HSE

Health & Safety

Executive

The effects of local joint flexibility

on the reliability of fatigue life
estimates and inspection planning
Prepared by MSL Engineering Ltd
for the Health and Safety Executive

OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY REPORT

2001/056

HSE

Health & Safety

Executive

The effects of local joint flexibility

on the reliability of fatigue life
estimates and inspection planning
MSL Engineering Ltd
MSL House
5-7 High Street
Sunninghill
Ascot SL5 9NQ
United Kingdom

HSE BOOKS

 Crown copyright 2002

Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to:
Copyright Unit, Her Majestys Stationery Office,
St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ
First published 2002
ISBN 0 7176 2288 6
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.

This report is made available by the Health and Safety

Executive as part of a series of reports of work which has
been supported by funds provided by the Executive.
Neither the Executive, nor the contractors concerned
assume any liability for the reports nor do they
necessarily reflect the views or policy of the Executive.

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
MSL Engineering Limited (MSL) has prepared this report for the Offshore Safety Division of
the Health & Safety Executive (HSE). The report relates to a study of the effects of linearelastic local joint flexibility (LJF) on fatigue life predictions for offshore steel jacket structures.
Objectives
The objectives of the study, in addition to evaluating the effects of LJF on fatigue life
predictions, include an assessment of their impact on platform inspection planning.
Scope
A conventional, rigid-joint, spectral fatigue analysis has been carried out on Shells Leman CD
Platform. The platform was installed in the Southern North Sea in June 1970, in 34m of
water. Conventional fatigue analysis indicates numerous joints with fatigue-lives below 10
years. Results from underwater inspection of 46 joints, however, show that only two joints
have crack indications. The fatigue analysis was repeated with local joint flexibility explicitly
modelled in the analysis. The resulting fatigue life predictions were then compared with the
rigid-joint analysis and with the inspection data.
Summary of Results
The results of the spectral fatigue analysis using the flexible joint structural model are
presented Section 4.4. The results show that, in all cases, the fatigue-life predictions have
increased compared to the rigid-joint analysis. The factor on life afforded by the
implementation of LJF varies depending on the location of the joint within the structure. This
factor is a ratio of the life calculated using flexible joint modelling to the life calculated using a
rigid-joint model. The average factors on life for each of the framing components considered
are as follows:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)

Transverse frames (A to F):

Longitudinal frames (1 &2):
Horizontal framing (-24' elev.):

19.3 factor on life

9.2 factor on life
8.0 factor on life

Impact on Inspection Planning

The impact on platform underwater inspection planning is discussed in Section 5, where two
main conclusions are drawn, namely:
(i)

The implementation of LJF in the fatigue analysis reduces the requirement for
underwater inspection by approximately 75%.

(ii) Two joints have been found to have crack indications during underwater inspections of
the Shell Leman platform. Both joints are identified as requiring inspection based on the
LJF fatigue analysis.

iii

Conclusions
The following conclusions have been identified from this study;

The findings of this study support the view held by industry that conventional rigid joint
fatigue analysis under-predicts fatigue life.

It is seen that implementing joint flexibility allows for a more accurate fatigue life
prediction and closer agreement with results of underwater inspections.

The use of LJF can assist in the overall optimisation of inspection planning. This is
particularly important for older structures as newer structures would normally be
designed to have minimum fatigue lives that were much higher than the intended service
life (e.g. 10 times required life).

However, it should be noted that the data set is limited (i.e. one structure) and further
correlation with other types of structures to consider the influence of parameters such as
platform vintage, design basis and framing configuration which also exhibit fatigue cracking
would be required. Also other uncertainties within the fatigue recipe, such as uncertainties in
the loading, not considered within the scope of this study may play an important role in the
fatigue life predictions.
Furthermore, it should be emphasised that a number of elements are considered within the
inspection strategy and that the use of LJF is one element that can be of use in determining
this.

iv

CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ii

CONTENTS

iii

1.

INTRODUCTION

2.

BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

3.

RIGID JOINT FATIGUE ANALYSIS

3.1

Platform Description

3.2

Structural Model

3.3

Analysis Parameters

3.4

Fatigue Analysis Results

4.

5.

6.

FLEXIBLE JOINT FATIGUE ANALYSIS

10

4.1

Implementation of Local Joint Flexibility

10

4.2

Validation of the LJF Methodology

10

4.3

Selection of Joints

12

4.4

Fatigue Analysis Results

12

IMPACT ON INSPECTION PLANNING

16

5.1

Inspection Categories

16

5.2

Inspection Results

16

5.3

Impact of LJF on Inspection Planning

16

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

19

REFERENCES

20

APPENDIX A INSPECTION DATA

21

APPENDIX B GEOMETRY PLOTS FROM THE SACS MODEL

37

APPENDIX C COMPARISON OF RIGID AND FLEXIBLE FATIGUE-LIFE

PREDICTIONS

51

vi

1. INTRODUCTION
The report describes a study of the effects of linear-elastic local joint flexibility (LJF) on
fatigue life predictions for an offshore steel jacket structure. The objectives of the study, in
addition to evaluating the effects of LJF, include an assessment of their impact on platform
inspection planning.
In Section 2 of the report the background to the study describes the present practice for
prediction of fatigue lives and discusses the efforts exerted by industry, over the last 20 years,
to better understand the fatigue behaviour of structures in the offshore environment. Despite
the efforts described in Section 2, it is recognized within the offshore community that fatiguelife predictions for steel jacket structures tend to under-predict the lives of the joints.
Comparisons between observed and predicted fatigue cracks [1] indicate that, even using more
refined fracture-mechanics based prediction methods, fatigue-lives are being under-predicted
by up to 18 times for certain structural components and by a factor of at least 3 for main
framing elements of steel jackets.
The objectives of the study have been met by performing both rigid-joint and flexible-joint
fatigue analyses on a Platform located in 34m of water in the UK sector of the Southern
North Sea. The structure was installed in 1970 and has a service life of 30 years. Based on
the results of a spectral fatigue analysis undertaken in 1990[2] the platform has numerous joints
with predicted lives of less than 10 years. Section 3 contains a description of the platform, and
describes the rigid joint fatigue analysis including a comparison of the predicted fatigue lives
with those calculated in the previous analysis, Reference 2. The flexible -joint fatigue analysis
is described in Section 4 and the fatigue-life predictions are presented and compared with
those from the rigid-joint analysis.
Results from underwater inspections, including magnetic particle inspections (MPI), of fortysix joints, some with repeat inspections, have been evaluated in light of the fatigue-life
predictions from the flexible -joint analysis. The impact of the effects of LJF on inspection
planning for the platform is discussed in Section 5.
Section 6 summarises the findings from the study and discusses conclusions that may be
drawn from the results.

2. BACKGROUND TO THE STUDY

Offshore steel jacket structures consist primarily of tubular members and associated joints,
which are formed by the intersection of brace and chord members. The complex geometry at
joint intersections results in stress concentrations of varying intensity. Wave loading causes
fluctuations in stresses around the intersections, potentially leading to fatigue-induced crack
growth and ultimately failure. Fatigue failure is defined as the number of stress cycles, a
function of time, taken to reach a pre-defined failure criterion. Fatigue failure analysis is not a
rigorous science and the idealisations and approximations inherent in it prevent the calculation
of absolute fatigue lives. Nevertheless, the prediction of fatigue lives is essential for the safe
life-cycle management of an offshore installation.
The industry-standard approach to fatigue analysis must address four specific issues:
(i)

The operational environment of a structure and the relationship between the environment
and imposed forces in a structure.

(ii) The internal stresses at a critical point in the structure induced by external forces acting
on the structure.
(iii) The time to failure due to the accumulated stress history at the critical point.
(iv) The definition of failure used in design.
An examination of the four areas above proves instructive:
(i)

The definition of operational environment lies within the domain of metocean

investigations, which define wave scatter diagrams, periods, etc. Wide ranges of
metocean investigations have been conducted over the past two decades.

(ii) The calculation of external forces acting on the structure requires application of
Morisons equation together with a suitable wave theory that permits conversion of the
wave particle velocities and accelerations to externally applied forces. This area,
inclusive of definition of drag and inertia coefficients, has received significant attention by
hydrodynamicists over the past two decades.
(iii) System FE analysis provides a suitable tool for the derivation of nominal section stresses
along component elements within the structural model. The level of accuracy depends on
the ability of the model to adequately capture actual behaviour. The nominal section
stresses must be amplified by an appropriate factor (SCF) to account for geometric stress
concentrations.
(iv) The time to failure and definition of failure has seen an investment by HSE and industry
exceeding 30m over the past two decades to establish experimentally derived S-N
curves across a range of parameters.
Excluding fabrication defects, a review of available information reveals that the difference
between prediction and observation may be due to one or more of the following parameters:
(i)

Wave kinematics in the splash zone

(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
(vi)
(vii)

Wave spreading, at least for Southern North Sea (SNS) structures

Hydrodynamic loads
Deterministic versus stochastic wave modelling
Pile-soil flexibility
Stress concentration effects
Local Joint Flexibility (LJF)

Of the above parameters, discussions with industry reveal that LJF effects are likely to be of
most significance.
Extensive test data have demonstrated that all tubular joints possess elastic flexibility, which
varies depending on joint type, geometry and loadcase. It is generally recognised that the
amount of brace rotation required to shed in-plane and out-of-plane moments at the joint is
small and consistent with the imposed rotations from low amplitude waves, which, in the main,
dominate fatigue life consumption. The moments, in practice, would therefore be expected to
be shed from the joints and be amplified at the brace member mid-span location.
Structural engineering mechanics suggests that, in essence, representing the joints with finite
linear elastic flexibility (i.e. an accurate reflection of the way joints behave in practice) instead
of no flexibility (i.e. infinitely stiff, typical present-day practice, inaccurate reflection of joint
response) would result in a reduction of acting loads at the joints, with a commensurate
increase in member loads to maintain equilibrium.
The platform selected was considered suitable for the purpose of this study on the basis that it
had been in-service for 30 years and has predicted fatigue lives for many of its joints of less
than 10 years. More importantly during this time several inspections have been conducted at
certain intervals, including visual and MPI inspections of the same joints, the details of which
are given in Appendix A. Of the fifty-three inspections (using MPI) carried out during the
service life of the structure, three have given crack-like indications on two joints. One of the
cracked joints, identified during the 1987 inspection and confirmed two years later, is located
amongst the horizontal conductor guide framing at elevation 24' (joint 5405). The other crack
indication was found on longitudinal frame 1 (joint number 5401) at the intersection with
transverse frame D, also at -24' elevation. This indication is described in the inspection report
as a lack of sidewall fusion and was removed by local grinding to a depth of 4mm. It should be
noted however that the indic ation was not found on earlier inspections of the same joint.

3. RIGID JOINT FATIGUE ANALYSIS

3.1 Platform Description
The Platform is an existing structure located in 34m of water in the UK sector of the Southern
North Sea. The structure was identifie d as a good candidate for the study for a number of
reasons, as follows:
(i)

The platform was installed in 1970 and has a service life of 30 years.

(ii) Based on the results of a spectral fatigue analysis undertaken in 1990[2] the platform has
predicted lives of less than 10 years for numerous joints.
(iii) A total of fifty-three MPI inspection results are available, covering 46 different joints.
Therefore, data on repeat inspections are available.
The platform is a wellhead platform. It supports twenty, 26in. diameter, conductors. The
platform substructure is a twelve-legged steel jacket in a 6 x 2 array. The jacket is braced with
single diagonals between four levels of horizontal framing in the two longitudinal frames and
with inverted K-bracing in the six transverse frames. The jacket supports a number of
appurtenances including a boat landing, 6 drainpipes, barge bumpers, riser inspection platforms,
jacket walkways and sacrificial anodes. The jacket and appurtenances weigh 927 tonnes in
air.
The foundation comprises twelve, 36 in. diameter piles, driven through the legs. The wall
thickness of each pile increases from 1 in. to 1.25 in. at the mud-line. Total pile weight is 893
tonnes. The piles extend above the jacket to support a module support frame, which, in turn,
supports the twin deck topsides structure. The topsides include an accommodation module,
helideck and wellhead facilities and has an operating weight is 2276 tonnes including a live load
allowance of 512 tonnes.
3.2 Structural Model
In 1990, Shell commissioned Wimpey Offshore to carry out a static spectral fatigue analysis of
the platform[2]. In the present fatigue analysis every effort has been made to ensure
consistency with the Wimpey structural model to allow verification of the predicted fatigue
lives via comparisons with those presented in the Wimpey report. Consistent with this
objective, the topsides, jacket, appurtenances and the foundation system were all modelled in
the manner described in the Wimpey Report[2].
The SACS computer software suite was used for the present fatigue analysis. A threedimensional isometric of the SACS[3] model is shown in Figure 3.1. Two-dimensional plots of
the jacket frame elevations and horizontal framing plans are included in Appendix B.

