Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 341

Adequate linearization scheme for a jack-

up in order to obtain sufficiently accurate


fatigue assessments using a linear
stochastic fatigue analyses

Marius Tveit Karlsson

Marine Technology
Submission date: June 2017
Supervisor: Sverre Kristian Haver, IMT
Co-supervisor: Jørgen Amdahl, IMT

Norwegian University of Science and Technology


Department of Marine Technology
Preface

This Master Thesis is the final project after 5 years at the Norwegian University
of Technology and Science. This has been a 5 year journey with the best of what
Norway has to offer when it comes to technology and science. Five years that has
provided me with huge amounts of knowledge in highly specialized fields, but also
in more wide senses. It has been a joy to absorb the greatness of academia in the
professional, but also in the non professional way.
The journey has been long. A lot of people have contributed to make it exciting
and interesting. First of all i would like to thank my supervisors Jørgen Amdahl
and Sverre Haver. I have been extremely privileged to have two of you. The
benefit of discussing with two such knowledgeable people is huge. It is vital for
academic institution that such people with eager for their field and willingness
to teach others are present. Their input has been crucial for the quality of the
thesis. The meetings has been entertaining on all fronts, and I have always looked
forward to these. I have always come out of these meetings with new motivation
and new insight. I wish my supervisors all the best and hope to contact them with
professional questions also in the future.
Antonio Goncalves and DNV GL has been contributing by pointing on relevant
literature and providing me with models and drawings. The help is appreciated.
I would also like to thank my family, who have always been there for me. They
have provided me with financial support such that I have been able to focus full
time on my studies. They have also encouraged me in times when motivation has
been on lower levels. They are inspirational people who i admire.
My colleagues and friends on office C1.084 also contribute to make every day at
the office a joy. They all contributes in their own individual way to make the day
interesting and entertaining. They also possess a lot of knowledge to supplement
with my own in interesting discussions about marine structures as well as world
economics.
To all the lads.
Abstract

Different techniques for linearizing the response of drag dominated structures is in


this work inspected in terms of fatigue damage. To establish reference response
characteristics, time domain simulations are carried out. Time domain simulations
must be considered as state of the art methods for estimating fatigue damage., but
do however demand huge computational capabilities.
Linear potential theory is used to calculate wave kinematics. To compensate for the
deviation to higher order wave kinematics, adjusted drag coefficients are used. The
JONSWAP spectrum is used to generate stochastic surface elevation and forces,
which is realized using both randomness in phase and amplitude. This insures that
a signal is never repeated within a short term sea state.
Stress concentration factors are used to generate stress processes from beam reac-
tions. To calculate both cycle ranges, and amount of cycles, the rainflow algorithm
is utilized, which result in stress range records that are used as input to SN curves
and miner summation.
Ground conditions are selected to give a highest natural period of 7.67s, which
is within energetic areas of the scatter diagram. Large dynamical amplifications
contribute to move most important fatigue damage sea state down to a spectral
peak period of 8.5s.
The linearization consists of evaluating the response of the structure to different
harmonic input components with different frequencies in order to create transfer
functions. In this regard, the question is how the wave heights used as input to these
harmonic components is selected. Three schemes of selecting these are inspected.
The two most promising are achieved by keeping the steepness or the ratio between
height and period constant. They overestimate the total accumulated damage
during 56 years by 20 % and 100% respectively. The steepness or the constant
height-period ratio is calibrated by matching a spectrally calculated wave action
with a deterministic calculated wave action. This calibration process is working
well, and gives reasonable calibrated values. Both methods tend to be efficient and
gives reasonable results. Whether the constant steepness approach is conservative
might be questioned especially at higher frequencies. The constant height-period
ratio however insures conservatism also at larger frequencies.
It might also be possible to switch the drag term to a linear term and replace the
drag coefficient by a linear drag coefficient. This might open up for the use of
simpler explicit methods to select appropriate calibrated values.

2
Sammendrag

Ulike teknikker for å linearisere responsen av dragdominerte strukturer er i dette


arbeidet inspisert når det gjelder utmattingsskader. For å etablere referansere-
sponser utføres tidsplansimuleringer. Tids plan simuleringer regnes som den mest
eksakte metoden for å estimere utmattingsskader, men krever imidlertid store
beregningsmessige ressurser.
Lineœr potensialteori brukes til å beregne bølgekinematikk. For å kompensere
for avviket til høyere ordens bølgekinematikk, brukes justerte drakoeffisienter.
JONSWAP-spekteret brukes til å generere stokastisk bølgeoverflate og krefter, som
realiseres ved hjelp av både tilfeldighet i fase og amplitude. Dette sikrer at et signal
aldri gjentas i en kort sjøtilstand.
Spenningskonsentrasjonsfaktorer brukes til å generere spenningsprosesser fra bjelk-
ereaksjoner. For å beregne både syklusvidde og mengder sykluser, benyttes rain-
flow algoritmen, noe som resulterer i sykel-vidde data som brukes som input til
SN-kurver og Miner-summering.
Bunnforholdene er valgt for å gi en høyeste egenperiode på 7,67s, som ligger innen-
for det energiske områder av scatterdiagrammet. Store dynamiske forsterkninger
bidrar til å flytte viktigste tretthetskader sjøtilstand ned til en spektral peakperiode
på 8,5 år.
Lineariseringen består av å evaluere strukturens respons til forskjellige harmoniske
inputkomponenter med forskjellige frekvenser for å skape transferfunksjoner. I
denne forbindelse er spørsmålet hvordan bølgehøyder som brukes som input til
disse harmoniske komponentene, velges. Tre måter å bestemme disse på blir in-
spisert. De to mest lovende oppnås ved å holde steilheten eller forholdet mellom
høyde og periode konstant. Det gir et overestimat i skade på henholdsvis 20%
og 100% gjennom 56 år akkumulert skade. Steilhet eller konstant høyde-periode
forhold kalibreres ved å matche en spektralberegnet bølgekraft med en determinis-
tisk beregnet bølgekraft. Denne kalibreringsprosessen fungerer godt, og gir rimelige
kalibrerte verdier.
Begge metodene ser ut til å vœre effektive og gir rimelige resultater. Hvorvidt
den konstante steilhet-tilnœrmingen er konservativ, kan bli stilt spørsmålstegn ved
spesielt ved høyere frekvenser. Den konstante høyde-periode tilnœrmingen sikrer
imidlertid konservatisme også ved større frekvenser.
Det kan også vœre mulig å bytte drag leddet til en lineœr term og erstatte dragko-
effisienten med en lineœr dragkoeffisient. Dette kan åpne for bruk av enklere,
eksplisitte uttrykk for å velge passende kalibrerte verdier.
Contents

1 Introduction 17
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
1.2 Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.3 Deviation from problem description . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1.4 Contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

2 Jack-up rig CJ-62 19


2.1 Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.2 Design challenges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

3 Metocean data 22
3.1 Location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.2 Short term wave statistics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 Long term wave statistics: scatter diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Current . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Wind . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

4 Loads and responses 27


4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis . . . . . . 27
4.1.1 Mass matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.2 Stiffness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
4.1.3 Damping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
4.1.4 Forces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
4.1.5 Linear wave kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.1.6 Drag coefficient for linear wave theory and higher order wave
theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
4.2 Spring connections to ground . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.3 Eigenvalue analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.4 Solving the dynamic and quasi static equation of motion . . . . . . . 42
4.5 Overshoot and errors in initial responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.6 Irregular sea surface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.6.1 Alternative integration technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49

5 Fatigue analysis of tubular joints 53


5.1 Fatigue damage in this work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
5.2 Joint selection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
5.3 Miner summation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
5.4 SN curves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.5 Stresses in joints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.5.1 Stress concentration factors and super positioning of stresses 58

6
CONTENTS

5.6 Cycle counting using rainflow and the WAFO toolbox . . . . . . . . 62


5.7 Stochastic fatigue analysis in thr frequency domain . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.7.1 Stress response spectrum . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.7.2 Discrete Fourier transform of signal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

6 Time domain simulation 68


6.1 Hydrodynamic damping, and dynamic influence . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
6.2 Fitting the short term stress range with Weibull probability distri-
bution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.3 Damage of same sea state with different realizations . . . . . . . . . 72
6.4 Weibull parameters for several short term sea states . . . . . . . . . 76
6.5 Fatigue damage from short term sea states . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.6 Damage in the scatter format . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.7 Conclusive remarks for time domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

7 Linearization 80
7.1 Motivation for proper drag force treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.2.1 Linearization schemes included in analysis . . . . . . . . . . . 83
7.2.2 Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.2.3 Calibration at the center of fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
7.2.4 Static transfer functions comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
7.2.5 Dynamic transfer functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
7.2.6 Calibration for every sea state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
7.3 Linearization by changing the drag coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

8 Conclusion 108

9 Recommendations for further work 110

Appendices 113

A Linearization and time domain results and tables 114


A.1 Calibration ratios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
A.2 Short term sea state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
A.3 Long term sea state (56 years) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117

B Stress range distributions from 93 sea states 118

C Problem description 165

7
List of Figures

2.1 Finite element model of the jack-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19


2.2 Chords and braces on a truss . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

3.1 Ekofisk location . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22


3.2 Scatter diagram of the Ekofisk field during 56 years [Aarsnes, 2015] . 24
3.3 Oscillating drag term for different currents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

4.1 Damping ratio as a function of frequency . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31


4.2 Decomposition of the drag term . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
4.3 Chord cross sectional area. The different color at the tips indicates
that these are the areas which the gears are . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.4 Wave particle velocity under crest and through for 5th order stoke
waves, and stretched airy waves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.5 Difference in forces for linear theory and higher order wave theory,
for one wave component. Discontinuities are due to change in com-
ponents at +2m . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.6 Different types of ground fixation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.7 Bottom model of one of the legs. Left: rotation springs, Right:
Translation springs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.8 Error in amplitude and period from [Hughes, 2000] . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.9 Algorithmic damping. From: [Hughes, 2000] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.10 Relative periodical error. From: [Hughes, 2000] . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
4.11 Comparison of energy overshoot for n time steps, from [Hilber and
Hughes, 1978] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4.12 Initial stress with one harmonic input component . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.13 PM spectrum for different sea states and summation technique . . . 48
4.14 Integration techniques. Without randomness in amplitude (left)
with some randomness in amplitude (right) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.15 Autocorrelation of surface elevation With and without randomness
in amplitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
4.16 Autocorrelation of surface elevation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.17 Linearized Rayleigh distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.1 Location of critical joint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55


5.2 Example on allowable combinations of mean stress and stress am-
plitude . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
5.3 Superposition of joint contributions and the eight locations of stress
evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
5.4 Chord cross sectional geometry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
5.5 Stress process over a short, and shorter time interval . . . . . . . . . 61

8
LIST OF FIGURES

5.6 Stress process over a short, and shorter time interval . . . . . . . . . 61


5.7 Rainflow counting scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
5.8 WAFO cycles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
5.9 Zero up crossing counting. Zero up crossings marked as black dots . 63
5.10 Cumulative distribution in Weibull paper of zero up crossing count-
ing vs rainflow counting. D is the total accumulated damage during
3h . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
5.11 Example of spectrum with and without averaging. JONSWAP with
HS = 4.5, TP = 8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

6.1 Short term stress repsonse with and without hydrodynamic damping
and static analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Linearized 3 parameter weibull plot of stress range during a 3h re-
alization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
6.3 Linearized 3 parameter weibull plot of stress range during a 3h re-
alization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
6.4 Distribution of total damage for different realizations of the same
sea state . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
6.5 Weibull plot of the two realizations that gives most and least damage
during a 3h simulation, fitted with 3 parameter Weibull distribution.
Keep in mind that ln(∆σ) is on the axis, not the ln(∆σ − λ) . . . . 75
6.6 Distribution of the three parameters in the Weibull fit for different
realizations. A total of 48 realizations of the same sea state are
included . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
6.7 Weibull parameter values for different sea states. Data points are
indicated with circular dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
6.8 Number of cycles for different short term 3h sea states, Data points
are indicated with circular dots . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
6.9 Short term damage calculated by both the probability distribution
and by counting, Data points are indicated with circular dots . . . . 78

7.1 Ratio between amplitudes of drag force and inertia force as a func-
tion of wave height . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
7.2 Short term stress response fro comparison of drag vs no drag. HS =4.5,
TP =8.5 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7.3 Short term stress distribution (3h) for drag vs no drag . . . . . . . . 83
7.4 Constant wave steepness curves with cutoff at one year return period 85
7.5 Wave heighs used as input given constant ratio between wave height
and period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
7.6 Transfer functions from wave elevation to wave action with different
constant steepness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
7.7 Most probable maximum of total applied wave action (quasi-static
base shear). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
7.8 Proportional accumulated damage for different sea states. The cen-
tre of fatigue contains a red dot. Ekofisk scatter diagram is used . . 90
7.9 Dynamic stress transfer functions, for the calibrated steepness . . . . 91

9
LIST OF FIGURES

7.10 Damage during short term sea states (3h) using transfer functions at
the center of fatigue and constant wave steepness. Be aware of the
different values on the color axis. Keep in mind that the values of m
is only used to estimate the center of fatigue, and are not involved
in the damage calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
7.11 Total damage during 56 years, linearized method. Keep in mind
that the values of m is only used to estimate the center of fatigue,
and are not involved in the damage calculation. . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
7.12 Comparison of steepness-linearized static transfer function of stress
with stochastic time domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
7.13 Comparison of height-period-linearized static transfer function of
stress with stochastic time domain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 96
7.14 Static stress transfer functions with JONSWAP spectrum used to
generate input wave heights, compared with time domain simula-
tions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
7.15 SComparison of all schemes, static transfer functions . . . . . . . . . 98
7.16 Dynamic stress transfer functions with constant wave steepness,
compared with time domain simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
7.17 Dynamic stress transfer functions with constant height period ratio,
compared with time domain simulations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
7.18 Dynamic stress transfer functions with JONSWAP spectrum used
to generate input wave heights, compared with time domain simu-
lations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
7.19 Comparison of dynamic transfer functions from all schemes . . . . . 102
7.20 Comparison of short term damage for different linearizations (c =
H/T ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
7.21 Comparison of short term damage for different linearizations (c =
H/T ) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
7.22 Linearization factors for Morison’s equation for estimating expected
fatigue damage when the SN-slope, m=1, 3, 4 and 5 represented
by full, dotted, dashed and dash-dotted lines, respectively. From:
[Wolfram, 1998] . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

10
List of Tables

2.1 Operational properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.1 Damping ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30


4.2 Coefficients in Morison’s equation for perfectly cylindrical members . 34
4.3 Coefficients in Morison’s equation for braces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.4 Drag coefficients for chords, z is the distance from the mean surface
level, positive upwards. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5 Drag coefficients for chords, with the use of NORSOK scaling to
compensate for Gaussian sea surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6 Spring coefficients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.7 Eigenperiods and eigenmodes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.8 Coefficients for numerical integration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

5.1 Stress concentration factors for braces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

6.1 Short term sea states (3h) with and without hydrodynamic damping
in addition to a pure static simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
6.2 Standrad deviations for stress
q process and surface
q elevation process
1
PN 2 1
PN 2
HS = 4.5, TP = 8.5. sσ = N i=1 σi , sζ = N i=1 ζi . . . . . 74
6.3 Short term damage of structure (3h) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
6.4 Long term damage of structure during 56 years . . . . . . . . . . . . 79

7.1 Damage and standard deviation during 3h for different values of CD .


TP = 8.5, HS = 4.5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
7.2 Significant wave height with one year return period for the Ekofisk
field . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
7.3 Deterministic most probable wave action, Hcutof f = 9.26m . . . . . 89
7.4 Centre of fatigue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
7.5 Calibrated steepness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
7.6 The ratio between structural response velocity amplitude and water
particle velocity amplitude for 2 cases, with harmonic input, mea-
sured in surface area (drag coefficient of 1.15 is used for the whole
structure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
H
A.1 Steepness, defined as T2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

11
List of symbols

HS Significant wave height


TP Spectral peak period
m0 Variance of a spectrum
Sζζ Surface elevation spectrum function
f Frequency
γ Peakedness parameter
g Gravity
uw wave particle velocity
uc Current velocity
V wind velocity
τ Constant
z0 Constant
F Force vector
M Mass matrix
m Element mass matrix
C Damping matrix
K Stiffness matrix
r, ṙ, r̈ Response vector, velocity and acceleration
ρw Density sea water
D Diameter
U Internal strain energy
E Modulus of elasticity
u,x , v,x , w,x Derivative of displacements
Ix , Iy Second moment of area
H Potential of external loads
δ Notation for virtual of the following measure (e.g. work, displacement)
N Normal force
A Cross sectional area

12
LIST OF TABLES

φT element shape functions


α1 , α2 Damping coefficients
ξ Damping ratio
ω Circular frequency
CD , CM Drag and inertia coefficients
u, w Fluid velocity in x and z direction
ax , az Fluid acceleration in x and z direction
T Period
φ Velocity potential
ζ Surface elevation
x,z Horizontal and vertical coordinates
z0 Stretched z coordinate
d Depth
CD0 Inline drag coefficient for cylinder with rack mount
CD1 Drag coefficient with rack perpendicular to flow
FD Drag force
FM Inertia force
kx , ky , kz , kθx , kθy , kθz Spring coefficients for ground
ωn Natural frequency
rn Natural mode
α, γ, β Parameters of time integration algorithm
¯
xi Algorithmic damping
T̄ Algorithmic period
S(ω) Input surface elevation spectrum
∆ω Frequency increment
φi Random phase
Trep Repetition period of signal
R(τ ) Auto correlation
FH (h) Cumulative probability distribution of h
D Damage
σ Stress
σa Stress amplitude
N Allowable cycles
log(ā) Constant in SN-curve
k Thickness exponent
σ1 − σ8 Locations for stress measurement
SCF Stress concentration factor
σx , σmy , σmz Axial and bending stress
Tn Natural period
∆σ Stress range
f∆σ Probability distribution of stress range

13
LIST OF TABLES

S̃(ω) Estimated spectrum from fatigue


s Standard deviation
µ Mean
η Degree of freedom in χ dist.
χ2 Chi distribution
F∆σ Cumulative distribution of stress range
β, λ, α Distribution parameters in weibull 3 parameter dist.
FD,a , DM,a Drag and inertia amplitude
sσ Standard deviation in stress
G Parameter for scaling a JONSWAP like input wave-height
∆FM P M Range in most probable maximum in wave actions (base shear)
HM P M Most probable maximum wave height
C(C,L) Equivalent linear drag coefficient
Fp Force peak
C (m) Ratio to calculate equivalent drag coefficient
γ(, ), Γ(, ) lower and upper incomplete gamma functions
Γ() Gamma function
σu2 Variance of velocity
K Parameter to select equivalent drag coefficient

14
Abbreviations

CPU Central processing unit


JONSWAP Joint North Sea Wave Project
SCF Stress concetration factor

15
Chapter 1
Introduction

1.1 Background
Fatigue is dependent on the stress range of the cyclic loading rather than the stress
itself. This means that materials subject to cyclic stresses well bellow yield, may
experience critical cracks after a certain amount of cycles. This becomes a vital
phenomenon for offshore structures due to the cyclic nature of the wave loadings.
In stochastic fatigue analysis the relation between forces in each members and
wave height is calculated with the assumption that there exist a linear relationship
between the wave height and the resulting force. However, typically jacket and jack-
up with lattice leg design are drag dominated. The drag forces are proportional to
the square of the wave particle velocity. For such structures, the wave height to
wave force relation is therefore not linear.
In offshore industry, linearization with respect to wave height is generally used. It
is based on the selection of a characteristic wave height for each wave frequency
of interest. Constant wave steepness is frequently used as such characteristics
to select the linearized wave height. However, there are no proper guidelines or
recommendations for selection the correct wave steepness for a specific sea state.
Furthermore constant wave steepness usually results in over predicted drag at small
wave frequencies and under predicted drag at large wave frequencies.
The fatigue damage at jack-ups are strongly dependent on the assumptions made
in the linearization. Hence this might result in adding to much conservatism in
order to rely on the analysis. An appropriate linearization scheme is needed in
order to get more confidence in the results.

17
1.2 Scope

1.2 Scope
The scope of this thesis will be to investigate the linearization scheme with con-
stant steepness, but also look into others. The goal is to come up with schemes that
gives the correct amount of damage. To estimate the correct amount of damage,
time domain simulations with stochastic input loads should be used. The com-
puter program USFOS is used in order to perform these calculations. Such rime
domain simulations require huge amounts of computational efforts and data han-
dling. Hence they are not widely used in the offshore industry to estimate fatigue
damage. In order to deal with these large computational demands, the need of
multicore processing power is essential. Parallel processing will be carried out by
running USFOS in parallel through MATLAB.
Detailed screening of critical heading and location of critical stress will not be
conducted. The focus will be on the linearization for the particular selected joint.
Furthermore there will be no effort given to use second order surface elevation.
The final goal for the work is to come up with linearization schemes designed
for each block in the scatter diagram. These schemes should give a conservative
amount of damage.

1.3 Deviation from problem description


Together with the supervisor it has been decided to exclude the following tasks
from the problem description due to work load. See appendix C for the full problem
description.
• Detailed analysis of current, and how current will invoke with linearizations,
and the importance of current is not considered, however a brief discussion
of the importance of current is included.
• Dividing the weather in different directional sectors will not be carried out.

1.4 Contributions
USFOS analysis has been implemented in MATLAB with the use of the parallel
toolbox. This will enable future students to run USFOS through a familiar pro-
graming environment, and at the same time having access to the power of multi-core
CPUs. The real benefit of this is when USFOS executions are part of perplexed
algorithms.
More confidence on linearization techniques used in offshore industry, can from
this work be taken. In addition a more conservative linearization scheme has been
developed by using height-period ratio as tuning parameter instead of steepness.

18
Chapter 2
Jack-up rig CJ-62

In general a jack-up is a platform that has the ability elevate the topside relative
to the legs. In addition to this it has the ability to float by itself when the legs are
not in contact with the bottom. Different jack-up concepts exist where differences
exist in both size and amount of legs, as well as in other parameters.
The jack-ups are usually seen as mobile drilling units, however they can also be used
for installation of wind turbines and demolition of aging offshore installations. In
operational phase the platforms are attached to the sea floor, making them stable
compared to floating units of similar size, and suitable for delicate work. This
combination of stability and mobility are what makes jack-ups attractive.

Figure 2.1: Finite element model of the jack-up

19
2.1 Design

2.1 Design
The deck structure of the platform is formed as a equilateral triangle, and has three
elevatable legs. This particular model is designed by the engineering company
GustoMSC, and is classified by DNV GL.
The outer dimensions of the legs seen from above is equivalent to a equilateral
triangle with 16 meter sides. Between the center of two of these legs, there are 62
meters. Furthermore the platform is designed to operate on depth as large as 130
meters, making this a large piece of construction.
A typical jack-up platform, including this, has legs made of trusses. These trusses
has slender members compared to wavelength. They are also in fact slender com-
pared to typical jacket structures. Leg design is based on triangular trusses with
x-braces. In addition to braces, the trusses consist of chords. The difference be-
tween a brace and a chord is illustrated figure 2.2.

Chord

Brace

Figure 2.2: Chords and braces on a truss

The ability to elevate the deck structure comes with certain aspects. This includes
a system to elevate the whole deck structure on three legs. Keeping in mind that
the platform deck is a heavy structure this is a demanding task. This task is
accomplished by attaching racks to the chords. The platform deck can then be
elevated using gears. This means that in total nine racks are used to elevate the
whole platform. These also introduces certain hydrodynamical properties. Non-
circular geometry on the chords results in larger drag forces.
Depth ranges between 70m to 75m in the Ekofisk area where the platform location is
assumed. However this particular jack-up model support water depth considerably
deeper. At larger water depths the wave actions will inherit more overturning
moment. Hence this analysis is investigating a larger water depth than what is
present at the Ekofisk field.
In a design process wave heading direction must be accounted for. The directions
might be splitted in sectors on 15 degrees. Due to symetry for this particular
triangular platform, only inspection of a heading of 0 to 60◦ are needed. In this
work only the wave heading of 0◦ is inspected.

20
2.2 Design challenges

Water depth Air gap Wave direction


110m 43m 0◦

Table 2.1: Operational properties

2.2 Design challenges


The jack-up design comes with certain challenges. The relatively thin leg design
with no stiffening in between legs makes the platform flexible compared to other
fixed offshore installation. With low stiffness the natural period of the platform
becomes significantly higher than jacket structures, and moves the period closer to
high energy regions of the scatter diagram.
This induces large dynamic responses in translation of the deck as well as twisting.
This demands a proper dynamical treatment of the motion of the platform in the
analysis perspective.
Another aspect of the jack-up design is that it has slender members. Structural
members becomes more and more drag dominated as they become thinner. Drag
forces posses a nonlinear nature, and can not be treated in the frequency domain in
the same manner as linear forces. This introduces assumptions and simplifications.
Another difficulty with the jack-up’s is the fact that they are mobile. In the design
phase it is not always known where the rig will operate during its life span. This
also contributes to a complicated fatigue analysis, and in order to do proper fatigue
analysis the load condition history is necessary since the loads will differ depending
on location. In addition the transportation of the platform will add a share of
fatigue damage.

21
Chapter 3
Metocean data

Environmental load data is established from meteorology and oceanography using


sensor measurements and statistical models. Environmental loads includes loads
from current, wind and waves. There is without doubt necessary to estimate these
loads in a accurate way.

3.1 Location
Wind, waves and current will vary depending on location. For instance the weather
in the North Sea is much harsher than in the Gulf of Mexico.
The wave record is used to describe the different wave statistics. The location for
these measurements is the Ekofisk field, which is located at 56.549197N,3.209986E,
south of the the Norwegian coast line, and can be seen in figure 3.1.

Figure 3.1: Ekofisk location

22
3.2 Short term wave statistics

3.2 Short term wave statistics


In offshore industry a short term sea state is typically defined as a surface elevation
process with a 3h duration. The two main parameters used to describe this surface
is the significant wave height and spectral peak period. Significant wave height
can be estimated by HS = 4m0 , where m0 is the variance of the surface elevation
process [Myrhaug, 2007]. The spectral peak period can be considered as the average
wave period during these 3h, or more precisely the period at which the peak of the
wave specter occur.
A wave spectra is a mathematical description of the short term sea state behavior.
These relations describes the energy present at every frequency present during
these 3h. Wave spectra from measurements are not always on hand in a design
phase. Standardized spectra is then frequently used to describe the surface. They
depend upon what kind of sea conditions that is present. A typical breakdown is
the following three wave conditions [Haver, 2017].

Wind sea

This is a condition generated from local winds.

Swell sea

This is a sea condition where the waves are not generated by local wind. It can
typically be described as a rather narrow banded wave spectrum.

Combined sea

In practice almost every sea state will have one component generated from local
wind and one from swell.

In the combined case, the waves generated form local wind will in general follow
the direction of the wind. In addition the components from swell sea can typically
propagate in another direction. For most applications conservatism is achieved
by assuming that these will follow the same direction. For cases of combined
sea, the Torsethaugen spectrum should be applied, which is a two peak spectrum.
Depending on the how much the two peaks differ, this might induces problems with
narrow banded assumptions.
In this project it is assumed that local wind is the only contributing condition, and
that the sea is growing. This implies that the JONSWAP spectrum is suitable.

23
3.3 Long term wave statistics: scatter diagram

This is a spectrum is based on studies conducted in the seventies in the southern


North Sea sin the area of the Ekofisk field. This spectrum is given by equation 3.1

f −fp 2
exp(−0.5( σfp ) )
Sζζ (f ) = 0.3125HS2 TP−4 f −5 exp(−1.25t−4
p f
−4
)(1 − 0.287 ln(γ))γ
(3.1)
Where fp = 1/TP and σ is 0.07 for f ≤ fp and 0.09 otherwise. The peakedness
parameter can be defined as in equation 3.2 [Haver, 2017]
2πHS 6/7
γ = 42.2( ) (3.2)
gTP2
For simplicity the peakedness parameter will be taken as γ = 3.3 in this work.

3.3 Long term wave statistics: scatter diagram


Hindcast data is created for every 3h. Each of these short sea states comes with
a significant wave height and a spectral peak period. These data can be grouped
together for values of significant wave height and spectral peak period of similar
magnitude in order to form a scatter diagram. A scatter diagram for the Ekofisk
for 56 years is seen in figure 3.2.
2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5 84 2440 9795 8508 4072 2487 1958 1335 846 473 302 159 75 66 43 18 13 5 2 32681
1.5 109 3925 14361 18546 11615 5862 4112 3278 1846 865 299 183 96 59 19 9 1 65185 Cutoff
2.5 7 641 7358 13621 7142 2828 1662 1439 993 412 155 83 18 7 4 0 36370
3.5 1 256 3121 8071 3685 1239 546 363 246 125 62 27 11 4 0 17757
4.5 1 55 2120 3936 1505 512 185 63 46 48 8 5 0 1 8485
5.5 1 172 1135 1455 582 189 29 24 11 8 1 3607
6.5 142 449 417 221 42 13 7 0 1 1292
7.5 7 70 143 112 44 19 6 0 1 402
8.5 8 29 61 31 12 8 3 152
9.5 1 6 17 25 14 13 1 77
10.5 1 7 9 7 7 1 32
11.5 3 5 4 0 12
12.5 1 1
84 2549 13727 23511 30233 30900 25325 17180 10513 5994 3315 1362 678 411 169 63 30 7 2 166053

Figure 3.2: Scatter diagram of the Ekofisk field during 56 years [Aarsnes, 2015]

This data is essential for fatigue analysis. The values of TP and HS is distributed
within each sea states, however the mean values is the only values considered in
this work, i.e. for a sea state with a period in the range TP ∈ [2, 3] seconds will be
treated as 2.5, even though the values will be spread throughout the whole 2 to 3
interval. Significant wave heights bellow 2m is considered to be uninteresting and
are not included in the analysis.

3.4 Current
Current creates forces on the members introduced in the drag term as an additional
velocity. Currents are slowly varying with time, and can be considered steady

24
3.4 Current

compared to wave actions. The importance of current might be illustrated by


equation 3.3. Wherein the drag term of Morison’s equation is proportional to the
square of velocity. In the most critical sea conditions regarding fatigue for this
particular platform the wave induced water particle speed in the upper part of the
water column is in the range of 1.3m/s to 2m/s.
(uw + uc )2 = u2w + 2uw uc + u2c (3.3)
uw is wave induced water particle velocity and uc is velocity from current. As the
current is constant in nature it is possible to think that it will have low effect on
the fatigue damage. However as illustrated in equation 3.3 there exist a cross term.
This term will be oscillating due to the wave induced velocity, and be amplified
by the current. For a case of a typical current of 0.3 m/s in combination with an
important sea state of HS = 4.5 and TP = 8.5 gives a characteristic wave particle
velocity amplitude in the upper part of the water column of uw =1.7 m/s. This
will give the following amplitudes on the oscillating part of the drag force.
u2w + 2uw uc = 1.72 + 2(1.7)(0.3) = 2.9 + 0.9 (3.4)
For this rare current condition, the current will contribute to increase the total
oscillating wave particle amplitude by 30%. However the drag term also has a sign
change which for low currents will reduce the importance of the cross term.

|uw + uc |(uw + uc ) (3.5)


Assuming that the current is lower than the wave particle amplitude the range
between an amplitude and a valley in equation 3.5 will hence be
(uw + uc )2 + (uw − uc )2 = u2w + u2c (3.6)
Which is still relying on the current. However if the current is small compared
with the wave particle velocity it will no be as important. Figure 3.3 is included
to illustrate this. Due to the sign change, the the amplitude of the valleys will
increase and the range will hence not grow as fast as if the sign change did not
take place.

4
|uw cos(t)+uc|(uw cos(t)+uc)

u c/uw=0, max-min=2
3 u c/uw=0.2, max-min=2.1
u c/uw=0.4, max-min=2.3
2 u c/uw=0.6, max-min=2.7
u c/uw=0.8, max-min=3.3
1

-1
0 5 10 15
t

Figure 3.3: Oscillating drag term for different currents

25
3.5 Wind

Considering that the most important sea state has low to moderate wave particle
velocity there is a possibility that current will contribute a lot to fatigue damage.
In general, fatigue damage is proportional to the stress amplitude to the power of
m. Where m is typically between 3 and 5. In practical terms this means that a
stress increase of 15% will result in 1.155 = 2 times the damage. In terms of load
amplitude, 15% increase is present when the current is 40% of the wave particle
amplitude.
Even though current is an important parameter for drag, it also introduces certain
complexity to the process of linearizing the problem. Hence current is neglected in
this work.

3.5 Wind
Wind has a much lower density than water, and gives in general lower magnitude
of forces than wave actions. Wind do however add certain damage to a structure.
What is interesting in this regard is the huge air gap of 43 meters. This might be
even larger at certain locations. This is interesting because wind speed increases
with the height above the sea. A logarithmic increase in wind speed are commonly
used. Such a logarithmic relation can be seen in equation 3.7 [DNV GL, 2014a].
 
z
V (z) = τ ln (3.7)
z0

Where U is wind speed, z distance from mean sea level, τ and z0 are constants.
Most of the wind forces will be induced on the deck hull due to its structural shape,
and this is the highest part of the structure. This gives a higher wind force than
a regular air gap of 20 meters. However the logarithmic function will not grow in
huge scales by increasing z. The more important is the additional height added
to the overturning moment arm. Large wind speeds tends to coincide with large
sea states, and hence they should be included in an analysis. However wind is not
considered in this work.

26
Chapter 4
Loads and responses

4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static


analysis
Newton’s second law of motion form the basis of the dynamic equilibrium equation.

F = ma (4.1)

F = Sum of forces
m = mass
a = acceleration
By moving damping forces and restoring forces to the same side as the mass and
acceleration, the discrete dynamic equation for the finite element method becomes
equation 4.2.

Mr̈(t) + Cṙ(t) + Kr(t) = f (t) (4.2)


r, ṙ, r̈ = response, and time derivatives of response
K = Stiffness matrix
M = Mass matrix
C = Damping matrix
f (t) = Load vector
t = time
The quasi static equation is governed under the assumption of negligible accelera-
tions and velocities. This results in equation 4.3. The matrices and force vector in
these equations are discussed in the context of USFOS in the following sections.

Kr(t) = f (t) (4.3)

27
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

4.1.1 Mass matrix

The mass matrix have two contributions, the mass of the structure itself, and
the hydrodynamic added mass. The structural mass matrix can be set to either
consistent or or lumped in USFOS [Søreide et al., 1993]. The consistent, which
is used in this project, is based on interpolation functions for linear 3D beam.
This implies that it is not a truly “consistent formulation” with the more complex
shape functions used for the stiffness matrix. This is still accurate enough for most
practical purposes [Marintek, 2001]. The consistent mass matrix for a 6 dof beam
element is given by [Søreide et al., 1993]
 
140 0 0 70 0 0
 0 156 -22l 0 54 13l 
 2

m̄l  0
 -22l 4l 0 -13l -3l2 
m=  (4.4)
420  70 0 0 140 0 0  
 0 54 -13l 0 156 22l 
0 13l -3l2 0 22l 4l2

m = element stiffness matrix


m̄ = mass per unit length for beam
l = length of beam
The added mass forces have its origin in the radiation problem. The added mass
forces are proportional to the accelerations of the members. Thus it behaves as a
“added” mass in the dynamic equilibrium equation. The added mass is calculated
by the following equation in USFOS [Marintek, 2010].
ρw πD2
dFA = (CM − 1)dz r̈ (4.5)
| 4 {z }
Added mass

dFA = infinitesimal force on element


ρw = density of water
CM = Innertia coefficient
D = Hydrodynamic diameter
dz = infinitesimal lenght
r̈ = acceleration of element

4.1.2 Stiffness

USFOS utilizes a finite element formulation that includes geometrical nonlinearity.


For an elastic beam element the internal strain energy is written in equation 4.6
[Marintek, 2001].

1 l 1 l
Z Z
1 2 1 2 2 2 2
U= EA(u,x + v,x + w,x ) dx + (EIz v,xx + EIy w,xx )dx (4.6)
2 0 2 2 2 0
| {z } | {z }
Axial stiffness Bending stiffness

28
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

E = modulus of elesticity
A = cross sectional area of beam
l = length of beam element
v, w = lateral displacement
u = longitudinal displacement
Iz , Iy = Second moment of area
The potential of the external loads is written [Marintek, 2001].

Z l Z l Z l
H = −(Fi ui + qx udx + qy vdx + qz wdx) (4.7)
0 0 0

Fi = Point load in direction i


ui = displacement direction i
qx , qy , qz = Distributed loads
The variation of strain energy given in equation 4.8 is used to formulate the stiffness
matrix.
Z l Z l
N
δU = EAu,x δu,x dx + EIz (v,xx δv,xx −
v,x δv,x )dx
0 0 EIz
Z l Z l
N
+ EIy (w,xx δw,xx w,x δw,x )dx − (N + EAu,x )δu,x dx (4.8)
0 EIy 0

The element displacements are represented by shape functions φT . Test functions


are also expressed in the same way.

u(x) = φT qu (4.9)
T
v(x) = φ qv (4.10)
T
w(x) = φ qw (4.11)

For transverse displacement, the shape functions from the exact solution to the 4th
order differential equation for beams is used. For compression this reads,

φT = [cosh(kx), sinh(kx), x/L, 1] (4.12)


And for tension;
φT = [cos(kx), sin(kx), x/L, 1] (4.13)
|N |
k2 = EIz

Similar expressions are used for the displacement fields w(x) and u(x). A great
benefit for this type of element is that it allows simple modeling e.g. one element
per member [Marintek, 2001].

29
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

4.1.3 Damping

Both structural damping and hydrodynamic damping is present. The hydrody-


namic damping is included in the force vector due to the relative velocity in Morri-
son’s equation. Rayleigh damping is used for structural damping. Raleigh damping
holds important orthogonality properties.

C = α1 M + α2 K (4.14)
α2 = coefficient
α1 = coefficient
M = Mass matrix
C = Damping matrix
K = Stiffness matrix
The Rayleigh damping has one term that is proportional to the mass matrix and
one that is proportional to the stiffness matrix as seen in equation 4.14. Mass and
stiffness are orthogonal, thus the damping matrix formed by Raleigh damping must
be orthogonal. This enables the writing of equation 4.15.

1  α1 
ξ= + ωα2 (4.15)
2 ω
ξ = Damping ratio
ω = Frequency
The two coefficients can be used to specify the damping ratio at two frequencies.
The structural damping ratio should be 2-3% and soil damping 0-2% according
to [DNV GL, 2015]. Soil damping is neglected in this work. By specifying the
damping ratio at two frequencies, two equations can be established, and used to
find α1 and α2 .

ξ f
0.3 0.05
0.3 1

Table 4.1: Damping ratio

The damping ratio curve generated by Table 4.1 is depicted in figure 4.1, where
the red points are the ones given in Table 4.1. It is important to have structural
damping also for the larger sea states, thus the frequency of 0.05 is selected as
the lower limit, corresponding to a period of 20 s. Waves of significance are not
asociated with frequencies above 1 Hz (period of 1 s), thus this is selected as the
upper limit. The damping is at least 1.5% in the most important interval between
0.05 and 1 Hz, and not above 3 which is the upper limit in [DNV GL, 2015].

30
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

0.05

0.04

Damping ratio, 9
0.03

0.02

0.01
0 0.5 1 1.5
f (Hz)

Figure 4.1: Damping ratio as a function of frequency

4.1.4 Forces

Strip theory is assumed sufficient to describe the forces acting on the cylindrical
members. Strip theory is used together with Morisons’s equation to describe the
forces acting on the structure. Morison’s equation is given in equation 7.1 [Marin-
tek, 2010].

1 1
dF = ρπD2 CM a + CD ρDurel |urel | (4.16)
|4 {z } |2 {z }
Inertia Drag

ρ = Density of fluid
D = Diameter of pipe
CM = Inertia coefficient
CD = Drag coefficient
a = Fluid acceleration perpendicular to cylinder
urel = ux − ṙ Relative fluid speed perpendicular to cylinder
In order for the Morison’s equation to be valid, long waves are required [Faltinsen,
λ
1993]. In practical application the validity limit D > 5 is often used. The largest
structural members of the jack-up have a diameter of 0.75m. For linear potential
theory with deep water assumptions this implies that the lowest valid wave period
is according to equation 4.17. Wave periods bellow this limit is associated with
small amounts of energy and are not critical.
s
10πD
T > = 1.5s (4.17)
g
T =Wave period
D = Diameter of pipe
g = gravity acceleration

31
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

What should be noted is that the drag term has a nonlinear dependency on fluid
speed. It also results in force components oscillating with different frequencies. A
decomposition of the drag term results in the followingg different frequencies.

8 8 8
sin(x) −
sin(x)|sin(x)| = sin(3x) + sin(5x)... (4.18)
3π 15π 105π
Equation 4.18 and figure 4.18 illustrates how the drag term contains several fre-
quency components. This induces responses in several frequencies for a structure
subject to a regular wave with one frequency component. Hence in general, care
should be taken at waves that oscillates at three times the eigenperiod of the
structure. However for this structure the period of the waves at three times the
egienperiod of the structure will be 23s, which is both a period that is rare, and
that are seen in combinations with small wave heights.

1.5 1
sin(x)|sin(x)| 8/3pi sin(x)
1 8/3pi sin(x)-8/15pi sin(3x)+8/105pi sin(5x) -8/15pi sin(3x)
0.5 8/105pi sin(5x)
0.5

0 0
y

-0.5
-0.5
-1

-1.5 -1
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
x x

Figure 4.2: Decomposition of the drag term

4.1.5 Linear wave kinematics

Linear theory is used in order to describe wave kinematics. Linear theory is not
considered to give a sufficient representation of the kinematics in the surface area,
and at least second order wave kinematics should be used in a design process. In
this work the drag coefficients are tweaked in order to compensate for the difference
between linear and higher order theory. Linear theory is based on certain basic
assumptions.
• Incompressible fluid
• Inviscid fluid
• Irrotational fluid motion
• A velocity potential can be used to describe the fluid field
In addition to this kinematic boundary conditions and dynamic free-surface condi-
tion are applied. For a regular wave component this results in the velocity potential,

32
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

wave elevation, fluid particle speed, and acceleration found in equation 4.19 to 4.24
[Faltinsen, 1993]. This are kinematics acting in the xz plane.

gζa kz
φ= e cos(ωt − kx) (4.19)
ω
ζ(t) = ζa sin(ωt − kx) (4.20)

u = ωζa ekz sin(ωt − kx) (4.21)

w = ωζa ekz cos(ωt − kx) (4.22)

ax = ω 2 ζa ekz cos(ωt − kx) (4.23)

az = −ω 2 ζa ekz sin(ωt − kx) (4.24)


Due to linear theory several frequency components can be achieved by simply
superposition of waves with different frequencies.

4.1.6 Drag coefficient for linear wave theory and higher or-
der wave theory

The general consensus is that higher order wave theories is necessary to insure a
correct representation of the wave kinematics. However this is a procedure that
increase the computational demand significantly. If linear potential theory is used,
a simplification that can be used to compensate for nonlinear effects is to increase
the drag coefficients in a way that gives similar forces [NORSOK, 2007]. In linear
potential theory the wave kinematics are just defined up to the mean surface eleva-
tion meaning that values above this needs to be extapolated somehow. The method
used in this work, and that NORSOK has defined in combination with increased
drag coefficient is by wheeler stretching. This both stretches the kinematics up
to wave crest level, but also down to wave through. The stretching is carried out
according to equation 4.25.
d
z 0 = (z − ζ) (4.25)
d+ζ
z0 = new depth variable
z = old depth variable
ζ = surface elevation
d = depth

33
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

The drag coefficients recommended in NORSOK for both the stretched first order,
and higher order theory is given in table [NORSOK, 2007].

CD z values
1st order stretched 1.15 z > 2(m)
1st order stretched 1.15 z ≤ 2(m)
Higher order wave theory 0.65 z > 2(m)
Higher order wave theory 1.05 z ≤ 2(m)

Table 4.2: Coefficients in Morison’s equation for perfectly cylindrical members

4.1.6.1 Braces

The braces have regular circular cross section, which makes it possible to select
drag coefficients according to Table 4.3. The coefficients used for the braces in this
work, is given in Table 4.3, this is based upon what is recommended in [NORSOK,
2007], and [Goncalves, 2017].

CD CM z values
1.15 2.0 z > 2(m)
1.15 1.8 z ≤ 2(m)

Table 4.3: Coefficients in Morison’s equation for braces

4.1.6.2 Chords

The chords are not perfectly tubular, due to the rack that are mounted on the
chords. These racks are used to elevated the legs. However these racks induces
irregularities in the legs geometry and hydrodynamic properties. The legs will
have a different hydrodynamic profile depending on direction. This cross sectional
area can be seen in figure 4.3.

34
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

Figure 4.3: Chord cross sectional area. The different color at the tips indicates
that these are the areas which the gears are

The drag coefficient is adjusted to compensate for these irregularities in geometry.


