RR245 Stress Redistribution in Platform Substructure Due To Primary Member Damage

HSE
Health & Safety

Executive
Stress redistribution in platform substructures

due to primary member damage and its
effect on structural reliability
Prepared by EQE International Limited for the

Health and Safety Executive 2004
RESEARCH REPORT 245

HSE
Health & Safety
Executive
Stress redistribution in platform substructures

due to primary member damage and its
effect on structural reliability
A Nelson, (Senior Engineer)

D J Sanderson, (Senior Engineer)
S D Thurlbeck, (Principal Engineer)
EQE International Limited
EQE House
The Beacons
Warrington Road
Birchwood
Cheshire
WA3 6WJ
An investigation has been conducted to establish the damage tolerance of five different bracing
configurations that have been applied to a generic jacket structure. The investigations have provided
an insight into how the different bracing configurations are able to accommodate a fully severed
member and the impact that this has on the load distribution, ultimate strength and ultimately the
predicted structural reliability. In performing this study a total of 406 FE analyses have been carried
out.
The baseline structure was based upon a wellhead platform jacket comprising of three bays that is
currently operational and stands in approximately 45m of water in the Southern North Sea. The five
bracing configurations were each applied to this structure and the members were sized using an elastic
limit design process, using consistent slenderness ratios between corresponding members in each of
the bracing configurations.
This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its
contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do
not necessarily reflect HSE policy.
HSE BOOKS
© Crown copyright 2004
First published 2004
ISBN 0 7176 2870 1
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in
any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical,
photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior
written permission of the copyright owner.
Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Licensing Division, Her Majesty's Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
or by e-mail to hmsolicensing@cabinet-office.x.gsi.gov.uk
ii
CONTENTS
Executive Summary ...................................................................................................v
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1
1.1 Background..........................................................................................................1
1.2 Scope of Work .....................................................................................................1
2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................3
2.1 Baseline Structure ...............................................................................................3

2.2 Generic Structure.................................................................................................3
2.3 Bracing Configurations ........................................................................................5
2.4 Material ................................................................................................................5
2.5 Load Application ..................................................................................................7
3.0 STRESS REDISTRIBUTION STUDY..................................................................9
3.1 Background..........................................................................................................9
3.2 Results and Discussions......................................................................................9
3.3 Stress Redistribution Study Summary ...............................................................13
4.0 CRACKED MEMBER STUDY...........................................................................15
4.1 Background........................................................................................................15
4.2 Modifications to Single Diagonal Braced Jacket Model .....................................15
4.3 Results ...............................................................................................................15
4.4 Discussion .........................................................................................................16
4.5 Cracked Member Study Summary.....................................................................16
5.0 ULTIMATE STRENGTH ANALYSIS.................................................................19
5.1 Background........................................................................................................19
5.2 Results and Discussions....................................................................................19
5.3 Ultimate Strength Study Summary.....................................................................21
6.0 RELIABILITY STUDY........................................................................................23
6.1 Background........................................................................................................23
6.2 Reliability Assessment .......................................................................................23
6.3 Results ...............................................................................................................26
6.4 Discussion .........................................................................................................27
6.5 Reliability Study Summary .................................................................................28
7.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................31
8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................33
9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................35
iii
Appendix A Model Description ...........................................................................57
Appendix B Stress Redistribution Study .........................................................113
Appendix C Joint Utilisation Value Distribution Plots ....................................141
Appendix D Joint Group Utilisation Value Plots..............................................147
Appendix E Ultimate Strength Study................................................................153
iv
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
An investigation has been conducted to establish the damage tolerance of five different
bracing configurations that have been applied to a generic jacket structure. The
investigations have provided an insight into how the different bracing configurations are
able to accommodate a fully severed member and the impact that this has on the load
distribution, ultimate strength and ultimately the predicted structural reliability. In
performing this study a total of 406 FE analyses have been carried out.
The baseline structure was based upon a wellhead platform jacket comprising of three bays
that is currently operational and stands in approximately 45m of water in the Southern
North Sea. The five bracing configurations were each applied to this structure and the
members were sized using an elastic limit design process, using consistent slenderness
ratios between corresponding members in each of the bracing configurations.
The investigations have yielded the following results:
x Severance of a member in a highly redundant structure leads to local stress

redistribution that is generally confined to the frame in which the member has been
severed when the frame is parallel to the storm direction. Typically those joints that
lie in the same frame, but on the contiguous diagonals that do not contain the severed
member, are significantly affected.
x Severance of a member in one of the low redundancy structures leads to a more global
stress redistribution, with the majority of joints throughout the structure seeing an
increase in load.
x Introduction of a cracked member into a Single Diagonal braced structure had limited
effect, with only localised increases in load. Increases in load were observed in those
joint groups that the cracked member intersected. In particular an increase in load was
observed in the cracked member’s joints with the jacket legs that has been attributed to
the increased bending of the member as a result of the eccentricity of the neutral axis
local to the cracked region.
x The ultimate strength study demonstrated:
- That severance of a lower bay tensile member had the greatest consequence on
ultimate strength. This identifies these members as having a higher criticality in
the context of primary bracing integrity.
- Highly redundant structures to be highly damage tolerant.
- That the single diagonal braced structure provides a high strength structure
comparable to the X-braced but not as damage tolerant.
- That K-braced and inverted K-braced structures have the lowest ultimate strengths
with the K-brace structured being the least tolerant to damage.
- That the introduction of a second severed member into the inverted K-braced
structure resulted in a drastic reduction in its ultimate strength.
x Stress redistribution causes an acceleration in the rate of fatigue damage at
neighbouring members when damage occurs. This causes an increase in the
probability of failure of the neighbouring members and an associated increase in
overall platform collapse due to multiple-member failure. This effect has been
v
demonstrated for two multiple-member failure cases; one on the X-braced structure
and one on the inverted K braced structure.
x The reliability study showed that high redundancy structures are more reliable for two
major reasons:
- They are stronger when damaged (i.e. more damage tolerant) and hence can resist
more extreme (i.e. infrequent) storms.
- Stress redistribution effects are more limited and hence the acceleration of fatigue
damage (and associated increase in probability of failure) to neighbouring
members is less onerous.
It is considered that the work described in this report and its associated appendices
provides the first steps towards developing a reliability based performance measure for
jackets. The report has provided evidence of the types of jackets that carry the largest risk
of structural failure.
vi
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Flooded Member Detection (FMD) is an increasingly common inspection technique that is

applied to offshore steel jackets. It requires significant damage to be present in a member
before it detects a problem with that member. Owing to the harsh loading environment that
jacket structures are exposed to in the North Sea, the time period between crack initiation and
the severing of a member is relatively short. This, combined with a desire on the part of the
asset managers to lengthen inspection intervals, could result in a jacket being exposed to a
severed member for a significant duration. It is therefore necessary to understand the impact
on structural integrity of the structure upon failure of a member and hence the impact on the
jacket’s predicted structural reliability, to support the justification for a proposed FMD
inspection scheme.
The purpose of this study is to build upon the work detailed in Reference 1 carried out as part
of the Joint Industry Project on the reliability of FMD as a tool for integrity assurance of steel
jackets (HSE Project N° P3513). It aims to investigate the effects of damaged members on
the load distribution within jacket structures and the associated impact on structural
reliability.
1.2 SCOPE OF WORK
The redistribution of load following the failure of a member is dependent upon the
redundancy of the structure. For this reason five bracing configurations that were perceived
to possess varying degrees of redundancy have been considered as part of this study. These
are as follows:
x X-braced.
x Diamond braced.
x K-braced.
x Inverted K-braced
x Single diagonal braced.
These five bracing configurations were applied to a generic jacket that comprised of the
jacket’s legs, conductors, horizontal plane framing, piles and topsides, thus effectively
creating five different jackets. All dimensions and topside loads for this generic jacket were
initially taken to be those of an actual platform, located in the Southern North Sea, standing in
approximately 45 metres of water. The sizing of the bracing members was based on an
elastic design process using the methods outlined in Reference 2.
It was essential that the study considered three-dimensional effects introduced into the jacket
structures as a result of the stress redistribution. Loss of a member on one face of a platform
can induce non-planar effects such as torsion into the jacket’s structure. To reduce the
amount of analyses, each face of the jacket was designed to be symmetrical such that wave
attack directions that need to be analysed would be reduced to just one quadrant of the
compass (due to corner symmetry), i.e. North, North East and East. The size of the models,
combined with the single wave attack direction, enabled a significant number of studies to be
conducted.
1
All models were developed in ABAQUS (Reference 3).
EQE’s in-house software, developed for ABAQUS, allows normal design, and non-linear
pushover analyses to be undertaken using the same model. It also permits shell sub-models to
be introduced into the beam models to enable the introduction of through-thickness
circumferential cracks into the analyses.
2
2. MODEL DESCRIPTION
2.1 BASELINE STRUCTURE
In order to provide a systematic investigation into the influence of different bracing

configurations that are common place in the construction of offshore installations,
particularly in the North Sea, a generic structure was developed that consisted of the
jacket’s legs, horizontal plane framing, conductors, piles and a topside weight. This
generic structure was based upon a current jacket that is located in the Southern sector of
the North Sea, and is illustrated in
Figure 1. It is an inverted K-braced, four-legged wellhead platform, and stands in

approximately 45m of water. This jacket is referred to as the ‘baseline jacket’.
A brief description of the jacket models used in this study is provided below. A more detailed
description of the model and its development along with the applied loads and material model
used in the studies is provided in Reference 2.
2.2 GENERIC STRUCTURE
2.2.1 Topsides
The topsides’ weight was based upon that of the baseline jacket that weighs 1200 tonnes, and
was represented in the generic structure as a single mass element. The location of this mass
element was 5 metres above the topsides’ stab-in points, at the geometric centre of the
jacket’s plan view. The topsides’ mass element was tied into the structure at the stab-in
points using beam type ‘multi-point constraints’ which effectively formed a rigid link
between the topsides’ mass element and the stab-in points.
2.2.2 Piles
The piles of the baseline structure were used to determine the number, type and characteristics
of the generic structure’s piles. Where the piles were sleeved an effective cross-section was
derived that provided a comparable bending restraint to that of the composite cross section.
The cross-sectional dimensions of the baseline structure’s piles were modified during the
model development phase of the work to increase their combined bending and axial load
capacity, thus promoting structural failure in the structure’s framing. The resultant cross-
sectional dimensions of the generic structure’s piles are as follows:
Sleeved Piles: Outer diameter = 2.2967 m

Wall thickness = 0.1075 m
Pile: Outer Diameter = 2.1948 m
Wall thickness = 0.0780 m
The effective point of fixity for the piles was assumed to be 20 m below the mud-line.
No account was taken of the additional restraint on the piles offered by the soil interaction.
This was deemed acceptable on the basis that the jacket was being developed to investigate
3
the structural behaviour of differing bracing configurations and not the failure of the
structure’s foundations during extreme storm events.
2.2.3 Legs
All four of the structure’s legs were modelled with identical cross-sectional properties
that were slightly modified from those of the baseline structure.
Figure 2 illustrates the variation in cross-sectional dimensions along the length of the legs.
The batter applied to the structure was in line with the baseline structure and was as follows:
North direction = 6.185°
East direction = 1.606°
2.2.4 Conductors and Guides

The generic structure contained a total of 18 conductors (6 rows of 3) consistent with
the number on the baseline structure. (
Figure 1 depicts the first row of conductors.) The modelling of the conductors was
simplified using tubular beam elements with an outer diameter of 0.685m and a wall thickness
of 0.030m. They were tied into the conductor guide framing using multi-point constraints that
have been configured to allow axial sliding but prevent planar motion relative to the framing
structure.
The conductors were fully restrained at a depth of 10 metres below the mud line.
2.2.5 Levels
The generic structure comprised of four levels consistent with the baseline structure that are
referred to as:
Mud line (43.5 m below LAT)

Level 1 (26 m below LAT)
Level 2 (8.5 m below LAT)
Level 3 (10 m above LAT)
Further details of the framing at each of these levels are provided in Reference 2.
2.2.6 Tubular Joints
Within the jacket structure all tubular joints were modelled as rigid connections; i.e. joint
flexibility ignored.
4
2.2.7 Joint Groups
For the purpose of this study individual tubular joints between chords and braces were
grouped together to form joint groups. Each joint group within a given structure was assigned
a unique identifier, details of which are contained in Reference 2.
2.3 BRACING CONFIGURATIONS
Five different bracing configurations were applied to the generic structure. These were as
follows:
x X-braced
x Diamond braced
x K-braced
x Inverted K-braced
x Single diagonal braced
Figure 3 illustrates the five bracing configurations.
Sizing of the bracing members was conducted by assessing the joint and member utilisation
values resulting from the structures’ exposure to the 100 year storm event for each of the three
directions considered as part of this study. Utilisation values were calculated in accordance
with the guidelines detailed in References 4 and 5. The members were sized to give
utilisation values of less than unity, with consistent slenderness ratios between corresponding
members in the each bracing configuration.
Within each bay of each structure the bracing members were of the same cross-section. Table
1 provides details of the bracing members’ cross-section dimensions for each of the five
bracing configurations.
Table 1 Bracing members’ cross-section dimensions
Bracing Member dimensions in each bay (mm)

configuration
Upper bay Middle bay Lower bay
X-braced 700 x 55 750 x 55 850 x 40
Diamond braced 550 x 35 600 x 40 700 x 45
Inverted K-braced 800 x 40 850 x 40 950 x 45
K-braced 800 x 40 850 x 40 950 x 45
Single diagonal 1100 x 70 1200 x 55 1350 x 45
braced
2.4 MATERIAL
The material model used in the studies was based upon a typical structural steel, Grade
355EM, which is commonly used in the fabrication of offshore jacket structures in the North
Sea.
The steel has the following material properties:
5
Density: 7820kgm-3
Elastic Modulus: 206.8GPa
Poisson’s Ratio: 0.29
Table 2 details the steel’s plastic properties.
For the Stress Redistribution Study and the buckling analysis the material was assumed to be
linear elastic. For the non-linear pushover analysis the elasto-plastic material model was
applied.
6
Table 2 Plastic material properties
True Stress True Strain
355.0 0.000
461.5 0.06780
537.7 0.12744
612.3 0.21708
681.8 0.33675
709.7 0.39662
797.1 0.63620
814.9 0.69612
847.4 0.81596
890.0 0.99576
2.5 LOAD APPLICATION
2.5.1 Gravity and Buoyancy Loading
Gravity and buoyancy loads were applied to each of the five structures to effectively pre-
stress the structures. The contribution of each structural member to the overall jacket’s
buoyancy was calculated using the fluid to structure load interaction within the ABAQUS FE
software, i.e. ABAQUS AQUA. Further details on the use of ABAQUS AQUA in this study
are provided in Reference 2.
2.5.2 Environmental Loading
The loading applied in each of the studies conducted as part of this work was based upon the
100 year storm wave, current and wind loading as defined for the baseline jacket’s location.
The 100 year wind load was applied as a simplified point load applied at the geometric centre
of the four stab-in points and had a magnitude of 4.664kN.
The 100 year wave was modelled using gridded wave data which details the fluid particle
velocity and accelerations at a number of points in a user defined grid.
The 100 year current profile is defined in Table 3 below.
Using ABAQUS AQUA, each of the five structures were simultaneously exposed to the 100
year wave, wind and current, and the equivalent load distribution determined at the point of
maximum base shear acting on the structure. This load distribution is hereafter referred to as
the Reference Load Set (RLS).
7
Table 3 100 Year current profile
Depth Below Free Current Magnitude

Surface (m) (ms-1)
0.0 1.66
8.0 1.66
19.6 1.48
25.5 1.46
35.5 1.41
44.49 1.13
44.50 0.0
8
3. STRESS REDISTRIBUTION STUDY
3.1 BACKGROUND
The Stress Redistribution Study was a comparative study that aimed to investigate the effects
of bracing configurations, and hence redundancy levels on the degree of stress redistribution
that occurs when a member fails. The study aimed to establish the stress distribution, in terms
of joint utilisation values, calculated in accordance with Reference 5, for all joints in an
undamaged structure, as a result of the structure being exposed to the Reference Load Set
(RLS). The structure was then re-analysed with a single member severed, and the
redistribution of the load determined by reassessing the joint utilisation values. In conducting
this study a total of 15 undamaged jacket FE analyses were performed along with 354 severed
member FE analyses.
The analysis considered a 100 year storm from the following three storm directions:
North
North East
East
To aid understanding of how each structure was able to accommodate a failed member two
levels of analysis were conducted. These are referred to as a global response analysis and a
local response analysis. The global response analysis aimed to capture the effect a failed
member had on the joint utilisation distribution of all joints in the structure, and to determine
the shift in the mean joint utilisation value as well as whether any joint exceeded a utilisation
value of unity. The local response analysis aimed to capture the effect at each joint group and
to establish, using the calculated change in utilisation value, how individual joints were
affected, thus indicating how the load paths in the structures changed. Reference 6 provides
an in depth description of these two levels of analyses.
3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
Table 4 summarises the mean joint utilisation values for the undamaged state obtained from
the global response analysis.
Table 4 Mean joint utilisation values for the undamaged structures
Bracing configuration Storm direction

East North east North
X 0.1578 0.1791 0.1648
Diamond 0.1511 0.1761 0.1484
Inverted K 0.1518 0.1720 0.1394
K 0.1835 0.2141 0.1860
Single diagonal 0.1457 0.1577 0.1519
Reference 7 details the cumulative joint utilisation distribution curves and corresponding
density functions from the load redistribution analysis. Table 5 summarises the severed
9
member analyses that resulted in a significant shift in the mean joint utilisation value and
those analyses that resulted in joints exceeding the code based unity check.
Table 5 Summary of significant results from the stress redistribution study
Bracing storm Severed Mean joint % shift Maximum Joint

configuration member utilisation utilisation group
X E AL2L 0.1583 6.0 1.0057 L12A
N 2LBL 0.1643 4.3 1.1092 L12B
N 2LAU 0.1643 4.3 1.0779 L12B
Inverted K E AM1 0.2482 66.5 1.3803 L2A
E AM2 0.2476 66.1 1.9704 L2A
N 2MA 0.2686 95.9 10.6249 L22
N 2MB 0.2709 97.6 8.8881 L22
N 2LA 0.1770 29.1 1.3729 L12B
N 2LB 0.1777 29.6 1.4101 L12A
NE 2MA 0.2262 34.7 1.5765 L22
NE 2MB 0.2271 35.3 1.2310 L22
K E AM1 0.2779 54.5 2.3276 L11A
E AM2 0.2860 59 2.3787 L12A
E AL1 0.2054 14.2 1.0471 ML1A
N 2UA 0.2429 33.3 1.1168 L31
N 2UB 0.2442 34.0 1.1282 L31
N 2MA See Note 1 - 9.4972 L12
N 2MB See Note 1 - 9.6407 L12
N 1MB 0.2139 17.4 1.3734 L11B
N 1MA 0.2125 16.6 1.3658 L11A
NE AM1 0.2538 20.6 1.2103 L11A
NE AM2 0.2568 22.1 1.1203 L12A
NE 2MA 0.2657 26.3 1.2042 L12A
NE 2MB 0.2645 25.7 1.7551 L12B
Single diagonal E BM 0.2468 78.8 1.2992 L12B
E AM 0.2500 81.1 1.0477 L12A
N 2U 0.2135 48.5 1.5368 L31C
N 2M 0.2838 97.4 1.5053 L12B
Note 1: Owing to the impact on the calculated utilisation values the distribution for this particular
damage state became distorted, and as a result the curve fitting process described previously failed to
determine an accurate solution owing to the poor fit of the assumed distribution to the data set. As a
result it was not possible to determine the mean utilisation value for this particular damage state using
this approach.
10
Evidence from the stress redistribution analyses undertaken on the five bracing configurations
suggests that there were two distinct types of behaviour. The X-braced and the diamond
braced structures were able to accommodate member failures much more economically, in
terms of a smaller zone of influence than the inverted K-braced, K-braced, and single
diagonal braced structures. This behaviour was consistent with the perceived redundancy of
the five bracing configurations.
The lower redundancy structures incorporated a lower bay that was much stiffer than the
middle bay owing to the influence of the piles, and the end restraints on the conductors in the
lower half of the lower bay. The piles provided the lower legs with additional bending
restraint, and as such, in the event of a lower diagonal member failing, attracted the
redistributed load to the legs in the form of an axial load. However, upon failure of a middle
bay diagonal brace, the stiffness of the structure was more adversely affected, and as a result
the load from the failed member was accommodated throughout the structure. The structural
response was characterised by the structure bending about the upper half of the lower bay, at a
point coinciding with the top of the piles. In general, this response resulted in the joints at
Level 1 exhibiting higher utilisation values than other joints in the structure, as the induced
bending was reacted.
Figure 4 illustrates the impact on the distribution of joint utilisation values for the single
diagonal braced structure when a middle bay compression member was severed. From this
plot it can be seen that the general impact of this member having failed was a global increase
in the joint utilisation values throughout the structure resulting in utilisation values in excess
of the unity, thus exceeding the code based joint capacity of Reference 5. Table 6 and Figures
5 to 8 illustrate the shift in load distribution for the same case for all four frames (two parallel
to the load and two perpendicular). The figures take the form of coloured contour plots. The
following key has been used to represent the shift in joint utilisation values from the
undamaged case:
Red = greater than 30% increase

