /,5X,'(ELEMENT TYPE: '
* 'IEL=0: PLATE-STIFFENER COMBINATION, IEL=1: PLATE)',
* /,5X,'(HARD CORNER OPTION: '
* 'IHARD=0: NORMAL ELEMENT, IHARD=1: HARD ELEMENT)')
Appendices 533
C
DO 100 I=1,NP
READ(IR,*) NODE(I),IEL(I),IHARD(I),AL(I),BP(I),TP(I),
* HW(I),TW(I),BF(I),TF(I),SYP(I),SYS(I)
WRITE(IW,908) I,NODE(I),IEL(I),IHARD(I),AL(I),BP(I),TP(I),
* HW(I),TW(I),BF(I),TF(I),SYP(I),SYS(I)
908 FORMAT(/,5X,'(',I3,')',2X,'(',I5,')',2X,2I3,5X,9E12.5)
C
IF(IEL(I).EQ.0) THEN
C
C*** FOR PLATE-STIFFENER COMBINATION ELEMENT
C
AS(I)=BP(I)*TP(I)+HW(I)*TW(I)+BF(I)*TF(I)
SYEQ(I)=(BP(I)*TP(I)*SYP(I)+SYS(I)*(HW(I)*TW(I)+BF(I)*TF(I)))
* /AS(I)
C
ZO(I)=0.5*BP(I)*TP(I)**2+HW(I)*TW(I)*(TP(I)+0.5*HW(I))
* +BF(I)*TF(I)*(TP(I)+HW(I)+0.5*TF(I))
ZO(I)=ZO(I)/AS(I)
C
ZI(I)=BP(I)*TP(I)**3/12.0+BP(I)*TP(I)*(ZO(I)-0.5*TP(I))**2
* +HW(I)**3*TW(I)/12.0+HW(I)*TW(I)*(ZO(I)-TP(I)-0.5*HW(I))**2
* +BF(I)*TF(I)**3/12.0
* +BF(I)*TF(I)*(TP(I)+HW(I)+0.5*TF(I)-ZO(I))**2
ZI(I)=ZI(I)+AS(I)*ZO(I)**2
C
BETA=BP(I)/TP(I)*SQRT(SYP(I)/E)
RAMD=SQRT(ZI(I)/AS(I))
RAMD=AL(I)/PAI/RAMD*SQRT(SYEQ(I)/E)
C
EULER=PAI**2*E*ZI(I)/AL(I)**2/AS(I)
C
IF(IHARD(I).EQ.1) THEN
SIGU(I)=SYEQ(I)
ELSE
SIGU(I)=SYEQ(I)/SQRT(0.995+0.936*RAMD**2+0.170*BETA**2
* +0.188*RAMD**2*BETA**2-0.067*RAMD**4)
IF(SIGU(I).GE.SYEQ(I)/RAMD**2) SIGU(I)=SYEQ(I)/RAMD**2
IF(SIGU(I).GE.EULER) SIGU(I)=EULER
END IF
C
C*** FOR PLATE ELEMENT
C
ELSE
C
AS(I)=BP(I)*TP(I)
SYEQ(I)=SYP(I)
534 Appendices
C
IF(IHARD(I).EQ.1) THEN
SIGU(I)=SYP(I)
GO TO 99
END IF
C
B1=BP(I)
IF(AL(I).LE.B1) B1=AL(I)
BETA=B1/TP(I)*SQRT(SYP(I)/E)
C
IF(BETA.LE.1.5) THEN
SIGU(I)=-0.032*BETA**4+0.002*BETA**2+1.0
SIGU(I)=SIGU(I)*SYP(I)
END IF
IF(BETA.GT.1.5.AND.BETA.LE.3.0) THEN
SIGU(I)=1.274/BETA
END IF
IF(BETA.GT.3.0) THEN
SIGU(I)=1.248/BETA**2+0.283
ENDIF
C
IF(AL(I).GE.BP(I)) GO TO 99
SIGU(I)=AL(I)/BP(I)*SIGU(I)/SYP(I)+0.475/BETA**2*(1.0
* -AL(I)/BP(I))
99 CONTINUE
IF(SIGU(I).GE.SYP(I)) SIGU(I)=SYP(I)
END IF
C
WRITE(IW,909) SIGU(I)
909 FORMAT(/,10X,'—> ULTIMATE AXIAL COMPRESSIVE STRESS =',E12.5)
100 CONTINUE
C
C*** SAGGING ULTIMATE STRENGTH ***
C
WRITE(IW,920)
WRITE(*,920)
920 FORMAT(//,5X,'********** ULTIMATE SAGGING MOMENT CALCULATIONS '
'**********')
C
DD=DEPTH/2000.0
TS=0.0
499 CONTINUE
TD=0.0
DO 500 I=1,2000
TD=TD+DD
Appendices 535
C
DO 506 K=1,NP
SSTRES(K)=0.0
506 CONTINUE
C
TSSTRES=0.0
JJ=0
DO 501 J=1,NP
SSTRES(J)=0.0
NPP=NODE(J)
IF(XXG(NPP,2).GE.(DEPTH-TD)) THEN
JJ=JJ+1
SSTRES(J)=-ABS(SIGU(J))
TSSTRES=TSSTRES+SSTRES(J)
END IF
501 CONTINUE
C
SCOMP=TSSTRES/FLOAT(JJ)
C
KK=0
TSSTRES=0.0
DO 502 K=1,NP
NPP=NODE(K)
IF(XXG(NPP,2).GE.(DEPTH-TD)) GO TO 502
IF(XXG(NPP,2).LE.TS) THEN
KK=KK+1
SSTRES(K)=SYEQ(K)
TSSTRES=TSSTRES+SSTRES(K)
END IF
502 CONTINUE
STENS=TSSTRES/FLOAT(KK)
C
DO 503 K=1,NP
NPP=NODE(K)
IF(XXG(NPP,2).GE.(DEPTH-TD)) GO TO 503
IF(XXG(NPP,2).LE.TS) GO TO 503
SSTRES(K)=(SCOMP-STENS)/(DEPTH-TD-TS)*(XXG(NPP,2)-DEPTH+TD)+SCOMP
503 CONTINUE
C
FORCE1=0.0
FORCE2=0.0
DO 505 L=1,NP
NPP=NODE(L)
COEFF=1.0
IF(IHALF.EQ.2.AND.ABS(XXG(NPP,1)).NE.0.0) COEFF=2.0
IF(SSTRES(L).LT.0.0) THEN
FORCE1=FORCE1+SSTRES(L)*AS(L)*COEFF
536 Appendices
ELSE
FORCE2=FORCE2+SSTRES(L)*AS(L)*COEFF
END IF
505 CONTINUE
EPS=ABS(FORCE1/FORCE2)
IF(EPS.LE.1.0) EPS=1.0/EPS
IF(EPS.LE.1.001) GO TO 555
500 CONTINUE
TS=TS+DD
IF(TS.GE.DEPTH) THEN
WRITE(IW,*) '*** NO CONVERGENCE ***'
WRITE(IW,*) TS
WRITE(*,*) '*** NO CONVERGENCE ***'
WRITE(*,*) TS
GO TO 588
END IF
GO TO 499
555 CONTINUE
C
GU1=0.0
GU2=0.0
DO 560 I=1,NP
NPP=NODE(I)
GU1=GU1+ABS(SSTRES(I))*AS(I)*XXG(NPP,2)
GU2=GU2+ABS(SSTRES(I))*AS(I)
560 CONTINUE
GU=GU1/GU2
C
WRITE(IW,923)
923 FORMAT(//,5X,'PRESUMED AXIAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT ULS',
* /,5X,'I,NODE,Y-COORD,Z-COORD,STRESS,AREA,COEFF')
C
DO 570 I=1,NP
NPP=NODE(I)
COEFF=1.0
IF(IHALF.EQ.2.AND.ABS(XXG(NPP,1)).GT.0.0) COEFF=2.0
C
WRITE(IW,925) I,NPP,XXG(NPP,1),XXG(NPP,2),SSTRES(I),AS(I),COEFF
925 FORMAT(5X,'(',I3,')',2X,'(',I5,')',3X,2E12.5,5X,F12.3,2X,E12.5,
* 2X,F5.2)
C
ULTSAG=ULTSAG+SSTRES(I)*AS(I)*(XXG(NPP,2)-GU)*COEFF
570 CONTINUE
C
WRITE(IW,921) TD,TS
WRITE(*,921) TD,TS
Appendices 537
921 FORMAT(/,5X,'HEIGHT OF COLLAPSED HULL PART IN SAGGING =',E15.8,