Figure 3.1
3D Isometric of the Structural Model

3.3 Analysis Parameters

As with the structural modelling, the representation of the hydrodynamic loading was selected
consistent with that used in the Wimpey analysis. The data used is summarised below.
Water Depth
The water depth used in the analysis was 35.4m. This is made up of the water depth of 34.0
m, to L.A.T, plus an adjustment of 1.4m from L.A.T to M.S.L.

Marine Growth
The marine growth profile used for all members is given in Table 3.1.
Table 3.1
Marine Growth Profile

Elevation level

Marine growth
Thickness

From

To

L.A.T +2.0m

L.A.T -2.0m

125 mm on radius

L.A.T -2.0m

L.A.T -4.0m

100 mm on radius

L.A.T -4.0m

L.A.T -6.0m

75 mm on radius

L.A.T -6.0m

Mud-line

50 mm on radius

Wave Loading
A one-year return period wave was used, consistent with that used in the Wimpey analysis.
The wave heights and frequency rosette reference to cardinal platform direction is shown in
Figure 3.2

Figure 3.2
Leman CD Platform 1-Year Wave Data

Wave Directionality
The spectral fatigue analysis considers wave attack from the eight directions indicated in
Figure 3.2. The probability of occurrence for each wave direction is specified in Table 3.2.
These values represent the contribution of each wave direction to the gross fatigue damage.
Table 3.2
Wave Directional Probability

Direction

Probability (%)

From NNE

9.17

From ENE

7.97

From ESE

09.17

From SSE

12.78

From SSW

17.88

From WSW

18.27

From WNW

12.98

From NNW

11.78

The short-crestedness of the sea was specified for each direction based on a cos 2 function,
with spreading set to 90, -45, 0, 45 and 90 degrees relative to each of the eight wave
directions.
Wave Spectra
The JONSWAP spectrum, representing a non-fully developed storm situation was applied for
all sea-states.
Sea-State Probability
The probability of occurrence of significant wave height (Hs) and zero-crossing period (Tz)
was taken from the Southern North Sea wave scatter diagram presented in the Wimpey
report. Eighty-eight sea states, representing the complete scatter diagram, were derived and
implemented in the analysis.
Wave Frequencies Selection
Thirty wave periods, ranging from 2.5 to 20.0 seconds, were selected for use in the
determination of transfer functions. A cut-off of 15.1 m wave height i.e. the wave height of
the 100-year design event was applied to the data. A wave steepness of 1/23 was used based
on the results of a calibration study reported in the Wimpey Report.

Stress Concentration Factors

Hot spot stresses and associated fatigue lives were calculated at eight positions around each
tubular joint intersection. In general, SCFs were calculated in accordance with the Efthymiou
parametric equations. However, the platform includes a number of joints with geometries
outside the range of application of the Efthymiou equations. These joints were typically highly
overlapped K and KT joints. In such cases, the SCFs calculated and reported in the Wimpey
report were specified directly in the present fatigue analysis.
S-N Curve
The HSE T-curve was used in the fatigue life estimation and cumulative damage was
determined using the Palmgren-Miner criterion.
3.4 Fatigue Analysis Results
Fatigue-life calculations were extracted from the SACS analysis for a selection of twenty-four
joints, in order to compare predicted lives with those presented in the Wimpey report. The
joints were carefully selected to include a representative sample, all with low predicted lives,
distributed amongst the various framing components of the jacket. They included joints from
one of the transverse frames (Frame F), both longitudinal frames (Frames 1 & 2) and from the
first horizontal framing plan below the waterline.
The predicted fatigue lives from the present MSL analysis and the Wimpey fatigue analysis
are shown, for comparison, in Table 3.3. Figures contained in Appendix C indicate the precise
locations of the joints identified in the table.
Table 3.3 shows that good agreement was achieved between the results of the two fatigue
analyses. In more than 50% of cases, the difference in life is less than 18 months. In general,
the lives from the present analysis are slightly higher. Joint 5605, on the horizontal plan
bracing (-24' elevation), has two braces with lives approaching 10 times those reported in the
Wimpey analysis. It is believed that this is a result of the explicit modelling of the large
eccentricities in the MSL analyses. The main reason for the small differences that exist are
differences in the modelling of some jacket appurtenances due to a lack of data in the Wimpey
Report. As expected, their effect is small as evidenced by the generally high level of
agreement in fatigue life calculations.

Table 3.3
Comparison of Fatigue Life Predictions, MSL and Wimpey Analyses
Joint No.

Location

Brace

Calculated Fatigue Life (Years)

MSL analysis

Wimpey analysis

5804-7807

1.27

0.50

5804-7801

1.29

0.50

5201-7101

3.09

2.10

5301

5301-7201

3.05

2.40

5601

5601-7401

3.09

2.00

5801

5801-7601

3.37

2.20

5107-7207

9.85

5.50

5207

5207-7307

7.66

4.50

5407

5407-7607

7.95

4.90

5607

5607-7807

7.58

4.60

5806-5908

6.49

13.30

5805

5805-5905

1.18

0.70

5803

5803-5903

1.18

0.70

5802

5802-5901

6.04

10.50

5603

5603-5691

0.30

0.00

5603

5603-5702

1.97

2.80

5603

5603-5502

1.20

3.00

5603

5603-5503

0.18

0.10

5605

5605-5504

1.28

0.00

5605

5605-5506

19.13

2.70

5605

5605-5706

21.66

2.50

5605

5605-5964

2.41

0.00

5706

5706-5607

11.72

11.20

5706

5706-5978

40.17

31.80

5804

Transverse
Frame F

5804
5201

5107

5806

Longitudinal
Frame 1

Longitudinal
Frame 2

Horizontal Plan
Framing @ -24'
Elev.

4. FLEXIBLE JOINT FATIGUE ANALYSIS

4.1 Implementation of Local Joint Flexibility
There are several methodologies available to account for the effects of local joint flexibility[4 10]
in offshore structures. The present study has used the equations and implementation
philosophy formulated by Buitrago[4]. The methodology has been tailored to accommodate the
element modelling capabilities of the SACS analysis software. The method involves inserting
a short flex-element at the end of the brace. The flex-element connects the brace to the
surface of the chord.
Buitrago[4] gives explicit formulae to determine the local joint flexibilities for various joint types
and geometries. These equations are directly employed here to calculate the appropriate local
joint flexibility. The result is then used to calculate the necessary area and inertial properties
of the flex-element to represent the axial and bending (both in-plane and out-of-plane) stiffness
of the joint. Torsional and shear flexibilities are not considered.
The area, A, and the moments of inertia, I, of the flex-element are calculated as follows:
I=

L
E (LJFm )

A=

L
E (LJFp )

Where:
L
LJFm
LJFp

is the length of the flex-element

is either the in-plane or the out-of-plane bending local joint flexibility
is the axial loading local joint flexibility

4.2 Validation of the LJF Methodology

In order to verify the implementation methodology, a simple model of a T-Joint was created
using the SACS software. The T-joint was given the same geometry as a test specimen
selected from the Makino[11, 12] database which contains data relating to full-scale failure tests
on tubular joints. SACS analyses were carried out both with and without the flex-element.
Five axial loading tests, two in-plane bending tests and two out-of-plane bending tests were
used for the comparison.
The results of the validation study are presented in Table 4.1, Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 for
axial, in-plane bending and out of plane bending respectively. The tables show that, when the
flex-element is included in the model, the predicted deformations are in good agreement with
the test results. Conversely, the rigid joint model, as expected, shows no correlation with the
test results.

10

Table 4.1
Comparison of Axial loading
Specimen
No.

T-Joint Geometry

Axial
Load
(kN)

Chord Wall Deformation

flex
(mm)

rigid
(mm)

test
(mm)

45.1

0.703

0.023

0.512

1593

76.5

2.241

0.035

4.141

3.0

2286

46.1

2.916

0.069

4.572

61.0

2.76

495

58.8

1.127

0.056

1.472

216.33

4.58

696

248

1.426

0.049

0.770

D
(mm)

T
(mm)

d
(mm)

t
(mm)

L
(mm)

TC-8

165.2

4.24

89.1

3.5

527

TC-12

318.5

4.5

139.8

4.4

TC-13

457.2

4.9

89.1

TC-76

165.4

4.55

TC-92

216.47

4.51

Table 4.2
Comparison of In-Plane Bending (IPB)
Specimen
No.

T-Joint Geometry
D
(mm)

T
(mm)

d
(mm)

t
(mm)

L
(mm)

TM-39

355.4

15.1

317.4

8.7

1422.4

TM-41

456.1

15.4

317.2

8.6

1828.8

IPB
Moment
(kNm)

Chord Wall Deformation

flex
(rad)

rigid
(rad)

test
(rad)

405

0.0093

0.0038

0.0081

341

0.0107

0.0041

0.0108

Table 4.3
Comparison of Out-of-Plane Bending (OPB)
Specimen
No.

T-Joint Geometry
D
(mm)

T
(mm)

d
(mm)

t
(mm)

L
(mm)

TM-1

216.42

4.5

216.4

4.56

696

TM-2

216.45

4.5

165.55

4.53

698

OPB
Moment
(kNm)

Chord Wall Deformation

flex
(rad)

rigid
(rad)

test
(rad)

18.0

0.0179

0.0006

0.0116

6.80

0.0177

0.0007

0.0208

The results of the validation study, presented in the tables above, indicate that the Buitrago
formulations and the applied implementation methodology allow the SACS software to
effectively represent the local joint flexibility of tubular joints under axial, in-plane bending and
out-of-plane bending loads.

11

4.3 Selection of Joints

Local joint flexibilities were implemented into the SACS fatigue analysis model at eighty brace
intersections on sixty-seven separate nodes. The joints were carefully selected to include a
representative sample, including those with low predicted lives, distributed amongst the various
framing components of the jacket. They include six joints from each of the transverse frames
(Frames A to F), ten joints from each of the longitudinal frames (Frames 1 & 2) and twentyfour joints from the first horizontal framing plan below the waterline (-24' elevation).
An important consideration in joint selection was to ensure symmetry of the flexible joints
around the structure to prevent the introduction of artificial secondary forces caused by
asymmetrical structural stiffness. At the time of the analysis, inspection data were not
available and, therefore, engineering judgment was applied to predict which nodes were likely
to have been included in the platform periodic underwater inspections, and to include LJF for
those nodes. The selection was based upon rigid-joint fatigue-life predictions and areas of
known susceptibility to fatigue cracking. In Tables 4.4, 4.5 and 4.6, which summarise the
results of the fatigue analyses, bold typeface is used to indicate those joints for which
inspection data were subsequently received. It turned out that LJF was implemented into
approximately 95% of all inspected joints.
4.4 Fatigue Analysis Results
The results of the spectral fatigue analysis with LJF implemented are presented in Table 4.4,
Table 4.5 and Table 4.6 for the transverse frames, the longitudinal frames and the horizontal
framing plan at 24' elevation, respectively. The tables show that, in all cases, the fatigue life
predictions have increased. The factor on life afforded by the implementation of LJF is also
shown in the tables for each joint. This factor is a ratio of the life calculated using flexible joint
modeling to the life calculated using a rigid joint model. The average factors on life for each
of the framing components considered are as follows:
Transverse frames (A to F):
Longitudinal frames (1 & 2):
Horizontal framing (-24' elev.):

19.3 factor on life

9.2 factor on life
8.0 factor on life

For a very small number of joints as shown in Table 4.6 the revised fatigue lives with LJF
were still low (eg between 0.6 and 5.7 years) for Node 5603. The reasons for this are not
known but may be due to uncertainties such as in the wave loading or LJF prediction for this
joint type.
The comparison of the predicted lives using the rigid-joint and the flexible-joint analyses are
illustrated in the figures contained in Appendix C.