For such cross sectional areas as the on above the relation in equation 4.26 [DNV
GL, 2014a]

W 9
CD = CD0 + (CD1 − CD0 ) sin2 ( (θ − 20◦ )) (4.26)
D 7
For cases where 20◦ ≤ θ ≤ 90◦ , W and D is defined as in figure 4.3, and for
this structure the ratio between them is W D = 1.05. The CD0 is the the regular
coefficient used for cirvular cylinders, and the CD1 is the drag coefficient for flow
normal to the rack (θ = 90◦ ). For a wave heading in the x-direction, the chords in
this structure will either have θ equal 90◦ or 60◦ . For the structure this results in
the drag coefficients given in Table 4.4.

CD1 CD0 z values CM CD for θ = 90◦ CD for θ = 60◦


2.04 0.65 z > 2(m) 2.0 2.14 1.56
2.04 1.05 z ≤ 2(m) 1.8 2.14 1.71

Table 4.4: Drag coefficients for chords, z is the distance from the mean surface
level, positive upwards.

Linear irregular Gaussian sea surface is to be used in the analysis. In order to

35
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

compensate for this, an increased drag coefficient can be used [NORSOK, 2007].
This is achieved by letting the drag coefficient be 1.15 over the whole depth for
regular cylinders. However in this case the drag depend on the angle and geometry.
Thus the same scaling is used for the drag coefficient for the chords as for regular
cylinders. This involves a scaling of 1.15
1.05 for the original coefficients valid for depths
above +2m, and let this drag coefficient be valid for the whole depth.

z values CM CD for θ = 90◦ CD for θ = 60◦


z > 2(m) 2.0 2.34 1.87
z ≤ 2(m) 1.8 2.34 1.87

Table 4.5: Drag coefficients for chords, with the use of NORSOK scaling to com-
pensate for Gaussian sea surface.

4.1.6.3 Comparison of higher order kinematics and adjusted stretched


kinematics

In order to tell weather or not the adjusted drag coefficients are conservative or
not, the wave kinematics and drag forces for one case is investigated. 5th order
stoke waves are used as reference, and a regular wave component is stepped through
the structure, and investigated under the crest and through. This results in the
velocity to depth relations given in figure 4.4.

H=6.5, T=8.5, crest H=6.5, T=8.5, Through


20 20

0 0

-20 -20
depth (m)

depth (m)

-40 -40

-60 -60

-80 -80

-100 stoke -100 stoke


stetch stech
-120 -120
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0
Wave particle velocity (m/s) Wave particle velocity (m/s)

Figure 4.4: Wave particle velocity under crest and through for 5th order stoke
waves, and stretched airy waves

The nonlinear wave has a larger maximum wave particle speed achieved under the
crest. Under the through however the stretching is the conservative. The resulting
forces are also of interest to compare. By dividing the drag forces by the terms not
of interest, a comparison can easily be carried out. This is the parameters except
drag coefficient and velocity, and is given in equation 4.27.

36
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

FD
= CD |u|u (4.27)
0.5Dρ

The results for drag forces acting on the chords that has a 60 degree angle on the
flow, the chords with 90 degrees angle on the flow and the braces are all included
under the though and crest in figure 4.5. The maximum forces are experienced
under the wave crest, and under the wave crest, the adjusted coefficient for linear
theory closes the gap in force between linear and stokes 5th order wave kinematics.
It is still not conservative when the largest force is considered. However under
the through, the adjusted coefficient with stretching gives much larger forces than
the higher order wave kinematics with regular drag coefficient. Considering the
high degree of dynamics that this structure inherit, it is not unlikely that this is
actually conservative due to the larger change in force between through and crest.
In addition to this, fatigue is sensitive to stress range, and not peak. If the range
in force is larger, the range in stress is also probably larger. Hence it is assumed
that the adjusted drag coefficient is a conservative approach for fatigue analysis.
Considering the scope of this work, it will neither be constructive usage of time to
work with higher order irregular wave kinematics.

37
4.1 Equation of motion for dynamic and quasi static analysis

H=6.5, T=8.5, Chords 90, crest H=6.5, T=8.5, Chords 90, through
10 10

0 0

-10 -10
depth (m)

depth (m)
-20 -20

-30 -30
stoke stoke
-40 stetch regular coef -40 stetch regular coef
stretch norsok adjusted stretch norsok adjusted
-50 -50
0 5 10 15 20 -15 -10 -5 0
F /(0.5 D ) F /(0.5 D )
D D

H=6.5, T=8.5, Chords 60, crest H=6.5, T=8.5, Chords 60, through
10 10

0 0

-10 -10
depth (m)

depth (m)

-20 -20

-30 -30
stoke stoke
-40 stetch regular coef -40 stetch regular coef
stretch norsok adjusted stretch norsok adjusted
-50 -50
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -10 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
FD/(0.5 D ) FD/(0.5 D )

H=6.5, T=8.5, Braces, crest H=6.5, T=8.5, Braces, through


10 10

0 0

-10 -10
depth (m)

depth (m)

-20 -20

-30 -30
stoke stoke
-40 stetch regular coef -40 stetch regular coef
stretch norsok adjusted stretch norsok adjusted
-50 -50
0 2 4 6 8 -8 -6 -4 -2 0
FD/(0.5 D ) FD/(0.5 D )

Figure 4.5: Difference in forces for linear theory and higher order wave theory,
for one wave component. Discontinuities are due to change in components at +2m

38
4.2 Spring connections to ground

4.2 Spring connections to ground


Different types of ground fixation exist for jackups. Two such types are exemplified
in figure 4.6. These systems utilizes the platform weight to be pushed down into
the ground, which fixates the legs in terms of bending and translation.

Figure 4.6: Different types of ground fixation

Structural integrity relies on bottom conditions. Overturning stability, stiffness,


responce at resconance etc. are all influenced by the bottom conditions [DNV GL,
2015]. Bottom conditions vary from location to location, and should be modeled
accordingly [DNV GL, 2015]. With no specific location for this report, the values in
Table 4.6 are used. These values gives quite a dynamic structure with a resonance
period of above 7 seconds.

𝑘𝜃𝑦
𝑘𝜃𝑥 𝑘𝑦 𝑘𝑥

𝑘𝑧
𝑘𝜃𝑧

Figure 4.7: Bottom model of one of the legs. Left: rotation springs, Right:
Translation springs

The bottom conditions are modeled as in figure 4.7. The bottom end of the leg are
modeled with larger pipe sections. In addition rotational and translational springs
are attached to the bottom node.

39
4.3 Eigenvalue analysis

Spring coefficient Assigned value


kx 4.000E+10 (N/m)
ky 4.000E+10 (N/m)
kz 5.000E+10 (N/m)
kθx 5.157E+10 (Nm)
kθy 5.157E+10 (Nm)
kθz 1.500E+10 (Nm)

Table 4.6: Spring coefficients

4.3 Eigenvalue analysis


Eigenfrequency or natural frequency are the oscillating periods the structure expe-
riences in the absence of damping and external forces. These periods are important
structural properties, and force excitation oscillating at these periods will result in
large responses. Equation 4.28 defines the eigenfrequencies [Langen and Sigbjorns-
son, 1986], and these can be solved in USFOS.

(K − ωn2 M)rn = 0 (4.28)


The amount of wetted surface and hence the water depth has a large influence on
the eigenfrequency due to the change in the added mass, which is also included
in the mass term, M. The eigenfrequency is also heavily reliant on the ground
conditions, due to the boundary conditions huge influence on the stiffness matrix
K. The 3 largest eigenperiods are presented in Table 4.7 alongside with the mode
shape.
A lot of smaller eigenperiods also exist for the structure. These are presented in
the bottom of Table 4.7 and have different modes. As described in Section 4.1.4,
excitations with smaller periods than the wave period are present in the drag term
in Morison’s equation. This might result in smaller amplitude oscillations that
might hit the smaller eigenperiods. However these oscillations are so small in size,
that it is probably not of any concern.

40
4.3 Eigenvalue analysis

Eigenmode Eigenperiod
Translation in yz plane 7.67s

Translation in xz plane 7.67s

Twisting about z axis 6.75s

0.609s
0.607s
0.590s
0.588s
0.587s
Smaller eigenperiods
0.565s
0.536s
0.534s
0.534s
0.533s

Table 4.7: Eigenperiods and eigenmodes

41
4.4 Solving the dynamic and quasi static equation of motion

4.4 Solving the dynamic and quasi static equation


of motion
The solving of quasi static equilibrium is rather easy, and is in principle the same
as solving a static problem at every time step. For linear analysis this consist
of inverting the stiffness matrix and multiply the inverted matrix with the force
vector. This is done at every time step, and the stiffness matrix does not change
with time as long as buckling and yielding does not occur.

r(tn ) = K−1 f (tn ) (4.29)

The solution of the dynamic equation 4.2 is much more complex. In order to solve
the dynamic equation, time integration schemes are utilized. A lot of different
time integration schemes exists, with different properties regarding accuracy and
speed. The newmark beta method is often used in this context, however it has
several drawbacks, and can’t have both sufficient numerical damping, second order
accuracy and be unconditionally stable [Hughes, 2000].
Second order accuracy is beneficial, and considered a necessity if an algorithm
should even be considered. Second order accuracy will in practice translate to
reducing the error to a 14 by halving the time increment. This allows larger time
step to be used compared with first order accurate algorithms, which in turn lead
to faster analysis.
Numerical damping is also a vital concept, and necessary to exclude high-frequency
oscillations and vibrations not of interest or introduced by finite element discretiza-
tion.
USFOS uses the Hilber-Hughes-Taylor method, or often refereed to as α-Method.
This scheme inherit the advantages from the trapezoidal method of a second order
accuracy, while overcoming the problems related to the lack of numerical damping
[Hughes, 2000]. The numerical scheme is given by equation 4.30 to 4.32 [Hughes,
2000].

Mr̈n+1 +(1+α)Cṙn+1 −αCṙn +(1+α)Krn+1 −αKrn = (1+α)Fn+1 −αFi (4.30)

∆t2
rn+1 = rn + ∆tṙn + (1 − 2β)r̈n + ∆t2 βr̈n+1 (4.31)
2
ṙn+1 = ṙn + ∆t(1 − γ)r̈n + ∆tγr̈n+1 (4.32)
This integration scheme will be unconditionally stable if α is between 0 and − 31
and the other Newmark parameters are determined by equation 4.33 and 4.34.
1
γ= (1 − 2α) (4.33)
2

42
4.4 Solving the dynamic and quasi static equation of motion

1
β= (1 − α)2 (4.34)
4
In this work α is set to -0.1, resulting in the parameters in Table 4.8.

α β γ
-0.1 0.3 0.6

Table 4.8: Coefficients for numerical integration

The selection of time step is important in order to insure good accuracy, but it
also has impact of the analysis time. The ideal time step is the largest time step
that gives an acceptable accuracy. It is necessary to have a decent accuracy both
in amplitude decay and relative period error. These are indicated in figure 4.8 as,
amplitude decay: AD, and relative periodical error: T̄ −T
T . Under the assumption
that the system is undamped and freely oscilating, the amplitude decay during one
cycle is proportional to the algorithmic damping by a constant 2π.

Figure 4.8: Error in amplitude and period from [Hughes, 2000]

It is questionable how much these errors can be in order to be acceptable. Time


domain simulations is in this work going to be used as a reference. Hence a quite
good accuracy is needed. Engineering insight reveals that the response will be
primarily in the first 3 modes, where the first three modes is defined as 0 < ω1 <
ω2 < ω3 , and can be found in Section 4.3 as ωn = T2πn . Enforcing a maximum of
1% relative period error and amplitude decay per cycle is considered to give a good
and sufficient accuracy. This results in the criteria given in equation 4.35 and 4.36.

AD = 2π ξ¯ < 0.01 ⇒ ξ¯ < 0.0016 (4.35)

43
4.4 Solving the dynamic and quasi static equation of motion

T̄ − T
< 0.01 (4.36)
T
The algorithmic damping and periodical error per cycle is given in Figure 4.10
and 4.9, for the alpha method of α = −0.05 and α = −0.3. By using the graph
of α = −0.3 the limit of ∆t will be conservative. The requirement on amplitude
decay from equation 4.35 result in equation 4.37 by using Figure 4.9

∆t
ξ¯ < 0.0016 ⇒ < 0.08 (4.37)
T
For the relative periodical error, similar result is present in equation 4.38. Here
Figure 4.10 is utilized.
T̄ − T ∆t
< 0.01 ⇒ < 0.03 (4.38)
T T
Meaning that relative periodical error will be limiting the time increment. The
lowest of the relevant eigenperiod is T3 = 6.75, and hence the time increment is set
to
∆t = 0.03T3 = 0.2s (4.39)

Figure 4.9: Algorithmic damping. From: [Hughes, 2000]

44
4.5 Overshoot and errors in initial responses

Figure 4.10: Relative periodical error. From: [Hughes, 2000]

4.5 Overshoot and errors in initial responses


In the initial phase of the analysis the structure has no response displacement or
velocities. This in term contributes to a different ratio between loads and responses
compared to later in an analysis where the structure is moving along with the
waves. There exists different methods to apply the loads in USFOS, they can be
gradually applied by an S-curve with a given duration. However this will still not
give a true signal since the loads are just partly applied at the initial first seconds.
Another aspect that is present is the HHT-α method tendency to overshoot the
velocities in the initial first analysis steps. It does not overshoot displacement by
nature [Hilber and Hughes, 1978]. However the velocities is used in the forcing
term and the damping of the structure. This will in turn will overshoot damping
in the initial phase. The overshoot by the HHT-α will eventually die after certain
analysis steps as illustrated in figure 4.11. Keep in mind that the scale on the
y-axis is logarithmic.

45
4.5 Overshoot and errors in initial responses

Figure 4.11: Comparison of energy overshoot for n time steps, from [Hilber and
Hughes, 1978]

These two factors will influence the stress in the initial phase of the simulation. An
example case is illustrated in figure 4.12. This is solved by letting the structure
stabilize a certain period of time before the time signal is counted. For a 3h
stochastic simulation the first 2min is not counted.
When harmonic inputs are used to find dynamic transfer functions, the amplitudes
are of interest. In this case the sensitivity is even greater. Hence 4 minutes of
stabilization is used in order to capture the response amplitudes.

46
4.6 Irregular sea surface

106 H=8.5, T=4.5


4
t =0.2
2
(Pa)

-2

-4
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
t (s)

Figure 4.12: Initial stress with one harmonic input component

4.6 Irregular sea surface


In offshore environments the sea surface does not behave as an regular sine wave.
Waves with such sine surface elevation is referred to as regular waves. Regular
waves have simple kinematic relations. A common approach to obtain a surface
close to reality, is by summation of several regular wave components.
Sensors have been monitoring the surface elevation in the north sea for decades.
This enables the establishment of statistical descriptions of the sea surface. This
statistic is utilized in the summation of regular wave components, such that they
they as a sum, reflects reality. Equation 4.40 states how such a summation is
carried out.

N
X
ζ(t) = ζa,i cos(ωi t + φi ) (4.40)
i

p
ζa,i = 2S(ωi )∆ωi (4.41)

47
4.6 Irregular sea surface

ζ = Wave elevation
ζa,i = Amplitude of component i
ωi = Frequency of component i
∆ωi = Frequency increment i
φi = Random phase angle between 0 and 2π
N = Number of components
S(ω) = Wave spectrum function
Amplitude and frequency of each wave component are determined by the use of
short term statistics. 3h is the most used duration of a short term sea state. The
description of these short term sea states is in offshore industry introduced as spec-
trum functions. The spectrum used in this work is the JONSWAP spectrum. This
spectrum applies when the growth of the waves is limited bythe size of generation
sea Almar-Næss [1985]. The JONSWAP spectrum is given in equation 4.42, and
for different values of period and wave height can be seen in figure 4.13.
(  −4 )
−5 ω 2
/2σ 2 )
S(ω) = αg ω 2
exp −1.25 γ exp(−(ω/ωp −1) (4.42)
ωp
H2
α = 5.061(1 − 0.287logγ) T 4S
P
γ = 3.3
 (a commonly used value, however not always the case)
σ=0.07, ω ≤ ωP
σ =
σ=0.09, ω > ωP
ω = angular frequency of wave
ωP = T2πP
g = Gravitational acceleration
The representation of the sea surface is carried out by dividing the spectrum in
several parts and create one wave component for each part. The amplitude of these
components is given in equation 4.41. This splitting is illustrated in figure 4.13.

50
TP=10 (s), HS=3 (m),
40 TP=10 (s), HS=6 (m),
TP=6 (s), HS=3 (m),
TP=10 (s), HS=10 (m),
30
S(!)

S(!)

20

10

0
0 1 2 3 4
! !

Figure 4.13: PM spectrum for different sea states and summation technique

48
4.6 Irregular sea surface

The phase angle gives randomness to the sea surface. This makes sure that each
surface realization is different from each other, even though they represents the
same sea state.

4.6.1 Alternative integration technique

One issue that arises in the context of spectrum integration is repetition within
one signal. The amount of frequencies that is used to represent the sea surface is
directly linked to the period when the signal repeat itself.

1 2π
Trep = = (4.43)
∆f ∆ω
When the left integration technique illustrated in figure 4.14 is use, i.e. the simplest,
equation 4.43 describes the period at when the signal is repeated. This gives a
certain requirement on how many wave components necessary to create a true
3h sea surface, which is not repeated. For 500 wave components, with frequency
range at about 1Hz, the repetition period is about 500s, which is far bellow 3h.
Increasing the amount of wave components is one solution, but this will increase
the computation time by a large amount, and are not feasible. In order to deal with
this issue in another way, the integrating technique can be modified as indicated in
the left of figure 4.14. By introducing some randomness within each interval, the
surface should not repeat itself in such a manner.

Δ𝜔
𝑟𝑎𝑛𝑑
2

Δ𝜔 Δ𝜔 Δ𝜔 Δ𝜔 Δ𝜔 Δ𝜔

Figure 4.14: Integration techniques. Without randomness in amplitude (left) with


some randomness in amplitude (right)

In the standard procedure, ωi is picked as the middle value within one interval.
Here, ωi can be written as in 4.44, where ω0 is the smallest frequency in the domain.

49
4.6 Irregular sea surface

ωi = ω0 + (i + 0.5)∆ω (4.44)
The method illustrated in the right of figure 4.14, introduces a random location of
ωi within one interval. This can in turn be written as equation 4.45.

ωi = ω0 + (i + rnd)∆ω (4.45)

The only difference between these two is the rnd, which is a random number be-
tween 0 and 1. The one with randomness is supposed not to give the same kind of
repeating elevation after Trep . The usual way to give a measurement of repetitive-
ness is by use of the auto correlation function. For a stationary process it can be
written as in equation 4.46, where τ is the lag, and Xt is the signal at time t.

E[(Xt − µ)(Xt+τ − µ)]


R(τ ) = (4.46)
σ2
For values of τ which gives R(τ ) = 1, a perfect reproduction of the signal is present,
with a time lag of τ . In a discrete sense, this can be calculated by equation 4.47
and 4.48 [Box et al., 1994].

ck
Rk = (4.47)
c0

T −k
1 X
ck = (Xt − µ)(Xt+k − µ) (4.48)
T − 1 t=1
c0 is the variance of the time signal and T is the discrete size of the whole signal.
The discrete autocorrelation is used to verify that the method with randomness
does not reproduce signal in the same sense as the standard procedure.

without randomness, HS=7.5 TP=13 With randomness, HS=7.5 TP=13


1 1
wave elevation autocorrelation

wave elevation autocorrelation

0.5 0.5

0
0

-0.5
-0.5

-1
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000
Lag (s) Lag (s)

Figure 4.15: Autocorrelation of surface elevation With and without randomness


in amplitude

50
4.6 Irregular sea surface

In figure 4.15 the autocorrelation for both cases are plotted. In this example, 500
wave components are used and the frequency bonds are set to f ∈ [0.04, 1]Hz. This
gives a period of repetition of Trep = 520s. In the approach without the amplitude
randomness there are large peaks in the autocorrelations at approximately every
520(s) of lag. This indicates that a huge degree of repetition are present at periods
equal this lag, and agrees well with previously stated.
The attempt to improve the drawback by adding randomness to the amplitude is
clearly working. A true reproduction of the surface is never present within the 3h.
The autocorrelation is never above 0.5, which is far from perfectly correlation at
1. Hence this approach is beneficial. Zoomed in version of figure 4.15 is found in
figure 4.16. Each of the peaks visible in figure 4.15 has an similar build up as in
figure 4.16.

without randomness, HS=7.5 TP=13 With randomness, HS=7.5 TP=13


1 1
wave elevation autocorrelation

wave elevation autocorrelation

0.5 0.5

0
0

-0.5
-0.5

-1
480 500 520 540 560 480 500 520 540 560
Lag (s) Lag (s)

Figure 4.16: Autocorrelation of surface elevation

The distribution of wave heights should follow a Rayleigh distribution, given that
the process is narrow banded [Myrhaug, 2016]. The JONSWAP spectrum can be
classified, or at least close to considered narrow banded. It is important that the al-
ternative integration technique tends to follow the Rayleigh distribution. The best
graphical way to illustrate how the elevation follow a distribution is by linearizing
the distribution, and plot the cumulative distribution in a linearized probability
paper.

h2
 
FH (h) = 1 − exp − (4.49)
8m0
The Rayleigh cumulative distribution given in equation 4.49 can be linearized by
letting the y axis in the plots bee as illustrated in equation 4.50. Then straight lines
will be Rayleigh distributed. In these equations, m0 is a distribution parameter,
and h individual wave heights.

51
4.6 Irregular sea surface

p h
y= −ln(1 − FH (h)) = √ (4.50)
8m0

In figure 4.17 this is done for one sea state for both methods of integration. It
turns out that the alternative method with amplitude randomness outperforms the
standard method when it comes to follow the Rayleigh distribution i.e. be a straight
line. By increasing the number of components, the distributions tends to be more
straight for both integration techniques. However, at only 500 components, the
alternative method is already very close to straight, which the standard method
is far from. The reason for the vertical behavior of the case without amplitude
randomness is linked to the repeated surface elevation. The largest value in every
repeated signal will be the same, and hence the resulting vertical lines.

Without randomness, HS 7.5, TP 13 With randomness, HS 7.5, TP 13


3 3

2.5 2.5
sqrt(-ln(1-F(H)))

sqrt(-ln(1-F(H)))

2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1
Number of components: 100 Number of components: 100
0.5 Number of components: 500 0.5 Number of components: 500
Number of components: 1000 Number of components: 1000
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
H H

Figure 4.17: Linearized Rayleigh distributions

Based on the above argumentation, 500 components in combination with the al-
ternative integration technique are considered to give sufficient results for the rest
of the work. The arguments can be summarized as follows:
• The sea surface is not repeated
• It follows the Rayleigh distribution impressively well
• It is enough components to capture the spectrum function well

52
Chapter 5
Fatigue analysis of tubular joints

Fatigue is a failure mode of materials. It is related to the material stamina rather


than material strength. Fatigue damage is present when the material is subject to
cyclic loading. Fatigue damages are a result of a three stage process consisting of
the following three stages Almar-Næss [1985].
1. Initiation or crack nucleation
2. Crack growth
3. Final failure
Fatigue is dependent on the stress range of the cyclic loading rather than the stress
itself. This means that materials subject to cyclic stresses well bellow yield, may
experience critical cracks after a certain amount of cycles. This becomes a vital
phenomenon for offshore structures due to the cyclic nature of the wave loadings.

5.1 Fatigue damage in this work


This work concerns jack-ups which are mobile units. Their mobility involves several
phases of loadings. A few are listed bellow.
• Transit i.e. floating, traveling to new site
• Lifting and lowering legs
• Operation at site, attached to the seafloor
These phases will have different influence on the fatigue life of the structure. The
most critical fatigue spots in the process of elevating the legs might be the gears
that are used for lifting, while the transit phase might have a part of the hull as

53
5.2 Joint selection

critical spot. The scope of this work however, will be the fatigue damage in leg
joints during operational phase.
The fatigue assessments in this work is carried out by the use of Miner summation
and SN-curves. The logic of this process can be split in four steps, which are further
discussed in details.
1. Beam reactions are achieved by finite element analysis
2. Stress concentration factors (SCF) are used to generate stress processes
3. The amount of cycles at different stress ranges are calculated by the use of
rainflow counting
4. Cumulative damage is estimated by the use of Miner summation together
with SN-curves

5.2 Joint selection


In order to select critical joints with respect to fatigue damage, a quite detailed
screening is necessary in a design process. Considering the scope of the work in this
thesis, only a simple screening is carried out. This screening consist of comparing
the stresses at the bottom of the legs, and the top of the legs (right under the deck)
for a few waves. The joint that turns out to be critical is at the top of the legs.
This might be changed if the springs that models the attachment to sea floor is
stiffer than the ones used in this work. Then it is believable that the bottom joints
also be significantly subject to fatigue damage.
For simplicity only one of the joints in the top area of the legs is investigated
further. The joint selected is indicated with red color in Figure 5.1. The braces
used to estimate stresses is indicated with red color.

54
5.3 Miner summation

Wave heading

Figure 5.1: Location of critical joint

5.3 Miner summation


The load history acting on marine structures has a stochastic nature. They vary
in both amplitude and frequency over time. This establishes the need of rules on
how to count the cumulative fatigue damage due to the load history. Numerous
such rules or theories may be found in the literature Almar-Næss [1985], but Miner
summation stand out as a simple and good approach.
The basic assumption for the Miner summation is that the damage contribution
for a load cycle is constant at a given stress amplitude. The damage from one such
load cycle is given in equation 5.1.

1
D= (5.1)
N
Where D is Damage, and N Endurance of the material at the given amplitude. The
cumulative damage from a load history of several different stress ranges can then
be written as a sum as given in equation 5.2. Failure will occur when this exceeds
1. The endurance of the material at a given stress amplitude is often described by
what is called SN-curves. The SN-curves are described in the next section.

X ni
D= (5.2)
i
Ni
Where D is Damage, Ni Endurance of the material at stress amplitude i and ni
number of cycles at stress amplitude i

55
5.4 SN curves

5.4 SN curves
In order to obtain material characteristics of fatigue SN, testing is performed. SN
testing deals with machined specimens which are exposed to cyclic stress usually at
constant amplitudes. However, to a certain level, the mean stress in the material
also to some extend contribute to the fatigue life. Several models have been pro-
posed to deal with this Almar-Næss [1985]. The simple idea is displayed in Figure
5.2 where the the allowable ratio between amplitude and mean stress are displayed
for different models.

250
Goodman
200 Gerber
Sorberg
150
<a

100

50 Allowable stresses

0
0 500 1000
<m

Figure 5.2: Example on allowable combinations of mean stress and stress ampli-
tude

These three models are given in equation 5.3 Almar-Næss [1985], where σa,N are
the limiting stress amplitude, σu ultimate stress and σy yield stress. None of these
models are valid in general, and are obtained under different test conditions Almar-
Næss [1985]. In a jack-up rig there will be mean stresses different from zero in the
legs. This is due to constant reactions, including gravity buoyancy etc. However
due to the scope of this work, these aspects are not covered, and the problem will
be treated as it has zero mean stresses.

σm
Modified Goodman: σa = σa,N (1 − )
σu
σm 2
Gerber relation: σa = σa,N (1 − ) (5.3)
σu
σm
Soderberg relation: σa = σa,N (1 − )
σy

Design code SN-curves describes the allowable amount of cycles at a given stress
range. They are material and detail specific, and obtained by tests. The standard
version of a SN-curve is given in equation 5.4 Almar-Næss [1985]. Modifications to
this is made in DNV GL design rules with respect to plate thickness effects DNV
GL [2015] as seen in eqution 5.5. Furthermore the different parameters depend on

56
5.4 SN curves

the classification society. The values recommended by DNV GL, will be used in
this work.

log(N ) = log(ā) − mlog(∆σ) (5.4)

"  k #
t
log(N ) = log(ā) − mlog ∆σ (5.5)
tref

N = Allowable cycles
log(ā) = Interception of the log(N ) axis
m = The inverse negative slope of the SN-curve, can be two slopes, m1 and m2
∆σ = Stress range
tref = For tubular joints the reference thickness is 32 mm
t = Thickness through which a crack will most likely grow.
t = tref is used for thickness less than tref
k = Thickness exponent.
The SN-curves that DNV GL recommends are highly dependent on the local ge-
ometry of the particular structural detail. The scope of this work is not related
to the actual design of the structure, but rather the investigation of linearizations
and how these influence the fatigue life. The choice of SN-curve will not be as
important in this context as long as the same SN-curve are used for all the differ-
ent comparisons. The S-N curve for the detail category T in DNV GL [2014b] is
selected for analysis by request from DNV GL.
(
3.0 , N ≤ 106
m= (5.6)
5.0 , N > 106
(
11.764 , N ≤ 106
log(ā) = (5.7)
15.606 , N > 106

k = 0.25 (5.8)
The equivalent to equation 5.6 with stress as limit instead of N is given in equation
5.9
(
3.0 , ∆σ > 86.26 MPa
m= (5.9)
5.0 , ∆σ ≤ 86.26 MPa

57
5.5 Stresses in joints

5.5 Stresses in joints


Joints and welds are critical locations for development of fatigue cracks. At these
locations the concentration of stress are typically a lot larger than locations with a
certain distance to the weld. This leads to the need of a careful consideration of the
particular joint. As this is not a design paper, large focus will not be given to to
describe these stresses in details. Local finite element models with a very fine mesh
is typically used to capture detailed stresses in joints. However this introduces a lot
of modeling work, as well as increased analysis time. Known relations for tubular
joints is here used as an alternative as described in the next section.

5.5.1 Stress concentration factors and super positioning of


stresses

Experimental data, analyzes and tests forms the basis of the DNV GL fatigue
recommendations. Within this work, known relations for different tubular joints
are utilized. Empirical models and relations are made for standard, widely used
joints. By the use of these models, no local detailed finite element model is needed.
The joint problem is broken down by super positioning the different bending- and
axial contributions. As seen in Figure 5.3 the total load is a sum of axial, in plane
and out of plane bending moments.

1
8 2

7 3
= + +
𝑀𝐼𝑃 𝑀𝑂𝑃
6 4 𝑁
5

Axial load In-plane bending moment Out of plane bending momen

Figure 5.3: Superposition of joint contributions and the eight locations of stress
evaluation

The stress level is most intensive along the weld of the joint. In order to obtain a
good description of these stresses, they are not only evaluated at the saddle and
the crown, but also an intermediate value between the saddle and the crown. The

58
5.5 Stresses in joints

value at these points are derived by a linear interpolation for axial stress, and
harmonic interpolation for the bending stress between the saddle and crown. This
leads to 8 locations as indicated in Figure 5.3. Here 1 and 5 are the crown, and 3
and 7 the saddle. The rest of the locations are intermediate locations. The stresses
at these locations are given by equations containing nominal stresses and stress
concentration factors. In equation 5.10 these relations are given.

σ1 = SCFAC σx + SCFMIP σmy


1 1√ 1√
σ2 = (SCFAC + SCFAS )σx + 2SCFMIP σmy − 2SCFMOP σmz
2 2 2
σ3 = SCFAS σx − SCFMOP σmz
1 1√ 1
σ4 = (SCFAC + SCFAS )σx − 2SCFMIP σmy − SCFMOP σmz
2 2 2 (5.10)
σ5 = SCFAC σx − SCFMIP σmy
1 1√
σ6 = (SCFAC + SCFAS σx − 2SCFMOP σmz
2 2
σ7 = SCFAS σx + SCFMOP σmz
1 1√ 1√
σ8 = (SCFAC + SCFAS )σx + 2SCFMIP σmy + 2SCFMOP σmz
2 2 2
In the above relations, SCF are stress concentration factors, and σ nominal stresses.
AC, AS, MIP and MOP stands for axial crown, axial saddle, Moment in plane,
moment out of plane respectively.
These SCF’s can be picked from tables for known joint sections. However the
geometry for the cross sectional area in the chords is not perfectly circular which
illustrated in Figure 5.4. This cross section has a flat bar welded in between the
two half parts of the pipe. This flat bar is due to the gearing system used to
lift and lower the legs, which introduces more stiffness to the chord. Due to this
complex geometry, the stress concentration in the braces are selected for further
analysis, and the chord is treated as a circular pipe. The stress concentration in
the braces also rely on the stiffness in the chord, but it is assumed that this is not
to important. If this was a design paper, this method is not recommended, but for
research on linearization it should be sufficient.

59
5.5 Stresses in joints

Braces

Chord

Jacking gears

Figure 5.4: Chord cross sectional geometry

The SCF’s are picked from tables in [DNV GL, 2014b]. These are long equations,
and reference is here made to appendix B, tubular K-joints, in DNVGL RP-C203
DNV GL [2014b]. For the braces this result in the SCF given in Table 5.1.

SCF Value
SCFAC 3.2155
SCFAS 3.2283
SCFMIP 1.9032
SCFMOP 1.8839

Table 5.1: Stress concentration factors for braces

As seen in Table 5.1, the SCF for axial stresses are close to equal in size. This
makes the first axial terms in equation 5.10 close to similar. The difference in the
8 spots is thus more influenced by the bending stresses. In Figure 5.5 σ1 to σ8 is
plotted for a time snip. Bending stress is clearly present, due to the different mean
values for all 8 different stresses. What is also possible to see, is that the variation
behaves quite similarly.

60
5.5 Stresses in joints

#10 7 Hs=6.5Tp=10.2 #10 7 Hs=6.5Tp=10.2


2 2
<1 <1
1 <2 1 <2
<3 <3
0 0
Stress (Pa)

Stress (Pa)
<4 <4
-1 <5 -1 <5
<6 <6
-2 -2
<7 <7
-3 <8 -3 <8

-4 -4

-5 -5
300 350 400 450 500 305 310 315 320
time (s) time (s)

Figure 5.5: Stress process over a short, and shorter time interval

This is investigated further by subtracting the signal mean. Evident in Figure 5.6
where the same stresses are plotted, but with the mean subtracted, is that the
signals are very close to equal. This indicates that bending stresses are mainly
due to constant loads, such as gravity. This is very beneficial, because then their
variation will behave similarly, and variation is the important in context of fatigue.
Thus only one of them needs to be concerned. For further analysis only σ1 will be
used.

#10 7 Hs=6.5Tp=10.2 #10 7 Hs=6.5Tp=10.2


1 1
<1 -mean(<1 ) <1 -mean(<1 )
<2 -mean(<2 ) <2 -mean(<2 )
0.5 <3 -mean(<3 ) 0.5 <3 -mean(<3 )
Stress (Pa)

Stress (Pa)

<4 -mean(<4 ) <4 -mean(<4 )


<5 -mean(<5 ) <5 -mean(<5 )
0 <6 -mean(<6 )
0 <6 -mean(<6 )
<7 -mean(<7 ) <7 -mean(<7 )
<8 -mean(<8 ) <8 -mean(<8 )
-0.5 -0.5

-1 -1
300 350 400 450 500 305 310 315 320
time (s) time (s)

Figure 5.6: Stress process over a short, and shorter time interval

It should be noted that the estimated damage is extremely sensitive to the stress
amplitudes. The stress concentration factors needs to be carefully considered, and

61
5.6 Cycle counting using rainflow and the WAFO toolbox

in design processes local modeling of this non standard cross section should be
considered.

5.6 Cycle counting using rainflow and the WAFO


toolbox
For fatigue, the stress range within a cycle, and amounts of cycles are essential.
There exist different ways to count cycles for a stochastic process. What is challeng-
ing with a stochastic signal compared with regular sine waves are their local peaks
and slowly varying cycles. General consensus is that the rainflow counting method
is superior to other methods for welded joints in high cycle fatigue Almar-Næss
[1985]. The rules of rainflow counting are the following Almar-Næss [1985]:
1. Rain flow down the roof, starting in either the peak or the valley. It drips
down when it reaches an edge
2. The rain stops, and the cycle is completed, when the flow reaches another
flow falling from above.
3. It also stops when a peak/valley of larger amplitude than where the it started
from is encountered.

𝜎 𝜎

1
6

2
7

3
8

4
9
5

𝑡 𝑡

Figure 5.7: Rainflow counting scheme

Figure 5.7 illustrates how this algorithm works. In blue, the water is flowing from
valleys, and green from peaks. Each of the colored flows represent a half cycle.
Cycle 1, 3, 6, 9 are examples on when rule 3 is present. In 4, 5, 8 rule 2 stops the
cycle. The WAFO toolbox for MATLAB is used for cycle counting [WAFO-group,
2011]. This toolbox uses the rainflow counting algorithm. One of the difficulties

62
5.6 Cycle counting using rainflow and the WAFO toolbox

with the rainflow algorithm might be unpaired half cycles Almar-Næss [1985]. The
WAFO toolbox gives an output consisting of cycles. In some cases this means that
different half cycles must be paired. The stress ranges have to be sorted in groups,
i.e. discretized. For this work 200 levels of stress range will be used. This means
that between the largest and the smallest stress range within the time signal, 200
levels are present. A simple signal, consisting of two regular sine waves are used in
order to give a certain idea on how this algorithm detects cycles.

2
sin(3x)+sin(0.5*x)

-1

-2
0 2 4 6 8 10
x

Figure 5.8: WAFO cycles

In Figure 5.8 the different cycles, detected by the WAFO toolbox, are included
with colors. The associated signal range are also indicated. If water flows from
the peaks, this is exactly the peaks generated by the use of the 3 rules of rainflow
algorithm.
It is interesting to compare the rainflow counting with a simple zero up crossing
counting. Zero up crossing counting takes the stress range as the maximum minus
the minimum value of the signal between two zero up crossings. This is illustrated
in Figure 5.9.

Δ𝜎𝑖

Figure 5.9: Zero up crossing counting. Zero up crossings marked as black dots

The two methods gives very close to the same distributions evident in Figure 5.10.
The stress range distributions are plotted in a linearized Weibull probability paper,
a plot technique described further in Section 6.2. As expected the largest stress
range from the rainflow method is larger than the largest from the zero up crossing

63
5.7 Stochastic fatigue analysis in thr frequency domain

method, however the difference is small. The largest stress range may significantly
contribute to the fatigue damage and might be important to capture. The total
damage is calculated using miner summation and the SN-curve. The rainflow
counting gives a larger damage than the zero up crossing method. However this
mighe be considered negligible in this case. Rainflow counting gives 5% more
damage.

HS=4.5 TP=8.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F))

-2

-4
Zero upcrossing, D=5.3e-07
-6
Rainflow, D=5.6e-07

-8
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln( ) Pa

Figure 5.10: Cumulative distribution in Weibull paper of zero up crossing count-


ing vs rainflow counting. D is the total accumulated damage during 3h

5.7 Stochastic fatigue analysis in thr frequency


domain
A frequency domain analysis is often preferable. For linear problems this will be
the most efficient way to carry out a fatigue analysis. In order for a frequency
analysis to be conducted the response spectrum has to be known.

5.7.1 Stress response spectrum

A response spectrum is a relation similar to wave elevation spectrum. It states


how much energy the system is subject to under different frequency influences. In
linear systems the relation between any input spectrum and thr response spectrum
can be described by a single transfer function. If the response spectrum is known,
two ways can be used to calculate fatigue damage described in Section 5.7.1.2 and
5.7.1.1.

64
5.7 Stochastic fatigue analysis in thr frequency domain

5.7.1.1 Probability distribution

For a narrow band process, which is the result of a resonant system subject to a
certain excitation. In such systems there will be 10800
Tn cycles during a 3h short
term sea state on average. The encountered fatigue damage can then be calculated
using equation 5.11 [Newland, 2005].
Z ∞
10800 1
f∆σ (∆σ)d∆σ (5.11)
Tn 0 N (∆σ)
Where N (∆σ) is the SN-curve given in equation 5.5. For a kinked SN-curve this
involves splitting the integral in two. The probability distribution will for a Gaus-
sian narrow banded process be Rayleigh distributed, and the parameter can be
calculated from the response spectrum.

5.7.1.2 Realization of stress process

Even dough Section 5.7.1.1 might be the easiest and most convenient way to es-
timate the damage, it involves assumptions of Gaussian narrow banded process.
This will not always be the case when the system is subject to a sharply peaked
input spectrum, which might result in a double peaked response spectrum.
Instead, the stress process can be realized in similar manner as the surface proses is
realized described in Section 4.6. Without inverting any stiffness matrices or doing
any kind of time integration, a realization of the stress process can be created given
that the response spectrum is known. This is obviously a much faster approach
than doing time domain analysis. The difficulties however lies within how these
response spectra are generated, which will be discussed throughout this thesis. For
the cases where they are known, and a realization is generated, the same technique
of calculating fatigue as for time domain simulations can be used. This is by using
rainflow counting and miner summation.

5.7.2 Discrete Fourier transform of signal

The spectra covered in Section 4.6, creates the foundation of generating time sig-
nals. However it is sometimes convenient to go the other way around, to generate
spectra from time signals. This includes creating response spectra from response
signals.
All signals processed in this work is discrete, hence the Discrete Fourier transforms
are used to generate spectra from time signals. When Discrete Fourier transforms
are used to create spectra, the estimated spectra becomes very noisy, and are
not usable to any practical purposes. This noise however hold certain statistical
properties. The distribution of the signals in the estimated spectrum from Fourier

65
5.7 Stochastic fatigue analysis in thr frequency domain

transform, S̃(ωi ), can bee approximated by a chi-square distribution with 2 degrees


of freedom Newland [2005].
One of the easiest ways to accommodate the noise is by averaging adjacent esti-
mated spectrum values. This is in fact the only possible thing to do in order to
improve statistical accuracy [Newland, 2005]. As an example to underline that this
will provide a better estimate, the following averaging can be used as an example.

1 1 1
S̃(ωi−1 ) + S̃(ωi ) + S̃(ωi+1 )
S(ωi ) = (5.12)
3 3 3
The distribution of the error of this linear combination will be a chi-square dis-
tribution χ2η with η = 6 degrees of freedom. For the general case, when 2n + 1
adjacent values are averaged their distribution will have a chi-square distribution
with η = 4n + 2 degrees of freedom making it a much more statistical reliable value
for increased values n. This is clearly evident in the ratio between standard devi-
ation, s and mean, µ in equation 5.13, which is true for a chi square distribution.
By increasing η there is more confidence that the sample measurement lies close to
the true mean.
r
s 2
= (5.13)
µ η
However this can only be achieved at the expense of frequency resolution [Newland,
2005]. In order to get insight in how many adjacent points used in averaging that
are beneficial, the JONSWAP spectrum is realized with 5000 wave components.
The raw one sided spectrum from Fourier transform can be seen in Figure 5.11 as
the spectrum with no smoothing.

Smothing by n adjacent data points No smoothing


6 25
n=20
5 Analytical
n=50 20
n=800
4
15
S( )

S( )

3
10
2

5
1

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5

Figure 5.11: Example of spectrum with and without averaging. JONSWAP with
HS = 4.5, TP = 8.5

66
5.7 Stochastic fatigue analysis in thr frequency domain

When 5000 components are included, n=50 seem like a good value to use in av-
eraging . The higher values of n, gives bad results due to insufficient frequency
resolution.

67
Chapter 6
Time domain simulation

In this chapter, the results from time domain simulations are presented. Time do-
main simulations are considered the state of the art method to estimate the fatigue
damage, and this will be used as reference when linearizations are considered.
The importance of different phenomenons are also investigated such as hydrody-
namic damping and dynamic amplification. In addition different realizations of the
same sea state are compared.

6.1 Hydrodynamic damping, and dynamic influ-


ence
The hydrodynamic damping is included as relative velocity in the drag forces. This
damping may significantly contribute to reduce the fatigue damage by damping out
the response. Hydrodynamic damping is without doubt present, but whether or
not this hydrodynamic model is conservative or not may be questioned. In order to
establish a certain understanding on how much damage that is added by removing
this damping, a few cases are compared. The stress response from two sea states are
included in figure 6.1, and it might be hard to see the difference between damped
and undamped response, but the undamped response is slightly larger than the
damped. However this small difference might be significant to the fatigue damage.

68
6.2 Fitting the short term stress range with Weibull probability distribution

10 7 HS=4.5, TP=9.5 10 7 HS=6.5, TP=10.5


4 5
undamp dyn undamp dyn
2
(Pa)

(Pa)
damp dyn damp dyn
static 0 static
0

-2 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t (h) t (h)

Figure 6.1: Short term stress repsonse with and without hydrodynamic damping
and static analysis

In table 7.6 some of the most critical sea states when fatigue is considered are
included. The damping clearly removes a lot of damage, and about 40-50% of the
damage is avoided when the damping is included.
The fact that these particular sea states are the most important with their as-
sociated low periods gives rise to another aspect. The largest eigenperiod of the
structure is within this region. The largest eigenperiods are 7.67s and 6.75s. Due
to this, it is expected that the dynamic effects in the motion will be significant. In
figure 6.1 the difference between dynamic and static is huge. It is also interesting
to see how these dynamical effects influence the experienced damage. The same
sea states are also included by the use of static analysis in table 7.6. It turns out
that the dynamical effects are very important in terms of fatigue damage.

