Marine Structures 9 (1996) 745-158 © 1996 Elsevier Science Limited Printed in Great Britain, All rights reserved (0951-8339,96/515.00 ELSEVIER 0951-8339(95)00023-2 Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Calculation of Hydrodynamic Loads on Offshore Truss Structures Ove T. Gudmestad* & Geir Moe? “Statoil A/S, Forus, N-4035, Stavanger, Norway *NTH, Trondheim, Norway (Received 14 December 1994; accepted 24 June 1995) ABSTRACT The current American Petroleum Institute's recipe [API RP 2A WSD, Recom- mended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore plat- forms, working stress design. API, USA, 1993.] for calculation of hydrodynamic loads on offshore truss structures is compared with the corresponding North Sea Design Practice, as given by the rules of Det Norske Veritas. Most emphasis is put on the hydrodynamic coefficients and the estimation of design current as these issues are identified to be particularly critical. Use of the updated API (1993) recommendations in which the drag coefficient for roughened cylinders is increased from a minimum of 0-6 (API 1991) to 105 (API 1993) and where current is included, could lead to a general increase in the estimated load level on slender offshore structures [ Petrauskas, C., Heideman, J.C. & Berek, E.P., Extreme wave force calculation procedure for the 20th edition of API RP 2A. OTC paper 7153, In Proc. OTC 1993, Houston, Texas, 1993, pp. 201-211]. The main emphasis with regard to the impact of the new API recommendations, however, is that a consistent approach is provided to the calculation of 100-yr directional loads. This includes taking into account the effect of marine growth on force coefficients, modifying the wave kinematics for directional spreading, and considering current blockage effects, conductor shielding effects, and joint occur- rence of wave height and current (i.e., using the associated current as being repre- sentative of the current that would lead to the 100-yr load). It is concluded that a consistent approach, such as that underlying the new API RP 2A (1993) recipe, is preferable to the current North Sea Design Practice [ Det Norske Veritas, Environmental conditions and environmental loads. DNV classi- fication notes 30.5, 1991.] in this field, and thus that the North Sea Design Practice ‘should be updated. This relates in particular to selection of hydrodynamic coeffi- 745746 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe cients. Measurement programmes to obtain full scale global force data simulta- neously with wave and current data are furthermore recommended. © 1996 Elsevier Science Limited. Key words: wave forces, hydrodynamic coefficients, offshore truss structures, API Recommended practice. 1 INTRODUCTION The International Organisation for Standardisation (ISO) is developing a new world-wide code for offshore structures, supported by USA (API), UK (Health and Safety Executive, HSE), Norway (Norwegian Petroleum Direc- torate, NPD) as well as other countries.'® Part 1 (General principles) of this code has already been completed. Currently extensive work on steel jacket structures is underway. In connection with this effort, it is necessary to select the load recipe to use for the calculation of environmental loads. The state-of-the-art for estimating hydrodynamic loads on truss structures (jackets), assuming quasi-static behaviour, is to use a regular design wave and Morison’s equation,'° involving the following features: —wave height and corresponding period, and a current velocity; —wave particle kinematics and current velocity profile; — values of hydrodynamic coefficients. Since the first API RP 2A appeared in 1969, and the first NPD Regulations and DNV Rules were issued a few years later, design guidelines have undergone changes. However, the state-of-the-art, sea load calculation recipe for jacket structures has remained practically the same over the last 10-15 years. The API approach introduced in 1977! and the so-called standard North Sea Practice for jackets® were relatively close until API introduced its 20th ed.,? with substantial changes in the recommended design practice. In view of this, it is seen prudent to summarise the API changes, to discuss the background for these changes, and to point to the need for harmonisation of the API RP 2A recommendations and North Sea Design Practice, see Table 1. 2 THE API CHOICE OF HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS The present API procedure for the calculation of hydrodynamic loads on slender offshore structures is described in API RP 2A.