12

Table 4.4
Comparison of Predicted Fatigue Lives Transverse Frames

Frame
A

Node

Element

Fatigue Lives
Rigid

Flexible

Factor on Life

Average
Factor on
Life
24.7

7107

7107-5104

279.9

2021.9

7.22

7101

7101-5104

272.0

2146.6

7.89

5104

5104-7107

11.6

381.2

32.86

5104

5104-7101

14.1

424.4

30.10

5107

5107-5104

1076.1

48981.0

45.52

5101

5101-5104

3269.7

80218.0

24.53

7207

7207-5204

277.7

3008.5

10.83

7201

7201-5204

271.7

2049.0

7.54

5204

5204-7207

10.9

52.7

4.83

5204

5204-7201

13.5

350.4

25.96

5207

5207-5204

3375.5

77365.0

22.92

5207

5201-5204

6178.4

66934.0

10.83

7307

7307-5304

254.6

1556.4

6.11

7301

7301-5304

255.4

1702.0

6.66

5304

5304-7307

8.6

334.8

38.93

5304

5304-7301

8.6

493.4

57.37

5307

5307-5304

13.8

6462.0

Ignored

5307

5301-5304

4251.8

32759.0

7.70

7407

7407-5404

49.2

248.5

5.05

7401

7401-5404

45.0

251.6

5.59

5404

5404-7407

1.1

43.6

39.64

5404

5404-7401

1.2

33.8

28.17

5407

5407-5404

1334.3

12457.0

9.34

5401

5401-5404

244.1

16653.0

68.22

7607

7607-5604

432.0

2341.5

5.42

7601

7601-5604

414.0

1812.6

4.38

5604

5604-7607

4.1

35.3

8.61

5604

5604-7601

4.5

179.0

39.78

5607

5607-5604

3900.0

19606.0

5.03

5601

5601-5604

2043.3

6856.5

3.36

7807

7807-5804

47.4

233.8

4.93

7801

7801-5804

45.4

235.9

5.20

5804

5804-7807

1.3

31.2

24.57

5804

5804-7801

1.3

31.5

24.42

5807

5807-5804

741.0

16216.0

21.88

5801

5801-5804

836.0

20747.0

24.82

Bold typeface indicates joints that have been inspected

13

13.8

23.4

26.0

11.1

17.6

Table 4.5
Comparison of Predicted Fatigue Lives Longitudinal Frames
Frame

Node

Element

Fatigue Lives
Rigid

Flexible

Factor on
Life

7101

7101-5201

365.0

1984.9

5.44

7201

7201-5301

330.0

1941.8

5.88

7301

7301-5401

109.0

632.7

5.80

7401

7401-5601

292.4

1888.4

6.46

7601

7601-5801

321.6

1777.4

5.53

5201

5201-7101

3.1

34.0

11.00

5301

5301-7201

3.1

34.0

11.15

5401*

5401-7301

1.5

25.7

16.91

5601

5601-7401

3.1

34.8

11.26

5801

5801-7601

3.4

35.5

10.53

7207

7207-5107

567.0

3194.0

5.63

7307

7307-5207

615.0

3692.5

6.00

7407

7407-5307

221.7

1179.4

5.32

7607

7607-5407

647.0

3374.2

5.22

7807

7807-5607

744.0

3754.3

5.05

5107

5107-7207

9.9

117.2

11.90

5207

5207-7307

7.7

114.3

14.92

5307

5307-7407

3.6

32.7

9.08

5407

5407-7607

8.0

118.2

14.87

5607

5607-7807

7.6

120.3

15.87

Bold typeface indicates joints that have been inspected

*Underwater inspection shows crack indication

14

Average Factor
on Life
9.0

9.4

Table 4.6
Comparison of Predicted Fatigue Lives - CGF @ -24 ft. Elevation
Plan
Elevation

Node

-24 ft.

5807

Element

Fatigue Lives

Factor on Average Factor on

Life
Life

Rigid

Flexible

5807-5706

89.3

160.9

1.80

5806

5806-5908

6.5

71.3

10.97

5805

5805-5905

1.2

31.8

26.50

5803

5803-5903

1.2

32.4

27.00

5802

5802-5901

6.0

57.5

9.58

5801

5801-5702

44.1

71.6

1.62

5706

5706-5978

40.2

3300.0

ignored

5706

5706-5607

11.7

12.8

1.09

5702

5702-5971

81.7

156.7

1.92

5607

5607-5706

116.1

603.9

5.20

5607

5607-5506

104.4

198.3

1.90

5605

5605-5964

2.4

8.5

3.54

5605

5605-5706

21.7

52.8

2.43

5605

5605-5506

19.1

311.2

16.29

5605

5605-5504

1.3

5.7

4.38

5603

5603-5961

0.3

0.7

2.33

5603

5603-5702

2.0

5.0

2.50

5603

5603-5502

1.2

3.7

3.08

5603

5603-5503

0.2

0.6

3.00

5407

5407-5506

24.8

56.6

2.28

5406

5406-5426

5.9

82.7

14.02

5403

5403-5423

0.9

27.6

30.67

5402

5402-5422

3.7

40.8

11.03

5401

5401-5502

10.6

21.0

1.98

Bold typeface indicates joints that have been inspected

15

8.1

5. IMPACT ON INSPECTION PLANNING

5.1 Inspection Categories
The categories identified below have been generated to group the inspected joints in order of
predicted fatigue lives. The categories have been selected solely for purposes of assessing the
impact of LJF on what might be considered a rational inspection prioritisation.
Category 1:
Category 2:
Category 3:
Category 4:

Highest Priority, predicted fatigue lives of less than 10 years

High Priority, predicted fatigue lives between 10 and 30 years
Medium Priority, predicted fatigue lives of 30 to 60 years.
Inspection not justified on the basis of fatigue assessment

The platform has been in place for thirty years; assuming a reasonable level of reliability in the
fatigue life predictions, some of the Category 1 joints should have developed crack indications.
A smaller proportion of the Category 2 joints may also have some visible indications.
5.2 Inspection Results
Of the fifty-three inspections (using MPI) carried out during the service life of the structure,
three have given crack-like indications on two joints. One of the cracked joints, identified
during the 1987 inspection and confirmed two years later, is located amongst the horizontal
conductor guide framing at elevation 24' (joint 5405). The other crack indication was found
on longitudinal frame 1 (joint number 5401) at the intersection with transverse frame D, also at
-24' elevation. This indication is described in the inspection report as a lack of sidewall fusion
and was removed by local grinding to a depth of 4mm. It should be noted however that the
indication was not found on earlier inspections of the same joint.
5.3 Impact of LJF on Inspection Planning
Figure 5.1 shows the eighty joints included in the LJF study categorised in accordance with the
criteria defined above. The figure shows that the number of Category 1 joints reduces from
31 to 6 when LJF is implemented into the fatigue analysis. The total number of Category 1
and Category 2 joints, which would be expected to be the focus of underwater inspections,
reduce from 41 to 10 joints.
It may also be noted that the histogram for the LJF analysis is more reasonable in that
it reflects the tail end of the distribution that can be expected from a fatigue analysis.
The rigid joint analysis, on the other hand, seems to suggest a local peak in the tail end.
The locations of the Category 1 and Category 2 joints are shown in Figure 5.2. It can be seen
that nine of the ten joints are located amongst the conductor guide framing at the -24'
elevation. The joint with the crack indication (5405) was modelled, consistent with the
Wimpey analysis, as rigid since a grouted repair clamp has been installed. Nevertheless the
identical adjacent brace connection (5403) has a similar rigid joint fatigue life prediction and
hence it can be deduced that the LJF fatigue life of joint (5405) would also be similar to that of
joint (5403) and hence identified as a Category 2 joint. The only Category 1 or Category 2
joint, from the flexible joint analysis, not amongst the conductor guide framing is joint 5401 on

16

longitudinal frame 1 at the intersection with transverse frame D, also at -24' elevation. This
joint was also found to have a crack indication during underwater inspection.
In summary:
A.

Assuming that Category 1 and Category 2 joints are included in the periodic
inspections, the implementation of LJF in the fatigue analysis reduces the requirement
for underwater inspection by approximately 75%.

B.

Two joints have been found to have crack indications during underwater inspections.
Both joints are identified as Category 1 or Category 2 in the LJF fatigue analysis.

C.

For both joints cracks were observed (see Appendix A) during inspections undertaken
in 1987 for joint (5401) and in 1989 for joint (5405) corresponding to 17 years and 19
years. The corresponding lives predicted using LJF were 26 years approximately.
Therefore it can be deduced that since the cracks detected have depths which are
much less than the joint wall thickness they would be detected before through wall
cracking occurred using LJF.

60
53
50

Rigid-joint Analysis
Flex-Joint Analysis

40
33
31
30

20

17

10
10
6

6
4

0
Cat. 1

Cat. 2

Cat. 3
Joint inspection categories

Figure 5.1:
Comparison of Rigid and Flexible Joint Categorization

17

Cat. 4

5405

5403

5401

2
2
1

1
1

5605

5603

E
1

5706
2

2
5401

Figure 5.2
Location of Category 1 and 2 Joints on CGF (top) and Frame 1 (bottom)

18

6. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the structure analysed herein, the following observations can be made:
I.

The average increase in predicted fatigue life when local joint flexibility is included in
the structural analysis was found to be 19, 9 and 8 for transverse frames, longitudinal
frames and the horizontal frame nearest the water line, respectively.

II.

The inclusion of LJFs into the analysis reduce the number of joints having lives less
than 30 years from 41 (obtained using rigid joint assumptions) to 10.

The two joints that were found to have crack-like indications during actual inspections were
still captured within the 10 most susceptible joints identified with the LJF analysis.
The following conclusions have therefore been identified from this study;

The findings of this study support the view held by industry that conventional rigid joint
fatigue analysis under-predicts fatigue life.

It is seen that implementing of joint flexibility allows for a more accurate fatigue life
prediction and closer agreement with results from underwater inspections.

The use of LJF can therefore assist in the overall optimisation of inspection planning.
This is particularly important for older structures as newer structures would normally
be designed to have minimum fatigue lives that were much higher than the intended
service life (e.g. 10 times required life).

However, it should be noted that the data set is limited (i.e. one structure) and further
correlation with other types of structures to consider the influence of parameters such as
platform vintage, design basis and framing configuration and which also exhibit fatigue
cracking would be required. Also other uncertainties within the fatigue recipe, such as
uncertainties in the loading, not considered within the scope of this study may play an
important role in the fatigue life predictions.
Furthermore, it should be emphasise that a number of elements are considered within the
inspection strategy and that the use of LJF is one element that can be of use in determining
this.

19

REFERENCES

1.

Vardal, O. T., Moan, T., and Hellevig, N. C. Comparison between observed and
predicted characteristics of fatigue cracks in North Sea jackets, OTC paper 10847,
Houston, May 1999.

2.

Wimpey Offshore. Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990.

3.

Engineering Dynamics Incorporated (EDI). Structural Analysis Computer System

User Manual, Volumes I to IV, 1998.

4.

Buitrago, J., Healy, B. E. and Chang, T.Y. Local joint flexibility of tubular joints,
Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference, OMAE, Glasgow, 1993.

5.

Ueda, Y., Rashed, S. M. H., and Nakacho, K., "An Improved Joint Model and
Equations for Flexibility of Tubular Joints," Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
Engineering, vol. 112, pp. 157-168, 1990.

6.