Amber = an increase less than or equal to 30%
Black = negligible effect
Green = reduction
For the higher redundancy structures, the difference in stiffness between the middle and lower
bays was a lot less significant, thus the impact of a failed member was not as onerous in terms
of the induced global bending.
The difference in the global response between the X-braced and diamond braced response
was attributed to the resultant load paths when a member was severed. Failure of a diagonal
bracing member in the X-braced structure resulted in almost a total loss of the load bearing
capability of the other bracing member on the same diagonal, thus in effect two bracing
members were lost in a single bay. However, in the case of the diamond braced structure,
diagonals were split between two bays, and as such the effect on a single bay’s stiffness was
less.
Figure 9 illustrates the impact on the distribution of joint utilisation values for the X-braced
structure when a middle bay compression member was severed. From this plot it can be seen
that the global impact of this member having failed was negligible. Table 7 and Figure 10
illustrate the shift in load distribution for the same case, using the same colour code key as
previously described. The plot clearly illustrates the reduction in load on the severed
member’s diagonal, and the contiguous diagonals (i.e. the ‘zig-zag’). This is complemented
by an increase in load on the intact ‘zig-zag’.
11
Table 6 Joint utilisation values for single diagonal braced jacket in the undamaged
state and with member AM severed
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
% % % % % % %
Joint
Group
L11A Leg 1A L1H1 1M 1L L1HA AM AL
0.64 0.34 86 0.30 0.11 179 0.30 0.09 245 0.28 0.05 500 0.95 0.34 175 0.01 0.56 -99 0.72 0.52 37
L11B Leg 1B L1HB L1H1
0.36 0.22 64 0.25 0.13 100 0.16 0.11 50
L12A Leg 2A L1HA L1H2
0.56 0.16 260 1.05 0.23 350 0.64 0.23 173
L12B Leg 2B L1HB BM BL
0.47 0.29 62 0.35 0.25 41 0.59 0.41 46 0.69 0.53 29 0.45 0.30 50 0.32 0.06 413 0.17 0.04 340
L21A Leg 1A L2HA L2H1
0.38 0.08 380 0.23 0.05 400 0.08 0.03 150
L21B Leg 1B L2HB BU BM L2H1 1U 1M
0.27 0.16 62 0.31 0.18 74 0.33 0.23 40 0.46 0.28 64 0.33 0.05 600 0.19 0.06 200 0.22 0.05 367
L22A Leg 2A L2H2 2U 2M L2HA AU AM
0.45 0.11 314 0.22 0.13 75 0.20 0.05 257 0.16 0.03 400 0.28 0.18 57 0.15 0.17 -14 0.01 0.37 -98
L22B Leg 2B L2H2 L2HB
0.06 0.04 60 0.19 0.05 300 0.27 0.11 143
ML1A Leg 1A MLHA MLH1
0.05 0.08 -40 0.58 0.54 7 0.22 0.13 65
ML1B Leg 1B MLHB BL MLH1 1L
0.10 0.08 30 0.47 0.34 36 0.67 0.52 30 0.05 0.09 -45 0.14 0.03 350
ML2A Leg 2A MLH2 2L MLHA AL
0.05 0.06 -25 0.17 0.09 100 0.19 0.05 300 0.57 0.54 6 0.48 0.48 -2
Table 7 Joint utilisation values for X-braced jacket in the undamaged state and with
member AM1L severed
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Undamaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
Damaged
% % % % % % %
Joint
Group
Leg 1A MLHA AL1L MLH1 1LAL
ML1A
0.08 0.08 0 0.06 0.05 17 0.70 0.64 10 0.08 0.08 0 0.13 0.14 -6
Leg 2A MLH2 2LAL MLHA AL2L
ML2A
0.07 0.07 0 0.12 0.14 -12 0.10 0.11 -14 0.05 0.06 -14 0.34 0.40 -16
Leg 1A L1H1 1MAL 1LAU L1HA AM1L AL1U
L11A
0.30 0.30 0 0.13 0.11 23 0.18 0.16 10 0.18 0.15 22 0.41 0.12 233 0.01 0.45 -98 0.39 0.44 -11
Leg 2A L1HA AM2L AL2U L1H1 2M2L 2L2U
L12A
0.24 0.23 4 0.34 0.15 133 0.48 0.28 71 0.75 0.67 11 0.23 0.25 -7 0.15 0.12 20 0.15 0.11 29
Leg 1A L2H1 1UAL 1MAU L2HA AU1L AM1U
L21A
0.15 0.11 29 0.05 0.03 50 0.08 0.11 -23 0.12 0.11 15 0.30 0.09 227 0.25 0.20 20 0.34 0.19 83
Leg 2A L2H2 2UAL 2MAU L2HA AU2L AM2U
L22A
0.05 0.07 -33 0.02 0.07 -75 0.08 0.10 -17 0.07 0.07 0 0.19 0.15 28 0.08 0.11 -29 0.02 0.30 -92
12
3.3 STRESS REDISTRIBUTION STUDY SUMMARY
x The X-braced and the diamond braced structures are able to accommodate member
failures much more economically than the inverted K-braced, K-braced, and single
diagonal braced structures. This behaviour is in-line with perceived redundancy of the
five bracing configurations.
x For the leaner structures, failure of a middle bay diagonal brace had the largest impact on
structural stiffness and joint utilisation values. In general, the joints at Level 1 exhibited
higher utilisation values than other joints in the structure, as the induced bending was
accommodated.
x For the higher redundancy structures, the impact of a failed member was generally not as
onerous as the case for the leaner structures. However severance of a lower bay member
had a significant impact locally on joint utilisation values.
x The difference in the global response between the X-braced and diamond braced
structures’ response was attributed to the resultant load paths when a member was
severed. Failure of a diagonal bracing member in the X-braced structure resulted in
almost a total loss of the corresponding diagonal’s ability to bear load, thus in effect two
bracing members were lost in a single bay. However, in the case of the diamond braced
structure, diagonals are divided between two bays, and as such the effect on a single bay’s
stiffness was not as severe.
13
BLANK PAGE
14
4. CRACKED MEMBER STUDY
4.1 BACKGROUND
In addition to the severed member runs detailed in Reference 6 a series of FE analyses were
performed on a part cracked member. Circumferential, through wall cracks were introduced
into a bracing member that was subjected to a tensile load to establish the impact on the load
distribution. This was limited to a single member on the single braced structure, subjected to
the East storm load condition, to limit the amount of data generated. The single braced
structure was chosen for the focus of this study owing to the limited number of load paths that
it possesses, and the impact of a failed member on the stress distribution. The member
selected for the insertion of a crack was member BM owing to its impact on the stress
distribution upon being severed and the fact that in the undamaged structure the member was
nominally in tension in the undamaged state.
4.2 MODIFICATIONS TO SINGLE DIAGONAL BRACED JACKET MODEL
The single braced jacket model was modified using shell elements to introduce a crack into
the middle bay diagonal brace in Frame B, i.e. member BM. This involved removing
approximately 4m of beam elements from the member about its mid span and replacing them
with two identical sub-models comprising of a cylinder, generated using a regular shell
element mesh. The sub-model was tied into the beam elements using ‘DCOUP3D’ type
elements from the ABAQUS (Reference 3) element library. These elements are specifically
formulated to enable beam to shell modelling.
The crack was introduced into the model by simply ‘stitching up’ the two shell sub-models.
This process basically involved tying together a number of the coincident nodes on the two
sub-models until the required crack length had been created, with the crack being defined by
the un-stitched coincident node pairs.
The cracked sizes introduced into the model ranged from 20% to 70% of the circumference.
Using the approach detailed here it was not possible to model crack sizes beyond 70% owing
to convergence problems in the FE analysis.
Figure 11 illustrates member BM with the shell element sub-models included.
4.3 RESULTS
The results from the cracked member study at joint groups L12B and L21B are illustrated in
Figures 12 and 13 in the form of bar charts signifying the joint utilisation at each joint within
the joint groups for a variety of crack sizes. Similar plots were generated for all the joint
groups at and below Level 2 in the structure, but these demonstrated little changes in
utilisation values except in the case where the member was fully severed. Figure 14 provides
an illustration of these plots for joint group L11A.
Figure 15 illustrates the displaced shape of the shell element sub-model for the 70% fully
circumferential crack and Figure 16 illustrates the Von-Mises stress contours local to the
crack for the same case.
15
4.4 DISCUSSION
In general, the impact of a crack being introduced into member BM at mid-span had limited
effect on the load distribution in comparison to the undamaged state, for crack sizes up to
70% of the circumference. However those joint groups that included the cracked member, i.e.
L12B and L21B were affected quite significantly.
At joint group L12B, the effect on the cracked member was a steady increase in the utilisation
value calculated as the crack grew to being 70% of the circumference. Such behaviour can be
attributed to the resultant bending of the member owing to its increased compliance due to the
local eccentricity of the neutral axis near the crack. The effect on member BL was limited,
with only a slight increase in load observed. However the effect on the horizontal brace at
Level 1 in Frame B, i.e. member L1HB was much more pronounced. As the crack grew more
load was redistributed to this member, resulting in an almost doubling of the undamaged
state’s utilisation value when the crack was 70% of the circumference.
The out of plane effects at joint group L12B were a slight increase in the load on member 2M,
and a reduction in load on members 2L and the horizontal brace at Level 1, i.e. member
L1H2. The limit on the out of plane effects was considered to be as a result of the stiffness of
the lower bay preventing rotation of the structure at Level 1.
At level 2, joint group L21B, the load on member BM again increased steadily as the crack
grew from 0% to 70% of the circumference, again attributed to the increased compliance of
the member. The effects on the horizontal member at Level 2 in Frame A was a steady
decrease in the load as the crack grew to 70% of the circumference, but a slight increase over
the undamaged state value for the severed condition. The effects on member BU were
negligible.
Out of plane, the effects were much more pronounced at Level 2 than at Level 1. A steady
increase in load was observed in member 1M as the crack grew, as was the case in the
horizontal member at Level 2, i.e. member L2H1. Such effects have been attributed to the
induced twisting of the jacket about the vertical axis.
Using the approach adopted here and the mesh refinement of the crack zone it was not
possible to obtain a converged solution for cracks in excess of 70% of the circumference, due
to numerical problems. It is considered that a revised approach to introducing cracks into the
structure, using a fracture mechanics mesh and the possible introduction of gap elements, to
model crack closure, would help the solution to converge and thus yield results. However, it
is considered that unzip times for larger cracks would be relatively short and therefore there
would be limited benefit in investigating the structural response for such cracks, in the context
of demonstrating increased global structural reliability.
4.5 CRACKED MEMBER STUDY SUMMARY
The study has demonstrated that for crack sizes up to 70% of the circumference of a bracing
member:
x The impact on the load distribution was limited. Significant effects were only observed in
regions of the structure that were local to the cracked member. The increased compliance
of the cracked member introduced twisting into the structure that resulted in out of plane
effects as well as local in-plane effects.
x The joint utilisation of the cracked member’s joints increased due to the increased
compliance of the member caused by the eccentricity of the member’s neutral axis local
to the cracked region.
16
The modelling approach adopted in this study to insert a crack into a bracing member was
inadequate for performing a fracture mechanics assessment on the cracked member. As a
result it was not possible to predict unzip times for the crack. However, it is considered that
unzip times for large cracks are relatively short and therefore there would be limited benefit in
investigating the structural response for larger cracks than those considered here.
17
BLANK PAGE
18
5. ULTIMATE STRENGTH ANALYSIS
5.1 BACKGROUND
Each of the five bracing configurations was subjected to a series of static non-linear, pushover
analyses, in both the damaged and undamaged states, for an East storm load case. The
purpose of the study was to establish the ultimate strength of the jackets in the undamaged
state (i.e. the reserve strength ratio, RSR) and to assess the impact on the ultimate strength
when the structure contained at least one severed member (i.e. to establish the damaged
strength ratio, DSR). This study aimed to establish a member criticality profile for each
bracing configuration to feed into the structural reliability assessment for each of the jacket
types.
Reference 9 provides further details and a detailed description of the study conducted.
5.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
In the undamaged states the five bracing configurations can be ranked in descending order
according to the RSRs calculated for the East storm load case;
x X-braced (RSR = 2.51)

x Single diagonal braced (RSR = 2.23)
x K-braced (RSR = 2.07)
x Diamond braced (RSR = 2.27)
x Inverted K-braced (RSR = 2.43)
It is considered that this ranking can be attributed to the variation in the ‘step’ change in
stiffness between the lower and middle bays. The number of load paths available local to
Level 1, to react the resultant compressive load induced in the structure determines the
magnitude of this step. The more load paths available, the lower the axial compressive load
in a given member; therefore there is a rise in the calculated RSR. Furthermore, the presence
of more load paths also has the effect of reducing the bending of the structure and as such the
end moments acting on bracing members is limited. The effect of this is that the reduction in
the critical buckling load of a particular member due to bending, is limited.
From the single member severed study conducted, it is evident that there are two distinct
types of behaviour. As was the case in the stress redistribution study undertaken, the X-
braced and the diamond braced structures were able to accommodate member failures much
more economically than the lower redundancy structures, i.e. inverted K-braced, K-braced,
and single diagonal braced structures. This behaviour was consistent with the perceived
redundancy of the five bracing configurations, and is illustrated in Table 8 and Figure 17 by
the difference in the range of DSRs calculated for each of the bracing configurations.
Severance of a member in either the middle or lower bays of the lower redundancy structures
introduced twisting into the structures and resulted in an increase in load on the lower
members thus initiating buckling of such members at lower values of LPF, resulting in lower
DSR’s. Furthermore, in most cases the legs at the back of the structure, i.e. gridline 1
experienced plastic strains local to the top of the piles.
19
Table 8 Damaged jackets ultimate strength results
Bracing Configuration Member DSR RRF
X AL1L 2.32 0.924

AL1U 2.22 0.884
AM1L 2.49 0.992
AM1U 2.53 1.008
Diamond AL1L 1.96 0.879
AL1U 2.06 0.924
AM1L 1.93 0.865
AM1U 2.20 0.986
Inverted K AL1 1.65 0.797
AL2 1.65 0.797
AM1 1.79 0.865
AM2 1.81 0.874
AU1 2.01 0.971
K AL1 1.86 0.819
AL2 1.85 0.815
AM1 1.85 0.815
AM2 1.88 0.828
AU1 2.33 1.026
Single Diagonal AL 1.94 0.798
AM 2.08 0.856
AU 2.45 1.008
BL 2.16 0.889
BM 2.27 0.934
BU 2.44 1.004
Severance of an upper bay member, in the lower redundancy structures, generally resulted in
an increase in the jacket’s ultimate strength (i.e. collapse load). Such effects were attributed
to the induced torsion in the jackets and the impact that this had on the load distribution in the
lower bay. For such damaged states the load was distributed to the perpendicular frames as
they reacted rotation of the legs, and thus alleviated the load on the lower compression
members in the frames parallel to the storm direction.
The K-braced structure was found to be the least tolerant to a severed member. Regardless of
which member was severed in either the lower or middle bays there was a significant impact
on the calculated ultimate strength.
20
The multiple member severance study further highlighted the difference between the low and
high redundancy structures. Severance of two members on the inverted K-braced structure
had a significant impact on ultimate strength, resulting in a 40% reduction, whereas that
performed on the X-braced structure resulted in a 20% reduction. Table 9 provides details of
the DSR and RRF for these analyses.
Table 9 Multiple members failed ultimate strength results
Structure DSR RRF
Inverted K braced 1.22 0.589

X-braced 1.98 0.79
5.3 ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY SUMMARY

x X
x Single diagonal
x K
x Diamond
x Inverted K
x It is considered that this ranking can be attributed to the variation in the ‘step’ change in
stiffness between the lower and middle bays. The magnitude of this step is determined by
the number of load paths available, local to Level 1, to react the resultant compressive
load induced in the structure. The more load paths available, the lower the axial
compressive load in a given member, therefore there is a rise in the calculated RSR.
Furthermore, the presence of more load paths also has the effect of reducing the bending
of the structure and as such the end moments acting on members is limited. The effect of
this is to limit the reduction due to bending of the critical buckling load of a particular
member.
x From the single member severed study conducted, it is evident that there are two distinct
types of behaviour. As was the case in the stress redistribution study undertaken, the X
braced and the diamond braced structures were able to accommodate member failures
much more economically than the lower redundancy structures, i.e. inverted K-braced, K-
braced, and single diagonal braced structures.
x Severance of a member in either the middle or lower bays of the lower redundancy
structures introduced twisting into the structures and resulted in an increase in load on the
lower members thus initiating buckling under reduced loads.
x Severance of an upper bay member, in the lower redundancy structures, generally
resulted in an increase in RSR. Such effects were attributed to the induced torsion in the
jackets and the impact that this has on the load distribution in the lower bay.
x The K-braced structure was found to be the least tolerant to a severed member.
Regardless of which member was severed in either the lower or middle bays, the impact
was a significant reduction in the calculated ultimate strength.
x The dual member severed study further highlighted the difference between the lower and
higher redundancy structures. Severance of two members on the inverted K braced
21
structure had a significant impact on ultimate strength, resulting in a 40% reduction,
whereas that performed on the X braced structure resulted in a 20% reduction.
22
6. RELIABILITY STUDY
6.1 BACKGROUND
The ultimate aim of this project was to demonstrate the structural reliability of fixed jackets of
different bracing configurations designed to a given set of criteria, and in particular to
demonstrate the effect of stress redistribution due to damage on overall reliability.
In this work, five jackets were designed based on elastic limit state methods for the same
water depth, topside loads and environmental conditions, but with differing bracing
configurations.
Non-linear Ultimate Strength (Pushover) analyses were performed on each of these jackets in
their undamaged conditions. The analyses were also performed for a range of damaged
conditions for each of the jackets. (The term ‘damage’ here is used to refer to the complete
severance of a member – pushover analyses were not performed on partially cracked
members).
This study takes into consideration the findings from the stress redistribution study and the
ultimate strength study, in conjunction with published Environmental Load distributions to
produce through-life reliabilities for the different jackets and to demonstrate the ‘knock-on’
effect of redistributed stress on the reliability of the structures.
6.2 RELIABILITY ASSESSMENT

The method used to calculate structural reliability is described in detail in Reference 10.
Figure 18 is a flowchart that illustrates the steps taken to perform the reliability assessments
in this project.
As mentioned, the method is a two-legged approach based on the following equation:
i
Pf ¦PP
i
i storm
where i represents the number of ‘states’ in which a structure can exist (since we are dealing
only with severed or unsevered members here, the mathematics is discrete). Pi is the
probability that the structure exists in the i’th state, and Pstormi is the probability of a storm
occurring with sufficient strength to cause the collapse of the structure in the i’th state.
The two legs of the approach are therefore based on
x Calculating the probability of the structure existing in the i’th state.
x Calculating the probability of a storm to cause the collapse of the structure in the i’th state.
As mentioned, this two-legged approach is illustrated in Figure 18 and is described in more
detail below.
23
6.2.1 Probability of Structure Existing in a Given State, Pi
If there are N members in a given structure and each of these members may exist in either an
intact or a severed condition then the structure may exist in any one of N! possible states.
In Reference 10 this method was developed for single member failure only – i.e. the
possibility of more than one member failing during an inspection interval was ignored. One
of the objectives of this study is to demonstrate the effect of considering multiple member
failure on structural reliability.
The method used to calculate the probabilities of member failure for single and multiple
member failure is described below.
Single Member Failure Probabilities
In Reference 10 a method was presented to predict the probability of member failure based on
probabilistic fracture mechanics methods. These methods use the calculated fatigue lives of
members and the time in service to estimate the accumulated fatigue damage (S3N) that a
member has endured at a given time. The results of probabilistic fracture mechanics
calculations performed using UMFRAP (Umist Fracture and Reliability Assessment Program
- see Reference 11) were plotted as probabilities of member failure versus the accumulated
fatigue damage for a given member. Different curves were generated for given member
dimensions, initial defect sizes and defect distributions.
Figure 19 is an example curve of cumulative probability of failure versus S3N for one
particular member geometry and defect case.
The probability of failure within a given time interval is calculated by assessing the
accumulated fatigue damage (S3N) at the beginning and the end of the inspection interval. The
probability of failure during the interval is then simply the difference between the cumulative
probabilities at the end and the beginning of the inspection interval. This may be expressed as
p interval
f P S3N end P S 3N beginning
The method described above was developed using curves generated by Professor Burdekin of
UMIST (Reference 11) and shall be referred to as the Burdekin method from hereon.
The rate of accumulated fatigue damage is calculated using the design fatigue lives of
members (or individual welds if available). For example, for a Class W weld, the fatigue life
is deemed to have been expended when the accumulated fatigue damage, S3N = 1.4x1012. The
rate of accumulated fatigue damage is then simply calculated by scaling the appropriate factor
(eg S3N = 1.4x1012) by the proportion of the fatigue life that has been expended. Thus, a
member with a fatigue life of 100 years will have an accumulated damage of S3N = 1.4x1011
after a period of ten years.
As part of this study two reliability assessments have been performed. The first assessment
assumed a fatigue life of 100 years for each and every member whilst the second study
assumed a fatigue life of 50 years for each and every member. This was done because it was
considered more important to assess the effect of the different bracing configurations (i.e.
redundancy and stress redistribution) on the resultant, calculated reliabilities for the five
structures. If a distribution of fatigue lives had been used, the interpretation of the data would
have been more difficult. Of course, it is acknowledged that this assumption is unrealistic,
but it was considered to be worthwhile for making the demonstration of the effect of
redundancy on structural reliability.
Probabilities of failure for each member were calculated using the Burdekin method over a
period from the present day to the year 2025. The assumed installation date was 1985. The
method was applied assuming a 3 yearly, 100% effective FMD inspection regime. The
number of welds was calculated assuming approximately 4m long joint cans. The number of
24
defects was calculated assuming the defect distributions presented in Reference 11. The
initial defect size was assumed to be normally distributed with a mean depth of 6mm.
Multiple Member Failure Probabilities
As stated above, one of the key objectives of this work was to demonstrate the importance (or
not) of considering the effects of multiple member failure on jacket structural reliability.
When damage occurs to a jacket (in this case represented by the severance of a member) the
stresses are redistributed to other members in the jacket. This has been discussed earlier in
this report.
In general, when a member is severed the loads carried by adjacent members are increased.
This means that the rate of accumulated fatigue damage is accelerated. From the results
presented in Appendix B it is not unusual to see stresses in neighbouring members to increase
by 100%. This would mean that the rate of accumulated fatigue damage would be accelerated
by a factor of 8 (=23). Some members have even higher predicted redistributed loads with
associated consequences for the shortening of their fatigue lives.
Due to the many permutations associated with multiple member failure it was decided to
make the demonstration of multiple member failure on two bounding cases. These cases were
selected to encompass the overall range of jacket robustness and damage tolerance.
The first case chosen was for the inverted-K braced structure. This was chosen since it
demonstrated the lowest overall ultimate strength and a sensitivity to damage (the lowest
residual resistance factor for the inverted K-braced structure was 0.797). In this structure, the
two members that were severed for the multi-member study were the two tension members in
the middle bay.
The other case chosen for the multi-member study was the X-braced structure that
demonstrated a lower-bound RRF of 0.884. In this case, two members in the lower bay were
severed, one on each diagonal of the bay’s bracing.
Fatigue Acceleration
As mentioned above, when a member is damaged, adjacent members have to somehow
accommodate the load. In general this leads to an increase in stressing in the members and
joints. This leads to an acceleration in fatigue damage and an associated increase in the
probability of member failure during a given time interval.
From the detailed stress redistribution work (Appendix D) the stress enhancements were taken
for one of the members due to the failure of the other member used in the multi-member
study.
In the Inverted K braced structure, the failure of one of the middle bay tension members
produced an enhancement in stress in the middle bay tension member on the opposite frame
of 1.66.
For the X-braced structure the severance of one of the lower bay diagonals produced an
enhancement in stress in the other diagonal of 1.55.
The two stress enhancements above produced a fatigue damage acceleration of 4.1 for the
Inverted K braced structure and 3.7 for the X-braced structure.
These fatigue accelerations were taken into account when applying the Burdekin method to
calculate the probability of failure of the second member, subsequent to failure of the first
member. Again, for demonstrative purposes, it was assumed that the first member failure
occurs on the day after a FMD inspection returned a negative result, meaning that the
accelerated fatigue damage is present during the entire of the next inspection interval.
25
6.2.2 Probability of Storm to Cause Collapse in the i’th state, Pstormi
The probability of a structure collapsing, given that it exists in a certain state is simply
calculated by using the results of ultimate strength calculations cross-referenced with
environmental load distributions.
The environmental load distributions relate the environmental load that a storm produces to
the storm’s return period. Therefore, if we know the ultimate strength of a structure, we can
calculate the return period of the storm with a load equal to the structure’s strength. The
annual probability of failure is then simply the inverse of the return period.
In this work, the environmental load distribution that was used was
PE A exp§¨ E ·¸
© Eo ¹
where P(E) is the annual probability of the occurrence of a storm exceeding a load, E, and
E=ERP/E100 where ERP is the load corresponding to a given return period, RP, and E100 is the
most probable 100 year load. In the above, A and Eo are constants. In this assessment, these
values were taken as 180 and 0.102 respectively, values typical of the Central North Sea
(Reference 4).
6.3 RESULTS
6.3.1 Single Member Failure