* /,5X,'HEIGHT OF YIELDED HULL PART IN SAGGING =',E15.8)
C
WRITE(IW,922) GU
WRITE(*,922) GU
922 FORMAT(/,5X,'NEUTRAL AXIS POSITION FROM BASELINE AT ULS =',E15.8)
C
WRITE(IW,926) ULTSAG
WRITE(*,926) ULTSAG
926 FORMAT(/,5X,'===> ULTIMATE SAGGING MOMENT =',E15.8)
C
C*** HOGGING ULTIMATE STRENGTH ***
C
588 CONTINUE
WRITE(IW,930)
WRITE(*,930)
930 FORMAT(///,5X,'********** ULTIMATE HOGGING MOMENT CALCULATIONS '
'*********')
C
DD=DEPTH/2000.0
TH=0.0
599 CONTINUE
TD=0.0
DO 600 I=1,2000
TD=TD+DD
C
DO 606 K=1,NP
HSTRES(K)=0.0
606 CONTINUE
C
THSTRES=0.0
JJ=0
DO 601 J=1,NP
HSTRES(J)=0.0
NPP=NODE(J)
IF(XXG(NPP,2).LE.TD) THEN
JJ=JJ+1
HSTRES(J)=-ABS(SIGU(J))
THSTRES=THSTRES+HSTRES(J)
END IF
601 CONTINUE
C
HCOMP=THSTRES/FLOAT(JJ)
C
KK=0
THSTRES=0.0
DO 602 K=1,NP
NPP=NODE(K)
IF(XXG(NPP,2).LE.TD) GO TO 602
538 Appendices
C
IF(XXG(NPP,2).GE.(DEPTH-TH)) THEN
KK=KK+1
HSTRES(K)=SYEQ(K)
THSTRES=THSTRES+HSTRES(K)
END IF
602 CONTINUE
HTENS=THSTRES/FLOAT(KK)
C
DO 603 K=1,NP
NPP=NODE(K)
IF(XXG(NPP,2).GE.(DEPTH-TH)) GO TO 603
IF(XXG(NPP,2).LE.TD) GO TO 603
HSTRES(K)=(HTENS-HCOMP)/(DEPTH-TH-TD)*(XXG(NPP,2)-DEPTH+TH)+HTENS
603 CONTINUE
C
FORCE1=0.0
FORCE2=0.0
DO 605 L=1,NP
NPP=NODE(L)
COEFF=1.0
IF(IHALF.EQ.2.AND.ABS(XXG(NPP,1)).GT.0.0) COEFF=2.0
IF(HSTRES(L).LT.0.0) THEN
FORCE1=FORCE1+HSTRES(L)*AS(L)*COEFF
ELSE
FORCE2=FORCE2+HSTRES(L)*AS(L)*COEFF
END IF
605 CONTINUE
C
EPS=ABS(FORCE1/FORCE2)
IF(EPS.LE.1.0) EPS=1.0/EPS
IF(EPS.LE.1.001) GO TO 655
600 CONTINUE
C
TH=TH+DD
IF(TH.GE.0.5*DEPTH) THEN
WRITE(IW,*) '*** NO CONVERGENCE ***'
WRITE(IW,*) TH
WRITE(*,*) '*** NO CONVERGENCE ***'
WRITE(*,*) TH
GO TO 688
END IF
GO TO 599
655 CONTINUE
C
GU1=0.0
GU2=0.0
Appendices 539
DO 660 I=1,NP
NPP=NODE(I)
GU1=GU1+ABS(HSTRES(I))*AS(I)*XXG(NPP,2)
GU2=GU2+ABS(HSTRES(I))*AS(I)
660 CONTINUE
GU=GU1/GU2
C
WRITE(IW,937)
937 FORMAT(//,5X,'PRESUMED AXIAL STRESS DISTRIBUTION AT ULS',
* /,5X,'I,NODE,Y-COORD,Z-COORD,STRESS,AREA,COEFF')
C
DO 670 I=1,NP
NPP=NODE(I)
COEFF=1.0
IF(IHALF.EQ.2.AND.ABS(XXG(NPP,1)).NE.0.0) COEFF=2.0
C
WRITE(IW,938) I,NPP,XXG(NPP,1),XXG(NPP,2),HSTRES(I),AS(I),COEFF
938 FORMAT(5X,'(',I3,')',2X,'(',I5,')',3X,2E12.5,5X,F12.3,2X,E12.5,
* 2X,F5.2)
C
ULTHOG=ULTHOG+HSTRES(I)*AS(I)*(XXG(NPP,2)-GU)*COEFF
670 CONTINUE
C
WRITE(IW,935) TD,TH
WRITE(*,935) TD,TH
935 FORMAT(/,5X,'HEIGHT OF COLLAPSED HULL PART IN HOGGING =',E15.8,
* /,5X,'HEIGHT OF YIELDED HULL PART IN HOGGING =',E15.8)
C
WRITE(IW,936) GU
WRITE(*,936) GU
936 FORMAT(/,5X,'NEUTRAL AXIS POSITION FROM BASELINE AT ULS =',E15.8)
C
WRITE(IW,939) ULTHOG
WRITE(*,939) ULTHOG
939 FORMAT(/,5X,'===> ULTIMATE HOGGING MOMENT =',E15.8,
* //,5X,'(THE END)',///)
688 CONTINUE
STOP
END
A6.2 Definition of Input Data Variables
Input data are stored in the file “usas-s.inp”, and the results of the computations are
exported to the file “usas-s.out”.
540 Appendices
(1) HULLNAME
The name of the hull is defined with a total of 81 characters at maximum.
(2) DEPTH,WIDTH,SYD,SYB
DEPTH ¼ depth of the hull
WIDTH ¼ breadth of the hull
SYD ¼ equivalent yield stress of deck
SYB ¼ equivalent yield stress of bottom
(3) NP,NE,IHALF
NP ¼ total number of nodes
NE ¼ total number of elements
IHALF ¼ type of hull cross-section (1: full cross-section, 2: half cross-
section)
(4) ((XXG(I,J),J¼1,2),I¼1,NP)
XXG(I,1) ¼ y-coordinate (hull breadth direction) starting from the center line
XXG(I,2) ¼ z-coordinate (hull depth direction) starting from baseline
(5) E,PO
E ¼ elastic modulus
PO ¼ Poisson’s ratio
(6) NODE(I),IEL(I),IHARD(I),AL(I),BP(I),TP(I),HW(I),TW(I),
BF(I),TF(I),SYP(I),SYS(I)
NODE ¼ reference node number
IEL ¼ element type (0: plate-stiffener combination model, 1: plate element)
IHARD ¼ hard element type (0: normal element, 1: hard element)
AL ¼ element length
BP ¼ breadth of attached plating
TP ¼ thickness of attached plating
HW ¼ stiffener web height
TW ¼ stiffener web thickness
BF ¼ flange breadth
TF ¼ flange thickness
SYP ¼ yield stress of attached plating
SYS ¼ yield stress of stiffener
A6.3 Sample Input Data
Sample input data of the “usas-s.inp” file for the ultimate bending moment analysis of
the Dow’s test hull (described in Section 7.4.2) is listed here:
DOW'S FRIGATE TEST HULL