Hu, Y., Chen, B., and Ma, J., "An Equivalent Element Representing Local Flexibility
of Tubular Joints in Structural Analysis of Offshore Platforms," Computers and
Structures, vol. 47, No. 6, pp. 957-969, 1993.

7.

Chen, B., Hu, Y., and Tan, M., "Local Joint Flexibility of Tubular Joints of Offshore
Structures," Marine Structures, Vol. 3, pp. 177-197, 1990.

8.

Chen, T. Y. and Zhang, H. Y., "Stress Analysis of Spatial Frames with Consideration
of Local Flexibility of Multiplanar Tubular Joint," Engineering Structures, Vol. 18, No.
6, pp. 465-471, 1996.

9.

Romeyn, A., Puthli, R. S., and Wardenier, J., "Finite Element Modelling of Multiplanar
Joint Flexibility in Tubular Structures," Proceedings of the Second International
Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Vol. IV, International Society of
Offshore and Polar Engineers, pp. 420-429, 1992.

10.

Underwater Engineering Group. Node flexibility on the behaviour of jacket structures

pilot study on two dimensional frames, UEG Report UR/22, 1984.

11.

Makino, Y et al Behaviour of Tubular T- and K- joints under Combined Loads,

OTC 5133, OTC, 1986, Houston.

12.

Makino, Y et al Database of Test and Numerical Analysis Results for Unstiffened

Tubular Joints, IIW Doc XV-E-96-220, Kumamoto University, Kumamoto, Japan.

20

APPENDIX A
Inspection Data

21

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

D1

D1

D1

D1

C1

C1

B1

5401

5401

5401

5401

5301

5301

5201

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

JOINT INSPECTION SUMMARY

3631

3531

3431

3541

3621

3531

3611

Member
Number

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

22

Joint Type

77

77

77

77

93

87

91

Visual
Inspection
Date

93

87

No visible defects at time of inspection.

No visible defects at time of inspection.

No visible defects at time of inspection.

No visible defects at time of inspection.

No significant defects or cracklike indications found

CD/93/13

Pitting corrosion in can side of HAZ. General corrosion

with pitting corrosion brace side HAZ. Max pitting
2.5mm. General 1mm. MPI : No cracklike defects
detected.

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
91
No significant defects or cracklike indications found.
Pitting 2 mm max depth :Weld cap 1 - 3 %
Chord 9 - 12 % 60 % cover
Brace 9 - 12 % 15 % cover
Brace 2 - 3 % 20 % cover

Installed June 1970

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

E1

E1

E1

E1

5601

5601

5601

5601

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

3641

3561

3541

3441

Member
Number

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

23

Joint Type

81

81

81

81

89

Visual
Inspection
Date

Areas of discolouration appeared after cleaning,

cathodic protection readings taken, isolated pit max
0.055", surface wastage.
Pitting max 0.05".

Pitting & surface wastage max 0.055" extending

completely around leg & brace side, cathodic protection
readings taken.
Pitting max 0.04".

Node condition good.

Isolated pit 0.06", pitting & surface wastage max 0.06",

cathodic protection readings taken. Large area of
surface wastage max depth 0.04".

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
89
A STRONG INTERMITTENT INDICATION, having the
appearance of LACK OF SIDEWALL FUSION, in the
chord toe of the weld from 10 o'clock through 12 o'clock
to 3 o'clock (and extending 60mm. onto the chord toe of
the adjacent weld) was noted. 90% of indications were
removed by remedial grinding to a depth of 2mm. with
respect to the chord parent metal. All remaining
indications (around 10 o'clock) were removed by
grinding to a max. depth of 4mm. with respect to the
chord parent metal. Ground areas were lightly dressed to
remove acute angles, before profile measurements were
taken.

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 1

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame 2

C2

C2

B2

F1

F1

F1

5307

5307

5207

5801

5801

5801

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

3527

3437

3627

3661

3561

3461

Member
Number

KDT

KDT

KDT

KT

KT

KT

24

Joint Type

83

Pitting max 0.04", pit 5" length .125" wide 0.04" depth at
12 o'clock.

No cracklike indications or significant defects were

found.
Slight corrosion of entire weld cap, 100% cover,
estimated metal loss 1mm.

89

89

No significant defects or cracklike indications found

Pitting max 0.04", surface wastage max 0.05".

91

83

91

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/93/12

93

93

No visible defects.

77

No significant defects or cracklike indications found.

89

89

No visible defects.

No visible defects.

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
91
No significant defects or crackike indications found.
Moderate corrosion pitting on chord 9-12-3 O/C
50 % cover, 2 mm max depth.

77

77

91

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame 2

E2

E2

D2

D2

D2

C2

C2

5607

5607

5407

5407

5407

5307

5307

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

3547

3467

3647

3537

3447

3637

3537

Member
Number

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

KDT

25

Joint Type

79

81

79

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.00mm.

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.0mm.
Light pitting max 0.03", some surface wastage.

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/95/15

95

95

81

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

79

81

79

81

79

No significant defects or cracklike indications found.

91

91

Pitting max 0.05", surface wastage max 0.03".

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
Pitting & surface wastage max 0.03".

83

83

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame 2

Frame 2

Frame A

Frame A

Frame B

B1.B2

MID

MID

MID

E2

E2

5204

5104

5104

5607

5607

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

2627

2617

2611

3667

3567

Member
Number

KDT

KDT

26

Joint Type

93

93

No cracklike indications or significant details found

CD/93/04

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/95/01

95

95

81

Areas of general wastage to max 1mm, general pitting to

1mm, max pitting 2mm, no defects of any consequence.
No defects found.

79

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/95/02

95

95

81

Areas of general wastage to max 1mm, general pitting to

1mm, max pitting 2mm, no defects of any consequence.
No defects found.

79

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/95/14

95

95

81

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.0mm.
Light pitting max pit 0.05".

Light surface wastage, max pit 0.04".

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
Light surface pitting max pit 0.05".

79

81

81

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-20.7

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

+ 6.1

Location

Frame B

Frame B

Frame C

Frame C

Frame C

Frame C

Frame D

D1

C2

C1.C2

MID

C2

C1.C2

MID

B2

B1.B2

MID

7401

5307

5304

5307

5304

3207

5204

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

2641

2537

2637

2437

2631

2425

2621

Member
Number

YT

YT

YT

KT

27

Joint Type

93

( 94 )

( 93 )

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/94/34

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/93/34

No cracklike indications or significant details found

CD/95/07

95

No cracklike indications or significant details found

CD/95/06

Pitting max 0.03", areas of surface wastage.

No cracklike indications or significant details found

CD/95/05

CVI : General corrosion & corrosion pitting in both

HAZs, max 1.5mm. Light pitting in weld cap.
Max pit in toe 2.5mm.
MPI : no cracklike or significant defects detected.

No cracklike indications or significant details found

CD/93/03

Pitting max 0.03", areas of surface wastage.

95

95

95

87

93

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '

83

95

83

95

87

93

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

+ 6.1

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame D

Frame D

Frame D

Frame D

Frame D

Frame D

Frame D

D1 - D2

MID

D1 - D2

MID

D2

D2

D1

D1

D2

5404

5404

5407

5407

5401

5401

7407

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

2647

2641

2547

2447

2541

2441

2647

Member
Number

YT

YT

YT

YT

YT

28

Joint Type

93

91

81

79

81

79

77

77

93

Visual
Inspection
Date

93

91

( 94 )

( 93 )

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/93/08

Localised pitting on chord and brace 3-6-9 O/C, 20 %

cover, 2 mm max. depth

No significant defects or crackilke indications found.

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

No visible defects at time of inspection.

No visible defects at time of inspection.

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/94/35

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/93/35

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame E

Frame E

Frame E

Frame E

Frame E

Frame E

Frame F

F1

E1.E2

MID

E1.E2

MID

E2

E2

E1

E1

5801

5604

5604

5607

5607

5601

5601

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

2481

2662

2666

2567

2467

2561

2461

Member
Number

YT

YT

YT

YT

YT

29

Joint Type

No visible defects.

77

CD/93/09

75

93

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/93/10

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.00mm.
Slight undercut, light pitting max pit 0.05".

No cracklike indications or significant defects found. A

pit (possibly
No significant defects.

93

93

81

79

81

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.0mm.
Light isolated pitting max pit 0.05".

Pitting max 0.04", surface wastage areas.

83
79

Pitting max 0.03", cathodic protection readings taken.

81

75

93

Light pitting max 0.04", some surface wastage, cathodic

protection readings taken.
Pitting max 0.02", surface wastage max 0.04".

81
83

Cathodic protection readings taken.

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '

75

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

+ 6.1

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

+ 6.1

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Frame F

Frame F

Frame F

Frame F

Frame F

Frame F

Frame F

Horizontal

MID

F1 - F2

MID

F1 - F2

MID

F1

F2

F2

F1

F1

5104

5804

5804

7801

5807

5807

5801

7807

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

4517

2681

2687

2681

2487

2587

2581

2687

Member
Number

YT

YT

YT

YT

YT

30

Joint Type

81

79

93

91

94

89

89

93

91

( 94 )

89

89

Areas of general wastage to max 1mm, general pitting to

1mm, max pitting 2mm, no defects of any consequence.
No defects found.

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/93/11

Preferential corrosion on brace over a length of 950 mm

25 - 35 mm from weld toe, 1.5 mm depth.

No significant defects or cracklike indications found.

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/94/32

No cracklike indications or significant defects

were found.

No cracklike indications or significant defects

were found.

No visible defects.

77

No cracklike indications or significant defects found

CD/94/33

No significant defects.

( 94 )

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '

75

94

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

BTWN
E1.E2

MID
B1.B2

MID
B1.B2

BTWN
E1.E2

MID
A1.A2

BTWN
E1.E2

5603

5204

5204

5603

5104

5605

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

4551

4521

4527

4561

4511

4557

Member
Number

YT

KT

31

Joint Type

95

83

83

95

95

83

83

95

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/95/25

VISIBLE DISCONTINUITY at 4 o'clock on horizontal

brace side, grinding carried out. MPI revealed an
indication perpendicular to the weld running from the
edge of the visible defect to weld cap.
Metal peeling away from brace. Further MPI carried out
at 4o'clock position - no defects found. Weld partially
obstructed by an anode.

Weld partially obstructed by an anode.

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/95/24

No defects found.

81

No cracklike indications or significant defects found.

CD/95/23

Areas of general wastage to max 1mm, general pitting to

1mm, max
pitting 2mm, no defects of any consequence.

95

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '

79

95

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

D1

C1.C2

MID

MID
C1.C2

C2

C2

5401

5304

5304

5307

5307

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

4531

4531

4534

4539

4527

Member
Number

KT

KT

YT

32

Joint Type

87

87

87

77

87

75

No defects found.

84

84

No defects found.
No defects of any consequence.
No defects found.
No defects of any consequence.
No defects of any consequence.
No defects of any consequence.
No defects noted.

77
78
79
80
81
82
83

MPI : No cracklike indications detected.

Isolated pit max 1mm.

No significant defects.

4 pits in toe max 1.5mm. MPI no cracklike indications

detected.

No significant defects.

Pitting max 0.03", areas of surface wastage.

Pitting max 0.02", surface wastage max 0.05".

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '

75

83

83

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

MID
D1.D2

MID
D1.D2

D2

D2

D1

5405

5405

5407

5407

5401

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

5534

5542

4547

4537

4541

Member
Number

KT

KT

KT

33

Joint Type

87

89

89

87

A 195mm. long CRACKLIKE INDICATION was found

in the chord toe of the weld from 11 o'clock thro'12 to 1

CRACKLIKE DEFECT on horizontal brace side of weld,

within a groove, 85mm long, max depth 1.5mm.
MPI: CRACKLIKE INDICATIONS on horizontal brace
side weld within groove in weld toe, 200mm long in same
location as 85mm cracklike defect. No remedial action
required.

SEVERE CORROSION PITTING in the HAZs both sides

of weld. Max dia. 10mm. Max depth 1.5mm. Pits in weld
toes & HAZs. Area of corrosion pitting in weld cap.
MPI : No cracklike/significant indications present.
No remedial action required.