Reliabilities were calculated for all five structures assuming single member failure only in
addition to the following
x Installation date of 1985
x Initial mean defect depth = 6mm
x Aspect ratio = 0.2
x Number of defects per unit length of weld taken from defect distribution study of
Reference 3.
x FMD inspection interval = 3 years with first inspection in 2001.
As stated previously the reliabilities were calculated based upon a universal fatigue life of 100
years and 50 years. The calculated reliabilities are presented in Figures 20 and 21.
6.3.2 Double Member Failure

In addition to the single member failure cases, ultimate strength analyses were performed for
two multi-member failure cases.
Double member failure was treated in two ways. The first simply assumes that the probability
of failure of the second member is unaffected by the failure of the first. The second, more
realistic way of treating it was to assume that the failure of the first member redistributes
stress onto the second member, thereby accelerating fatigue damage and the associated
probability of failure. In conducting these studies a universal fatigue life of 100 years has
been applied.
The results of the reliability assessments for multi-member failure are presented in Figure 23.
26
6.4 DISCUSSION
6.4.1 Single Member Failure

The results of the reliability assessments assuming single member failure and 100 year fatigue
lives for all members confirm what would be expected given the results derived from the
ultimate strength analyses.
The most reliable bracing configuration is the X-braced, followed by the single diagonal, the
K-braced, the diamond braced and finally the inverted K-braced. This same order applies to
the ultimate strengths of the five (undamaged) jackets.
The other interesting thing to note about Figure 20 is that the curves for the X-braced and the
diamond-braced structures are significantly ‘flatter’ than the others. This is indicative of the
superior damage tolerance of these two structures compared with the others due to their
higher levels of redundancies. In terms of the ultimate strength analyses results, this is
apparent in the higher Residual Resistance Factors (RRF’s) of the X-braced and diamond
braced structures.
However, the curves for probability of failure versus time, assuming single member failure
and 50 year fatigue lives for all members (Figure 21), show an increase with time and then
after the year 2012 the predicted failure probabilities actually start to fall.
This is an artefact of the probabilistic fracture mechanics results (Figure 21), which, for a
given initial defect size predict the cumulative probability that the weld will fail. The
probability of weld failure at any point in time is proportional to the slope of the cumulative
probability curve and therefore, as the cumulative probability of failure approaches unity, the
probability of failure at that point in time starts to decrease.
Intuitively this seems wrong. However, what is actually being portrayed here is that for the
initial defect assumed, the probabilistic fracture and fatigue model predicts that the weld
should have (or be very close to having) failed. If after a given period of time the weld has
physically not failed, and our model predicts that it should have, then in all likelihood, this is
due to the fact that the assumption on initial defect size present in the weld was too onerous.
This could easily be built into an inspection scheme. For example, let us assume that an initial
defect size of 6mm exists in all welds and suppose that we start to predict failure probabilities
of these welds and the associated failure probabilities of the jackets.
After a period of time, the probability of the i’th weld having failed is Pi. The probability of
this weld NOT having failed is then (1-Pi). If, following an inspection, all N inspected
members are identified as being intact, then the probability of this actually occurring may be
written as
i N
Pno _ failures 1 Pi
i 1
where the ‘pi’ symbol indicates the multiplication of all the terms (1-Pi).
Evidently, during the early life of the structure, the individual probabilities of member failure,
Pi, are very small and so the probability of no failures having occurred is close to unity. With
time, however, as the probabilities of member failure increase, the probability of there being
no failures decreases.
This information could be used to provide a Bayesian updating approach. Say, for example
that the results of an inspection show no failures and that our model predicts that this would
only be possible 1% of the time, based on our initial assumptions of defect size, then we can
state with 99% confidence that our initial assumption was too onerous. The assessment would
27
then be repeated for a less onerous initial defect assumption. This process could then be
repeated for subsequent inspections (see Figure 22).
At present, this functionality has not been built into the code that performs the reliability
assessments.
6.4.2 Multi-Member Failure

Figure 23 clearly shows the effect of stress redistribution on structural reliability. For both the
X-braced and the inverted K braced structures, the annual probability of failure is
significantly increased by considering the contribution due to redistributed stress and the
associated increase in the failure probabilities of adjacent members.
The relative increase in failure probability due to the stress redistribution is larger for the
inverted K than for the X braced structure. This is consistent with the general findings with
regard to the redundancies of the different jackets. That is to say that for the inverted K
structure, the stress redistribution is more pronounced and the effect of damage to the
structure reduces its ultimate strength drastically. For the X-braced structure, the stress
redistribution is less pronounced and the ultimate strength of the structure is less sensitive to
damage than for the inverted K braced structure.
It should be noted that the additional probability of failure shown in Figure 23 is only due to
one multi-member case. The case chosen for each bracing configuration was thought to be
one of the critical cases (ie to reduce the ultimate strength of the structure by one of the
largest possible amounts).
If all multi-member cases were studied, clearly the contribution to the predicted probabilities
of failure due to stress redistribution would be even greater. This would be particularly true
for lower redundancy (eg inverted K, single diagonal) structures where stresses are
redistributed throughout the structure. For higher redundancy structures (eg X-braced)
redistribution is more localised, and therefore it would be expected that the effect of stress
redistribution would be less significant than for lower redundancy structures.
Ideally, many more possible combinations of multi-member failure would have been
considered but the permutations of these cases grow rapidly. Whilst it was not possible to
address many cases of multi-member failure in this work, it is considered desirable to address
this issue in more detail in future.
6.5 RELIABILITY STUDY SUMMARY

x Reliability assessments have been performed for five jackets of different bracing
configurations, but designed for installation at the same location.
x Start-of-life reliabilities are dependent on the undamaged ultimate strengths of the jackets.
The elastic limit state design criterion used predicted that (in the undamaged condition) the
X-braced structure was the most reliable, followed by the Single Diagonal, then the K-
braced, the Diamond braced and finally, the Inverted K.
x The most reliable bracing configurations are those with higher levels of redundancy. These
jackets are shown to be more damage tolerant than jackets with low levels of redundancy
(ie they have higher Residual Resistance Factors).
x The effect of stress redistribution has been demonstrated for two multi-member failure
cases; one on the X-braced structure and one on the inverted K braced structure.
x Stress redistribution causes an acceleration in the rate of fatigue damage at neighbouring
members when damage occurs. This causes an increase in the probability of failure of the
neighbouring members and an associated increase in overall platform collapse due to
multi-member failure. This effect has been demonstrated for two multi-member failure
28
x Stress redistribution effects are more pronounced for low redundancy structures (eg
inverted K braced), where ultimate strengths are more sensitive to damage and stresses are
redistributed globally. This is in contrast to high redundancy structures (eg X-braced)
where stress redistribution tends to be more localised and the ultimate strength of the
structure is less sensitive to damage.
29
BLANK PAGE
30
7. CONCLUSIONS
A series of studies have been performed to investigate the impact of five different bracing
configurations on the structural response of a 3 bay, four-legged jacket standing in the
Southern North Sea in approximately 45m of water. The studies comprised of a stress
redistribution study, ultimate strength study and a reliability study for different damage states
within each of the five bracing configurations.
x The stress redistribution study provided a comprehensive assessment of the impact of
a severed member on the stress distribution in a jacket structure incorporating one of
the five bracing configurations, for three storm directions.
x In addition to the severed member redistribution study a limited study was performed
to establish the impact of a cracked member on the stress distribution of a structure
with a particular bracing configuration, for the East storm load case.
x The Ultimate strength study and the reliability study focussed on the East storm load
case for each of the five bracing configurations.
x The reliability assessment provided an insight into how the redistribution of load as a
result of one member being severed can accelerate the probability of a second
member failing and the resultant impact on jacket reliability.
Both the stress redistribution study and the ultimate strength study for the undamaged
structures, and those incorporating a single member severed, have highlighted two distinct
types of behaviour, i.e. that of the lower redundancy structures and that of the higher
redundancy structures. The higher redundancy structures were defined as the X and diamond
bracing configurations, whereas the lower redundancy structures were defined as the inverted
K, K and single diagonal bracing configurations.
Severance of a bracing member in one of the lower redundancy structures had a much wider
impact on the load distribution, with a resultant twisting of the structure about the vertical
axis. In terms of ultimate strength the impact was seen as a significant reduction in load
capacity, particularly for the case where a lower bay tension member was severed. Such
failures resulted in an increase in load on the lower bay compression members resulting in the
member buckling under a reduced applied load.
The higher redundancy structures demonstrated a higher resilience to member failure. From
the stress redistribution studies, the impact of a severed member was very localised, with the
zone of influence being restricted to Frame A for the cases considered. The ultimate strength
studies again demonstrated the damage tolerance of these structures, as relatively small
reductions in ultimate strength were observed, with severance of a lower tension member
having the biggest impact.
The dual member severed study was performed on the X-braced structure and on the inverted
K-braced structure, as these provided the extreme ultimate strength values. For the lower
redundancy structure, the impact of two members having been severed was a drastic reduction
in ultimate strength, whereas the effect observed in the case of the higher redundancy
structure was much less severe.
Two notable results from the ultimate strength studies were that of the K-braced structure and
the single diagonal braced structure. The K-braced structure proved to be the most sensitive
to a severed member. Although the size of the members was the same as the inverted K-
braced structure, its load paths were significantly different and as such, loss of any members
in the lower or middle bays resulted in significant twisting and bending of the jacket. The
impact of a severed member had a more pronounced impact on the deformations observed
local to Level 1.
31
Start-of-life reliabilities are dependent on the undamaged ultimate strengths of the jackets.
The elastic limit state design criterion used predicted that (in the undamaged condition) the X-
braced structure was the most reliable, followed by the Single Diagonal, then the K-braced,
the Diamond braced and finally, the Inverted K.
The most reliable bracing configurations are those with higher levels of redundancy. These
jackets are shown to be more damage tolerant than jackets with low levels of redundancy (i.e.
they have higher Residual Resistance Factors).
Stress redistribution causes an acceleration in the rate of fatigue damage at neighbouring
members when damage occurs. This causes an increase in the probability of failure of the
neighbouring members and an associated increase in overall platform collapse due to
multiple-member failure. This effect has been demonstrated for two multiple-member failure
It is considered that the work reported upon in this report and its associated appendices
provides the first steps towards developing a reliability based performance measure for
jackets. The report has provided evidence of the types of jackets that carry the largest risk of
structural failure.
32
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
As a result of this study a number of recommendations are put forward to extend the work
completed to date aimed at investigating the effects of stress redistribution in damaged structures
and the impact that this has on the predicted reliability of jacket structures. These recommendations
are detailed below.
x Extend study to incorporate larger structures, i.e. deeper water 4 leg jackets and jackets with
more than 4 legs.
x Extend the analysis on dual member failures to incorporate all of the five bracing
configurations, taking into consideration critical members having failed and the stress
redistribution within the structure. The study would then be used to provide estimates for
fatigue acceleration factors, FAFs, for each member in a given bracing configuration to feed
into an estimation of the structural reliability prediction and thus provide guidance to operators
on how to determine the acceptability of damage within a structure.
x Devise methodology for Bayesian updating of a structure’s reliability prediction following a
structural inspection. The reliability prediction is based upon an assumed defect or defect
distribution that is present at the start of life. Through life modelling of a structure’s reliability
may yield a high probability of a member severing at some stage in the design life, which may
be invalidated by inspection results, thus necessitating the revision of initial assumptions and
the through life reliability profile.
It is anticipated that following completion of this proposed work, it will be possible to formulate
suitable guidance to enable an informed judgement to be made on the acceptability of damage in a
jacket structure, based upon the bracing configuration, and the impact that this will have on other
members in the structure. In addition, the future work will allow guidance to be formulated on
calculating a more accurate prediction of through life structural reliability using probabilistic
fracture mechanics and Bayesian updating.
33
BLANK PAGE
34
9. REFERENCES
1 Guidance on the Use of Flooded Member Detection for Assuring the Integrity of Offshore
Platform Substructures – EQE Report N° 179-03-R-07 Issue 1 – 6th June 2000
2 Stress Redistribution in Platform Substructures Due to Primary Member Damage and its
Effect on Structural Reliability – EQE Report N° 45-20-R-01 Draft – 19th January 2001 –
Appendix A – Model Description
3 ABAQUS 5.8 – Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.
4 API 2A-LRFD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms – Load and Resistance Factor Design, First Edition 1993
5 Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification – Fourth
Edition-1990, HMSO – Appendix A21
Appendix B – Stress Redistribution Study
Appendix C – Joint Utilisation Value Distribution Plots
Appendix D – Joint Group Utilisation Value Plots
Appendix F – Ultimate Strength Study
10 Demonstration of the Effect of FMD on Structural Reliability (Appendix n to FMD JIP
Final Report) – EQE Report N° 179-03-R-06 Appendix N, Issue 1, 4 May 1999
11 Fabrication Defects Study (Appendix C to FMD JIP Final Report) - EQE Report N° 179-
03-R-06 Appendix C, Issue 1, 4 May 1999
12 Final Report on Reliability Aspects (Appendix K to FMD JIP Final Report) - EQE Report
N° 179-03-R-06 Appendix K, Issue 1, 28 April 2000
13 M Efthymiou, J W van de Graaf, P S Tromans and I M Hines, ‘Reliability based criteria
for fixed steel offshore platforms.’
35
BLANK PAGE
36
+21.5 m
+10 m
-8.5 m
-26 m
z North
-43.5 m East
Figure 1 Generic structure schematic
37
+21500
6
5
2000
+10000
4
7826
3
2750 3250
-8500
2
-26000
1 Section details
1. 1400 x 65
2. 1400 x 85
3. 1400 x 35
4. 1400 x 75
5. 1215 x 50
-43500
6. 1030 x 60
All dimensions are in mm
Figure 2 Generic jacket leg schematic
38
X-Braced Diamond Braced
Inverted K-Braced K-Braced
Single Diagonal Braced
Figure 3 Bracing configurations
39
Single Diagonal Braced East Storm S−AM Severed
Cumulative Distribution Function
1
0.8
Proportion of Joints
0.6
0.4
Undamaged − data
Undamaged − CDF
0.2 Damaged − data
Damaged − CDF
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Probability Density Function

12
10
Undamaged PDF
Damaged PDF
8
Damaged mean = 0.2500

6
Undamaged mean = 0.1380
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Joint Element Utilisation
Figure 4 Single diagonal braced structure - joint utilisation distribution plots
40
1A AU 2A
L21A L2HA L22A
AM 2A
1A
L11A L1HA L12A
1A AL 2A
ML1A MLHA ML2A
Figure 5 Single diagonal braced structure - Frame A stress redistribution contour

plot
41
1B BU 2B
L21B L2HB L22B
BM 2B
1B
L11B L1HB L12B
1B BL 2B
ML1B MLHB ML2B
Figure 6 Single diagonal braced structure - Frame B stress redistribution contour

plot
42
1A 1U 1B
L21A L2H1 L21B
1M 1B
1A
L11A L1H1 L11B
1A 1L 1B
ML1A MLH1 ML1B
Figure 7 Single diagonal braced structure - Frame 1 stress redistribution contour

plot
43
2A 2U 2B
L22A L2H2 L22B
2M 2B
2A
L12A L1H2 L12B
2A 2L 2B
ML2A MLH2 ML2B
Figure 8 Single diagonal braced structure - Frame 2 stress redistribution contour

plot
44
X−Braced East Storm C−AM1L Severed
Cumulative Distribution Function
1
0.8
Proportion of Joints
0.6
0.4
Undamaged − data
Undamaged − CDF
0.2 Damaged − data
Damaged − CDF
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2

12
10
Undamaged PDF
Damaged PDF
8
Damaged mean = 0.1582

6
Undamaged mean = 0.1493
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
Joint Element Utilisation
Figure 9 X-braced structure - joint utilisation distribution plots
45
1A 2A
AU1L AU2L
L21A L2HA L22A
AM1U AM2U
2A
1A
LMA
AM1L AM2L
L11A L1HA L12A
AL1U AL2U
1A 2A
LLA
AL1L AL2L
ML1A MLHA ML2A
Figure 10 X-braced structure - Frame A stress redistribution contour plot
46
Figure 11 Member BM
47
1.4
1.2
1.0
Leg 2B
0.8 L1HB
Utilisation
BM
BL
L1H2
0.6 2M
2L
0.4
0.2
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Crack size
Figure 12 Joint utilisation plot – Joint group L12B
0.5
0.4
Leg 1B
0.3
L2HB
Utilisation
BU
BM
L2H1
1U
0.2
1M
0.1
0.0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Crack size
Figure 13 Joint utilisation plot – Joint group L21B
48
1.0
0.8
Leg 1A
0.6
L1H1
Utilisation
1M
1L
L1HA
AM
0.4
AL
0.2
0.0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Crack size
Figure 14 Joint utilisation plot – Joint group L11A
49
50
3
DISPLACEMENT MAGNIFICATION FACTOR = 5.00
2
RESTART FILE = sin_e_cr30 STEP 3 INCREMENT 9
1
TIME COMPLETED IN THIS STEP 1.00 TOTAL ACCUMULATED TIME 3.00
ABAQUS VERSION: 5.8-1 DATE: 12-DEC-2000 TIME: 12:16:33
Figure 15 Displace shape plot for member BM – 70% crack case

SECTION POINT 1
MISES VALUE
+1.11E+07
+2.68E+08
+5.26E+08
+7.83E+08
+1.04E+09
+1.30E+09
+1.55E+09
+1.81E+09
+2.07E+09
+2.33E+09
+2.58E+09
+2.84E+09
+3.10E+09
+3.36E+09
51
2
DISPLACEMENT MAGNIFICATION FACTOR = 5.00
Figure 16 Von Mises stress plot for 70% crack case

RESTART FILE = sin_e_cr30 STEP 3 INCREMENT 9
3 TIME COMPLETED IN THIS STEP 1.00 TOTAL ACCUMULATED TIME 3.00
1
ABAQUS VERSION: 5.8-1 DATE: 12-DEC-2000 TIME: 12:16:33
2.7
2.5
2.3
Undamaged
Lower Compression
R Lower Tension
S 2.1 Middle Compression

Middle Tension
R Upper Compression
Upper Tension
1.9
1.7
1.5
X Diamond Inverted K K Single diagonal
Bracing Configuration
Figure 17 Plot of calculated RSR for the 5 bracing configurations for both
damaged and undamaged states
Demonstration of the change in probability of failure (collapse) of a structure when a member is severed (or inspection interval is increased).
i=N
j=M
i
6
Pf = P jstorm i
P sever
j=1
i=1
Probability of storm to cause collapse Annual probability of a severed member over inspection period R
Long Term Load NNS

Calculation of return Experience Data Theoretical Prediction
Distributions CNS
period to cause
member/joint failure LPF
SNS
P
UR = N
N100
1.0
Return Period Modified Price
100 yrs Coefficient 1
Pf
Estimate P f from
ratio of applied
6 S 3n to design S 3N
10 -8
S3N
Pushover
Redundancy undamaged
analysis and code LPF FRACTURE MECHANICS FATIGUE & FRACTURE MODEL
check compliance damaged
damaged
FABRICATION DEFECT STRESS ULTIMATE STRENGTH
1.0 INFORMATION INTENSITY SOLUTIONS
disp FACTORS
Figure 18 Flowchart illustrating the method of reliability calculation
52
Probability of Fracture
Constant Amplitude Loading
Pure Tension
Brace Make-up Weld Defects - Thickness 60 mm
101
PF
100 PF = 1.0
-1
PFZ
10
10-2 S^3N v Fracture 0.02
10-3
PFZ-1
10-4
10-5
10-6
10-7
10-8
10-9
10-10
10-11
10-12
10-13 3
S N at Z years = 1012
10-14 S3N at PF 1.0 x Z / fatigue design life in years
10-15
1010 1011 1012 3 1013
S N at PF =1.0
3 3
S N at Z -1 years = 2x1011 S N
3
S N at PF 1.0 x Z-1 / fatigue design life in years
Figure 19 Example plot of cumulative probability of failure versus accumulated

fatigue damage
53
1 .0 0E -0 4
1 .0 0E -0 5
1 .0 0E -0 6
X - b race d
D iam ond
K - braced
Pf
Inverted K
D iag ona l
1 .0 0E -0 7
1 .0 0E -0 8
1 .0 0E -0 9
1 980 19 85 19 90 199 5 2 000 2 005 20 10 201 5 2 02 0 2 025
y ear
Figure 20 Annual probability of failure for the five bracing configurations considering
single member failure only (100 year fatigue lives)
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06
X - braced
Diamond
K - braced
Pf
Inverted K
Diagonal
1.00E-07
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
year
Figure 21 Annual probability of failure for the five bracing configurations considering
single member failure only (50 year fatigue lives)
54
Figure 22 Relationship between probability that member remains un-severed and
predicted structural reliability
55
1.00E-04
1.00E-05
1.00E-06 Inv K - Single