DEPTH,WIDTH,SYD,SYB
2800,2050,245,245
NP,NE,IHALF
48,47,2
Appendices 541
((XXG(I,J),J=1,2),I=1,NP)
0,0
98.4,12.9
249.3,41.9
373.9,67.7
472.3,87.1
574,106.5
675.7,125.8
774.1,145.2
882.3,167.7
984,190.3
1089,216.1
1197.2,241.9
1292.3,277.4
1394,316.1
1492.4,364.5
1587.5,419.4
1685.9,493.5
1741.7,548.4
1807.3,622.6
1863,709.7
1909,793.5
1945,883.9
1974.6,977.4
1994.2,1077.4
2010.6,1174.2
2023.8,1274.2
2033.6,1367.7
2040.2,1471
2050,1671
2050,1867.7
2050,2064.5
2050,2264.5
2050,2464.5
2050,2658.1
2050,2800
1948.3,2800
1824.3,2800
1621.6,2800
1418.9,2800
1216.2,2800
1013.5,2800
810.8,2800
608.1,2800
405.4,2800
202.7,2800
0,2800
542 Appendices
1904,2064.5
1758,2064.5
E,PO
205800,0.3
(NODE(I),ILE(I),IHARD(I),AL(I),BP(I),TP(I),HW(I),TW(I),BF(I),TF
(I),SYP(I),SYS(I),I=1,NP)
1,0,0,457.2,99.242,3,228.6,3,152.4,5,245,245
2,0,0,457.2,126.45,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
3,0,0,457.2,140.45,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
4,0,0,457.2,113.77,3,162,2,51,2,245,245
5,0,0,457.2,101.91,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
6,0,0,457.2,103.52,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
7,0,0,457.2,101.9,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
8,0,0,457.2,105.4,3,117.5,2,51,2,245,245
9,0,0,457.2,107.35,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
10,0,0,457.2,106.15,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
11,0,0,457.2,109.68,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
12,0,0,457.2,106.37,3,111,2,51,2,245,245
13,0,0,457.2,105.16,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
14,0,0,457.2,109.24,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
15,0,0,457.2,109.73,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
16,0,0,457.2,116.49,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
17,0,0,457.2,100.73,3,114,5,44.5,9.5,245,245
18,0,0,457.2,88.66,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
19,0,0,457.2,101.21,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
20,0,0,457.2,99.491,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
21,0,0,457.2,96.45,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
22,0,0,457.2,97.689,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
23,0,0,457.2,99.988,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
24,0,0,457.2,100.04,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
25,0,0,457.2,99.523,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
26,0,0,457.2,97.44,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
27,0,0,457.2,98.761,3,114,5,44.5,9.5,245,245
28,0,0,457.2,151.88,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
29,0,0,457.2,198.47,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
30,0,0,457.2,196.75,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
31,0,0,457.2,198.4,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
32,0,0,457.2,200,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
33,0,0,457.2,196.8,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
34,0,0,457.2,167.75,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
35,1,0,457.2,50.85,3,0,0,0,0,245,245
36,0,0,457.2,112.85,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
37,0,0,457.2,163.35,3,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
38,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
39,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
40,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
41,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
Appendices 543
42,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
43,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
44,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
45,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
46,0,0,457.2,202.7,2,38.1,1.78,14,3.3,245,245
47,0,0,457.2,146,6,60,6,0,0,245,245
48,0,0,457.2,73,6,120,10,0,0,245,245
Index
Accidental flooding, 264–265, 470 Corrosion depth, 414–416, 419, 430, 473
Accidental limit state, 25, 53, 162, 262, 380, 470 Corrosion management, 49, 401, 433, 437
Aged structure, 211, 255, 447 Corrosion margin, 16, 101, 256, 401, 433, 445, 458
Aircraft impact, 347–349 Corrosion wastage, 14–15, 26, 62, 162, 217,
ALPS/HULL, 39–40, 46, 216, 237–241, 256 255–256, 400–403, 406, 408, 411–414, 417,
ALPS/SPINE, 226, 233 440, 445, 447, 449–450, 456, 458, 465, 473,
ALPS/ULSAP, 216, 220, 223, 228 485
Annual surveys (AS), 457 Cost-benefit analysis, 24
ANSYS AQWA, 393 Coulomb–Mohr fracture criterion, 244
Average zero-up-crossing wave period, 89–90, Cowper-Symonds equation, 173, 256
114–126, 153–154, 509 Crack growth model, 211
Cracked plate, 465
Ballasting material, 327, 347, 349, 353, 363, 371 Cracking damage, 183, 211, 215, 307, 450, 456,
Boeing 777 aeroplane, 350–352, 354, 357, 367–372 474–475
Brittle, 49 Crashworthiness, 59, 62, 263, 266–268, 270,
Brittle behaviour, 278 274–275, 277, 279, 335, 347, 349–357, 360,
Brittle fracture, 49–50, 57, 215, 247–254, 259 367, 396
Brittle material, 49, 244–245, 354 Crevice action, 402
Buckling coefficient, 69–70, 171 Cryogenic condition, 4, 49, 244, 248, 307, 374, 448
Buckling strength, 68–70, 170 Cumulative probability, 147, 510–511
Current direction, 90, 99, 113, 309–310, 312, 391
Cathodic protection, 17, 193–194, 206, 402, 433, Current speed, 24, 90, 99, 113, 309–310, 312
435, 439–440 Cyclic loading, 183, 254–255
Charpy V-notch, 50–51
Chemical inhibitor, 433 Damage detection, 452
Close-up visual inspection, 15, 445, 456 Decommissioned ship, 5–6
Coating life, 256, 415, 438–439, 452 Decommissioning, xv–xvi, 5, 81, 215, 297, 376,
Coating material, 437 445–447, 477–481, 483–485
Coefficient of variation (COV), 413 Deep-sea mining, 7
Cold temperature, 55–56 Dented plate, 466–469
Collision, 265–279 Denting, 15–16, 162, 217, 220, 255, 265, 273,
Comparative approach, 19 279–280, 374, 391, 447–448, 452, 456, 465,
Computational fluid dynamics (CFD), 86, 172, 251, 473, 475, 485
281, 309, 379, 393 Deoxygenation, 433, 440–441
Consequence, 162, 172, 184, 187, 195, 262–263, Detailed engineering, 20, 22
375–380, 390, 393, 395, 452–456, 461, 488, Digital twin, 377, 484–485
496 Direct approach, 19, 307
Construction, xv–xvi, 6, 10–15, 20–24, 27–28, 30, Disconnectable mooring system, 112, 297, 301
49, 62–63, 67, 72, 74, 78, 100, 104, 183–184, Double bottom and double side arrangement, 7, 14,
189, 199, 376, 433–434, 445, 461, 472, 477, 28, 30–33, 45
483 Dropped-object impact, 26, 244, 279
Convection, 251–252, 378 Dry-docking, 11, 25, 102, 190, 401, 435, 464,
Conversion, 5, 10–19, 21, 23, 29–30 470–472
Corrosion assessment, 400–401, 409 Ductile, 49, 57
Index 545
Ductile behaviour, 249, 278 Galvanic action, 402, 407