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

Areas of general surface wastage evident max 1mm,

areas of general pitting to depth 3.00mm common.
Node condition good.

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
No visible defects at time of inspection.

87

87

81

79

81

79

77

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

Location

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

BTWN
F1.F2

F1

E2

E2

5806

5801

5607

5607

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

6697

4571

4566

4556

Member
Number

YT

KT

KT

34

Joint Type

CVI : 5mm dia. x 2mm pit in weld cap. General corrosion

& light pitting both sides HAZ. 3 areas of deeper
corrosion pitting can side of HAZ, max 3mm. General
1mm. MPI : No cracklike/significant indications
detected.

87

87

No significant defects.

No visible defects.

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.0mm.
Light surface wastage.

Areas of pitting max 3.00mm common, areas of general

surface wastage evident to max 1.0mm.
Light surface pitting, slight undercutting on gusset
plate.

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
in the chord toe of the weld from 11 o'clock thro'12 to 1
o'clock. The indication was continuous for approx.
165mm. and intermittent for 30mm.Remedial grinding was
carried out in 1mm.increments. When ground to 6.5mm.
maximum depth the indication was 155mm. long and
mainly continuous. The ground area was lightly
profiled and detailed dimensions taken. An FMT
showed no indication of flooding in either the brace or
the chord.Grouted clamp fitted.

75

77

81

79

81

79

Visual
Inspection
Date

Elevtn (m)
Ref. to LAT

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-7.3

-20.7

-20.7

Location

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -7.3

Horizontal
Frame -20.7

Horizontal
Frame -20.7

on CF

on CF

BTWN
F1.F2

BTWN
F1.F2

BTWN
F1.F2

BTWN
F1.F2

BTWN
F1.F2

3722

3762

3722

5802

5805

5605

5605

Node Ref. Node Number

Leg

5368

5376

5368

6667

6689

4567

6683

Member
Number

KDT

KDT

35

Joint Type

85

85

85

No cracklike indications.
CF = Conductor Frame

No cracklike indications.
CF = Conductor Frame

No visible defects.

77

No significant defects.

No significant defects.

No significant defects or cracklike indications found

No significant defects.

85

91

MPI ( EC ) COMMENTS
Inspection Location, Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from
Date
Sesam Database Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990,
Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from UEG ' Design of
Tubular Joints '
91
No significant defects or cracklike indications found

75

75

75

91

91

Visual
Inspection
Date

-7.3

-7.3

Frame 1

Horizontal

MID

D1

5405

5401

Location Elevtn (m) Node Ref.

Node
Ref. to
Leg
Number
LAT

DAMAGE LOCATION SUMMARY

5534

3631

Member
Number

KDT

Joint
Type

89

89

36

87

87

A 195mm. long CRACKLIKE INDICATION was found in the chord toe of the
weld from 11 o'clock thro'12 to 1 o'clock. The indication was continuous for
approx. 165mm and intermittent for 30mm. Remedial grinding was carried out
in 1mm. increments. When ground to 6.5mm. maximum depth the indication
was 155 mm long and mainly continuous. The ground area was lightly
profiled and detailed dimensions taken. A Flooded Member Test showed no
indication of flooding in either the brace or the chord.
Grouted clamp fitted.

CVI: CRACKLIKE DEFECT 85 mm long on horizontal brace chord side of

weld, within a of weld, within a groove, max depth 1.5mm.
MPI: A 200mm long cracklike indication (150mm continuous and 50mm
intermittent) in same location as the above visual cracklike defect.
No remedial action requested.

Visual MPI (EC) COMMENTS

Inspection Inspection Location,Elevation, Node Ref and Joint Ref data from Sesam Database
Spectral Fatigue Analysis, July 1990, Wimpey Offshore. Joint data from
Date
Date
UEG ' Design of Tubular Joints '.
77
No visible defects at time of inspection.
89
89
A STRONG INTERMITTENT INDICATION, having the appearance of
LACK OF SIDEWALL FUSION, in the chord toe of the weld from 10 o'clock
through 12 o'clock 12 o'clock (and extending 60mm onto the chord toe of the
adjacent weld ) was noted. 90% of the indications were removed by remedial
grinding to a depth of 2mm with respect to the chord parent metal. All
remaining indications (around 10 o'clock) were removed by grinding to a max.
depth of 4mm. with respect to the chord parent metal. Ground areas were
lightly dressed to remove acute angles, before profile measurements were
taken.

Installed June 1970

APPENDIX B
Geometry Plots from the SACS Model

37

1 5 2 4

1 5 4 2

20
.3
2X
1.
27

1493

1 5 6
3 0
5

1 4 4 6

1 4 9 4

32.385X1.27

1338

1517

32.385X1.27

1 3 9 8

1 5 6
0 1
0

1 5 6 2

1 4 5 4

45.72X1.905

54

101.6X2.54

91.4

4X2.

54

91.4

4X2.

54

45.72X1.905

1 4 5 5

6X2.

1 3 3 9

1 3 9 9

101.

45.72X1.905

101.6

X3.17

45.72X1.905

101.

6X3.

175

101.6

X3.17

101.

6X3.

175

45.72X1.905

20.32X1.27

1292

45.72X1.905

1337

1 3 9 7

1400

1 3 4 4

45.72X1.905

40

45.72X1.905

101.

.6

4X

1.

6X3.

27

101.

45.72X1.905

6X3.

175
54
4X2.
91.4

175

91.4

4X2.

54

40

.6

4X

1.

27

45.72X1.905

1 5
4 2
5 5
2

1 4 8 0

1453
1543

40.64X0.953

101.

6X2.

54

20.3

101.

2X1.

27

6X2.

54

40.64X0.953

1 5
3 6
9 3
5

1 5 6 4

40

.6

4X

91.4

1.

27

4X2.

54

99
1.0
4

4X1
6
2.

57
2
4

40

.6

4X

1.

27

99.06

X1.27

20.32X1.27

1 5
3 3
9 9
3

1 3 9 6

40.64X1.27

1 5
3 4
3 9
5

40.64X1.27

99.06

X1.27

1 5 5 4

91.4

4X2.

54

20.3

2X1.

27

91.4

4X2.

54

1 5 4 7

1289
1565

1 5 6 6

.7

.2

99.0
6X1
.27

.7

.2

99.06X1.27

20.32X1.27

4X3.

91.44

X3.17

X3.17

91.44

91.4
175

175

1 5
3 5
3 2
1

4X3.

1 3 4 1

1332
1558

1567

45.72X1.27

91.4

45.72X1.27

2X1.
20.3

99.0

6X1.

27

1 2 8 4
1 5 5 9

27

1 2 8 3
1 5 5 6

99.06X1.27

99.06

X1.27

LABEL=SECTION

Elevation Frame A

38

99.06

X1.2

45.7
2X1
.27

7
1.2
72X
45.

99.06
X1.27

101.6

X2.5

91.44

X2.5

91.44
X2.5
4

45
.72
X1
.27

54
6X2.
101.

40.64X1.27

45.72X1.27

Elevation Frame B

39
7

54
175
6X2. 4X3.
101. 91.4

175

175

4X3.

4X3.

75

91.4

91.4

91.44X3.1

99.0
6X1.
27

15
32
92
1

.2

40
.6
4X
1.
27

40.

1.2

91.44

64X

X2.5

91
9.4
04
6
X2
1.5
2
7
4

101.6

X2.5

1401

40

.6

4X

1.

27

101.6

X2.5

101.6
X2.5
4

1 4 3 4

40.64X0.953

1451
1490

4X
.6
40

27
1.

91.4

6X3.

54
4X2.

101.

45.72X1.905

1 7 5 91.44X2.54

40.

64X
1.2

101.

6X3.

175

1 4 9 9

.3

1528

101.

45.72X1.905

6X3.

175

101.

6X3.

175

101.6

X2.5

1492

1523

27
1.

101.6

X2.5

91.44

X2.5

91.44

X2.5

1491
1442

1 3 8 5

85

32.385X1.27

.3

1489

32

1444
1533

32.385X1.27
1515

1445
1478

45.72X1.905

45.72X1.905

45.72X1.905
1 4 7 9

40.64X1.27
1 5
4 3 4
5

40.64X1.27
1 4 0 2

1 3 9 2

40.64X1.27
15
34
91
4

1538

40.64X1.27

1343
1548

1 3 4 2

1 2 8 5
1 5 5 1
15
34
36
3
1 3 4 0

45.72X1.27
1334
1553

1 2 8 6
1 5 5 7

LABEL=SECTION

1 4 3 7

1519

1 3 8 0

1 4 8 7

1316

1 3 8 1

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

1439

1 4 8 4

1443

32.385X1.27

1488

1521

45.72X1.905

91.4

54

4X2.

54

91.4

4X2.

54

1290

6X2.

54

101.

6X2.

1291

101.

1477

1514

101.

6X3.

101.6

175

X3.17

45.72X1.905

101.

6X3.

175

45.72X1.905

101.6

X3.17

1336

1 4 3 3

1476

40

.6

101.6

4X

1.

27

X3.17

45.72X1.905

91.44X2.54

91.4

4X2.

54

40

.6

4X

1.

27

101.6

X3.17

45.72X1.905

1389
1438

1 3 8 4

1330

40.64X0.953

1 5
3 2
7 0
8

40.64X0.953

91.4

99.06

X1.27

4X2.

54

40.

91.4

64X

1.2

4X2.

54

101.

6X2.

54

101.6

X2.54

40.64X0.953

40

.6

4X

99.0

1.

27

6X1.

27

1 4 8 2

1537

15
31
28
4

1 3 2 5

15
34
95
0

40.64X1.27

1.27

4X3.

.72
45

91.4

91.4

6X
9 91. 70 5
4X3.

X1

.27

91.44

X3.17
9 9 .50
6

X1.2

.7

.2

91.44X3.1

75

91.44

X3.17

40.64X1.27

175

91.44
X3.17
5

1 5
3 3
2 6
3
1 3 2 2

1 5
3 5
2 0
7

45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27

1287

1288

1544

1555

99.0

6X1.

27

99.0

6X1.

27

LABEL=SECTION

Elevation Frame C

40

1317

1426

1259

1 1 9 6

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

1 3 7 4

1 2 6 0

1 3 1 9

32.385X1.27

1 3 8 7

32.385X1.27

1428

32.385X1.27

1375

1311

32.385X1.27

1279

1231

45.72X1.905

91.44

X2.5

91.44

X2.5

1 1 8 5

X2.5

101.6X2.54

1229

1186

101.6

1 2 3 2

101.

6X3.

101.

175

6X3.

175

45.72X1.905

101.6X3.1

75

45.72X1.905

101.

6X3.

175

1277

1 2 7 8

1230

101.

40.

6X3.

64X

175

1.2

45.72X1.905

91.44

X2.5

91.44

X2.5

40

.6

4X

1.

27

101.

6X3.

175

45.72X1.905

1 3 2
1 1
8

1 2 6 6

40.64X0.953

40.64X0.953

1 2 0 5

40.64X0.953

1261

1203

1265

40.64X0.953

14
32
17
2

40.64X0.953

7
X1.2
99.06

27
1.
4X
.6
40

54
4X2.
91.4

91
9.4
04
6

X2
1.5
2

7
4

40

.6

4X

1.

27

101.6

X2.5

101.6

X2.5

40.64X0.953

13
28
66
8

1 2 2 2

40.64X1.27

40.64X1.27

40.64X1.27

1 2 1 7

40.64X1.27

1272

1223

1274

40.64X1.27

1 4
3 6
2 9
6

40.64X1.27

1447

.7

99.06

.2

X1.2

99.0
6X1.
27

45

.72

X1

.27

91.44

X2.5

91.4
4X2.
54

1 5 0 8

91.4
4X3.
175

91.4
4X3.
175

1 4
2 9
6 5
7

175

1 2 2 5

1 2 1 9

1273

1220

1226

1 5
2 3
7 1
0

4X3.