HS (m) TP (s) Damage with hyd. damping w/o hyd. damping Static
4.5 9.5 1.4e-07 2.4e-07 2.4e-09
3.5 7.5 3.6e-07 5.6e-07 1.4e-09
3.5 8.5 1e-07 1.6e-07 1.7e-09
5.5 9.5 6.2e-07 1.2e-06 3.9e-09
6.5 11.5 1.4e-06 3e-06 8.3e-09

Table 6.1: Short term sea states (3h) with and without hydrodynamic damping in
addition to a pure static simulation

Even dough it might be more conservative to exclude hydrodynamic damping, the


rest of the work is based on simulations with hydrodynamic damping included.

6.2 Fitting the short term stress range with Weibull


probability distribution
The two parameter weibull distribution has shown to represent the stress range
in jackets in a fairly sufficient manner [Tahery, 2015], however certain mismatch
between statistical and true distribution showed to be present. Jackets do have

69
6.2 Fitting the short term stress range with Weibull probability distribution

more stiffness than jack-up’s, but share a lot of structural properties with jack-ups.
They both have thin structural members. A 3-parameter weibull distribution will
improve the lower tail behavior. Much of the mismatch in the two-parameter dis-
tribution also might be corrected by the third parameter. The use of the Weibull
model reduces the complexity of the stress range to three parameters. The cumu-
lative distribution function is given in equation 6.1.
( β )
∆σ − λ
F∆σ (∆σ) = 1 − exp (6.1)
α
The might most practical way to estimate these parameter is by the use of method
of moments. The idea is to let the mean, variance and the coefficient of skewness
be the same in the data and the fitted distribution. The skewness is for a data set
is given by equation 6.2, where g1 is the skewness of the data , ∆σk is a member
of the sample of stress ranges, and µ∆σ and s∆σ the sample mean and standard
deviation.

1
PN
N k=1 (∆σk − m∆σ )3
g1 = (6.2)
(s2∆σ )3/2
For a 3 parameter Weibull distribution the mean, variance and skewness is given by
equation 6.3 to 6.5. By equating g1 and γ1 , β can be found by numerical equation
solvers, and then α and λ can be found explicit.

µ∆σ = λ + αΓ(1 + 1/β) (6.3)

2
= α2 Γ(1 + 2/β) − Γ2 (1 + 1/β)
 
σ∆σ (6.4)

Γ(1 + 3/β) − 3Γ(1 + 1/β)Γ(1 + 2/β) + 2Γ3 (1 + 1/β)


γ1 = (6.5)
[Γ(1 + 2/β) − Γ2 (1 + 1/β)]3/2

These three parameters are found for 93 different sea states. Dynamic simulations
with 3h duration are used to generate the stress history, and rainflow is used for
cycle counting. Stresses bellow 1 Mpa is left out because they give minimal damage,
and are associated with noise. To get an idea on how well these samples are fitted
with a 3-parameter Weibull distribution, a linearized Weibull plot is used.
By doing some algebraic manipulation, equation 6.1 can be changed such that the
right hand side behaves linearly. By letting the y axis be the same as the left hand
side of equation 6.6 and the x axis be ln(∆σ −λ), a cumulative Weibull distribution
will behave linearly.

ln(− ln(1 − F∆σ (∆σ))) = β ln(∆σ − λ) − β ln(α) (6.6)

70
6.2 Fitting the short term stress range with Weibull probability distribution

The cumulative distribution of a sample is given by equation 6.7, where ∆σk is the
k’th member of the sample, and n is the size of the sample.

0 when ∆σ < ∆σ1

F∆σ (∆σ) = nk when ∆σk ≥ ∆σ < ∆σk+1 (6.7)

1 when ∆σ > ∆σn

If the distributions show to be Weibull distributed, the cumulative distribution


of the sample will behave as a straight line. It is also of interest to see how the
fitted distributions compares to the histograms of the actual cycle history. If the
probability distribution is multiplied with the width of a bars in the histogram in
addition with the total number of cycles as in equation 6.8, the expected number
of cycles can be plotted.

E[dn] = f∆σ (∆σ)d∆σ · Ntot (6.8)


Two such distributions with linearized Weibull distribution in addition to the his-
togram of the data is given in figure 6.2 and 6.3. The other of the 93 sea states
can be seen in appendix B. The lower tail has a low degree of importance for the
fatigue damage. In the lower tail a certain degree of missmatch is present, but this
area is not of importance. In the upper tail, the Weibull distribution seem to give
good results. It is concluded that 3 parameter Weibull distribution is adequate to
represent the stress range process.

HS=4.5, TP=8.5 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


3 180
Data
2 160 weibull 3param
Expected number of cycles

1 140

0 120
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1 100

-2 80

-3 60

-4 40

-5 3param Weibull fit 20


Data
-6 0
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
ln("<-6) (Pa) "< (Pa) #10 7

Figure 6.2: Linearized 3 parameter weibull plot of stress range during a 3h real-
ization

71
6.3 Damage of same sea state with different realizations

HS=6.5, TP=11.5 HS=6.5, TP=11.5


3 200
Data
2 weibull 3param

Expected number of cycles


1 150
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1 100

-2

-3 50

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5 0
13 14 15 16 17 18 0 1 2 3 4 5
ln("<-6) (Pa) "< (Pa) #10 7

Figure 6.3: Linearized 3 parameter weibull plot of stress range during a 3h real-
ization

6.3 Damage of same sea state with different real-


izations
Different realizations of the same sea state give different elevation at a given point
in time. Different surface realizations can be generated by re-generate the random
phase angles and the random amplitudes in the sea surface generation. It is known
that different realizations will give different maximum surface elevation even dough
the sea state is the same.
However it is unclear weather or not this also has an influence on the fatigue dam-
age. It is possible to think that the influence of these random selected phases will
not be of importance for fatigue damage since fatigue is related to the stress range
over time, and that these will be equal when the duration of the simulation is as
long as 3h. It is however important to keep in mind that large waves will give much
larger damage than small ones due to the exponent in the SN-curve. In order to
draw any conclusions, the effect of different realizations on fatigue damage is inves-
tigated further. Figure 6.4 clearly illustrates how much the particular realization
might influence the total damage.

72
6.3 Damage of same sea state with different realizations

Figure 6.4: Distribution of total damage for different realizations of the same sea
state

The variation of damage is large, and the most damage encountered during a real-
ization is more than twice the smallest value. However most of the realizations gives
damage that is within a reasonable deviation of the mean. Due to the time con-
sumption of running several realizations of each sea state this will not be preferred
for other sea states, but is included for this sea state to underline the importance
of different realizations. If the time consumption of time domain simulation had
been smaller, at least three surface realizations of the same sea state should be
averaged in order to obtain more statistical accuracy.
The standard deviation of the stress processes along with the standard deviation
in the surface elevation process is included in Table 6.2. The deviation between
maximum and minimum standard deviation in stress is not large. However keep
in mind that the slope of the SN-curve is 5 for the most stress ranges. This means
that the damage is proportional to the the stress to the power of 5. The largest
standard deviation is 21% larger then the smallest. With 1.215 = 2.7 the the huge
variation in damage in Figure 6.4 seem reasonable

73
6.3 Damage of same sea state with different realizations

Realization s∆σ sζ Realization sσ sζ


1 5.19e+06 1.13 2 5.14e+06 1.12
3 4.83e+06 1.12 4 5.11e+06 1.13
5 5.05e+06 1.13 6 5.14e+06 1.12
7 4.96e+06 1.12 8 5.79e+06 1.14
9 4.97e+06 1.13 10 5.05e+06 1.13
11 4.87e+06 1.13 12 5.27e+06 1.12
13 5.29e+06 1.11 14 4.75e+06 1.12
15 4.94e+06 1.13 16 5.19e+06 1.12
17 5.10e+06 1.12 18 5.11e+06 1.12
19 4.96e+06 1.12 20 5.09e+06 1.13
21 5.32e+06 1.13 22 5.08e+06 1.12
23 4.97e+06 1.12 24 5.16e+06 1.13
25 4.98e+06 1.13 26 5.02e+06 1.12
27 5.05e+06 1.13 28 5.02e+06 1.13
29 5.06e+06 1.13 30 5.11e+06 1.13
31 4.79e+06 1.12 32 4.82e+06 1.12
33 5.42e+06 1.12 34 5.01e+06 1.13
35 5.07e+06 1.13 36 4.86e+06 1.12
37 5.15e+06 1.13 38 5.14e+06 1.12
39 5.29e+06 1.13 40 4.96e+06 1.13
41 5.13e+06 1.13 42 4.80e+06 1.12
43 5.03e+06 1.12 44 5.10e+06 1.12
45 5.10e+06 1.13 46 5.09e+06 1.13
47 5.03e+06 1.12 48 5.02e+06 1.12

Table 6.2: Standrad deviations


q P for stress process
q P and surface elevation process
1 N 1 N
HS = 4.5, TP = 8.5. sσ = N i=1 σi , sζ = N i=1 ζi2
2

The distribution of stress range in these 48 realizations of the same sea state will
differ slightly. It is interesting to compare these in order to get a picture on where
the different damage contributions are located. The stress range of the realization
that gives the most, and the one that gives the least damage is depicted in figure
6.5. In this figure, linearized probability plot of the cumulative Weibull is used.

74
6.3 Damage of same sea state with different realizations

HS=4.5 TP=8.5, Nrealiz=48


4

0
ln(-ln(1-F))
-2

-4

-6 Realization 32
Realization 8
-8
14 15 16 17 18
ln( ) Pa

Figure 6.5: Weibull plot of the two realizations that gives most and least damage
during a 3h simulation, fitted with 3 parameter Weibull distribution. Keep in mind
that ln(∆σ) is on the axis, not the ln(∆σ − λ)

Even dough the two realizations might seem to give quite similar distributions, the
accumulated damage from these realizations differs by a factor of more than two.
A 3 parameter Weibull distribution is used to fit the different realizations, and
explains the curved fitting tails. The fit results in three parameters, α, β and λ.
The cumulative Weibull distribution is given in equation 6.9
( β )
∆σ − λ
F∆σ (∆σ) = 1 − exp (6.9)
α
Each realization can be described by these three parameters. This means that also
the parameters will differ for the different realizations. In figure 6.6 the parameters
for all the 48 different realization are included in histograms.

Figure 6.6: Distribution of the three parameters in the Weibull fit for different
realizations. A total of 48 realizations of the same sea state are included

75
6.4 Weibull parameters for several short term sea states

6.4 Weibull parameters for several short term sea


states
The stress range history has been generated for numerous short term sea states.
The corresponding three parameters for the Weibull distribution has been calcu-
lated according to Section 6.2. It is possible to believe that the nature will behave
smooth to some extend, and that these parameters can be described by a quite
smooth surface. Piecewise linear interpolation polynomials are used to represent
this surface. The three parameters are visualized in Figure 6.7. Both the β and
the α parameters behaves very well, and gives a smooth surface. The λ surface
tends to be less smooth. However since the resolution of data points is so good,
the model is assumed to give a good representation of the stress range process.

Figure 6.7: Weibull parameter values for different sea states. Data points are
indicated with circular dots

6.5 Fatigue damage from short term sea states


The total fatigue damage is next to be calculated for every sea state described
in previous section. This can be carried out in two ways, where one consist of a

76
6.5 Fatigue damage from short term sea states

explicit expression of the the Weibull parameters and SN-curve and the other of
miner summation of the cycles. The expression for the explicit case can be seen in
equation 6.10 [Larsen, 2014].
Z ∞
f∆σ (∆σ)d∆σ
E3h [D] = N3h (6.10)
0 N (∆σ)

Where N3h is the total amount of cycles within a 3h sea state, N (∆σ) the SN
curve as a function of stress range and f∆σ (∆σ) the probability distribution of
the stress range, which in this case is the 3 parameter Weibull probability density
function. This integral has a simple explicit expression as long as simple SN-curves
are used. However a kinked SN-curve is used in this work, and hence the simpler
implementation is numerical integration of the integral. The total number of cycles
are gathered from the rainflow counting, and will vary with sea state. However the
dominant resonance period will have the largest influence on this. This number is
10800
Tn = 1408. By evaluating the rainflow counting record, it turns out to be correct
that these variations are quite small for most of the sea states. This can be seen
in figure 6.8. The majority of the sea states has a N3h of about 1500.

Figure 6.8: Number of cycles for different short term 3h sea states, Data points
are indicated with circular dots

The other method consist of using miner summation to count the cycles as outlined
in chapter 5. Both these methods should give close to the same damage. The results
are illustrated in figure 6.9.

77
6.6 Damage in the scatter format

Figure 6.9: Short term damage calculated by both the probability distribution and
by counting, Data points are indicated with circular dots

More specific the error between these methods is of order 10−6 . As expected sea
states with high HS /TP ratio will generate the most damage.

6.6 Damage in the scatter format


The short term damage resulting from time domain simulations is presented in the
scatter format in Table 6.3
2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 2.22E-09 3.96E-09 1.18E-08 4.54E-08 1.56E-08 5.56E-09 4.30E-09 3.47E-09 2.85E-09 2.56E-09 2.28E-09 2.00E-09 1.81E-09 1.68E-09 1.62E-09 1.07E-07
3.5 1.36E-08 7.68E-08 3.59E-07 1.02E-07 2.70E-08 1.74E-08 1.10E-08 7.28E-09 5.51E-09 4.28E-09 3.30E-09 2.77E-09 2.42E-09 2.26E-09 6.35E-07
4.5 4.83E-07 2.05E-06 5.59E-07 1.41E-07 8.55E-08 4.58E-08 2.56E-08 1.68E-08 1.10E-08 7.14E-09 5.04E-09 4.03E-09 0.00E+00 3.38E-09 3.44E-06
5.5 9.19E-06 2.42E-06 6.18E-07 3.72E-07 1.84E-07 9.50E-08 5.72E-08 3.32E-08 1.88E-08 1.17E-08 8.54E-09 1.30E-05
6.5 2.28E-06 1.37E-06 6.72E-07 3.31E-07 1.94E-07 1.06E-07 5.70E-08 0.00E+00 2.21E-08 5.03E-06
7.5 7.35E-06 4.44E-06 2.12E-06 1.04E-06 5.96E-07 3.18E-07 1.65E-07 0.00E+00 6.14E-08 1.61E-05
8.5 1.27E-05 6.00E-06 2.99E-06 1.72E-06 9.03E-07 4.54E-07 2.53E-07 2.50E-05
9.5 3.18E-05 1.54E-05 7.68E-06 4.57E-06 2.36E-06 1.20E-06 6.63E-07 6.37E-05
10.5 3.51E-05 1.80E-05 1.09E-05 5.91E-06 3.00E-06 1.62E-06 7.45E-05
11.5 2.37E-05 1.33E-05 6.96E-06 0.00E+00 4.40E-05
12.5 8.47E-06 8.47E-06
0 0 2.22E-09 1.75E-08 5.72E-07 1.16E-05 3.1E-06 1.04E-05 5.08E-05 5.95E-05 3.02E-05 4.18E-05 2.29E-05 1.19E-05 1.1E-05 1E-07 3.88E-09 3.38E-09 0 0.000254

Table 6.3: Short term damage of structure (3h)

The long term damage takes into account how many of each sea states that occurs
over a period of time. The scatter diagram describes how many of each sea state
that is present for a period of time. The history is usually generated by physically
measure the surface elevation at the site. The scatter used in this work is the
scatter for the Ekofisk field, generated by measurements over 56 years.
It is possible to estimate the damage encountered during these 56 years in each
block by multiplying the number of short term sea states encountered during 56
years with the damage from each short term sea state. The damage from each
short term sea state is given in figure 6.3. As expected wave with a high height to
amplitude ratio gives the largest damage.

78
6.7 Conclusive remarks for time domain results

This results in the the total accumulated damage given in figure 6.4. The total
damage encountered from all block is quite low, and indicate low degree of damage,
maybe lower than one could expect. However simplifications are made throughout
the work.
2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 1.32E-08 1.23E-06 6.34E-05 0.000583 9.19E-05 1.03E-05 4.05E-06 2.42E-06 1.31E-06 5.35E-07 2.36E-07 1.72E-07 4.73E-08 2.28E-08 1.55E-08 0 7.59E-04
3.5 1.00E-08 1.80E-05 0.001118 0.000801 9.21E-05 1.85E-05 4.43E-06 1.67E-06 7.38E-07 2.64E-07 9.76E-08 3.78E-08 1.51E-08 6.55E-09 0 2.06E-03
4.5 4.56E-07 0.000113 0.001187 0.000555 0.000125 2.13E-05 3.98E-06 8.00E-07 3.34E-07 2.02E-07 2.19E-08 1.04E-08 0 1.76E-09 2.01E-03
5.5 9.16E-06 0.00042 0.000716 0.000544 0.000104 1.70E-05 1.49E-06 6.58E-07 1.60E-07 6.81E-08 5.83E-09 1.81E-03
6.5 0.000332 0.000621 0.000278 7.21E-05 7.79E-06 1.26E-06 3.50E-07 0 1.86E-08 1.31E-03
7.5 5.28E-05 0.000312 0.000302 0.000116 2.57E-05 5.74E-06 9.21E-07 0 5.67E-08 8.15E-04
8.5 0.000101 0.000172 0.000181 5.20E-05 1.04E-05 3.47E-06 7.30E-07 5.22E-04
9.5 3.17E-05 9.15E-05 0.000129 0.000111 3.16E-05 1.49E-05 6.42E-07 4.10E-04
10.5 3.52E-05 0.000126 9.48E-05 3.92E-05 1.99E-05 1.57E-06 3.16E-04
11.5 7.01E-05 6.31E-05 2.62E-05 0 1.59E-04
12.5 8.06E-06 8.06E-06
0 0 1.32E-08 1.24E-06 8.19E-05 0.001823 0.0025 0.001758 0.001757 0.001011 0.000648 0.000365 0.000153 6.63E-05 1.12E-05 1.3E-07 2.21E-08 1.76E-09 0 0.010176

Table 6.4: Long term damage of structure during 56 years

6.7 Conclusive remarks for time domain results


The damage encountered during 56 years at Ekofisk is lower than one would expect.
However no detailed screening is present. The sea state that turns out to be most
critical, might have a lower significant wave height than one could expect. The
natural period of the structure is accountable for this. It induces an increased
damage in a region of the scatter that has a high occurrence frequency. It must
also be stated that more statistical reliable results can be obtained by at least
average three realizations of the same sea state.

79
Chapter 7
Linearization

Linearization is a commonly used feature to avoid the time consuming time domain
simulation. In short it involves the establishment of a linear relationship between
response and wave elevation. It is commonly used in fatigue life estimation. In
fatigue damage, moderate sea states are the most critical, thus making it easier
to linearize waves about these most critical values. Linearization might even give
very accurate response estimate for certain structures. However for jack-ups, which
are heavily drag dominated due to the small dimensions of the members, it is not
possible to describe the response perfectly by a linear relationship. This is due to
the fact that drag forces are nonlinear. These nonlinear forces can be seen in the
drag term of Morison’s equation 7.1.

1 1
dF = ρπD2 CM a + CD ρDurel |urel | (7.1)
4
| {z } |2 {z }
Inertia term Drag term

ρ = Density of fluid
D = Diameter of pipe
CM = Inertia coefficient
CD = Drag coefficient
a = Fluid acceleration perpendicular to cylinder
urel = Relative fluid speed perpendicular to cylinder

7.1 Motivation for proper drag force treatment


In order to make proper assumptions in the linearization process it is important
to understand how important the drag term is. The ratio between drag force
amplitude and inertia force amplitude is an parameter that is easy to calculate,

80
7.1 Motivation for proper drag force treatment

and gives a good first impression of the importance of drag. In general the ratio
between drag force amplitude and inertia force amplitude can be written as in
equation 7.2 if the structure self velocity is neglected in the relative velocity.

1 2 2
FD,a 2 CD Dζa ω CD
= 1 2 2
= H (7.2)
FM,a 4 CM πD ζa ω
CM πD
Drag coefficient vary with the members. The chords that is 90◦ aligned with the
flow has a larger drag coefficient than the ones that are 60◦ . The braces on the other
hand has a lower drag coefficient, but also a smaller diameter. In Figure 7.1 the
ratios for the different types of members are plotted as a function of wave height.
The dashed lines indicates where the drag forces becomes larger than the inertia
forces. For this particular jackup this is experienced at quite low wave heights. In
comparison a typical jacket member with a diameter of 2m and a drag coefficient
of 1.15, will give a limit wave height of about 10m for where drag becomes more
important than inertia.

6
amplitude ratio

Chords 90°
2 Chords 60°
FD /FM

Braces
Ratio=1
0
0 2 4 6 8 10
H (m) wave height

Figure 7.1: Ratio between amplitudes of drag force and inertia force as a function
of wave height

A significant wave height of 4.5m is the height of one of the most critical sea states
for fatigue damage. At these wave heights the drag force amplitude is about twice
the amplitude of the inertia force for all the members. The braces a bit more.
This underlines the importance of the drag forces, and that they are included in a
sufficient manner.
The importance of drag is investigated further by a case. The jack-up response from
the same stochastic surface elevation with and without drag forces are compared.

81
7.1 Motivation for proper drag force treatment

107
4
CD = Included
2 CD = 0
(Pa)

-2

-4
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
t (h)

Figure 7.2: Short term stress response fro comparison of drag vs no drag.
HS =4.5, TP =8.5

In Figure 7.2 the stress response for a short term sea state is included. The case
with drag forces clearly gives larger stress than for the case without drag. However
the difference might not be as large as one could believe from Figure 7.1. It should
also be kept in mind that turning on drag also turns on hydrodynamic damping in
this regard.
v
u
u1 X N
sσ = t σ2 (7.3)
N i=1 i

The standard deviation of the signal is an important parameter to characterize the


signal and is given in equation 7.3. Both the standard deviation of his process and
the damage calculated using rainflow counting can be seen in Table 7.1.

CD =Included CD = 0
sσ 4.9e06 3.7e06
Damage 0.55e-06 0.13e-06

Table 7.1: Damage and standard deviation during 3h for different values of CD .
TP = 8.5, HS = 4.5.

Even dough the ratio between the standard deviation for the case with and without
drag is only 1.3, it increases the damage by a significant amount. Keep in mind
that the kink of the SN-curve is located at 86 MPa, which means that all the
stress cycles for this short term sea state will be in the area where the slope of

82
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

the SN-curve is m=5. This suggests that the ratio between damage from the case
with and without drag should be 1.325 = 4.1. This corresponds well with what is
conducted with the rainflow counting. Increasing the damage by a factor of 4 must
be considered significant.
The stress range distribution for the two cases seen in Figure 7.3. Keeping in mind
the logarithmic scale, the difference is actually quite large. It also underlines how
important the slope in the weibull distribution is in the context of fatigue.

HS=4.5 TP=8.5
5
ln(-ln(1-F))

-5
CD = 0
CD = Included
-10
14 15 16 17 18
ln( ) Pa
Figure 7.3: Short term stress distribution (3h) for drag vs no drag

7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer func-


tions
In offshore industry it is common practice to linearize for wave height. This is done
by calculating the response amplitude for regular harmonic inputs with different
frequencies and use this to estimate a transfer function. A major question in this
context is how to select the wave heights for the harmonic inputs in order to capture
the nonlinearities due to drag forces in a good way. Different methods can be used
to select proper values of wave height for the harmonic input wave. Constant wave
steepness is frequently used to select these wave heights. However there are no
proper guidelines on how to select the wave steepness.

7.2.1 Linearization schemes included in analysis

Three different schemes are investigated. These schemes describes what wave
heights to be used as inputs when transfer functions are established.

83
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

7.2.1.1 Using constant wave steepness for selecting wave heights

Usually the ratio between wave height and wave length is defined as steepness.
However for deep water this value is proportional to the wave height divided by
the period squared, which is more convenient in this work, and are hence used as
a measurement of wave steepness as given in equation 7.4.

H H
∝κ= 2 (7.4)
λ T
Constant wave steepness is frequently used to select wave heights. Much of the
reasoning behind this might be explained by the ratio between drag force amplitude
and wave height.
FD,a
∝ Hω 2 (7.5)
H
By inserting wave heights determined by a constant wave steepness given in equa-
tion 7.6 in equation 7.5,
κ
H = κT 2 = (7.6)
4π 2 ω 2
the drag force divided by wave height will behave as a constant independent of ω.
FD,a
∝κ (7.7)
H
When transfer functions are established the response amplitude is divided by the
wave height. Hence by selecting input wave heights from constant steepness a
constant transfer function of drag is achieved. This might be an adequate property
for use in linearization.
Keeping the steepness constant will give unrealistically large responses at low fre-
quencies. Hence a cutoff might be necessary. The low frequencies should be capped
at wave height equal the one year return period [ISO, 2007]. For the Ekofisk field,
this can be calculated from the Weibull distribution as in equation 7.8 with ρ = 1.99
and β = 1.35 [Aarsnes, 2015].

  β1 !
1
HS,1year = ρ ln (7.8)
2920

β ρ HS,1year
1.35 1.99 9.26m

Table 7.2: Significant wave height with one year return period for the Ekofisk field

However as it will turn out, this cutoff limit is not suitable for all sea states. It
is for instance to low for a sea state with a significant wave height of 7m. When

84
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

the cutoff is applied, the wave heights used in the harmonic inputs will look like
the lines in Figure 7.4. It is worth noting that the waves will be breaking with a
steepness value of κ = 0.23 (this corresponds to H 1
λ = 7 ). The goal is to calibrate
κ in such a way that is will produce similar responses as reality.

10
Steepnes: 0.005
9 Steepnes: 0.162
Steepnes: 0.35
8

7
Wave height

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
!

Figure 7.4: Constant wave steepness curves with cutoff at one year return period

7.2.1.2 Using constant wave height-period ratio for selecting wave heights

Instead of tuning the model for wave steepness, the ratio between wave amplitude
and period might be an option, considering that drag is the most important param-
eter. By letting the wave height be determined by having a constant ratio between
wave height and period certain properties are achieved. This ratio is described as
c in equation 7.9.

H
⇒ H = cTc= (7.9)
T
For each value of c the drag force amplitude will behave constant at all values of
ω. The amplitude of the drag force will then be constant for the wave heights used
as input.
FD,a ∝ (ζω)2 ∝ c2 (7.10)
In Figure 7.5 some of these constant height-period curves are included. Also in this
case a cutoff height might be necessary. The goal is to calibrate c in such a way
that is will produce similar responses as reality.

85
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

20
c: 0.05
18 c: 0.936
c: 2
16

14

Wave height
12

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
!

Figure 7.5: Wave heighs used as input given constant ratio between wave height
and period

7.2.1.3 Using the input spectrum

Instead of letting the wave height used in input be equal to constant wave steepness
other possibilities may be considered. An approach that seem reasonable is to
letting the wave heights be somewhat equal to the different sectors in the wave
spectrum. This will result in the wave heights used in the input having similar
characteristics as the stochastic signal. This means that the high energetic sectors
of the spectrum will have a higher input wave height. A good first starting point
in order to do this is by considering the relation 7.11.
p
H(ωk ) = 2 2S(ωk )∆ω (7.11)

However the ∆ω complicates this. By increasing the resolution of the frequencies


used to estimate the transfer functions, the wave height will decrease (∆ω decrease).
The wave heights used as inputs should not decrease by counting more frequencies.
By tweaking the relation with a constant G to form equation 7.12 the representation
of the wave heights will still be similarly distributed as the stochastic process. The
constant G can then be determined by using the calibration technique given in
Section 7.2.2 p
H(ωk ) = G S(ωk ) (7.12)

7.2.2 Calibration

The value of the wave parameters (κ, c and G) can be calibrated by the two main
steps in Section 7.2.2.1 and 7.2.2.2. In Section 7.2.2.1 spectral methods are used
to calculate the most probable maximum wave action (base shear) for several vales
of the parameter. Then a deterministic most probable maximum wave action is
calculated in Section 7.2.2.2. The deterministic value is then matched with the
spectral calculated value in order to find a calibrated parameter. The parameter
will in turn be used to generate stress transfer functions. Here steepness is used

86
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

to explain the calibration process, but is works in the same manner for the other
schemes.

7.2.2.1 Spectral calculation of most probable maximum wave action

The total applied wave actions are used for this calibration i.e. quasi-static base
shear. The goal is to calculate the most probable maximum (MPM) value of the
wave actions for different steepness values. This is done by establishment of the
transfer function of the wave actions with a constant wave steepness. These transfer
functions are established by looking at one frequency at the time. The wave height
for these harmonic inputs are determined by the constant steepness. The output
base shear amplitude is then used to calculate the transfer function value for a
given frequency. The response amplitude divided by the input wave amplitude
in order to get the value of the transfer function at the particular frequency and
steepness.
2Famplitude
hζF (ωk ) = (7.13)
Hinput
Where F is the base shear, and Hinput is the input wave height which will depend
on what steepness value that is selected. This results in several transfer functions
for different values of steepness. Three of them are included in Figure 7.6. Note
that these are quasi static transfer functions, thus no resonant areas are present.
However cancellation and amplification is still present, which is the reason for the
peaks that is present.

5
#10
4
Steepnes: 0.005
3.5 Steepnes: 0.162
Steepnes: 0.35

3
h1 F (!) transfer function

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
!
Figure 7.6: Transfer functions from wave elevation to wave action with different
constant steepness

87
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

The next step is to use these transfer functions to calculate the value of the most
probable maximum of wave actions depending on steepness. This is carried out by
standard spectral methods. First by calculating the variance of the process, which
is the integral of the response spectrum, in this case the spectrum of applied total
wave action.
Z ∞
m0 = SF F (ω)dω (7.14)
0
The response spectrum can be found using the transfer function according to equa-
tion 7.15. The square of the absolute value multiplied with the input spectrum will
give the spectrum of the output.

SF F (ω) = |hζF (ω)|2 Sζζ (ω) (7.15)

The input spectrum will be the particular sea state of interest. The most probable
maximum range in wave action can then be calculated from equation 7.16 for large
values of N [Myrhaug, 2007], where N is the number of waves, which can be taken
as N = 10800
TP . It is important to point out that this is the range in wave action.

p
∆FM P M ≈ 2 2m0 ln N (7.16)

Two resulting curves for most probable maximum wave action range as a function
of steepness is given in Figure 7.7. The reason for these to be different is that
different input spectra are used to calculate the wave action.

10 5 TP=3.5, TP=8.5 10 6 TP=5.5, TP=9.5


10 1.8

9 1.6
MPM wave action

MPM wave action

8
1.4
7
1.2
6
1
5

4 0.8

3 0.6
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
steepnes steepnes

Figure 7.7: Most probable maximum of total applied wave action (quasi-static
base shear).

These curves are the relevant results of this first step of calibration. It might seem
strange that these curves do flat out for larger values of steepness, since the forces
will be higher with larger values of steepness. However the reason for the flat out
is the cut off height from Table 7.2 and Figure 7.4. At a certain steepness almost
all harmonic components will be limited by the cutoff frequency, and hence an

88
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

increasing steepness will not result in an increasing height used in the harmonic
input components.

7.2.2.2 Deterministic calculation of most probable maximum wave ac-


tion

A deterministically most probable maximum is next to be calculated using a har-


monic input, and stepping one wave through the structure. The period of the input
should be the same as the zero mean up crossing period as the sea state of inter-
est, and the wave height should be the wave height that corresponds to the most
probable maximum wave height for that particular sea state. The most probable
maximum wave height is calculated using equation 7.17 where N is the number of
zero up crossings [Myrhaug, 2007].
r
ln N
HM P M = HS (7.17)
2
The deterministic range of most probable maximum wave action is the maximum
minus the minimum of the resulting wave action. For certain sea states this results
is given in Table 7.3.

Sea state Harmonic input and output


HS (m) TP (s) T (s) HM P M (m) ∆FM P M (N)
3.5 8.5 8.5 6.6 4.9e+05
4.5 9.5 9.5 8.4 1.1e+06
5.5 9.5 9.5 10.3 1.6e+06

Table 7.3: Deterministic most probable wave action, Hcutof f = 9.26m

7.2.3 Calibration at the center of fatigue

A simplified analysis is here conducted as an initial study of the calibration of


steepness. It is an very fast way to estimate the fatigue damage. However it turns
out to be extremely sensitive to initial assumptions.
This method is described in [ISO, 2007]. The overall idea is to create one transfer
function that has a good accuracy for the most important sea states when fatigue
is considered. The most important sea state is not known in an initial phase.
However by assuming a straight SN-curve, and a linear relationship between stress
range and wave height, there is possible describe a ratio that is proportional to the
damage [ISO, 2007]. There will then be proportionality between damage and wave
height by the power of m (The slope of the SN curve). There will also be an inverse
proportionality to the mean zero crossing period (TP ) due to the number of cycles
during 3h. This relation does not support kinked SN-curves with several values of

89
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

m. The SN curve used in this work has a slope of 3 or 5 depending on the stress
range.

N (HS )m
D∝ (7.18)
TP
The total accumulated damage for a certain sea state is then given by the pro-
portionality in equation 7.18 [ISO, 2007], where N is the number of occurrences in
the scatter diagram. The sea state considered the most important, and where the
transfer function is calculated, is for the HS value where there are equal amount
of damage for larger HS values as for smaller HS values. The same thing goes for
TP . This most important region is called the center of fatigue.

m=3 #104 m=5 #105


0 4 0
7
2 3.5 2
6
3
4 4
proportional damage

proportional damage
5
2.5
6 6
4
HS

HS

2
8 8
3
1.5

10 10
1 2

12 0.5 12 1

14 14
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 5 10 15 20 25
TP TP

Figure 7.8: Proportional accumulated damage for different sea states. The centre
of fatigue contains a red dot. Ekofisk scatter diagram is used

The proportional damage for different sea states is plotted in Figure 7.8. The center
of fatigue turns out to be in the same area as the sea state that contributes with
the most proportional damage for both values of m. The center of fatigue for both
cases is given in Table 7.4 along with the intermediate value m=4, and the result
from time domain simulation. It is hard to tell up front which of the slopes that
will be contributing the most to the damage of a structure. However in this case,
time domain simulations are in hand, and in most sea states all the stress cycles
are bellow the limit of the kink in the SN-curve. This is evident in appendix B,
where stresses bellow 86.2 MPa will have m=5 as slope. This indicates that m=5
might give the best approximation.

m HS TP
3 3.5 8.5
4 4.5 9.5
5 5.5 9.5
time domain 4.5 8.5

Table 7.4: Centre of fatigue

90
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

However as seen in Table 7.4 the cases for m=3 and m=4 are closest to the true
center of fatigue (the one from time domain simulations). m=5 however gives to
large values of both period and wave height and is expected to overestimate the
stresses.

7.2.3.1 Results for center of fatigue assumtions

For these cases the cutoff height of 9.26m is used. This results in the steepness
values given in Table 7.5. These vales are used when the stress transfer function is
calculated. The stress transfer function is calculated with the same method as for
the total wave force, but using the calibrated value of steepness. Dynamic effects
are also included in the calculation of the stress transfer function.
m HS TP Calibrated steepness, κ
3 3.5 8.5 0.05
4 4.5 9.5 0.10
5 5.5 9.5 0.29

Table 7.5: Calibrated steepness

The steepness value of the case with m=5 is beyond the breaking limit. This indi-
cates that the cutoff height might be to low for this particular sea state. With the
steepness given in Table 7.5, the stress transfer functions are calculated. Evident
in Figure 7.9 is that the larger values of steepness results in larger values in the
stress transfer function.

#10 7
3.5
h1< (! ) Stress transfer function

steepnes: 0.05
3 steepnes: 0.10
steepnes: 0.29
2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0 2 4 6 8
!

Figure 7.9: Dynamic stress transfer functions, for the calibrated steepness

91
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

When the stress transfer function is known, the stress response spectrum can be
calculated in a similar way as in equation 7.15. This spectrum can then be used
to directly create a realization of the stress process as described in Section 5.7.1.2.
On these time series the same procedure as for time domain time series is used
to calculate damage, i.e. rainflow counting and mine summation with kinked SN-
curve.
The resulting short term damage depicted in Figure 7.10. The damage resulting
from time domain simulations is also included as reference. These are only short
term sea states, and the goal for the linearization technique is not that the esti-
mates shall bee accurate for all sea states. More important is that the regions of
importance, i.e. the regions around the centre of fatigue is about right. The case
when center of fatigue is estimated with m=4 gives the best results in this area.
This is also the case which has the same significant wave height at the center of
fatigue in time domain simulation (Table 7.4).

Figure 7.10: Damage during short term sea states (3h) using transfer functions
at the center of fatigue and constant wave steepness. Be aware of the different
values on the color axis. Keep in mind that the values of m is only used to estimate
the center of fatigue, and are not involved in the damage calculation.

In order to get the long term damage, it is necessary to multiply the damage from
each sea state by the number of occurrences over a period of time. In this case
the scatter diagram for Ekofisk is used for the purpose. It is given for 56 years.
The total damage experienced from one sea state over these 56 years are calculated

92
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

by the multiplying number occurrences of short term sea states with the damage
achieved by one short term sea state. The total damage is depicted in Figure 7.11.

Figure 7.11: Total damage during 56 years, linearized method. Keep in mind that
the values of m is only used to estimate the center of fatigue, and are not involved
in the damage calculation.

On the top of the plots in Figure 7.11 the total damage from all sea states is
indicated. This is calculated simply by adding the contribution from all sea states.
As mentioned, the case of m=4 and m=3 gives a center of fatigue that is closer
to the true center of fatigue. Thus it is reasonable to believe that these will give
better results than for the case of m=5, which in fact is the case. However m=5 is
the only case which actually over predicts the fatigue damage.
It turns out that the total damage collected from all sea states is about right
in the case when m=4 decides the center of fatigue. It coincides with the total
damage resulting from the time domain simulation. Even though the total damage
is correct in this case, the technique gives a wrong impression on how much each
sea state contributes to the total damage. That being said, the technique gives a
good overall indication on the fatigue damage.
What turns out to be a very important parameter for this technique is the location
of the center of fatigue. The simplicity of the technique is its huge advantage.
However it might be a bit optimistic to let only one transfer function estimate the

93
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

response for all sea states. It might be possible to extend this to several transfer
functions, and split up the domain in this manner. This is investigated in Section
7.2.6

7.2.4 Static transfer functions comparison

The calibration is going to be carried out for every sea state in Section 7.2.6. In
this regard it is of interest to investigate the static transfer functions of stress.
However to generate transfer functions from time domain simulations, for compar-
ison, requires huge computational effort. The reason for this is that the frequency
resolution need to be considerably higher in order to generate a transfer function.
Thus this is only carried out for a few cases in this section.
If the response spectrum is known together with the input spectrum, and the
response is stationary, then there exist a relationship between them. Equation 7.19
describes the relation between stress response- and input spectrum [Conte, 2016].
It is possible to establish a response spectrum according to Section 5.7.2. This
demands a time signal of stress response, which can be achieved by time domain
simulation.

Sσσ (ω) = |hζω (ω)|2 Sζζ (ω) (7.19)


The transfer function can then be calculated by equation 7.20. However in order
to achieve a decent response spectrum, the frequency resolution needs to be well
above the 500 components used in previous sections. In this section 5000 wave
components are used which seem to produce a response spectrum of good quality.
Averaging by the 50 adjacent points is utilized, as it worked well in Section 5.7.2
for a signal of 5000 components.
s
Sσσ (ω)
|hζω (ω)| = (7.20)
Sζζ (ω)

Constant steepness

Here the same technique with constant steepness is here inspected, however with
larger cutoff heights. Both of these cutoffs allows quite high sea states to be cal-
ibrated. The results obtained from linearization are compared with the one from
time domain simulations.
In Figure 7.12 a comparison between the two cutoff frequencies and time domain
simulation is present. The most important region for this platform is the region
close to the resonance, which is at ω = 0.82. The region between 0.6 and 1.2 is
thus the most important. As expected the method over predicts at low frequencies,
and under predicts at high frequencies. The under prediction at high frequencies
is not associated with any large responses. For the smaller sea states considerably

94
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

accurate results is achieved in the important region. For larger sea states the
deviation in low frequency response increases. In all cases is seem to be a certain
degree of conservatism in the important regions. The largest cutoff height gives
better results for frequencies between ω = 0.5 and 1.
The cutoff height of 30m seem to give reasonable results for small sea states. This
indicates that the selection of cutoff height might not as important as long as it is
taken high enough.

10 5 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 5 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


10 15
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Cutoff=15 Cutoff=15
Cutoff=30 Cutoff=30
8 Time domain Time domain
10
6

4
5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 6 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 6 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


2 2.5
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function

Cutoff=15 Cutoff=15
Cutoff=30 Cutoff=30
Time domain 2 Time domain
1.5

1.5
1
1

0.5
0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.12: Comparison of steepness-linearized static transfer function of stress


with stochastic time domain

Constant wave height-period ratio

The scheme of selecting wave heights outlined in Section 7.2.1.2 of having constant
wave height to period ratio is here investigated in the terms static transfer functions.
This can bee seen in figure 7.13.
Also in this case the overshoot in low frequencies increases for for higher sea states.
The higher frequency response seem to be better approximated than for the con-

95
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

stant steepness. Thus height period ratio might be worth considering for platforms
with lower natural periods.

10 5 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 5 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


10 10
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Cutoff=20 Cutoff=20
Time domain Time domain
8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 6 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 6 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


2 2
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function

Cutoff=20 Cutoff=20
Time domain Time domain
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.13: Comparison of height-period-linearized static transfer function of


stress with stochastic time domain

JONSWAP spectrum to determine wave heights

The scheme of selecting wave heights outlined in Section 7.2.1.3 by using the square
root of the spectrum and scale this to achieve a proper wave height is here inspected
in terms of static stress transfer functions.
This scheme give a large peak at the peak period of the spectra. It also seem to
under predict the high frequency response for all cases.

96
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

10 5 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 5 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


12 14
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Heights using spectrum Heights using spectrum
10 Time domain 12 Time domain

10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 6 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 6 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


2.5 2.5
h ( ) stress transfer function

Heights using spectrum h ( ) stress transfer function Heights using spectrum


Time domain Time domain
2 2

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.14: Static stress transfer functions with JONSWAP spectrum used to
generate input wave heights, compared with time domain simulations.

Comparison of all schemes

All the schemes above are plotted together in Figure 7.15 for easier comparison.

97
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

10 5 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 5 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


12 14
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Heights using spectrum Heights using spectrum
10 const c cutoff=20 12 const c cutoff=20
const steep cutoff=30 const steep cutoff=30
Time domain 10 Time domain
8
8
6
6
4
4
2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 6 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 6 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


2.5 2.5
h ( ) stress transfer function

Heights using spectrum h ( ) stress transfer function Heights using spectrum


const c cutoff=20 const c cutoff=20
2 const steep cutoff=30 2 const steep cutoff=30
Time domain Time domain
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.15: SComparison of all schemes, static transfer functions

7.2.5 Dynamic transfer functions

Due to the large degree of dynamic amplification the most important transfer
function is the dynamic transfer function. It is of interest to see how the deviation
in static transfer function influence the dynamic. The accuracy of the response will
be largely influenced by how well the transfer function in the static and dynamic
case preform at the natural frequency.

Constant steepness

The constant steepness approach show promising results for the dynamic transfer
functions. Evident in Figure 7.16 is that it preforms well on low frequencies. At
natural period it overshoots by a significant amount, and this is expected as it
also is present in the static transfer function. The overshoot at resonance will
contribute to add conservatism. At the larger sea the under prediction at high
frequencies increases. This might be important to be aware of if stiffer installations

98
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

are considered.

10 6 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 6 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


12 12
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Cutoff=30 Cutoff=30
10 Time domain 10 Time domain

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 6 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 6 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


12 12
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function

Cutoff=30 Cutoff=30
10 Time domain 10 Time domain

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.16: Dynamic stress transfer functions with constant wave steepness,
compared with time domain simulations.

Constant wave height-period ratio

For constant wave height period ratio, the low frequency part is overestimated by a
significant amount compared to constant steepness. This is evident in figure 7.17.
However the high frequency response seem to be better approximated. In the case
of stiff installations with natural periods bellow 4s this scheme might be considered.

99
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

10 6 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 6 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


12 14
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Cutoff=20 Cutoff=20
10 Time domain 12 Time domain

10
8
8
6
6
4
4
2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 7 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 7 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


2 2
h ( ) stress transfer function

Cutoff=20 h ( ) stress transfer function Cutoff=20


Time domain Time domain
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.17: Dynamic stress transfer functions with constant height period ratio,
compared with time domain simulations.

JONSWAP spectrum to determine wave heights

The results for this scheme can bee seen in Figure 7.18. When the JONSWAP
spectrum is used to determine the input wave heights the dynamic response seem
to give good results at lower sea states. However at low frequencies at higher sea
states a second peak is present. This is a result of the peak in the spectrum used to
determine the input wave heights. This peak will continue to increase for larger sea
states and will give a large over estimate of response at the spectral peak frequency
of the spectrum. This method will not be investigated any further.

100
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

10 6 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 6 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


14 14
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Heights using spectrum Heights using spectrum
12 Time domain 12 Time domain

10 10

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 6 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 6 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


15 15
h ( ) stress transfer function

Heights using spectrum h ( ) stress transfer function Heights using spectrum


Time domain Time domain

10 10

5 5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.18: Dynamic stress transfer functions with JONSWAP spectrum used
to generate input wave heights, compared with time domain simulations.

