by Mohamed F. Zedan, Yildirim O. Bayazitoglu, and Yi-Suang Tein, Brown & Root, Inc.




@Copyright 1981 Of fshoreTechnology Conference This paper was presented at the 13th Annual OTC in Houston, TX, May 4-7, 1981. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abatract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT This paper describes a computer model to predict the maximun probable stress as well as the cumulative fatigue damage at any joint in a jacket or its tiedowns that may occur during the transportation of an offshore platform by a barge. te dynamic transportation process is represented by a series of quasi-static processes in a frequency domain. The barge/jacket’ interaction is analysed taking into account the barge flexibility. The method utilizes a description of the wave spectra of various anticipated sea states encountered during transportation, their probability of occurrence and the voyage’s duration. The wave induced forces on the barge and the resulting barge/jacket assembly motions are calculated for unit amplitude waves with frequencies spanning the wave spectrun frequency range. The canputed accelerations are used to determine the inertial forces acting on the The barge/jacket assembly is in jacket members. instantaneous equilibrium under the action of the inertial forces and the pressure forces acting on the barge. These forces are used to calculate the stresses resulting from the unit amplitude waves, RAO’S, taking into or account the stress flexibility of the barge. The stress spectrun is :[~:~~ frcm the stress RAO’S and the wave . Assuming a Rayleigh distribution for the stress peaks, the maximum probable alternating stress amplitude is computed from the moments of the stress spectrm, the duration of the storm, and the mean period of stress oscillations. A probabilistic procedure is used to derive the cumulative fatigue damage ratio from the cmputed stress spectra, an assumed stress range probability distribution, and an appropriate S-N curve (applying Miner’s rule). Computed fatigue damage ratios for different sea states are added after being weighted according to their probability of occurrence.


INTRODUCTION Offshore structures are manufactured in “on-shore” fabrication yards which may be distant from the installation site. Transportation of the structure from the fabrication yard to the installation site is done by means of a barge, as shown in Figure 1. The time required for the transportation can be as much as a few weeks. During transportation, the barge is subjected to wave forces which, in the event of a storm, can be considerable. The jacket loaded barge assembly responds to wave forces by oscillating in different directions. These oscillations give rise to inertial forces which act on structural These inertial forces as well as members. those from the barge/jacket interaction give rise to stresses that are cyclic by nature, and can reduce the fatigue life of the Thus they should be taken into jacket. account when computing the expected fatigue life of the platform after installation. Maximum values of the stresses developed at any joint in the structure during transportat-ion should not exceed the allowable stress levels, and of particular interest are the forces exerted on the tiedowns, which also should not exceed the allowable forces. The objective of the present paper is to develop a computational procedure which will (1) estimate the maximum stress at every joint in the transported jacket developed during a specified storm sea state of a given duration, and (2) estimate the cumulative fatigue damage ratio for every joint in the jacket due to the cyclic stress of the different sea states The anticipated during the transportation. present procedure solves a major deficiency in previous analyses by accounting for barge flexibility and incorporating barge/jacket interaction in the stress calculations. The procedure is quite general and is not limited to the transportation of jackets. In fact, it can be used for the transportation