Inv K - Double (Redistribution ignored)
Inv K - Double (Redistribution included)
Pf
X - Single
X - Double (Redistribution ignored)
1.00E-07 X - Double (Redistribution included)
1.00E-08
1.00E-09
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
year
Figure 23 Annual probability of failure for the X-braced and Inverted K-braced
structures assuming (i) Single Member failure only, (ii) Double Member failure
ignoring the effects of redistribution and (iii) Double Member Failure including the
effects of redistribution
56
APPENDIX A
MODEL DESCRIPTION
57
BLANK PAGE
58
CONTENTS
Page
CONTENTS................................................................................................ 59
1. INTRODUCTION.................................................................................. 61
2. GENERIC DESIGN DESCRIPTION..................................................... 63

2.1 TOPSIDES ...................................................................................... 63
2.2 PILES ............................................................................................ 63
2.3 LEGS ............................................................................................. 64
2.4 CONDUCTORS AND GUIDES ............................................................. 64
2.5 LEVELS.......................................................................................... 64
2.6 TUBULAR JOINTS – GENERAL .......................................................... 66
2.7 JOINT GROUPS............................................................................... 66
3. BRACING CONFIGURATIONS ........................................................... 67
3.1 X-BRACED CONFIGURATION ............................................................ 67
3.2 DIAMOND BRACED .......................................................................... 68
3.3 INVERTED K-BRACED...................................................................... 70
3.4 K-BRACED ..................................................................................... 72
3.5 SINGLE DIAGONAL BRACED ............................................................. 73
4. ELEMENT FORMULATION................................................................. 75
5. MATERIAL MODEL............................................................................. 77
6. LOADING............................................................................................. 79
6.1 STORM CONDITIONS ....................................................................... 79
6.2 THE 100 YEAR MET-OCEAN EVENT ................................................. 79
6.3 REFERENCE LOAD SET ................................................................... 79
6.4 MODELLING OF FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION .............................. 79
7. MODEL DEVELOPMENT .................................................................... 83
8. REFERENCES..................................................................................... 85
List of Tables
A1 Horizontal bracing members’ identifiers
A2 X-brace structure’s member sizes
A3 X-braced structure’s joint group details
A4 Diamond braced structure’s member sizes
A5 Diamond braced structure’s joint group details
A6 Inverted K-braced structure’s member sizes
A7 Inverted K-braced structure’s joint group details
59
A8 K-braced structure’s member sizes
A9 K-braced structure’s joint group details
A10 Single diagonal braced structure’s member sizes
A11 Single diagonal braced structure’s joint group details
A12 Plastic material properties for grade 355EM steel
A13 Baseline SNS location current data
List of Figures
A1 Generic structure
A2 Generic structure leg schematic
A3 Mud line frame
A4 Level 1 frame
A5 Level 2 frame
A6 Level 3 frame
A7 X-braced structure member identifiers – Frames A and B
A8 X-braced structure member identifiers – Frames 1 and 2
A9 X-braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames A and B
A10 X-braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames 1 and 2
A11 Diamond braced structure member identifiers – Frames A and B
A12 Diamond braced structure member identifiers – Frames 1 and 2
A13 Diamond braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames A and B
A14 Diamond braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames 1 and 2
A15 Inverted K-braced structure member identifiers – Frames A and B
A16 Inverted K-braced structure member identifiers – Frames 1 and 2
A17 Inverted K-braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames A and B
A18 Inverted K-braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames 1 and 2
A19 K-braced structure member identifiers – Frames A and B
A20 K-braced structure member identifiers – Frames 1 and 2
A21 K-braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames A and B
A22 K-braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames 1 and 2
A23 Single diagonal braced structure member identifiers – Frames A and B
A24 Single diagonal braced structure member identifiers – Frames 1 and 2
A25 Single diagonal braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames A and B
A26 Single diagonal braced structure joint group identifiers– Frames 1 and 2
A27 Member sizing design process
60
1. INTRODUCTION
In order to provide a systematic investigation into the influence of different bracing

configurations that are common place in the construction of offshore installations,
particularly in the North Sea, a generic structure was developed that consisted of the jackets
legs, horizontal plane framing, conductors, piles and topside weight. This generic structure
was based upon a current jacket that is located in the Southern sector of the North Sea. It is
an inverted K-braced, four-legged wellhead platform, and stands in approximately 45m of
water.
Figure 1 illustrates the generic structure along with the grid line references and the applied
storm directions.
A number of simplifications were made to the generic model as well as changes to the
dimensions of members/piles taken from the baseline jacket. These changes were as a
result of the model development phase and were due to the introduction of the different
bracing configurations to the generic model and the impact on the failure mode of the
structure in the ultimate strength studies.
61
BLANK PAGE
62
2. GENERIC DESIGN DESCRIPTION
2.1 TOPSIDES
The topsides’ weight was based upon that of the baseline jacket that weighs 1200 tonnes.
This was represented in the generic model as a single mass element located at a height of
5 metres above the stab-in points for the jacket, at the geometric centre of the jacket’s plan
view. The topsides were tied into the stab-in points using beam type ‘multi-point
constraints’ which effectively formed a rigid link between the topsides’ mass element and
the stab-in points.
2.2 PILES
The piles were originally modelled using design data from the baseline jacket, i.e. 8 insert
piles, 2 per leg, with the following cross-sectional dimensions:
Outer diameter: 1.829m

Wall thickness: 0.065m
The point of fixity for the piles was taken as being at a depth of 20m below the mud line
and extended from the mud line, up the legs to a height of 11.67m. To simplify the model,
and to reduce computational time in the finite element analyses a decision was taken to
simplify the modelling of the piles as much as possible. It was therefore decided to omit
the soil-structure interaction between the seabed and the piles. Since the study was aimed
at demonstrating the difference between bracing configurations on an arbitrary structure
such simplification was deemed valid and appropriate. However, it should be recognised
that the ultimate strength of a jacket is affected by the piles and therefore when analysing an
individual structure it is necessary to accurately model the soil-structure interaction at the
structure’s foundations. Furthermore, failure of the piles themselves was not captured as
part of this study, in particular ‘pile plunge’ and ‘pull out’ type failures.
At the point where the piles were sleeved and grouted and tied into the structure, an
effective cross section was calculated that would provide similar bending restraint to the
composite section. The following dimensions were originally used; outer
diameter = 1.913.9m, wall thickness = 0.0896m. Preliminary pushover analyses
demonstrated that the piles dominated the ultimate strength of the jacket, with failure of the
jacket occurring in the piles due to the formation of multiple plastic hinges. In an attempt
to de-sensitise the structural response from the behaviour of the piles, the cross-section
dimensions were increased by a factor of 1.2, thus increasing the bending capacity of the
piles and preventing premature yielding of the piles away from the point of built in
restraint. This gave rise to the following cross sectional dimensions:
Sleeved Pile: Outer diameter = 2.2967m

Wall thickness = 0.1075m
Pile: Outer diameter = 2.1948m
Wall thickness = 0.0780m
63
2.3 LEGS
The general layout of the structure’s elevations is illustrated in Figure A2, and provides
details of the cross-sectional dimensions of the legs. These dimensions were equal on all
four of the structure’s legs.
The leg geometry was based upon that of the baseline jacket. However, after attempting
pushover analyses on several bracing configurations it was determined that there was a
‘weak point’ in the legs. This corresponded to the point just above Level 1 where there was
a reduction in the wall thickness of the legs. At this point a plastic hinge was formed and
the analysis began to diverge. This resulted in no difference in the failure mechanisms
between different bracing configurations.
To alleviate this problem, the wall thickness of the legs between Levels 1 and 2 was
increased to the same value as that below Level 1, i.e. a 1400mm outer diameter and a wall
thickness of 65mm.
The batter applied to the structure was in line with the baseline structure and was as
follows:
North direction = 6.185°
East direction = 1.606°
2.4 CONDUCTORS AND GUIDES

The baseline structure contained 18 conductors that were located along the east side of the
jacket. The wave loading on the conductors was transferred back into the structure via the
conductor framing (see Figures A4 to A6 for details of this framing). The conductors were
fully tied in at a depth of 10 metres below the mud line and as such contributed to the
overall stiffness of the structure’s foundation.
The conductors were tied into their associated framing using multi-point restraints that
allowed for axial sliding of the conductor within its guide, but prevented horizontal
movement of the conductor.
The modelling of the conductors was simplified using tubular beam elements with an outer
diameter of 0.685m and a wall thickness of 0.030m.
These simplifications used to model the conductors and the interaction with the jacket
framework was justified since the sole purpose of the conductors inclusion in the model
was to transmit load back into the primary structure of the jacket and add to the stiffness of
the foundation.
2.5 LEVELS
The generic structure comprised of four levels that are referred to as:
Mud line - 43.5m (below sea-level)
Level 1 - 26m (below sea-level)
Level 2 - 8.5m (below sea-level)
Level 3 - 10m (above sea-level)
64
The mud line frame contained no inter-frame bracing whereas the frames at Levels 1 to 3
contained the conductor framing and associated inter-frame bracing.
Figures A3 to A6 illustrate schematics of the four level frames along with details of the
members’ cross-sectional dimensions.
Table A1 details the member identifiers used in this document for the horizontal braces at
each of the above levels.
65
Table A1 Horizontal bracing members’ identifiers
Identifier Location
MLHA Mud Line Frame A

MLHB Mud Line Frame B
MLH1 Mud Line Frame 1
MLH2 Mud Line Frame 2
L1HA Level 1 Frame A
L1HB Level 1 Frame B
L1H1 Level 1 Frame 1
2.6 TUBULAR JOINTS – GENERAL

Within the jacket structure all tubular joints were modelled as rigid connections; i.e. joint
flexibility ignored.
2.7 JOINT GROUPS

For the purpose of the analysis individual joints between chords and braces were grouped
together into joint groups. These joint groups were given a unique identifier within a
particular bracing configuration. Each joint group comprises a chord and up to 7 braces.
Within a joint group the chord was defined as the through member. All other members that
contribute to the joint group were referred to as the braces. In the case of the X-braced
structure there were a number of joint groups that solely comprised of members with
identical cross-sections. The way in which these joint groups were handled is subject to
further discussion under Section 3.1 that describes the crossed bracing configuration.
66
3. BRACING CONFIGURATIONS
As stated earlier, five different bracing configurations were added to the generic model to
establish their impact on the load distribution and ultimate strength of the jackets in both
the damaged and undamaged states.
Each of the bracing configurations is described in more detail in the following sections.
3.1 X-BRACED CONFIGURATION

Figure A7 and Figure A8 illustrate the bracing configuration and naming conventions for
the members on the X-braced structure. The joint groups’ names and locations are
illustrated in Figure A9 and Figure A10. Table A2 details the bracing members’ cross-
sectional dimensions in terms of an outer diameter measurement and a wall thickness
measurement.
Table A2 X-braced structure’s member sizes
Bay Slenderness Member size
ratio (mm)
Upper 54.78 700 x 55
Middle 51.03 750 x 55
Lower 45.02 850 x 40
Table A3 below provides details of the joint group identifiers for those joint groups in the
X-braced structure that were studied in detail as part of the stress redistribution study. For
each joint group, the table identifies which members form the chord and the braces. In
addition, the index in the table’s header is a cross-reference to the joint number in the plots
of Reference 0 containing the data output from the stress redistribution study. Index ‘1’
refers to the chord and indices 2 to 7 refer to the individual joints between the chord and the
brace identified in the table.
Joint cans were added to the bracing configuration at those joints that formed the X-
bracing, i.e. joint groups MLA/B/1/2, L1A/B/1/2, L2A/B/1/2, and L3A/B/1/2. These joint
cans were approximately 2 metres long and aimed to provide localised stiffening to the
joints by increasing the wall thickness of the bracing member. They possessed the
following cross section dimensions:
Between the mud line and Level 1: 800 x 60mm
Between Level 1 and Level 2: 750 x 60mm
Between Level 2 and Level 3: 700 x 60mm
In addition, for these particular joint groups the identification of chords and braces was
somewhat different to that employed for all other joint groups. Instead, utilisation values
were calculated based on one diagonal representing the chord and the other representing the
braces, and visa-versa. These utilisation values were then compared and the worst-case
values for the chord and braces selected.
67
Table A3 X-braced structure’s joint group details
Joint Chord Joint N°

group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ML1A Leg 1A MLHA AL1L MLH1 1LAL
ML2A Leg 2A MLH2 2LAL MLHA AL2L
L11A Leg A1 L1H1 1MAL 1LAU L1HA AM1L AL1U
L12A Leg A2 L1HA AM2L AL2U L1H1 2M2L 2L2U
L21A Leg A1 L2H1 1UAL 1MAU L2HA AU1L AM1U
L22A Leg A2 L2H2 2UAL 2MAU L2HA AU2L AM2U
ML1B Leg 1B MLHB BL1L MLH1 1LBL
ML2B Leg 2B MLH2 2LBL MLHB BL2L
L11B Leg B1 L1H1 1MBL 1LBU L1HB 1MBL 1LBU
L12B Leg B2 L1HB BM2L BL2U L1H2 2MBL 2LBU
L21B Leg B1 L2H1 1UBL 1MBU L2HB BU1L BM1U
L22B Leg B2 L2HB BU2L BM2U L2H2 2UBL 2MBU
3.2 DIAMOND BRACED

the members on the diamond braced structure. The joint groups’ names and locations are
measurement.
Table A4 Diamond braced structure’s member sizes
ratio (mm)
Upper 55.27 550 x 35
Middle 51.10 600 x 40
Lower 44.88 700 x 45
diamond braced structure that were studied in detail as part of the stress redistribution
study. For each joint group, the table identifies which members form the chord and the
braces. In addition, the index in the table’s header is a cross-reference to the joint number
in the plots of Reference 0 containing the data output from the stress redistribution study.
68
Index ‘1’ refers to the chord and indices 2 to 8 refer to the individual joints between the
chord and the brace identified in the table.
Table A5 Diamond braced structure’s joint group details
Joint Chord Joint

group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
ML1A Leg 1A MLH1 MLHA - - - - -
ML2A Leg 2A MLH2 MLHA - - - - -
ML11A Leg 1A 1LAL 1LAU AL1U AL1L - - -
ML12A Leg 2A 2LAL 2LAU AL2U AL2L - - -
L11A Leg 1A L1HA L1H1 - - - - -
L12A Leg 2A L1H2 L1HA - - - - -
L121A Leg 1A 1MAL 1MAU AM1L AM1U - - -
L122A Leg 2A 2MAU 2MAL AM2L AM2U - - -
L21A Leg 1A L2HA L2H1 - - - - -
L22A Leg 2A L2HA L2H2 - - - - -
ML1B Leg 1B MLH1 MLHB - - - - -
ML2B Leg 2B MLH2 MLHB - - - - -
ML11B Leg 1B BL1L BL1U 1LBL 1LBU - - -
ML12B Leg 2B BL2L BL2U 2LBL 2LBU - - -
L11B Leg 1B L1HB L1H1 - - - - -
L12B Leg 2B L1H2 L1HB - - - - -
L121B Leg 1B 1MBL 1MBU BM1L BM1U - - -
L122B Leg 2B 2MBU 2MBL BM2U BM2L - - -
L21B Leg 1B L2H1 L2HB - - - - -
L22B Leg 2B L2H2 L2HB - - - - -
MLA MLHA AL1L AL2L
L1A L1HA AM1L AM2L AL2U AL1U - - -
L2A L2HA AU1L AU2L AM2U AM1U - - -
MLB MLHB BL2L BL1L
L1B L1HB BM2L BM1L BL1U BL2U - - -
L2B L2HB BU2L BU1L BM2U BM1U - - -
ML1 MLH1 1LAL 1LBL
L11 L1H1 1MAL 1MBL 1LAU 1LBU PLAN PLAN PLAN
L21 L2H1 1UAL 1UBL 1MAU 1MBU PLAN PLAN PLAN
ML2 MLH2 2LAL 2LBL
L12 L1H2 PLAN 2MAL 2MBL 2LBU 2LAU - -
L22 L2H2 PLAN 2UAL 2UBL 2MBU 2MAU
69
3.3 INVERTED K-BRACED
the members on the inverted K-braced structure. The joint groups’ names and locations are
measurement.
Table A6 Inverted K-braced structure’s member sizes
Ratio (mm)
Upper 55.9 800 x 40
Middle 51.01 850 x 40
Lower 46.24 950 x 45
inverted K-braced structure that were studied in detail as part of the stress redistribution
70
Table A7 Inverted K-braced structure’s joint group details
Joint Chord Joint

group
1 2 3 4 5 6
ML1A Leg 1A 1LA MLH1 AL1 MLHA
ML2A Leg 2A 2LA MLH2 AL2 MLHA
L11A Leg 1A 1MA L1H1 AM1 L1HA -
L12A Leg 2A 2MA L1H2 AM2 L1HA -
L21A Leg 1A 1UA L2H1 AU1 L2HA -
L22A Leg 2A 2UA L2H2 AU2 L2HA -
ML1B Leg 1B 1LB MLH1 BL1 MLHB
ML2B Leg 2B 2LB MLH2 BL2 MLHB
L11B Leg 1B 1MB L1H1 BM1 L1HB -
L12B Leg 2B BM2 L1HB 2MB L1H2 -
L21B Leg 1B 1UB L2H1 BU1 L2HB -
L22B Leg 2B 2UB L2H2 BU2 L2HB -
L1A L1HA AL2 AL1 - - -
L2A L2HA AM1 AM2 - - -
L1B L1HB BL1 BL2 - - -
L2B L2HB BM1 BM2 - - -
L11 L1H1 1LB 1LA PLAN PLAN PLAN
L21 L2H1 1MB 1MA PLAN PLAN PLAN
L12 L1H2 2LA 2LB PLAN - -
L22 L2H2 2MB 2MA PLAN - -
71
3.4 K-BRACED
the members on the K-braced structure. The joint groups’ names and locations are
measurement.
Table A8 K-braced structure’s member sizes
Bay Slenderness Member sizes
Ratio (mm)
Upper 55.9 800 x 40
Middle 51.01 850 x 40
Lower 46.24 950 x 45
K-braced structure that were studied in detail as part of the stress redistribution study. For
each joint group, the table identifies which members form the chord and the braces. In
addition, the index in the table’s header is a cross-reference to the joint number in the plots
of Reference 0 containing the data output from the stress redistribution study. Index ‘1’
refers to the chord and indices 2 to 6 refer to the individual joints between the chord and the
brace identified in the table.
72
Table A9 K-braced structure’s joint group details
Joint group Chord Joint

1 2 3 4 5 6
ML1A Leg 1A MLH1 MLHA - - -
ML2A Leg 2A MLH2 MLHA - - -
L11A Leg 1A L1HA AL1 L1H1 1LA -
L12A Leg 2A L1H2 2LA L1HA AL2 -
L21A Leg 1A L2H1 1MA L2HA AM1 -
L22A Leg 2A L2H2 2MA L2HA AM2 -
ML1B Leg 1B MLH1 MLHB - - -
ML2B Leg 2B MLH2 MLHB - - -
L11B Leg 1B L1HB BL1 L1H1 1LB -
L12B Leg 2B L1HB BL2 L1H2 2LB -
L21B Leg 1B L2H1 1MB L2HB BM1 -
L22B Leg 2B L2H2 2MB L2HB BM2 -
MLA MLHA AL1 AL2 - - -
L1A L1HA AM1 AM2 - - -
L2A L2HA AU2 AU1 - - -
MLB MLHB BL2 BL1 - - -
L1B L1HB BM2 BM1 - - -
L2B L2HB BU1 BU2 - - -
ML1 MLH1 1LA 1LB - - -
L11 L1H1 PLAN PLAN PLAN 1MB 1MA
L21 L2H1 PLAN PLAN PLAN 1UB 1UA
ML2 MLH2 2LA 2LB - - -
L12 L1H2 PLAN 2MA 2MB - -
L22 L2H2 PLAN 2UA 2UB - -
3.5 SINGLE DIAGONAL BRACED

the members on the single braced structure. The joint groups’ names and locations are
measurement.
73
Table A10 Single diagonal braced structure’s member sizes
Bay Slenderness Member sizes
Ratio (mm)
Upper 55.28 1100 x 70
Middle 50.06 1200 x 55
Lower 45.13 1350 x 45
single diagonal braced structure that were studied in detail as part of the stress redistribution
Table A11 Single diagonal braced structure’s joint group details
Joint Chord Joint

Group
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
ML1A Leg 1A MLHA MLH1 - - - -
ML2A Leg 2A MLH2 2L MLHA AL - -
L11A Leg 1A L1H1 1M 1L L1HA AM AL
L12A Leg 2A L1HA L1H2 - - - -
L21A Leg 1A L2HA L2H1 - - - -
L22A Leg 2A L2H2 2U 2M L2HA AU AM
ML1B Leg 1B MLHB BL MLH1 1L - -
ML2B Leg 2B MLH2 MLHB - - - -
L11B Leg 1B L1HB L1H1 - - - -
L12B Leg 2B L1HB BM BL L1H2 2M 2L
L21B Leg 1B L2HB BU BM L2H1 1U 1M
L22B Leg 2B L2H2 L2HB - - - -
74
4. ELEMENT FORMULATION
Each structural member in the model was modelled using two-node linear beam elements,
which are referred to as B31 elements in the ABAQUS element library. These elements are
suitable for modelling both thick members, in which shear deformation is important, and
slender beams, in which shear deformation is not important. Since the structures’ members
were classified as thin walled sections, slender elements are more applicable, thus justifying
the use of such elements. Furthermore, the use of such elements in conjunction with the
applied mesh refinement in the model was deemed to provide a reasonable compromise
between analysis run times and accuracy of results owing to the large number of runs that
have been undertaken as part of this project.
75
BLANK PAGE
76
5. MATERIAL MODEL
The material model used in the analysis is based upon a typical structural steel,
Grade 355EM, which is commonly used in the fabrication of offshore jacket
structures in the North Sea.
For the load redistribution study a linear elastic material has been used, as is the
case for the buckling analysis that feeds into the non-linear pushover analysis. The
values adopted for density, Elastic Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio are as follows:
Density: 7820kg/m3
Elastic Modulus: 206.8GPa
Poisson’s Ratio: 0.29
For the non-linear pushover analysis itself an elasto-plastic model was used, as
detailed in Table A12 below. It should be noted that ABAQUS requires that the
plasticity be defined in terms of true stress and strain as opposed to the more
conventional nominal stress and strain.
Table A12 Plastic material properties for grade 355EM steel
True Stress True Strain
355.0 0.000
461.5 0.06780
537.7 0.12744
612.3 0.21708
681.8 0.33675
709.7 0.39662
797.1 0.63620
814.9 0.69612
847.4 0.81596
890.0 0.99576
77
BLANK PAGE
78
6. LOADING
6.1 STORM CONDITIONS