Comparison of all schemes

All the schemes above are plotted together in Figure 7.19 for easier comparison.

101
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

10 6 HS=3.5, TP=8.5 10 6 HS=4.5, TP=8.5


14 14
h ( ) stress transfer function

h ( ) stress transfer function


Heights using spectrum Heights using spectrum
12 const c cutoff=20 12 const c cutoff=20
const steep cutoff=30 const steep cutoff=30
10 Time domain 10 Time domain

8 8

6 6

4 4

2 2

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

10 7 HS=5.5, TP=9.5 10 7 HS=7.5, TP=11.5


2 2
h ( ) stress transfer function

Heights using spectrum h ( ) stress transfer function Heights using spectrum


const c cutoff=20 const c cutoff=20
1.5 const steep cutoff=30 1.5 const steep cutoff=30
Time domain Time domain

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3

Figure 7.19: Comparison of dynamic transfer functions from all schemes

7.2.6 Calibration for every sea state

Instead of using one transfer function to represent the response for every sea state,
it is here created one transfer function for each sea state. This means that the
steepness and height-period parameter is calibrated for every sea state. This should
result in significant improvements compared to only using one transfer function.
This will in turn increase the computational demand, but still be considerably
lower than the time domain simulation. In the following two sections the results
are presented with colors. For numerical results in tables see appendix A.

7.2.6.1 Comparison of short term damage

The constant steepness scheme gives very promising results. It do however over
predict the damage at resonance compared to the time domain simulation. For
calibration of c the values are in general to large. However it does give as large
amplifications in the resonant area as the the steepness.

102
7.2 Harmonic inputs used to create transfer functions

Figure 7.20: Comparison of short term damage for different linearizations (c =


H/T )

7.2.6.2 Comparison of long term damage

In this section the long term damage is presented. This is the total damage expe-
rienced during 56 years in the Ekofisk area from each block in the scatter diagram.
As indicated in the previous section the amplitudes of scheme with constant height-
period ratio (c) gives larger damages, this is also the case for the long term damage.
However the total damage is not to far from what is calculated in time domain sim-
ulations. The scheme with constant steepness gives total damage slightly higher
than the time domain simulation. However in this case the damage is much more
concentrated. The degree of conservatism might bee too small in order to rely on
the steepness in the general case.

103
7.3 Linearization by changing the drag coefficient

Figure 7.21: Comparison of short term damage for different linearizations (c =


H/T )

7.3 Linearization by changing the drag coefficient


In a general case there can hardly be possible to come up with empirical simple
mathematical relations describing the calibration of parameters such as steepness.
The main aspect leading to this is the differences from design to design. Dimen-
sional properties vary from design to design, and will influence the performance of
a certain steepness value.
Another take on the problem might be in changing the drag coefficient. A method
of linearizing the problem is illustrated in equation 7.21, by simply changing the
drag term to a linear. This involves changing the drag coefficient. The huge
benefit of this method is its local impact. It opens up for more generalized ways
of selecting appropriate values for the linearized problem since the drag coefficient
can be customized for each member.
Here one such method is outlined. This method utilizes the standard deviation of
the wave particle velocity in addition to diameter in order to select drag coefficient.
The standard deviation in particle velocity will rely on the sea state as well as depth.

104
7.3 Linearization by changing the drag coefficient

1 lin 1
FD =CD ρD|u|u → FD = C(D,L) ρDu (7.21)
2 2
In equation 7.21, the C(D,L) is a linear drag coefficient. This coefficient should be
selected such that the total force gives similar characteristics as the nonlinear. One
way to select this coefficient is such that the integral of the deviation between the
linear and nonlinear drag force during one cycle is minimized. However for fatigue
damage the stress range is of importance, and not the deviation during a cycle.
Instead of minimize the deviation for one cycle, it seem more reasonable to select
the linear drag coefficient to give an equal amount of fatigue damage. By assuming
that the fatigue damage can be estimated from the individual peak values of the
stress process it is with certain assumptions possible to establish a drag coefficient
that gives equal damage as the true drag.
By assuming that there exist a linear relationship between force peak and stress
peak, equation 7.22 can be used to describe the damage from one peak.

Di = ν(Fp,i )m (7.22)
Here m is the slope of the SN-curve, ν a constant, and Fp,i force peak number i.
By assuming that the velocities follows a Rayleigh distribution, and requiring that
the expected value of damage from forces with linear drag term es equal to the true
forces as in equation 7.23,

m
E[Fp,L ] = E[Fpm ] (7.23)
C(D,L)
the ratio C = C D σu can be given on a closed form as in equation 7.24 [Wolfram,
1998].
( "m
(m) 2 1 X m! 1 m−p 0.5p
C (K) = Γ(1 + p, ) /2
Γ(1 + 0.5m) p=0 (m − p)!p! 8K 2
(7.24)
2/m
1 m 1
+ γ(1 + 0.5m, )/K − 2
8K 2 K

Where Γ() is the gamma function, and γ(, ) and Γ(, ) is the lower and upper incom-
plete gamma function given by equation 7.25 and 7.26 [Abramowitz and Stegun,
1972].
Z x
γ(a, x) = exp(−t)ta−1 dt (7.25)
0

Z ∞
Γ(a, x) = exp(−t)ta−1 dt (7.26)
x
K is given in equation 7.27

105
7.3 Linearization by changing the drag coefficient

CD σu TP
K= (7.27)
π 2 CM D
The standard deviation in wave particle velocity will obviously vary with sea state.
However it will also vary with depth. Members in the deep part of the structure
will have smaller standard deviation in velocity compared to the ones in the surface
area. The standard deviation of velocity can be calculated according to equation
7.28. Other properties such as angle on current will also contribute to the velocity
standard deviation.
Z ∞ Z ∞
ω2 z
σu2 = e 2kz 2
ω Sζζ (ω)dω = e2 g ω 2 Sζζ (ω)dω (7.28)
0 0

The solution procedure will then be to first calculate K from equation 7.27 and
use this to calculate a drag coefficient according to equation 7.29. Both K and
C (m) (K) has to be calculated for all members due to the standard deviation in
velocity and its dependency on depth.

C(D,L) = C (m) (K)CD σu (7.29)


C (m) (K) is plotted in Figure 7.22. For the members in the surface area K will be
typically above 1 for the most important sea states (region HS =4.5,TP = 8.5).

Figure 7.22: Linearization factors for Morison’s equation for estimating expected
fatigue damage when the SN-slope, m=1, 3, 4 and 5 represented by full, dotted,
dashed and dash-dotted lines, respectively. From: [Wolfram, 1998]

106
7.3 Linearization by changing the drag coefficient

In the above method relative velocity are not accounted for. However it might
give reasonable values of the linear drag coefficient considering that the structural
velocities are small compared to wave particle velocities as seen in Table 7.6.

H T ṙa /ua
7m 13s ≈ 10−3
3m 5s ≈ 10−4

Table 7.6: The ratio between structural response velocity amplitude and water
particle velocity amplitude for 2 cases, with harmonic input, measured in surface
area (drag coefficient of 1.15 is used for the whole structure)

To investigate how this method compares to the other, modifications to USFOS


source code has to be made. The program need to be able to change to a linear drag
term, which is not a feature at the present point in time. Hence an implementation
of this method is not acomplished.

107
Chapter 8
Conclusion

The three parameter Weibull distribution fitted by the method of moments gives
adequate statistical descriptions of the short term stress processes. The parameters
can be presented as smooth surfaces over the HS − TP plane.
The damage encountered is influenced by the particular realization of each sea
state. In order to ensure that the estimated damage has statistical reliability several
realizations of the same sea state should be averaged.
Drag forces are found to be a lot more important than inertia forces. This is due
to the small dimensions on the structural members, in addition to the large drag
coefficient for chords induced by the rack.
If the response is represented by one transfer function at the center of fatigue the
results are highly dependent on the initial assumptions that estimates the location
of the center of fatigue. This method might give good results if the center of fatigue
is estimated correctly, however this is not an straight forward process. Different
aspects complicates this process. Kinked SN-curves and nonlinear relationships
between wave height and stress is among them. If the center of fatigue is not
located properly the method will give poor results. To add conservatism it is
possible to move the estimated center of fatigue to a higher significant wave height.
It is however strongly recommended to calibrate the wave heights for every sea
state. This demands more computational efforts, but is still very manageable. It
gives a much better impression of how the structure is behaving at each sea state.
For this particular jack-up this method gives conservative results, and in general
the calibration procedure must be considered to give good results. If the cutoff
height selected is to low, the calibration procedure might not be possible for sea
states with larger significant wave heights.
Both steepness and constant height-period ratio has shown promising results. The

108
constant wave height-period ratio is giving more accurate results for periods of less
than 4s, and should be considered for stiffer drag dominated structures.
Another aspect is the rapid improvement in computational capacity. This makes
time domain simulations more and more affordable. The method used for the
realization of the waves allows for less wave components and hence saving a lot
of simulation time. More computational time must however be expected by using
second order irregular wave kinematics instead of first order.

109
Chapter 9
Recommendations for further work

Other critical spots for stress concentrations than the joint selected might be criti-
cal. There is a high possibility that a critical spot might be on rack or in the gearing
system used to elevate and lock the racks in place. This will require detailed finite
element modeling of the rack and a gear system. The dimensional properties of
gears are such that 3 dimensional solid elements should be used for modeling. This
is not always supported software wise in the offshore industry, which usually sticks
to plates and beams.
The linearization techniques might also be viewed in the context of heading. By
dividing the heading in different sectors, and perhaps calculate the calibrated steep-
ness for each heading.
The spectrum used here is a sharply peaked JONSWAP spectrum. It might be
interesting to look into the case of a double peaked spectrum. This perhaps intro-
duces new difficulties regarding the linearization process.
A equivalent drag coefficient might be another way to approach the problem. This
will however require software to support such linear drag terms. It will open up
for a far more detailed linearization process, and may also by simple mathematical
relations.
An extended analysis might also be carried out to insure sufficient statistical accu-
racy in terms of realizations. This can be carried out by averaging several realiza-
tions of the same sea state.
What is the might most important aspect to get more insight into, is however,
the effect of current. As indicated in the beginning of the thesis, the current may
amplify the amplitudes of the forces significantly.

110
Bibliography

Aarsnes, L. H. [2015], Estimation of Extreme Response on a Jack-up Platform by


Application of Stochastic Methods, Department of Marine Technology NTNU.
Abramowitz, M. and Stegun, I. A. [1972], Handbook of Mathematical Functions with
Formulas, Graphs, and Mathematical Tables, U.S. Department of Commerce,
NIST.
Almar-Næss, A. [1985], Fatigue Handbook: Offshore Steel Structures, 1 edn, Tapir.
Box, G. E. P., Jenkins, G. M. and Reinsel, G. C. [1994], Time Series Analysis:
Forecasting and Control, Prentice Hall.

Conte, C. P. [2016], Random vibrations, UC Dan Diego Jacobs School of Engineer-


ing.
DNV GL [2014a], DNV-RP-C205: Environmental Conditions and Environmental
Loads, july edn, DNV GL.

DNV GL [2014b], DNVGL-RP-C203: Fatigue design of offshore steel structures,


july edn, DNV GL.
DNV GL [2015], DNVGL-RP-C104: Self-elevating units, july edn, DNV GL.
Faltinsen, O. M. [1993], Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures, 1 edn, Cam-
bridge University Press.

Goncalves, A. [2017], ‘Mail correspondence’. Received; 10 May 2017.


Haver, S. [2016], Stochastic Description of Ocean Waves and Response Analysis
and Prediction of Extremes, NTNU.
Haver, S. [2017], Metocean Modelling and Prediction of Extremes, Draft version 1,
Univeristy in Stavangerm NTNU.

111
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Hilber, H. M. and Hughes, T. J. R. [1978], Collocation, Dissipation and ’Overshoot’


for Time Integration Schemes in Structural Dynamics, Earthquake Engineering
and Structural Dynamics 6 p. 99-118.
Hughes, T. J. R. [2000], The Finite Element Method Linear Static and Dynamic
Finite Element Analysis, 1 edn, Dover.

ISO [2007], ISO 19902 Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed steel offshore
structures, International Organization for Standardization.
Langen, I. and Sigbjornsson, R. [1986], Dynamisk Analyse av marine konstruk-
sjoner, Tapir.

Larsen, C. M. [2014], TMR4182 Marine dynamics, january edn, Department of


Marine Technology.
Marintek [2001], USFOS Getting Started, SINTEF group.
Marintek [2010], USFOS Hydrodynmaics, Theory, Description of use, Verification,
SINTEF group.
Myrhaug, D. [2007], TMR 4180 Marin Dynamikk uregelmessig sjø, NTNU.
Myrhaug, D. [2016], TMR4235: Stochastic Theory of Sea Loads. Statistics of Nar-
row Band Processes and Equivalent Linearization, Department of Marine Tech-
nology NTNU.

Newland, D. E. [2005], Random Vibrations, Spectral and Wavelet Analysis, 3 edn,


Dover Publications.
NORSOK [2007], N-003.
Søreide, T. H., Amdahl, J., Eberg, E., Holmås, T. and Øyvind Hellan [1993],
USFOS - A computer Program for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel Offshore
Structures. Theory Manual, SINTEF Division of Structural Engineering.
Tahery, H. M. [2015], Investigation of which sea states yield the dominating con-
tribution to fatigue accumulation in offshore structure, Department of marine
technology, NTNU.

WAFO-group [2011], WAFO - A Matlab Toolbox for Analysis of Random Waves


and Loads - A Tutorial, Math. Stat., Center for Math. Sci., Lund Univ.
Wolfram, J. [1998], On alternative approaches to linearization and Morison’s equa-
tion for wave forces, Department of Civil and Offshore Engineering, Heriot- Watt
University, Edinburgh EH9 1.

112
Appendices

113
Appendix A
Linearization and time domain results and
tables

In this appendix the numerical results are presented in tables. These tables are in the same format
as the scatter diagram.

114
A.1

2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 1.57E-01 1.84E-01 1.55E-01 6.75E-02 5.37E-02 3.99E-02 4.22E-02 3.63E-02 3.60E-02 3.09E-02 2.72E-02 2.41E-02 2.25E-02 2.15E-02 2.13E-02 0
3.5 2.55E-01 2.09E-01 1.07E-01 4.86E-02 6.10E-02 5.92E-02 5.11E-02 4.75E-02 4.01E-02 3.45E-02 3.03E-02 2.82E-02 2.69E-02 2.67E-02 0
4.5 2.75E-01 1.43E-01 6.72E-02 7.98E-02 7.53E-02 6.39E-02 5.83E-02 5.03E-02 4.35E-02 3.82E-02 3.54E-02 3.37E-02 0 3.60E-02

fined as TH2
5.5 1.76E-01 9.39E-02 1.02E-01 9.40E-02 7.92E-02 7.05E-02 6.02E-02 5.29E-02 4.69E-02 4.33E-02 4.12E-02
6.5 1.19E-01 1.09E-01 9.15E-02 8.17E-02 6.98E-02 6.13E-02 5.49E-02 0 4.85E-02
7.5 1.37E-01 1.25E-01 1.04E-01 9.28E-02 7.93E-02 6.97E-02 6.25E-02 0 5.59E-02
8.5 1.46E-01 1.21E-01 1.06E-01 9.10E-02 7.93E-02 7.12E-02 6.64E-02
9.5 1.63E-01 1.37E-01 1.20E-01 1.02E-01 8.94E-02 7.88E-02 7.38E-02
10.5 1.53E-01 1.34E-01 1.13E-01 9.97E-02 8.89E-02 8.24E-02
11.5 1.30E-01 1.12E-01 9.99E-02 0
12.5 1.03E-01
Calibration ratios

Table A.1: Steepness, de-


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 7.78E-01 1.01E+00 9.36E-01 4.71E-01 4.39E-01 4.07E-01 4.75E-01 4.53E-01 4.89E-01 4.54E-01 4.28E-01 3.95E-01 3.79E-01 3.71E-01 3.80E-01
3.5 1.35E+00 1.24E+00 7.22E-01 4.08E-01 6.14E-01 6.61E-01 6.24E-01 6.32E-01 5.85E-01 5.40E-01 4.98E-01 4.81E-01 4.74E-01 4.85E-01
4.5 1.62E+00 9.85E-01 5.82E-01 7.83E-01 8.34E-01 7.86E-01 7.77E-01 7.16E-01 6.69E-01 6.22E-01 6.02E-01 5.94E-01 0 6.64E-01
5.5 1.20E+00 7.76E-01 1.00E+00 1.05E+00 9.69E-01 9.42E-01 8.62E-01 8.04E-01 7.51E-01 7.27E-01 7.20E-01
6.5 1.17E+00 1.21E+00 1.12E+00 1.09E+00 1.00E+00 9.35E-01 8.76E-01 0 8.38E-01
7.5 1.35E+00 1.38E+00 1.28E+00 1.24E+00 1.14E+00 1.07E+00 1.00E+00 0 9.67E-01
8.5 1.76E+00 1.59E+00 1.50E+00 1.36E+00 1.27E+00 1.18E+00 1.14E+00
9.5 1.98E+00 1.78E+00 1.68E+00 1.53E+00 1.40E+00 1.30E+00 1.27E+00

T
ratio, defined as H
10.5 2.00E+00 1.89E+00 1.71E+00 1.57E+00 1.47E+00 1.42E+00
11.5 2.41E+00 2.03E+00 1.78E+00 0
12.5 2.50E+00

115
A.1 Calibration ratios

Table A.2: Height period


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
A.2
2.5 1.67E-10 7.26E-09 7.10E-08 6.02E-08 7.65E-08 2.31E-09 1.34E-09 6.60E-10 3.91E-10 1.97E-10 1.10E-10 6.21E-11 3.74E-11 2.32E-11 1.62E-11 2.20E-07
3.5 1.40E-07 1.07E-06 8.39E-07 5.73E-08 2.15E-08 1.18E-08 5.53E-09 3.20E-09 1.62E-09 8.57E-10 4.88E-10 3.02E-10 1.92E-10 1.41E-10 2.15E-06
4.5 1.03E-05 6.52E-06 3.33E-07 1.34E-07 7.17E-08 3.14E-08 1.74E-08 9.13E-09 5.00E-09 2.96E-09 1.82E-09 1.19E-09 0 8.14E-10 1.74E-05
5.5 3.38E-05 1.76E-06 6.47E-07 3.40E-07 1.50E-07 8.22E-08 4.12E-08 2.39E-08 1.40E-08 8.93E-09 6.00E-09 3.68E-05
6.5 2.42E-06 1.22E-06 5.21E-07 3.03E-07 1.54E-07 9.33E-08 5.89E-08 0 2.53E-08 4.80E-06

ing steepness
7.5 7.65E-06 3.92E-06 1.61E-06 9.41E-07 5.10E-07 3.11E-07 2.08E-07 0 9.41E-08 1.52E-05
8.5 1.22E-05 5.19E-06 2.89E-06 1.60E-06 1.04E-06 6.78E-07 4.67E-07 2.41E-05
9.5 3.19E-05 1.40E-05 8.27E-06 4.48E-06 3.02E-06 1.97E-06 1.36E-06 6.49E-05
10.5 3.46E-05 2.08E-05 1.18E-05 8.15E-06 5.69E-06 3.75E-06 8.48E-05
11.5 3.22E-05 2.19E-05 1.56E-05 0 6.97E-05
12.5 2.66E-05 2.66E-05
0 0 1.67E-10 1.47E-07 1.14E-05 4.12E-05 2.23E-06 1.09E-05 4.96E-05 5.61E-05 3.33E-05 5.08E-05 3.46E-05 2.42E-05 3.22E-05 1.27E-07 1.57E-10 8.14E-10 0 0.000347

Table A.3: Calibrated us-


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 2.22E-09 3.96E-09 1.18E-08 4.54E-08 1.56E-08 5.56E-09 4.30E-09 3.47E-09 2.85E-09 2.56E-09 2.28E-09 2.00E-09 1.81E-09 1.68E-09 1.62E-09 1.07E-07
Short term sea state

3.5 1.36E-08 7.68E-08 3.59E-07 1.02E-07 2.70E-08 1.74E-08 1.10E-08 7.28E-09 5.51E-09 4.28E-09 3.30E-09 2.77E-09 2.42E-09 2.26E-09 6.35E-07
4.5 4.83E-07 2.05E-06 5.59E-07 1.41E-07 8.55E-08 4.58E-08 2.56E-08 1.68E-08 1.10E-08 7.14E-09 5.04E-09 4.03E-09 0.00E+00 3.38E-09 3.44E-06

simulations
5.5 9.19E-06 2.42E-06 6.18E-07 3.72E-07 1.84E-07 9.50E-08 5.72E-08 3.32E-08 1.88E-08 1.17E-08 8.54E-09 1.30E-05
6.5 2.28E-06 1.37E-06 6.72E-07 3.31E-07 1.94E-07 1.06E-07 5.70E-08 0.00E+00 2.21E-08 5.03E-06
7.5 7.35E-06 4.44E-06 2.12E-06 1.04E-06 5.96E-07 3.18E-07 1.65E-07 0.00E+00 6.14E-08 1.61E-05
8.5 1.27E-05 6.00E-06 2.99E-06 1.72E-06 9.03E-07 4.54E-07 2.53E-07 2.50E-05
9.5 3.18E-05 1.54E-05 7.68E-06 4.57E-06 2.36E-06 1.20E-06 6.63E-07 6.37E-05
10.5 3.51E-05 1.80E-05 1.09E-05 5.91E-06 3.00E-06 1.62E-06 7.45E-05
11.5 2.37E-05 1.33E-05 6.96E-06 0.00E+00 4.40E-05
12.5 8.47E-06 8.47E-06
0 0 2.22E-09 1.75E-08 5.72E-07 1.16E-05 3.1E-06 1.04E-05 5.08E-05 5.95E-05 3.02E-05 4.18E-05 2.29E-05 1.19E-05 1.1E-05 1E-07 3.88E-09 3.38E-09 0 0.000254

Table A.4: Time domain


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 1.74E-10 4.73E-09 4.67E-08 5.39E-08 5.86E-09 3.04E-09 2.14E-09 1.07E-09 7.17E-10 3.59E-10 1.93E-10 1.03E-10 5.97E-11 3.64E-11 2.56E-11 1.19E-07
3.5 8.39E-08 6.52E-07 6.82E-07 6.41E-08 3.70E-08 2.46E-08 1.20E-08 7.30E-09 3.60E-09 1.85E-09 9.68E-10 5.78E-10 3.64E-10 2.66E-10 1.57E-06
4.5 6.22E-06 5.67E-06 4.30E-07 2.25E-07 1.55E-07 7.33E-08 4.35E-08 2.21E-08 1.23E-08 6.98E-09 4.23E-09 2.69E-09 0 1.86E-09 1.29E-05
5.5 2.71E-05 2.16E-06 1.35E-06 8.60E-07 4.05E-07 2.30E-07 1.11E-07 6.10E-08 3.42E-08 2.14E-08 1.42E-08 3.24E-05

116
A.2 Short term sea state

6.5 4.91E-06 3.20E-06 1.47E-06 8.61E-07 4.50E-07 2.55E-07 1.49E-07 0 6.13E-08 1.14E-05
7.5 1.66E-05 1.04E-05 4.89E-06 2.86E-06 1.47E-06 8.71E-07 5.50E-07 0 2.41E-07 3.79E-05
8.5 4.54E-05 2.00E-05 1.10E-05 5.78E-06 3.50E-06 2.17E-06 1.38E-06 8.93E-05
9.5 1.13E-04 5.20E-05 2.92E-05 1.58E-05 9.67E-06 6.07E-06 4.03E-06 2.30E-04

height-period ratio
10.5 1.24E-04 7.08E-05 3.99E-05 2.53E-05 1.69E-05 1.13E-05 2.88E-04
11.5 1.46E-04 8.03E-05 4.99E-05 0 2.76E-04
12.5 9.24E-05 9.24E-05
0 0 1.74E-10 8.86E-08 6.92E-06 3.35E-05 2.66E-06 2.31E-05 0.000173 0.000203 0.000115 0.000209 0.00012 7.58E-05 0.000109 3.2E-07 2.91E-10 1.86E-09 0 0.001072

Table A.5: Constant wave


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
A.3
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 1.17E-09 4.65E-06 5.22E-04 8.20E-04 5.47E-04 6.53E-06 2.23E-06 9.49E-07 3.88E-07 8.13E-08 1.70E-08 5.15E-09 6.73E-10 1.62E-10 6.48E-11 0 1.90E-03
3.5 1.40E-07 2.74E-04 2.62E-03 4.62E-04 7.92E-05 1.46E-05 3.02E-06 1.16E-06 3.99E-07 1.07E-07 3.02E-08 8.16E-09 2.11E-09 5.64E-10 0 3.45E-03
4.5 1.03E-05 3.59E-04 7.06E-04 5.29E-04 1.08E-04 1.61E-05 3.23E-06 5.75E-07 2.30E-07 1.42E-07 1.45E-08 5.95E-09 0 8.14E-10 1.73E-03
5.5 3.38E-05 3.03E-04 7.34E-04 4.94E-04 8.74E-05 1.55E-05 1.19E-06 5.75E-07 1.54E-07 7.15E-08 6.00E-09 1.67E-03
6.5 3.44E-04 5.48E-04 2.17E-04 6.69E-05 6.49E-06 1.21E-06 4.12E-07 0 2.53E-08 1.18E-03

ing steepness
7.5 5.36E-05 2.74E-04 2.30E-04 1.05E-04 2.24E-05 5.92E-06 1.25E-06 0 9.41E-08 6.93E-04
8.5 9.76E-05 1.51E-04 1.76E-04 4.97E-05 1.25E-05 5.42E-06 1.40E-06 4.94E-04
9.5 3.19E-05 8.38E-05 1.41E-04 1.12E-04 4.23E-05 2.55E-05 1.36E-06 4.37E-04
10.5 3.46E-05 1.46E-04 1.07E-04 5.71E-05 3.98E-05 3.75E-06 3.87E-04
11.5 9.66E-05 1.10E-04 6.22E-05 0 2.68E-04
12.5 2.66E-05 2.66E-05
0 0 1.17E-09 4.79E-06 0.000807 0.003831 0.002018 0.001746 0.001571 0.000824 0.000655 0.000396 0.00023 0.000135 3.32E-05 1.34E-07 6.28E-10 8.14E-10 0 0.012251

Table A.6: Calibrated us-


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 1.32E-08 1.23E-06 6.34E-05 0.000583 9.19E-05 1.03E-05 4.05E-06 2.42E-06 1.31E-06 5.35E-07 2.36E-07 1.72E-07 4.73E-08 2.28E-08 1.55E-08 0 7.59E-04
3.5 1.00E-08 1.80E-05 0.001118 0.000801 9.21E-05 1.85E-05 4.43E-06 1.67E-06 7.38E-07 2.64E-07 9.76E-08 3.78E-08 1.51E-08 6.55E-09 0 2.06E-03
4.5 4.56E-07 0.000113 0.001187 0.000555 0.000125 2.13E-05 3.98E-06 8.00E-07 3.34E-07 2.02E-07 2.19E-08 1.04E-08 0 1.76E-09 2.01E-03

simulations
5.5 9.16E-06 0.00042 0.000716 0.000544 0.000104 1.70E-05 1.49E-06 6.58E-07 1.60E-07 6.81E-08 5.83E-09 1.81E-03
6.5 0.000332 0.000621 0.000278 7.21E-05 7.79E-06 1.26E-06 3.50E-07 0 1.86E-08 1.31E-03
7.5 5.28E-05 0.000312 0.000302 0.000116 2.57E-05 5.74E-06 9.21E-07 0 5.67E-08 8.15E-04
8.5 0.000101 0.000172 0.000181 5.20E-05 1.04E-05 3.47E-06 7.30E-07 5.22E-04
9.5 3.17E-05 9.15E-05 0.000129 0.000111 3.16E-05 1.49E-05 6.42E-07 4.10E-04
10.5 3.52E-05 0.000126 9.48E-05 3.92E-05 1.99E-05 1.57E-06 3.16E-04
11.5 7.01E-05 6.31E-05 2.62E-05 0 1.59E-04
12.5 8.06E-06 8.06E-06
0 0 1.32E-08 1.24E-06 8.19E-05 0.001823 0.0025 0.001758 0.001757 0.001011 0.000648 0.000365 0.000153 6.63E-05 1.12E-05 1.3E-07 2.21E-08 1.76E-09 0 0.010176
Long term sea state (56 years)

Table A.7: Time domain


2<TP<3
2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5 17.5 18.5 19.5 20.5
0<HS<1 0.5
1.5 Cutoff
2.5 1.22E-09 3.03E-06 3.44E-04 7.34E-04 4.18E-05 8.59E-06 3.56E-06 1.54E-06 7.12E-07 1.48E-07 2.99E-08 8.57E-09
1.07E-09 2.55E-10 1.02E-10 1.14E-03
3.5 8.39E-08 1.67E-04 2.13E-03 5.17E-04 1.36E-04 3.04E-05 6.57E-06 2.65E-06 8.86E-07 2.31E-07 6.00E-08
1.56E-08 4.00E-09 1.06E-09 2.99E-03
4.5 6.22E-06 3.12E-04 9.12E-04 8.87E-04 2.33E-04 3.75E-05 8.04E-06 1.39E-06 5.67E-07 3.35E-07
3.39E-08 1.34E-08 0 1.86E-09 2.40E-03
5.5 2.71E-05 3.71E-04 1.53E-03 1.25E-03 2.36E-04 4.34E-05 3.23E-06 1.46E-06 3.77E-07
1.71E-07 1.42E-08 3.46E-03

117
A.3 Long term sea state (56 years)

6.5 6.97E-04 1.44E-03 6.15E-04 1.90E-04 1.89E-05 3.31E-06 1.05E-06 0 6.13E-08 2.96E-03

Table A.8:
7.5 1.16E-04 7.30E-04 6.99E-04 3.21E-04 6.48E-05 1.66E-05 3.30E-06 0 2.41E-07 1.95E-03
8.5 3.63E-04 5.80E-04 6.73E-04 1.79E-04 4.21E-05 1.74E-05
4.14E-06 1.86E-03
9.5 1.13E-04 3.12E-04 4.97E-04 3.95E-04 1.35E-04 7.90E-05
4.03E-06 1.54E-03

height-period ratio
10.5 1.24E-04 4.95E-04 3.59E-04 1.77E-04 1.18E-04
1.13E-05 1.29E-03
11.5 4.37E-04 4.02E-04 2.00E-04 0 1.04E-03
12.5 9.24E-05 9.24E-05
0 0 1.22E-09 3.11E-06 0.000517 0.003203 0.001842 0.003374 0.004161 0.00261 0.002231 0.00146 0.000779 0.000419 0.000112 3.34E-07 1.17E-09 1.86E-09 0 0.020711

Constant
Appendix B
Stress range distributions from 93 sea
states

HS=2.5, TP=4.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
6 8 10 12 14 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.1: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:4.5

118
HS=2.5, TP=5.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.2: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:5.5

HS=2.5, TP=6.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.3: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:6.5

119
HS=2.5, TP=7.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.4: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:7.5

HS=2.5, TP=8.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.5: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:8.5

120
HS=2.5, TP=9.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4
3param Weibull fit
Data
-5
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.6: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:9.5

HS=2.5, TP=10.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4
3param Weibull fit
Data
-5
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.7: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:10.5

121
HS=2.5, TP=11.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.8: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:11.5

HS=2.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.9: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:12.5

122
HS=2.5, TP=13.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
12 12.5 13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.10: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:13.5

HS=2.5, TP=14.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.11: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:14.5

123
HS=2.5, TP=15.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.12: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:15.5

HS=2.5, TP=16.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.13: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:16.5

124
HS=2.5, TP=17.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
10 11 12 13 14 15
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.14: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:17.5

HS=2.5, TP=18.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
10 11 12 13 14 15
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.15: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:2.5 TP:18.5

125
HS=3.5, TP=5.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.16: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:5.5

HS=3.5, TP=6.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.17: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:6.5

126
HS=3.5, TP=7.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.18: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:7.5

HS=3.5, TP=8.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.19: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:8.5

127
HS=3.5, TP=9.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4
3param Weibull fit
Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.20: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:9.5

HS=3.5, TP=10.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4
3param Weibull fit
Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.21: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:10.5

128
HS=3.5, TP=11.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.22: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:11.5

HS=3.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.23: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:12.5

129
HS=3.5, TP=13.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.24: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:13.5

HS=3.5, TP=14.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.25: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:14.5

130
HS=3.5, TP=15.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.26: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:15.5

HS=3.5, TP=16.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.27: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:16.5

131
HS=3.5, TP=17.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.28: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:17.5

HS=3.5, TP=18.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
11 12 13 14 15 16
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.29: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:3.5 TP:18.5

132
HS=4.5, TP=6.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.30: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:6.5

HS=4.5, TP=7.5
2

-1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-3

-4

-5

-6 3param Weibull fit


Data
-7
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.31: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:7.5

133
HS=4.5, TP=8.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.32: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:8.5

HS=4.5, TP=9.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.33: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:9.5

134
HS=4.5, TP=10.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4
3param Weibull fit
Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.34: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:10.5

HS=4.5, TP=11.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.35: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:11.5

135
HS=4.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.36: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:12.5

HS=4.5, TP=13.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13 13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.37: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:13.5

136
HS=4.5, TP=14.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.38: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:14.5

HS=4.5, TP=15.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.39: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:15.5

137
HS=4.5, TP=16.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.40: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:16.5

HS=4.5, TP=17.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.41: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:17.5

138
HS=4.5, TP=19.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3
3param Weibull fit
Data
-4
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.42: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:4.5 TP:19.5

HS=5.5, TP=7.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.43: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:7.5

139
HS=5.5, TP=8.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.44: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:8.5

HS=5.5, TP=9.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.45: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:9.5

140
HS=5.5, TP=10.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4
3param Weibull fit
Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.46: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:10.5

HS=5.5, TP=11.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.47: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:11.5

141
HS=5.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.48: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:12.5

HS=5.5, TP=13.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.49: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:13.5

142
HS=5.5, TP=14.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.50: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:14.5

HS=5.5, TP=15.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.51: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:15.5

143
HS=5.5, TP=16.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.52: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:16.5

HS=5.5, TP=17.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.53: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:5.5 TP:17.5

144
HS=6.5, TP=9.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.54: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:9.5

HS=6.5, TP=10.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.55: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:10.5

145
HS=6.5, TP=11.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.56: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:11.5

HS=6.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13.5 14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.57: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:12.5

146
HS=6.5, TP=13.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.58: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:13.5

HS=6.5, TP=14.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.59: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:14.5

147
HS=6.5, TP=15.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.60: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:15.5

HS=6.5, TP=17.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
12 13 14 15 16 17
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.61: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:6.5 TP:17.5

148
HS=7.5, TP=9.5
2

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.62: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:9.5

HS=7.5, TP=10.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.63: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:10.5

149
HS=7.5, TP=11.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.64: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:11.5

HS=7.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.65: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:12.5

150
HS=7.5, TP=13.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.66: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:13.5

HS=7.5, TP=14.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.67: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:14.5

151
HS=7.5, TP=15.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.68: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:15.5

HS=7.5, TP=17.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.69: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:7.5 TP:17.5

152
HS=8.5, TP=10.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.70: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:10.5

HS=8.5, TP=11.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.71: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:11.5

153
HS=8.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
14 14.5 15 15.5 16 16.5 17 17.5 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.72: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:12.5

HS=8.5, TP=13.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.73: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:13.5

154
HS=8.5, TP=14.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.74: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:14.5

HS=8.5, TP=15.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6

-8

-10 3param Weibull fit


Data
-12
8 10 12 14 16 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.75: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:15.5

155
HS=8.5, TP=16.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.76: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:8.5 TP:16.5

HS=9.5, TP=10.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.77: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:10.5

156
HS=9.5, TP=11.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.78: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:11.5

HS=9.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.79: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:12.5

157
HS=9.5, TP=13.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.80: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:13.5

HS=9.5, TP=14.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6

-8
3param Weibull fit
Data
-10
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.81: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:14.5

158
HS=9.5, TP=15.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.82: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:15.5

HS=9.5, TP=16.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.83: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:9.5 TP:16.5

159
HS=10.5, TP=11.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.84: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:10.5 TP:11.5

HS=10.5, TP=12.5
3

1
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4 3param Weibull fit


Data
-5
14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.85: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:10.5 TP:12.5

160
HS=10.5, TP=13.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6

-8
3param Weibull fit
Data
-10
10 12 14 16 18 20
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.86: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:10.5 TP:13.5

HS=10.5, TP=14.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.87: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:10.5 TP:14.5

161
HS=10.5, TP=15.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.88: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:10.5 TP:15.5

HS=10.5, TP=16.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.89: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:10.5 TP:16.5

162
HS=11.5, TP=13.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.90: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:11.5 TP:13.5

HS=11.5, TP=14.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.91: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:11.5 TP:14.5

163
HS=11.5, TP=15.5
4

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-2

-4

-6
3param Weibull fit
Data
-8
11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.92: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:11.5 TP:15.5

HS=12.5, TP=16.5
3

0
ln(-ln(1-F("<)))

-1

-2

-3

-4

-5 3param Weibull fit


Data
-6
12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
ln("<-6) (Pa)

Figure B.93: Probability distributions of stress range during 3h realizations HS:12.5 TP:16.5

164
Appendix C

165
Problem description

MSc theses 2017

Title: Adequate linearization scheme for a jack-up in order to obtain sufficiently accurate fatigue
assessments using a linear stochastic fatigue analyses

Student: Marius Tveit Karlsson

Background
The topic to be investigated in this thesis is fatigue assessment of a typical jack-up platform.
Properties of a jack-up structure making a fatigue assessment cost effective are:

• Non – linear hydrodynamic loading due to the drag-term of Morison equation.


• Largest natural periods are typically well inside the energetic frequency band of the wave
spectrum – even for storm seas – which may result in considerable dynamic amplifications of
stress width for a broad range of sea states.

The overall aim of this thesis is to establish some guidelines on how to linearize the hydrodynamic
loads such that a stochastic fatigue analysis will give results of sufficient accuracy.

The topic for the thesis is suggested by MsC Antonio Goncalves, DNV-GL. His background for the
thesis is given below:

“In stochastic fatigue analysis the relation between forces in each members and wave height is
calculated with the assumption that exist a linear relationship between the wave height and the
resulting force. However, typically jacket and jack-up with lattice leg design are drag dominated;
where the drag forces are proportional to the square of the wave particle velocity. For such
structures, the wave height to wave force relation is therefore not linear.

In offshore industry, the linearization with respect to wave height is generally used. It is based on the
selection of a characteristic or linearization wave height for each wave frequency of the scatter
diagram. Constant wave steepness is frequently used for select the linearize wave height. However,
there are no proper guidelines or recommendations for selection the correct wave steepness for a
specific location, and constant wave steepness usually results in over predicted drag at small wave
frequencies and under predicted drag at large wave frequencies.

Due to fatigue results at typically jack-ups are strongly dependent on assumptions made in the wave
linearization; an appropriate linearization wave height method is highly required.

Our proposal is to create an analytical method that estimates a linearization wave height that
globally produces the same fatigue damage as the waves defined in the scatter diagram, for a given
frequency, by using an equivalent jack-up leg model. The equivalent linearization wave height
estimated with the analytical method will be then applied in the stochastic fatigue FE analysis.”

166
Suggested work plan
Below a possible division into sub-tasks is given.

1. Present a brief overview of methods for assessing fatigue damage due to waves for jacket
and jack-ups. Discuss pro and contra for the methods in view of linear versus non-linear
loading and static versus dynamic behaviour.

2. Present in detail the stochastic fatigue analysis in frequency domain. Discuss possible
approaches for linearizing the non-linear hydrodynamic load. A topic that should be
considered is consequence of current for the linearization? Can we neglect current for
fatigue assessment?

3. In order to evaluate the accuracy of fatigue assessment for various linearization methods,
we an approach that we will consider state-of-the-art fatigue damage. For a stationary short
term sea state this would be a proper time domain solution of the structural problem
together with a rain-flow counting of accumulated fatigue damage for the sea state. Discuss
and describe in detail how this can be extended to a full long term fatigue assessment.

4. Do a long term fatigue assessment for the jack-up under consideration using approaches
outlined in 3.. It shall be discussed how many sectors the weather is divided into. A sector
width of 30o or 45o seems reasonable. A proper modelling of wave conditions for the various
sectors maybe found in literature or it may have to be established by the candidate using
hindcast data (NORA10) for a proper location. (One must consider the work load of including
all sectors. If found convenient one can limit the assessment to the worst sector. If time
permits one can include more sectors.)

5. Do a long term stochastic fatigue analysis using linearized response amplitude operators for
the stress process. Compare with estimated damage in 4.. Test eventually several
approaches for the linearization. Recommend a best approach for the platform under
consideration. Discuss how general you thing recommendation is.

6. Conclusion and discussion for further work.

The candidate may of course select another scheme as the preferred approach for his work.
The work may show to be more extensive than anticipated. Some topics may therefore be
left out after discussion with the supervisor without any negative influence on the grading.

The candidate should in his report give a personal contribution to the solution of the problem
formulated in this text. All assumptions and conclusions must be supported by mathematical
models and/or references to physical effects in a logical manner. The candidate should apply
all available sources to find relevant literature and information on the actual problem.

The report should be well organised and give a clear presentation of the work and all
conclusions. It is important that the text is well written and that tables and figures are used
to support the verbal presentation. The report should be complete, but still as short as
possible. The final report must contain this text, an acknowledgement, summary, main body,
conclusions, suggestions for further work, symbol list, references and appendices. All figures,
tables and equations must be identified by numbers. References should be given by author

167
and year in the text, and presented alphabetically in the reference list. The report must be
submitted in two copies unless otherwise has been agreed with the supervisor. From the
report it should be possible to identify the work carried out by the candidate and what has
been found in the available literature. It is important to give references to the original source
for theories and experimental results.

The supervisor may require that the candidate should give a written plan that describes the
progress of the work after having received this text. The plan may contain a table of content
for the report and also assumed use of computer resources. As an indication such a plan
should be available by end of March.

The report must be signed by the candidate, include this text, appear as a paperback, and - if
needed - have a separate enclosure (binder, diskette or CD-ROM) with additional material.

Supervisor: Sverre Haver, NTNU.


Co-supervisors Jørgen Amdahl, NTNU
Universität Stuttgart
Baustatik und Baudynamik

STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF Master Thesis


A HEAVY-LIFT VESSEL

submitted by

Prakash Mohanasundaram

in

July 2009

Institut für Baustatik und Baudynamik


Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Manfred Bischoff
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS OF A
HEAVY-LIFT VESSEL

January 2009 – July 2009

Master’s thesis submitted to the University of Stuttgart in partial fulfillment of the


requirements for the degree of

Master of Science in
Computational Mechanics of Materials and Structures (COMMAS)

Dockwise Shipping B.V,


Breda, The Netherlands
In co-operation with

Institute of Structural Mechanics,


University of Stuttgart

I
Supervisors
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Manfred Bischoff
Institute of Structural Mechanics
University of Stuttgart
Pfaffenwaldring 7, 70550 Stuttgart, Germany

Mr. Maarten Vink,


Engineering Manager,
Dockwise Shipping B.V,
Lage Mosten, Breda, The Netherlands

II
Acknowledgement

Firstly, I would like to thank Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. Manfred Bischoff for giving me the
opportunity to do my Master Thesis under his institute.

I am indebted to Mr.Maarten Vink, who gave me an opportunity and encouraged me to


carry out my master thesis with Dockwise Shipping. I express my deep sense of
gratitude to my guide Mr. Jacco van de Vreugde, Senior Structural Engineer, Dockwise
Shipping for his valuable encouragement and guidance during my master thesis.

I would also like to thank my university supervisor Dipl.-Ing. Johannes Irslinger for his
guidance and support in completing this work.

Finally, I would like to thank my family members and my colleagues who have been a
constant source of support and encouragement in all respects during my entire course
work.

-Prakash.E.M

III
ABSTRACT

Dockwise is market leader in transport of extremely large and heavy cargoes. The world's largest
heavy transport carrier Blue Marlin is able to carry ultra large and heavy floating production and
drilling platforms up to 73,000tons. The Blue Marlin enables oil companies to build fully integrated
units anywhere in the world and transport them to the final offshore destination, in order to limit
hook up and commissioning at the offshore location.

Even though Blue Marlin is capable of transporting ultra heavy loads, the load-out of SPAR buoy
weighing 20,000tons by skidding over the stern of the vessel poses difficulties to structure at the
stern section mainly due to the engine room which is located on the stern and is quite a large
section with out any bulkheads to carry the load.

The purpose of the thesis is to investigate the possibility of transporting a Future SPAR which
weighs 35855tons. The structure of the vessel is investigated using FEA software FEMAP with
Nx Nastran solver to study the feasibility of transporting “Future SPAR”. An approximate model of
the future SPAR is created in FEMAP environment and the model is used to load the vessel
structure.

Several steps are linearly analyzed, based on the parameters such as position of SPAR on
vessel deck, number of skid beams and method used for loading-out. By studying the results of
the analysis the best possible method to load-out the SPAR has been recommended.