45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27

45.72X1.27

45.72X1.27

45.72X1.27

175

91.4

45.72X1.27

1236
1540

91.4

4X3.

1 2 3 7
1 5 2 6

99.06

X1.2

99.0
6X1.
27

LABEL=SECTION

Elevation Frame D

41

1256
1 3 7 2

1194
1 3 1 0

1 1 3 3
32.385X1.27

1190

1246

32.385X1.27

1301

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

1 3 0 7

1253

32.385X1.27

101.6X

2.54

101.6X

2.54

91.44X

2.54

91.44X

2.54

1193

1 3 0 9

101.

101.6

6X3.

X3.1

175

75

101.6

X3.1

75

1 2 5 5

1314

9 1 5. 4 4 X
X3.17

40

101.6

.64

X1

.27

101.

2.54

40

6 X 3 . 91.4
1 7 54 X 2 . 5

.64

X1

.27

1 3 1 3

1 2 65 27

1198
40.64X0.953

1195

40.64X1.27

1199

1 3
2 7
5 3
4

40.64X1.27

40
.64
X1
.27

101.6X

2.54

101.6X

2.54

40.64X0.953

1 2 3 4

1 2 3 5

99.06X

1.27

91.44X

2.54

91.44X

2.54

101.6

X2.54

40.64X1.27

1 3 1 5

40
.64
X1
.27

.27
X1
.64
40

1 4 2 5

1 32 70 97

1 1 5 4
40.64X1.27

1 2 1 3

1 2 1 4

40.64X1.27

14
268
9
40.64X1.27

101.6X

2.54

40.64X1.27

.3

85

1.

27

45
.72X
1.27

91.4

4X3.

91.4

175

4X3.

175

32

1 2 2 1

1 2 3 3

75
4X3.1

4X3.

45
.72X
1.27

X3.17

91.4

91.44

91.4

1.27
.72X
45

91.44

X3.17
9 9 . 0 65X
1.27

101.6X

2.54

40.64X1.27

175

1 42 30 6

1 1 4 9
45.72X1.27

45.72X1.27

1 1 7 7

1 1 5 1

45.72X1.27

1 5
2 0
1 7
1
45.72X1.27

1182
1481

101.6

X2.54

1183
1530

32

.3

85

1.

27

99.06X

1.27

99.06X

1.27

LABEL=SECTION

Elevation Frame E

42

99.06

X1.27

X1.27

45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27

1 7 56 X 1 .
4 X 3 . 99.0
91.4

27
1.
2X
.7
45

27

45
.72X
1.27

91.44

X2.54

40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27

43

91.4
4X3.
175

1096

1088

Elevation Frame F
45.72X1.27

1 1 5 0

40

4X

1.

X 21 . 52 47

27

9 19 . 40 46

.6

99.06
X1.27

40
.64
X1
.27

X2.54

101.6

X2.54

101.6
X2.54

45.72X1.905
.64

X1

.27

54 X 2
X 3 9. 11 7. 4
101.6

40

.54

.64

.54

40

101.
6X3.
175
91.44
X2

X1

.27

101.6

101.
6X3.
175

45.72X1.905

45.72X1.905
X3.17

101.6

X3.17

101.
6X3.
175

101.6

45.72X1.905

45.72X1.905

X2.54

101.6

91.44

X2.54

91.44

32.385X1.27

91.44

40.64X0.953

1090

1075

40.64X0.953

91.4
4X3.
175
99.06
X1.27

X2.54

X2.54

1159

1 1 5 8

1 1 3 7

1 0 9 4

X3.1

75

1 0 9 2
1 1 5 5

40.64X1.27

1099

1 1 3 2

40.64X1.27

40.64X0.953

1 1 5 7
40.64X0.953

1076

1 1 3 0

91.44

X3.1
75

91.44

99.06

1365
1 1 3 8

1188

45.72X1.27

1 2 5 0

40.64X1.27

1 42 20 29
40.64X0.953

1 32 0 51

32.385X1.27

1101

1 1 0 3
32.385X1.27

1062

1240

32.385X1.27

1102
1 2 5 1

32.385X1.27

1192

40.64X0.953

1 3 0 4
1 0 2 5

1 0 2 8

1069

1129

1 1 8 7

1 2 3 9

1 10 90 79

1 10 50 34

1 0 0 3

1122
1506
1 41 65 72
1086
1 10 40 82

1 1 2 1
1 0 0 1

LABEL=SECTION

44

99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27
91.44X3.175

99.06X1.27

91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

91.44X3.175

91.44X2.54
101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

1 1 2 2
1 5 0 6

1 41 65 72

1 42 20 29

1 3 6 5

1 32 0 51

1 1 5 8

1 1 0 3

1 1 5 9

1 1 9 2

1 2 5 0

1 3 0 4

91.44X3.175
45

50

.8

1.

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27
99.06X1.27

101.6X2.54

91.44X3.175

101.6X2.54

91.44X3.175

32.385X0.953

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

32.385X0.953

.72

X1

.27

32.385X1.27
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54
101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

1183
1530

1 25 10 17

1233

1 42 6 89

1425

1235

1 32 75 34

1313

1309

1253

1310

1372

91.44X3.175
45

50

.8

X1

.2

.72

X1

.27

45

40.64X1.27
99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27

91.44X3.175

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54

32.385X0.953

9 19 . 40 46 X 21 . 52 47

.72

X1

.27

32.385X1.27
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54
101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

45

45

.8

.72

X1

.27

X1

X1
45

40.64X1.27

32.385X0.953
99.06X1.27

99.06X1.279 1 . 4 4 X 2 . 5 4

91.44X3.175

.27

.72

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

91.44X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

1430

99.06X1.27

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54

1 2 8 8
1 5 5 5

1 35 25 70

1 35 94 05

1 5 3 7

1 35 72 80

1 4 3 3

1 4 7 7

1 4 8 8

1 4 4 3

1 4 8 7

1 5 1 9

45

LABEL=SECTION

50

.8

1.

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27

101.6X2.54

32.385X0.953

1 0 1 . 6 X 2 . 5941 . 4 4 X 2 . 5 4

91.44X3.175

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

.72

X1

.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X0.953

99.06X1.27

1376

.2
50

32.385X1.27
32.385X1.27
32.385X1.27

Elevation Frame 1

1236
1540

1 25 73 01

1508

1 43 62 96

1 43 21 72

1278

1232

1279

1311

1374

1426

91.44X3.175
91.44X3.175
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

1286
1557

1 35 35 43

1342

1548

1 35 94 41

1402

1 45 3 54

1479

1478

1515

1533

91.44X3.175
45

50

.8

1.

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27
99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27

91.44X3.175

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54

99.06X1.27

91.44X2.54

32.385X0.953

99.06X1.27

.72

X1

.27

32.385X1.27
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54
101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

1284
1559

1 35 35 28

1 25 86 95

1554

1 35 34 59

1 35 96 53

1 45 54 3

1400

1455

1 5 60 10

1517

1 5 63 05

1542

91.44X3.175

99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27

91.44X2.54

99.06X1.27
91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

91.44X3.175

91.44X2.54
101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

1 1 2 1
1 0 0 1

1 1
0 4
0 8
2

1 0 0 3

1 1
0 5
0 3
4

1 1
0 9
0 7
9

1 2 3 9

1 1 8 7

1 1 2 9

1 0 6 9

1 0 2 8

1 0 2 5

91.44X3.175
45
50

.8

1.

99.06X1.27

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27

99.06X1.27
91.44X3.175

91.44X3.175

32.385X0.953

.72

X1

.27

99.06X1.27

91.44X2.54

32.385X0.953

32.385X1.27
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54
101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

1 1 8 2
1 4 8 1

1 4
2 3
0 6

1 3
2 7
0 9
7

1 3 1 5

1 2 6
5 2
7

1 3 1 4

1 2 5 5

1 1 9 3

1 1 3 3

1 1 9 4

1 2 5 6

91.44X3.175
45
50

.8

1.

99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27

91.44X3.175

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54

.72

X1

.27

32.385X0.953

32.385X1.27

99.06X1.27
91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

45
50

.8

1.

.72

X1

.27

27

.72

X1

1 2 5 8

45

40.64X1.27

.27

32.385X0.953

99.06X1.27

99.06X1.27
91.44X3.175

32.385X0.953

46

32.385X1.27
99.06X1.27

91.44X3.175

91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

32.385X1.27

Elevation Frame 2

1 2 3 7
1 5 2 6

1 4
2 9
6 5
7

1 4 4 7

1 3
2 8
6 6
8

1 3 2
1 1
8

1 2 7 7

1 2 2 9

1 1 8 5

1 1 9 6

1 2 5 9

1 3 1 7

91.44X3.175
1287
1544

15
33
26
3

15
31
28
4

1482

14
33
88
9

1336

1291

1290

1316

1380

1437

91.44X3.175
45
50

.8

1.

LABEL=SECTION

99.06X1.27

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27

99.06X1.27

.72

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54

91.44X3.175

X1

.27

32.385X0.953

99.06X1.27
91.44X2.54

32.385X1.27
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

1285
1551

15
34
36
3

1538

15
32
92
1

149
50
1

1499

1492

1445

1385

1444

1489

91.44X3.175
45
50

.8

1.

99.06X1.27

.72

X1

.27

27

45

40.64X1.27

99.06X1.27

.72

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54

X1

.27

32.385X0.953

91.44X2.54
99.06X1.27

32.385X1.27
101.6X2.54

91.44X2.54

91.44X3.175

101.6X2.54

101.6X3.175

101.6X3.175

91.44X2.54

101.6X3.175

1 2 8 3
1 5 5 6

1 5
3 5
3 2
1

1 5 4 7

1 5
3 3
9 9
3

1 5
4 2
5 5
2

1 3 9 7

1 3 3 9

1 3 9 8

1 4 4 6

1 4 9 3

1 5 2 4

91.44X3.175

45
.72
X1
.27

40.64X1.27

45.72X1.27

45.72X1.27
1 52 37 10
40.64X1.27

1 1 7 5

LABEL=SECTION

1 6 1 1

32.385X1.27

1 1 8 1

P R I S M 3 5

1 5 8 7

32.385X1.27

1 1 2 8

1 6 0 5

1 5 9 9

32.385X1.27

1 1 2 7

45.72X1.27

.27
X1
.72
45

45.72X1.27

.27
X1
.72
45

45.72X1.27

.27
X1
.72
45

45.72X1.27

47

32.385X1.27

1 2 0 8

1 2 1 0

32.385X1.27

1 1 2 6

1 6 2 3

1 6 1 7

1 1 2 5

1 52 01 71

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

1151

1177

32.385X1.27

1149

32.385X1.27

1 42 30 6

45.72X1.27

Horizontal Framing Plan @ Elevation 36.1m

40.64X1.27

32.385X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

32.385X1.27

1 1 7 6

32.385X1.27

1 5 9 3

1 1 7 3

.27
X1
.64
40

1 53 52 07

45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27

32.385X1.27

1 5 8 1

1 5 7 5

1 1 7 4

32.385X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

1 2 2 6

45.72X1.27

1 2 2 0

32.385X1.27

1 5 6 9

1 1 8 0

P R I S M 3 5

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

45.72X1.27

1 2 7 3

1 2 1 9

1 2 2 5

40.64X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

1 42 96 57

P R I S M 3 5
32.385X1.27

1 0 9 1

32.385X1.27

1 0 8 9

40.64X1.27

32.385X1.27

1 0 9 3

1 6 2 9

1 6 9 5

32.385X1.27

1 0 8 7

40.64X1.27

45
.72
X1
.27

P R I S M 3 5

1 53 53 34

40.64X1.27

.27
X1
.64
40

45
.72
X1
.27

40.64X1.27

1322

1 53 32 63

45.72X1.27
1 0 5 6

1 6 5 3

1 0 5 4

1 6 4 7

1 6 4 1

1 0 5 2

1 6 3 5

1 0 5 0
32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

1567

40.64X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

1 53 53 82

1 3 4 0

1 53 43 63

45.72X1.27
P R I S M 3 5

1341

40.64X1.27

45
.72
X1
.27

1 53 53 21

45.72X1.27
1 0 5 5

1 6 7 7

1 0 5 3

1 6 7 1

1 6 6 5

1 0 5 1

1 6 5 9

1 0 4 9

P R I S M 3 5

45
.72
X1
.27

P R I S M 3 5
1 1 5 0

1 0 8 8

1 0 8 6

1 10 40 82

1 0 9 2

1 0 9 0

45.72X1.27

1 41 65 72

32.385X1.27

45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27
32.385X1.27

.27
X1
.72
45

45.72X1.27

40
.64
X1
.27

45.72X1.27

40
.64
X1
.27

45.72X1.27
45.72X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

.27
X1
.72
45

45.72X1.27

P R I S M 3 5

1 53 39 93

1396

1 53 29 21

1 3 9 2

6X

95

0.