Ductile fracture, 49, 244 Gas metal arc welding (GMAW), 63
Ductile material, 49, 183, 244 General corrosion, 16, 404–407, 421, 474
Ductile model, 277 Geometric stress, 188–189
Ductile regime, 248 Grade A, 39, 45, 49, 174
Ductile-to-brittle fracture, 49, 244, 248 Grade D, 49
Dynamic effect, 167, 201, 334 Grade E, 49
Dynamic fracture strain, 59–62, 270, 335, 357, 367 Grade F, 49
Dynamic ultimate strength, 255 Green water, 9, 18, 24, 26, 83, 104, 106–108, 162,
Dynamic yield stress, 59, 62, 173–174, 270, 357 172, 177–178, 201, 300, 374
Grooving, 15–16, 400, 403, 406–407, 421, 435
Earthquake, 27, 81, 102–103, 327–329, 331–333, Gross scantling, 42, 45, 256
339, 345, 374
Effective breadth, 165, 232 Hazard identification, 376, 379, 461
Effective length, 221–222 H-CSR (harmonized common structural rules),
Effective shear modulus, 222 39–45, 149, 160, 256, 514
Effective width, 165, 220–222 Heading control, 18, 29, 107, 163, 177–178, 288
Elastic deflection limit, 162 Health condition, 401, 445–447, 458, 463, 473, 485
Elastically rotation-restrained, 69 Health condition assessment, 417, 464–465, 470,
Elastic–perfectly plastic material model, 54, 247 475, 485
Electrochemical action, 402 Health condition monitoring, 256, 452–453, 456,
Elevated temperature, 54–55, 249, 251, 253, 374, 481, 485
380, 389 Healthcare, 445–447, 485
Emergency response services (ERSs), 470 Heat flux, 251–252
Energy absorption, 6, 268, 273, 277, 280, 371, 395 Heat transfer, 251–253, 281, 378–380, 386
Engineering stress-engineering strain, 335 Heeling moment, 175–176, 264
Enhanced survey programme, 438, 457 Helicopter crash, 26, 380, 384–387
Equivalent ratio, 390 Helicopter deck, 380–381, 386–389
Erosion action, 402 High-cycle fatigue, 196, 211
Event scenario, 144, 377 Hindcast data, 95
Exceedance diagram, 144–147, 149, 197, 377–378, Hot-spot stress, 188–204
380, 386–387, 395 Humidity, 26, 81, 100–101, 407–408, 411, 438, 452
Excessive motion, 178 Hydrodynamic added mass, 394
Explosion, 10, 22, 26–27, 74, 215, 262, 280, Hydrodynamic analysis, 93, 104–105, 178
282–285, 331–332, 345, 374, 447, 470–471, Hydrodynamic effect, 314
481–482 Hydrodynamic load, 197–198, 200–201, 216, 483, 485
Explosion risk, 389, 391 Hydrodynamic resistance, 279
FAHTS, 252–253, 281 Icing, 101