IV
Declaration

I, Mr. Prakash E. Mohanasundaram, declare that this master’s thesis is written


independently and no sources have been used other than the stated references.

.................................................. ..................................................
Place/Date Signature

V
Baustatik und Baudynamik

Institut für Baustatik


und Baudynamik
Prof. Dr.-Ing. habil. M. Bischoff

Master Thesis

Structural Analysis & Optimization of a Heavy-Lift Vessel

Dockwise is market leader in transport of extremely large and heavy cargoes. Dockwise ser-
ves its clients with a fleet of 22 semi-submersible vessels of different types and designs. The
world's largest heavy transport carrier Blue Marlin is able to carry ultra large and heavy float-
ing production and drilling platforms up to 73,000tons. The Blue Marlin enables oil compa-
nies to build fully integrated units anywhere in the world and transport them to the final off-
shore destination, in order to limit hook up and commissioning at the offshore location.
Even though Blue Marlin is capable of transporting ultra heavy loads, the load-out of SPAR
buoy weighing 20,000tons by skidding over the stern of the vessel poses difficulties to struc-
ture at the stern section which causes bending and bucking of the deck. The structure of the
vessel has to be investigated to find out constraints affecting the integration of the structure
during such load-outs and explore ways to improve and optimize it. And also to increase the
load carrying capacity of the vessel’s structure during stern skidded load-out of SPAR buoy’s
from 20,000tons to 40,000tons.

In particular, the following steps have to be performed:


• Review of existing structure of the vessel and study the process of the stern skidded
load-out to find the parameters involved.
• Analysis of the vessel model using Finite Element Method based on the parameters
collected using the commercial software package FEMAP with integrated solver
NX Nastran.
• Investigation of the results obtained from the analysis to identify the constraints affecting
the structure during loading process.
• Explore ways to improve and optimize the structure and depicting recommendations.

Supervisor: Johannes Irslinger (room 1.002)


Student: Prakash Mohanasundaram
VI
CONTENTS
Abstract IV

Declaration V

Problem Statement VI

1 Introduction
1.1 Motivation 1
1.2 Objective and overview of Thesis 1
1.3 Methodology 2

2 SPAR
2.1 SPAR types and description 3
2.2 SPAR construction 5

3 BLUE MARLIN
3.1 Definition of a Heavy-lift Vessel 6
3.2 Semi-submersible heavy-lift vessel 6
3.3 Heavy-lift carrier MV Blue Marlin 7

4 Load-out Procedure
4.1 Vessel capabilities & limitations 9
4.2 SPAR particulars 11
4.2.1 Weight distribution of SPAR 12
4.3 Load-out 12
4.3.1 Types of load-out methods 13
4.3.2 Types of skidding methods 15
4.4 Stowage position 16
4.4.1 Possible stowage positions 16
4.4.2 Selection of Stowage position for analysis 17
4.4.3 No. of skid beams 18
4.4.4 Location of skid beams 18
4.4.5 Supporting the SPAR for load-out 19
4.5 Selections of steps to be analyzed 19

5 FEMAP with Nx NASTRAN


5.1 Features of FEMAP 22
5.2 Elements description 24
5.2.1 Line Elements 24
5.2.2 Plane Elements 26
5.2.3 Volume Elements 27
5.2.4 Other Elements 28

6 Finite Element model


6.1 Blue Marlin Model. 30
6.1.1 Coordinate system and units 30
6.1.2 FE Model details & properties 31
6.1.2.1 Keel 31

VII
6.1.2.2 Bottom structure 32
6.1.2.3 Bulkheads 34
6.1.2.4 Stiffeners 35
6.1.2.5 Deck 35
6.1.2.6 Bow & superstructure 36
6.1.2.7 Stern 37
6.1.2.8 Floatation 38
6.1.2.9 Draft and Water Pressure 39
6.1.2.10 Water Ballast. 40
6.1.2.11 Skid beams 42
6.1.3 Discrepancies in the model 43

6.2 SPAR Model 44


6.2.1 Coordinate system and units 45
6.2.2 Material Specification 45
6.2.3 Model details & properties 46
6.2.3.1 Hard tank 46
6.2.3.2 Soft tank 47
6.2.3.3 Heave plates 47
6.2.3.4 Truss 48
6.2.3.5 Supports 50
6.2.3.6 Outfittings 53

7 Analysis & Results


7.1 Allowable stress levels 55
7.2 Uniform loading by Hydraulics 56
7.2.1 Method of load application 56
7.2.2 Constraints in uniform loading 57
7.2.3 Draft 58
7.2.4 Ballast condition 59
7.2.5 Load calculation for the uniform loading cases. 61
7.2.6 Analysis of uniform loading cases 65
7.2.7 Location of stress components 68
7.2.8 Stress components of analysis 69
7.3 SPAR Model Loading 71
7.3.1 Hard Tank on the Vessel by standard skidding 71
7.3.1.1 Connecting SPAR with vessel 71
7.3.1.2 Load case specific constraints 72
7.3.1.3 Draft and Ballast Condition 73
7.3.1.4 Analysis of the step hard tank on vessel 73
7.3.1.5 Load on skid beams 78
7.3.1.6 Location of stress components 83
7.3.1.7 Stress components of analysis 83
7.3.2 Entire SPAR on Vessel 85
7.3.2.1 Position of the SPAR 86
7.3.2.2 Connecting SPAR with vessel 87
7.3.2.3 Load case specific constraints 87
7.3.2.4 Draft and ballast Condition 87
7.3.2.5 Analysis of the step entire SPAR on vessel 90
7.3.2.6 Location of stress components 95
7.3.2.7 Stress components of analysis 95
7.3.3 Final stowage position of SPAR on vessel 97

VIII
8 Conclusion 101

9 APPENDIX 103

10 Bibliography 159

11 List of figures 160

12 List of tables 161

IX
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION OF THE THESIS
1.1 Motivation
In the summer of 2001 Dockwise carried
out the first single piece of Truss SPAR
transport across the Atlantic from
Technip fabrication yard in Pori, Finland
to Gulf of Mexico using its heavy lift
carrier vessel Might Servant 1. The
weight of the SPAR transported was
21390 Tons.

The notion of this thesis came into


existence when Dockwise shipping B.V
head office in Breda, The Netherlands
was contacted by Technip Offshore Finland to transport a SPAR from Pori in Finland to
US Gulf with an expected departure date of mid April 2012. This time Technip came up
with a proposal requesting Dockwise to evaluate the feasibility of transporting a SPAR
weighing 35000Tons. The spar, if realized, will be the largest ever. The SPAR is termed
by Dockwise as “Future SPAR”.

Engineering Team at Dockwise revised the technical details of the SPAR received from
Technip and came to a decision that the SPAR can not be transported by the vessel
Mighty Servant 1 as its deadweight carrying capacity is 40,000 Tons. Transporting a
SPAR of 35,000 Tons with all the other accessories, sea fastening supports and grillages
would push the structure of Mighty Servant 1 to its limits. So the SPAR can only be
transported by its Heavy lift carrier vessel MV Blue Marlin which has a capacity of
carrying ultra heavy load of up to 73,000 tons.

1.2 Objective and Overview of Thesis

Even though Blue Marlin is capable of transporting ultra heavy loads, engineers at
Dockwise are expecting some heavy loading on the structure at the stern section of the
ship. Load-out of heavy cargoes over the stern of the vessel as it would be done with
Future SPAR might induce heavy stresses on the structure, mainly because of two
reasons:

1
1. The engine room which is located on the stern of the vessel and is quite a large
section with out any bulkheads to carry the load.
2. The stern section is an overhang above the propeller which allows Blue Marlin to
dock with keyside along the stern to load-out the cargoes. If translated, which also
means that the water pressure which acts as a support under the vessel could be
less in the stern section compared to the mid ship or even no water contact
depending on the draft of the vessel. This exposes the structure of the vessel in stern
section for heavy loading condition.

The vessel structure is investigated in the frame work of Finite Element Analysis using
package FEMAP with Nx Nastran.

1.3 Methodology
The load-out conditions are re-created as a Finite Element model in FEMAP with Nx
Nastran software package and the structure of the vessel is investigated to study the
feasibility of transporting “Future SPAR” which weighs almost 40,000 tons and to find out
the weak spots affecting the vessel’s structure during load-out of the “Future SPAR” and
explore ways to improve/optimize it.

The objective of the thesis can be listed as:

1. Based on the criteria and parameters of the SPAR and the vessel, the possible
stowage positions of the SPAR on the vessel deck are investigated.

2. The most critical stowage position, in terms of structural loads is identified and
possible load-out methods of the SPAR are studied to find out the most feasible load-
out conditions.

3. The conditions are then further analyzed using Finite Element Method.

2
CHAPTER 2

SPAR

SPAR is an offshore floating structures used for deep sea oil


drilling and production. It is a cylindrical hollow structure with
inner structural members to form tanks which creates buoyancy
to keep the weight of the topside and self weight of the SPAR
floating in the high seas. It is designed in such a way to adapt
to the ocean currents and provide damping for the whole
structure with the topside to be stable in the sea during all
weather conditions. As of now there are more than 15 SPAR’s
installed on the world’s oceans, most of the SPAR’s are built by
Technip, a world leader in the offshore structures. SPAR will be
moored to the sea bed for preventing the motion due to the
ocean currents.
Fig 2.1 SPAR with production platform [3]

2.1 Spar types and description

There are three types of production spars built so far, they are classic, truss and cell spars. They
differ in design due to the technological advances in the field. The classic SPAR is rather a
cylindrical structure from the top to bottom. A truss SPAR has a cylindrical tank at the top and a
truss in the middle section and a square tank at the bottom. The cell SPAR is a new generation of
the SPAR’s it is much cheaper and easier to build.

The basic parts of a typical spar are;

1. Hard tank
2. Middle section
3. Soft tank

The name hard tank means that the stiffness of the section is high as it contains internal
structural members to make the tank into compartments to be able to withstand the hydrodynamic
pressure imposed by the waves. The hard tank provides the sufficient buoyancy to support the
weight of the topside and also the self weight of the SPAR. There are usually five to six levels of
tanks inside separated by watertight decks. Each level is further divided in to four compartments.
Usually only the bottom level of the compartments is used for ballasting of the SPAR, other
compartments are empty spaces to provide the floatation to the SPAR structure.

3
4
Figure 2.2 Progressions of Spar (Technip Offshore) [4]
The midsection section below the hard tank is designed to give the deep draft necessary for the
SPAR to prevent the swaying of the SPAR in ocean currents. The midsection of the a classic
SPAR is just an extension of the outer cylindrical shell of the hard tank. There are no internal
structures. The truss SPAR’s as the name indicated contains a truss in the midsection, the truss
SPAR reduced the weight of the SPAR and is also less expensive than a classic SPAR and has
less drag and also reduces loads on the mooring lines.

The soft tank is designed for providing floatation for the SPAR during installation process where
it is floatation horizontally. It also has compartments for the fixed ballast to keep the SPAR
upended.

2.2 Spar Construction

SPAR’s are always built horizontally on the land and transported in the same state to its final
destination where it is upended while floating. The important factor for fabricating the SPAR
horizontally is the usage of the standard fabrication yard equipment and shipyard techniques.
Over 70% of the spars built till date has been constructed at the Mantiluoto, Finland yard owned
by Technip Offshore.

The SPAR structure are divided in to subassemblies and fabricated in a shop equipped with
automatic plate cutting and welding equipment. The subassemblies are joined to form half round
ring sections of the spar. After construction, the spar is loaded out onto a heavy lift vessel for
transportation using hydraulics and skid beams to move the hull.

5
CHAPTER 3
BLUE MARLIN
3.1 Definition of a Heavy-lift Vessel

A Heavy Lift Vessel is designed to carry extremely large and/or heavy items that cannot be
transported in or on other vessels. Semi-submersible types are designed to transport very large
floating objects, including damaged ships. Ro-Ro heavy lift vessels also exist.

Heavy lift vessels have extremely large cargo decks, unusual deck and pilothouse configurations
to accommodate unusual types of cargo and very high-capacity on-deck cranes

Size or Length varies by vessel and type of cargo. There are different types of heavy-lift vessels
built specific for a purpose. A large heavy lift vessel can measure 584.6ft (178.20m) in length and
137.8ft (42m) in width.

Heavy-lift carriers can transport high-value, complex cargoes such as: transformers, locomotives,
rockets, crushers, semi-submersible rigs, jack-ups, oil platforms, bridge spans, TLPs (tension leg
platforms) and SPAR buoys, etc.

Cargo is loaded by onboard cranes or shore-based cranes. Conventional loading is the over-the-
top Lo-Lo (Load-on/Load-off). Some heavy lift vessels also have Ro-Ro capabilities

3.2 Semi submersible Heavy-lift vessel

[10] A semi-submersible is a watercraft that can put much of its bulk underwater. With a relatively
small area above the water's surface, the semisubmersible is less affected by the waves than a
normal ship, but must be trimmed continuously. Unlike a submarine, such a ship is never entirely
underwater.

A semisubmersible heavy-lift ship, also known as a "flo/flo" (for float-on/float-off), has a long and
low well deck between a forward pilot house and an after machinery space. In superficial
appearance, it is somewhat similar to a dry bulk carrier or some forms of oil tanker. Its ballast
tanks can be flooded to lower the well deck below the water's surface, allowing oil platforms,
other vessels, or other floating cargo to be moved into position for loading. The tanks are then
pumped out, and the well deck rises to shoulder the load. To balance the cargo, the various tanks
can be pumped unevenly.

6
The flo/flo industry's largest customer base is the oil industry. Dockwise have transported many
oil drilling rigs (the flo/flo ships can carry the rigs from their construction site to a drilling site at
roughly three to four times the speed of a self-deploying rig). Rapid deployment of the rig to the
drilling site can translate into major savings to the oil industry. They also transport other outsized
cargo and yachts. [10]

3.3 Heavy-lift Vessel MV Blue Marlin

Fig. 3.1 MV Blue Marlin

The heavy transport vessel Blue Marlin is an open-deck vessel and able to carry fully integrated
ultra heavy and large floating production and drilling platforms up to 73,000 tons. The Blue Marlin
enables oil companies to build fully integrated units anywhere in the world and transport them to
the final offshore destination, in order to limit hook up and commissioning at the offshore location.
The vessel can be semi-submerged to load floating cargos like rigs even other ships and
submarines.

The Blue Marlin has an open cargo deck of 63 meters at portside and 164.20 meters at
starboard. By moving the portside buoyancy casing the cargo stowage possibilities can be
increased

7
Principal characteristics of Blue Marlin

length o.a 224.50 m


length b.p. 206.50 m
breadth 63.00 m
depth 13.30 m
draft sailing 10.28 m
max draft submerged 28.40 m
gross tonnage 51,821
deadweight 76,410 tons
deck space 63 x 178.2 m
deck load 27.5 t/sq.m
Service Speed 12.0 Knots
Maximum Speed 13.3 Knots
Range 65 days
Table 3.1 Principal characteristics of Blue Marlin

Ballasting/deballasting: Four ballast pumps each of 3,300 cu.m./hr.

Propulsion: 12,640 kW MAN-B&W 8S50MC-C, driving one 4 bladed c.p. propeller, One 2,000
KW bow thruster. Three diesel generators of 4,581kVA / 6,600V each, driving two retractable
Azimuth thrusters of 4,500 kW each.

Auxiliary engines: One diesel generator 450 V/60 Hz, 990 kW aft. One emergency generator of
450 V/60 Hz, 200 kW.

Anchors and chains: Anchors fwd (chain 107 mm) 2 pcs of 14.4 tons, Anchor aft (chain 95 mm)
1 pc of 11 tons

Accommodation: On board additional for the crew

Classification: DNV + 1A1, general cargo carrier, Eo, DK(+), PWDK.

8
CHAPTER 4

LOAD-OUT PROCEDURE OF SPAR

The SPAR is a very heavy offshore structure used in deep sea oil production. It is fabricated on
land and is dry transported on a heavy-lift vessel such as Blue Marlin to its destination, usually
other part of the globe for its utilization.

The process of transferring the SPAR from land on to a heavy-lift vessel for its final voyage is
called Load-out. This section investigates and explains the procedure involved in transporting the
SPAR from its position in the fabrication yard to the high seas where it is used for oil production.

4.1 Vessel Capabilities and limitations

The Vessel Blue Marlin was built as a submersible heavy lift carrier; it was acquired by Dockwise
and modified. The original vessel is extended on its sides to increase its dead weight capacity.
Figures 4.1 shows web frame of the original vessel and Fig 4.2 shows web frame of the modified
vessel.

Fig. 4.1 Typical web frame of Blue Marlin - original vessel

9
What makes Blue Marlin capable of carrying ultra heavy loads? The answer lies in its structural
design. The vessel is divided in to a number of individual tanks allowing it to take on ballast water
for adjusting its draft and stability. To separate the tanks from one another and to withstand the
high pressure exerted by the fluid it carries, it has been strengthened with bulkheads both
longitudinally and transversely. These are the structures which help carry heavy loads on Blue
Marlin today.

Fig 4.2 Typical web frame of Blue Marlin - modified vessel

On the deck of the Blue Marlin, there are two casing at the stern end of the deck. Casings are like
a tower extending from the deck. The casing on the Star Board side is called Star Board casing
(SB casing) and is for engines breathing during a submerging operation and it also has some
tanks for taking in ballast water. The Star Board casing is fixed to the deck and cannot be
removed. The casing on the port side is called port side casing and are just with tanks for ballast
water for compensating the weight of the star board casing and provide stability for the vessel.
The port side casing is not fixed and can be moved to another location on deck when needed.

Fig. 4.3 Blue Marlin in submerged condition

10
4.2 SPAR particulars

As discussed in chapter 2, the Future SPAR is a truss SPAR. It is fabricated in a yard near by a
port so that it can be transported after its fabrication. Having discussed enough about the SPAR
design and working principle in chapter 2, we will discuss the particulars of the Future SPAR
which has been analyzed in this thesis for transportation on the vessel Blue Marlin.

The SPAR includes a hard tank with a square well connected through a truss with its soft tank
and floatation tank. The spar general arrangement has been shown in fig 4.4 and a detailed
drawing with dimensions is given in Appendix 1.

Fig 4.4 General Arrangement of Future SPAR

The following are the main particulars of the SPAR:

:SPAR weight properties


Weight 30174 Ton
Longitudinal center of gravity (from bottom soft tank) 119.14 Meer
Transverse center of gravity (from centerline) 0.00 Meter
Vertical center of gravity (from side hard tank) 22.25 Meter

Hard Tank properties


Length 81.38 Meter
Diameter 44.5 Meter
Inner well breadth/ height 18.29 Meter
strake height 15 %
Outer diameter 57.85 Meter

Soft Tank properties


Length 7.32 Meter
Breadth/ Height 44.50 Meter
Inner well breadth/ height 18.29 Meter
Centre well breadth dimensions 21.34*24.38Meter
5.49*44.50*13.11
Flotation tank dimensions (L*B*H)
Meter

Length overall 194.77 Meter


Total height (including cradles) 51.78 Meter
Cradle height (distance from deck to spar hull) 0.60 Meter
Free floating draft aft 10.6 Meter
Free floating draft mid 10.4 Meter
Free floating draft forward 10.1 Meter

11
SPAR weight including supports
Weight 34855 Ton
Longitudinal center of gravity (from bottom soft tank) 119.14 Meter
Transverse center of gravity (from centerline) 0.00 Meter
Vertical center of gravity (from side hard tank) 20.35 Meter
Free floating draft aft 12.8 Meter
Free floating draft mid 11.9 Meter
Free floating draft forward 11.0 Meter

The weight and CG of the spar has been derived by the designers, and a detailed breakdown has
been given in the table below. It is assumed that the weight of the supports includes the supports
of the hard tank and heave plates.

Weight mt LCG from soft tank keel m


Hard tank 14304 149.34
Heave plate at 140 ft 529 42.69
Heave plate at 256 ft 529 78.04
Truss 3292 63.39
Soft tank 2315 5.26
Outfitting 9205 127.53
Spar weight 30174 119.14
Supports 4681 119.14
Spar weight including supports 34855 119.14
Table 4.1 Weight of SPAR components

General procedure of SPAR fabrication is discussed in chapter 2, the same fabrication technique
will be used in Future SPAR fabrication. The SPAR is built in a number of sections and is
assembled under a crane on rails. The same rails are later used in the load out process of the
SPAR on to the vessel.

4.2.1 Weight distribution of the SPAR.

The weight distribution of the whole SPAR with its supports and outfittings based on its support
location are provided by the designers, and is listed below;

Percentage
Support Location Weight (mt)
distribution %
Hard Tank 68.22% 23776.8
Upper Heave Plate 11.00% 3834.1
Lower Heave Plate 20.78% 7244.2

Total 100.0% 34855.0


Table 4.2 Weight distribution of SPAR

4.3 Load-Out

Load-out as the name implies, means loading an object from its origin to a vehicle for
transportation to its destination. The term load-out is often used in heavy-lift industry during its
handling - heavy structure moved from the place where it is fabricated to a marine vessel (a ship
or barge) for transportation to its final destination.

12
There are quite a lot of ways used to load-out cargoes on a normal scale. For example, forklifts,
cranes, trolleys, conveyors etc. But when it comes to heavy-lift there are very few methods
employed to do the task.

4.3.1 Types of Load-out Methods

The possible methods of Load-outs for such a large scale are:


1. Lifting
2. Ro-Ro using Modular trailers
3. Floating
4. Skidding method

4.3.1.1 Lifting
Method of loading-out heavy objects using gantry or cranes is called lifting. Gantry are
equipments usually used to upend the object in the same position, it can move the lifted objects
horizontally. So use of gantry for loading-out SPAR is not possible

[11] Cranes are distinguished from jacks and simple hoists in that they not only have the
capability of lifting a load but also can move a load horizontally and set it down again. The
operation is usually performed with a hook and line from above the object being moved. Cranes
can be classified into several broad categories such as mobile cranes, tower cranes, derricks,
bridge/gantry cranes, container cranes, barge cranes, etc. Tower cranes and derricks are referred
to as fixed cranes.

Tower crane and mobile crane design is continually improving, which greatly increases their lifting
capacity and have made them an invaluable tool in heavy rigging work operations. [11]

Lifting of the SPAR weighing 35000tons is not possible as there are no cranes available
to lift more than 5000Tons.

4.3.1.2 Ro-Ro using Modular Trailers

Roll-on/roll-off (RORO or ro-ro) ships are vessels designed to carry wheeled cargo such as
automobiles, trucks, semi-trailer trucks, trailers or railroad cars that are driven on and off the ship
on their own wheels.

Fig 4.5 Roll-off operation of a heavy-lift on SPMT

13
In the heavy-lift scenario, the wheeled vehicles are replaced by Modular trailers which are
capable of carrying ultra heavy loads. The modern modular trailers are called SPMT. The self-
propelled modular transporter, or SPMT, is a flat bed high capacity transporter with 4 or 6 axle
lines that can each accommodate a load of 30 tons. Each axle is mounted such that sharp turns,
side way movements or even ‘carousels’ on the spot can be executed. Integrated computer
control calculates each intended move to the right setting of any axle line. Hydraulic suspensions
allow for very slow movements and the positioning of a load within millimeters of tolerance. The
modular design allows combining individual SPMT’s into large configurations that may consist of
several clusters. Fig 4.5 shows Roll-off operation of a heavy structure on SPMT

Even though modular trailers can be configured to carry any amount of loads, they have a
limitation. The cargo has to be jacked up to a height more than the height of the trailer to load the
cargo on its top. In case of the SPAR, it is such a huge structure, it is too costly affair either to
fabricate the SPAR at such heights or to jack up the SPAR to the required height after fabrication,
so other methods of Load-outs have to be adopted.

4.3.1.3 Floating.

Since SPAR is a floating structure, it can be fabricated in a dry dock as like fabricating a seagoing
vessel. Once fabricated the dry dock is flooded to float the SPAR to the ocean. The SPAR is then
towed on to the semi-submerged vessel like Blue Marlin to load the SPAR on its deck and
transport to its destination.

But fabricating a SPAR in a workshop is much easier and cost effective than building a dry dock.
So the Floating of the SPAR for Load-out is ruled out.

4.3.1.4 Skidding Method

An alternative method for horizontal transport is skidding. The load is fitted with skid shoes that
move in skid tracks with a fairly low resistance. Power is provided by hydraulics but may also
involve the use of strand jack systems to pull the load along its way. Simple and non-invasive,
skidding has proven to be a very economical method of transporting heavy loads over short
distances.

Fig 4.6 Skidding of a SPAR

14
To load-out the SPAR from its fabrication yard to the vessel deck, skidding method is feasible and
cost effective way to move such heavy loads. The SPAR is normally fabricated in a location near
to a jetty or port for ease of loading–out to the heavy-lift vessel. The separately fabricated
sections of SPAR are assembled in position on a skid rails placed under it. Rollers are placed in
between the SPAR and skid beams to reduce the friction and to facilitate easy movement of load
on the beams. The SPAR is pushed by means of hydraulics power on the Skid beams until it
reaches its final stowage position on the deck of the vessel.

Skidding is the most feasible method to load-out the SPAR from its fabrication yard to the vessel
Blue Marlin.

4.3.2 Types of Skidding method

The standard skidding method utilizes only 2 skidding beams to support the heavy load, as
usually the center of gravity of the load will be in the center and the load can be equally
distributed between the skid beams. The beams also serve as a spreader to distribute the load on
the vessel structure.

The skidding can further be divided into 2 categories based on the loading condition

1. Standard skidding
The standard skidding is the usual way of doing skidding with out any additional equipment, the
load is placed on skid beam, rollers are placed in between the heavy object (load) and the beams
for reducing friction and hydraulic power is applied to push the load. The loads on the beams are
in relation to the properties of the cargo moved. The loads are not same all along the skid tracks.

2. Skidding by Uniform loading using hydraulics


The distribution of the SPAR mass on the skidding beam can also be controlled and distributed
evenly all along the skid beams by means of hydraulic smart skidding system. Hydraulic
cylinders are placed all along the line in between the cargo supports and skid rollers as shown in
fig 4.11. The hydraulic cylinders connected to a computer controls and maintains the load exerted
on the skid beam below it, to be even all along the beam. As the methods implies, it involves
more equipments and time consuming to do the same skidding operation and is comparatively
costly.

Fig 4.7 Skidding by uniform loading using hydraulic cylinders

15
4.4 Stowage Position

The position of the cargo on the vessel is referred to as stowage position. Depending on the
SPAR parameters the possible stowage position of the Future SPAR on the deck of the vessel is
investigated.

The Hard tank of the SPAR is fabricated with strakes around it, which provide stability to SPAR
from ocean currents and provides damping from wave loads. Since the most of the strakes are
fabricated with the hard tank in the yard and transported together, a part of the strakes under the
hard tank where transportation supports are located will be installed after the transportation.
Removing other sections of the strakes for transportation purposes is also possible and
investigated in this section.

The preferable stowage position for all kind of heavy lift transportation of such huge scale will be
that the centre line (where the COG acts) of the cargo and vessel should be on the same plane.
But in our case SPAR’s COG cannot be positioned with vessel’s COG as Blue Marlin has a fixed
SB casing. The casing cannot be removed to accommodate the SPAR as air intake and exhaust
of the engine runs through this casing.

As the SPAR has to be positioned away from the center, now the possible stowage positions of
the SPAR on vessel deck mainly depends on the whether the strakes will be removed or not.

4.4.1 Possible Stowage Positions

Based on removal of strakes, two stowage positions are possible;

1. The SPAR 1.7 m off vessel centre towards the port side
2. The SPAR 8.3 m off vessel centre towards the port side

In both cases the hard tank and heave plates are ~0.3 m clear from the starboard casing. In order
to load the spar, based on the given spar width, the vessel PS casing needs to be removed and
will be placed in front of the SB casing. For both spar stowage positions the ballast capacity of the
Blue Marlin is sufficient for stern load out.

4.4.1.1 SPAR 1.7m off the vessel centre

Fig.4.8 Stowage plan-1.7m off centre

16
The SPAR centre is offset from the centre line of the vessel by 1.7m on the port side as shown in
the figure 4.8. The strakes on the star board side of the vessel have to be removed to prevent the
intervention of the Star Board casing.

4.4.1.2 SPAR 8.3m off the vessel centre

Fig 4.9 Stowage plan-8.3m off centre

The SPAR centre is offset from the centre line of the vessel by 8.3m on the port side as shown in
the figure 4.9. This stowage position does not require any removal of strakes as the SPAR is
offset enough on the vessel to accommodate it with the strakes attached. But most of the SPAR
load is on the port side causing a lot of shear and bending stress on the vessel structure.

4.4.2 Selection of Stowage position for analysis

The ballast capacity of Blue Marlin is investigated and found that it is sufficient for the stern load
out of the SPAR.

As per the weight distribution of the SPAR from chapter 4.2.1, it is clear that the weight of the
hard tank with its supports and outfittings is the largest load acting of the vessel structure. And
the step, hard tank just passed vessel stern is the most critical step due to the weakness present
in the stern section of the vessel, i.e, engine room. In this step the moment of the spar weight that
has been skidded onto the vessel is the largest.

The stowage position 8.3m offset to the vessel center is the most critical position as the moment
of the SPAR weight on the vessel when the SPAR is stowed at 8.3m offset is higher than the
1.7m offset.

So we can say in any case, the loads exerted by the stowage position where the SPAR is 8.3m
offset is the critical loading case. It is also desirable to transport the SPAR with as much strakes
as possible to reduce the amount of work needed to fix the strakes when the SPAR is floating on
the ocean.

The load-out of SPAR with 1.7m offset will be taken into consideration for analysis, if the results
of the 8.3m offset position of the SPAR are not favorable.

As the SPAR stowage position of 8.3m offset from the vessel center is considered as the critical
and desired load-out position, the same position is chosen for our analysis.

17
4.4.3 Number of skid beams

As the “Future SPAR” is extremely large in terms of size and mass compared to its predecessors,
skidding with just 2 skid beams could lead to over loading the vessels structure. So the number of
skid beams might have to be increased to distribute the loads to other parts of the vessel.
Increasing the number of skid beams could also be a solution for making the load-out possible.

Number of skid beams used for load-out is also an influencing factor. But, can 3 beams do the job
or 4? Has to be found out in the analysis

4.4.4 Location of skid beams

The skid beams bears and transfers all the weight of the SPAR to the vessel structure; so it has
to be positioned on top bulkheads which are vertical partitions in a ship arranged transversely and
longitudinally. The bulkheads are of greater structural importance, it holds all the sections of the
vessel together.

Since the load-out is carried out over the stern of the vessel, the skid beams have to be placed
longitudinally on the vessel deck from running from stern end towards the bow. Skid beams must
be located on top of the longitudinal bulkheads as much as possible to avoid loading of the vessel
on other section.

The bulkheads for supporting the load on vessel are chosen according to the stowage position of
the SPAR. The location of the skid beam on bulkheads based on the stowage position of 8.3m
offset of the SPAR is shown in the fig. 4.10

SB
casing

1 2 3 4

Fig 4.10 shows the locations of the skid beams

The location of the skid beams number 2 and 3 are very obvious, above the longitudinal
bulkheads under the SPAR. Skid beam number 2 is located on the second longitudinal bulkhead
from the center on the port side of the vessel, which is also a side wall structure of the vessel
before its modified. Skid beam number 3 is located on the first longitudinal bulkheads from the
center on the starboard side of the vessel.

The location of skid beam number 1 is on the side wall structure of the vessel, which is also a
strong member of the structure similar to a bulkhead except that it has no stiffeners on the
outside wall of the vessel.

18
The specified location of 20.5750m from the center of SPAR is chosen based on the length of
skid beams, at this location the Skid beam is well within the supports of the stiffeners on the side
wall and also the length of the skid beam at this location is the maximum, which is 163.2m.

As the next bulkhead on the star board side is on the line of the star board casing, it is not
possible to support the SPAR on that location, so a different location is chosen based on
strongest members on the vessel. The location shows in the fig 4.10 for skid beam number 4 is
chosen as the material used in that section is thicker, so it can carry more loads.

The same system of numbering of skid beams have been adopted throughout this thesis for
identifying the skid beams.

4.4.5 Supporting the SPAR for load-out

As the locations of the skid beams have been investigated in the previous section, it is very clear
that the supports under the SPAR should be conforming to the dimensions in relation to the
SPAR centre and skid beams.

The length of the SPAR is more than the length of the vessel deck, we can only support the hard
tank and the truss section on the vessel deck, soft tank will be hanging during the transportation.
Through past experiences in similar transportations projects, it is decided to leave the SPAR
hanging as the stiffness of the truss will be able to hold the soft tank mass within the allowable
deflection. So the idea of supporting the soft tank on vessel deck is not possible and is omitted.

But during previously executed projects, the soft tank will be temporarily supported during load-
out until the SPAR reaches its final stowage position. The soft tank will be supported on the skid
beams on the same plane of the hard tank and truss supports, but the supports under the soft
tank are not fixed or temporarily fixed. When the SPAR reaches its final stowage position on the
vessel deck, the supports under the soft tank will be released and the draft of the vessel will be
decreased so that the soft tank lifts-off the supports and will be hanging over the vessel stern.

The temporary supports for the soft tank is to prevent the deformation of the SPAR due to the
deflection of the over hang during load-out and also to avoid the irregularities in the loading
condition on the supports under the hard tank and truss due to the deflection, as the SPAR is a
very stiff structure.

The same method will be followed in all the analysis done in this thesis, SPAR’s soft tank will be
supported during the load-out process.

4.5 Selection of steps to be analyzed


As discussed in the above sections, the factors affecting the load-out of the Future SPAR can be
summarized as:

1. Types of skidding method


2. Number of skid beams
3. Stowage position

By investigating the stowage position in the chapter 4.4, it is decided that 8.3m offset of the SPAR
on the vessel deck is considered to be the critical position.

Now the factors influencing can be narrowed to number of skid beams and types of skidding
methods.

19
With the space on the vessel deck, we can rule out the use of 5 skid beams for load-out. So the
2, 3 and 4 skid beams are the possible option concerning the number of skid beams for load-outs.

As discussed in chapter 4.4.2, the step that the complete hard tank just passed vessel stern has
been found to be the most critical step regarding vessel longitudinal strength which can been
seen in attachment 3.

The critical load step together with the influencing factors; number of skid beams and types of
skidding method, the following combination of 9 steps have been chosen for analysis.

1. Hard tank on the vessel with 4 skid beams by uniform loading using hydraulics
2. Hard tank on the vessel with 3 skid beams by uniform loading using hydraulics
3. Hard tank on the vessel with 2 skid beams by uniform loading using hydraulics
4. Hard tank on the vessel with 4 skid beams by SPAR model loading
5. Hard tank on the vessel with 3 skid beams by SPAR model loading
6. Hard tank on the vessel with 2 skid beams by SPAR model loading
7. Entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams by SPAR model loading
8. Entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams by SPAR model loading
9. Entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams by SPAR model loading

The 2 skid beam load-out is also analyzed to make sure whether the load out is possible in such
a case and to compare the results.

The above 9 steps are recreated in the FEMAP environment and analyzed to find the optimal
method to load-out the “Future SPAR”

20
CHAPTER 5

FEMAP with Nx NASTRAN

[13] Femap is an advanced engineering finite element analysis environment. It is both CAD and
solver neutral, and has become the world’s most popular engineering analysis environment for
Nastran users. It is widely used by the world’s leading engineering organizations and consultants
to model complex products, systems and processes, including satellites, aircraft, defense,
automotive vehicles, electronics, heavy construction equipment, lift cranes, marine vessels and
process equipment.

Femap is CAD independent and both leverages the Siemens Parasolid® software modeling
kernel that allows direct access to Parasolid data for surface and solid modeling in addition to
providing advanced geometric tools necessary to access non-Parasolid geometry.

From advanced beam modeling, mid-surface extraction and hex meshing, to robust CAD import
and idealization, Femap gives unparalleled model control and flexibility with a broad range of
loads, materials, analysis types and visualization options.

In many cases this may be all that you need. It includes linear statics, normal modes, buckling,
model checkout, spot weld, steady-state and transient heat transfer, basic nonlinear, design
sensitivity and unlimited problem size capabilities.

5.1 Features of FEMAP

1. Depth of analysis functionality


The high level of analysis functionality exposed by Femap and supported by the user interface
provides great value to full-time analysts and occasional-use multi-disciplinary engineers alike
and cannot be matched by other solution offerings in the industry. This combined with the level of
advanced analysis solutions offered by NX Nastran makes the Femap with NX Nastran
combination able to solve more complex engineering problems in a straightforward manner.
Nastran is traditionally a very capable solver for dynamic response analysis, and additional
dynamics solutions that are supported by Femap with NX Nastran, but not by competitive
offerings include random response, response spectrum, material and geometric nonlinearity with
time-dependent loading and rigid and deformable body contact.

Other types of advanced analysis options offered by NX Nastran, include implicit integration
nonlinearity, advanced thermal analysis solutions and 3D computational fluid dynamics.

22
2. Post-processing versatility
Post solution, Femap offers more results processing tools to enable quick and efficient
understanding of the behavior of the system under analysis. Additional tools including time
animations, streamlines, cutting planes, free-body diagrams, grid point force balance, bar and
beam visualization and shear and bending moment diagrams, and user defined reports are
provided by Femap. Furthermore, Femap offers versatile results processing functionality that
allow the result combinations to be made after the analysis has completed, and data mapping to
create input loading for results quantities for subsequent analysis.

Fig 5.3 FEMAP environment

3. Versatile modeling and visualization tools


Femap includes an impressive array of versatile modeling and visualization tools to aid FE model
creation and verification prior to the analysis. Additional capabilities include the following:
• Loads and boundary conditions can be applied either directly to the geometry model, or
to the FE entities created after meshing.
• Time and temperature dependent loads can be applied for transient dynamic and heat
transfer analyses.
• Application of loads based on equations, functions.
• Weldment modeling.
• Visualization using model transparency.

4. Supports a broad range of engineering disciplines


From simple linear static analysis right through to robust advanced solutions based computational
fluid dynamics, engineers and analysts use Femap to virtually simulate a complete range of
product behavior. The advanced analysis capabilities available with Femap with NX Nastran
employ the Nastran and TMG solvers and provide proven industrial strength solutions of known
and trusted quality. These advanced solutions enjoy an excellent reputation, to solve the most
demanding real world engineering problems by large engineering companies for many years.

23
5. Scalability of solutions
Femap offers scalable solutions and can be used to simulate everything from simple solid
components to entire spacecraft assemblies, within the same user interface. Femap with NX
Nastran can be tailored to specific customer needs, and can expand to meet future demands
without the need for additional product procurement or retraining.

6. Easy to deploy
With a nativeWindows environment, Femap offers comprehensive analysis functionality that is
easy to use and quick to learn. This brings about a reduced training overhead and allows
engineers to maintain maximum productivity even when Femap is used on an occasional basis.

7. Low total cost of ownership


The depth and true scalability of functionality offered by Femap provides exceptional value.
Femap with NX Nastran offers a complete range of powerful analysis options at competitive
prices.

8. Solver neutral support


Femap can be used with a large variety of solvers, allowing access to many types of advanced
analysis solutions. There is no limitation with access to alternative solvers for advanced or
alternative analysis solutions.

9. CAD independent
Femap offers neutral CAD support that allows the analyst or engineer access to any kind of CAD
data.
Femap leverages the Parasolid® modeling kernel that allows direct access to Parasolid data for
surface and solid modeling, and provides robust advanced geometric tools necessary to access
non-Parasolid geometry. In addition, Femap is fully associative with Solid Edge® software.

10. Powerful customization tools


Femap offers a comprehensive set of customization tools including a fully featured application
programming interface and a facility to record, edit and play user-defined macros. The new
Program File capability is hosted in its own Femap window. User-defined macros can be
recorded, edited, debugged and played back all within the Femap interface. Macros to automate
repetitive modeling tasks for example, can be created in an easy and straightforward manner,
and once created, can be added to any Femap toolbar, providing powerful automation tools that
are easy to use and deploy. In addition to the macro-driven Program Files, a full-featured BASIC
development environment in a separate window is available. Directly from Femap’s user
interface, you can now access the OLE/COM object-oriented FEMAP Application Programming
Interface (API) that provides direct access to all Femap objects and functionality. The BASIC
engine is fully OLE/COM compliant and can interface with Femap as well as any OLE/COM
compliant program such as Word or Excel. You can create custom programs that transfer model
information to Word or Excel to create customized reports. [13]

5.2 Element Description

5.2.1 Line Elements


[14] All line elements structurally connect two nodes. The different types represent
different structural conditions.

1. Rod Element

Description: Uniaxial element with tension, compression and torsional stiffness. It does not have
any bending or shear capability.

Application: Typically used to model truss, or other "pin-ended" members

24
Fig 5.4 Rod Element

Shape: Line, connecting two nodes.

Element Coordinate System: The element X axis goes from the first node to the second.

Properties: Area (of cross-section), Torsional Constant, Coefficient for Torsional Stress,
Nonstructural Mass/Length.

2. Beam Element

Fig 5.5 Beam Element

Description: Uniaxial element with tension, compression, torsion, and bending capabilities. This
element can be tapered. You can specify different properties at each end of the beam.

Application: Used to model beam/frame structures.

Shape: Line, connecting 2 or 3 nodes, A orientaion node can be specified to orient the element Y
axis.

Element Coordinate System: The element X axis goes from the first node to the second. The
element Y axis is perpendicular to the element X axis. It points from the first node toward the
orientation (or third) node. If you use an orientation vector, the Y axis points from the first node in
the direction of the orientation vector. The element Z axis is determined from the cross product of
the element X and Y axes.

25
Properties: Area, Moments of Inertia (I1, I2, I12), Torsional Constant, Shear Areas (Y, Z),
Nonstructural Mass/Length, Warping Constant, Stress Recovery Locations, Neutral Axis Offsets
(Nay, Naz, Nby and Nbz). All required input properties for this element can be automatically
calculated for standard or arbitrary shapes by using the FEMAP beam cross section generator
(accessed under Model, Property, Shape).The Shear Areas calculated by the beam property
section generator and the input to FEMAP are the effective areas for shearing, not a shear factor.
If you are inputting values directly, and has a shear factor, simply multiple it by the actual area to
obtain the shear area. If the beam is tapered, you can specify different properties at each end of
the element.

3. Spring Element

Description: A combined stiffness (spring) and damper element. It can be either axial or torsional.
The DOF spring is an alternative formulation.

Application: Used to represent any purely axial, or purely torsional, structural member.

Shape: Line, connecting two nodes.

Element Coordinate System: The element X axis goes from the first node toward the second.

Properties: Stiffness, Damping


If formulation is 1.. CBUSH then Stiffness and Damping values can be defined for individual
degrees of freedom, Structural Damping, Spring/Damper Location, Orientation Csys,
Stress/Strain recovery coefficients. For Frequency or nonlinear analysis function dependence can
be define for stiffness and damping values.

5.2.2 Plane Element

The plane elements are used to represent membrane, shell, and plate structures. They all follow
the same shape and numbering conventions. The simplest formulations of these elements are
just a three-noded triangle and a four-noded quadrilateral. In addition, six-noded "parabolic"
triangles and eight-noded "parabolic" quadrilaterals are also available.

In most cases, loads on plane elements will be applied to face 1. In this case positive pressure
acts in the same direction as the face normal (as determined by the right-hand rule). Conversely,
if loads are applied to face 2, their positive direction will be opposite to the face normal. Therefore
a positive pressure on face 2 is equivalent to a negative pressure on face 1. If you need to apply
edge loads, they can be applied to faces 3 through 6 as shown. Their positive direction is inward,
toward the element center.

Whenever possible, you should try to use elements which closely resemble equilateral triangles
or squares. These shapes will usually result in the best analysis accuracy. Consult your analysis
program documentation for specific shape limitations of that program.

Plate/Shell Element

Description: A combined planar shell element. This element typically resists membrane (in-plane),
shear, and bending forces. Some analysis programs also include transverse (through the
thickness of the element) capabilities.

Application: Any structure which is comprised of thin plates/shells.

Shape: Planar, three-noded triangle, four-noded quadrilateral, six-noded triangle, eight-noded


quadrilateral. Some shapes are not available for all analysis programs.

26
Element Coordinate System: Refer to the figure 4.6. The material angle can be used to rotate the
element X axis.

Properties: Thickness (average, or varying at each corner), Nonstructural mass/area, Bending


Stiffness parameter (Nastran only), Transverse shear/Membrane thickness (Nastran only),
Bending, Shear and Membrane-Bending Coupling Materials (Nastran only), Fiber distances for
stress recovery.

Fig 5.6 Plate Element

Additional Notes: Many analysis programs do not support tapered plate elements. For those that
do, specify a different thickness for each corner of the plate. You can always specify a single
thickness for all corners simply by entering the average thickness. Plate Offsets (Nastran Only)
can be defined to offset the plate a particular distance from its nodes. Only one offset may be
specified, and it will be in the plate's positive or negative normal direction.

5.2.3 Volume Elements


These elements are all used to model three-dimensional solid structures. They can provide very
detailed results, but usually require additional modeling and analysis time and effort.