3
95
0.

32.385X0.953

6X
3

6X

.5

6X

0.

95

32.385X0.953

35

32.385X0.953

35
.5
6X
0.
95
3

32.385X1.27

32.385X0.953

32.385X1.27

32.385X0.953

1 32 86 68

1 2 2 2

1 2 1 7

1 2 7 2

1 2 2 3

1 2 7 4

1 43 62 96

32.385X1.27

32.385X0.953

32.385X1.27

35

.5

6X

0.

95

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

35

32.385X0.953

.5
6X
0.
95
3

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

LABEL=SECTION

32.385X0.953

1 1 7 8

1 5 7 0

1 1 7 1

1 5 7 6

1 5 8 2

1 1 7 9

1 5 8 8

32.385X0.953

1 2 2 4

35

.5

6X

48

Horizontal Framing Plan @ Elevation 20.7m

1 53 12 84

1 3 2 5

1 53 49 50

0.

95

1 1 7 0

1 5 9 4

32.385X1.27

1 1 2 4

1 6 0 0

1 6 0 6

32.385X1.27

1 1 7 2

1 6 1 2

1 2 1 8

35
.5
0.
95
3

1 2 7 1

6X

0.

95

1 2 1 2

32.385X1.27

35

.5

32.385X1.27

6X

1 1 2 3

1 6 1 8

1 6 2 4

1 1 6 9

35
.5
0.
95
1 1 5 4
3
32.385X1.27

6X

1 2 1 3

32.385X1.27

1 2 1 4

32.385X0.953

1 42 6 89

1 32 70 97

32.385X0.953

35

.5

6X

0.

1 0 9 5
32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

1 0 9 7

1 6 9 6

1 6 3 0

1 1 5 6

1 1 6 8
32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

P R I S M 3 5

32.385X0.953

6X
.5
35

.5

35

32.385X0.953

40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27

1 53 49 14

40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27

40.64X1.27

40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27

P R I S M 3 5
PRISM35
PRISM35

P R I S M 3 5
PRISM35
PRISM35

40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27

PRISM35

95

35

.5

6X
0.

95

1 0 5 8

1 6 3 6

1 0 6 0

1 6 4 2

1 6 4 8

1 0 9 8

1 6 5 4

1 1 2 0
32.385X0.953

P R I S M 3 5
32.385X0.953

PRISM35

32.385X0.953

1 0 5 7

1 6 6 0

1 0 5 9

1 6 6 6

1 6 7 2

1 0 6 1

1 6 7 8

1 1 0 0

40.64X1.27

40.64X1.27

40.64X1.27

95

40.64X1.27

0.

40.64X1.27

.5
95

40.64X1.27

0.

40.64X1.27

35
.5

40.64X1.27

PRISM35
PRISM35

40.64X1.27
40.64X1.27

32.385X0.953
PRISM35

40.64X1.27
32.385X0.953

1 53 43 95

1 1
0 5
0 3
4

1 0 9 4

1 0 9 6

1 1 5 5

1 0 9 9

1 1 5 7

1 4
2 2
0 2
9

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

35

PRISM35

1 54 25 52

1 4 8 0

.5

6X

0.

95

32.385X0.953

35

35

.5

6X

0.

95

1 4 95 01

1 4 3 4

6X

0.

95

32.385X0.953

35

.5

35
.5
6X
0.
95
3

40.64X1.27

40.64X0.953

1 43 38 89

1384

1330

P R I S M 3 4 PRISM34
P R I S M 3 4
PRISM34

40.64X0.953
40.64X0.953

40.64X0.953

3
95
0.
6X
.5
35

35

.5

6X

0.

5X0.

95

32.38
953

1328

1280

1238

32.385X0.953

35
.5
6X
0.
95
3

1276

35

6X

0.

95

32.38

.5

5X0.9

1 2 2 8
53

1 16 8 43

1 26 28 7

1 26 79 51

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

35

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

1 2 0 3

1 2 6 5

6X

0.

95

1 3 21 18

.5

1266

32.385X0.953

PRISM54
1 2 6 1

1205

P R I S M 5 4

PRISM54

32.385X0.953

PRISM54

2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 27.305X0.927

.5
95
3

1215

1162

1163

1114

1116

1147
32.385X0.953

1166

1 15 18 53

1 15 68 49

PRISM54

1 15 67 71

1 15 17 7

1118

3 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 33 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 3

0.

1143
32.385X0.953

6X

1082
32.385X0.953

1 0 6 8

PRISM54

1 0 6 7

49

1141

1081

1 16 41 23

35
.5
6X

1140

1202

0.
95
3

1 2 6 4

1 0 2 6

1 0 2 7
1046

PRISM54

1043

PRISM54

.
35

1 0 8 4

56

0.

95

1 1 4 5

1 15 49 65

1 0 4 8
1083
3 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 3 3 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 53 32 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 3

1 06 40 71

1 06 40 47

1 2 0 4

1144

.5

6X

0.

PR

IS

1066

1065

95

1263

PR

IS

1111
32.385X0.953

35

1 0 4 5
1080
1108
3 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 3 3 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 33 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 33 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 3

LABEL=SECTION

1 1 6 5

32.385X0.953

1 2 1 6

PRISM54

1 1 1 9

32.385X0.953

1 0 8 5

PRISM54

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

35

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

55

1281

IS

PR

55
M

1329

PRISM34
P R I S M 3 4 PRISM34

1 43 21 72

55

40.64X0.953

Horizontal Framing Plan @ Elevation 7.3m

1 27 80 21

3
95
0.
6X
.5
35

55
M

53
0.9
5X
.38
32

32.385X0.953

40.64X0.953

1 53 27 08

32.385X0.953

95

40.64X0.953

0.

40.64X0.953

PR

M
55
PR
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 ISM

PR
IS
M
2 7 .553 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7

27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927

40.64X0.953
40.64X0.953
40.64X0.953
40.64X0.953
40.64X0.953

55

27.305X0.927

PR
IS
M
2 7 55
.305X0.927

27.305X0.927
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927

M
IS
PR

55

PR

IS

32.385X0.953

55

1 1 1 2

1 1 9 5
P
R
IS
M
55
PR
IS
M

PR

1 1 0 4
55

1 1 0 6

55

32.385X0.953

1 2 65 27

PR

IS

P R I S M 5 4

55

1 0 6 4

IS

55

1 0 6 3

IS

55

IS

55

32.385X0.953

P R I S M 5 4

1 0 7 0
32.385X0.953

P R I S M 5 4

P R I S M 5 4

32.385X0.953

PR

IS

32.385X0.953

55

1 16 09 57

55

IS

35
.5
6
1 1 6X 01.
1 1 9 8
1 1 3 4
9
3 2 . 3 8 5 X503 . 9 5 3
32.385X0.953

PRISM54

IS

P 1R I1S M
0 594

.5

IS

IS

1139

PR

55

5
PR

PR

IS

IS

IS

1 06 14 49

1077

M 1035
55

35

6X

0.

95

1 0 0 6

1 0 2 2

1 0 1 2

PRISM54

1 0 0 5

PRISM54

IS

PR

1 06 3 67

.5

1 0 1 5

PRISM54

1031

IS

IS

55

32.385X0.953

1 0 3 4

PR

PR

32.385X0.953

1073

P R I S M 5 4

1643
1011

1 0 1 0M 55
IS
55
PR

1 0 1 3

32.385X0.953

PR

1074
1655

1 0 3 0
55
M
55
IS
PR

1 0 2 9
32.385X0.953

55

1 0 7 2

PR
IS 1 1 3 6
M
55
32.385X0.953

3
95
PR0.
6X IS
M
55

1 2 0 0

35

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

IS
M
55
55
M
IS
R
1 1 6 0
PR
P
1 1 9 9
1 0 7 1
IS 1 1 3 5
32.385X0.953
M
55
3 2 . 3 8 5 X 0 . 9 5 3 55
32.385X0.953
M
IS
PR
1 1 0 7
1 6 3 1

PR

1 16 1 39

55

1 16 12 05

PR

32.385X0.953

1 23 57 43

55

IS
PR

IS

55

27.305X0.927

IS
PR

55

IS
M

PR

55
55
M
IS
PR

IS
PR

PR

27.305X0.927 27.305X0.92727.305X0.927

IS

55
M
IS
PR

55
M

55

M
IS
55
M
IS
PR

6X

1 54 3 45

27.305X0.927 27.305X0.92727.305X0.927

40.64X1.27

IS

40.64X1.27

27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927 27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927

P
R
IS
M
5
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 2 7 . 3 055 X 0 . 9 2 7
M2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7
55

P
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7R IS

2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 27.305X0.927

55
M
IS

55
M

27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927

40.64X0.953

.5

32.385X0.953

27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927

PR
55
M

M
IS

IS
PR

27.305X0.927

IS
R

27.305X0.927
27.305X0.927

27.305X0.927

55

27.305X0.927

M
55

27.305X0.927

IS
M

27.305X0.927

PR
IS
M

40.64X0.953

55
IS

27.305X0.927 27.305X0.927

PR
R

27.305X0.927 27.305X0.927

M
P

27.305X0.927

IS
55

27.305X0.927

55

55
PR
M

M
55
IS

IS
M
PR

PR
IS
M
55

R
IS
M

55
PR
IS

P
55
PR

M
M

55

55

27.305X0.92727.305X0.927

55
IS

27.305X0.927 27.305X0.92727.305X0.927

PR
M

27.305X0.927

55
IS

2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 72 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7

95
M
PR

27.305X0.927

0.
IS
M
55

2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 27.305X0.927

PR
IS

M
55

2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7 27.305X0.927 2 7 . 3 0 5 X 0 . 9 2 7

6X

PR
IS
M
55

1040

1 0 2 3

1 0 1 8

1 0 0 7

1 0 0 8

1 0 2 1

1 0 2 4

1 0 3 7

1 06 16 7

1 06 27 03

1 06 47 29

1 06 36 91

1 0 3 2

1 0 1 6

1 0 1 9

1 0 3 3

1 0 4 1

1 0 7 9

1078

1038

40.64X0.953
40.64X0.953

.5
55

IS

40.64X0.953

PR
M

55

35
M

55
IS

55
IS

M
PR

IS

PR

IS
55
55
PR

PR
M
M

40.64X0.953

55
55

IS
IS

40.64X0.953

M
M
M

PR

55

IS
IS
PR

40.64X0.953

PR
IS
M
IS

PR
PR
IS
PR

53

35

1 54 45 3

55

0.9
PR
M

5X
55
55
IS

.38
M
PR

32
IS
M

1132

1076

1138

1 32 0 51

1 10 90 79

1137

1075

32.385X0.953

PR
IS

32.385X0.953

32.385X0.953

PR

55

55

1478

32.385X1.27
1441

27.305X1.27

32

.3 85

X 1.