References and illustrations at end of paper. 439

Nevertheless. Recently. but despite this. there has been a tendency to extrapolate this approach to cover the transporta440 In our approach to transportation analysis. this jacket transportation analysis using approach consists of the follow”ng steps: (1) (2) (3) Define the sea states which simulate the voyage.analysis of any frame type structure. A Froude modeling scheme was The conducted tests included the used.1 METHOD OF ANALYSIS Outline and General Approach The computational procedure starts by calculating the mass and moment of inertia . and therefore. effects of wind. This approach consists of finding participation factors for each of the motion cmnponents when one of them reaches its maximun in a given sea state for a given durThe estimation of the participation ation. The procedure contains some wide approximations.0 RELATED STUDIES The importance of analysing the transportation of offshore structures has been recognized by the industry for sane time. and two example problems are discussed in Section 4.2 presented an OTC paper that dealt with model tests on the transportation of a large jacket by a launching barge. tion of very large jackets. and both regular and irregBarge motions. Therefore. The larger the jacket. factors is achieved by utilizing the notion of cofactors in random processes (Hutchinson and Bringloel). Implicit assumptions made in this approach are: (1) the barge is infinitely rigid (i. and these. This importance has increased in recent years due to the loss of more than one jacket during transportation. 2. analyzing jacket transportation by the above The analytical method is reviewed below. (4) In order to investigate the entire range of possibilities. this may lead to substantial errors since it assumes the barge is infinitely rigid. The computer package used by Sekita et al.0 3. but principally it fails to adequately consider the pressure force distribution on the barge and assumes its effects will be In effect. The present method provides an estimation of the maximum probable stress exerted anywhere in the assembly as well as the cumulative fatigue damage incurred during transportation. procedure are given in Section 3. deficiency of previous transportation analyses. started by computing the motion of the barge/ jacket assembly produced by winds and waves. the more susceptible the assembly is to hydrodynamic forces from both jacket/barge motion-induced interactions. barge has been erroneously assumed to be rigid. ations. a number of loading conditions are explored by combining maximum motions in a All the canponent number of different ways. jacket accelerular waves. However. and (2) the forces acting on the jacket are primarily caused by A typical motion induced inertial forces. the effects of the hydrodynamic forces acting on the barge and the loads in the jacket members This avoids the major are accounted for. Although differing in the degree of both of these sophistications approaches are basically of a semi-deterministic nature in that the prediction of stress has not been carried out using the probabilistic notions. the pressure force distribution acting on the barge is considered while taking into account the flexibility of the barge. 3. the absorbed at the supports. jacket transportation has been primarily handled by a “semi-deterministic” inertial force approach. this approach has proven to be a valuable tool in designing sea fastening mechanisms when the jacket is smnewhat small relative to the barge. experimental results they obtained to the results of a package of computer programs developed for transportation analysis. braces were calculated tiedown from the previously mentioned loads. This approach is often criticized as being too the maximum conservative because vessel motions in all the six modes are not likely to A slightly improved occur simultaneously. can be applied to deck transportation. there is no interaction between jacket and barge). section of the study contains some of the deficiencies described earlier. In the past.e. Then the inertial forces and the eccentric loads (due to roll) were calculated and applied statically to the assembly while ostensibly supporting the barge at the mean The stresses developed in the water line. showed when compared with measured stresses. The 1/60 . there reinains very limited published literature on the analysis procedures of offshore structure transportation.scale tests’ objective was to evaluate barge stability and structural safety during transportation. Compute the stresses in the jacket due te inertial forces. Sekita et al. The computational procedure did not consider the fatigue damage from the cyclic stresses produced by the barge oscillations. approach calls for the computation of “participation factors”. The technique developed here is quasiin the frequency static and is applied The details of the computational domain. maximum motions are assumed to be either in-phase or 180 degrees out of phase. This method was also used to compute the stresses on the tiedown braces. some differences. compared the were measured. and inertial One of the most recent studies forces. and stresses in the tiedown braces Sekita et al. Predict the maximum motion responses. Compute the inertial force distribution for the jacket based on the maximun motion response in all six degrees of freedom. Section 2 discusses sane related studies.

center of gravity must be on the same vertical axis as the center of buoyancy so that there In most instances. A space frame model of the jacket is easily derived because of its prismatic tubular A barge. and Notice that DAMS-I. This is done by assuming a Rayleigh probability distribution for the peaks of the stress record and by using both the storm duration and the mean period of the stress oscillations. mass corresponding to these should be included DAMS-I program is in the dynamic analysis. 3.characteristics of the barge/jacket assembly. due to the plate structure. then the two are connected via the tiedowns to form the barge/ jacket assembly. and the location of the center of If these computed gravity are checked again. and a space frame model of this structure is not as For structural considerastraightforward. The fatigue damage is accumulated linearly over different stress ranges in different sea states. and therefore other stress range probability distributions can be used. the model is given stiffness by its The cross-secmain longitudinal members. it is assuned that fatigue failure is dependent upon the stress ranges and the number of cycles of In the present each stress range applied. Similar to the frequency domain approach con’roonly employed in seakeeping analysis. The procedure outlined above is presented in the block diagrams shown in Figures 2 and 3. To apply the Miner-Palmgren model to the present frequency domain stress responset the stress range probability distribution needs to be known. The wave induced forces on the barge are then calculated. tional size of these members and their location depend entirely on the actual rigidity of the real barge. the structural response of a marine vessel in random seaways can also be studied based on the concept of linear of the super-position Each sea state is response to regular waves. the barge model should reflect the overall bending and torsional rigidity of the real barge. TPFATIGUE are the names of different program modules that constitute the Transportation In the following few secAnalysis System. tions. is of multi-celled construction. . hand. inertial forces acting on the assembly and the pressure (hydrodynamic) forces acting on the barge are used to compute the stresses due to unit amplitude waves which are called the stress Response Amplitude Operators (RAO’S). nmber of cycles to failure curve (S-N curve). angular velocities and angular accelerations. values are acceptable.model of the assembly 441 3. A simple and effective way to correct the problem is to add ballast at In the selected locations on the barge. The method developed in this paper is quite general. The goal is to reproduce the stiffness of the main longitudinal members of the real barge. the assembly vertical equilibrium. Also needed in the fatigue calculations is the choice of an appropriate stress range vs. Once the entire barge model is constructed. such as the total mass and the mass distribution. the total weight of the model calculated by DAMS-I must be equal to the barge displacement used in the motion analysis for Secondly.2 Barge/Jacket Structural Model and Computation of structural haracterlstlcs A space frame model of the jacket and the barge are separately derived. SEALOAD BARMOT. wave forces are the most important source of loading. Fatigue failure is assmed to occur when the cumulative fatigue damage ratio achieves unity. This is followed by cwputing the various motions of the barge/jacket assembly. can be estimated from shear flow methods and is reproduced in the model by the addition of lateral cross members. the need to model the barge using a frame structure results frcm the fact that DAMS-I (structural analysis program) does not have the capability of analyzing plate elements. tions more details are given about different parts of this system. model. The torsional rigidity of the real barge. will be no net moments. procedure. an iterative procedure is performed to further calibrate the model in the bending and torsion modes. First. The models of the barge and jacket are joined together by the tiedowns (Figure 4) and a preliminary DAMS-I run is made to compute the total mass and mass moments of inertia. on the other member construction. For fatigue damage computations. In the vertical and lateral bending modes. The calculations require linear accelerations.3 should reflect (1) primary Structural properties such as torsion and bending stiffnesses. Computation of Excitation Forces and Assembly ~otlon Responses Among all the environmental forces acting on ocean-going marine vessels. and (2) the mass properties of the actual barge-jacket assembly. the calculation of fatigue damage is done by using the Miner/Palmgren hypothesis. the motion analysis can be performed. Once the stress spectrun is determined. then run again with the modified model and the values of total mass and mass moments of inertia. The aggregate . It has been shown that the stress response spectra are narrow banded and therefore the distribution of the stress peaks and the stress ranges may be approximated using a Rayleigh distribution. and the location of the center of gravity. both of the above checks will not be within a close tolerance. The accelerations are used to determine the The inertial forces acting on each member. this can be accomplished by adding The concentrated loads to selected joints. A detailed check should be made before the motion analysis to ensure the compatibility of the model properties and the actual assembly. From the structural point of view. The stress spectrum-is determined fran the RAO’S and the input wave spectrun. the maximum stress that may occur during the period of the specified storm sea state is computed using a probabilistic approach.