As part of the stress redistribution study three storm directions were considered, with their
point of origin in the following directions;
East
Northeast
North
These storm conditions comprised of a single pass of the 100 year met-ocean event wave
and the 100 year met ocean event current for the given baseline southern North Sea
location.
6.2 THE 100 YEAR MET-OCEAN EVENT

The loading applied in both the stress redistribution analysis and the ultimate strength
analyses was based on the 100 year storm wave, current and wind for the baseline location.
The wind loading applied was simplified as a concentrated load applied at the geometric
centre of the four stab-in points. It was representative of the wind loading that would be
introduced into the structure as a result of the wind resistance of the topsides. It had a
magnitude of 4.664kN.
The current-induced load and the wave-induced load result in both a buoyancy component
and a distributed drag load. These were determined by the use of the ABAQUS AQUA
analysis tool within the ABAQUS code (Reference 2).
6.3 REFERENCE LOAD SET

The Reference Load Set (RLS) was derived from the distributed 100 year storm loads that
were applied to the jacket structure in the form of distributed member loads that resulted in
the greatest base shear in the jacket structure. The RLS comprised of equivalent
concentrated loads distributed throughout the jacket structure. In order to determine the
RLS, the jacket structure was held fixed at every degree of freedom within the model and
subjected to just the wave passage loading and the wind loading on the topsides (gravity
loads and buoyancy loads excluded). ABAQUS AQUA was used in the analysis. The
analysis results file was then interrogated utilising in-house post processing subroutines to
derive the equivalent nodal forces that generate the same maximum base shear load as the
wave passage load case.
6.4 MODELLING OF FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION

ABAQUS AQUA Analysis has been used to determine the loading induced into the
structure as a result of components being partly or fully submerged in a steady current or
during a wave passage.
AQUA requires the definition of the fluid properties, i.e. the fluid density, and the
elevations of the sea-bed and the free-surface. In this study the following values were used:
79
Density: 1025.0kg/m3
Sea bed: -44.5m
Free-surface: 0.0m
The definition of the steady current vector was dependent on the storm direction, but is of a
constant magnitude for a given depth. Table A13 details the current magnitude and depth
input data applied in the model.
Table A13 Baseline SNS location current data
Depth below free surface Current magnitude

(m)
(ms-1)
0.0 1.66
8.0 1.66
19.6 1.48
25.5 1.46
35.5 1.41
44.49 1.13
44.50 0.0
The wave data used in the analysis was in the form of a binary data input file. It provided
the wave surface elevations, particle velocities and accelerations, and the dynamic pressure
at points in a user-defined grid.
The use of ABAQUS AQUA enables the algorithms within the finite element code to
determine the location of members in relation to the height of the waves free surface.
Based upon this, the algorithm is able to determine whether the member contributes to the
buoyancy of the structure and whether it’s subjected to drag loading.
In calculating the loading applied to the structure, a marine growth allowance was added to
the outer diameter dimension of all members in the structure, to define the effective outer
diameter that is required in the ABAQUS AQUA analysis. The value used was 100mm,
and was based upon what can reasonably be expected to occur for a jacket located in the
southern North Sea.
In calculating the drag loading acting on a member the ABAQUS AQUA analysis
determines both the transverse drag and tangential drag. The transverse drag is attributed to
the cross-sectional resistance to fluid motion and is given by the following equation for a
particular point in the wave passage time history:
80
1
FD UC D DVn 2
2
where:
FD = force per unit length, transverse to member
U = density of fluid
CD = drag coefficient = 1.2
D = effective outer diameter
Vn = fluid particle velocity, normal to member
The tangential drag is attributed to the member’s skin friction, and is given by the following
equation for a particular point in the wave’s passage time history:
1
FT UCT SDV h1
2
where:
FT = force per unit length, tangent to member
CT = Tangential drag coefficient = 0.002
VT = fluid particle velocity, tangential to member
h = constant = 2 (for quadratic dependence of force on velocity)
In both of the above equations the fluid particle velocity at a particular point in time is the
sum of the current and wave velocities in either the normal or tangential directions to the
given member.
81
BLANK PAGE
82
7. MODEL DEVELOPMENT
As part of the model generation phase of the project an iterative process was
adopted to sizing the members for each bracing configuration. The process is
described below and illustrated in Figure A27.
Initially the bracing members were sized based upon a slenderness ratio that was
derived from the bracing members on the baseline jacket. One of the bracing
configurations was chosen and subjected to the 100 year storm event loading
scenario from the East direction. Upon completion of the finite element analysis,
the results file, generated by ABAQUS was interrogated using bespoke post
processing subroutines to assess the joint utilisation values at each joint group, in
accordance with Reference 0 and the member utilisation values for the primary
steel work in accordance with Reference 0. Failure of the code checks (i.e. a
calculated utilisation value in excess of unity) resulted in modifications to the failed
member cross sectional dimensions, whilst maintaining symmetry, and the process
repeated until the code check was satisfied. These modifications were then carried
over to the next bracing configuration to be considered, which was then subjected
to the 100 year storm event loading scenario and to the code checking routines.
Again, failure to comply with the code checks resulted in modifications to the
members and re-analysis of the current structure and those that had previously
passed the code check. This process continued until all baseline models had
identical frame members, legs, and bracing with consistent slenderness ratios, and
that all 3 storm direction loading scenarios didn’t result in failure of either the joint
or member code checks
83
BLANK PAGE
84
8. REFERENCES
1. Stress Redistribution in Platform Substructures Due to Primary Member

Damage and its Effect on Structural Reliability – EQE Report N° 45-20-R-01
Draft – 19th January 2001 – Appendix D – Stress Redistribution Study Joint
Group Utilisation Plots
2. ABAQUS 5.8 – Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.
3. Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification –
Fourth Edition-1990, HMSO – Appendix A21
4. API 2A-LRFD Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms – Load and Resistance Factor Design,
First Edition 1993
85
+21.5 m
+10 m
-8.5 m
-26 m
z North
-43.5 m East
North Storm
Northeast Storm
1 2
East Storm
Figure A1 Generic structure
86
+21500
6
5
2000
+10000
4
7826
3
2750 3250
-8500
2
-26000
1 Section details
1. 1400 x 65
2. 1400 x 85
3. 1400 x 35
4. 1400 x 75
5. 1215 x 50
-43500
6. 1030 x 60
All dimensions are in mm
Figure A2 Generic structure leg schematic
87
27400
13700
900x35 900x50 900x35
900x35
900x35
Plan @ -43500
900x50
900x50
24500
4500
12250
900x35
900x35
900x35 900x50 900x35
4500
Figure A3 Mud line frame
23518.7
10179.35 2920
900x25 900x50 900x25

3868.2
700x30
800x30
900x35
20
0x
4880
65
1000x30 700x30
3120
3750
1200x60
Plan @ -26000
23736.5
700x30
800x35
950x50
3500
3120
700x30
65
0x
20
4880
900x35
800x30
700x30
3868.2
900x25 900x25
11759.35 900x50 9009.35
Figure A4 Level 1 frame
88
22537.4
11268.7 8519.4
9178.7 3910
900x50 900x25
900x25
2036.5
900x45
900x30
800x30
20
900x35
0x
3000
4880
65
1000x30 900x30
4060
3120
1200x60
700x30 700x30 Plan @ -8500
900x50
20073
3500
3750
3120
4060
900x30
65
0x
900x35
20
3000
4880
800x30
900x30
900x45
2036.5
900x25 900x25
900x50
89
13500 4000 4000
10750
900x30 900x35
70
30
4280
0x
0x
30
70
4980
20
800x25
800x35
0x
8100
65
700x30
1400
70
0x
800x35
30
16200
Plan @ +10000
1400
700x30
65
0x
800x25
800x35
20
4980
70
30
4280
0x
0x
30
70
900x30
900x35
21500
90
AU1U AU2U BU1U BU2U
AU1L AU2L BU1L BU2L
AM1U AM2U BM1U BM2U
AM1L AM2L BM1L BM2L
AL1U AL2U BL1U BL2U
AL1L AL2L BL1L BL2L
Frame A Frame B
Figure A7 X-braced structure member identifiers - Frames A and B
91
1UAU 1UBU 2UAU 2UBU
1UAL 1UBL 2UAL 2UBL
1MAU 1MBU 2MAU 2MBU
1MAL 1MBL 2MAL 2MBL
1LAU 1LBU 2LAU 2LBU
1LAL 1LBL 2LAL 2LBL
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A8 X-braced structure member identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
92
L31A L32A L31B L32B
LUA LUB
L21A L22A L21B L22B
LMA LMB
L11A L12A L11B L12B
LLA LLB
ML1A ML2A ML1B ML2B
Frame A Frame B
Figure A9 X-braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames A and B
93
L31A L31B L32A L32B
LU1 LU2
L21A L21B L22A L22B
LM1 LM2
L11A L11B L12A L12B
LL1 LL2
ML1A ML1B ML2A ML2B
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A10 X-braced structure joint Group identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
94
AU2U BU1U BU2U
AU1U
AU1L AU2L BU1L BU2L
BM1U BM2U
AM1U AM2U
AM1L AM2L BM1L BM2L
AL1U AL2U BL1U BL2U
AL1L AL2L BL1L BL2L
Frame A Frame B
Figure A11 Diamond braced structure member identifiers - Frames A and B
95
1UBU 2UAU 2UBU
1UAU
1UAL 1UBL 2UAL 2UBL
2MAU 2MBU
1MAU 1MBU
1MAL 1MBL 2MAL 2MBL
1LAU 1LBU 2LAU 2LBU
1LAL 1LBL 2LAL 2LBL
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A12 Diamond braced structure member identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
96
L31A L32A L31B L32B
L231A L232A L231B L232B
L21A L22A L21B L22B
L121A L122A L121B L122B
L11A L12A L11B L12B
ML11A ML12A ML11B ML12B
ML1A ML2A ML1B ML2B
Frame A Frame B
Figure A13 Diamond braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames A and B
97
L31A L31B L32A L32B
L231A L231B L232A L232B
L21A L21B L22A L22B
L121A L121B L122A L122B
L11A L11B L12A L12B
ML11A ML11B ML12A ML12B
ML1A ML1B ML2A ML2B
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A14 Diamond braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
98
AU1 AU2 BU1 BU2
AM1 AM2 BM1 BM2
AL1 AL2 BL1 BL2
Frame A Frame B
Figure A15 Inverted K-braced structure member identifiers - Fames A and B
99
1UA 1UB 2UA 2U2
1MA 1MB 2MA 2MB
1LA 1LB 2LA 2LB
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A16 Inverted K-braced structure member identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
100
L31A L3A L32A L31B L3B L32B
ML1A ML2A ML1B ML2B
Frame A Frame B
Figure A17 Inverted K-braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames A and B
101
L31A L31 L31B L32A L32 L32B
L21A L21 L21B L22A L2B

L22 L22B
L11A L11 L11B L12A L12 L12B
ML1A ML1B ML2A ML2B
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A18 Inverted K-braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
102
AU1 AU2 BU1 BU2
AM1 AM2 BM1 BM2
AL1 AL2 BL1 BL2
Frame A Frame B
Figure A19 K-braced structure member identifiers - Frames A and B
103
1UA 1UB 2UA 2U2
1MA 1MB 2MA 2MB
1LA 1LB 2LA 2LB
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A20 K-braced structure member identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
104
L31A L32A L31B L32B
ML1A MLA ML2A ML1B MLB ML2B
Frame A Frame B
Figure A21 K-braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames A and B
105
L31A L31B L32A L32B
L21A L21 L21B L22A L22

L2B L22B
L11A L11 L11B L12A L12 L12B
ML1A ML1 ML1B ML2A ML2 ML2B
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A22 K-braced structure joint group identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
106
AU BU
BM
AM
BL
AL
Frame A Frame B
Figure A23 Single diagonal braced structure member identifiers - Frames A and B
107
1U 2U
1M 2M
1L
2L
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A24 Single diagonal braced structure member identifiers - Frames 1 and 2
108
L31A L32A L31B L32B
L21A L22A L21B L22B
L11A L12A L11B L12B
ML1A ML2A ML1B ML2B
Frame A Frame B
Figure A25 Single diagonal braced structure joint group identifiers –

Frames A and B
109
L31A L31B L32A L32B
L21A L21B L22A L22B
L11A L11B L12A L12B
ML1A ML1B ML2A ML2B
Frame 1 Frame 2
Figure A26 Single diagonal braced structure joint group identifiers –

Frames 1 and 2
110
Define bracing slenderness ratios
Run 100 year event analysis on

Type I jacket
Perform unity checks
<1

Type II jacket
<1

Type III jacket
<1

Type IV jacket
<1

Type IV jacket
<1
Generate Reference load set for

each jacket type
Figure A27 Member sizing design process
111
BLANK PAGE
112
APPENDIX B
STRESS REDISTRIBUTION STUDY
113
BLANK PAGE
114
CONTENTS
Page
CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 115
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................117
2. ANALYSIS APPROACH......................................................................118
2.1 UNDAMAGED STRESS STATE ...................................................................118
2.2 SEVERED MEMBER ANALYSIS ..................................................................118
2.3 POST PROCESSING......................................................................................119
3. RESULTS.............................................................................................121
3.1 GLOBAL RESPONSE ............................................................................121
3.2 LOCAL RESPONSE...............................................................................123
4. DISCUSSION .......................................................................................125
4.1 X-BRACED CONFIGURATION ..............................................................125
4.2 DIAMOND BRACED CONFIGURATION ...............................................127
4.3 INVERTED K-BRACED CONFIGURATION...........................................129
4.4 K-BRACED CONFIGURATION ..............................................................130
4.5 SINGLE DIAGONAL BRACED CONFIGURATION................................133
5. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................137
6. REFERENCES .....................................................................................139
List of Tables
B1 Summary of members severed
B2 Mean joint utilisation values for undamaged structure
B3 Summary of significant results from stress redistribution study
List of Figures
B1 X-braced Frame A – Member AM1U severed
B2 X-braced Frame A – Member AM1L severed
B3 X-braced Frame A – Member AL1U severed
B4 X-braced Frame A - Member AL1L severed
B5 Diamond braced Frame A – Member AL1L severed
B6 Diamond braced Frame A – Member AL1U severed
B7 Diamond braced Frame A – Member AM1L severed
B8 Inverted K Frame A – Member AM1 severed
B9 Inverted K Frame B – Member AM1 severed
B10 Inverted K Frame 1 – Member AM1 severed
B11 Inverted K Frame 2 – Member AM1 severed
115
B12 Inverted K Frame A – Member AL1 severed
B13 Inverted K Frame B – Member AL1 severed
B14 Inverted K Frame 1 – Member AL1 severed
B15 Inverted K Frame 2 – Member AL1 severed
B16 K-braced Frame A – Member AL1 severed
B17 K-braced Frame B – Member AL1 severed
B18 K-braced Frame 1 – Member AL1 severed
B20 K-braced Frame A – Member AL2 severed
B21 K-braced Frame B – Member AL2 severed
B24 K-braced Frame A – Member AM1 severed
B25 K-braced Frame B – Member AM1 severed
B26 K-braced Frame 1 – Member AM1 severed
B28 K-braced Frame A – Member AM2 severed
B29 K-braced Frame B – Member AM2 severed
B32 Single diagonal braced Frame A – Member AL severed
B33 Single diagonal braced Frame B – Member AL severed
B34 Single diagonal braced Frame 1 – Member AL severed
B35 Single diagonal braced Frame 2 – Member AL severed
B36 Single diagonal braced Frame A – Member AM severed
B37 Single diagonal braced Frame B – Member AM severed
B38 Single diagonal braced Frame 1 – Member AM severed
B39 Single diagonal braced Frame 2 – Member AM severed
B40 Single diagonal braced Frame A – Member BL severed
B41 Single diagonal braced Frame B – Member BL severed
B42 Single diagonal braced Frame 1 – Member BL severed
B43 Single diagonal braced Frame 2 – Member BL severed
B44 Single diagonal braced Frame A – Member BM severed
B45 Single diagonal braced Frame B – Member BM severed
B46 Single diagonal braced Frame 1 – Member BM severed
B47 Single diagonal braced Frame 2 – Member BM severed
116
1. INTRODUCTION
The Stress Redistribution Study was a comparative study to investigate the effects of bracing
configurations, and hence redundancy levels on the degree of stress redistribution that
occurred when a member was fully severed. The study aimed to establish the load
distribution, in terms of joint utilisation values, for all joints in an undamaged structure, as a
result of the structure being exposed to the 100 year storm load. The structure was then re-
analysed with a single member severed, and the redistribution of the load analysed by
reassessing the joint utilisation values. In conducting this study a total of 15 undamaged
jacket FE analyses were conducted along with 354 severed member FE analyses.
The analysis considered the three storm directions as detailed in Reference 1.
117
2. ANALYSIS APPROACH
2.1 UNDAMAGED STRESS STATE

Each of the five models described in Reference 1 were subjected to each of the three storm
loads to determine the undamaged load distribution in terms of joint utilisation values
calculated in accordance with Reference 2 using in-house post processing sub routines. This
effectively derived a baseline load distribution within each structure for each load case to
compare the results from the severed member analysis with.
2.2 SEVERED MEMBER ANALYSIS

Severed members were introduced into the five jackets by removing the penultimate element
from the finite element mesh of the required member. The damaged structures were then
exposed to each of the three storm loads to establish the impact on the load distribution.
Table B1 details those member identifiers (See Reference 1) that were severed as part of this
study.
Table B1
Summary of members severed

Bracing Configuration Storm Severed Member Identifiers
X / Diamond N/NE AL1L, AL2L, AL1U, AL2U, AM1L, AM2L, AM1U,

AM2U, AU1L, AU2L, AU1U, AU2U
BL1L, BL2L, BL1U, BL2U, BM1L, BM2L, BM1U, BM2U,
BU1L, BU2L, BU1U, BU2U
1LAL, 1LBL, 1LAU, 1LBU, 1MAL, 1MBL, 1MAU, 1MBU,
1UAL, 1UBL, 1UAU, 1UBU
2LAL, 2LBL, 2LAU, 2LBU, 2MAL, 2MBL, 2MAU, 2MBU,
2UAL, 2UBL, 2UAU, 2UBU
E AL1L, AL2L, AL1U, AL2U, AM1L, AM2L, AM1U,
AM2U, AU1L, AU2L, AU1U, AU2U
Inverted K / K N/NE AL1, AL2, AM1, AM2, AU1, AU2
BL1, BL2, BM1, BM2, BU1, BU2
1LA, 1LB, 1MA, 1MB, 1UA, 1UB
2LA, 2LB, 2MA, 2MB, 2UA, 2UB
E AL1, AL2, AM1, AM2, AU1, AU2
Single diagonal N/NE AL, AM, AU
BL, BM, BU
1L, 1M, 1U
2L, 2M, 2U
E AL, AM, AU
BL, BM, BU
118
2.3 POST PROCESSING
The output from the joint code checking analyses was subjected to two levels of data
processing to establish the global response and local response of the structure in terms of the
redistribution of load throughout the structure.
2.3.1 Global Response

The investigations to determine the global response provides an indication of the overall
ability of the jacket structure to absorb damage and redistribute the load. The global response
was measured in terms of a percentage shift in the mean joint utilisation value between the
damaged and undamaged states, and whether joint utilisation values exceeded unity when
subjected to the joint utilisation code check.
The output from the global analysis was represented in terms of a joint utilisation cumulative
distribution and the analytically derived density function of this distribution. In generating
the plots the joint utilisation values were subjected to a curve fitting sub-routine using linear
regression. An equation of the following type was assumed to represent the cumulative
distribution:
y 1 ae bx
The above equation was converted into linear form by taking natural logs to give an equation
of the form:
ln Y ' c bx
where;
Y' 1 y
c ln a
The linearised equation and data were then subjected to a least squares approach to perform
the linear regression, using the ‘Gauss-Seidel’ approach to numerically solve the simultaneous
equations that were generated as part of the least squares method. The coefficients from the
simultaneous equations were then substituted into the original equation and plotted.
The plotted density functions represent the analytical solution to the differential of the
cumulative distribution function, i.e.
d d
p ( x) P( x) 1 ae bx
dx dx
where;
p(x) = probability density function, pdf
119
P(x) = cumulative distribution function , cdf
and is used to derive an indication of the shift in the mean joint utilisation value in the
structure as a result of a member being severed. The mean value of the PDF is calculated
using the moment generating function of the density function and is given by the following
equation;
f
tx
Mx t ³e p x dx
0
2.3.2 Local Response

The investigations to determine the local response provides a more in depth in-sight into how
individual joints were affected by the damaged member. The shifts in the calculated joint
utilisation values from the undamaged state have been mapped onto plots of the jacket’s four
elevations. The shift is represented by a simple colour code:
Red = greater than 30% increase

Amber = an increase less than or equal to 30%
Black = negligible effect
Green = reduction
The shifts in joint utilisation values have been used to infer the redistribution of load as a
consequence of a member failing and the jacket being subjected to the 100 year storm load.
120
3. RESULTS
The results from the stress redistribution study are detailed in References 3 and 4, and are
predominantly in a graphical format. The global effects were measured in terms of a
percentage shift in the mean joint utilisation from the undamaged to the damaged case and on
whether unity was exceeded at any of the joints. Where this was the case the joint has been
identified in terms of its joint group.
Local effects were analysed in more detail to establish how individual joints were impacted
by the load redistribution at selective joint groups, and plotted as contour plots in Figure B1 to
Figure B47.
3.1 GLOBAL RESPONSE

Reference 3 details the cumulative joint utilisation distribution curves and corresponding
density functions from the load redistribution analysis. Table B2 summarises the mean joint
utilisation values for the undamaged state.
Table B2
Mean joint utilisation values for undamaged structures