Solid Element

Description: A three-dimensional solid element.

Application: Modeling of any three-dimensional structure.

Shape: Four-noded tetrahedron, six-noded wedge, eight-noded brick (hexahedron), ten-noded


tetrahedron, fifteen-noded wedge, and twenty-noded brick. Some shapes are not available for all
analysis programs.

27
Fig 5.7 Solid Element

Element Coordinate System: Can be aligned based on the node locations or aligned to a
coordinate system. Check your analysis program documentation for supported options.

Properties: Material axes, integration order (not all programs).


Additional Notes: If you want to apply pressure loads to solid elements, you must specify a face
number. The previous and following figures show the face numbers (F1 through F6, in the circles)
for each element shape. Positive pressure is always directed inward, toward the center of the
element.

5.2.4 Other Elements

1. Mass Element

Description: A generalized three-dimensional mass and/or inertia element located at a node. The
center of mass can be offset from the node. An even more general form is the mass matrix
element.

Application: Representing parts of a structure which contain mass, but which do not add any
stiffness.

Shape: Point, connected to one node.

Element Coordinate System: Aligned with a coordinate system that you specify. Some analysis
programs require that you define masses relative to global rectangular coordinates or the nodal
degrees of freedom.

Properties: Mass (or MassX, MassY, and MassZ for some programs), Inertias (Ixx, Iyy, Izz, Ixy,
Iyz, Izx), Offsets.

2. Rigid Element

Description: Represents a rigid connection between a master node and one or more other nodes.
FEMAP has no limit on the number of additional nodes, or the degrees of freedom which may be
connected on these additional nodes. Weighting factors for these connections may also be
defined. Some analysis programs require that the rigid element connects all six degrees of
freedom. Other programs let you limit the connection to selected degrees of freedom. In addition,
support for the rigid element weighting factors in analysis programs is limited.

28
Application: Modeling connections which are very stiff relative to the remainder of the structure.

Shape: One master node, connected to one, to nineteen, additional nodes. If element formulation
for Nastran is set to 1..RSPLINE then the element will have at least two independent nodes and
at lest 1 dependent node.

Element Coordinate System: None, depends on nodal degrees of freedom.

Properties: None. [14]

29
CHAPTER 6

FINITE ELEMENT MODEL


In this chapter, the FE model of the vessel Blue Marlin and SPAR are discussed. It elaborates on
steps involved in creation of the model and the necessity of doing so.

6.1 Blue Marlin Model


A standard FE model of Blue Marlin is available with Dockwise engineering department. So the
need for creating the FE model of the vessel is exempted. This section explains the construction
details of the Blue Marlin model.

6.1.1 Coordinate system and units

FEMAP is a full three-dimensional modeling program. All coordinates are always specified with
three coordinates, relative to one of the global or user-defined coordinate systems. The FEMAP
work plane is only used for graphical selections and to orient geometry created by certain
geometry creation commands.

Rectangular coordinate system is used in the FE model of the Blue Marlin and throughout this
thesis. In Rectangular system the coordinate is located by the relative distance from the origin in
X, Y and Z axis as show in the fig. 6.1

Fig 6.1 Rectangular coordinate system

The origin (0,0,0) of the Blue Marlin model is located on intersection of the aft perpendicular and
the bottom line of the vessel model. The length of the vessel runs through the X axis, stern on
the origin and the aft facing the positive direction of the X-axis. The port side of the vessel is
located in the positive of the Y-axis and star board side on the negative of the Y-axis.

30
The deck of the vessel is located in the positive z-axis of the coordinate system and the keel on
the negative z-axis. Fig 6.2 shows the FE model of the Blue Marlin and its coordinate system
axes.

Fig 6.2 FE model of Blue Marlin and coordinate system axes

The units used in the FE model of the Blue Marlin and the entire analysis are Metric (metres).

6.1.2 FE Model details and properties

The vessel structure is a complex combination of steel of different cross sections and properties.
It has a total of 306 properties with a combination of 4 element types and 13 materials. A
summary of the whole model can be seen in the table below

Total No. of Nodes 55466


Total No. of Elements 119486
Total No. of Properties 306
Total No. of Materials 13
Plate, Beam, Spring,
Elements types used
Mass
Table 6.1 Summary of FE model of the vessel

As the vessel model was already available; details about the most important components of the
vessels structure are presented. As the greatest longitudinal bending stresses will occur over
the midship region, the plate thickness of most of the members of the structure in this section
will be thicker compared to other sections. So, Let us have a detailed look in to the design
details of important aspects of the vessel structure at midship section and its corresponding FE
model.

6.1.2.1 Keel

[9] At the centre line of the bottom structure is located the keel, which is often said to form
the backbone of the ship. This contributes substantially to the longitudinal strength and
effectively distributes local loading caused when docking the ship. The commonest form of
keel is that known as the ‘flat plate’ keel, and this is fitted in the majority of ocean-going and
other vessels. A form of keel found on smaller vessels is the bar keel. [9]

31
Blue Marlin has a flat plate keel which is fabricated using a plate thickness of 0.21m & 0.20m.
The flat plate keel of Blue Marlin in the FE model is shown in the Fig.6.3. The FE mesh of keel in
the model is created using plate/shell elements.

Fig. 6.3 FE model showing mesh of the Keel of Blue Marlin.

Properties of Keel is depicted in the table below

Description Element type Cross section Dimension Density


Shell / Plate Thickness 7850.kg/m
Keel, flat plate Plate 3
(QUAD4) 0.021m/0.020m
Table 6.2 Properties of FE model of keel

6.1.2.2 Bottom Structure

Blue Marlin has a double hull bottom structure. An inner bottom (or tank top) provided at a
minimum height above the bottom shell, and maintained watertight to the bilges. This provides a
considerable margin of safety, since in the event of bottom shell damage only the double bottom
space may be flooded. The space is not wasted but utilized to carry oil fuel and fresh water
required for the ship, as well as providing ballast capacity. Water ballast bottom tanks are
commonly provided right forward and aft for trimming purposes.

[9] Double bottoms may be framed longitudinally or transversely, but where the ship’s length
exceeds 120m it is considered desirable to adopt longitudinal framing. The explanation of this is
that on longer ships tests and experience have shown that there is a tendency for the inner
bottom and bottom shell to buckle if welded transverse framing is adopted. [9]

As Blue Marlin is longer than 200m, it has a longitudinally framed double hull bottom structure.
The extended section of the vessel is a single hull bottom structure. The bottom structure is a
combination of number of different cross sections of girders and frames as shows in the fig 6.4.

The FE model of the vessel bottom structure at midship section consists of the following cross
sections and properties

32
Fig 6.4 FE model of Double hull bottom structure of Blue Marlin

Fig 6.5 FE model details of bottom structure

Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density


Longitudinal centre Shell / Plate 3
Plate Thickness 0.022m 12575.5kg/m
girder (QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Longitudinal side girder Plate Thickness 0.018m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)
Transverse centre Shell / Plate 3
Plate Thickness 0.017m 12575.5kg/m
girder (QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Transverse side girder Plate Thickness 0.015m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)

33
Transverse frames of
Shell / Plate 3
port & starboard side Plate Thickness 0.022m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)
extension
Inner bottom Offset bulb 3
Beam H*T (0.32*0.012)m 7850kg/m
longitudinals plate
H*T (0.35*0.012)m 3
bottom longitudinals Beam Tee Bar 7850kg/m
W*T(0.15*0.014)m
Table 6.3 Properties of FE model of bottom structure

6.1.2.3 Bulkheads

Vertical partitions in a ship arranged transversely or longitudinally are referred to as


‘bulkheads’. Those bulkheads which are of greatest importance are the main hull transverse
and longitudinal bulkheads dividing the ship into a number of watertight compartments.

These are the muscles of the vessel which help resist the transverse and longitudinal stress
induced in the vessel structure. Much of this structure, particularly the pillars and to some
extent the transverse strength bulkheads, is responsible for carrying the vertical loading
experienced by the ship. When a huge cargo is loaded on the vessel deck, it is important that
the support of the cargo must be placed above the bulkhead sections.

The bulkheads are fabricated using different properties at different sections of the vessel; the
following table shows properties of transverse and longitudinal bulkheads at midship section.

Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density


Shell / Plate 3
Transverse bulkhead Plate Thickness 0.015m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Longitudinal bulkhead Plate Thickness 0.022m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)
Table 6.4 Properties of FE model of bulkhead

Fig 6.6 FE model details of bulkheads

34
6.1.2.4 Stiffeners

All the longitudinal and transverse surfaces of the vessel structure are fitted with stiffeners
longitudinally at least on one of its surfaces to provide strength to the structure. It prevents
bucking of plates in loading. The side shell of the vessel also longitudinally framed with
stiffeners. These stiffeners are the nerves of the vessel which helps in distributing the load.

Often profile bulb sections are used for stiffeners. But angle bar and flat bar are used for
stiffening side shell of the vessel and deck. All the stiffeners in FE model of the vessel are
created with beam elements of appropriate cross section.

The following table shows properties of some of the stiffeners used in Blue Marlin FE model
Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density
Stiffeners on bottom 3
Beam profile bulb H*T (0.26*0.011)m 7850kg/m
deck
Stiffeners on vertical 3
Beam profile bulb H*T (0.28*0.011)m 7850kg/m
bulkheads
Stiffeners along the H*T (0.35*0.012)m 3
Beam Angle Bar 7850kg/m
side shell W*T(0.10*0.017)m
Stiffeners under top 3
Beam Flat Bar H*T (0.43*0.026)m 7850kg/m
deck
Table 6.4 Properties of FE model of stiffeners

Fig 6.6 FE model of typical Blue Marlin web frame with stiffeners

6.1.2.5 Deck

Similar to the double hull bottom structure of Blue Marlin, the deck is also a double deck to give
the vessel the agility it needed to carry ultra heavy cargos. The deck is strongest structure in the
vessel. It is a combination of longitudinal and transverse plate panels as shown in the fig.6.7.
Unlike other cargo ships Blue Marlin has a fixed horizontal deck, which helps in carrying huge
structures such as offshore oil & gas platforms on its deck. Longitudinal stiffeners run under top
deck plate and above bottom deck plate to reinforce the deck structure further.

The following table shows properties of some of the elements used in modeling deck of the Blue
Marlin FE model.

35
Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density
Longitudinal centre Shell / Plate 3
Plate Thickness 0.026m 12575.5kg/m
girder (QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Longitudinal side girder Plate Thickness 0.018m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Transverse girder Plate Thickness 0.018m 12575.5kg/m
(QUAD4)
Inner deck longitudinal Offset bulb 3
Beam H*T (0.32*0.012)m 7850kg/m
stiffeners plate
Top deck longitudinal 3
Beam Flat Bar H*T (0.26*0.011)m 7850kg/m
stiffeners
Table 6.5 Properties of FE model of deck

Fig 6.7 FE model of the vessel deck

6.1.2.6 Bow & superstructure


The bow is the front part of the vessel before the deck, the hull in front of the bow is designed in
such a way to reduce drag during sailing. Bow section of the vessel Blue Marlin is not modeled to
actual design. As the cargo will only be loaded on top of the deck, analysis of the bow section is
not necessary and is of little importance in the model. Since the bottom of the bow section has
ballast tanks, just the outline of the bow section and its divisions are modeled to utilize the ballast
tank space in the model.

The whole bow section is modeled using few properties; the following table shows the properties
of the bow section model.
Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density
Shell / Plate 3
Front section Plate Thickness 0.03m 35778.68kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Middle section Plate Thickness 0.03m 3758kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Back section Plate Thickness 0.03m 9955.4kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Hull Side shell Plate Thickness 0.03m 7850kg/m
(QUAD4)
H*T 0.8x0.02 3
stiffeners Beam T-section 7850kg/m
+0.2x0.04 m
Table 6.6 Properties of FE model of bow section

36
Fig 6.8 FE model of the bow section

Superstructure is the tower on top of the bow which houses control tower; crew accommodation,
stores and other necessary spaces. Only the mass of the structure matters when calculating the
ballast necessary for the vessel, so the weight of the superstructure is incorporated in the model
using mass elements

6.1.2.7 Stern

Blue Marlin has a transom stern, which offers a greater deck area aft and can also provide
improved flow around the stern. The stern of the Blue Marlin is the most complicated section of
the vessel; it should incorporate a number of features, engine room, shape of the stern for
propeller and rudder, provision for the drive shaft to connect the engine to the propeller, ballast
tanks, provision for piping of the engine and the vessel etc.

Due to the presence of the engine in the stern section, the engine room section along the centre
line of the vessel, to accommodate the engine is a big space with out any bulkheads or supports.
This makes the structure on the stern section of the vessel vulnerable to heavy loads. Special
Care should be taken when supporting the heavy cargoes on top of the stern section. The
considerable complication of the stern section makes it a hassle to model it. It is modeled using
61 properties with 2 different element types. The most important properties used in the FE model
of the stern of the vessel Blue Marlin is illustrated in the table below.
Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density
Shell / Plate 3
Front section Plate Thickness 0.015m 13568.1kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Mid section Plate Thickness 0.012m 20581.2kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Back section Plate Thickness 0.02m 16217.9kg/m
(QUAD4)
Shell / Plate 3
Hull Side shell Plate Thickness 0.035m 7850kg/m
(QUAD4)
3
stiffeners Beam Flat bulb H*T 0.3x0.011m 7850kg/m
3
stiffeners Beam Flat bulb H*T 0.2x0.02m 7850kg/m
Table 6.7 Properties of FE model of stern section

37
Fig 6.9 FE model of stern section showing the profile of the stern

Fig 6.10 FE model of stern section without deck showing the engine room section

6.1.2.8 Floatation

Vessels floatation is provided by spring elements in the FE model. The bottom hull of the vessel’s
FE model is constrained on its nodes using spring elements, which prevents the model from
dropping off to infinity. The spring elements are restricted to axial only deformation, as the vessel
during floatation experience only axial movements not torsional. The stiffness used in the spring
elements represents the stiffness of the buoyancy of the vessel. This stiffness provides upward
force due to buoyancy of the vessel. This upward force in addition to the water pressure
influences the draft of a floating vessel. Fig.6.8 shows the spring elements used in the model.

38
Fig 6.11 Spring elements under the vessel model.

Properties of the spring element

Description Element type stiffness Deformation


Floatation on the vessel
Spring 21995.86 Axial
model
Table 6.8 Properties of spring element under the vessel model

The stiffness of the springs created under the vessel model is to simulate the buoyancy of the
vessel in the model; it represents the stiffness of the buoyancy. This is the additional upward
force at a given displacement downward.

6.1.2.9 Draft and water pressure

The height of the vessel immersed in water measured from the midship section is called draft of a
vessel. All vessels have a free floating draft which is the height of vessel under water with out any
additional ballast or load on deck. The ideal sailing draft for Blue Marlin is 10.28 which is a
design parameter of the vessel. The buoyancy as explained in the last section plays an important
role in the draft of the vessel.

The pressure of water acting on the vessel’s hull when the vessel is not sailing is called
hydrostatic pressure. Since the main motive of this thesis is to analyze the load-out of heavy
SPAR when the vessel is docked to the keyside, means the vessel is in static condition, we only
take into account the hydrostatic pressure not the hydrodynamic pressure.

The hydrostatic pressure acting on the vessel hull at a point can be found out. The pressure at a
certain point depends on the draft of the vessel. The pressure will be less on the sides of the hull
near to the water surface and high on the hull bottom. The hydrostatic pressure acting on a unit
area is calculated and applied on the element face as a pressure.

There are quite a lot of software’s available in the market to calculate such marine properties of
the vessel. Dockwise engineers make use of one such software and calculated the hydrostatic
pressure of Blue Marlin for different drafts. To make it much easier they’ve incorporated the
hydrostatic pressure data in an API tool to generate the water pressure on the hull of the vessel
according to its draft.

39
If the draft of the vessel is entered in the tool, the API automatically calculates the pressure on
each element face and creates a load set for hydrostatic pressure and applies it to all the
elements inside the draft line. The effect of waves in sea water can also be set in the model using
the API tool. Fig 6.12 shows the API tool for implanting draft and hydrostatic pressure. When the
draft of the vessel is entered in the tool, it automatically calculates and applies the water pressure
below the draft line.

Fig 6.12 API tool for implementing draft and hydrostatic pressure in the model

Fig 6.13 hydrostatic pressure applied to the FE model

A closer look at the applied pressure reveals the amount of pressure applied corresponding to the
depth of water. Bigger the arrow size, higher the pressure. As you can see from the fig 6.14 the
pressure is much higher at the hull bottom than on the sides.

Fig 6.14 Closer look at the hydrostatic pressure applied

40
6.1.2.10 Water Ballast

Blue Marlin has 84 water ballast tanks, which helps the vessel in maintaining the draft and
stability on the high seas. Other than the water ballast tanks, there are other tanks to store fresh
water, fuel, oil for lubrication of its engines and other equipments onboard.

All the tanks and spaces used to store equipments are also part of the ballast tanks. Even the
crew members are also part of the ballast. When doing a ballast calculation of the vessel all the
above masses are taken into account. All the ballast tanks spaces are shown in the drawing in
the Appendix number 2.

The ballast masses are represented in the model by placing mass elements to the nodes in
appropriate location in the model. Other than water ballast tanks all the other masses are all
permanently included in the FE model of the Blue Marlin. All the masses are represented by
Mass elements. The water mass for ballasting the vessel can be added to the mass elements in
the model according to the ballast calculation created. To do it more easily, an API tool is created.
Each ballast tanks section in the model is added with mass elements on its surfaces to add the
mass of the ballast water. These elements are grouped under the name of the ballast tank in the
API tool. Using the tool, the ballast water masses can be updated on the model quickly and
efficiently. The entered mass for a tank will be equally distributed among all the mass elements
present in that particular tank section. Fig 6.15 shows the API tool used for adding ballast masses
to the model. The mass elements in the FE model can be seen in the fig 6.16

Fig. 6.15 API tool for updating the mass elements in the model

41
Fig. 6.16 Mass elements in the FE model of Blue Marlin

The following table shoes the summary of all the mass elements in the model

Total no of ballast constant ballast Variable Water


Description Element type
spaces masses ballast masses

Ballast water Mass 121 37 84


Table 6.9 Properties of Mass element in vessel model

6.1.2.11 Skid Beams

The number of skid beam and its location is already investigated in chapter 4.3 and 4.4. Based on
the dimensions in the above chapter, skid beams are created on vessel model above the deck.
The location of skid beams are identified and is modeled and meshed based on the nodes
already available on the vessel deck. The properties of the skid beams, like, thickness, height
and width are acquired from the experiences of previous projects. Fig.6.17 shows the modeled
skid beams on the vessel deck.

Fig 6.17 Skid beams on vessel model

42
The skid beams are created using the following properties;

Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density


Shell / Plate 3
Skid beams Plate Thickness 0.025m 7850kg/m
(QUAD4)

6.1.3 Discrepancies in the model

As the most important constituents of the Blue Marlin structural FE model have been detailed
above, the model is not 100% identical to the physical vessel. There are some discrepancies
exist between the physical vessel structural details and the FE model.

The FE model does not include the following details which are present in the physical vessel:
1. Manholes
2. Holes for piping
3. Air/drain holes
4. Holes in the bottom and deck structural frames to interconnect the sections to form the
ballast tanks and
5. Collars in the web frame are not chamfered
6. The bow section of the vessel is not modeled to exact details. As the structure of the vessel
under the deck is the one carrying the load and the bow section has nothing to do with the
load bearing, the details of the bow section are neglected and just an outline of the section
is modeled.

The difference between the physical vessel and FE model can be visualized in the fig 6.18 and
6.19 as it shows the typical web frame of the Physical vessel and FE model.

The mesh of the whole FE model of the vessel is modeled in a coarse manner. The resulting
output from the analysis of the model should be viewed as a representation of the stress of the
whole model rather than the particular region. When the stresses are higher in a particular area,
the model has to be compared with the vessel design drawings and modified to incorporate the
discrepancies in that particular region and further refinement of mesh in that region should be
done and analyzed again.

Fig 6.18 Typical web frame details of the physical vessel

43
Fig 6.19 Typical web frame details of the FE model

The FE model of the vessel Blue Marlin has the following characteristics values, compared with
the actual designed values as shown in the tale below

Description Design FE Model


Mass of the vessel 34,302.41 Tons 34629.538 Tons
Longitudinal Centre of gravity from aft
102.819m 101.8264m
perpendicular
Table 6.10 Comparison of FE model with the actual vessel.

The mass of vessel includes the weight of light ship, port casing, starboard casing, crew and
effects, provisions, stores, fuel oil, lubricating oil, fresh water. The weight of these components
doesn’t change much for every project performed, there for it is fixed value. These component
masses are permanently included in the FE model of the vessel as mass elements.

From the table above, it is clear that there are some percentage of difference in the weight of the
model and the actual vessel. But the difference in the mass between the actual vessel and FE
model is about 300tons, this difference is mainly due to the discrepancies present in the model as
explained above. But for a model of such a huge scale where the masses are calculated in
thousands, the difference of 300 tons is very less and it can be neglected.

The difference in centre of gravity of the model to the actual vessel is about 1 m, and is due to the
above mentioned discrepancies and the differences in the design to the FE model.

It is very clear from the table above that the FE model of the vessel is almost as accurate to the
actual design and can be safely utilized for the analysis.

6.2 SPAR Model

Unlike the Blue Marlin Model, which was readily available with Dockwise, the SPAR model was
modeled from scratch. The design data of the SPAR provided by the client is discussed in section
4.2. With that information in hand, the SPAR is modeled in FEMAP.

44
Almost all the section of the SPAR resembles standard geometry like cylinder, tube and box; it is
decided to model the SPAR entirely using beam elements except for the heave plates, to keep
the model simple. Modeling the SPAR entirely using beam elements is due to the fact that it
improves analysis execution speed compared to plate and solid elements and also the absence
of the complete design details of the SPAR.

The data provided by clients about the SPAR is just an approximation to study the feasibility of
the transport, so design details of the SPAR is not a concern, what matters most in our analysis is
stiffness of the whole structure. To get the desired stiffness, it is very important to model the
SPAR with same centre of gravity as per the clients design.

6.2.1 Coordinate system and units

As like the Blue Marlin model, the SPAR was also modeled in rectangular coordinate system. The
origin (0,0,0) of the Spar model is located on the centre line of the SPAR at the Hard tank end.
The centre line of the SPAR starting from the origin runs in the x-axis, to match the centre line of
the vessel. The truss section with heave plates is followed by the hard tank and the SPAR ends
with the soft tank keel.

Fig 6.20 FE model of SPAR and coordinate system axes

The units used in the FE model of the SPAR and the entire analysis are Metric (Metres).

6.2.2 Material specification

As the complete design data about the SPAR, the material specifications and details of the
dimension of the interior sections are not known, we are not following any standards in model of
the SPAR created. The important parameter in the SPAR model is the density of the material
used and the stiffness of the whole SPAR.

So to keep our model simple, we assume that the all the SPAR sections are hollow structure, the
masses due to the internal structural details are added to the outline elements of the section by
adjusting the density of the material specified in analysis. For example the mass of the internal
details of the hard tank and the outfitting mass are added to the beam elements of cylindrical
shape by altering the density of the material.

45
6.2.3 Model details and properties

As the FE model of SPAR is modeled using beam elements and the mass of additional structural
elements are added to it by adjusting the density, so every component of the SPAR has to be fine
tunes to achieve the desired mass by altering the density of the material.

The SPAR model has a total of 13 properties with a combination of 2 element types. A summary
of the whole model can be seen in the table below

Total No. of Nodes 5253


Total No. of Elements 4819
Total No. of Properties 13
Total No. of Materials 13
Elements types used Plate, Beam
Table 6.11 Comparison of FE model with the actual vessel

Now, we will have a detailed look in to the modeling details of each section of the SPAR.

6.2.3.1 Hard Tank

The Hard tank is the most important structure in the SPAR; it provides the buoyancy to float on
the high seas and also withstand the loads of topside and also waves on its walls. The hard tank
constitutes for more than 60% of the SPAR mass.

The total mass of the hard tank alone is 14304tons without the supports and outfittings. A line of
81.3m is created and meshed with beam elements with circular tube shape using the following
properties for the achieving the required weight. Fig 6.21 shows the FE model of the hard tank
section of the SPAR.

Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density


Radius: 22.2505m 3
Hard tank Beam Circular tube 62889kg/m
Thickness: 0.020m
Table 6.12 Properties of FE model of hard tank

Fig. 6.21 FE model of Hard tank section of the SPAR

46
6.2.3.2 Soft Tank

The soft tank is used for ballasting the SPAR to maintain its draught and also to provide floatation
during horizontal position before upending.

The soft tank’s mass is 2315 tons. All the time during transportation, the soft tank are suspended
on the stern of the vessel, so it doesn’t has supports underneath it. There will be some additional
masses in the soft tanks for guiding the risers in the center well.

Similar to Hard tank the soft tank is created by utilizing line geometry of length 12.8m and
meshed using the beam element of following properties for achieving the required weight. Fig.
6.22 shows the FE model of the Soft Tank section of the SPAR.

Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density


Height * Width:
Rectangular 3
Soft tank Beam 44.501m*44.501m 50820.93kg/m
tube
Thickness: 0.020m
Table 6.13 Properties of FE model of soft tank

Fig. 6.22 FE model of Soft tank section of the SPAR

6.2.3.3 Heave plates

Heave plates are placed in between the truss structure of the SPAR to provide stiffness and also
for damping the SPAR vertical motion while floating. The Future SPAR has 2 heave plates in
between the truss structures.

The heave plates are modeled using plate elements with the following properties for achieving the
required mass. Fig. 6.23 shows the FE model of the heave plate. The weight of the heave plate
is 529tons and it has a cutoff section on both sides at the bottom for proving space for the
supports.

Material
Description Element type Cross section Dimension
Density
Height * Width:
Shell / Plate 11877.21
Heave plate Plate 44.501m*44.501m 3
(QUAD4) kg/m
Thickness: 0.025m
Table 6.14 Properties of FE model of Heave plates

47
Fig. 6.23 FE model of Heave plate section of the SPAR

6.2.3.4 Truss

The truss section of the SPAR extends from the hard tank and connects the soft tank. It gives the
SPAR the deep draught it requires for withstanding the heavy ocean currents.

The truss section of the SPAR is similar to a normal truss used for construction. The truss is
fabricated with circular tubes, large tube for 4 legs and smaller tubes for the cross members. The
weight of the truss is 3293 tons and is also modeled by beam elements with circular tube shape
using the following properties for achieving the required mass. Fig 6.24 shows the FE model of
the truss section of the SPAR

Fig 6.24 FE model of the truss section of the SPAR

48
Description Element type Cross section Dimension Material Density
Radius: 3m 3
Truss legs Beam Circular tube 13245.9kg/m
Thickness: 0.015m
Radius: 1.5m 3
Cross members Beam Circular tube 11521.84kg/m
Thickness: 0.015m
Table 6.15 Properties of FE model of Truss section

The connection between the hard tank and the four truss legs are made by rigid elements, so that
the loads on the hard tank at the end node will be directly transferred to the truss legs and vice
versa. This step is very critical for obtaining the desired stiffness of the SPAR, as there are no
interior components designed in the hard tank model which in reality will make the hard tank
stiffer and hold the truss legs in position. Fig 6.25 shows the line diagram of the hard tank and
truss with rigid element. The rigid element connection between the truss legs and the end node of
the hard tank is visible in the Fig. 6.25

Fig 6.25 Line only FE model assembly of hard tank and truss

Fig 6.26 FE model of the SPAR without supports and outfittings

49
At this step the weight of the SPAR is 20970 tons, which is the sum of masses of hard tank, soft
tank, truss and 2 heave plates. The weight in the model is checked and verified to make sure that
the weights match with the design. Fig 6.26 shows the 3D view of the hard tank and truss
connected with rigid element.

6.2.3.5 Supports

Now the main sections of the SPAR are modeled and assembled, its time to create the supports.
As there are no constraints regarding the supports from the client’s side, support design depends
on the results of this analysis. Based on the conclusion of this thesis, Dockwise can recommend
the clients number of skid beams configuration needed and also the dimension of the supports in
relation to the center of the SPAR. For now, the supports are modeled appropriately based on the
information from previous projects.

As the hard tank and truss section can be accommodated on the vessel deck area, it is
necessary to support both hard tank and truss section. Since the Hard tank constitutes for more
than 60% of the weight in the SPAR, it is the critical part whose loads have to be distributed on
the vessel properly. So the Hard tank has to be supported throughout its length. As the truss
weigh only 3293 tons, compared to the hard tank’s weight it is very less. So it doesn’t have to be
supported throughout its length. The location where the heave plates are fixed in the truss are the
strongest points, so it has been decided to support the truss at 4 points under its heave plates on
the truss legs, as it was done earlier in previous projects.

The supports for soft tank as discussed in chapter 4.4.5 are not modeled. The soft tank will be
temporarily supported from the start of the load-out operation until the SPAR reaches its final
stowage position, until then it will be supported on the beams on the keyside not on the vessel
deck. So the necessary supporting condition for the soft tank can be applied using the constraints
in the model, the location and design of the supports for soft tank is of no significance.

The weight of the supports recommended by the clients in their design is 4681 tons, and we don’t
have any data regarding how much of the support weight is under the hard tank and how much is
under the truss. The weight of the SPAR specified by clients is just an estimation based on their
past experiences. So without that information it is not possible to model the support individually
for each section, without knowing the weights of each support legs. When the supports are
modeled after the SPAR assembly, the mass of the supports in total can be tuned exactly to
match the specified weight.

As discussed in the topic 4.5, one of the factors affecting the load-out is the number of skid
beams required, the supports design will also change according to the number of skid beams. So
we need to design 3 support configurations for the SPAR as listed below:
1. for 4 skid beams load-out
2. for 3 skid beams load-out
3. for 2 skid beams load-out

As the locations of the skid beams are already known from the chapter 4.2.4, the supports are
modeled as per the dimension in relation to the centre of the SPAR. The interior connections
between the supports and hard tank nodes are meshed with rigid elements to connect the nodes
on the hard tank with the supports and also simulate the stiffness due to the interior structural
details of the SPAR. Fig 6.27 shows the modeled hard tank supports and the rigid element
connection with the hard tank.

The supports under the truss are also modeled using the same skid beam location but with a
different cross section of the beam element. From the past projects information, tapered beams
were used as it tends to distribute the loads more gradually and also withstand SPAR’s self
weight. The length of each support under truss is taken as 15m, by mere approximation on
studying the previous projects. The supports for the truss legs can be seen in the fig 6.28.

50
Fig 6.27 FE model of the hard tank supports

Fig 6.28 FE model of truss supports

After the supports are modeled, the densities of the different properties used are tuned to achieve
the specified weight. Now the SPAR with its supports weighs 25651 tons. Fig. 6.29 shows the
SPAR with supports for 4 skid beams load-out.

The same procedure is followed to model the support of the SPAR for 3 and 2 skid beams load-
th
out. The 4 skid beam has been removed and the supports on the starboard side of the SPAR
st
have been modified as shown in the Fig. 6.30 for the SPAR with 3 skid beams load-out. The 1
th
and 4 skid beam is removed and the supports are modified as shown in the fig 6.31 for SPAR
with 2 skid beams load-out.

51
Fig 6.29 FE model of SPAR with supports for 4 skid beam load-out

Fig 6.30 FE model of SPAR with supports for 3 skid beam load-out

The following table shows a summary of all the properties used in the SPAR supports modeling
Element Cross
Description Dimension Material Density
type section
Pipe section of the Circular Radius: 0.75m 3
Beam 11328.6kg/m
support tube Thickness: 0.022m
H*W: 3*1.5*1.5m 3
End support beams Beam I beam 11354.3kg/m
T: 0.02*0.02*0.025m
Beam connecting H*W*W: 1.5*1.5*1.5m 3
Beam I beam 8951kg/m
the end supports T: 0.015*0.015*0.025m
Support beam Circular Radius: 1.5m 3
Beam 11521.8kg/m
under heave plate tube Thickness: 0.025m
End A: 5*3*3*0.02*0.02*0.025
Tapered beams for Tapered 3
Beam End B: 61521.8kg/m
truss supports I beam
3*2.5*2.5*0.02*0.02*0.025
Table 6.16 Properties of FE model of SPAR supports

52
Fig 6.31 FE model of SPAR with supports for 2 skid beam load-out

6.2.3.6 Outfittings

Except the hard tank, soft tank, truss, supports, all the other objects which are fixed to the SPAR
structure, for example pipe works, strakes, and additional steel fabrication works on the hard tank
side etc., which doesn’t influence the stiffness of the SPAR are termed as outfittings.

As the outfittings are objects scattered along all the sections of the SPAR and we don’t have any
detail information about the outfittings, it is of no importance to model it in a specific location in
the SPAR model. So we utilize the mass of the outfittings, which is 9205 tons, to tune the COG
specified. By spreading the outfittings mass on hard tank, truss and soft tank and tuning its
densities we can achieve the required COG.

The weight of the outfittings is distributed in hard tank, truss and soft tank by modifying, i.e
increasing the densities of its materials. And finally when the required total mass of the SPAR is
attained, the COG can be moved by replacing the mass in one section to the other, such that the
required location of COG, i.e 119.14, from the soft tank keel (end of soft tank) is achieved.

The final properties of the FE model of the SPAR including all the weights and after tuning the
COG are summarized as follows:

Element
Description Cross section Dimension Material Density
type
Radius: 22.2505m 3
Hard tank Beam Circular tube 91583.57kg/m
Thickness: 0.020m
Height * Width:
Rectangular 3
Soft tank Beam 44.501m*44.501m 65315.8kg/m
tube
Thickness: 0.020m
Shell / Height * Width:
3
Heave plate Plate Plate 44.501m*44.501m 11877.21kg/m
(QUAD4) Thickness: 0.025m
Radius: 3m 3
Truss legs Beam Circular tube 19798kg/m
Thickness: 0.015m

53
Radius: 1.5m 19657.4
Cross members Beam Circular tube 3
Thickness: 0.015m kg/m
Pipe section of the Radius: 0.75m 11328.6
Beam Circular tube 3
support Thickness: 0.022m kg/m
H*W: 3*1.5*1.5m 11354.3
End support beams Beam I beam 3
T: 0.02*0.02*0.025m kg/m
Beam connecting H*W*W: 1.5*1.5*1.5m 8951
Beam I beam 3
the end supports T: 0.015*0.015*0.025m kg/m
Support beam Radius: 1.5m 11521.8
Beam Circular tube 3
under heave plate Thickness: 0.025m kg/m
End A: 5*3*3*0.02*0.02*0.025
Tapered beams for Tapered I 61521.8
Beam End B: 3
truss supports beam kg/m
3*2.5*2.5*0.02*0.02*0.025
Table 6.17 Properties of FE model of SPAR with outfittings for 4 skid beam load-out

The FE model of the SPAR has the following characteristics values, compared with the design
values given in chapter 4.2 as shown in the tale below

Description Design FE Model


Mass of the SPAR 34855 Tons 34855 Tons
Longitudinal Centre of gravity from soft
119.14m 119.14m
tank keel
Table 6.18 Comparison of FE model of SPAR with the design.

The SPAR model is accurate to the design specification provided by the clients. The SPAR model
can be safely utilized for the analysis.

54
CHAPTER 7

ANALYSIS & RESULTS


The process of load-out is discussed in chapter 4. The reason and factors for choosing skidding
method for load-out of the Future SPAR has been discussed in detail. The skidding method is a
very slow process; the average movement of the SPAR on the deck will be about 75mm per
minute or even less which in turn depends on stroke of the hydraulic cylinders pushing the SPAR.

Since the skidding method is very slow, the load on the vessel structure can be considered as a
static and linear loading as there are no sudden or harmonic changes in the loading pattern. The
term "linear" means that the computed response--displacement or stress, for example, is linearly
related to the applied force. The term "static" means that the forces do not vary with time--or, that
the time variation is insignificant and can therefore be safely ignored.

So in this analysis, it has been assumed that the loading is static and the most critical load steps
on the vessel structure are recreated in FEMAP environment and analyzed by linear static
analysis.

7.1 Allowable stress level


[15] The most suitable strength or stiffness criterion for any structural element or component is
normally some maximum stress or deformation which must not be exceeded. In the case of
stresses the value is generally known as the maximum allowable working stress. Because of
uncertainties of loading conditions, design procedures, production methods, etc., designers
generally introduce a factor of safety into their designs, defined as follows:

Factor of safety = maximum stress / allowable working stress

However, in view of the fact that plastic deformations are not accepted this definition can be
modified to: Factor of safety = yield stress / allowable working stress

According to the factors taken from allowable stresses in ship construction engineering
guidelines, recommended safety factor is 1.43. [15]

i.e., Allowable stress = Yield stress/1.43


Yield stress for the material used in ship construction = 235Mpa
Allowable stress
stress ( allowable) = 235/1.43 = 164.3Mpa

55
7.2 Uniform loading by hydraulics
Since the hard tank constitutes the most of the mass of the SPAR, the vessel deck will
experience the critical load at any given area. When compared with loads induced by hard tank
mass, the truss and soft tank loads are very small. So the hydraulic cylinders are used only under
the hard tank for leveling out the peak loads exerted by the very stiff hard tank structure and
equally distribute the critical load of the hard tank.

When the SPAR is loaded-out using hydraulics cylinders under the hard tank, the loads on skid
beam surface are equal at any given point. So to analyze the uniform loading scenario the actual
SPAR model is not used, instead the loads on each skid beam are calculated manually and the
resulting loads are equally applied on the skid beam surface as nodal loads. The loads on skid
beam vary according to the number of skid beam and its relative position from the Centre of
gravity of the SPAR. So the loads are calculated separately for each steps analyzed in the
uniform loading case.

7.2.1 Method of load application

Once the load on each skid beam is calculated manually as explained in the next section, to
make sure that the loads are equally distributed along the length of the skid beam, following steps
were utilized.

1. A line is drawn above the skid beams for the length of the hard tank which is 81.382m.
2. The calculated total load on each skid beam is applied to the line as a force per unit length
(which is criteria in uniform loading)
3. The nodes on the centre line of the skid beams are associated with the line.
4. The load on the line, i.e., force per unit length is expanded and transferred to the nodes
associated with the line.
5. Once the loads are transferred to the nodes, the line is detached from the nodes.

By this method the loads are equally distributed on the nodes in regard to its distances. Fig. 7.1
shows the loads applied on the skid beam by the above mentioned steps.

Fig 7.1 uniform loading on skid beams

56
7.2.2 Boundary conditions in Uniform loading

Every node in FEMAP has six degrees of freedom; the constraints are applied to the model by
restricting the degrees of freedom of the necessary nodes corresponding to the real life scenario.

The following constraints were utilized in general for all the uniform loading steps:

1. Constraint in the vessel bow section.

The vessel’s Y-axis is fixed to arrest the movement of the vessel in Y direction, as the vessel will
not move in transverse direction during load-out; mooring lines are attached to prevent the vessel
from moving. The X axis is not constrained as the vessel is free to deflect longitudinally when the
loads are applied on the deck. The Z-axis is not constrained as the vessel will be floating on the
water and is free to move up and down depending on the load on deck, ballast and tide
conditions. The model is free to rotate in all 3 axes, since the vessel during load-out experience
various rotational movements. Fig. 7.2 shows the constraint in the bow section of the vessel
model. The constraint is applied as a nodal constraint.

Fig 7.2 Constraint in bow section of the vessel

2. Constraint in the vessel stern section

Unlike the bow, stern section of the vessel is fixed in Y and X-axis as the vessel is docked along
the stern with the keyside and moored. It can’t move or deflect in X-axis due to the keyside. All
the other DOF are free as the model has to move up and down in the Z-axis and the rotations
should be free to simulate the floating condition of the vessel, where the vessel while floating in
water will experience various rotational movement due to waves and also if not properly
stabilised. Fig. 7.3 shows the Constrains in the stern section of the vessel.

The model is constrained only at 2 nodes as explained because two nodes are located on the
center line of the vessel and the model is free is rotate around the X- axis. Constraining other
nodes may lead to restriction of the rotation movement of whole vessel model which might results
in not providing the actual floatation scenario to the model.

57
Fig 7.3 Constraints in stern section of vessel

3. Constraints on the spring elements

The spring elements as explained in chapter 6.1.3.6 are used to make the model stable when not
precisely balanced. The spring elements are created between two node groups, nodes on the
bottom hull of the vessel and one on the space below the vessel. The hanging node below the
vessel is fixed in all 3-axes, as the spring element can take only axial loads, to stabilize the lower
node the additional X and Y axis constraints are needed. Fig. 7.4 shows the constraints of the
spring elements

Fig. 7.4 Constraints in the spring elements

7.2.3 Draft

During the calculation of the draft and ballast condition using the software as explained in chapter
6.1.2.9, it is found that the vessel draft has to be 11m.

58
Only when the draft is increased to 11.0 m the aft part of the vessel generates sufficient buoyancy
to reduce the shear force down to 99.9% of the allowable limit during the load-out of the SPAR
hard tank. The minimum draft required for load-out of the SPAR is set at 10.95m for the load-out
operation of the hard tank.

The draft is updated in the model using the API tool. When the draft is entered the water line is
drawn on the model to show the level of the draft and the water pressures are applied on the
element faces which are inside the draft level. The water level line serves as a reference in the
model to visualize the trim and rolling movement of the vessel model. The draft and the
hydrostatic pressures applied can be seen in the Fig. 7.5

Fig. 7.5 Draft level and hydrostatic pressure for the step hard tank on the vessel.

7.2.4 Ballast condition

As discussed in chapter 6.1.2.10, the mass of ballast water required to maintain the draft and
stability of the vessel during load-out are incorporated as mass elements in the model.

The amount of water necessary for ballast is calculated based on number of parameters like load
on deck and its COG, draft, bending moment in the vessel and stability. It is calculated using
software called GHS, the calculated ballast is updated in the vessel model using the API tool
available. A complete ballast calculation as created from the software GHS for the step hard tank
on the vessel has been attached in appendix 3. The detail of ballast mass needed in each ballast
tank for the load step hard tank on the vessel is given in the table below.
.
Tank Description Name Capacity in kg % filled Mass in kg
1 upper S WBT1U.S 839760 100 839760
1 upper P WBT1U.P 851280 100 851280
1 upper C WBT1U.C 624050 100 624050
2 upper S WBT2U.S 839340 100 839340
2 upper P WBT2U.P 861430 100 861430
2 upper C WBT2U.C 839210 100 839210
3 upper S WBT3U.S 861430 100 861430
3 upper P WBT3U.P 850380 100 850380
3 upper C WBT3U.C 861290 0 0

59
4 upper S WBT4U.S 850840 25 212710
4 upper P WBT4U.P 0 0
4 upper C WBT4U.C 839210 0 0
5 upper S WBT5U.S 862475 0 0
5 upper P WBT5U.P 849650 0 0
5 upper C WBT5U.C 861910 0 0
6 upper S WBT6U.S 585330 0 0
6 upper P WBT6U.P 607420 0 0
6 upper C WBT6U.C 585240 0 0
1 middle S WBT1M.S 2444290 100 2444290
1 middle P WBT1M.P 2444290 100 2444290
1 middle C WBT1M.C 846690 100 846690
2 middle S WBT2M.S 2467700 100 2467700
2 middle P WBT2M.P 2487600 100 2487600
3 middle S WBT3M.S 0 0
3 middle P WBT3M.P 2467700 0 0
3 middle C WBT3M.C 0 0
4 middle S WBT4M.S 2466490 79.6 1963326
4 middle P WBT4M.P 2487610 100 2487610
4 middle C WBT4M.C 2321520 100 2321520
5 middle S WBT5M.S 2487600 0 0
5 middle P WBT5M.P 2467700 0 0
5 middle C WBT5M.C 2332400 0 0
6 middle S WBT6M.S 1711630 0 0
6 middle P WBT6M.P 1732380 0 0
6 middle C WBT6M.C 1588440 0 0
1 lower S WBT1L.S 1214410 100 1214410
1 lower P WBT1L.P 1214410 100 1214410
1 lower C WBT1L.C 1116960 100 1116960
2 lower S WBT2L.S 1302220 100 1302220
2 lower P WBT2L.P 1307690 100 1307690
2 lower C WBT2L.C 1325950 100 1325950
3 lower S WBT3L.S 1309480 100 1309480
3 lower P WBT3L.P 1304220 100 1304220
3 lower C WBT3L.C 1327370 100 1327370
4 lower S WBT4L.S 1303230 90.4 1178119.9
4 lower P WBT4L.P 1310214 88.8 1163470
4 lower C WBT4L.C 1325897 75.8 1005029.9
5 lower S WBT5L.S 1309430 0 0
5 lower P WBT5L.P 1309430 0 0
5 lower C WBT5L.C 1328750 0 0
6 lower S WBT6L.S 782700 0 0
6 lower P WBT6L.P 788170 0 0
6 lower C WBT6L.C 789920 0 0
water bal oflow WBTOVERF.S 0
fwd lower WB P WBTFL.P 0 0
fwd lower WB S WBTFL.S 1592033 54.1 861289.85
fwd upper WB S WBTFU.S 0 0

60
fwd upper WB P WBTFU.P 0 0
aft WB P WBTA.P 0 0
poop aft WB S WBTPA.S 0 0
poop fwd WB S WBTPF.S 0 0
engine RM TOP S WBTERTOP.S 0 0
engine RM TOP P WBTERTOP.P 0 0
aft ballast S WBTALWL.S 0 0
aft peak C WBTAPC.S 0 0
lower peak C WBTLOWPEAK.C 0 0
high peak C WBTHIGHPEAK.C 2995970 0 0
WB overf fwd WBTOVERFWD.C 0 0
aft poop lower WB P WBTAPL.P 0 0
aft poop upper WB P WBTAPU.P 0 0
1 outer wing P WBT10.P 1291440 100 1291440
1 outer wing S WBT10.S 1291470 100 1291470
2 outer wing P WBT20.P 2708360 100 2708360
2 outer wing S WBT20.S 2708360 100 2708360
3 outer wing P WBT30.P 3168290 0 0
3 outer wing S WBT30.S 3168290 100 3168290
4 outer wing P WBT40.P 3262750 0 0
4 outer wing S WBT40.S 3262750 100 3262750
5 outer wing P WBT50.P 3276980 0 0
5 outer wing S WBT50.S 3276980 3.5 114694.3
6 outer wing P WBT60.P 2126910 0 0
6 outer wing S WBT60.S 2126900 0 0
7 outer wing P WBT70.P 2596050 0 0
7 outer wing S WBT70.S 1859960 0 0
Total ballast mass 54418600
Table 7.1 Ballast condition for step hard tank on the vessel.