The computation of hydrodynamic forces is also conceptually simple. This is to preserve the phase different forces relations between acting on the assembly. In addition observed that where. it is roll motion exhibits strong nonlinear behavior near resonance due to the presence of viscous roll damping. computing the wave forces and hydrodynamic coefficients are based on the well-known strip method technique 5)(Ogilvie al Salvensen et . a unit frequency slices. Compute sectional wave forces and hydroc(ynamic coefficents fran contour integration of hydrodynamic pressure. (2) (3) 442 . that the natural. In this analysis. were computed for unit wave amplitudes as discussed in the previous section. wave and hydrodynamic forces due to vessel motions can be readily Furthermore. Kim3. and yaw. in a given direction. In the above equation. Specifil%ly~c% computations involve the following steps: (1) Canpute sectional velocity potentials Frank using the close-fit method (Frank6). amplitude wave with a frequency equal to the central frequency of the slice is applied to The response of the barge/jacket the barge.4. 3. angular and linear accelerations and angular velocities of the center of gravity of the assembly. one must exercise care to ensure that proper force lumping is achieved. are the elements of ‘ij mass matrix of the vessel. me ~ indicator for such consistency is how forces balance the wel1 the hydrodynamic inertia forces. predictions. The wave forces and hydrodynamic coefficients are primarily functions of the Methods for hull geometry of the barge. pitch. that the structure is a free-free system and that the net “inertial” forces and moments are balanced by those due to hydrodynamic forces.4 Computation of Stress Spectra For a barge in a given sea state. a special technique has been developed to account for the roll viscous damping. primarily a funcmotion. Canpute three-dimensional wave forces and hydrodynamic coefficients for the equation of motion from longitudinal integration of sectional two-dimensional values. are the ‘j vector. and 6) refer to surge. if any. between model tests and theoretical. + Cijnj = Fie lJ J j = 1. can be evaluated using Tanaka’s An iteraempirical formula (Salvensen5). tion of hull geometry and the amplitude of roll motion. At this point. the structural response can be obtained from an equivalent static structural analysis. vessel are forces calculated. the loads acting on the structure consist of the inertial forces induced by vessel motions and the hydrodynamic forces due to wave and It is worthwhile to point out vessel motion. spectrum is subdivided into a number (nf) of For each slice.2~. as well as the distribution of the pressure forces on the barge surface. 6 z j=l i@ (Mij + Aij) ~j + B. tive scheme based on Tanakas’s method has been developed for predicting the non-linear viscExtensive model ous damping and roll motion. Therefore. dynamic amplification effect.The wave represented by its wave spectrum. is the wave s~cond. In view of the significance of roll motion on the structure. & 6 to these linear terms..e. frequencies of the structure are much higher than those of the dominant waves..~. acceleration and pressure forces) is represented by a complex variable which has real and imaginary parts. accepting the fact calculated. are l%ix. . sway.2.5. suggested by the motion analysis response of the vessel in regular sinusoidal waves can be obtained through solving a system of coupled linear equations of the form. respectively. there are no net forces or moments acting the 6-D motion on the system. frequency in radians per The computation of inertial forces is a straightforward process which involves multiplying the lumped nodal masses of the structure by the corresponding accelerations. i.5. it should be emphasized that each of the response quantities (velocity.3. The technique calls for the introduction of an additional term: B i ]fi4\to the equation of The coeffic! ent B. ~ea~el. and elements of the wave exciting Once the motion responses of the. However. the 5 ~~~fficl~tm~~rixe’ements are the elements %!toring force matrix 9 of of the hydrostatic damping the elements of the generalized the added mass are the elements of ~~!ce and moment vector. motion RAO’S. The g’enerali~ed mass matrix is a function of total mass and the special distribution of the mass.. is then obtained for each of these regular waves via the “BARMOT” motion analysis Using the notation of seakeeping program.. testing has been conducted to verify this Good correlations were obtained scheme. the 6-D motions (Vj. The best guideline is that the lumping of hydrodynamic forces must be consistent with that of the motion analysis. assembly to these unit amplitude waves. there is little.