**!? The main differences between the present and the previous API procedures” are given in Table 2.'7 It should be noted that the previous versions of API RP 2A” refer to DNV° for determination of hydrodynamic coefficients for non- circular cross-sections and for vertical forces on conductor guide framesCatculation of hydrodynamic loads 747 TABLE 1 Parameters for Calculation of Deterministic Hydrodynamic Loading tiem API (1993) North Sea Design Practice” Wave kinematics Wave kinematics factor Shielding factor Current velocity Hydrodyn. coefficients Wave height Stokes/Stream function As API Include, if directional Normally not included spreading To be calculated To be calculated 100 year wave + current 100 year wave in comb load with 10 year current High drag coeff. value Low drag coeff. value Lower inertia coeff. value Higher inertia coeff. value About 1 m lower than for previous API recommendations” TABLE 2 20th vs 19th Edition of APIRP2A Wave Force Procedures” >-* and Gulf of Mexico Meto- cean Criteria!” Consideration 19th ed? 20th ed3* Wave force procedure Current Current blockage factor Wave period Wave kinematics factor Force coefficients Conductor shielding factor Marine growth Gulf of Mexico metocean criteria Not included Not applicable Unmodified Not applied Ce = 06-12 13-20 Not applied (Factor = 1-0) Mentioned Omnidirectional wave Included Factor of 0-7-1.0 applied to current. Value depends on number of legs and wave direction Doppler effect used Factor is 0-88 for hurricanes and 0.95-1.0 for extratropical storms For drag dominated forces Cx (smooth) = 0-65 Ca (rough) = 1-05 Cu (smooth) Function of spacing/diameter ratio Value of 1-3in used to 150ft depth for Gulf of Mexico Directional with current, function of longitude and water depth748 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe (Sections 2.3-16.2 and 4, respectively). For global horizontal forces it was required that a platform in the Gulf of Mexico or other US waters was designed for a certain minimum force level, the reference force level (Section 2.3.4g”). This force level was to be achieved by using the reference level wave height, Morison equation with Cy = 0-6 and Cn = 1-5 (for 6ft outer diame- ter, and larger C,, for larger outer diameter), zero storm current, and appropriate wave theory. Consequently, if one believed that a lower wave height was appropriate, then it was still required that the same force level be achieved by increasing C,, using a storm current, etc. The updated API Recommended Practice is based on a consistent treat- ment of all variables involved in calculating hydrodynamic load. For a review of selection of wave kinematics models, see Ref. 9. A considerable increase in hydrodynamic loads results from the use of updated hydro- dynamic coefficients and inclusion of current, especially if load reducing factors, such as shielding, blockage, etc.'” are not considered. It should be noted that API*\* now assumes that the wave and current loading are based on a joint probability assessment aiming at obtaining the 10~* per year environmental loading.’ Since real ocean waves are directional and irre- gular, the selection of the regular wave to use in such analyses may still, however, be a matter of some controversy. Quantification of load differences found by utilizing the 1993 vs the 1991 edition of API RP 2A (i.c., 20th vs. 19th) has been discussed by the API Task Group on Wave Force Commentary.'® Whether or not the new API recom- mendations lead to higher or lower forces depends on previous practice and the wave direction. Impact on steel weight for Gulf of Mexico jackets depends on the amount of optimization one might perform with respect to directional criteria. Also, for every one % increase in force, the increase in steel weight is about 0-25-0-20%. For the Gulf of Mexico, the Task Group*** also came up with revised wave heights which were on the order of 1 m lower (for depths > 150 ft) than those determined in accordance with the 19th ed.” The net effect on forces was a significant increase in the principal wave direction in deep water, but in some cases broadside forces were lower than found from the 19th ed. For shallow water, the effect is dependent on struc- ture location because the current is spatially variable. For the North Sea, sensitivity studies indicate that the 100-yr force can be significantly lower depending on the choice of wave kinematics factor and associated current than that determined using current UK practice utilizing the 50-yr wave height and 50-yr current criteria.'