Some of the masses which are permanent in the vessel like, fuel, lubricating oil, fresh water,
weight of the crew, weight of the materials in stores etc., regardless of the load on deck are
permanently incorporated in the model. But, if needed the permanent masses can also be edited
using the API tool.

The ballast condition above is the used for all the analysis step of hard tank on vessel by uniform
loading, namely, hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams, hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
and hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams.

In all the cases of the uniform loading, weight distribution of the hard tank taken in to account for
analysis is 25122 tons, which is much higher than the weight distribution of the hard tank
provided by the designers. The weight of the 4 skid beams, which is 327 tons, is already taken in
to account with the SPAR weight. Since the weight of the skid beams are not that much high
compared to the vessel and SPAR weight, the difference of weight arising in the number of skid
beams in every other step can neglected.

7.2.5 Load calculation for the uniform loading cases.

When the load-out is done by uniform loading using hydraulics, the loads on the each
side of the supports will be equal on both skid beams. Since the peak loads will be
equally distributed, loads on each skid beam can be calculated using analytical method
and can be used in the model.

61
Hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams:

The following calculation shows the method of load calculation for the step hard tank on vessel
with 4 skid beams:

The support locations for 4 skid beams on the vessel deck and its dimension in relative to the
SPAR centre is shown in the fig 7.6.

SB
casing

Fig. 7.6 Location of supports for 4 skid beams load-out

The loads on each skid beam are calculated as follows:

Total length of each skid beam on the vessel = 163.2 m


Weight of skid beams from the model = 327 tons

length of hard tank on the skid beams (length of skid beam where load acts) = 81.382 m
weight of hard tank on vessel with outfitting used for ballast calculation = 25122 tons

Assuming that the skid beams are also included in the above weight of hard tank for ballast
calculation,

Total load on vessel = weight of hard tank - weight of skid beams


= 25122 -327 =24795 tons

Since the skid beam is already modeled with the vessel, the load of hard tank is taken as above
for calculation purposes.

From the Fig 7.6 the following are calculated

Distances in Port side:


Distance between 2 skid beams = 20.575 - 12.7 = 7.875 m
Centre of 2 skid beams where the load acts in case of uniform loading = 7.875/2 = 3.9375 m
Distance between SPAR center and the point of load acting = 12.7 + 3.9375 = 16.6375 m

Distances in Starboard side:


Distance between 2 skid beams = 23.175 - 15.3 = 7.875 m

62
Centre of 2 skid beams where the load acts in case of uniform loading = 7.875/2 = 3.9375 m
Distance between SPAR center and the point of load acting = 15.3 + 3.9375 = 19.2375 m

Total distance between point of load acting on both sides = 16.6375 +19.2375 = 35.8750 m

Load on port side:


Total load on both skid beams = (24795 x 19.2375) / 35.8750 = 13295.9947 tons
Load on each skid beam = 13295.9947 / 2 = 6647.99738 tons
Load per unit length on each skid beam = 6647.99378 / 81.382 = 81.688 ton/m

Load on starboard side:


Total load on both skid beams = (24795 x 16.6375) / 35.8750 = 11499.0052 tons
Load on each skid beam = 11499.0052 / 2 = 5749.50261 tons
Load per unit length on each skid beam = 5749.50261 / 81.382 = 70.648 ton /m

Port side (2 skid beams) Starboard side (2 skid beams)


Total load 13295.994 tons 11499.0052 tons
Total load on each skid beam 6647.997 tons 5749.50261 tons
Load per unit length on each skid
81.688 tons/m 70.648 tons/m
beam
Table 7.2 Load calculation for the uniform loading with 4 skid beams load-out
5
The load per unit length on each skid beam in port side is 81.688 ton/m or 8.0136 x10 N/m
5
The load per unit length on each skid beam in starboard side is 70.648 ton/m or 6.930 x 10 N/m

Hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams:

The support locations for 3 skid beams on the vessel deck and its dimensions in relative to the
SPAR centre is shown in the fig 7.7

SB
casing

.
Fig. 7.7 Location of supports for 3 skid beams load-out

Based on fig 7.7, the loads on each skid beams are calculated as in the previous loading case
and the results are displayed in the table below.

63
The weight of 3 skid beams from the model = 247 tons.

Total weight of hard tank on vessel with outfitting in the ballast calculation = 25122 tons

Assuming that the skid beams are also included in the above weight of hard tank for ballast
calculation,

Total load on vessel = weight of hard tank - weight of skid beams = 25122 -247 = 24875 tons.

Port side (2 skid beams) Starboard side (1 skid beam)


Total load 11916.634 tons 12958.365 tons
Total load on each skid beam 5958.317 tons 12958.365 tons
Load per unit length on each skid
73.214 tons/m 159.228 tons/m
beam
Table 7.3 Load calculation for the uniform loading with 3 skid beams load-out

5
The load per unit length on each skid beam on port side is 73.214 tons/m or 7.182*10 N/m
6
The load per unit length on each skid beam on starboard side is 159.228 tons/m or 1.562*10 N/m

Hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams:

The support locations for 2 skid beams and its dimension relative to the SPAR centre is shown in
the fig 7.8 It is very obvious that the skid beams are supported on the longitudinal bulkheads.

SB
casing

Fig. 7.8 Location of supports for 2 skid beams load-out

Based on fig 7.8, the loads on each skid beams are calculated as in the previous loading case
and the results are displayed in the table below.

The weight of 2 skid beams from the model = 169 tons.


Total weight of hard tank on vessel with outfitting in the ballast calculation = 25122 tons

Assuming that the skid beams are also included in the above weight of hard tank for ballast
calculation,

Total load on vessel = weight of hard tank - weight of skid beams = 25122 -169 = 24953 tons.

64
Port side (1 skid beam) Starboard side (1 skid beam)
Total load 13635.032 tons 11317.967 tons
Total load on each skid beam 13635.032 tons 11317.967 tons
Load per unit length on each skid
167.543 tons/m 139.072 tons/m
beam
Table 7.4 Load calculation for the uniform loading with 2 skid beams load-out

6
The load per unit length on each skid beam on port side is 167.54 tons/m or 1.64x10 N/m
6
The load per unit length on each skid beam on starboard side is 139.07 tons/m or 1.36x10 N/m

Summary of load calculation for all the 3 steps of uniform loading:

Load on each skid beam Load on each skid beam


Port side (#1 & #2) Starboard side (#3 & #4)
6647.997 tons / 5749.50261 tons /
4 skid beams load-out
81.688 tons/m 70.648 tons/m
5958.317 tons/ 12958.365 tons/
3 skid beams load-out
73.214 tons/m 159.228 tons/m
13635.032 tons / 11317.967 tons/
2 skid beams load-out
167.543 tons/m 139.072 tons/m
Table 7.5 Summary of load calculation for all 3 steps of uniform loading

7.2.6 Analysis of Uniform loading cases

The following section describes the analysis and results of each step of uniform loading
cases.

Hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams:

The above calculated load for the load step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams using uniform
load together with the ballast condition and draft have been applied in the model of the vessel
with 4 skid beams. Fig 7.9 shows the model of the step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by
uniform loading with the calculated load, draft and ballast condition.

Fig. 7.9 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by uniform loading

65
The results of static linear analysis of the step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams are
illustrated below.

The total translation in the model is 0.82m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
178.983Mpa.

Fig 7.10 shows the total deformation of the model after the analysis. The scale of the results is
increased by 10% of the actual value to visualize the actual deformation of the model. The red
line shows the draft line of the vessel or the water surface level.

Fig 7.10 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step uniform loading with 4 skid beams

Hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams:

Fig. 7.11 shows the FE model of the Analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams. The
application of loads on nodes in the centre line of the skid beams for a length of 81.382 m can be
seen in the figure below.

Fig 7.11 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by uniform loading

66
The results of static linear analysis of the step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams are
illustrated below.

The total translation in the model is 0.807m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
151.215Mpa.

Fig 7.12 shows the total deformation of the model after the analysis. The scale of the results is
increased by 10% of the actual value to visualize the actual deformation of the model. The red
line shows the draft line of the vessel or the water surface level

Fig 7.12 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step uniform loading with 3 skid beams

Hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams:

Fig. 7.13 shows the FE model of the Analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams. The
application of loads on nodes in the centre line of the skid beams for a length of 81.382 m can be
seen in the figure below.

Fig 7.13 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by uniform loading

67
The total translation in the model is 0.77m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
149.8Mpa.

Fig 7.14 shows the total deformation of the model after the analysis. The scale of the results is
increased by 10% of the actual value to visualize the actual deformation of the model. The red
line shows the draft line of the vessel or the water surface level

Fig 7.14 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step uniform loading with 2 skid beams

Summary of the results of uniform loading cases

Hard tank on vessel using


Total translation Highest equivalent stress
uniform loading case
4 skid beams 0.82m 178.983Mpa

3 skid beams 0.807m 151.215Mpa

2 skid beams 0.77m 149.8Mpa


Table 7.6 Summary of results of uniform loading cases

7.2.7 Location of the stress components.

During the analysis of all the 3 load steps of the uniform loading, namely 4 skid beams load-out, 3
skid beams load-out and 2 skid beams load-out, the highest equivalent stresses are found in
almost same locations on the vessel model. Fig 7.15 shows the location where the highest
equivalent stresses are found in vessel model.

68
Fig. 7.15 Location of highest equivalent stresses in uniform loading case analysis.

7.2.8 Stress components of analysis

The results of the stress components in the locations mentioned above, on all the 3 steps
analyzed are presented below;

Hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Longitudinal bulkhead under


-35.660 -85.429 -45.901 108.831
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-67.105 -20.385 53.889 110.738
skid beam #3
Stern section under skid
-76.254 -12.952 -94.939 178.983
beam #4
Transverse bulkhead #1 on
-10.033 -90.918 -72.358 152.190
webframe #46
Transverse bulkhead #5 on
-113.543 16.072 1.180 122.391
webframe #83
Hull side shell on starboard
-29.673 -8.366 64.880 115.459
side
Table 7.7 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams.

The highest equivalent stress of 178.983MPa is more than the allowable stress of 164.3MPa,
which suggests that the load-out with 4 skid beams using uniform loading might not be a solution.
But the factors affecting the results can be listed as follows:

1. The peak stress is found on a location of a duct which intersects a longitudinal frame in the
stern to connect two sections to form a ballast tank. And also it is found on a triangular element,
whose results are not so accurate as compared to quadrilateral elements.
2. The critical stress is found exactly under the skid beam no. 4, in location on the deck
where there is no major bulkhead present.

69
The stress plot figures of the stress components location listed in the table 7.7 has been attached
in the appendix no.4.

Hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Longitudinal bulkhead under


-31.885 -71.238 -36.686 92.439
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-116.027 -28.710 33.522 151.215
skid beam #3
Stern section under skid
-16.480 -22.310 72.583 127.305
beam #4
Transverse bulkhead #1 on
-3.159 -84.404 -64.353 138.894
webframe #46
Transverse bulkhead #5 on
-113.197 16.074 1.187 122.048
webframe #83
Hull side shell on starboard
-19.359 -7.222 66.923 117.146
side
Table 7.8 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

The highest equivalent stress of 151.2Mpa is well below the allowable stress of 164.3MPa, so the
critical step of loading-out hard tank of the SPAR on the vessel with 3 skid beams arrangement is
possible with out causing any problems to the structure.

The highest stress of 151.215Mpa is found in the longitudinal bulkhead under the skid beam
number 3, where there is a discontinuity in the bulkhead in the stern section above the aft
perpendicular to interconnect the sections to form a ballast tank.

The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.5.

Hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Longitudinal bulkhead under


-38.783 -73.229 -44.544 99.895
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-111.346 -28.435 59.994 144.293
skid beam #3
Stern section under skid
0.161 -10.503 71.040 123.499
beam #4
Transverse bulkhead #1 on
-6.366 -90.168 -69.037 147.969
webframe #46
Transverse bulkhead #5 on
16.127 -113.310 1.205 122.193
webframe #83
Hull side shell on starboard
-30.198 -8.592 68.257 121.258
side
Table 7.9 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

70
The highest equivalent stress of 147.969Mpa is well below the allowable stress of 164.3MPa, in
contrary to the expected results the load-out of SPAR hard tank with 2 skid beams turn out to be
possible by uniform loading as the complete load is transferred to the longitudinal bulkheads
which is capable of withstanding heavy loads.

Since the load in skid beams are higher, the lowest stress among the stress concentration
location is found on the longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2, which is also the case in 3 and
4 skid beams load-outs as well. So the stress concentration on the model reveals that the load-
out using 2 skid beam by uniform loading is very well possible as of the 3 skid beam step.

The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.6.

7.3 SPAR model loading


The analysis and results of uniform loading with application of hydraulics to level out the peak
loads were discussed in the previous chapter, which doesn’t make use of the SPAR model. In this
chapter the SPAR model is loaded on the vessel deck, to analyze the load-out by standard
skidding method without hydraulics. The necessary details such as constraints, draft, and ballast
condition are discussed in detail.

Two steps of the SPAR model loading are analyzed


1. hard tank on vessel to decide whether the load-out has to be carried out using hydraulics
2. Entire SPAR on vessel to see the overall stress in the vessel after the load-out.

Each of the above steps are further subdivided into load-out with 3 and 4 skid beams to decide on
the number of skid beams needed for distribution of the SPAR load during load-out.

7.3.1 Hard tank on vessel by standard skidding method

Whole length of the SPAR hard tank model is loaded on the vessel model and analyzed to find
the stress components on the vessel structure.

7.3.1.1 Connecting SPAR with skid beams

The SPAR model is moved on top of the vessel model such that the entire hard tank is above the
skid beams and aligned so that the SPAR supports center lines are in same plane with the skid
beams center lines.

During the skidding method the contact between the SPAR support and skid beams are by
means of a roller as discussed in the chapter 4.3.1.4. The rollers are used to reduce the friction
between the surfaces for the facilitation of easy movement of the load. The roller contact on the
skid beam and SPAR support surfaces are usually a line contact.

The distance between the skid beams and the SPAR supports are maintained at about 1.5m as
the nodes are located on the center of the beam elements cross section. The height of the
support I-beam section below the node is 1.5m.

Since the friction does not comes in to play that much during the load-out process, the need for
gap elements can be ruled out.

The nodes on the SPAR’s support are edited to match the nodes on the center line of the skid
beams, so that both line of nodes are in the same plane.

71
The nodes on the supports base and the nodes on the skid beams center are connected using
rod elements. The area of cross section of the rod is chosen according the area of contact
surface between the skid beams and SPAR supports.

Rod elements are axial elements which only take tension or compression loads and translates the
loads to the connecting nodes. So the rod elements are very much suitable to simulate the rollers
used during the load-out by skidding method.

Details about the rod element are depicted in the table below.

Description Element type Cross section Area Material Density

2
Connecting rod Rod Circular rod 2.25m 0
Table 7.10 Properties of rod elements

Fig 7.16 shows rod elements connecting the nodes on the SPAR supports and skid beam.

Fig 7.16 rod elements connecting nodes on supports and skid beams

7.3.1.2 Load case specific boundary conditions

All the constraints in the vessel model as explained in the chapter 7.2.2 for uniform loading
condition are also utilized for the analysis using SPAR model. In addition to the constraints on the
vessel model following constraints are also created on the SPAR model for the analysis of the
step hard tank on vessel with SPAR model loading.

1. Constraints in the supports under heave plates.

The supports under the hard tank are not constrained as the load of the hard tank has to be
transferred to the skid beam for loading the vessel structure.

All nodes on the supports under the heave plates are constrained in all 6 degrees of freedom.
During load-out when the hard tank supports are on the vessel the heave plate supports will still
be on the keyside, so it can’t move or rotate in any direction.

Fig 7.17 shows the constraints of the supports under the heave plates.

72
Fig 7.17 Constraints of the SPAR supports under the heave plates and soft tank

2. Constraints in soft tank

The soft tank doesn’t have any permanent supports under it as it will be hanging out of the vessel
during transportation, but during the load-out it will be supported on the skid beams using
temporary supports until the SPAR is in the final stowage position on the vessel deck. This is
explained in chapters 4.4.5 & 6.2.3.5

All the nodes on the soft tank are fixed in all 6 degrees of freedom as it will be on the skid beams
and all its movements will be locked. The constraints in the soft tank can be visualized in the
figure 7.17.

7.3.1.3 Draft and ballast condition


The draft and ballast condition are same as the uniform loading case. The mass of the hard tank
is same in both the cases only difference is that the load is applied using hydraulics to level out
the peak load and distribute it evenly in uniform loading case. But in this case the actual SPAR
model is used in loading.

The draft of the vessel is 10.95m and the ballast condition is exactly the same as previous
loading case. Please refer to chapter 7.2.3 and 7.2.4 for further details

7.3.1.4 Analysis of step hard tank on vessel

The following section describes the analysis and results of the steps hard tank on vessel with 4
skid beams, hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams and hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by
SPAR model loading case.

The SPAR model is loaded on the Vessel model so that the hard tank of the SPAR is completely
on the vessel stern and the centre line of the supports is aligned with the centre line of the skid
beams. Nodes on the supports are connected with nodes on skid beams using rod elements.

73
Hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Fig 7.18 shows the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams.

Fig. 7.18 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by SPAR model loading

The results of the analysis have been discussed below:

The total translation in the model is 0.437m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
130.575Mpa.

Fig 7.19 shows the total deformation of the model after the analysis. The scale of the results is
increased by 10% of the actual value to visualize the actual deformation of the model. The red
line shows the draft line of the vessel or the water surface level. The total deformation includes
the deformation of the SPAR as well.

Fig 7.19 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

74
Fig. 7.20 shows the plot of total translation in Z-axis verses its X-axis coordinates. The resulting
plot reveals the bending of the whole vessel model.

Fig. 7.20 Plot of vessel model translation in Z-axis for the step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Fig 7.21 shows the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams.

Fig. 7.21 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by SPAR model loading

The results of the analysis have been discussed below:

The total translation in the model is 0.41m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
195.718Mpa.

75
Fig 7.22 shows the total deformation of the model after the analysis. The scale of the results is
increased by 10% of the actual value to visualize the actual deformation of the model. The red
line shows the draft line of the vessel or the water surface level. The total deformation includes
the deformation of the SPAR as well.

Fig 7.22 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Fig. 7.23 shows the plot of total translation in Z-axis verses its X-axis coordinates. The resulting
plot reveals the bending of the whole vessel model.

Fig. 7.23 Plot of vessel model translation in Z-axis for the step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Fig 7.24 shows the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams.

76
Fig. 7.24 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by SPAR model loading

The results of the analysis have been discussed below:

The total translation in the model is 0.425m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
180.230Mpa.

Fig 7.25 shows the total deformation of the model after the analysis. The scale of the results is
increased by 10% of the actual value to visualize the actual deformation of the model. The red
line shows the draft line of the vessel or the water surface level. The total deformation includes
the deformation of the SPAR as well.

Fig 7.25 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Fig. 7.26 shows the plot of total translation in Z-axis verses its X-axis coordinates. The resulting
plot reveals the bending of the whole vessel model.

77
Fig. 7.26 Plot of vessel model translation in Z-axis for the step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Summary of the results of hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading cases

Hard tank on vessel by SPAR


Total translation Highest equivalent stress
model loading
4 skid beams 0.437m 130.575Mpa

3 skid beams 0.41m 195.718Mpa

2 skid beams 0.425m 180.230Mpa.


Table 7.11 Summary of results of hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading cases

7.3.1.5 Loads on skid beams


Since it cannot be confirmed by viewing the model whether the vessel structure is loaded as
expected, which is, loading by compression forces due the SPAR on top, the stresses in the
connecting rod are evaluated. The tables and figures below show the magnitude and plot of all
the axial forces on the rods, these forces are the loads on the skid beams. The following section
explains the loads on the skid beam in each load step analyzed.

Hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

The axial forces on the rods are summed up and the total load acting on each skid beam is given
in the table below.
Force in Newton Load in tons
Skid beam #1 46146891.1 4705.673
Skid beam #2 93538263.1 9538.248
Skid beam #3 80934120.3 8252.983
Skid beam #4 45070108 4595.871
Total load 27092.775 tons
Table 7.12 Load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

78
Fig. 7.27 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #1 – hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Fig. 7.28 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #2– hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

79
Fig. 7.29 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #3– hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Fig. 7.30 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #4– hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

The axial forces on the rods are summed up and the total load acting on each skid beam is given
in the table below.

Force in Newton Load in tons


Skid beam #1 50832664.4 5183.48
Skid beam #2 82246036.6 8386.76
Skid beam #3 142107838 14490.96
Total load 28061.20 tons
Table 7.13 Load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Fig. 7.31 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #1 - hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

80
Fig. 7.32 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #2 - hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Fig. 7.33 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #3 - hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

The axial forces on the rods are summed up and the total load acting on each skid beam is given
in the table below.

Force in Newton Load in tons


Skid beam #2 146159651 14904.13
Skid beam #3 130400410 13297.14
Total load 28201.27 tons
Table 7.14 Load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

81
Fig. 7.34 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #2 - hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Fig. 7.35 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #3 - hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Summary of load skid beams in hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading case.

Load on skid Load on skid Load on skid Load on skid


beam #1 beam #2 beam #3 beam #4
4 skid beams load-out 4705.673 9538.248 8252.983 4595.871
3 skid beams load-out 5183.48 8386.76 14490.96
2 skid beams load-out 14904.13 13297.14
Table 7.15 Summary of load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading

Negative sign indicates that the loading is compression and positive sign is tension. It is clear
from the figures below that the forces in the rods are compressive and the vessel structure is
loaded as expected.

82
The tensional forces on few nodes at the end of SPAR is due to the bending of the SPAR and
vessel, in reality there will be minimal contact in those areas due to the bending. But in model it is
translated into a tensional force as the nodes are connected. The small forces are due to the
bending of the model can be neglected as it doesn’t create any high stresses in the structure of
the vessel model.

7.3.1.6 Location of stress components


During the analysis of all the 3 load steps of hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading, namely
4 skid beams load-out, 3 skid beams load-out and 2 skid beams load-out, the highest equivalent
stresses are found in almost same locations on the vessel model. Fig 7.36 shows the location
where the highest equivalent stresses are found in vessel model

Fig. 7.36 Location of highest equivalent stresses in hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading case analysis.

7.3.1.7 Stress components of analysis


The results of the stress components in the locations mentioned above, on all the 3 steps
analyzed are presented below;

Hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Longitudinal bulkhead under


-44.086 -93.621 -53.116 122.658
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-121.474 -31.967 1.707 109.103
skid beam #3
Transverse bulkhead #1 on
-14.255 -75.791 63.725 130.575
webframe #46
Transverse bulkhead #5 on
-118.907 16.810 1.394 128.159
webframe #83

Hull side shell on port side -42.456 -10.509 69.254 125.903

Hull side shell on starboard


-31.512 -8.500 60.363 108.298
side
Table 7.16 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by SPAR
model loading

83
The highest equivalent stress of 130.575Mpa is well below the allowable stress of 164.3MPa, it is
possible to load-out the SPAR using 4 skid beam without the need for hydraulics for leveling the
peak loads. The highest stress is found on the transverse bulkhead stiffeners, where, on the
backside of the stiffeners the engine room section is present. The stress plot figures of the
locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.7.

Hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Longitudinal bulkhead under


-42.570 -89.147 -50.920 117.231
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-215.916 -55.936 -14.541 195.718
skid beam #3
Transverse bulkhead #1 on
-8.561 -61.450 -53.632 109.328
webframe #46
Transverse bulkhead #5 on
-119.407 16.820 1.391 128.667
webframe #83

Hull side shell on port side -42.162 -10.499 73.491 132.845

Hull side shell on starboard


-31.629 -8.561 61.448 110.139
side
Table 7.17 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by SPAR
model loading

The highest equivalent stress of 195.718Mpa is above the allowable stress of 164.3MPa, the load
imposed on the vessels structure causes high stress concentration, it is not possible to load-out
the SPAR using 3 skid beam without the hydraulics for leveling the peak loads. The high stress
concentration is found on the longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3, where there is a opening
in the bulkhead for cables and pipes. The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has
been attached in the appendix no.8.

Hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Longitudinal bulkhead under


-111.042 -27.874 63.218 148.330
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-197.698 -51.111 -17.229 180.230
skid beam #3
Transverse bulkhead #1 on
-11.310 -63.624 -55.042 112.006
webframe #46
Transverse bulkhead #5 on
-119.197 16.764 1.375 128.424
webframe #83

Hull side shell on port side -41.350 -10.977 65.698 119.688

Hull side shell on starboard


-31.431 -8.555 61.747 110.591
side
Table 7.18 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by SPAR
model loading

84
The highest equivalent stress of 180.230Mpa is above the allowable stress of 164.3MPa, the load
imposed on the vessels structure causes high stress concentration, it is not possible to load-out
the SPAR using 3 skid beam without the hydraulics for leveling the peak loads. The high stress
concentration is found on the longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3, where there is an
opening in the bulkhead for cables and pipes, in the location similar to the 3 skid beam load-out.
The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.9.

7.3.2 Entire SPAR on vessel

Entire length of the SPAR is loaded on the vessel model and analyzed to find the stress
components on the vessel structure.

The main purpose of analysis of this position of SPAR is to check the capability of the vessel
structure in the final stowage position for voyage. Whether the SPAR is loaded-out using
standard skidding method or uniform loading by using hydraulics, once the SPAR is in the final
stowage position on the vessel deck, the hydraulic cylinders (in case of uniform loading) and the
other equipments used for load-out under the supports will be removed and the SPAR will be
rested on the vessel deck directly. The skid beams may or may not be present under the supports
for final voyage. Then the SPAR will be sea fastened in the final position to prevent the SPAR
from moving during voyage. During this step of the analysis, suitable position for the stowage of
the SPAR for voyage conditions is determined.

As per the data provided by the client regarding the design of the SPAR, the mass of hard tank
with outfittings and supports is 25122 tons which is the critical load acting on the vessel structure.
The loads exerted by the supports under heave plates is, 2958 tons for the upper heave plate and
2957 tons for the lower heave plates when the soft tank is still resting on the key side.

Until the SPAR reaches the final position the load-out is carried by one of the suitable steps
explained in the previous topics (uniform loading or standard skidding). The soft tank will still be
supported on the keyside until the SPAR reaches its final position on deck, so the loads will be
less on the supports under the truss.

The total load on the vessel structure under the heave plates supports is 5915.4 tons when the
SPAR reaches its final position on the vessel deck. During this step of the analysis, the vessel
structure’s capability to withstand the loads due to the heave plates supports is also investigated,
but the load acting on the vessel structure at any unit area due to the combined mass of truss and
heave plates will always be less than the hard tank load when the soft tank is supported on the
key side. So the need to analyze the vessel structure until the SPAR reaches its final position
when the soft tank is fixed is ruled out.

When the SPAR reaches the final stowage position, the SPAR is sea fastened for its voyage and
the vessel’s draft is decreased by discharging the ballast water so that the soft tank is lifted off its
temporary supports from the keyside and left hanging over the vessel stern. Only during this step
the whole weight of the SPAR will be acting on the vessel deck. Especially the loads on the
supports under the truss and heave plates will be increased due to the additional weight of the
soft tank.

In this section the final stowage position for voyage is analyzed to find a suitable position for the
SPAR on vessel deck using 3 different skid beams configuration namely;

1. Load-out using 4 skid beams


2. Load-out using 3 skid beams
3. Load-out using 2 skid beams

85
7.3.2.1 Position of the SPAR

The SPAR model is moved on top of the vessel model such that the entire SPAR is above skid
beams and the hard tank is at the end of the skid beams, the SPAR is aligned so that the SPAR
supports center lines are in same plane with the skid beams center lines. Fig 7.37 shows the
position of hard tank at the end of the skid beams near the bow section of the vessel model.

Fig 7.37 Final position of SPAR hard tank supports on skid beams

It is very clear from the figure 7.37 that the skid beam #1 is at the maximum length of 163.2m on
the vessel deck. It cannot be extended further on the deck to increase the length of the skid
beams, as the vessel structure is converging toward the bow. But the skid beams #2, #3 and #4
can be extended further to increase its length on deck.

Fig 7.38 Final position of SPAR truss supports on skid beams

Fig. 7.38 shows the position of the truss supports on vessel deck. The SPAR is located almost on
the edge of the stern section.

86
7.3.2.2 Connecting SPAR with skid beams

The connection between the SPAR and skid beams are made using rod elements as explained in
chapter 7.3.1.1.

7.3.2.3 Load case specific boundary conditions

All the constraints in the vessel model as explained in the chapter 7.2.2 are also utilized for the
analysis using SPAR model. In addition to the constraints on the vessel model following
constraints are also created on the SPAR model for the analysis of the step entire SPAR on
vessel by SPAR model loading.

1. Constraints in the SPAR supports under the heave plates

The supports under the heave are connected to the skid beam using rod elements. The bottom of
the support is fixed in x and y axis to prevent further movement of the SPAR, as the loading will
only be in the z-axis. It is also needed to match the constraints on the vessel stern. Fig 7.70
shows the constraints in the supports under the heave plates.

Fig 7.39 Constraints in supports under heave plates for the step entire SPAR on vessel

7.3.2.4 Draft and ballast condition


The draft of the vessel is same as the other loading cases, which is 10.95m.

The ballast masses will not be the same as the step hard tank on vessel, since the loading is
done with the entire SPAR. This step of the analysis is done for final position of the SPAR on
deck. This analysis step is for the final stowage position of SPAR when the whole weight of the
SPAR (34855 tons) is acting on the vessel structure.

But the ballast condition used for the analysis is when the soft tank is still resting on the keyside
on its temporary supports; this is due to the reason that the ballast calculation was readily
available at the time of the thesis. The total mass of SPAR on the vessel will be 31038 Tons, and
is taken into consideration for calculating the ballast masses required to maintain the vessel in the
required draft of 10.95m.

87
The model will be translating a lot longitudinally from bow to stern due to the difference in the
mass of SPAR used for ballast calculation and the whole SPAR. But this does not affect the
analysis in anyway as the entire SPAR is on the vessel deck and is free to move in all degrees of
freedom except the X and Y axial movements. So the total load of SPAR will be acting on the
vessel model and the vessel structure will be loaded as needed.

Table 7.19 shows the mass of ballast water required in each tank for maintaining the vessel draft
for step entire SPAR on vessel when the soft tank is still supported on the keyside.

Tank Description Name Capacity in kg % filled Mass in Kg


1 upper S WBT1U.S 839760 0 0
1 upper P WBT1U.P 851280 0 0
1 upper C WBT1U.C 624050 6.2 38691.1
2 upper S WBT2U.S 839340 100 839340
2 upper P WBT2U.P 861430 100 861430
2 upper C WBT2U.C 839210 0 0
3 upper S WBT3U.S 861430 100 861430
3 upper P WBT3U.P 850380 100 850380
3 upper C WBT3U.C 861290 100 861290
4 upper S WBT4U.S 850840 0 0
4 upper P WBT4U.P 0 0
4 upper C WBT4U.C 839210 0 0
5 upper S WBT5U.S 862475 29.5 254430.1
5 upper P WBT5U.P 849650 28.7 243850
5 upper C WBT5U.C 861910 97.4 839210
6 upper S WBT6U.S 585330 100 585330
6 upper P WBT6U.P 607420 100 607420
6 upper C WBT6U.C 585240 100 585240
1 middle S WBT1M.S 2444290 0 0
1 middle P WBT1M.P 2444290 0 0
1 middle C WBT1M.C 846690 0 0
2 middle S WBT2M.S 2467700 30.6 756070
2 middle P WBT2M.P 2487600 17.4 432870
FO3.C
3 middle S WBT3M.S 0 0
3 middle P WBT3M.P 2467700 0 0
3 middle C WBT3M.C 0 0
4 middle S WBT4M.S 2467710 100 2467710
4 middle P WBT4M.P 2487610 100 2487610
4 middle C WBT4M.C 2321520 100 2321520
5 middle S WBT5M.S 2487600 0 0
5 middle P WBT5M.P 2467700 0 0
5 middle C WBT5M.C 2332400 0 0
6 middle S WBT6M.S 1711630 100 1711630
6 middle P WBT6M.P 1732380 100 1732380
6 middle C WBT6M.C 1588290 100 1588290
1 lower S WBT1L.S 1214410 100 1214410
1 lower P WBT1L.P 1214410 100 1214410
1 lower C WBT1L.C 1116960 100 1116960
2 lower S WBT2L.S 1302220 100 1302220

88
2 lower P WBT2L.P 1307690 100 1307690
2 lower C WBT2L.C 1325950 100 1325950
3 lower S WBT3L.S 1309480 100 1309480
3 lower P WBT3L.P 1304220 100 1304220
3 lower C WBT3L.C 1327370 100 1327370
4 lower S WBT4L.S 1303230 0 0
4 lower P WBT4L.P 1310214 0 0
4 lower C WBT4L.C 1325897 0 0
5 lower S WBT5L.S 1309430 0 0
5 lower P WBT5L.P 1309430 100 1309430
5 lower C WBT5L.C 1328750 0 0
6 lower S WBT6L.S 782700 0 0
6 lower P WBT6L.P 788170 0 0
6 lower C WBT6L.C 789920 0 0
water bal oflow WBTOVERF.S 0
FO1C.S 0
FO2.S 0
FO2.P 0
DOA.P 0
LO.P 0
FWTFW.S 0
FWTFWD.S 0
FWTAFWD.P 0
FWTAFW.S 0
fwd lower WB P WBTFL.P 0 0
fwd lower WB S WBTFL.S 1592033 0 0
fwd upper WB S WBTFU.S 0 0
fwd upper WB P WBTFU.P 0 0
aft WB P WBTA.P 0 0
poop aft WB S WBTPA.S 0 0
poop fwd WB S WBTPF.S 0 0
engine RM TOP S WBTERTOP.S 0 0
engine RM TOP P WBTERTOP.P 0 0
aft ballast S WBTALWL.S 0 0
aft peak C WBTAPC.S 0 0
lower peak C WBTLOWPEAK.C 0 0
high peak C WBTHIGHPEAK.C 2995970 0 0
WB overf fwd WBTOVERFWD.C 0 0
aft poop lower WB P WBTAPL.P 0 0
aft poop upper WB P WBTAPU.P 0 0
1 outer wing P WBT10.P 1291440 0 0
1 outer wing S WBT10.S 1291470 0 0
2 outer wing P WBT20.P 2708360 0 0
2 outer wing S WBT20.S 2708360 0 0
3 outer wing P WBT30.P 3168290 0 0
3 outer wing S WBT30.S 3168290 80.4 2546810
4 outer wing P WBT40.P 3262750 6.5 210730
4 outer wing S WBT40.S 3262750 75 2447063

89
5 outer wing P WBT50.P 3276980 75.2 2464040
5 outer wing S WBT50.S 3276980 100 3276980
6 outer wing P WBT60.P 2126910 0 0
6 outer wing S WBT60.S 2126900 100 2126900
7 outer wing P WBT70.P 2596050 0 0
7 outer wing S WBT70.S 1859960 100 1859960
STORES CREW
STORES ENGINE
Total Mass 48590744kg
Table 7.19 Ballast condition for the step entire SPAR on vessel

7.3.2.5 Analysis of the step entire SPAR on vessel

The analysis and summary of the results of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beam, 3
skid beam and 2 skid beam load-out have been explained below.

Entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams

Fig 7.40 show the FE model of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beam. It has been
modeled with the all the necessary steps and boundary conditions explained earlier in this
chapter.

Fig 7.40 FE model of analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams.

The above FE model of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams is analyzed by linear
static analysis and the results of the analysis is given below.

The total translation in the model is 12.56m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
225.169Mpa.

The total translation of the model after the analysis can be seen in the fig 7.41. The high
deformation is due to the reason that the ballast condition used is without the mass of the soft
tank (i.e, when the soft tank is still supported on the keyside, which is already explained in the
section draft and ballast condition).

90
So it is very clear from the model that the vessel is tilted towards the stern in Y-axis due to the
additional weight of the soft tank.

Fig 7.41 Total deformation of the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 4 skid beams

Fig 7.42 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 4 skid beams

Fig. 7.42 shows the axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel
with 4 skid beams. It is clear from the figure that the vessel structure is loaded with the entire
weight of the SPAR. There are no tensional forces on any of the rod elements, all the forces are
compressive.

Entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams

Fig 7.43 show the FE model of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beam. It has been
modeled with the all the necessary steps and boundary conditions explained earlier in this
chapter.

91
Fig 7.43 FE model of analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams.

The above FE model of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams is analyzed by linear
static analysis and the results of the analysis is given below.

The total translation in the model is 11.55m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
283.518MPa.

The total translation of the model after the analysis can be seen in the fig 7.44.

Fig 7.44 Total deformation of the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 3 skid beams

Fig. 7.45 shows the axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel
with 3 skid beams. It is clear from the figure that the vessel structure is loaded with the entire
weight of the SPAR. There are no tensional forces on any of the rod elements, all the forces are
compressive.

92
Fig 7.45 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 3 skid beams

Entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams

Fig 7.46 show the FE model of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beam. It has been
modeled with the all the necessary steps and boundary conditions explained earlier in this
chapter.

Fig 7.46 FE model of analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams.

The above FE model of the step entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams is analyzed by linear
static analysis and the results of the analysis is given below.

The total translation in the model is 12.46m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
284.992MPa.

The total translation of the model after the analysis can be seen in the fig 7.47.

93
Fig 7.47 Total deformation of the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 2 skid beams

Fig. 7.48 shows the axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel
with 2 skid beams. It is clear from the figure that the vessel structure is loaded with the entire
weight of the SPAR. There are no tensional forces on any of the rod elements, all the forces are
compressive.

Fig 7.48 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 2 skid beams

Summary of the results of entire SPAR on vessel by SPAR model loading cases

Entire SPAR on vessel by


Total translation Highest equivalent stress
SPAR model loading
4 skid beams 12.56m 225.169MPa

3 skid beams 11.55m 283.518MPa

2 skid beams 12.46m 284.992MPa


Table 7.20 Summary of results of entire SPAR on vessel by SPAR model loading cases

94
7.3.2.6 Location of stress components

Fig 7.49 shows the location where the highest equivalent stresses are found in vessel model
during analysis of the entire SPAR on vessel by SPAR model loading case.

Fig. 7.49 Location of highest equivalent stresses in entire SPAR on vessel by SPAR model loading case analysis.

7.3.2.7 Stress components of analysis


The results of the representative stress components in the locations mentioned above, on all the
3 steps analyzed are presented below;

In this case of the analysis, the skid beams has a lot of triangular elements due to the supports under the
truss. Since the support of the truss are not much easier to modify according to the nodes on the skid beam
as like the hard tank, due to the usage of tapered beam elements. The skid beam nodes have to be modified
to adapt to the nodes on the truss supports.

It is very much clear from the previous analysis cases, hard tank on vessel by uniform loading and hard tank
on vessel by SPAR model loading, that the stresses due to the critical load of the hard tank does not impose
any critical stresses on the skid beam elements if the elements are quadrilateral and follows the webframe
locations of the vessel. If the quadrilateral mesh of the skid beams are modified the stresses are very high
on the triangular elements. The stresses are highly localized to the triangular element, so the stresses on
the triangular elements of the skid beam can be safely omitted from the results of this analysis steps.

Entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Hull side shell on port side


10.070 6.153 -51.746 90.058
along the skid beam # 1
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-8.515 -36.169 -74.498 133.127
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-161.915 -41.453 99.126 225.169
skid beam #3
longitudinal sections under
-22.871 -24.677 78.155 137.449
skid beam # 4
Table 7.21 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams

95
The highest equivalent stress of 225.169Mpa is very high above the allowable stress of
164.3MPa; it is not possible to position the SPAR with 4 skid beam in this stowage position.

The highest stress is found on the longitudinal bulkhead, where there is a discontinuity in the
structure for interconnecting two sections to form a ballast tank.

The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.11.

Entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Hull side shell on port side


20.072 2.268 -36.476 65.985
along the skid beam # 1
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-94.293 -14.261 -117.124 221.144
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-264.736 -7.410 63.781 283.518
skid beam #3
longitudinal sections under
-12.964 -17.759 54.902 96.416
skid beam # 4
Table 7.22 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams

The highest equivalent stress of 283.518Mpa is very high above the allowable stress of
164.3MPa; it is not possible to position the SPAR with 3 skid beam in this stowage position.

The stresses above the allowable stress are found in longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2
and longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3.

The highest stress is found on the longitudinal bulkhead, where there is a discontinuity in the
structure for interconnecting two sections to form a ballast tank. The location of the critical stress
is found in same location as like the step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams.

The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.12.

Entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Hull side shell on port side


-9.628 -4.402 -30.869 54.115
along the skid beam # 1
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-0.782 -0.940 -16.446 284.992
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-174.418 -44.231 95.080 227.561
skid beam #3
longitudinal sections under
1.771 -10.414 78.844 137.037
skid beam # 4
Table 7.23 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams

The highest equivalent stress of 284.992Mpa is very high above the allowable stress of
164.3MPa; it is not possible to position the SPAR with 2 skid beam in this final stowage position.

96
The stresses above the allowable stress are found in longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2
and longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3.

The highest stress is found on the longitudinal bulkhead, where there is a discontinuity in the
structure for interconnecting two sections to form a ballast tank. The location of the critical stress
is found in same location as like the step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 and 3 skid beams.

The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.13.

7.3.3 Final stowage position of SPAR on vessel

It turns out that the steps analyzed in the case of entire SPAR on vessel for determining the final
stowage position of the SPAR on the vessel is not possible by any of the skid beam
configurations. The critical or failure stress is found in at least 2 locations of the longitudinal
bulkhead structure at the stern end of the vessel in all the 3 load-out steps. The location of the
critical stress is same in all 3 steps, so it is very clear that the structure in that location is weak for
taking heavy loads.

So the SPAR’s final stowage location has to be changed, The SPAR has to be stowed in a
position by avoiding the use of the particular stern section, it has to be moved more forward
longitudinally. The position chosen for the analysis steps of the case entire SPAR on vessel is
due to the maximum length of the skid beam #1, which is located almost on the edge of the port
side of the vessel. Even though there is 17.5m length of deck area in front of the SPAR, it is not
possible to load-out the SPAR up to that location by using 4 and 3 skid beams configuration due
to the restriction in length of the skid beam #1.

But the 2 skid beams configuration does not make use of skid beam #1, so it is possible to use
the 2 skid beam configuration to change the stowage position of the SPAR and move it forward
longitudinally towards the bow. The step of entire SPAR on vessel with the modified final stowage
position is analyzed in this section.

7.3.3.1 Position of the SPAR

Fig 7.50 Final stowage position of SPAR hard tank supports on skid beams

97
The additional length of the skid beams are modeled until distance between the end of the deck
and the skid beam is about 5m. SPAR model is moved on top of the vessel model such that the
entire SPAR is above skid beams and the hard tank is at a distance of 5m from the end of the
deck, the SPAR is aligned so that the SPAR supports center lines are in same plane with the skid
beams center lines. Fig 7.50 shows the position of hard tank at the end of the skid beams near
the bow section of the vessel model.

Fig 7.51 Final stowage position of SPAR truss supports on skid beams

Fig. 7.51 shows the position of the truss supports on vessel deck. The SPAR location has been
moved about 12m from its previous position.

7.3.3.2 Connecting SPAR with skid beams

The connection between the SPAR and skid beams are made using rod elements as explained in
chapter 7.3.1.1.

7.3.3.3 Load case specific boundary conditions

The boundary conditions are all same as the analysis case of entire SPAR on vessel explained in
chapter 7.3.2.3.