these stresses have bending and axial contriAppropriate stress amplification butions. a probabiwhat random fashion. These inertial and pressure forces are applied statically to the barge/jacket assembly. are done by the TPFATIGUE program (Figure 3). fatigue failure is expected to occur Though when CDR equals or exceeds unity. It should be noted that such stresses are produced by Al SO unit wave amplitudes and are canplex. CDR is given by. the validity of applying Miner’s rule to random is questionable. is simply the stress 443 ‘av Jrn. the structure is subjected to stresses that are continuously varying with time in a someTherefore. angle of @(uJ) (produced by a unit amplitude wave of a frequency w) is ACT*r((t))Acr~ = q 6*(w) (2) CDR = X n(ri) ~ (6) The total stress amplitude produced by a unit amplitude wave (including static roll effect) is given by (J*r(W)= o*(u) + AIS*r(U) (3) The above procedure is applied to both the real and imaginary parts of the the stress to obtain cry(w) and o~r(u) where: n (rf) = Number of stress cycles at a StreSS range ri.(r) dr o T (7) . without the presence of hydrodynamic excitation (no waves). Additional stresses caused by static weight eccentricity due to the roll of the assembly have to be considered in obtaining the. (Clough and Penzien7). RAO (u). For a continuous stationar a~+J’. These stresses are computed using the DAMS-I structural analysis progra described earlier. Therefore. MO(W) = [(OT(U))2+ (J-(U))*]”* (4) The stress spectrum So (u) is obtained from the wave spectrum S H~w) and the response amplitude operator RAOU).(w) and u:(w) The stress that results from the static weight of the barge/jacket assembly and the balancing pressure forces (buoyancy). 3. Vughts and Kinras indicated that a linear accumulation of damage (I) parts of the stress amplitude (axial + bending) for a unit (*) amplitude wave. The velocities and accelerations of the center of gravity of the assembly are used to compute the accelerations and consequently the inertial forces at different joints in the jacket. are designated by o. widely used for the lack of a better criterion. Miner’s rule gives CDR as Therefore.5 Computation of Cumulative Fatigue Damage Ratio The fatigue damage is cmnputed using the wellknown Miner’s rule which assumes that fatigue damage on a structure accumulates linearly In the present case. For a discrete application of sinusoidal stress signals. According to Miner’s rule. total stress spectrum. The cmnputation of these stress spectra and subsequent calculations of maximum probable stresses and the cumulative fatigue damage.ferent sea states will be added to obtain a total cumulative damage ratio at that point. as shown in the block diagram of Figure 3. using the relation ? Sea(w) = ]RAO(~)]2 “ SHH(W) The stress spectrum is obtained using the above procedure for all sea states. listic approach is used to calculate the cumulative damage (CDR). excluding the effects of roll. Response Amplitude Operators and Stress Spectra CDR=~ The stress response amplitude operator at a given frequency. Correction of Stress Amplitudes 17fect The real (R) and imaginary for the Roll amplitude resulting from the application of a unit amplitude wave at this frequency to the assembly. factors are applied to these stresses. stress conditions Based on other studies. The incremental change in the stress due to a unit roll angle is given by Ao:=ou-o 9 (1) (as in Miner’s rule) is approximatelytrue in cases where fatigue is predominantly a result of the propagation of initial cracks that are Values of CDR at a given already present. ‘a#dom stress and Wallis et process addox Wildenstein\ 0). point. N (ri) = Average number of stress cycles to failure at a stress range ri. at all joints and member ends in the jacket. the stress correction due to a roll. in all directions of incidence. The DAMS-I structural analysis program is used to compute the resulting stresses at different joints and for different member ends in the jacket.on a certain joint caused by dif. is designated by o for a zero roll angle and bycru for a unit ro?l angle (1 degree).The distributed pressure force on the barge surface is lmped appropriately at a nunber of joints on the barge frame model by the SEALOAD program (Figure 2).