® For static regular wave analysis, global platform wave forces can, accord- ing to API,** be calculated by the Morison’s formula with particle kine- matics taken from a so-called design wave, in combination with prescribed force coefficients. The design wave is usually determined in two steps. In theCalculation of hydrodynamic loads 749 first step (called long term statistics) the highest significant wave height and its associated period are predicted from field data, usually based on averages of 20 min periods, registered at 3 hour intervals. The use of individual storms may be a better strategy, however, since these may be assumed to be statis- tically independent events.'*?! In the second step (short term statistics), the expected amplitude a, of the highest wave for such an extreme seastate is estimated, assuming linearity, so that the higher peaks will be Rayleigh distributed. For predictions of surface geometry, second order terms may be added, increasing the peaks and decreasing the depths of the troughs, relative to the linear estimate, but the particle velocities seem to be better predicted on basis of the linear amplitude a}. An adjustment factor to account for wave directionality is a useful concept and is included in the API recipe which, however, also recommends the use of a regular nonlinear design wave, e.g., a Stokes Sth order wave. An approach that may prove more advantageous is to predict the wave form and the particle kinematics from the statistically based new-wave.2> 1 API recommends the following drag and inertia values for unshielded circular cylinders: Smooth cylinders: Cy = 0-65, Cy = 1-6 Rough cylinders; Cz = 1-05, Cy = 1-2. These values are said to be appropriate for —the case of a steady current with negligible waves; or —the case of large waves with Um Tapp/D > 30 where Umno = Maximum horizontal particle velocity at storm mean water level under the wave crest from a two-dimensional wave kinematics theory? Topp = apparent wave period platform leg diameter at storm mean water level. For wave dominant cases with UmoTapp/D < 30, the hydrodynamic coeffi- cients for nearly vertical members are modified by ‘wake encounter’. Such situations may arise with large diameter caissons in extreme seas or ordinary platform members in lower seastates (typically considered in fatigue analysis). Further details as to selection of C, and C,, in accordance with the recent API recommended practices are given in Refs 3 and 4, comm. C3.2.7. For dynamic analysis, the API procedure** recommends time history methods based on simulated random waves. Frequency domain methods750 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe may be used for the global dynamic analysis, provided the linearization of the drag force can be justified. The hydrodynamic coefficients developed for use with individual determi- istic waves can, according to API, also be used for random wave analysis (cither time or frequency domain) of fixed platforms by using: —significant wave height and —spectral peak period to calculate K, the Keulegan-Carpenter Number.>** 3 HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS RECOMMENDED BY DNV The DNV rules’ represent North Sea Design Practice for the calculation of hydrodynamic loads on offshore truss structures. These suggest tentative values of C,, for different cross-sectional shapes. For circular cylinders the value amounts to 2-0. It is in particular noted that DNV call for use of the selected C,, value in ‘Conjunction with the acceleration of water particles as calculated using an appropriate wave theory’ (see also Ref. 23). The selection of C, values should, according to Ref. 6, take into account the variation of C, as a function of: —Reynold’s number, Re; —Keulegan-Carpenter number, K,; —roughness number k,/D where k, is the effective roughness height and D the diameter of member, k,/D = 107 in the absence of more reliable data for marine growth); —variation of cross-sectional geometry. Tentative values for the drag coefficient for a circular cylinder of varying roughness in steady flow are shown in Fig. 1, while tentative values in the supercritical regime in steady flow for some in-service marine roughnesses are given in Fig. 2. Note that the following values of surface roughness k, could be used in the determination of the drag coefficient: k, (metres) Steel, new uncoated 5x 10% Steel, painted 5x 10~° Steel, highly rusted 3x 107 Concrete 3x 107 Marine growth 5x 107-5 x 107Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 751 ry 12 10 g 5 os 2 ¥ 06 Bos t 02- Smooth (k,/D-- 0) oer ih rentennnn rn 10 108 Reynolds number (Re) Fig. 1. The drag of sand-roughened cylinders in steady uniform flow. DNV* finally state that ‘hydrodynamic drag coefficients for a rough cylinder in oscillating flow are subject to approval in each case’. For a smooth cylinder in oscillating flow, Ref. 6 states that the drag coefficient should not be less than 0-7. It should be noted that the marine growth should be included in the esti- mate of the member diameter. In order to reduce the outer diameter and to use the drag coefficient applicable for smooth members, Statoil decided to use antimarine growth coating on their Veslefrikk jacket which was installed in the Northern North Sea.° DNV updated their relevant document in 1991.’ The updated document a ob Szechenyi ¢ 5 ost ‘ 2 : Range of in service’ marine Bock roughness 2 10% 5-10°5.7Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 753 Note that this reduction should not apply to the design of individual members. Reference 7, furthermore, allows for the introduction of group effects (shielding and blockage etc.). It should also be noted that the effect of marine growth on appurtenances such as anodes, etc. should be considered when selecting effective diameters and drag coefficients. Standard industry practice is to increase the drag coefficient by 7-10% to account for anodes. From the above it can be concluded that the drag coefficients recom- mended by DNV in general are consistent with the API recommended prac- tices, except for the acceptance of using a Cy value of 0-7 for rough members in global deterministic wave analysis. If this value is used together with group effects (blockage and shielding) and the best estimate of wave and current kinematics based on joint probability calculations, the global force for a slender offshore structure may be substantially less than found by using the recent API recipe.*** Note, however, that it is not North Sea Design Practice to consider joint probability of waves and currents. A brief comparative analysis of the loading on a riser platform located in 82m water depth in the North Sea has been carried out using the input values given in Table 3. The results of this analysis are presented in Table 4. 4 NPD’s APPROACH TO SELECTION OF HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate’ in a commentary to Section 26 state that ‘Simplified deterministic analysis based on commonly used hydro- dynamic coefficients, may be used for structures, water depths, environ- TABLE 3 Input Values for Comparison Analysis Structural system Jackets riser platform Water depth Wave height Wave period 10 year return current 0m-32-5 m elev. 32:5m-525m elev. 52-Sm-wavecrest Joint current with 100 yr wave Marine growth + 2m to 40 below MWL 40m below MWL to bottom North Sea kinem.factor Current blockage factor 81-7m (lowest astronomical tide) 270m 14.5s mean, 12-5-16-5s (90% interval) 0-55" 4s 0-55" /s-0.65"/s (linear extrapolation) 0-65"/s-1.0"/s (linear extrapolation) 0.257 100mm, 0mm 0.95 0-85184 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe TABLE 4 Sensitivity Analysis for Calculation of Loads on a North Sea Jacket Riser Platform Base shear Overturning load moment North Sea standard practice 16-5 wave period 100% 100% API hydrodyn. coeff. 123% 118% +API wave period 1485 113% 115% +API current 0:25"/s 92% 96% +Kinematics factor 095 83% 87% API recipe results API, 199354 83% 87% mental conditions etc. if extensive experience shows that the method is applicable’. In the Guidelines concerning loads and load effects, Ref. 16 in paragraph 4.3.3.1 b states that: — If K, is greater than 2, the wave load can be calculated by means of the Morison formula, with C, and C,, given as functions of the Reynold figure R,, the Keulegan-Carpenter figure K, and relative roughness. According to present North Sea Design Practice, the ‘commonly used hydrodynamic coefficients’ means the coefficients recommended by DNV” (and previously referenced by API’). A clarification of the NPD rules with respect to those updated coefficients presently recommended by API** is urgently recommended, taking into account that: — there has been no damage to offshore structures in the North Sea resulting from possible inadequate calculation