Fatigue action, 185–186, 196, 210, 374 IFORM (inverse first-order reliability method),
Fatigue cracking, 14–15, 26, 37, 75, 105, 172, 153–154
183–184, 186, 211, 220, 255, 438, 447, 452, Impact loading, 49–50, 57–59, 62, 173, 183, 448
456–457, 465, 473, 475–476, 485 Impact pressure action, 104–105, 162, 172–173
Fatigue damage, 14, 181, 184–185, 192–193, Impressed current corrosion-protection (ICCP),
195–197, 201–202, 205–211, 255 400, 402, 407, 410, 435, 440
Fatigue limit state (FLS), 25, 162, 183–186, Incremental Galerkin method (IGM), 226, 233
190–192, 194–202, 210 Initial deflection, 39, 67–68, 224–225, 229–230,
Filling level, 199, 202 232, 238, 241, 419, 424
Fire hazard, 378, 381, 472 Initial planning, 21
Fire risk, 378, 380 In-service damage, 15–16, 220, 445–449, 460, 465,
Fire safety, 249–251, 378, 380, 389 476, 485
Flux-cored arc welding (FCAW), 62 Intact stability, 175–176
Fracture criterion, 244 Intelligent supersize finite element method
Fracture strain, 50, 55–57, 59, 248, 253, 268, (ISFEM), 39, 46, 237–238
357 Intergranular action, 402
Front-end engineering and design (FEED), 20 Intermediate survey (IS), 457
Fuselage model, 350, 367 Irregular wave, 89–91, 96, 314, 394
546 Index
Johnson–Cook constitutive equation, 278 Pierson–Moskowitz spectrum, 96–97, 205, 394