whereo s s s 1 and M2 . The Rayleigh approximation was improved using the distribution of the maxima for an arbitrary spectral band width by Wallis et al. it has been found that it can be approximated by a Rayleigh distribution in the form -r2/8mo where r( ) is the Gamma function and T is the duration of the application of the cyclic It is interesting to note that stress. crossing fo. As for the probability distribution of the stress range.. (7).. are and m4 spectral moments defined later. These are the weakest points as far as fatigue is concerned.. Accumulation of Fatigue Damage P(r) =*e (9) This relation is exact for a stress spectral bandwidth parameter (e) of zero. The func{ion N(r) is simply the equation of the curve of the stress range versus the number of cycles to failure (known as S-N curve). . it is computed from the expression ‘0 ‘av = Zn[--(l #)31/2 ‘(av) = P(r) N(r) = = To evaluate the integration in Equation ~~~dfunctions p(r) and N(r) have to be specfThe choice of N(r) is fairly easy. line S-N curve may be represented by (8) with i = 0. they provide curves representing “mean minus two stan95% survival indicating dard deviations” rate. etc. As for the average period ~av (in Equation (7) ). Wirsching and Light focused on fatigue under wide band random stresses by using an equivalent narrow band process that has both the same m. Such a function is empirical and depends on the Of prime interest here is type of material. curves usually differ due to different philo- - (11) where a spectral moment mi is defined as sophies of data presentation. Once P(r) and N(r) are defined. Also. Gurney and mi =~mui Sea(w) dw (12) S-N curves that have Maddoxll published represent the mean of test data and therefore indicate 50% survival rate. m. The choice of an appropriate S-N curve is the job of the designer. s is defined by $ E mom4 -m~)/(mom4) ~ (lo) The value of CDR obtained as discussed earlier covers only one sea state in one given direction of incidence at a point on a joint at a member end. In his choice. the integration in Equation (7) is carried out numeriSpecial care should be taken in the tally. The function P(r) of Equation (9) can be obtained frcm the Rayleigh distribution of the ma ima derived by Cartwright and Longuet-Higginsf 2 by applying a simple transformation between the stress 444 . Special Case When the S-N curve is a straight line (on a log-log plot) as represented by Equation (8) and when P(r) is given by a Rayleigh distribution (Equation (9)). the fatigue in the welded joints between members in the jacket. referred to Reference (9) for more information about the improved expressions for P(r). ::$:. a closed form exPression for the integration in Equation (7) is possible. and rate of zero. The values of CDR are added algebraically for different sea states in different directions at the same point in the structure to obtain the total CDR at this point during the voyage. Laboratory and full scale tests have been conducted for different types of joints. density function of Probability stress range. since the integrand numerical integration converges slowly. Average period for stress variation in the random process.where: T = Time duration of the random stress process. given by (8mo)y/2 r(l+~) A N(r) = A/ry CDR = (+) (13) where A and yare empirical constants obtained from fitting fatigue experimental data. he should keep in mind what survival rate the structure is designed for. Various organizations such as the Pmerican Welding Society and the Welding Institute have proThe duced S-N curves for different welds. The cumulative fatigue damage ratio under such conditions is. Average number of cycles to failure at a stress range r. It should be noted that it is customary to represent the S-N curve (on a log-log plot) either by a straight A straight line or straight line portions. The CDR obtained frcm this equivalent narrow band process is then corrected by a factork whose statistical characteristics are provided as a function of the bandwidth parameters.9 by assuming that the stress range r is equal The reader is to twice the stress peak. thus. (Wallis et and the stress maximum function is considered such a adequate for narrow band spectra with small values of E. similar expressions to Equation (13) were obtained by ~olt~ and Hansford13 and by Wirsching and Light 4.2.1.

the barge is represented (structurally) by a beam and so is the These two beams are connected by 10 jacket. It should be stress peaks (maximum probable stress) ~max is obtained by solving the integral equation % ‘max NJ o P(s) ds=N-1 (16) where N is the number of stress cycles during Substituting the the storm sea state. Example 1: Simplified Beam Model -s2/2mo (14) (15) In this problem. first overutilizes an simplified structural representation of the barge and the jacket. Figure 5 shows a sketch of the A small cantistructural model’s geometry.1 P(s) =~e where m. = ~w Sea(w) do o % The stress amax is the maximum alternating stress around some mean stress.. 4. The lower beam has the same mass distribution The distribution given by Equation (14) has been shown by Longuet-Higgins15 to hold for peak wave amplitudes in a randcm sea which has and moment of inertia (in bending) as that of the barge. N(l-e-~~ax/2mo) = N . 445 . Correct mass distribution was obtained by artificially adjusting the weight a narrow band spectrm. in fatigue analyses of welded joints and is design by codes (Wirsching and ~. with a mass (10 Kips) at its free end (joint 16). inertia (in bending) and a mass distribution of the same order as the jacket of Example 2. Although the main purpose of this example was to check the program. can be estimated approximately by hand from the computed acceleration.Comments on the Fatigue Procedure The procedure just described to compute the fatigue damage ignores the effect of the mean Such an assumption is cmnonly made stress. Longuet-Higgins15 derived a similar equation for the maximun wave amplitude in terms of half the root mean square of the wave height and the nunber of cycles. The choice of an S-N curve is another source of uncertainty in the fatigue Most available data in literature analysis. stress and fatigue results are not presented. was added to the previously described model. The stresses computed by hand agreed with the program results. randcm loading.1 which gives ‘m~x=- (17) noted that wave forces as well as motion responses were computed for the real (physical) barge. The maximum force at one member end can be estimated from these stresses.0 EXAMPLEROBLEMS P Two example problems are discussed in this The section. such amplitudes vary widely. Because of the artificial nature of this example problem. The second example represents a more realistic test case where the transportation of a small jacket is considered. the short members simulating tiedown The upper beam has a moment of connections.6 Canputation of the Maximum Stress The maximum probable stress is obtained for the storm sea state by assuming that the probability distribution of the stress peaks P(s) follows a Rayleigh distribution in the form 4. lever member defined by joints 4 and 16. The omean in the present case is simply the static stress o due to the weight of the assembly and the %alancing pressure forces (buoyancy) acting on the barge surface. consequently. some information about the effect of barge flexibility on the tiedown forces was obtained. expression for P(s) frcm Equation (14) into the left hand side of Equation (16) and integrating one obtains .. 3. It can be shown that both expressions are equivalent. Therefore amax = ICrg] tJm (18) The above described procedure to compute the maximum stress is applied at all joints at all member ends. This simplification was intended to check the program computations by hand. The stress spectrum and. The stresses due to unit amplitude waves in this member. the cumulative fatigue damage ratio can also be computed by hand. otherwise failure may occur. the force system consists of inertial forces acting on the entire structure and hydrodynamic forces acting on These hydrodynamic forces were the barge. The maximum stress at any point in the structure should not exceed the allowable design value. practical limitations on the time duration of The rate of load experiment. any laboratory application in a laboratory is much higher and this may have an effect on the fatigue life. which are mainly produced by the inertial forces. The highest of%the density of different members. were obtained by subjecting the test speciments to sinusoidal stress loading with In the present case of constant amplitude. As mentioned earlier. Also in laboratory tests the frequency of the cyclic stress is often very high compared to the range of stress frequencies encountered This is because of during transportation.~fl.