32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

1473

1512

1485

1440

27.305X1.27

1430

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27
1376

1431

32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

1 64 97 24

1 65 81 83

1 64 87 45

1258
32.385X1.27

27
32

.3 85

1 4 3 2

27.305X1.27

X1

.3 85
X1

.2 7

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32

27
X1.
.385
32

PRISM33

27

27

27

.2 7

.3 85

1 3 1 1

32

32.385X1.27

X1

.2 7

1368

.2 7

1388

27.305X1.27

1496

1470
32.385X1.27

1429
32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

1 5 2 7

32.385X1.27

1 4 9 8

1 5 3 2

1 5 0 5

32.385X1.27

1 5 1 1

PRISM50

1 4 6 6

PRISM50

1 54 97 02

1471

1 4 6 1

PRISM50

1 5 81 40

1509

1 4 0 9

PRISM50

1 54 79 87

32.385X1.27

1448

1449

1 54 75 20

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

PRISM50

1 3 7 5
32.385X1.27

1 3 7 7

PRISM50

1 4 2 8
32.385X1.27

X1

1245

32.385X1.27

.3 85

32.385X1.27

PRISM50

1 3 8 7

32.385X1.27

32

32.385X1.27

PRISM50

1 3 1 9

1 2 6 0

1 1 9 6

32.385X1.27

1 3 2 0

50

Horizontal Framing Plan @ Elevation +6.1m

1443

1484

1439

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

1 74 08 23

1381

1 3 8 3

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

32.385X1.27

1382

32.385X1.27
PRISM33

32.385X1.27

1 5 1 6

1442

1316

PRISM33 PRISM33

1517

27.305X1.27

27.305X1.27

32.385X1.27

X 1.

1494

1 4 8 6

27
X 1.
85
.3
32

32.385X1.27

51

1385

IS

PR

32.385X1.27

PR
IS
M
51

PR
IS
M
51

PR
IS
M
51

32

.38

5X

7
1.2

1458

1407

1.2
7

1 53 95 63

32
.
1 3 5 2 385X

1298

1501

1529

1464

PRISM50

1502

PRISM50

1459

1465

1419

1 64 12 40

1362

1418

3 2 . 3 8 5 X 1 . 2 7 32.385X1.27

1504

1 65 0 83

1 64 06 20

1358

PR 1 4 6 3
IS
M
51

1413

1416

1246

1357

32.385X1.27

1412

.3 85
X 1. 1 3 0 1
27
32.385X1.27

1361

32

PRISM50

1 64 21 67

3 2 . 3 8 5 X 1 . 2 7 32.385X1.27

1300

PRISM50

3 2 . 3 8 5 X 1 . 2 7 32.385X1.27
7
1.2
5X
32 .38
1 63 25 09

3 2 . 3 8 5 X 1 . 2 7 32.385X1.27

1408

1351

1190

1133

1253

1307

1411

1355

1360

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

32.385X1.27

PRISM50

32.385X1.27

1414

PRISM50

1 64 31 25

32.385X1.27

1462

PRISM50

1410

32.385X1.27

1354

PRISM50

1 63 95 86

32.385X1.27

1299

32.385X1.27

32.385X1.27 7
.2
X1
.3 85
32

32.385X1.27

27.305X1.27

PR
IS
M
51

1446

85

27

X 1.

32.385X1.27

85

.3
M

.3

27
X 1.
85
.3
32

32

P R I S M 3 3 PRISM33

51

IS

32

PR

PRISM33

32.385X1.27

PRISM33

IS

51
M
IS
PR

PR
IS
M
51

51
M
IS
PR
M

M
51
M

IS

51
PR
PR

IS

PR
IS
M
51

27.305X1.27
IS

51

PR

51

2 7 . 3 0 5 X 1 . 2 7 M 51

IS

27.305X1.27

IS

32.385X1.27
32.385X1.27

PR

51
M
IS
PR

PR

27.305X1.27
PR
IS
M
51

PR

1191

1421

1363

1424

1370

32.385X1.27

1308

.3 85

X1

.2 7

1 4 0 6

32.385X1.27

1 3 5 0

1 4 5 6

32.385X1.27

1 3 6 9

PRISM50

1 4 2 3

32.385X1.27

1 4 0 5

PRISM50

1 63 57 61

32 3 2 . 3 8 5 X 1 . 2 7
.3 85
X 1.
27

1 3 0 2

PRISM50

1 64 5 07

32

32.385X1.27

1 2 4 7

PRISM50

1 63 46 4

32.385X1.27

1303

1248

1 62 34 89

32.385X1.27

51

IS

32.385X1.27
27.305X1.27
51

X 1.

51

.3 85

51
51

32.385X1.27
M
M

27.305X1.27
IS

27.305X1.27
IS

IS

32.385X1.27
PR
IS
M
51

32.385X1.27
27.305X1.27
PR
PR
IS
M
51

51
M
IS
PR

27.305X1.27
IS

51
M
IS
PR

P
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 1 .R2I 7
SM

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

1 2 4 2

1 4 0 3

1 3 4 8

1 4 0 4

1 3 4 9

1 2 9 6

1 2 9 7

32

.3

85

X1

1 3 6 6

51

PR

27.305X1.27

1 62 64 24

1 62 69 84

1 63 74 46

1 63 86 07

.2

1306

1345

1293

1347

1295

1241

1243

1189

1131

1252

27.305X1.27

32.385X1.27

32

27.305X1.27
PR

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
PR
IS
M
51

M 27.305X1.27
51
51
M
IS
PR

PR
IS
M
51

27.305X1.27
PR
IS
M
51

IS
51
M
IS
PR
PR
IS
2 7 . 3 0 5 X 1 . 2M751
PR

PR

27.305X1.27
51
M
IS
PR

27.305X1.27

PR
IS
M
51

51
M
IS
PR

27.305X1.27

PR
IS
M
51

27.305X1.27
PR
IS
M
51

27.305X1.27
PR
IS
M
51

X 1.

27.305X1.27
51

PR
IS
M
51

85

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
M

PR
IS
M
51

51
M
IS
3 2 .P3R 8 5 X 1 . 2 7
IS

IS

PR
IS
M
51

.3
R
PR

PR
IS
M
51

PR

51

32

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

51

51
51
M
IS
PR
IS

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
PR

IS

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
51

27.305X1.27

PR

27.305X1.27

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
M

27.305X1.27

51
M
IS
PR
IS
M

IS

51
M
IS
PR
IS

27.305X1.27

PR

PR
PR

51
M
IS
PR

27.305X1.27
51

27.305X1.27
M

27.305X1.27
IS

27.305X1.27
PR

27.305X1.27

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

PR
IS
M
51

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

51

32.385X1.27
M
51

27.305X1.27

PR
ISM
51

IS
M
M

PR
IS
M
51

PR
IS
IS

27.305X1.27

IS

32.385X1.27
PR
51

PR

PR

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

51

27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

27

27

27.305X1.27
51

51

51
M
IS
PR

27.305X1.27

27.305X1.27
51

IS

X 1.

1.
M
M

27.305X1.27

PR
IS
M
53

PR

27.305X1.27
IS

27.305X1.27

51
M
IS
PR

.3 85

85
IS
51

PR
IS
M
51

32

.3

32.385X1.27
27.305X1.27
27.305X1.27

IS

PR

27.305X1.27
1 1 9 2

1 2 5 1

1 2 4 0

1 1 8 8

1 1 3 0

1 0 6 9

32.385X1.27

PR

27.305X1.27
32.385X1.27

51
M
IS
PR

32.385X1.27
PR

27.305X1.27

51
M
IS
PR

32

27.305X1.27

51
M
IS
PR

32.385X1.27
32.385X1.27

51
M
IS
PR

32.385X1.27
32.385X1.27

PR
IS
M
51

51

51
M
IS
PR

51

51

APPENDIX C
Comparison of Rigid and Flexible Fatigue-life Predictions

51

Rigid

Life
24.8

Flex

56.6

5407

5406

5405

5403

Rigid

Life
5.9

Rigid

Life
0.9

Flex

82.7

Flex

27.6

5402

Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Life
104.4
198.3

5607

Rigid
Flex

Life
116.1
603.9

Rigid
Flex

Life
19.1
311.2

Life
21.7

Flex

52.8

Rigid
Flex

Life
89.3
160.9

Life
2.4

5601
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

5805
Rigid
Flex

5803

Rigid

Life
6.0

Flex

57.5

Life
81.7
156.7

5802

Life
1.2
31.8

Rigid
Flex

5801
Life
1.2
32.4

Rigid
Flex

Clamped joint

Conductor Guide Framing at Elevation 24 ft

52

Life
2.0
5.0

5702

Life
6.5
71.3

Life
1.2
3.7

5603

8.5

5706

Life
10.6
21.0

Life
0.2
0.6

Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

5605

5806
Rigid
Flex

Life
0.3
0.7

Life
40.17
3300

5807
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Rigid

Life
11.7
12.8

Rigid
Flex

Life
1.3
5.7

Rigid
Flex

Life
3.7
40.8

Rigid
Flex
Rigid
Flex

5401

F
Life
44.1
71.6

Rigid
Flex

Life
297.9
2021.9

7107

7101
Life
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Life
1076.1
48981

5107

Rigid
Flex

Life
11.6
381.2

Rigid
Flex

5104

Transverse Frame A

53

Life
14.1
424.4

272.0
2146.6

Rigid
Flex

5101

Life
3269.7
80218

Rigid
Flex

Life
277.7
3008.5

7207

7201
Life
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Life
3375.5
77365

5207

Rigid
Flex

Life
10.9
52.7

Rigid
Flex

5204

Transverse Frame B

54

Life
13.5
350.4

271.7
2049.0

Rigid
Flex

5201

Life
6178.4
66934

Rigid
Flex

Life
254.6
1556.4

7307

7301
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Life

Rigid

Life
8.6

Rigid

Life
8.6

13.8
6462

Flex

334.8

Flex

493.4

5307

5304

Transverse Frame C

55

Life
255.4
1702.0

Life
Rigid
Flex

5301

4251.8
32759

Rigid
Flex

Life
49.2
248.5

7407

7401
Life
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Life
1334.3
12457

5407

Rigid
Flex

Life
1.1
43.6

Rigid
Flex

5404

Transverse Frame D

56

Life
1.2
33.8

45.0
251.6

Rigid
Flex

5401

Life
244.1
16653

Life
Rigid
Flex

432.0
2341.5

7607

Rigid
Flex

Life
3900.0
19606

5607

Rigid
Flex

7601

Life
4.1
35.3

Rigid
Flex

5604

Transverse Frame E

57

Life
4.5
179.0

Rigid

Life
414.0

Flex

1812.6

Rigid
Flex

5601

Life
2043.3
6856.5

Rigid
Flex

Life
47.4
233.8

7807

7801
Life
Rigid
Flex

Rigid
Flex

Life
741
16216

5807

Rigid
Flex

Life
1.27
31.2

Rigid
Flex

5804

Transverse Frame F

58

Life
1.29
31.5

45.4
235.9

Rigid
Flex

5801

Life
836
20747

7101

Rigid
Flex

5201

7201

Life
365
1984.9

Flex

Life
3.09
34.0

1941.8

Rigid

Rigid
Flex

Life
330

5301

Rigid
Flex

Flex

Rigid

Life
3.05
34.0

7401

632.7

Life
109

5401

Rigid
Flex

59

Longitudinal Frame 1

7301

Life
1.52
25.7

Rigid
Flex

5601

7601

Life
292.4
1888.4

Rigid
Flex

Life
3.09
34.8

Flex

Rigid

Life
321.6
1777.4

Rigid
Flex

5801
Life
3.37
35.5

Rigid
Flex

Life

9.85
117.2

5107

5207
Rigid
Flex

567.0
3194.0

Flex

Life
Rigid

7207

7.66
114.3

Rigid
Flex

615.0
3692.5

5407
3.6
32.7

Life

Flex

Rigid

Life

7407

60

Longitudinal Frame 2

5307
Life

7307

Life

118.2

Rigid
Flex

5607

221.7
1179.4

Life
7.95

Rigid
Flex

7607

Rigid
Flex

7.58
120.3

Life

3374.2

Flex

Life
647.0

Rigid

7807

744
3754.3

Flex

Life
Rigid

Printed and published by the Health and Safety Executive

C0.35
2/02

ISBN 0-7176-2288-6

OTO 2001/056

15.00

9 780717 622887