Bracing Configuration Storm
East North East North
X 0.1578 0.1791 0.1648
Diamond 0.1511 0.1761 0.1484
Inverted K 0.1518 0.1720 0.1394
K 0.1835 0.2141 0.1860
Single diagonal 0.1457 0.1577 0.1519
Table B3 summarises the severed member analyses that resulted in a significant shift in the
mean joint utilisation value and those analyses that resulted in joints exceeding the code based
unity check.
121
Table B3
Summary of significant results from stress redistribution study

Bracing Storm Severed Mean Joint % Shift Maximum Joint
Configuration Member Utilisation Utilisation Group
X E AL2L 0.1583 6.0 1.0057 L12A
N 2LBL 0.1643 4.3 1.1092 L12B
N 2LAU 0.1643 4.3 1.0779 L12B
Inverted K E AM1 0.2482 66.5 1.3803 L2A
E AM2 0.2476 66.1 1.9704 L2A
N 2MA 0.2686 95.9 10.6249 L22
N 2MB 0.2709 97.6 8.8881 L22
N 2LA 0.1770 29.1 1.3729 L12B
N 2LB 0.1777 29.6 1.4101 L12A
NE 2MA 0.2262 34.7 1.5765 L22
NE 2MB 0.2271 35.3 1.2310 L22
K E AM1 0.2779 54.5 2.3276 L11A
E AM2 0.2860 59 2.3787 L12A
E AL1 0.2054 14.2 1.0471 ML1A
N 2UA 0.2429 33.3 1.1168 L31
N 2UB 0.2442 34.0 1.1282 L31
N 2MA See Note 1 - 9.4972 L12
N 2MB See Note 1 - 9.6407 L12
N 1MB 0.2139 17.4 1.3734 L11B
N 1MA 0.2125 16.6 1.3658 L11A
NE AM1 0.2538 20.6 1.2103 L11A
NE AM2 0.2568 22.1 1.1203 L12A
NE 2MA 0.2657 26.3 1.2042 L12A
NE 2MB 0.2645 25.7 1.7551 L12B
Single diagonal E BM 0.2468 78.8 1.2992 L12B
E AM 0.2500 81.1 1.0477 L12A
N 2U 0.2135 48.5 1.5368 L31C
N 2M 0.2838 97.4 1.5053 L12B
Note 1: Owing to the impact on the calculated utilisation values the distribution for this particular
damage state became distorted, and as a result the curve fitting process described previously failed to
determine an accurate solution owing to the poor fit of the assumed distribution to the data set. As a
result it was not possible to determine the mean utilisation value for this particular damage state using
this approach.
122
3.2 LOCAL RESPONSE
Reference 4 details the results of local effects due to the damage introduced into the jackets
and exposure to the 100 year storm event. Plots have been generated for a number of joint
groups, i.e. those located at and below Level 2 in the jackets. The study was limited to these
joint groups following an initial review of the results that highlighted above this level the
effect on joint utilisation was minimal in the majority of cases except where a member was
severed in the upper bay. For such damaged states the effect on the joint utilisation values
was concentrated about the upper bay.
As stated previously, the local response analysis focussed on the East storm direction only in
order to keep the data output and discussion to a manageable size.
123
BLANK PAGE
124
4. DISCUSSION
In general it can be seen that for the higher redundancy bracing configurations, i.e. those with
more bracing members, the global effect on the joint utilisation distribution is minimal. This
is clearly evident in Reference 3 for the diamond and X-braced configurations where the
cumulative distributions are almost identical to the damaged member cumulative
distributions, and illustrate a relatively small shift in the mean joint utilisation values between
the damaged and undamaged cases.
However, analysis of the cumulative distribution plots generated for the lower redundancy
structures, i.e. K-braced, inverted K-braced and single diagonal braced structures indicates a
different type of behaviour. These structures are affected much more by the severance of a
single member. In general, severance of a lower bay or middle bay bracing member has a
significant impact on the distribution of joint utilisation values and the potential for the code
based unity check to be exceeded. Such effects are subject to further discussion below, under
the appropriate bracing configuration sub-headings.
In addition to the global analysis performed as part of this study, data has also been generated
to investigate the local effects in more detail. Charts of joint utilisation values for individual
joint groups have been generated and are illustrated in Reference 3. These plots have been
further analysed and mapped onto the jacket structures to provide a visual ‘contour plot’ of
how joint groups throughout the structure are affected by a member being severed. These
‘contour plots’ are illustrated and discussed under the appropriate bracing configuration sub-
headings.
For the purpose of this discussion the concept of a ‘sensitivity zone’ shall be introduced. The
sensitivity zone comprises the zone in the damaged structure that is adversely affected, in
terms of a significant increase in the joint utilisation from the undamaged case, by the failure
of a member. ‘Significant’, in this context, infers an increase in excess of a 30% shift in the
joint utilisation, as calculated in accordance with Reference 2 using in-house data processing
routines.
4.1 X-BRACED CONFIGURATION
4.1.1 Global Analysis

From the plots of cumulative joint utilisation distributions, and their associated distribution
function, see Reference 3, it can be seen that severance of a member has little impact on the
structure. This is true regardless of the direction of the storm applied. This damage-tolerant
behaviour typifies the high degree of redundancy within the structure, such that in the event of
a load path being severed, there are a number of alternative load paths that are available at a
joint group to efficiently diffuse the load throughout the structure.
However, from Table B3 it can be seen that there are three failed member cases, from those
considered, that result in at least one joint in the structure experiencing a utilisation factor in
excess of one.
For the case of member AL2L having been severed, the load bearing capacity and the load
acting on the diagonal on which member AL2L lies, was significantly reduced. The impact of
this was a resultant increase in the load carried on the opposite diagonal on which member
AL2U lies, as the structure accommodated the severed member. It is this increase in load that
resulted in the utilisation value of the joint between member AL2U and leg 2A exceeding the
code based unity check.
For the case of member 2LBL or 2LAU having been severed (both members lie on the same
diagonal in the lower bay), a joint utilisation value of greater than one was observed at joint
125
group L12B, for the North storm RLS. The joint that is affected is that between Leg 2B and
the member 2LBU that lies on the opposite diagonal in the lower bay.
In general for the East storm condition, for the frames parallel to the storm direction, failure
of a lower bay diagonal member that was nominally (in the undamaged jacket) in tension,
resulted in the compressive diagonal members experiencing an increase in load. The impact
of this increase was a significant rise in joint utilisation values such that they either
approximated or exceed unity. For the North storm condition this effect was limited to Frame
2, and was attributed to the asymmetry of the structure about the storm direction’s axis owing
to the presence of the conductors. The conductors picked-up a significant amount of load
from the storm wave and as such transferred a significant proportion of this load into Frame 2.
The load was eccentric and induced a high degree of bending into Frame 2. However, for
both of these cases the effect on the overall distribution of joint utilisation values was
minimal, as can be seen from the shift in the calculated mean value in Table B3.
4.1.2 Local Analysis

From an initial review of the local analysis plots documented in Reference 4 an insight into
the redistribution of load, as a result of failure of a member in Frame A, can be gained. In
general, there was very little effect on joints in Frames B, 1 and 2 as a result of a member
being severed in Frame A. This was as a result of the limited impact on the stiffness of Frame
A as a result of a member from Frame A being severed, and thus insignificant torsional
effects being induced into the jacket structure. Based upon this initial review the contour
plots that have been generated from the local analysis have been limited to Frame A for the
following failed member analyses;
x AM1U (nominally in tension)
x AM1L (nominally in compression)
x AL1U (nominally in tension)
x AL1L (nominally in compression)
The study is limited to these cases because failure of members in the upper bay had negligible
impact on joint groups below Level 2 and also the magnitude of the utilisation values above
this level were significantly less than elsewhere in the structure. Also, owing to the structural
symmetry of Frame A about its centre line it was deemed unnecessary to provide a detailed
analysis for members AM2U, AM2L, AL2U and AL2L. An initial review of the joint
utilisation plots for the joint groups analysed in Reference 4 highlighted the similarity in both
the magnitude of joint utilisation values and the percentage shift induced as a result of a
similar loaded member being severed.
A common feature of the contour plots generated for the 4 member failure cases considered
was the limited impact that the failed member had on the utilisation values calculated for the
legs. This behaviour can be attributed to the stiffness of the X-braced configuration and its
ability to distribute the load throughout the structure, providing multiple load paths to the
piles where the load was reacted. As a result of a member failing, the load was redistributed
through the bracing and transferred to the piles via the mud line horizontal bracing. There
was a general relaxation of load in the contiguous diagonals (i.e. ‘zig-zag’) and an increase in
load in the opposite ‘zig-zag’. This effect is clearly visible in the contour plots.
Failure case specific features are discussed in more detail in the following sub-sections.
Member AM1U Failure
In the case of member AM1U having failed the sensitivity zone was localised about the
middle bay on Frame A and also encompassed the horizontal brace at the Mud line, as can be
seen in Figure B1.
126
Loss of member AM1U resulted in a relaxation of the load in member AM2L that lies on the
same diagonal. However, there was a corresponding increase in the utilisation values for
members AM1L and AM2U that form the intact diagonal in the middle bay. Furthermore
there was a near doubling of the utilisation value in the horizontal member at Level 1, joint
group L12A.
Member AM1L Failure
In the case of member AM1L having failed the sensitivity zone was slightly more localised
than was the case for member AM1U having failed, and was concentrated about the middle
bay on Frame A, as illustrated in Figure B2.
Loss of member AM1L resulted in a relaxation of the load in member AM2U that lies on the
diagonal. However, there was again a corresponding increase in the utilisation values for
members AM1U and AM2L that form the intact diagonal in the middle bay, and the
horizontal members at Levels 1 and 2.
Member AL1U Failure
In the case of member AL1U having failed the sensitivity zone was localised about the lower
bay on Frame A, as illustrated in Figure B3.
The impact on the intact diagonal brace was a 50% increase in the utilisation value at the joint
between leg 2A and member AL2U, resulting in a utilisation value of 0.99. The impact on the
horizontal member’s joint with Leg 2A at Level 1 was a factor of 2 increase in the utilisation
value. At the Mud line there was an increase in the joint utilisation value at the joints
between the Leg 1A and the horizontal member by a factor of 6. Furthermore there was an
increase in the joint utilisation between the intact diagonal and Leg 1A by a factor of 1.5
resulting in a utilisation value of 0.97.
Member AL1L Failure
In the case of member AL1L having failed the sensitivity zone was again highly localised
about the lower bay horizontal members and the intact diagonal brace, as illustrated in Figure
B4.
The impact on the intact diagonal brace and the horizontal members was a 50% increase in
the utilisation value at the joint between leg 1A and member AL1U, and a factor of 4 increase
in the utilisation value of the joint between leg 1A and the horizontal member at Level 1. At
the Mud line there was an increase in the joint utilisation value at the joints between the Legs
1A and 2A, and the horizontal member by a factor of 9. However, the actual utilisation value
was less than 0.55.
4.2 DIAMOND BRACED CONFIGURATION

From the plots of cumulative joint utilisation distributions, and their associated distribution
functions in Reference 3, it can be seen that there was very little effect on the global
distribution of load in terms of utilisation values at joints, as a result of a single member being
severed. This behaviour typifies the damage tolerance of the diamond braced configuration.
For the diamond braced structure the impact of a lower bay member failing on the magnitude
of the maximum joint utilisation was not as dramatic as was the case for the X-braced
structure. However, loss of either of the upper bracing members in the lower bay resulted in a
shift in the maximum utilisation value from less than 0.8 in the undamaged case to
approximately 0.9 in the damaged case. This applied to such members in Frame A for the
east storm load and to members in Frame 2 for the North storm load case.
127
From an initial review of the local analysis plots documented in Reference 4 an insight into
the redistribution of load, as a result of failure of a member in Frame A, can be gained. In
general, there was very little effect on joints in Frames B, 1 and 2 as a result of a member
being severed in Frame A. This can be attributed to the structure’s ability to diffuse the load
throughout the structure using the high number of alternative load paths available at any given
joint group. This resulted in limited impact on any one particular joint and relatively low
joint utilisation values throughout the structure.
The contour plots generated from the local analysis have been limited to the following failed
member analyses for the East storm RLS:
x AM1L (nominally in tension)
x AL1U (nominally in compression)
x AL1L (nominally in tension)
The study is limited to these cases because failure of members in the upper bay had negligible
impact on joint groups below Level 2 and also the magnitude of the utilisation values above
this level were significantly less than elsewhere in the structure. Also, owing to the structural
symmetry of Frame A about its centre line it was deemed unnecessary to provide a detailed
analysis for members AM2U, AM2L, AL2U and AL2L. An initial review of the joint
utilisation plots for the joint groups analysed in Reference 4 highlighted the similarity in both
the magnitude of joint utilisation values and the percentage shift induced as a result of a
similar loaded member being severed.
A common feature of the contour plots generated, for the 3 member failure cases considered,
was the load relaxation of diagonal braces that lie on the failed member contiguous diagonals
(i.e. ‘zig-zag’), and a corresponding increase of load on the intact ‘zig-zag’. This behaviour
was comparable to the behaviour of the X-braced structure.
Member AL1L Failure
In the case where AL1L having failed from Figure B5 it can be seen that the sensitivity zone
was very localised. In fact only one joint group was significantly affected, MLA. The
apparent increase in load through the Mud line horizontal brace can be attributed to the
localised stiffening of the joint by a joint can, thus effectively attracting load to this joint
group component, and locally relieving the load in adjacent members.
Further study of the plots in Reference 4 sheds further light on this behaviour. There was a
degree of load redistribution through the lower level joints of Frames 1 and 2. This was
notably more than was the case for the X-braced configuration, but still nowhere near the
levels observed in the lower redundancy bracing configurations.
Member AL1U Failure
In the case of member AL1U having failed the sensitivity zone was relatively small, and
tended to be local to the lower half of the middle bay close to leg 1A, as illustrated in Figure
B6.
128
Member AM1L Failure
In the case of member AM1L having failed from Figure B7 can be seen that the sensitivity
zone was very localised. Increases in joint utilisation values were limited to the diagonal
braces (AM2L and AL1U) that pass through the joint group containing the failed member and
the horizontal brace (by a factor of approximately 2) at level 1. There was also a
corresponding increase in the utilisation of leg 1A, by an approximate factor of 2, local to the
failed member.
4.3 INVERTED K-BRACED CONFIGURATION

From the plots contained in Reference 3 it can be seen that in general, loss of any diagonal
bracing member in a frame that was perpendicular to the storm direction resulted in an
appreciable shift in the distribution of joint utilisation values. For the North east storm load
condition the joint utilisation distribution was most sensitive to failure of the lower and
middle bays’ diagonal members in Frames A and 2. This can be attributed to the asymmetry
of the jacket about the storm’s axis due, to the presence of the conductors.
From Table B3 it can be seen that there were a number of failed member analyses that
resulted in utilisation values exceeding the code based unity check. For the east storm load
case failure of either of the middle bay members in Frame A, AM1 or AM2, resulted in a
utilisation greater than unity at joint group L2A for the joint between the undamaged member
and the horizontal member at Level 2. Furthermore, there were a number of joints
throughout the structure that were significantly impacted by failure of either one of these
members, such that they exceeded unity or came close to unity. This further highlighted the
sensitivity of the load distribution to failure of either of these members.
For the North storm load case the structure was particularly sensitive to failure of a middle
bay diagonal brace in Frame 2. Under such scenarios the structure experienced very high
utilisation values at joint group L22. Such values were calculated for the remaining intact
brace within the middle bay, and were considered to be as a direct consequence of the
conductors. The conductors provided a substantial cross-sectional area to the storm wave and
as such were highly loaded. This load was transferred back into the primary structure through
the conductor support framing which tied into Frame 2, thus providing an eccentric load into
Frame 2 and hence into the intact diagonal brace in the middle bay.
Similar behaviour was observed for the Northeast storm load condition, with unity being
exceeded at joint group L22 for failure of a middle bay diagonal brace in Frame 2. However,
the resultant utilisation was significantly less, as the load was distributed more evenly through
Frames B and 2 owing to the angle of incidence of the storm.

Unlike the X-braced and diamond braced structures, severance of a brace in Frame A had a
major impact on those frames that were perpendicular to the storm, i.e. Frames 1 & 2, and
also on the parallel frame, Frame B. The load was redistributed throughout the structure and
can be seen by the plots of joint utilisation for each of the joint groups as depicted in
Reference 4 for all joints up to and including those at Level 2.
Contour plots have been generated from the local analysis for the following failed member
cases:
x AL1 (nominally in compression)
x AL2 (nominally in tension)
x AM1 (nominally in compression)
129
x AM2 (nominally in tension)
However, owing to the similarities between the plots generated only those for the cases where
AL1 and AM1 were severed have been included.
From these plots one can determine the sensitivity zone for each failed member analysis.
Failure case specific features are discussed in detail in the following sub-sections.
Member AM1 Failure
In the case of member AM1 having failed, it can be seen, from the contour plots, Figure B8 to
B11, that the sensitivity zone was extensive. The sensitivity zone extended across all four
frames and covered the middle bay in Frames A and B, and the middle and lower bays in
frames 1 and 2 as the load was transmitted to the piles.
Loss of the load bearing capacity of AM1 resulted in a significant increase in the load through
the horizontal brace at Level 2 in Frame A, and member AM2. In fact, the utilisation of the
joint between member AM2 and the horizontal brace at Level 2 experienced a factor of
approximately 2.5 increase, and as a result exceeded unity, hence highlighting the potential
cascade failure of this joint. In addition there was a load increase at the joint between BM1
and L2HB, in Frame B. Here the compressive load on BM1 increased, and the utilisation of
the joint increased by approximately 50% to a utilisation of unity. This again highlighted the
potential for a cascade failure.
Member AM2 Failure
The general behaviour observed as a result of member AM2 having failed was comparable to
that for the case of member AM1 having failed. This is evident from the relevant plots in
Reference 3.
Member AL1 Failure
In the case of member AL1 having failed, it can be seen from Figure B12 to B15 that the
sensitivity zone was extensive. It extended across all four frames and covered the middle bay
in Frame A, the lower bay in Frame B, and the middle and lower bays in Frames 1 and 2 as
the load was transmitted to the piles.
In Frame A, failure of member AL1 resulted in a relaxation of the load in member AM2, with
the load being redistributed through the Mud line horizontal member and the Level 1
horizontal member.
In Frame B the effects were limited to the lower bay as the structure attempted to
accommodate the asymmetric stiffness as a result of the severed member in Frame A’s lower
bay. The resultant torsional effects due to the asymmetric stiffness was reacted in Frames 1
and 2 where both the middle and lower bay joints were affected by a significant increase in
joint utilisation.
Throughout the structure the effects were diffused beyond level 2 where there was limited
impact.
Member AL2 Failure
The general behaviour observed as a result of member AL2 having failed was comparable to
that for the case of member AL1 having failed. This is evident from the relevant plots in
Reference 3.
4.4 K-BRACED CONFIGURATION

From the plots contained in Reference 3 it can be seen that for the East storm load case, loss
of a diagonal bracing member in the middle or lower bay of Frame A resulted in an
130
appreciable shift in the distribution of joint utilisation values. Failure of a middle bay member
however imparted a greater overall effect, whilst the failure of a lower bay brace affected a
minority of joints.
For the North storm load case, failure of any middle or upper bay diagonal brace on Frame 2
had an appreciable impact on the joint utilisation distribution. Very high utilisation values
were observed at joint group L12. As was the case for the inverted K-braced structure, such
increases can be attributed to the combination of the reduced stiffness of the middle bay due
to member failure and the significant eccentric loading imparted on Frame 2 by the
conductors. Failure of an upper bay diagonal brace also resulted in joint utilisation values
exceeding unity, but such joints were limited to the plan bracing at Level 3. Due to the
reduced stiffness of the upper bay, the load increased on the plan bracing as the structure
attempted to accommodate the resultant asymmetric stiffness.
Failure of a middle bay bracing member on Frame 1 also had an appreciable effect on the
distribution of joint utilisation values for the North Storm condition. However, the impact
was not as severe as that for failure of a corresponding member in Frame 2, but it still resulted
in unity being exceeded at either joint group L11B or L11A.
For the Northeast storm load case failure of a middle bay member in either Frames A or 2
produced an appreciable shift in the distribution of joint utilisation values. In such cases unity
was exceeded at either joint group L11A, L12A or L12B.
In general the distribution of joint utilisation values and hence the inferred redistribution of
the load within the K- braced jacket structure as the result a failed member, appeared to be
most sensitive to the failure of a middle bay brace. Unlike the higher redundancy structures
there was a considerable difference in stiffness between the middle and lower bays in the K-
braced structure due to the added bending restraint provided by the piles interaction with the
legs in the lower half of the lower bay. Thus, as a result of a failed member in the lower bay,
bending and the induced torsion was resisted by the legs and load gets transferred axially
through the legs to the piles. In the event of a middle bay member failing, there was a
significant reduction in the stiffness of the middle bay and induced torsional effects. The load
was redistributed throughout the structure as the structure accommodated the load from the
failed member. Since, locally, the legs do not provide the same level of restraint as they do in
the lower bay, the load was redistributed throughout the structure, the impact being a general
increase in joint utilisation values.