The barge/jacket assembly model is shown in Figure 4. Fran top to bottcm. thus. Frcm these figures. the structure was In This was equilibrium under these forces. The computed moments of inertia are: Ixx = 1. with Simpson’s in compliance same the motion integration rule employed in analysis. these two sea states are shown in Figure 8. the rigidity of the jacket. at twenty-one equ#:y spaced stations. As for sea state 2 the probability of occurrence in direction 1 is 55 percent and in direction 2 is 45 percent. Figure 1 shows the barge carrying the jacket. The fact that the jacket and the barge deform together suggests that there is significant structural interaction between the two structures. evidenced by the bending mmnent distribution. one can make the following observations: 1. Therefore. the deformation pattern of the jacket. This result implied the consistency of the calculations up to this point.ft. Sea state 1 has a significant wave height of 20 feet. the overall net force and moment due to these loads are negligible. the barge cannot be assumed to be infinitely rigid when cc+npared to the Furthermore. Notice that although the spatial distribution of the sectional hydrodynamic load is quite different fran that of the inertial load.207 x 106 kip”ft”sec2 Iyy = 1.5 feet. The duration of the voyage in this example was taken as thirty days. structural interactions between the two structures transmitted via tiedown connections greatly affect the . the deformation pattern of the barge. while the top section is 60 x 51 feet. however. Notice that these lumped masses include both can and ballast water mass. indicated by near zero reactions at the supports in Figure 5. the comparison between tiedown forces and the vertical motion pattern (due to heave and pitch) of the structure. 4. Figures 6a and 6b show the real part and imaginary part of the structural responses to the first wave. and were lunped. the distribution of such forces in the tiedowns is substanti- . its probability of occurrence is 30 percent. The barge is 377 feet in length.246x 107 kip”ft”sec2 2.magnitude of individual While the overall resultant tiedown forces.47 radian/second and 0. the wall thickness varies from 1. individual tiedowns obtained by the inertial force may be approach substantially underestimated. which was computed as the difference between the sectional hydrodynamic load and sectional inertial load. Figures 6 and 7 illustrate the structural response of the jacket-barge system to two typical “unit amplitude” sinusoidal waves. while Figures 7a and 7b show the responses to the second wave.derived from the motion analysis. Two directions of wave incidence with respect to the barge were considered.208 x 107 kip. inertia (off-diagonal terms) were negligible because of lateral symmetry and near fore and aft symmetry. The bending moment distributions illustrated in these figures were obtained frcinthe longiintegration of tudinal sectional dynamic loads. The free-free boundary condition was satisfied by the present analysis. Two sea states were The wave spectra for applied to the barge. Both waves are in head seas and the wave frequencies are 0.25 inches to 0.68 Using canplex radian/second.75 inches. The model is devised so that it reflects the primary stiffness and mass properties of the actual barge/jacket assembly of Figure 1. For the first sea state the probability of occurrence in direction 1 is 60 percent and in direction 2 is 40 percent. The mass of the assembly was lumped at 21 equally spaced nodes along the x-axis for the dynamic analysis to obtain the dynamic force distribution. and has a beam of 100 feet.2 Example 2: Jacket Transportation Analysis of a Small The present transportation procedure (system) was also used for the analysis of a four leg jacket.sec2 Izz = 1. This mass inc{ udes the ballast water which was used to realize an appropriate draft (such that the center of buoyancy and the center of gravity lie along the same vertical axis). the forces in ally different.(mx=m =mZ) total mass of 1031 kip*sec2/ft. and finally. The preliminary DAMS-I run gave a of the assembly m. The axis system in which these computations were made is the standard axis system Other moments of (x. The length of the jacket is approximately 260 feet. z) of Figure 4. There are five curves on each of the figures. It is worthwhile to point out that forces balanced hydrodynamic the these inertial forces. The jacket is braced at five elevations. force and moment of the tiedown forces correlate well with those predicted by applying the inertial force approach. Y. respectively. The draft used in the analysis is 14. Thus. the curves respectively illustrate the bending moment distribution along the structure. while sea state 2 has a significant wave height of 8 feet and a probability of occurrence of 70 percent. The bottom bracing section is 60 x 101 feet. The tiedown forces do not correlate well with the motion pattern of the structure. The diameter of the legs is about 53 inches. The barge and the jacket deform together and their deformation patterns are highly bending correlated to the moment distribution. Each of tt’re ave w spectra was sliced into 5 equal slices 446 3. domain representation. direction 1 represents head seas (V= 180°) and direction 2 represents oblique seas ( p= 2250).