Johnson–Holmquist damage model, 245–247 Pitting corrosion, 403, 406, 421, 450, 474
Johnson–Ostenfeld formulation, 222, 230 Plasticity correction, 222, 230
JONSWAP spectrum, 96–98 Plate-stiffener combination model, 164–168,
228–231, 237–238
KFX, 251–253, 281 Plate-stiffener separation model, 164
Kinetic energy, 263, 266, 268–269, 273, 277, 279, Post-buckling regime, 219
347–350, 357, 362, 365–372, 394 Post-ultimate strength regime, 224–225
Pre-assembled unit (PAU), 18–19, 72, 74
Limit state design and engineering, 26 Probability of detection (POD), 452, 456
LNG power plant, 6 Process facility, 23, 25
Longitudinal strength, 18 Progressive collapse, 215, 237–241, 244, 249–251,
Long-term wave statistics, 96 380
Loukakis–Chryssostomidis seakeeping table, Project management, 11, 22, 27–28
158–160
Low-cycle fatigue, 9, 105, 172, 196–197, 206, 307 Qualitative approach, 375–376
LS-DYNA, 59, 252–253, 269–270, 275, 281, 284, Quantitative approach, 375–376
334, 336–337, 353–354, 357–360, 371, 395 Quantitative risk assessment and management, 26,
266, 376–377, 391, 481
MAESTRO, 130, 149, 216, 220, 226, 228, 233, 237 Quasi-static action, 105, 162, 172
Maintenance, xvi, 11, 14, 17, 35–36, 72–73, 104,
163, 183–184, 187, 265, 289–292, 295, 297, Radiation, 251–253, 280, 378
407, 411–412, 433, 435, 438, 440, 447, 453, Regular wave, 88–89, 96, 198, 201, 204
458, 461, 470, 473, 485 Remedial action, 438, 453, 464, 470–471, 476, 481,
Marine growth, 24, 81, 102, 434, 456 485
MCOL, 269 Renewal criteria for the general corrosion, 16
Mean zero-crossing wave period, 94 Residual strength, 14, 255, 401, 404, 417–421, 423,
Mechanical damage, 445–452, 475 437, 447, 465, 475, 485
Metocean data, 86, 112, 114, 128, 154, 328, 381, Residual stress, 39, 63–66, 68, 70, 183, 191, 229,
392 238–241, 254–256, 448
Microbial action, 402, 406, 412 Return period, xvi, 8–9, 18, 24, 83–85, 88–93, 95,
Modified static-fracture strain, 61–62 101, 154, 263, 510–513
Righting moment, 175–176, 264
Nautical zone, 114 Risk mitigation, 101, 262, 264, 350, 375, 391
Net plate thickness, 16 Risk-based inspection (RBI), 453, 460
Net scantling, 42, 45 Rotational restraint, 69–71, 166–167, 173, 216
New build, 10, 17, 20–21, 23, 30, 73, 78
Noise, 37, 163, 179–181 Sandwich plate system (SPS), 472
Nominal stress, 183, 188–189, 191, 194, 202 Sea surface temperature, 24, 81, 100–101
Non-destructive examination (NDE), 15, 448, 456 Seakeeping analysis, 197–201
Notch stress, 188–189 Seakeeping table, 158–160
Nuclear power plant, 6–7, 46, 102, 327, 347–350, Serviceability limit state (SLS), 25, 162, 289, 470
353–355, 357–358, 371 Shakedown, 254–255
Shear lag effect, 192
Ocean environmental condition, 81, 111, 216, 310, Shielded metal arc welding (SMAW), 62
327, 447 Short-term sea state, 156, 205, 210
Offshore supply vessel, 392 Shuttle tanker, 1, 4–33, 36, 38, 265–266, 268–270,
Offshore support vessel, 265, 481 391, 395–397, 460
Oil terminal, xv, 4, 327 Side-by-side collision, 270–273, 391, 395
Sideways initial deflection, 68
Paik–Mansour method, 234 Significant wave height, 24, 86, 89–91, 94–96,
Paik–Thayamballi empirical formulation, 229 114–128, 130, 144, 153–156, 159–160, 299,
Permanent set limit, 162 309, 391
Permanent-set plate deflection, 172–174, 306 Single-point mooring, 1, 9, 29, 97, 197, 200,
Persistence time, 88, 90, 105, 159–160, 331–334, 289–290
339, 343, 465 Site-specific metocean data, 112, 128, 154, 310,
Phase angle, 130 328, 332, 381, 392
Index 547
Site-specific wave data, 114 Topside module, 11, 29–30, 71–77, 103, 201,
Slamming, 9, 24–25, 30, 83, 106–107, 162, 172, 282–285
177–179, 190, 198, 201, 374 Topside support, 76, 186
Sloshing, 9, 19, 27, 83 Torsion constant, 70
Sloshing bulkhead, 105 Torsional rigidity, 69