As with the inverted K-braced structure the severance of a brace in Frame A had a major
impact on those frames that are perpendicular to the storm, i.e. Frames 1 & 2, and also on the
parallel frame, Frame B. The load was redistributed throughout the structure and can be seen
by the plots of joint utilisation for each of the joint groups as depicted in Reference 4 for all
joints up to and including those at Level 2 in the K-braced jacket structure. These plots have
been summarised in Figure B16 to B31 in terms of a shift in the calculated joint utilisation
value for the following failed member analyses;
x AL1 (nominally in tension)
x AL2 (nominally in compression)
x AM1 (nominally in tension)
x AM2 (nominally in compression)
From these figures one can determine what the sensitivity zone is for each failed member
analysis.
Failure case specific features are discussed in detail in the following sub-sections.
131
Member AL1 Failure
In the case of member AL1 having failed, it can be seen from Figure B16 to B19 that the
sensitivity zone was extensive. Load was redistributed throughout the structure as the
structure accommodated the change in stiffness of Frame A. The sensitivity zone extended
throughout the lower and middle bays of Frames 1 and 2 and into the horizontal member at
Level 1 of Frame B. The effect on Frame A was limited to the Mud line horizontal brace.
Throughout Frame A, there was a limited effect on the utilisation values of joints, particularly
in the diagonal bracing members’ joints. The intact lower bay member, AL2, endured little
change as a result of AL1 being severed. This behaviour can be attributed to the local
stiffening of the lower bay by the piles. The piles provide additional bending restraint to the
lower bay due to the nature in which they are tied into the structure and the increase in the
effective cross-sectional area that they contribute to the lower proportion of the leg. Instead
the load was redistributed to the upper proportion of the legs and the horizontal bracing at the
Mud line and Level 1. At the Mud line, the horizontal braces’ joint with Leg 1A experienced
a utilisation value that exceeded unity.
The frames that are perpendicular to the storm loading experienced a considerable increase in
load throughout the middle and lower bays as the structure accommodated the induced torsion
attributable to the asymmetrical stiffness between Frames A and B. The load was generally
diffused throughout the middle and lower bays’ diagonal and horizontal members.
The effect on Frame B was a general increase in joint utilisation values; however, this was
limited with the exception of the horizontal member at Level 1.
Member AL2 Failure
The general behaviour of the structure upon failure of member AL2 was similar to that
exhibited when member AL1 was severed (see Figure B20 to B23). The general load
redistribution was comparable.
Member AM1 Failure
In the case of member AM1 having failed, it can be seen from Figures B24 to B27 that the
sensitivity zone was extensive. Load was redistributed into frame B’s middle and upper bays
through the diagonal and horizontal braces in Frames 1 and 2. The sensitivity zone extended
across all four frames and covered the middle bay in Frames A and B, and all three bays in
frames 1 and 2 as the load was redistributed and transmitted to the piles.
In general the legs in the lower half of the lower bay were shielded from the load by the piles
and as such their interface with the Mud line framing endured limited impacted by member
failure.
Loss of the load bearing capacity of AM1 resulted in a significant increase in the load through
the horizontal brace at Level 1 in Frame A. In fact the utilisation of the horizontal brace’s
joints at Level 1 experienced a factor of approximately 4 increase at joint group L11A, a
factor of approximately 2 increase at joint group L1A and a factor of approximately 2.5
increase at joint group L12A. As a result of these increases the code based unity check was
exceeded, hence highlighting the potential cascade failure of these joints.
As a result of the imposed asymmetric stiffness between Frames A and B, load was
redistributed into the perpendicular frames, i.e. 1 and 2, as the structure accommodated the
induced torsion. The increased load in these frames was diffused throughout the three bays.
In general there was an increase by a factor of 2 in the joint utilisation values throughout the
joints in Frames 1 and 2.
The effect on Frame B was again an overall increase in joint utilisation values, with the
middle and upper bays more adversely affected. Although absolute values tended to be
higher in Frame B than in Frames 1 and 2, the percentage increase was a lot less severe.
132
Member AM2 Failure
The general behaviour of the structure upon failure of member AM2 was similar to that
exhibited when member AL1 was severed (see Figures B28 to B31). The general load
redistribution was comparable, and for this particular case, joint groups L12A and L1A
exceeded the code based unity check.
4.5 SINGLE DIAGONAL BRACED CONFIGURATION

Unlike the other 4 jacket structures, the single diagonal braced jacket is asymmetric about the
east axis. Owing to this asymmetry between Frames A and B, the redistribution of the load
due to each of the six diagonal braces being severed was investigated.
From Reference 3 it can be seen that the global effect on the load distribution was minimal for
the case when either of the two lower members were severed. However, severance of either of
the two middle bay diagonal braces resulted in a significant shift in the distribution. It is
considered that the difference in the structural response between a member having failed in
the middle bay and one having failed in the upper bay is attributable to a step change in the
stiffness between the two bays. In the lower bay the piles provide the lower half of the legs
with additional bending restraint, thus adding to the bay’s stiffness. In the event of a lower
bay diagonal brace failing the load was redistributed to the legs and transferred axially to the
piles, thus relatively few joints were affected. However, the failure of a middle bay diagonal
brace, resulted in a significant reduction in the middle bay stiffness. The load was
redistributed throughout the structure as it accommodated the failed member. The resultant
response was observed as global bending and torsion of the structure about a point coincident
with the top of the piles. The impact of this was high utilisation values at Level 1 joints.
Severance of either of the two upper bay diagonal braces resulted in a slightly higher increase
in the mean joint utilisation. It is considered that this was as a result of loss of stiffness higher
up the structure leading to increased eccentricity of the topside load, and torsion effects that
were acting on the jacket due to a the resultant asymmetric stiffness

In-line with the behaviour of the K-braced and inverted K-braced structures, severance of a
brace in Frame A had a major impact on those frames that are perpendicular to the storm, i.e.
Frames 1 & 2, and also on the parallel frame, Frame B. The load was redistributed
throughout the structure and can be seen by the plots of joint utilisation for each of the joint
groups as depicted in Reference 4 for all joints up to and including those at Level 2.
Those plots for each of the joint groups in Reference 4 have been summarised in terms of
contour plots (Figures B32 to B47) representing a shift in the calculated joint utilisation value
for each of the joints, up to Level 2, for the following failed member analyses;
x AL (nominally in tension)
x AM(nominally in compression)
x BL (nominally in compression)
x BM (nominally in tension)
From these figures one can determine what the sensitivity zone is for each failed member
analysis.
133
Member AL Failure
In the case of member AL having failed, it can be seen from Figures B32 to B35 that the
effect on the individual joint utilisation values was extensive. Significant increases were
observed throughout the structure. The sensitivity zone can be seen to extend across of four
frames and generally covers both the lower and middle bays. The impact on the members in
the upper bay was limited.
In Frame A’s lower bay there was a general relaxation in the joint utilisation values due to the
failed member. However, there was an increase at Level 1, particularly in the legs 1A and
2A, and the horizontal brace (albeit to a lesser extent). Throughout Frame A, there was a
general trend of the load increasing in the legs and very little effect on the braces. This
behaviour can be attributed to the increased compliance of Frame A provided by the resultant
reduction in stiffness of the lower bay.
Within Frame B there was a general increase in utilisation of the joints as the structure
accommodated the reduction in stiffness in the storm direction.
Frames 1 and 2 experienced a fairly extensive increase in joint utilisation values within the
lower and middle bays as a result of the induced torsion in the structure as a consequence of
the asymmetric stiffness between Frames A and B. The torsion was reacted by the diagonal
bracing members and the horizontal members at Level 1.
A review of the plots in Reference 4 highlights that the absolute joint utilisation values were
in general not as severe as the case for the failure of a middle bay brace.
Member AM Failure
In the case of member AM having failed, it can be seen from Figures B36 to B39 that the
effect on individual joint utilisation values was extensive. The sensitivity zone extended
across all four frames and covered both the lower and middle bays of the jacket and extended
into the upper bay. However, the absolute values of joint utilisation for joints at Level 2 and
above were much less than joints at Level 1.
In Frame A, failure of member AM resulted in a significant rise in the load on the horizontal
bracing members at Levels 1 and 2. In particular at Level 1 the increase in utilisation between
the horizontal bracing member and leg 2A increased by a factor of approximately 4, resulting
in the joint utilisation exceeding the code based unity check, thus highlighting a potential
cascade failure of this joint. Furthermore a similar increase was observed at this members
joint with Leg 1A, however in this case the code based unity check was not exceeded.
Within Frame A the failure of the member was accommodated by the legs 1A and 2A, which
both experienced a significant rise in utilisation, with leg 2A (the east most leg) enduring the
highest rise; by approximately a factor of 3 on the undamaged case.
As a result of the imposed asymmetric stiffness between Frames A and B there was a
significant increase in load in the members of Frame B as well as in Frames 1 and 2. The
joint utilisation values in Frame B generally increased throughout the three bays, with the
middle bay being the most adversely effected. However absolute values tended to be limited
to less than 0.6, and shifts, with the exception of legs 1B and 2B, limited to approximately
50%.
In Frames 1 and 2, as stated above there was also a significant shift in joint utilisation values
as these frames reacted the induced torsion as a result of the imposed asymmetry between the
stiffness of Frames A and B. The induced torsion of the jacket structure was reacted by the
horizontal and diagonal braces.
Member BL Failure
In the case of member BL having failed, it can again be seen from Figures B40 to B43 that the
effect on individual joint utilisation values was extensive. However, the general behaviour
was comparable to the case where member AL was severed.
134
Member BM Failure
In the case of member BM having failed, it can again be seen Figures B44 to B47 that the
effect on individual joint utilisation values was extensive. The general behaviour was
comparable to the analysis performed for case where member AM was severed, in terms of
the sensitivity zone.
However, a more detailed review of absolute joint utilisation values from the plots in
Reference 4 reveals a significant impact on utilisation values of joints in Frame B, in
particular the joint between the horizontal brace at level 1 and leg 2B. Here the joint
experienced an increase in utilisation by a factor of approximately 5, resulting in the joint
exceeding the code based unity check. This highlighted the potential for a cascade failure of
this joint.
135
BLANK PAGE
136
5. CONCLUSIONS
x The X-braced and the diamond braced structures are able to accommodate member
failures much more economically than the inverted K-braced, K-braced, and single
diagonal braced structures. This behaviour is in-line with perceived redundancy of the
five bracing configurations.
x For the leaner structures, failure of a middle bay diagonal brace had the largest impact on
structural stiffness and joint utilisation values. In general, the joints at Level 1 exhibited
higher utilisation values than other joints in the structure, as the induced bending was
accommodated.
x For the higher redundancy structures, the impact of a failed member was generally not as
onerous as the case for the leaner structures. However severance of a lower bay member
had a significant impact locally on joint utilisation values.
x The difference in the global response between the X-braced and diamond braced
structures’ response was attributed to the resultant load paths when a member was
severed. Failure of a diagonal bracing member in the X-braced structure resulted in
almost a total loss of the corresponding diagonal’s ability to bear load, thus in effect two
bracing members were lost in a single bay. However, in the case of the diamond braced
structure, diagonals were divided between two bays, and as such the effect on a single
bay’s stiffness was not as severe.
137
BLANK PAGE
138
6. REFERENCES
2 Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification – Fourth
Edition-1990, HMSO – Appendix A21
Appendix C – Joint Utilisation Distribution Plots
Appendix D – Joint Group Utilisation Plots
139
BLANK PAGE
(Figures not included)
140
APPENDIX C
JOINT UTILISATION VALUE DISTRIBUTION PLOTS
141
BLANK PAGE
142
CONTENTS
Page
CONTENTS ................................................................................................. 143
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................145
2. REFERENCES ......................................................................................145
143
BLANK PAGE
144
1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides the results from the global analysis conducted as part of the Stress
Redistribution Study described in Reference 1. The data presented here takes the form of
cumulative joint utilisation value distribution plots and probability density functions for each
of the severed member cases considered. Reference 1 provides details of the analysis
conducted to generate these plots along with a summary of the severed member cases
considered.
2. REFERENCES
145
BLANK PAGE
146
APPENDIX D
JOINT GROUP UTILISATION VALUE PLOTS
147
BLANK PAGE
148
CONTENTS
Page
CONTENTS ................................................................................................ 149
1. INTRODUCTION................................................................................150
2. INTERPRETATION OF PLOTS.........................................................150
3. REFERENCES...................................................................................150
149
1. INTRODUCTION
This appendix provides the results from the local analysis conducted as part of the Stress
Redistribution Study described in Reference 1. The data presented here takes the form of
joint utilisation values for a number of joint groups for each of the severed member cases
considered. Reference 1 provides details of the analysis conducted to generate these plots
along with a summary of the severed member cases considered.
2. INTERPRETATION OF PLOTS
Detail joint group utilisation plots are provided in this appendix for the east storm load case,
for those joint groups, which were located below Level 2 in the structures. The plots detail
the utilisation values, calculated in accordance with Reference 2 for the chord and each
member that intersects with the chord to form a joint. The x-axis index should be interpreted
as follows: Index ‘1’ refers to the joint group’s chord and indices 2 plus refer to the individual
joints between the chord and the braces. For those joint groups that were considered in detail
in the stress redistribution study, the brace member that forms the joint can be determined
from the tables in Reference 3.
3. REFERENCES
2 Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design, Construction and Certification, Fourth
Edition – 1990, HMSO – Appendix A21 Steel – Joint Design for Welded Tubular Steel
Structures.
Appendix A – Model Description.
150
BLANK PAGE
151
BLANK PAGE
152
APPENDIX E
ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY
153
BLANK PAGE
154
CONTENTS
Page
CONTENTS ................................................................................................ 155
1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................159
2. ANALYSIS APPROACH ........................................................................161

2.1 GENERAL.............................................................................................................161
2.2 RIKS ANALYSIS..................................................................................................161
2.3 SEVERED MEMBERS .......................................................................................162
2.4 TWO SEVERED MEMBERS.............................................................................162
2.5 FAILURE CRITERIA ...........................................................................................162
2.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS APPROACH ............162
3. RESULTS...............................................................................................163
3.1 UNDAMAGED AND SINGLE MEMBER FAILED ULTIMATE STRENGTH
ANALYSIS ...........................................................................................................163
3.2 MULTIPLE-MEMBER FAILED ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY................165
4. DISCUSSIONS.......................................................................................167
4.1 UNDAMAGED ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDIES ...................................167
4.2 SINGLE MEMBER SEVERED ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY..............168
4.3 MULTIPLE MEMBER SEVERED PUSHOVERS ......................................178
5. CONCLUSIONS .....................................................................................179
6. REFERENCES .......................................................................................181
List of Tables
E1 Summary of severed members
E2 Undamaged jackets ultimate strength results
E3 X-braced structure ultimate strength results
E4 Diamond braced structure ultimate strength results
E5 Inverted K-braced structure ultimate strength results
E6 K-brace structure ultimate strength results
E7 Single diagonal braced structure ultimate strength results
E8 Multiple member failed ultimate strength results
E9 X-braced jacket single severed member study
E10 Diamond braced structure single severed member study
E11 Inverted K-braced structure single severed member study
E12 K-braced structure single severed member study
E13 Single diagonal braced structure single severed member study
155
List of Figures
E1 Plot of calculate RSR for the 5 bracing configurations for both damaged and
undamaged states
E2 Plot of calculate RRF for the 5 bracing configurations for both damaged and
undamaged states
E3 Undamaged jackets ultimate strength study
E4 X-braced structure – undamaged state – displaced shape plot
E5 Diamond braced structure – undamaged state – displaced shape plot
E6 Inverted K-braced structure – undamaged state – displaced shape plot
E7 K-braced structure – undamaged state – displaced shape plot
E8 Single diagonal braced structure – undamaged state – displaced shape plot
E9 X-braced structure – pushover curves
E10 Diamond braced structure – pushover curves
E11 Inverted K-braced structure – pushover curves
E12 K-braced structure – pushover curves
E13 Single diagonal braced structure – pushover curves
E14 X-braced structure – damaged state AL1L – displaced shape plot
E15 X-braced structure – damaged state AL1U – displaced shape plot
E16 X-braced structure – damaged state AM1L – displaced shape plot
E17 X-braced structure – damaged state AM1U – displaced shape plot
E18 Diamond braced structure – damaged state AL1L – displaced shape plot
E19 Diamond braced structure – damaged state AL1U – displaced shape plot
E20 Diamond braced structure – damaged state AM1L – displaced shape plot
E21 Diamond braced structure – damaged state AM1U – displaced shape plot
E22 Inverted K-braced structure – damaged state AL1 – displaced shape plot
E23 Inverted K-braced structure – damaged state AL2 – displaced shape plot
E24 Inverted K-braced structure – damaged state AM1 – displaced shape plot
E25 Inverted K-braced structure – damaged state AM2 – displaced shape plot
E26 Inverted K-braced structure – damaged state AU1 – displaced shape plot
E27 K-braced structure – damaged state AL1 – displaced shape plot
E28 K-braced structure – damaged state AL2 – displaced shape plot
E29 K-braced structure – damaged state AM1 – displaced shape plot
E30 K-braced structure – damaged state AM2 – displaced shape plot
E31 K-braced structure – damaged state AU2 – displaced shape plot
E32 K-braced structure – damaged state AU2 – plastic strain plot
E33 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state AL– displaced shape plot
E34 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state AL – plastic strain plot
E35 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state AM – displaced shape plot
156
E36 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state AU - displaced shape plot
E37 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state BL - displaced shape plot
E38 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state BL – plastic strain plot
E39 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state BM - displaced shape plot
E40 Single diagonal braced structure – damaged state BM – plastic strain plot
E41 Single Diagonal Braced Structure – Damaged State BU - Displaced Shape Plot
E42 Inverted K-Braced Structure – Multiple-Member Severed Pushover Curves
E43 Inverted K-Braced Structure – Multiple-Member Severed Displaced Shape Plot
E44 X-Braced Structure – Multiple-Member Severed Pushover Curves
E45 X-Braced Structure – Multiple-Member Severed Displaced Shape Plot
157
BLANK PAGE
158
1. INTRODUCTION
Each of the five bracing configurations, described in Reference 1 was subjected to a series
of static non-linear, pushover analyses, in both the damaged and undamaged states, for an
East storm load case. The purpose of the study was to establish the ultimate strength of the
jackets in their undamaged states and to assess the impact on the strength when the
structures contained at least one severed member. This study aimed to establish a member
criticality profile for each bracing configuration to feed into the structural reliability
assessment for each of the jacket types.
Using the results from the single member analyses and the stress re-distribution
investigations a limited study was conducted to establish the impact on the structures’
ultimate strength as a result of two members having failed. The selection process for such
members is the subject of further discussion in this appendix.
159
BLANK PAGE
160
2. ANALYSIS APPROACH
2.1 GENERAL
The model was initially pre-stressed with gravity and buoyancy loads, and a *BUCKLE
analysis was performed on the structure based on the 100 year RLS. The *BUCKLE analysis
within ABAQUS (Reference 2) provides an estimate of the buckling mode shapes for the
structure.
The output from the buckling analysis was used to introduce imperfections into the model for
the ultimate strength analysis. The imperfections consisted of multiple superimposed
buckling modes about the pre-stressed state, and applied in the form of initial imperfections to
the model in the unstressed condition. The structural response was considered to be
sufficiently linear under gravity and buoyancy loads and therefore the principle of
superimposition remained valid.
The ultimate strength analysis was then performed utilising the ‘Riks method’ within
ABAQUS. This is the subject of further discussion below.
2.2 RIKS ANALYSIS

The Riks method allows for a static analysis to be performed on a model that exhibits
instabilities due to buckling or collapse. During buckling or collapse the structure may
exhibit a negative stiffness and therefore the structure needs to release strain energy to remain
in equilibrium, and thus enable the static analysis to converge. The Riks method enables the
static equilibrium state to be determined during the structures unstable response as a result of
buckling or collapse.
Unlike conventional static analysis where displacements are determined for a given load, the
Riks method uses the load as an additional variable and solves simultaneous equations to
determine load and displacements.
The Riks method requires the definition of ‘dead loads’, Pdead, and ‘reference loads’, Pref. In
the pushover analyses dead loads are defined as the structure’s pre-stressing loads, i.e. gravity
and buoyancy loads. The reference load is defined as the RLS. It is this load that is ramped
up from zero (initial pre-stressed state) to some pre-defined value as part of the Riks analysis.
The loading during the Riks analysis is always proportional and is related to the total load,
Ptotal, applied to the structure by the following relationship:
Ptotal = Pdead + O(Pref - Pdead)
‘O’ is the ‘load proportionality factor’, LPF, and it is this value which is solved for using the
simultaneous equations to calculate the load and displacement.
For the ultimate strength analysis conducted as part of this study automatic incrementation
was used to control the analysis. However, success of the analysis is dependent upon the user
defined limits on increment size, and as a result of this a degree of fine tuning was required in
order to achieve successful results.
Termination of the analysis is defined by the user and takes the form of a user defined,
maximum value of the load proportionality factor, or a maximum displacement at a specified
degree of freedom. The value of LPFmax utilised in this study was 3.0 and a maximum
displacement of the topsides of 3.0m was defined.
161
2.3 SEVERED MEMBERS
Table E1 details those members that were severed for each of the bracing configurations for
the East storm load scenario. The member identifiers are taken from Reference 1.
The same approach to severing a member as detailed in Reference 4 was adopted for these
analyses.
Table E1 Summary of severed members
Bracing configuration Severed members
X AL1L, AL1U, AM1L, AM1U

Diamond AL1L, AL1U, AM1L, AM1U
Inverted K AL1, AL2, AM1, AM2, AU1
K AL1, AL2, AM1, AM2, AU1
Single diagonal AL, AM, AU, BL, BM, BU
2.4 TWO SEVERED MEMBERS

Based upon the results obtained from the single severed member study a limited number of
analyses were performed on jackets that contained two severed members to assess the impact
on the RSR and RRF. The study focussed on the inverted K braced structure and the X
braced structure. The selection of these two bracing configurations and the members severed
was as a result of the findings from the ultimate strength study conducted on the undamaged
state and the single member severed state and is the subject of further discussion in Section
4.3.
2.5 FAILURE CRITERIA

Ultimate strength was defined at the point of first buckle for brittle type failures or a
displacement of 0.7m at the topsides reference node for ductile type failures. (The distinction
between ductile and brittle type failures is consistent with that detailed in Reference 3.) The
definition of the ductile failure criteria was based upon engineering judgement, since for a
jacket that is approximately 45m high it was deemed that a lateral displacement of 0.7m of the
topsides would compromise the integrity of the conductors and impact on platform operation.
2.6 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS OF ANALYSIS APPROACH

Throughout the pushover analysis it is assumed that the integrity of individual joints is
maintained. (Reminder: in the damaged state it is not the joint that is severed but the member
itself.) Such an assumption has not been validated as part of this analysis, however plots of
peak equivalent plastic strain have been generated for several of the cases considered which
demonstrate the degree of plasticity present in the structure at the point where the FE analysis
terminated. However, it is should be emphasised that there is considerable uncertainty in
quantifying the response of representative tubular joints under the extreme loading cases and
hence deformations that accompany this type of analysis.
162
3. RESULTS
The results from the undamaged jackets’ ultimate strength study have been reported in the
form of a ‘Reserve Strength Ration’, RSR. The RSR is defined as the ratio of ultimate
strength to design load. The design load is equivalent to the 100 year storm event load, which
is equal to the RLS. Therefore the RSR is equal to the LPF that is output from the FE runs.
The results from the damaged jacket analyses have been reported in the form of an RSR and a
‘Residual Resistance Factor’, RRF. The RRF is defined as the ratio of the damaged jacket’s
ultimate strength to that of the undamaged jacket’s ultimate strength. The RRF provides an
indication of the robustness of the jacket to damage. An RRF of 1 indicates that the severed
member is fully redundant, whereas an RRF of 0 indicates that there is no redundancy in the
structure.
3.1 UNDAMAGED AND SINGLE MEMBER FAILED ULTIMATE STRENGTH