of hydrodynamic load- ing — the new API recommendation practices** contain a consistent proce- dure for calculation of hydrodynamic loads utilizing consistent values of wave kinematics® and shielding/blockage etc. together with the most appropriate hydrodynamic coefficients — the new API recommended practice assumes that the wave plus current load is found by use of joint probability assessments for wave and current, while NPD require use of a combination of a wave with annual probability of exceedance of 10~? with a current having an annual probability of exceedance of 107! for an ultimate limit design code check — any change in North Sea Design Practise be calibrated with today’s inherent safety level in mind, to estimate the safety level for present and new structures.Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 755 5 ASSESSMENT OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE MOST RELEVANT CODES The preferred codes are those which use consistent values for all para- meters in the load recipe. To use conservative estimates of wave plus current kinematics in combination with low drag factors for deterministic analysis is not considered consistent. In order to assess the safety margins that result when using the latter approach, a full calibration is necessary for any new concept and any new application (waterdepth, etc.). API, on the other hand, suggest an approach which is considered to be consistent. This facilitates application to new concepts and new conditions and also makes code modification easier and is believed to be a good argument for selecting the new API RP 2A recommendations® as the most relevant code for estimating hydrodynamic loads on truss structures. 6 ASSESSMENT OF UNCERTAINTIES IN ESTIMATE OR HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS In view of the very large difference between the API recommended hydro- dynamic drag coefficient for rough members (C, = 1-05) and the standard North Sea deterministic global design practice (Cy=0-7 for rough members), key attention should be focused upon resolving the major differ- ences between the input to the load calculation recipes. In probabilistic analyses using state-of-the-art values for all parameters together with best estimate of parameter uncertainties, the uncertainty in the API recommended hydrodynamic coefficients could be established by revi- siting data from relevant model tests. For the drag coefficient a variation of less than 10% is expected. 7 LATEST RESEARCH RESULTS ON USE OF MORISON’S EQUATION AND SELECTION OF HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS. A review of the use of Morison’s equation with discussion of the selection of hydrodynamic coefficients was presented by Moe & Overvik.'* Recent research” on marine roughened cylinders also supports the use of the API recommended drag factor. The use of Morison’s equation is in general supported even though some reluctance exists concerning some details such as: — the automated selection of the 100 year wave and associated period;'!756 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe — the uncompromizing adherence to a vector form of Morison’s formula, based on instantaneous (free field) wave particle velocities and accel- erates and current particle velocities. (Note that wake formation under unidirectional wave and current is unclear); — no special treatment of horizontal members parallel to the wave front. 8 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS It is concluded that the new API recipe‘ for the calculation of hydrodynamic loads on truss structures uses state-of-the-art values for hydrodynamic coeffi- cients as well as for other parameters influencing the load recipe. North Sea Design Practice for global deterministic analysis’ combines a low drag factor with conservative estimates of wave kinematics and current. It is strongly recommended that the most relevant values for all the para- meters influencing the estimation of loads on offshore truss structures are used. Following this recommendation it will be necessary to carry out careful full scale measurements of global force data simultaneously with wave and current measurements to identify the design (10~? per year) loading as well as the wave plus current wave kinematics level which should be used in conjunction with proper hydrodynamic coefficients. It is recommended that North Sea practice be changed to incorporate such measurements and most relevant hydrodynamic coefficients. Dramatic increases in design loads are not expected, although the total loads at certain locations may increase above the design values in current use. Any attempt to utilise the low drag coefficient normally used in the North Sea Design Practice in combination with the other parameters of the API recipe,’ i.e., wave kinematics factor, low current value, current blockage and shielding, i.e., parameters from different recipes, may result in an under- estimation of design loads potentially leading to unsafe structures, and this must by all means be avoided. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to express thanks to Professor T. Moan for his interest in the ongoing work and for his initiative within the ISO organi- sation to harmonise API recommended practice and North Sea Design Practice for calculation of hydrodynamic loads on truss structures. Furthermore, the authors express thanks to C. Petrauskas for valuable comments and to J. I. Dalane who carried out the riser platform comparison analysis.) » yew nr aw 18. 19. 20. Calculation of hydrodynamic loads 757 REFERENCES . API RP 2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, 9th Edition, API, USA, 1977. . API RP 2A, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, 19th Edition, API, USA, 1991. . API RP 2A WSD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, Working Stress Design, 20th Edition, API, USA, 1993. . API. RP 2A LRFD, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, Load and Resistance Factor Design, First Edition, API, USA, 1993 Baerheim, M. & Fossan, T.I., Weight optimization of the Veslefrikk jacket. OTC paper 6189, In Proc. OTC 1989, Houston, Texas, 1989, pp. 689-700. Det Norske Veritas, Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures, Appendix B, Loads, DNV, Norway, 1977. Det Norske Veritas, Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads, DNV Classification notes no. 30.5, DNV, Norway, 1991 . Gudmestad, ©.T., Measured and predicted deepwater wave kinematics in regu- lar and irregular seas. Marine Struct., 6 (1993) 1-73. Gudmestad, 0.T. & Karunakaran, D., Wave kinematics models for calculation of wave loads on truss structures. OTC paper 7421. In Proc. OTC 1994, Hous- ton, Texas, 1994, pp. 413-424. . Heideman, J.C., Hagen, O., Cooper, C. & Dahl, F.E., Joint probability of extreme waves and currents on Norwegian shelf. J. Waterway, Port, Coastal & Ocean Engng, 115 (1989) 534-546. . Haver, S., On the joint distribution of heights and periods of waves, Ocean Engng, 14 (1987) 359-376. . Jonathan, P., Taylor, P-H. & Tromans, P.S., Storm waves in the Northern Sea. In Proc. Bos "94 conference, MIT, 2 (1994) pp. 481-494. . Morison, J.R., O'Brian, M.P., Johnson, J.W. & Schaaf, S.A., The forces exerted by surface waves on piles. Petroleum Trans., AIME, 189 (1950) 149- = }. Moe, G. & Overvik, T., The use of the Morison equation, a review of field measurements. In Proc. of E&P Forum Workshop, Wave and Current Kine- matics and Loading, FIP, Paris (1989) pp. 305-332. |. Nolte, K.J., Statistical methods for determining extreme seastates. In POAC 1973, pp. 705-742. . Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Regulations Concerning Loadbearing Struc- tures in the Petroleum Activities with Guidelines Concerning Loads and Load Effects, NPD, Stavanger, Norway, 1994. . Petrauskas, C., Heideman, J.C. & Berek, E.P., Extreme wave force calculation procedure for the 20th edition of API RP 2A. OTC paper 7153. In Proc. OTC 1993, Houston, Texas, 1993, pp. 201-211 Petrauskas, C., 19th vs 20th ed. forces. Private communication, Oct. 1994. Thomas, G.A.N. & Thorp, G., The upstream oil and gas industry's initiative in the development of international standards. SPE paper 23325. In Proc. Asia Pacific Oil & Gas Conf., Singapore, February 1991, pp. 127-136. Tromans, P.S., Anaturk, A. & Hagemeijer, P., A new model for the kinematics758 O. T. Gudmestad, G. Moe of large ocean waves—application as a design wave. In Proc. ISOPE Conf., Edinburgh, 1991, pp. 64-71. . Tromans, P.S., Efthymiou, M., Van de Graaf, J.W. & Taylor, P.H., Extreme storm loading on fixed offshore platforms. Publication 1102, Shell Research, Rijswijk, The Netherlands, 1992. 22, Wolfram, J., Jusoh, I. & Sell, D., Uncertainty in the estimation of fluid loading due to the effects of marine growth. In Proc. OMAE, Vol. II, 1993, pp. 219-228. 23. Zelt, J., Gudmestad, O.T. & Skjelbreia, J.E., Fluid accelerations under irregular waves. Appl. Ocean Res., 17 (1995) 43-54. 2