Sloshing damage, 104 Tow condition, 23, 156
Sloshing impact, 25, 105–106, 303–310, 318–321, Trading ship, 8, 39, 68, 81, 83, 105, 111, 113, 144,
324–325 149, 156, 158, 160, 174, 179, 310, 433, 435,
Sloshing load, 190, 202, 303, 307–310, 318–321 439, 452–453
Sloshing mitigation option, 303 Trading tanker, 7–21, 23, 25, 29–30, 35–36, 42,
Sloshing peak pressure, 310 45–46, 72–73, 104, 106–107, 178, 185–188,
Sloshing period, 104, 303 196–197, 264, 400, 407–409, 414, 456–458,
Sloshing resonance, 105 470–473
Sloshing response, 310, 321–324 True stress-true strain relation, 53–54, 268, 335, 356
Sloshing scenario, 309–312, 316, 318, 321 Tsunami, 81, 103–104, 329, 344, 374
Sloshing simulation, 317–318 Turret mooring, 18, 126–130, 147–149, 176, 256,
S–N curve, 188–189, 191–195, 197–198, 289, 293–297, 483
205–211
Snow, 24, 81, 95, 101 Ultimate limit state (ULS), 25, 53, 111, 162, 183,
Special periodical survey (SPS), 457 196, 215, 234–237, 244, 306, 327, 417, 422,
Spread mooring, 9, 18, 128–130, 147–149, 176, 430, 470, 475
178, 200, 288–289, 295–296, 483 Ultimate strength, 53, 68, 103, 170, 216, 218–225,
Springing, 179, 198, 201, 374 228–231, 234, 237, 249, 255–258, 268, 280,
Squall, 81 300, 306, 356, 401, 417–421, 429, 465–469,
Stochastic analysis, 197 473–477
Strain rate, 54, 57–59, 62, 173–174, 244–245, 248, Ultrasonic inspection technique, 403, 456
255–259, 268, 277–278, 335, 357–359 Ultrasonic sensor, 449
Stress amplitude, 191 Ultrasonic surface-guided wave, 450
Stress range, 26, 185, 188, 190–197, 201, 205, Ultrasonic testing, 450
207–211, 474 Ultrasonic thickness measurement, 15, 458
Stress-range transfer function, 201–202 Uniform corrosion, 256, 404–406, 421, 462
Structural collapse, 72, 215, 247, 255, 280–282, USAS-L, 160, 465
327, 380 USAS-S, 237–241
Structural congestion, 282 USFOS, 253, 281
Structural details, 183, 186, 188, 190, 193–194,
196, 198, 202–207, 408, 450, 452 Vibration, 37, 85, 105, 163, 178–181, 198, 296, 482
Sub-zero temperature, 49, 100–101, 248, 268, 412, Visual examination, 445, 448
448 Volumetric degree of pitting intensity (VDOP),
Supply ship (vessel), 26, 30, 81, 102, 265–266, 406
268–269, 273–276, 391–397 Vortex-induced vibration, 85, 163, 181, 482
Support column, 29, 72, 74, 77–78 VUCA (volatile, uncertain, complex and
Support stool, 26, 72–73 ambiguous) environments, 374–376
Surface degree of pitting intensity (SDOP), 406,
432 Wave energy, 5, 98, 200
Surface preparation, 400, 435–436, 438 Wave energy spectrum, 93, 96
Survival condition, 84, 153–154 Wave heading angle, 90, 114, 130, 144
Swell, 5, 81, 95–99, 107, 177, 197–200, 205 Wave height, 24, 83–84, 86, 88–91, 94–96,
113–128, 130, 144, 153–156, 159–160,
Terrorist attack, 27, 265, 347–349, 374 197–198, 299, 309–310, 391
Thermal buckling, 66, 71 Wave period, 5, 24, 86, 88–95, 113–126, 144,
Thermal conductivity, 252 153–154, 198, 200–201, 309–310, 391
Thermal elongation, 252 Wave scenario, 128–144, 147
Thermal property, 250, 252 Wave spectrum, 96, 98, 205
Thermal radiation, 280 Wave steepness, 89–91
Thermal response, 251 Wave-induced load, 111, 130
Tide, 81, 99–100, 392 Weathervaning, 18, 29, 76, 95, 97, 106, 126, 128,
Topside flooring, 71, 74 163, 176–178, 197, 200, 290–295
548 Index
Weld connection, 191, 194, 205 Wind load, 86, 175–176, 190
Weld leg length, 63 Wind rose, 88
Weld metal corrosion, 403, 407 Wind speed, 85–88, 90, 99, 112, 176, 282, 299,
Weld toe, 188–190, 194, 202–205 309–310, 312, 379, 381, 391, 394
Welding-induced initial imperfection, 39, 46,
65–66, 68, 220 Yield stress, 50, 59, 62, 66–67, 173, 219, 221–222,
Wind direction, 86–88, 90, 112, 120–128, 144, 177, 229–230, 234–236, 238, 248–249, 253, 256,
282, 309–310, 312, 379, 381, 391 268, 419

Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 2022

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 2022

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations

Jeom Kee Paik is Professor of Marine Technology in the Department of Mechanical

1. O. Faltinsen: Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures

JEOM KEE P AIK

Cambridge University Press is part of the University of Cambridge.

This publication is in copyright. Subject to statutory exception

Preface to the Second Edition page xv

1 Introduction to Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 1

1.6 Characteristics of As-Built Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 28

2 Structural Steel Selection and Construction 49

3 Ocean Environmental Conditions 81

4 Site-Speciﬁc Wave-Induced Hull Girder Loads 111

5 Serviceability Limit States 162

5.7 Stability of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations 174

6 Fatigue Limit States 183

7 Ultimate Limit States 215

7.3.2.2 The Johnson–Ostenfeld Formulation 230

8 Accidental Limit States 262

8.5 Dropped-Object Impacts 279

9 Mooring System Engineering 288

10 Sloshing Impact Engineering 303

11 Seismic Impact Engineering 327

11.5.5 Modelling of the Seismic Load Application 339

12 Aircraft Impact Engineering 347

13 Quantitative Risk Assessment and Management 374

13.7.1 Explosion Hazard Identiﬁcation and Scenario Selection 389

14 Life-Cycle Corrosion Assessment and Management 400

15 Lifetime Healthcare and Safe Decommissioning 445

15.10.3 Mooring System Removal 483

Appendix 1 Glossary of Maritime Engineering Terms 488

conditions. In addition, unlike trading tankers, ship-shaped offshore installations

1.1 Types of Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations

1.1.1 Offshore Oil and Gas Development

Exploration Drilling Production Processing

Transportation Offloading Storage (Gas Liquefaction)

southeastern coast of Asia

benign environmental areas, such as southeastern coast of Asia, western coast of

effects of hurricanes on the station-keeping capabilities and structural failures of the

1.1.2 Liqueﬁed Gas Storage and Regasiﬁcation

1.1.3 Oil Terminals

Production Processing Liquefaction Transportation

Distribution and Transportation to Consumers Regasification

Figure 1.5 Value chain of liqueﬁed natural gas

1.1.4 Wave Energy Harvesting

power take-off pump

mooring line mooring line anchor

Figure 1.7 Wave energy extraction using a decommissioned ship

‘tuned’ to have a large wave-motion response, particularly in heave and pitch. In

1.1.5 Liqueﬁed Natural Gas–Fuelled Power Plants

1.1.6 Nuclear Power Plants

Figure 1.8 A ship-shaped nuclear power plant (courtesy of ThorCon Power)

1.1.7 Deep-Sea Mineral Mining

1.2 Trading Tankers versus Ship-Shaped Offshore Installations

Parameter Trading tanker Ship-shaped offshore installation

Hull block 0.8–0.9 Approx. 1.0 (new build)

also considered as important parameters in the engineering of ship-shaped offshore

Trading tankers are regularly dry-docked at ﬁve-year intervals. Ideally, ship-shaped

1.3 New Builds versus Tanker Conversions

ﬁeld-appropriate design and fatigue lives are more easily achieved;

capital costs are reduced;

Type Operating Available On order Total

Conversion 110 17 8 135

1.4 Tanker Conversions

1.4.1 Selection of a Suitable Tanker for Conversion