: Bringloe. It shall be noted that five points (frequencies) are not enough to define the motion A larger number of response accurately.: “Probabilistic Fatigue Analysis of Fixed Offshore Structures. the system responds primarily in only heave and pitch while for quartering seas it responds primarily in heave.stress RAO’S and the Figure 12 shows two stress wave spectra. which is fairly small. Motions and Sea Loads. Part I. frequency points were used to plot the motion responses in Figures 9 and 10. o . For head seas. E.K. Frank. on the Y.H. the central frequencies of these slices are 0.H. The stress were obtained from the.925. R. a Computer Consultant.. (1975) 502-504.” Davidson Laboratory.: “A Rational Strip Theory of Ship Motion. 8. sway. J. for their excellent work in the system development. Tests Sawada. Tx. J. W. and 1. Fatigue maximum stress results are and presented for the member connecting joints 111020 and 121020 at joint 121020. T. OTC Paper No. when applied in the two directions discussed earlier.25 radian/see. 0. Report No. The results are as follows: Omean = % ~max.’ and Penzien. and Kimura. Stevens Institute of Technology Technical Memorandum (1974). . 3. during the whole duration of voyage was found to be 5. “Model 2.” Marine Technology.25 KSI :6. N.W. Vughts. and “Application of Seakeeping Analysis. Chou of the Marine Division. The maximum (probable) stress for the 100 hour storm sea state which occurs at p= 1800 (head seas). 0. New York. The stress RAO’S were computed at eight circumferential Figure 11 shows the stress response points.with AU = 0.26 -7. pitch. which also represents the storm. Houston. A. The University of Michigan. K. 013 (1969). the distribution of the tiedown forces is substantially different from that of the inertial forces.alt.: N. Ogilvie. = ~max = -1. and Faltinsen. 2608 (May 1976). Report 3289 (1970). Results further show that the barge and jacket deform together indicating significant interaction. 7. Figure 9 shows the response for the head seas ( u= 1800) and Figure 10 for the quartering seas ( M= 2250). Hutchinson. some of the individual tiedown forces can be substantially larger than those obtained from the widely used inertial force approach.: a Transportation Large Offshore Structure Launching by Barge.175. Tuck. With the use of appropriate stress concentration factors the value of CDR should increase dramatically.” Naval Ship Research and Development Center. Inc. REFERENCES 1. assumed for the stress peaks probability distribution. B.: “The Frank Close-Fit Ship Motion Computer Program. J. D. OTC Paper No. Clough. Karsan. and Kinra.: “Wave Exciting Forces and Moments on a Ship Running in Oblique Seas. and F.425. was computed from the stress spectrum represented by the solid line in A Rayleigh distribution was Figure 12. Sekita. Therefore. of T.L.425 radian/see.O. The response for all degreesroll and yaw. only five frequency points were used in all the subsequent calculations to conserve computer time in this illustrative example. Brown & Root.T.51 Numerical experiments on present approach. spectra for sea state 1. McGraw-Hill Book Company. Bob Henry and Doug King of the Computer Services of Brown & Root.. of-freedcm (in both cases) is higher at low These responses were used to frequencies.F. discussed in according to the procedure spectra (at this point) Section 3. 3517 (May 1979). “Ship actions of and Marine 4. and Tuck. Salvensen.” Offshore Technology Conference Proceeding. KSI KSI 5. However. C. R. especially when the moment of inertia of the jacket is not substantially smaller than that of the barge.: Dynamics of Structures.. It should be noted that the results presented in this example illustrate the use of the 447 6. compute the accelerations and angular velocities for inertial force computations later.O. T.66 x 10-6.” Transthe Society of Naval Architects Engineers (1970) 250-287. The calculations for this illustrative example were made using stress concentration factors of unity for both axial and bending stresses.675. amplitude operators versus frequency for the two wave directions (heading and quartering These stress RAO’S were computed seas ).Y. Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the technical contributions of Drs. SNAME (October 1978) 416-431. Kim. and Pat Moore. The motion RAO’S of the system center of gravity are plotted versus circular frequency in Figures 9 and 10. The motion analysis of the barge/jacket assembly was performed for unit wave amplitudes with the frequencies mentioned earlier. Mangiavacchi.” Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings. simplified transportation problems have inciicated the important effect of the barge/jacket interaction on the forces in the tiedowns.. 1. They also would like to thank Messers. While the overall resultant force and moment of the tiedown’s forces correlate well with those of the inertial forces on the jacket.” Department of Naval Architecture and Marine Engineering. The cumulative fatigue damage ratio (CDR) at the same point due to both sea states.