ANALYSIS
Table E2 details the Residual Strength Ratio, RSR, for all five bracing configurations in the
undamaged state.
Table E2 Undamaged jackets ultimate strength results
Bracing Configuration RSR
X 2.51
Diamond 2.23
Inverted K 2.07
K 2.27
Single diagonal 2.43
Table E3 to Table E7 detail the results from the ultimate strength analysis in terms of the
Reserve Strength Ration, RSR, and the Residual Resistance Factor, RRF, for all five bracing
configurations in the damaged state.
Table E3 X-braced structure ultimate strength results
Severed Member
AL1L AL1U AM1L AM1U
Member Type LC LT MC MT
RSR 2.32 2.22 2.49 2.53
RRF 0.924 0.884 0.992 1.008
163
Table E4 Diamond braced structure ultimate strength results
Severed Member
AL1L AL1U AM1L AM1U
Member Type LT LC MT MC
RSR 1.96 2.06 1.93 2.20
RRF 0.879 0.924 0.865 0.986
Table E5 Inverted K-braced structure ultimate strength results
Severed Member
AL1 AL2 AM1 AM2 AU1
Member LC LT MC MT UC
Type
RSR 1.65 1.65 1.79 1.81 2.01
RRF 0.797 0.797 0.865 0.874 0.971
Table E6 K-braced structure ultimate strength results
Severed Member
AL1 AL2 AM1 AM2 AU1
Member LT LC MT MC UT
Type
RSR 1.86 1.85 1.85 1.88 2.33
RRF 0.819 0.815 0.815 0.828 1.026
Table E7 Single diagonal braced structure ultimate strength results
Severed Member
AL AM AU BL BM BU
Member LT MC UT LC MT UC
Type
RSR 1.94 2.08 2.45 2.16 2.27 2.44
RRF 0.798 0.856 1.008 0.889 0.934 1.004
Figure E1 illustrates graphically the RSRs for each bracing configuration in both the
undamaged and damaged states. The plot identifies which member was severed in terms of
whether the member was nominally in tension or compression and in which bay of the
structure the member was located as detailed in Table E3 to Table E7.
164
3.2 MULTIPLE-MEMBER FAILED ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY
Table E8 summarises the results from the multiple-member failed study conducted on a
higher and lower redundancy structure.
Table E8 Multiple member failed ultimate strength results
Structure RSR RRF
Inverted K 1.22 0.589

X 1.98 0.79
165
BLANK PAGE
166
4. DISCUSSIONS
As with the stress redistribution study conducted previously, the purpose of the ultimate
strength study was to assess the relative impact on ultimate strength as a result of damage to
structures of five different bracing configurations. This discussion focuses on the relative
behaviour of the structures as opposed to the absolute strength.
4.1 UNDAMAGED ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDIES

From the results obtained from the undamaged ultimate strength study conducted it can be
seen that there was not a distinct difference in the ultimate strength calculated between the
higher and lower redundancy configurations. Instead some of the lower redundancy
structures exhibited higher ultimate strengths in their undamaged states than the diamond
braced structure that has been classified as a high redundancy structure. The relative
behaviour between the five different bracing configurations is the subject of discussion here.
In the undamaged state, the bracing configurations can be ranked in descending order
according to their RSR;
x X-braced
x Single diagonal braced
x K-braced
x Diamond braced
x Inverted K-braced
An initial review of the displaced shape plots of the undamaged structures for each of the
different bracing configurations, Figure E4 to Figure E8, reveal that first buckle occurred in
the lower bay compression members in all cases. A closer look at the different bracing
configurations reveals a possible explanation for the observed behaviour.
The compressive load applied to members in the structure was as a result of the jacket
structural response about the points of ‘increased restraint’. As the pushover load was applied
to the jacket from the east direction, the general global response was characterised by shear
and bending of the structure about this point. This resulted in the majority of the load being
transmitted axially through the bracing members to the legs and hence the piles along grid
line 1 of the structure. The stiffness of the structure was clearly dependent upon the bracing
configuration applied.
The point of increased restraint was the region between the piles and Level 1 in the structure
that provided a step change in stiffness. The lower bay of each of the five jackets was the
stiffest of the three bays owing to the presence of the sleeved piles, the size of the bracing
members and the end restraints placed on the conductors at their tie-in point below the mud
line. At Level 1 there was a step change in stiffness, however, the ‘step’ varied between
bracing configurations. The magnitude of this step was determined by the relative stiffness of
the middle bay.
For those bracing configurations that were able to demonstrate higher ultimate strengths, the
structure’s middle bay was able to resist bending of the jacket, thus limiting the end moments
acting on the members in the lower bay and limiting the impact on the critical buckling load
of such members. Furthermore, they also possessed a number of bracing members able to
react the compression loading thus reducing the axial load on an individual member.
Therefore a higher applied load was required to initiate buckling, and hence the ultimate
strength of the structure increased. Figure E3 illustrates the change in stiffness between the 5
bracing configurations.
167
For the X-braced structure there were 2 load paths parallel to the storm direction at each of
the joint groups on grid line 2 that reacted the compressive load applied to the structure.
Figure E4 illustrates the high stiffness of the X-braced structure thus there was very little
bending response of the structure to the applied load (magnification factor on plot is 20). The
impact was critical buckling loads were maximised and individual member axial loads were
minimised owing to the presence of multiple load path, resulting in high ultimate strength.
However, for the inverted K-braced structure there was only one load path at each joint group
on grid line 2 that reacted the compressive load induced in the structure. This, combined with
the reduced stiffness of the structure as depicted in Figure E6 had the effect of minimising the
critical buckling load and maximising the individual member axial loads, resulting in a
relatively low ultimate strength.
The single diagonal braced structure possessed the second highest ultimate strength in the
undamaged state, with failure being defined as buckling of the lower bay compression
member, located in Frame B at joint group L12B. Figure E3 illustrates the reduced structural
stiffness of the single braced structure in comparison with the X braced structure. From
Figure E8 this reduction in stiffness was observed as an increased displacement of the
structure, both in and out of plane. The impact of this was increased loading on the lower bay
compression member due to both bending and shear resulting in buckling under a reduced
applied load to that of the X braced structure.
For the K-braced there were again two 2 load paths parallel to the storm direction at each of
the joint groups on grid line 2 that reacted the compressive load applied to the structure.
However, Figure E3 illustrates that the structure’s stiffness was significantly less than that of
the X braced structure, and that of the other bracing configurations. From Figure E7 this
reduction in stiffness resulted in a much greater structural response for the K-braced structure
in comparison to the X-braced structure. The increased levels of bending and shear observed
in Figure E7 resulted in higher bending moments and axial loads in the lower bay bracing for
a given applied load compared to the X braced structure. The impact of this was observed as
a reduction in the ultimate strength of the jacket in comparison to the X-braced structure.
However the structure out performed the diamond and inverted K-braced structures owing to
the presence of multiple load paths at Level 1, to react the compressive load.
The diamond braced structure provided the minimum number of load paths parallel to the
storm direction at each of the joint groups on grid line 2. However the bracing configuration
provided multiple restraints throughout the height of the structure, thus preventing bending of
the legs. As a result the structure is much stiffer and the step change in stiffness about Level
1 is reduced. The impact of this was that the global response as seen in Figure E5 was
predominantly shear of the structure. The shear manifested itself as an axial compressive load
in the lowest compression members of Frames A and B, resulting in the critical buckling
mode being reached at a lower LPF than in the case of the X, single diagonal and K braced
structures.
4.2 SINGLE MEMBER SEVERED ULTIMATE STRENGTH STUDY

Figure E1 illustrates, graphically, the impact on RSR as a result of severing a bracing
member. From this graph it can be seen that the spread in RSR values is much greater on the
lower redundancy structures than it is on the highly redundant structures.
Figure E2 illustrates, graphically the variation in RRF as a result of a bracing member having
been severed. It can be seen that the spread in calculated RRF is much greater for the lower
redundancy type structures than for the higher redundancy type structures.
In general, severance of a lower bay tensile member had the largest impact on ultimate
strength. The reason for this is considered to be the corresponding increase in load that
occurs on the compression member in the lower bay resulting in buckling of this member
under a reduced pushover load.
168
For the K-braced structure it is evident that loss of any bracing member below Level 2 in the
structure has a profound impact on RSR, thus highlighting the sensitivity of this bracing
configuration to a severed member.
169
Table E9 to Table E13 summarise the behaviour of each bracing configuration when a single
member was severed.
Figure E9 to Figure E13 illustrate the pushover curves for each of the jacket configurations.
170
Table E9 X-braced structure single severed member study
Member Bay / RSR RRF Displaced Shape Comments

Severed Nominal Plot /
Load Case
Peak equivalent
Plastic Strain Plot
(if applicable)
AL1L Lower 2.32 0.924 Figure E14 First buckle – BL1L
Compression Increase in load on intact
diagonal in lower bay of Frame
A resulting in yielding.
Consistent with stress
redistribution study.
AL1U Lower 2.22 0.884 Figure E15 First buckle – AL1L
Tension Increase in load through intact
diagonal for given LPF, hence
decrease in RSR
AM1L Middle 2.49 0.992 Figure E16 First buckle – AL1L.
Compression Increase in load on intact ‘zig-
zag’ – consistent with stress
redistribution study.
AM1U Middle 2.53 1.008 Figure E17 First buckle – AL1L and BL1L.
Tension Behaviour comparable to
undamaged state.
Increase in RSR due to
relaxation of load down the
failed member zig-zag that
incorporates lower bay
compression members that
buckle first – hence buckle
occurs at higher LPF
171
Table E10 Diamond braced structure single severed member study

Load Case
Peak equivalent
Plastic Strain Plot
(if applicable)
AL1L Lower 1.96 0.879 Figure E18 First buckle – member BL2L
Tension SRS – load relaxation on intact
lower compression member in
Frame A, i.e AL2L, slight
increase in load on member
BL2L
For given LPF load on BL1L
greater than in undamaged state
– reduced RSR
AL1U Lower 2.06 0.924 Figure E19 First buckle – member AL2L
Compression SRS – load relaxation on failed
zig-zag, load increase on intact
zig-zag
AL2L on intact zig-zag.
For given LPF load on AL2L
– reduced RSR
AM1L Middle 1.93 0.865 Figure E20 First buckle – member AL1U
Tension SRS – load relaxation on failed
zig-zag, increase on intact zig-
zag
AL1U on intact zig-zag
For given LPF load on AL1U
– reduced RSR
AM1U Middle 2.20 0.986 Figure E21 First buckle – member BL2L
Compression SRS – slight reduction of load
on intact zig-zag, Frame A
For given LPF load on BL2L
greater than on AL2L
172
Table E11 Inverted K-braced structure single severed member study

Load Case
Peak equivalent
Plastic Strain Plot
(if applicable)
AL1 Lower 1.65 0.797 Figure E22 First buckle – member BL1
Compression SRS – relaxation of load in
Frame A lower bay intact brace,
load increase on lower bay
braces on Frames 1,2 & B
For given LPF, greater loading
on BL1 than in undamaged state
hence reduced RSR
Tension SRS – relaxation of load in
Frame A lower bay intact brace,
load increase on lower bay
braces on Frames 1,2 & B
hence reduced RSR
AM1 Middle 1.79 0.865 Figure E24 First buckle – member BL1
Compression SRS – impact on Frame A lower
bay members negligible, load
redistributed to lower bay on
Frame B through Frames 1 and
2
hence reduced RSR
AM2 Middle 1.81 0.874 Figure E25 First buckle – member BM1
Tension SRS – relaxation of load on
member AM1, increased load
on BM1
on BM1 than in undamaged
state hence reduced RSR
AU1 Upper 2.01 0.971 Figure E26 First buckle – members AL1
and BL1
Compression
Reduction in RSR attributed to
increased eccentricity of
topsides resulting in increased
bending about lower bay hence
reduced critical buckling load
on lower bay compression
members.
173
Table E12 K-braced structure single severed member study

Load Case
Peak equivalent
Plastic Strain Plot
(if applicable)
Tension SRS – Relaxation in member
AL2, increase in load in Frames
1,2 & B.
Hence for given LPF member
BL2 under higher load than in
undamaged state.
Compression SRS – Relaxation in member
AL2, increase in load in Frames
1,2 & B.
BL2 under higher load than in
undamaged state.
Tension Increased bending of structure
about Level 1, and twisting
about vertical axis
SRS – significant increase in
load on middle bay members of
Frame B
BM2 under higher load than in
undamaged state.
Compression Increased bending of structure
about Level 1, and twisting
about vertical axis
load on middle bay members of
Frame B
BM2 under higher load than in
undamaged state.
174
Load Case
Peak equivalent
Plastic Strain Plot
(if applicable)
AU1 Upper 2.01 1.026 Figure E32 Ductile failure – high plasticity
in legs between top of piles and
Tension
Level 1
Structural response – bending
about top of piles, and twisting
about vertical axis.
Degree of twist decreased
towards piles – where restraint
on legs increased
Localised yielding of legs A1
and B1 between piles and
Level 1.
175
Table E13 Single diagonal braced structure single severed member study
Member Bay / RS RRF Displaced Comments

Severed Nominal R Shape Plot
Load Case
Peeq Plot (if
applicable)
AL Lower 1.94 0.798 Figure E33 First buckle – member BL
Figure E34
Tension High degree of twisting
about vertical axis
RSR – Increase load in
Frames 1, 2 & B
Hence for given LPF
member BL under higher
load than in undamaged
state.
High degrees of plasticity in
legs local to piles and Level
1 due to reacting twist.
AM Middle 2.08 0.856 Figure E35 First buckle – horizontal
member at Level 1 in Frame
Compression
A, L1HA
Introduction of ‘soft storey’ –
structure bends about Level 1
SRS – L1HA subjected to
significant increase in load
for a given LPF
After first buckle load
redistributed – buckle of BL
AU Upper 2.45 1.008 Figure E36 First buckle – member BL
Tension Twisting of structure about
vertical axis.
Redistribution of load to
Frames 1 and 2
‘Shielding’ of members BL
and AL – increase in RSR
BL Lower 2.16 0.889 Figure E37 Ductile failure
Compression
Figure E38 High degree of twisting
about vertical axis.
1due to reaction of twist.
176
Member Bay / RS RRF Displaced Comments
Severed Nominal R Shape Plot
Load Case
Peeq Plot (if
applicable)
BM Middle 2.27 0.934 Figure E39 Ductile failure
Figure E40
Tension High degree of torsion about
vertical axis
load acting on legs local to
Level 1.
1due to reaction of twist.
BU Upper 2.44 1.004 Figure E41 First buckle – member BL
Compression Twisting of structure about
vertical axis.
Redistribution of load to
Frames 1 and 2
‘Shielding’ of members BL
and AL – increase in RSR
177
4.3 MULTIPLE MEMBER SEVERED PUSHOVERS
Based upon the results from the single severed member ultimate strength study it was decided
to limit the dual member study to the X braced structure and the inverted K-braced structure,
since these two structures yielded the two bounding RSRs in the ultimate strength study. The
purpose of limiting the scope of the study was to facilitate the identification of differences in
the response between the higher and lower redundancy structures.
4.3.1 Lower Redundancy Structure

The results from the multiple severed member pushover analysis performed on the inverted
K-braced structure demonstrated a significant reduction in RSR to yield a value of 1.22,
resulting in an RRF of 0.589. This is a significant reduction in ultimate strength when
compared to the results for member AM2 having been severed, which yielded an RSR of 1.81
and an RRF of 0.874.
From Error! Reference source not found. it can be seen that the failure type is ductile when
the two middle bay tensile members were severed on Frames A and B. From Error!
Reference source not found. it can be seen that the structural response is characterised by
bending about the middle bay, due to the introduction of a soft storey. The bending resulted
in localised plasticity about points of increased restraint in the legs namely at Level 1 where
there is a significant step change in the structure’s stiffness.
4.3.2 Highly Redundant Structure

The results from the multiple severed member pushover analysis performed on the X braced
structure provided further evidence of the robustness of this structure. As stated previously,
the two members that were severed were those that had the greatest impact on the calculated
RSR from the single severed member study, i.e. AL1L and AL1U. The calculated RSR from
the dual severed member analysis was 1.98, at which point the lower bay compression
member in Frame B buckled, yielding an RRF of 0.79. This is significantly higher than that
calculated for the lower redundancy structure.
From Error! Reference source not found. it appears that the failure type for the damage
state was ductile. However, further assessment of the structure determined that during the
riks analysis the structure did lose some capacity attributed to the buckle of the lower bay
members in Frame B as illustrated in Error! Reference source not found.. Unlike in the
single severed member studies performed to determine the stress redistribution and ultimate
strength of the X braced jacket, where the structural response was almost planar, severance of
two members introduced twisting of the structure about the vertical axis. This was as a result
of the asymmetric stiffness between Frames A and B. As a consequence of this, Frame B’s
lower bay bracing members experienced a higher load than in the undamaged case resulting in
buckling of member BL1L under a reduced LPF.
178
5. CONCLUSIONS
x X
x Single diagonal
x K
x Diamond
x Inverted K
It is considered that this ranking can be attributed to the variation in the ‘step’ change in
stiffness between the lower and middle bays. The magnitude of this step is determined by the
number of load paths available, local to Level 1, to react the resultant compressive load
induced in the structure. The more load paths available, the lower the axial compressive load
in a given member, therefore there is a rise in the calculated RSR. Furthermore, the presence
of more load paths also has the effect of reducing the bending of the structure and as such the
end moments acting on members is limited. The effect of this is to limit the reduction in the
critical buckling load of a particular member.
From the single member severed study conducted, it is evident that there are two distinct
types of behaviour. As was the case in the stress redistribution study undertaken, the X
braced and the diamond braced structures were able to accommodate member failures much
more economically than the lower redundancy structures, i.e. inverted K-braced, K-braced,
and single diagonal braced structures. This behaviour was in-line with perceived redundancy
of the five bracing configurations, and is illustrated in Figure E1 by the difference in the range
of RSRs calculated for each of the bracing configurations.
Severance of a member in either the middle or lower bays of the lower redundancy structures
introduced twisting into the structures and resulted in an increase in load on the lower
members thus initiating buckling of such members at lower values of LPF, resulting in
reduced RSRs. Furthermore, in most cases the legs at the back of the structure, i.e. gridline 1
experienced plastic strains local to the top of the piles.
Severance of an upper bay member, in the lower redundancy structures, generally resulted in
an increase in RSR. Such effects were attributed to the induced torsion in the jackets and the
impact that this has on the load distribution in the lower bay. For such damaged states the
load is distributed to the perpendicular frames as they react rotation of the legs, and thus
alleviate the load on the lower compression members in the frames parallel to the storm
direction.
The K-braced structure was found to be the least tolerant to a severed member. Regardless of
which member was severed in either the lower or middle bays, the impact was a significant
reduction in the calculated ultimate strength.
The dual member severed study further highlighted the difference between the lower and
higher redundancy structures. Severance of two members on the inverted K braced structure
had a significant impact on ultimate strength, resulting in a 40% reduction, whereas that
performed on the X braced structure resulted in a 20% reduction.
179
BLANK PAGE
180
6. REFERENCES
2 ABAQUS 5.8 – Hibbitt, Karlsson & Sorensen, Inc.
3 ULTIGUIDE – Best Practice Guidelines for Use of Non-linear Analysis Methods in
Documentation of Ultimate Limit States for Jacket Type Offshore Structures – April 1999
181
BLANK PAGE
182
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C30 1/98
Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive
C0.06 07/04
ISBN 0-7176-2870-1
RR 245
£30.00 9 78071 7 628704

Stress redistribution in platform substructures due to primary member damage and its effect on structural reliability
HSE BOOKS

RR245 Stress Redistribution in Platform Substructure Due To Primary Member Damage

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

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

RR245 Stress Redistribution in Platform Substructure Due To Primary Member Damage

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

HSE

Health & Safety

Stress redistribution in platform substructures

Prepared by EQE International Limited for the

RESEARCH REPORT 245

Stress redistribution in platform substructures

A Nelson, (Senior Engineer)

First published 2004

ISBN 0 7176 2870 1

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................v

1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................1

2.0 MODEL DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................3

2.1 Baseline Structure ...............................................................................................3

3.0 STRESS REDISTRIBUTION STUDY..................................................................9

4.0 CRACKED MEMBER STUDY...........................................................................15

5.0 ULTIMATE STRENGTH ANALYSIS.................................................................19

6.0 RELIABILITY STUDY........................................................................................23

7.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................31

8.0 RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................33

9.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................35

Appendix B Stress Redistribution Study .........................................................113

Appendix C Joint Utilisation Value Distribution Plots ....................................141

Appendix D Joint Group Utilisation Value Plots..............................................147

Appendix E Ultimate Strength Study................................................................153

The investigations have yielded the following results:

x Severance of a member in a highly redundant structure leads to local stress

x The ultimate strength study demonstrated:

Flooded Member Detection (FMD) is an increasingly common inspection technique that is

1.2 SCOPE OF WORK

2.1 BASELINE STRUCTURE

In order to provide a systematic investigation into the influence of different bracing

Figure 1. It is an inverted K-braced, four-legged wellhead platform, and stands in

2.2 GENERIC STRUCTURE

Sleeved Piles: Outer diameter = 2.2967 m

2.2.4 Conductors and Guides

Mud line (43.5 m below LAT)

2.2.6 Tubular Joints

2.3 BRACING CONFIGURATIONS

Figure 3 illustrates the five bracing configurations.

Table 1 Bracing members’ cross-section dimensions

Bracing Member dimensions in each bay (mm)

The steel has the following material properties:

Table 2 details the steel’s plastic properties.

True Stress True Strain

2.5 LOAD APPLICATION

2.5.1 Gravity and Buoyancy Loading

2.5.2 Environmental Loading

The 100 year current profile is defined in Table 3 below.

Depth Below Free Current Magnitude

3.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 4 Mean joint utilisation values for the undamaged structures

Bracing configuration Storm direction

Table 5 Summary of significant results from the stress redistribution study

Bracing storm Severed Mean joint % shift Maximum Joint

Red = greater than 30% increase

4.2 MODIFICATIONS TO SINGLE DIAGONAL BRACED JACKET MODEL

Figure 11 illustrates member BM with the shell element sub-models included.

4.5 CRACKED MEMBER STUDY SUMMARY

5.2 RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

x X-braced (RSR = 2.51)