A.” Journal of Society of Petroleum Engineers (Dee. Bayazitoglu.: “ClosedForm Expressions for Determining the Fatigue Oamage of Structures Due to Ocean Waves. 14. A.” Proceedings of Royal Society. 3379 (May 1979).: “Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Structures. 11. and for Welded Re-analysis of Fatigue Data Joints in Steel. N.W.E.O. Longuet-Higgins. M. Nolte.” Journal of Marine Research. D. Cartwright. - \ .R. P. J. 12.E.(1952).: Gurney. Structural 1593-1607. OTC Paper No. “A Maddox. 431-440. Figure 1 Jacket Transportation by a Barge (Example Problem . J. F. Sears Foundation for Marine Research.R.Yale University.” Welding Institute Report E/44/72 (1972). Houston. Wallis..: “A for Fatigue Analysis Offshore Spectral Structures.” Offshore Technology Conference Proceedings.: “On the Statistical Distribution of the Heights of Sea Waves. Houston.M. 15..Houston. Tx.” Offshore Technoloqy Conference Proceedings.” Journal of (July 1980).. Tx. and Mangiavacchi. and Hansford.J.S. OTC Paper No. S. K. Series A (1956) 212-232. 1977). “Fatigue Under Wide Band Random Stresses. and Longuet-Higgins..C.H. T. Bingham Oceanographic 10. Tx.: “The Statistical Distribution of the Maxima of a Random Function..M. and Widenstein. M. 13. Wirsching. Y. Laboratory. 9..2) .S.. Chapman. Maddox..G. 2261 (1975).R. and Light. ASCE Oivision.

I I STRESSES DUE TO UNIT WAVE AMPLITUDES I I I v (!1 [2) MAXIMUM aTRESSES FATIGuE CUMULATIVE I I I I OAMAGE Figure 2 Flow Chart for Inertialand Pressure Force Calculations Figure 3 Flow Chart for Maximum Stress and Cumulative Fatigue Damage Calculations STRUCTU AXES Figure 4 Structural Model of Barge-Jacket Assembly (Example Problem 2) Figure 5 Geometryof Example Problem 1 .I [OAMSGL) FOR UNIT WAVE AMPLITUDES ~ w DAMS . BARQE JACKET VELOCITIES STRUCTURAL ANO PRESSURE LOADS REPRESENTATION 0 DAMS .ACCELERATIONS.

/see h F=--Q@ x. REAL RESPONSE x:l- Figure 6 StructuralResponseof Barge-JacketSystem to a Unit ilnpl itude Wave.Sf! RAD/SEC REAL RESPONSE x.47 8AD. m = 0. r! -.L ~u !1:~.*I . /see ./SEC.-2 X. 6 $~qg b 6 Lll 9 7 0 i : “ 0.[— E..o LENGTH OF BARGE HEAo IS 3770 FT X =L SEAS 0. to= 0.0 LENGTH OF BARGE IS 37%0 HEAO SEAS FREOUENCY O.~ _________________ %— ~. X=o LENGTH OF BARGE IS 3770 FT HEAO SEAS FREOUENCY 0. .47 rad.68 RAD/SEC FREQUENCY IMAGINARY RESPONSE Figure 7 StructuralResponseof Barge-JacketSystem to a Unit Pmplitude Wave.68 rad.

7 /b = 225” L2~ 0.s 1:0 1 12 I I .l Figure 8 Wave Spectra for Sea States 1 and 2 1 ! I 1 ! HEADlffi ANSLE I L4- -0.: 50l\ ~1 \ )1 : q II : d ~ g ~o11 \ : / 20 \ 40 h \ I I ! ! 1 ! 1 I I I I 1 HEADINO I ANGLE 1 p = 180” l.6 I 0s FREQUENCY.o– SEA STATE . I III u ( RAO.2 sEA STATE NO.6 o.2 2 0.2- -0.6 Lo 0. I (STORM) 2 ~ g F o.s- k ~ 0 s HEAVE 5 ~ 0. 2 x Q 0.4 0 FREQuENCY.0 1 1.4 . 0.3 t & = ~ g 0.8- 0.4- SWAY — ro.20ft s NO. I i 0 0.5 . w ( RAO.0 9 System Motion Response knpl itude Operators. 70. 2 I \ If Y 1 0.6- 0. Head Seas FREQUENCY.4 I i 0./SEC.4 0.I SEC) Figure 10 System Motion Response Amplitude Operators. QuarteringSeas .1 0 03 a4 I C16 . w ( RAD.2 1 1.) I 1. 1.5 J.5 j > \ ~ 1 ‘% \YAW \ \ [ 0.) II 1 ‘+---H 60[’l : ../SEC.o I 25 Figure 3.4 I o.

I \\ i \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ .1 1 ! t I I HEAOING o + ANGLE p = 180” /4.6 1 I I 0.) Figure 1” Stress Response Amplitude DifferentFrequencies Operators at II /’ /’ I /’--\ \ ‘. . d ( RAC1/SEC. /SEC. \ 0.8 -1 /I I // / /. 225° ‘ 0:4 0:6 ok Lo 12 1:4 FREQUENCY.4 FREQUENCY. I 0 A /1 0.8 “ LO 12 1.l Figure 12 Stress Spectra at Joint No. .4 0. 121020 . u (RAD.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.