7.3.3.4 Draft and ballast condition

The draft and ballast conditions are the same as explained in the chapter 7.3.2.4,

7.3.3.5 Analysis

The analysis and summary of the results of the final stowage position of the SPAR using 2 skid
beams have been explained below.

Fig 7.52 show the FE model of the step final stowage position of the SPAR with 2 skid beams. It
has been modeled with the all the necessary steps and boundary conditions explained above.

98
Fig 7.52 FE model of analysis step final stowage position of the SPAR with 2 skid beams.

The above FE model of the step final stowage position of the SPAR with 2 skid beams is
analyzed by linear static analysis and the results of the analysis is given below.

The total translation in the model is 7.003m. The highest equivalent stress found was about
145.239Mpa.

The total translation of the model after the analysis can be seen in the fig 7.53. The high
deformation is due to the reason that the ballast condition used is without the mass of the soft
tank (i.e, when the soft tank is still supported on the keyside, which is already explained in the
section draft and ballast condition). So it is very clear from the model that the vessel is tilted
towards the stern in Y-axis due to the additional weight of the soft tank.

Fig 7.53 Total deformation of the analysis step final stowage position of SPAR with 2 skid beams

99
Fig 7.54 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step final stowage position of SPAR with 2 skid beams

Fig. 7.54 shows the axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step final stowage position of
SPAR with 2 skid beams. It is clear from the figure that the vessel structure is loaded with the
entire weight of the SPAR. There are no tensional forces on any of the rod elements, all the
forces are compressive.

7.3.3.6 Location of stress components


The location of the stress components are the same as explained in the chapter 7.3.2.6.

7.3.3.7 Stress components of analysis.

The results of the triangular elements on the skid beams are omitted.

Locations / Stress MPa Vertical Horizontal xy Equivalent

Hull side shell on port side


-7.634 -3.546 -38.834 67.587
along the skid beam # 1
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-68.499 -0.934 -74.084 145.239
skid beam #2
Longitudinal bulkhead under
-35.314 -10.775 -69.754 124.819
skid beam #3
longitudinal sections under
-4.286 -59.916 -11.355 61.184
skid beam # 4
Table 7.24 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step final stowage position of SPAR with 2 skid beams

The highest equivalent stress of 145.239Mpa is well below the allowable stress of 164.3MPa; it is
possible to position the SPAR with 2 skid beam in this final stowage position.

The highest stress is found on the longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2, where the supports
under the lower heave plates are positioned. The high stress is right on the longitudinal bulkhead.

The stress plot figures of the locations listed above has been attached in the appendix no.14.

100
CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION
Comparison and Load-out step selection

In the case of hard tank on vessel by uniform loading, it is very clear from the results that the
load-out is possible with 3 skid beams and 2 skid beams. Since the load on skid beam all along
the length of the beam is equal, there won’t be much difference in the loading condition through
out the load-out process. Load-out with 4 skid beams is also possible, the critical stress is found
on the location where there is a triangular element and it is highly localized, so it can be safely
neglected.

In the analysis case of load-out by standard skidding without hydraulics, only the 4 skid beam
load-out method proved to have well balanced stress distribution within the allowable values. But
the 3 and 2 skid beams load-out causes critical stresses in the longitudinal bulkhead section
under skid beam #3 where there is a duck opening for cables and piping in the vessel. It is clear
from the stress plots that the load distribution for the 3 and 2 skid beam load-out without
hydraulics could be harmful for the vessel structure.

The overall stress components of the load-out step by uniform loading using 2 skid beams turns
out to be the best method when taken into consideration the amount of work and also the
economical point of view. There is not much difference between values of the stress components
of the 2 skid beam uniform loading when comparing with the 3 and 4 skid beams load-out. The
reason for the little difference in the stress values is mainly due to the load distribution on the
supports on skid beam #1 and #4 based on its relation from the centre of gravity of the SPAR. In
the 2 skid beams load-out the load distribution is more even between the 2 supports as the #1
and #4 skid beams and supports are not present.

Load-out by SPAR model loading, i.e, without hydraulics could be the most affordable method.
But considering the enormous weight of the SPAR and the complexity of the weight distribution of
the SPAR when supported using more than 2 skid beams, it should be better avoided.

Location of high stresses in the vessel

During the analysis of all the steps discussed in this thesis, the structure of the vessel on the
stern end appears to be weak as the critical stresses are found here; the reason for this is mainly
due to the water pressure under the vessel. The height of the vessel structure at the stern section
gradually decreases from the starting of the vessel stern, the height is lowest at the transom of
the vessel, due to the presence of propeller and rudder below the stern of vessel. This profiling in
the stern section provides the ability for the vessel to dock along the stern to load-out cargoes.

101
Since the height of the vessel structure is decreased and also the water pressure acting under
the stern section will be decreased, as the pressure will be more at the deepest part of the vessel.
This leads to a condition where the support provided by the water pressure under the stern is not
enough to compensate the loading on the deck of the stern. Thus leading to the high stresses in
the stern section especially at the transom of the vessel.

There is an increase in the stress concentration in the vessel structure during the final stowage
position of the SPAR, i.e., when the SPAR is positioned on the deck after removal of the hydraulic
cylinders and skid beam. The stress activity is concentrated on the corners of the supports
towards the soft tank side. This is mainly due to the stiffness of the SPAR, when the soft tank is
allowed to hang over the stern. Even though during the analysis it does not creates critical
stresses in the vessel structure, the loading at the support corners could be prevented by
providing additional supports at the end of hard tank and heave supports.

Recommended load-out process

The SPAR can be loaded out using 2 skid beams by utilizing hydraulics to level out the peak
loads. The following points should be adhered to when the load-out is carried out.

1. Number of skid beams used is 2; the supports should be appropriately designed to match the
location of the skid beams.
2. The skid beams should be positioned on the longitudinal bulkheads.
3. The load-out should be carried by uniform loading by the use of hydraulic cylinders in
between the SPAR and skid beams to distribute the load equally on the skid beam.
4. During the whole load-out operation the soft tank should be temporarily supported on the skid
beams, until the SPAR reached the final stowage position as explained in chapter 7.3.3
5. When the SPAR reaches the final stowage position the hydraulic cylinders must be removed
and the SPAR maybe rested on the skid beam or directly on the vessel deck for sea
fastening and final voyage.

Further analysis

Since the whole analysis is carried out using the estimated design of the SPAR, when the design
details of the actual SPAR is known the vessel should be analyzed again with the exact SPAR
model to make sure the load-out of the real SPAR matches with the results of this thesis. If
possible the 3D model of the SPAR with all the exact details of the inner design of the SPAR
should be utilized to narrow down the assumptions used in this thesis concerning the SPAR
model.

The vessel structure should be investigated for buckling; to make sure the plate sections of the
vessel structure does not buckle during load-out of the SPAR. The vessel structure can be further
investigated and analyzed for the stowage position of the SPAR with 1.7m offset from the centre
of the vessel.

102
APPENDIX 1
SPAR DIMENSIONS

103
APPENDIX 2
Ballast plan of Blue Marlin

105
APPENDIX 3
Ballast calculation for the step hard tank on vessel

107
07/15/08 11:44:44 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 16
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO03
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

REFERENCE NUMBER : 0611266

MINIMUM DRAFT AT FPP TO AVOID SLAMMING > 8.16M OBTAINED 10.95M


AT A DRAFT OF 10.95M @ APP, THE PROPELLER IMMERSION = 145%

DRAFTS SUMMARY
DRAFT @
PERPENDICULARS-----------DRAFT @ MARKS------------------------------
10.95M @
FPP 206.50f FROM APP 10.95M @ BOW 204.50f FROM APP
10.95M @
MID 103.25f FROM APP 10.95M @ MIDSHIPS 103.25f FROM APP
10.95M @
APP 0.00a FROM APP 10.95M @ RUDDER 3.50a FROM APP
10.95M @ ACCOM.BULKHEAD 174.70f FROM APP
10.95M @ CASING 10.50f FROM APP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HYDROSTATIC PROPERTIES
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Port 0.11 deg., VCG = 13.561

LCF Displacement Buoyancy-Ctr. Weight/ Moment/


Draft----Weight(MT)----LCB-----VCB-------cm-----LCF---cm trim----GML-----GMT
10.949 113,840.16 99.088f 5.858 121.46 91.356f 1774.28 321.84 24.258
Distances in METERS.-----Specific Gravity = 1.025.-----------Moment in m.-MT.
Trim is per 206.50m.
Draft is from Baseline. Free Surface included. GMT is from RA curve.
Caution: Standard GMT is 24.253

WEIGHT STATUS
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Port 0.11 deg.
Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG-------FSM
Total Fixed---------> 54,224.22 69.479f 3.390p 21.404
Total Tanks---------> 59,620.82 126.017f 3.002s 6.428 40485.0
Total Weight--------> 113,845.05 99.088f 0.042p 13.561
Free Surface Adjustment----------> 0.356
Adjusted CG----------------------> 99.088f 0.042p 13.917
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------Moments in m.-MT.

DISPLACEMENT STATUS
Baseline draft: 10.948 @ 206.50f, 10.949 @ 0.00
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Port 0.11 deg.
Part---------------------SpGr------Displ(MT)----LCB-----TCB-----VCB
HULL 1.025 113,840.16 99.088f 0.057p 5.858
PSCASING 1.025 0.00
Total Displacement--> 1.025 113,840.16 99.088f 0.057p 5.858
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------------
07/15/08 11:44:44 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 17
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO03
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

WEIGHT STATUS
Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
LIGHT SHIP+ 27,935.69 103.855f 0.255s 9.956
STARBOARD CASING 615.41 0.600f 26.130s 27.040
STARBOARD CASING ADDITION 79.30 3.500f 26.130s 15.800
PORT CASING 0.24 3.150f 26.196p 26.600
PORT CASING ADDITION 0.08 3.150f 26.196p 15.800
CREW AND EFFECTS 5.70 186.600f 0.000 31.910
PROVISIONS 7.69 189.750f 0.000 24.000
STORES FORE 23.45 194.330f 0.000 23.110
STORES AFT 19.19 15.170f 0.000 9.980
SMALL TANK IN E/R (FORE) 52.22 184.720f 0.000 15.410
SMALL TANK IN E/R (AFT) 362.65 22.890f 0.000 6.150
Skid load Hard Tank 25,122.60 33.445f 8.322p 34.250
Total Fixed---------> 54,224.22 69.479f 3.390p 21.404
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------------

TANK STATUS
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Port 0.11 deg.
Part------------Load-----SpGr-----Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
SEA WATER 0.375 1.025 54,420.03 127.308f 3.236s 6.352
HEAVY FO 0.955 0.991 4,290.77 119.566f 0.537s 6.330
DIESEL OIL 0.980 0.850 308.37 13.696f 14.344p 9.871
LUBE OIL 0.980 0.900 33.69 18.585f 9.910p 6.444
FRESH WATER 1.000 1.000 567.96 118.466f 9.409s 12.569
WATER 1.001 0.000 1.001 0.00
Total Tanks---------> 59,620.82 126.017f 3.002s 6.428
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------------

LOAD STATUS
Trim: 0.00/206.50 Heel: Port 0.11 deg.

Tank Description-----Name-----------Contents-------Load Wt MT--Load%--Sounding


1 UPPER C WBT1U.C SEA 624.05 100.0 15.710
1 UPPER P WBT1U.P SEA 851.28 100.0 15.710
1 UPPER S WBT1U.S SEA 839.76 100.0 15.710
2 UPPER C WBT2U.C SEA 839.21 100.0 15.710
2 UPPER P WBT2U.P SEA 861.43 100.0 15.710
2 UPPER S WBT2U.S SEA 839.34 100.0 15.710
3 UPPER C WBT3U.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 UPPER P WBT3U.P SEA 850.38 100.0 15.710
3 UPPER S WBT3U.S SEA 861.43 100.0 15.710
4 UPPER C WBT4U.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 UPPER P WBT4U.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 UPPER S WBT4U.S SEA 212.71 25.0 0.574
5 UPPER C WBT5U.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 UPPER P WBT5U.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 UPPER S WBT5U.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 UPPER C WBT6U.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 UPPER P WBT6U.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 UPPER S WBT6U.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 MIDDLE C WBT1M.C SEA 846.69 100.0 22.750
1 MIDDLE P WBT1M.P SEA 2,444.29 100.0 22.750
07/15/08 11:44:44 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 18
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO03
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

LOAD STATUS, continued

Tank Description-----Name-----------Contents-------Load Wt MT--Load%--Sounding


1 MIDDLE S WBT1M.S SEA 2,444.29 100.0 22.750
1 OUTER WING P WBT1O.P SEA 1,291.44 100.0 26.510
1 OUTER WING S WBT1O.S SEA 1,291.47 100.0 26.510
2 MIDDLE P WBT2M.P SEA 2,487.60 100.0 22.750
2 MIDDLE S WBT2M.S SEA 2,467.70 100.0 22.750
2 OUTER WING P WBT2O.P SEA 2,708.36 100.0 26.510
2 OUTER WING S WBT2O.S SEA 2,708.36 100.0 26.510
3 MIDDLE C WBT3M.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 MIDDLE P WBT3M.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 MIDDLE S WBT3M.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 OUTER WING P WBT3O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 OUTER WING S WBT3O.S SEA 3,168.29 100.0 26.510
4 MIDDLE C WBT4M.C SEA 2,321.52 100.0 22.750
4 MIDDLE P WBT4M.P SEA 2,487.61 100.0 22.750
4 MIDDLE S WBT4M.S SEA 1,963.33 79.6 5.524
4 OUTER WING P WBT4O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 OUTER WING S WBT4O.S SEA 3,262.75 100.0 26.510
5 MIDDLE C WBT5M.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 MIDDLE P WBT5M.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 MIDDLE S WBT5M.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 OUTER WING P WBT5O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 OUTER WING S WBT5O.S SEA 114.69 3.5 0.539
6 MIDDLE C WBT6M.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 MIDDLE P WBT6M.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 MIDDLE S WBT6M.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 OUTER WING P WBT6O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 OUTER WING S WBT6O.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
7 OUTER WING P WBT7O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
7 OUTER WING S WBT7O.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 LOWER C WBT1L.C SEA 1,116.96 100.0 26.510
1 LOWER P WBT1L.P SEA 1,214.41 100.0 26.510
1 LOWER S WBT1L.S SEA 1,214.41 100.0 26.510
2 LOWER C WBT2L.C SEA 1,325.95 100.0 26.510
2 LOWER P WBT2L.P SEA 1,307.69 100.0 26.510
2 LOWER S WBT2L.S SEA 1,302.22 100.0 26.510
3 LOWER C WBT3L.C SEA 1,327.37 100.0 26.510
3 LOWER P WBT3L.P SEA 1,304.22 100.0 26.510
3 LOWER S WBT3L.S SEA 1,309.48 100.0 26.510
4 LOWER C WBT4L.C SEA 1,005.03 75.8 2.759
4 LOWER P WBT4L.P SEA 1,163.47 88.8 3.248
4 LOWER S WBT4L.S SEA 1,178.12 90.4 3.321
5 LOWER C WBT5L.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 LOWER P WBT5L.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 LOWER S WBT5L.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 LOWER C WBT6L.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 LOWER P WBT6L.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 LOWER S WBT6L.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
FWD LOWER WB P WBTFL.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
FWD LOWER WB S WBTFL.S SEA 861.29 54.1 8.439
FWD UPPER WB P WBTFU.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
07/15/08 11:44:44 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 19
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO03
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

LOAD STATUS, continued

Tank Description-----Name-----------Contents-------Load Wt MT--Load%--Sounding


FWD UPPER WB S WBTFU.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT WB P WBTA.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
POOP AFT WB S WBTPA.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
POOP FWD WB S WBTPF.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT L BALLAST S WBTALWL.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT PEAK C WBTAPC.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT POOP LOWER WB P WBTAPL.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT POOP UPPER WB P WBTAPU.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
ENGINE RM TOP P WBTERTOP.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
ENGINE RM TOP S WBTERTOP.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
LOWER PEAK C WBTLOWPEAK.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
HIGH PEAK C WBTHIGHPEAK.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
WB OVRFL FWD WBTOVERFWD.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
WATER BAL OFLOW WBTOVERF.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
Total as loaded----------> 54,418.60
Soundings in m.---------------------------------------------------------------
07/15/08 11:44:44 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 20
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO03
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH LIMIT APPLIED: SHELTERED CONDITION


SHELTERED CRITERION LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH SUMMARY at Heel = Port 0.11 deg.

Largest Shear: -8,041.2 MT at 124.700f


Largest Bending Moment: 318,494 MT-m. at 69.100f (Hogging)

LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH at Heel = Port 0.11 deg.

FRAME LOCATION SHEAR FORCE LIMIT BENDING MOMENT LIMIT


----------------m.------------MT-----%--------MT---------MT-m.----%------MT-m.
Fr.-5 3.500a 181.65 3 6,538.00 621.1 1 119,623.0
Fr.17 11.900f 4,783.89 81 5,888.00 39,799.8 45 89,073.8
Fr.29 20.300f 6,548.95 49 13,275.00 88,068.3 46 191,178.6
Fr.47 34.700f 7,211.03 39 18,703.00 191,501.1 58 329,713.2
Fr.53 49.700f 4,195.02 29 14,682.00 278,242.8 47 597,778.0
Fr.60 67.199f 378.64 3 15,015.00 318,162.2 48 664,318.4
Fr.63 74.700f -2,702.82 19 -14,124.00 311,780.5 45 686,598.2
Fr.73 99.700f -3,068.39 22 -14,124.00 240,033.8 38 635,562.0
Fr.83 124.700f -8,041.25 53 -15,272.00 100,923.0 16 635,669.8
Fr.93 149.700f -1,985.97 13 -14,869.00 -22,806.0 4 -533,195.0
Fr.103 174.700f 2,148.14 39 5,491.00 -12,794.3 5 -237,181.0
Fr.131 194.300f 522.35 12 4,421.00 6,218.8 9 66,269.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELTERED CRITERION SUMMARY
Largest Shear: 99.9% at 17.500f
Largest Bending Moment: 65.1% at 39.700f (Hogging)
SHELTERED criterion LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH at 0.11 degrees PORT HEEL

GHS 10.50
07/15/08 11:44:44
300

250

200

2
150

REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

Dockwise Shipping B.V.


100 3
General

BLUE MARLIN
50

1
Scale

-50

-100

-150
2

-200

-250

-300

Page 21
LO03
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Aft <-- Location (M.) --> Fwd

1 Shear 1=80 MT 3 Bending Mom. 1=3000 MT-M.

2 Shear Lim. 1=80 MT 4 Bending Lim. 1=3000 MT-M.


07/15/08 11:44:44 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 22
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO03
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 3

CG - Draft: 10.948 @ 206.500f, 10.949 @ 0.000 Heel: port 0.11 deg.


Body @ 5.000f Body @ 30.000f Body @ 62.200f Body @ 90.000f Body @ 120.000f Body @ 175.000f

78
74
77 71
70
79 80 79 80 14 13 15 11 10 12 8 7 9
48 72 83 83
76 39 38 40 34 33 35 29 28 30
48 49 68 69
41 63 36 37 31 32
62 64 42 60 59 61 57 56 58

Profile View @ 7.500p

70 82

79 17 14 11 8 5 2
72 83
76
44 39 34 29 24 20 68 81

66 63 60 57 54 51

Profile View @ 0.000

82

80 16 13 10 7 4 1
76 19
43 38 33 28 81
84 65 62 59 56 53 50

Profile View @ 7.500s

71
82

80 18 15 12 9 6 3
69
83
76
45 40 35 30 25 21 81
67 64 61 58 55 52

Plan View
77
78 48 46 41 36 31 26 22

72 17
44
66 63
39
14 60
34
11 57
29
8 54
24
5 2
20
51 70
68
79

76 65
43 16 62
38
13 33
10
59 28
56
7 53
4 19 50
1 83 81
82
84

80
67
45
18 64
40
15 61
35
12 58
30
9 55
25
6 52
21
3 69
71
75

49 47 42 37 32 27 23
73
74

Tanks 17 WBT6U.P.........0% 34 WBT4M.P.......100% 51 WBT1L.P.......100% 68 WBTFL.P.........0%


1 WBT1U.C.......100% 18 WBT6U.S.........0% 35 WBT4M.S........80% 52 WBT1L.S.......100% 69 WBTFL.S........54%
2 WBT1U.P.......100% 19 WBT1M.C.......100% 36 WBT4O.P.........0% 53 WBT2L.C.......100% 70 WBTFU.P.........0%
3 WBT1U.S.......100% 20 WBT1M.P.......100% 37 WBT4O.S.......100% 54 WBT2L.P.......100% 71 WBTFU.S.........0%
4 WBT2U.C.......100% 21 WBT1M.S.......100% 38 WBT5M.C.........0% 55 WBT2L.S.......100% 72 WBTA.P..........0%
5 WBT2U.P.......100% 22 WBT1O.P.......100% 39 WBT5M.P.........0% 56 WBT3L.C.......100% 73 WBTPA.S.........0%
6 WBT2U.S.......100% 23 WBT1O.S.......100% 40 WBT5M.S.........0% 57 WBT3L.P.......100% 74 WBTPF.S.........0%
7 WBT3U.C.........0% 24 WBT2M.P.......100% 41 WBT5O.P.........0% 58 WBT3L.S.......100% 75 WBTALWL.S.......0%
8 WBT3U.P.......100% 25 WBT2M.S.......100% 42 WBT5O.S.........3% 59 WBT4L.C........76% 76 WBTAPC.C........0%
9 WBT3U.S.......100% 26 WBT2O.P.......100% 43 WBT6M.C.........0% 60 WBT4L.P........89% 77 WBTAPL.P........0%
10 WBT4U.C.........0% 27 WBT2O.S.......100% 44 WBT6M.P.........0% 61 WBT4L.S........90% 78 WBTAPU.P........0%
11 WBT4U.P.........0% 28 WBT3M.C.........0% 45 WBT6M.S.........0% 62 WBT5L.C.........0% 79 WBTERTOP.P......0%
12 WBT4U.S........25% 29 WBT3M.P.........0% 46 WBT6O.P.........0% 63 WBT5L.P.........0% 80 WBTERTOP.S......0%
13 WBT5U.C.........0% 30 WBT3M.S.........0% 47 WBT6O.S.........0% 64 WBT5L.S.........0% 81 WBTLOWPEAK.C....0%
14 WBT5U.P.........0% 31 WBT3O.P.........0% 48 WBT7O.P.........0% 65 WBT6L.C.........0% 82 WBTHIGHPEAK.C...0%
15 WBT5U.S.........0% 32 WBT3O.S.......100% 49 WBT7O.S.........0% 66 WBT6L.P.........0% 83 WBTOVERFWD.C....0%
16 WBT6U.C.........0% 33 WBT4M.C.......100% 50 WBT1L.C.......100% 67 WBT6L.S.........0% 84 WBTOVERF.S......0%
APPENDIX 4
Stress plots of the analysis step hard tank on vessel
with 4 skid beams by uniform loading

115
1. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

116
3. Stress components on stern section under skid beam#4

4. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #1 on webframe #46

117
5. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #5 on webframe #83

118
6. Stress components on hull side shell on starboard side

APPENDIX 5
Stress plots of the analysis step hard tank on vessel
with 3 skid beams by uniform loading

119
1. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

120
3. Stress components on stern section under skid beam#4

4. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #1 on webframe #46

121
5. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #5 on webframe #83

6. Stress components on hull side shell on starboard side

122
APPENDIX 6
Stress plots of the analysis step hard tank on vessel
with 2 skid beams by uniform loading

123
1. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

124
3. Stress components on stern section under skid beam#4

4. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #1 on webframe #46

125
5. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #5 on webframe #83

6. Stress components on hull side shell on starboard side

126
APPENDIX 7
Stress plots of the analysis step hard tank on vessel
with 4 skid beams by SPAR model loading

127
1. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

128
3. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #1 on webframe #46

4. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #5 on webframe #83

129
5. Stress components on hull side shell on port side

6. Stress components on hull side shell on starboard side

130
APPENDIX 8
Stress plots of the analysis step hard tank on vessel
with 3 skid beams by SPAR model loading

131
1. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

132
3. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #1 on webframe #46

4. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #5 on webframe #83

133
5. Stress components on hull side shell on port side

6. Stress components on hull side shell on starboard side

134
APPENDIX 9
Stress plots of the analysis step hard tank on vessel
with 2 skid beams by SPAR model loading

135
1. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

136
3. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #1 on webframe #46

4. Stress components on transverse bulkhead #5 on webframe #83

137
5. Stress components on hull side shell on port side

6. Stress components on hull side shell on starboard side

138
APPENDIX 10
Ballast calculation for the step entire SPAR on vessel

139
07/15/08 11:44:48 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 23
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO04
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

REFERENCE NUMBER : 0611266

MINIMUM DRAFT AT FPP TO AVOID SLAMMING > 8.16M OBTAINED 10.95M


AT A DRAFT OF 10.96M @ APP, THE PROPELLER IMMERSION = 145%

DRAFTS SUMMARY
DRAFT @
PERPENDICULARS-----------DRAFT @ MARKS------------------------------
10.95M @
FPP 206.50f FROM APP 10.95M @ BOW 204.50f FROM APP
10.96M @
MID 103.25f FROM APP 10.96M @ MIDSHIPS 103.25f FROM APP
10.96M @
APP 0.00a FROM APP 10.96M @ RUDDER 3.50a FROM APP
10.95M @ ACCOM.BULKHEAD 174.70f FROM APP
10.96M @ CASING 10.50f FROM APP
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

HYDROSTATIC PROPERTIES
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Stbd 0.07 deg., VCG = 14.963

LCF Displacement Buoyancy-Ctr. Weight/ Moment/


Draft----Weight(MT)----LCB-----VCB-------cm-----LCF---cm trim----GML-----GMT
10.956 113,932.59 99.080f 5.862 121.46 91.359f 1764.22 319.76 22.777
Distances in METERS.-----Specific Gravity = 1.025.-----------Moment in m.-MT.
Trim is per 206.50m.
Draft is from Baseline. Free Surface included. GMT is from RA curve.
Caution: Standard GMT is 22.760

WEIGHT STATUS
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Stbd 0.07 deg.
Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG-------FSM
Total Fixed---------> 60,139.63 106.017f 3.875p 22.668
Total Tanks---------> 53,792.91 91.326f 4.396s 6.350 48691.6
Total Weight--------> 113,932.55 99.081f 0.030s 14.963
Free Surface Adjustment----------> 0.427
Adjusted CG----------------------> 99.081f 0.030s 15.391
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------Moments in m.-MT.

DISPLACEMENT STATUS
Baseline draft: 10.955 @ 206.50f, 10.957 @ 0.00
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Stbd 0.07 deg.
Part---------------------SpGr------Displ(MT)----LCB-----TCB-----VCB
HULL 1.025 113,932.59 99.080f 0.041s 5.862
PSCASING 1.025 0.00
Total Displacement--> 1.025 113,932.59 99.080f 0.041s 5.862
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------------
07/15/08 11:44:48 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 24
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO04
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

WEIGHT STATUS
Part------------------------------Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
LIGHT SHIP+ 27,935.69 103.855f 0.255s 9.956
STARBOARD CASING 615.41 0.600f 26.130s 27.040
STARBOARD CASING ADDITION 79.30 3.500f 26.130s 15.800
PORT CASING 0.24 3.150f 26.196p 26.600
PORT CASING ADDITION 0.08 3.150f 26.196p 15.800
CREW AND EFFECTS 5.70 186.600f 0.000 31.910
PROVISIONS 7.69 189.750f 0.000 24.000
STORES FORE 23.45 194.330f 0.000 23.110
STORES AFT 19.19 15.170f 0.000 9.980
SMALL TANK IN E/R (FORE) 52.22 184.720f 0.000 15.410
SMALL TANK IN E/R (AFT) 362.65 22.890f 0.000 6.150
Skid load Hard Tank 25,122.60 128.255f 8.322p 34.250
Skid load UHP 2,958.39 55.961f 8.322p 34.250
Skid load LHP 2,957.01 20.608f 8.322p 34.250
Total Fixed---------> 60,139.63 106.017f 3.875p 22.668
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------------

TANK STATUS
Trim: 0.00/206.50, Heel: Stbd 0.07 deg.
Part------------Load-----SpGr-----Weight(MT)----LCG-----TCG-----VCG
SEA WATER 0.335 1.025 48,592.13 89.059f 4.807s 6.257
HEAVY FO 0.955 0.991 4,290.77 119.566f 0.543s 6.330
DIESEL OIL 0.980 0.850 308.37 13.694f 14.335p 9.871
LUBE OIL 0.980 0.900 33.69 18.585f 9.907p 6.444
FRESH WATER 1.000 1.000 567.96 118.466f 9.409s 12.569
WATER 1.001 0.000 1.001 0.00
Total Tanks---------> 53,792.92 91.326f 4.396s 6.350
Distances in METERS.-----------------------------------------------

LOAD STATUS
Trim: 0.00/206.50 Heel: Stbd 0.07 deg.

Tank Description-----Name-----------Contents-------Load Wt MT--Load%--Sounding


1 UPPER C WBT1U.C SEA 38.81 6.2 0.071
1 UPPER P WBT1U.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 UPPER S WBT1U.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
2 UPPER C WBT2U.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
2 UPPER P WBT2U.P SEA 861.43 100.0 15.710
2 UPPER S WBT2U.S SEA 839.34 100.0 15.710
3 UPPER C WBT3U.C SEA 861.29 100.0 15.710
3 UPPER P WBT3U.P SEA 850.38 100.0 15.710
3 UPPER S WBT3U.S SEA 861.43 100.0 15.710
4 UPPER C WBT4U.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 UPPER P WBT4U.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 UPPER S WBT4U.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 UPPER C WBT5U.C SEA 839.21 97.4 2.347
5 UPPER P WBT5U.P SEA 243.85 28.7 0.664
5 UPPER S WBT5U.S SEA 254.43 29.5 0.670
6 UPPER C WBT6U.C SEA 585.24 100.0 15.710
6 UPPER P WBT6U.P SEA 607.42 100.0 15.710
6 UPPER S WBT6U.S SEA 585.33 100.0 15.710
07/15/08 11:44:48 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 25
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO04
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

LOAD STATUS, continued

Tank Description-----Name-----------Contents-------Load Wt MT--Load%--Sounding


1 MIDDLE C WBT1M.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 MIDDLE P WBT1M.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 MIDDLE S WBT1M.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 OUTER WING P WBT1O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
1 OUTER WING S WBT1O.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
2 MIDDLE P WBT2M.P SEA 432.87 17.4 1.143
2 MIDDLE S WBT2M.S SEA 756.07 30.6 2.060
2 OUTER WING P WBT2O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
2 OUTER WING S WBT2O.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 MIDDLE C WBT3M.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 MIDDLE P WBT3M.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 MIDDLE S WBT3M.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 OUTER WING P WBT3O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
3 OUTER WING S WBT3O.S SEA 2,546.81 80.4 10.846
4 MIDDLE C WBT4M.C SEA 2,321.52 100.0 22.750
4 MIDDLE P WBT4M.P SEA 2,487.61 100.0 22.750
4 MIDDLE S WBT4M.S SEA 2,467.71 100.0 22.750
4 OUTER WING P WBT4O.P SEA 210.73 6.5 1.050
4 OUTER WING S WBT4O.S SEA 2,447.06 75.0 10.099
5 MIDDLE C WBT5M.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 MIDDLE P WBT5M.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 MIDDLE S WBT5M.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 OUTER WING P WBT5O.P SEA 2,464.04 75.2 10.126
5 OUTER WING S WBT5O.S SEA 3,276.98 100.0 26.510
6 MIDDLE C WBT6M.C SEA 1,588.29 100.0 22.750
6 MIDDLE P WBT6M.P SEA 1,732.38 100.0 22.750
6 MIDDLE S WBT6M.S SEA 1,711.63 100.0 22.750
6 OUTER WING P WBT6O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 OUTER WING S WBT6O.S SEA 2,126.90 100.0 26.510
7 OUTER WING P WBT7O.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
7 OUTER WING S WBT7O.S SEA 1,859.96 100.0 24.070
1 LOWER C WBT1L.C SEA 1,116.96 100.0 26.510
1 LOWER P WBT1L.P SEA 1,214.41 100.0 26.510
1 LOWER S WBT1L.S SEA 1,214.41 100.0 26.510
2 LOWER C WBT2L.C SEA 1,325.95 100.0 26.510
2 LOWER P WBT2L.P SEA 1,307.69 100.0 26.510
2 LOWER S WBT2L.S SEA 1,302.22 100.0 26.510
3 LOWER C WBT3L.C SEA 1,327.37 100.0 26.510
3 LOWER P WBT3L.P SEA 1,304.22 100.0 26.510
3 LOWER S WBT3L.S SEA 1,309.48 100.0 26.510
4 LOWER C WBT4L.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 LOWER P WBT4L.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
4 LOWER S WBT4L.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 LOWER C WBT5L.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
5 LOWER P WBT5L.P SEA 1,309.43 100.0 26.510
5 LOWER S WBT5L.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 LOWER C WBT6L.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 LOWER P WBT6L.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
6 LOWER S WBT6L.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
FWD LOWER WB P WBTFL.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
07/15/08 11:44:48 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 26
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO04
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

LOAD STATUS, continued

Tank Description-----Name-----------Contents-------Load Wt MT--Load%--Sounding


FWD LOWER WB S WBTFL.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
FWD UPPER WB P WBTFU.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
FWD UPPER WB S WBTFU.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT WB P WBTA.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
POOP AFT WB S WBTPA.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
POOP FWD WB S WBTPF.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT L BALLAST S WBTALWL.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT PEAK C WBTAPC.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT POOP LOWER WB P WBTAPL.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
AFT POOP UPPER WB P WBTAPU.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
ENGINE RM TOP P WBTERTOP.P SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
ENGINE RM TOP S WBTERTOP.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
LOWER PEAK C WBTLOWPEAK.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
HIGH PEAK C WBTHIGHPEAK.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
WB OVRFL FWD WBTOVERFWD.C SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
WATER BAL OFLOW WBTOVERF.S SEA 0.00 0.0 0.000
Total as loaded----------> 48,590.86
Soundings in m.---------------------------------------------------------------
07/15/08 11:44:48 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 27
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO04
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH LIMIT APPLIED: SHELTERED CONDITION


SHELTERED CRITERION LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH SUMMARY at Heel = Stbd 0.07 deg.

Largest Shear: -5,541.6 MT at 91.310f


Largest Bending Moment: -173,974 MT-m. at 125.700f (Sagging)

LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH at Heel = Stbd 0.07 deg.

FRAME LOCATION SHEAR FORCE LIMIT BENDING MOMENT LIMIT


----------------m.------------MT-----%--------MT---------MT-m.----%------MT-m.
Fr.-5 3.500a 181.65 3 6,538.00 628.9 1 119,623.0
Fr.17 11.900f -378.00 6 -5,820.00 -511.6 1 -86,500.0
Fr.29 20.300f 544.66 4 13,275.00 -156.8 0 -186,087.7
Fr.47 34.700f 278.60 1 18,703.00 8,875.6 3 329,713.2
Fr.53 49.700f 79.53 1 14,682.00 11,039.7 2 597,778.0
Fr.60 67.199f -1,178.19 8 -14,768.00 6,417.6 1 664,318.4
Fr.63 74.700f -2,877.91 20 -14,124.00 -8,762.0 1 -709,742.7
Fr.73 99.700f -4,062.05 29 -14,124.00 -118,884.6 19 -625,742.0
Fr.83 124.700f -306.77 2 -15,272.00 -173,748.8 28 -622,378.4
Fr.93 149.700f 4,215.20 28 15,134.00 -126,942.0 24 -533,195.0
Fr.103 174.700f 3,015.24 55 5,491.00 -19,053.1 8 -237,181.0
Fr.131 194.300f 523.51 12 4,421.00 6,211.9 9 66,269.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHELTERED CRITERION SUMMARY
Largest Shear: 54.9% at 174.700f
Largest Bending Moment: -28.0% at 123.100f (Sagging)
SHELTERED criterion LONGITUDINAL STRENGTH at 0.07 degrees STBD HEEL

GHS 10.50
07/15/08 11:44:48
160

4
140

120

100

2
80

REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

Dockwise Shipping B.V.


60

40
General

BLUE MARLIN
20

0
Scale

-20

-40 1
3

-60

-80
2

-100

-120

-140
4

-160

Page 28
LO04
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Aft <-- Location (M.) --> Fwd

1 Shear 1=200 MT 3 Bending Mom. 1=4000 MT-M.

2 Shear Lim. 1=200 MT 4 Bending Lim. 1=4000 MT-M.


07/15/08 11:44:48 Dockwise Shipping B.V. Page 29
GHS 10.50 BLUE MARLIN LO04
REFERENCE 0611266, STEP 4

CG - Draft: 10.955 @ 206.500f, 10.957 @ 0.000 Heel: stbd 0.07 deg.


Body @ 5.000f Body @ 30.000f Body @ 62.200f Body @ 90.000f Body @ 120.000f Body @ 175.000f

78
74
77 71
70
79 80 79 80 14 13 15 11 10 12 8 7 9
48 72 83 83
76 39 38 40 34 33 35 29 28 30
48 49 68 69
41 63 36 37 31 32
62 64 42 60 59 61 57 56 58

Profile View @ 7.500p

70 82

79 17 14 11 8 5 2
72 83
76
44 39 34 29 24 20 68 81

66 63 60 57 54 51

Profile View @ 0.000

82

79 16 13 10 7 4 1
76 19
43 38 33 28 81
65 62 59 56 53 50
84

Profile View @ 7.500s

71
82

80 18 15 12 9 6 3 69
83
76
45 40 35 30 25 21 81
67 64 61 58 55 52

Plan View
77
78 48 46 41 36 31 26 22

72 17
44
66 63
39
14 60
34
11 57
29
8 54
24
5 2
20
51 70
68
79

76 65
43 16 62
38
13 33
10
59 28
56
7 53
4 19 50
1 83 81
82
84

80
67
45
18 64
40
15 61
35
12 58
30
9 55
25
6 52
21
3 69
71
75

49 47 42 37 32 27 23
73
74

Tanks 17 WBT6U.P.......100% 34 WBT4M.P.......100% 51 WBT1L.P.......100% 68 WBTFL.P.........0%


1 WBT1U.C.........6% 18 WBT6U.S.......100% 35 WBT4M.S.......100% 52 WBT1L.S.......100% 69 WBTFL.S.........0%
2 WBT1U.P.........0% 19 WBT1M.C.........0% 36 WBT4O.P.........6% 53 WBT2L.C.......100% 70 WBTFU.P.........0%
3 WBT1U.S.........0% 20 WBT1M.P.........0% 37 WBT4O.S........75% 54 WBT2L.P.......100% 71 WBTFU.S.........0%
4 WBT2U.C.........0% 21 WBT1M.S.........0% 38 WBT5M.C.........0% 55 WBT2L.S.......100% 72 WBTA.P..........0%
5 WBT2U.P.......100% 22 WBT1O.P.........0% 39 WBT5M.P.........0% 56 WBT3L.C.......100% 73 WBTPA.S.........0%
6 WBT2U.S.......100% 23 WBT1O.S.........0% 40 WBT5M.S.........0% 57 WBT3L.P.......100% 74 WBTPF.S.........0%
7 WBT3U.C.......100% 24 WBT2M.P........17% 41 WBT5O.P........75% 58 WBT3L.S.......100% 75 WBTALWL.S.......0%
8 WBT3U.P.......100% 25 WBT2M.S........31% 42 WBT5O.S.......100% 59 WBT4L.C.........0% 76 WBTAPC.C........0%
9 WBT3U.S.......100% 26 WBT2O.P.........0% 43 WBT6M.C.......100% 60 WBT4L.P.........0% 77 WBTAPL.P........0%
10 WBT4U.C.........0% 27 WBT2O.S.........0% 44 WBT6M.P.......100% 61 WBT4L.S.........0% 78 WBTAPU.P........0%
11 WBT4U.P.........0% 28 WBT3M.C.........0% 45 WBT6M.S.......100% 62 WBT5L.C.........0% 79 WBTERTOP.P......0%
12 WBT4U.S.........0% 29 WBT3M.P.........0% 46 WBT6O.P.........0% 63 WBT5L.P.......100% 80 WBTERTOP.S......0%
13 WBT5U.C........97% 30 WBT3M.S.........0% 47 WBT6O.S.......100% 64 WBT5L.S.........0% 81 WBTLOWPEAK.C....0%
14 WBT5U.P........29% 31 WBT3O.P.........0% 48 WBT7O.P.........0% 65 WBT6L.C.........0% 82 WBTHIGHPEAK.C...0%
15 WBT5U.S........30% 32 WBT3O.S........80% 49 WBT7O.S.......100% 66 WBT6L.P.........0% 83 WBTOVERFWD.C....0%
16 WBT6U.C.......100% 33 WBT4M.C.......100% 50 WBT1L.C.......100% 67 WBT6L.S.........0% 84 WBTOVERF.S......0%
APPENDIX 11
Stress plots of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel
with 4 skid beams by SPAR model loading

147
1. Stress components on Hull side shell on port side along the skid beam # 1

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

148
3. stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

4. stress components on longitudinal sections under skid beam # 4

149
APPENDIX 12
Stress plots of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel
with 3 skid beams by SPAR model loading

150
1. Stress components on Hull side shell on port side along the skid beam # 1

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

151
3. stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

4. stress components on longitudinal sections under skid beam # 4

152
APPENDIX 13
Stress plots of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel
with 2 skid beams by SPAR model loading

153
1. Stress components on Hull side shell on port side along the skid beam # 1

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

154
3. stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

4. stress components on longitudinal sections under skid beam # 4

155
APPENDIX 14
Stress plots of the analysis step final stowage position
of SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams

156
1. Stress components on Hull side shell on port side along the skid beam # 1

2. Stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #2

157
3. stress components on longitudinal bulkhead under skid beam #3

4. stress components on longitudinal sections under skid beam # 4

158
BIBLIOGRAPHY

[1] Subrata K. Chakrabarti, Handbook of Offshore Engineering. Volume 1, Elsevier, First Edition 2005

[2] Home page of shell Energy. http://www.shell.us/home/content/usa/aboutshell/strategy/


th
major_projects/perdido/about/spar.html. Last access 5 May 2009
th
[3] Home page of Sea Engineering http://www.sea-engr.com/images/spar_ops.gif. Last access 5
May 2009.
th
[4] Home page of Technip offshore http://www.technip.com/english/pdf/SparProg.JPG. Last access 5
May 2009.

[5] Home page of Offshore moorings http://www.offshoremoorings.org/moorings/2006/Groep5/


th
spar017.jpg. Last access 5 May 2009
th
[6] Home page of Technip offshore http://www.technip.com/english/pdf/technip.pdf. Last access 5
May 2009.

[7] E.C.Tupper, Introduction to Naval Architecture, Butterworth Heinemann, Third Edition 1996

[8] K.J.Rawson & E.C.Tupper, Basic Ship Theory, Volume 1 - Hydrostatics and Strength,
Butterworth Heinemann, Fifth Edition 2001

[9] D.J.Eyres, Ship Construction, Butterworth Heinemann, Fifth edition 2001


th
[10] Home page of Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-submersible, Last access 10
June 2009

[11] Bechtel Rigging Handbook, Second Edition 2002.

[12] Home page of University of Colorado at Boulder, http://www.colorado.edu/engineering/cas/


th
courses.d/IFEM.d/, Last access 12 June 2009.

[13] Home page of Siemens PLM automation, http://www.plm.automation.siemens.com/


th
en_us/products/velocity/femap/index.shtml, Last access 12 June 2009
th
[14] FEMAP version 9.3 documentation, last access 12 June 2009.

[15] Hearn E.J, Mechanics of Materials Vol 1, ButterWorth Heinmann, Third Edition 1997

159
List of Figures
2.1 SPAR with production platform [3]
2.2 Progression of Spars (Technip Offshore) [4]
3.1 MV Blue Marlin
4.1 Typical web frame of Blue Marlin - original vessel
4.2 Typical web frame of Blue Marlin - modified vessel
4.3 Blue Marlin in submerged condition
4.4 General Arrangement of Future SPAR
4.5 Roll-off operation of a heavy-lift on SPMT
4.6 Skidding of a SPAR
4.7 Skidding by uniform loading using hydraulic cylinders
4.8 Stowage plan-1.7m off centre
4.9 Stowage plan-8.3m off centre
4.10 Locations of the skid beams
5.1 Typical finite element geometries in one through three dimensions.
5.2 Examples of primitive structural elements.
5.3 FEMAP environment
5.4 Rod Element
5.5 Beam Element
5.6 Plate Element
5.7 Solid Element
6.1 Rectangular coordinate system
6.2 FE model of Blue Marlin and coordinate system axes
6.3 FE model showing mesh of the Keel of Blue Marlin.
6.4 FE model of Double hull bottom structure of Blue Marlin
6.5 FE model details of bottom structure
6.6 FE model of typical Blue Marlin web frame with stiffeners
6.7 FE model of the vessel deck
6.8 FE model of the bow section
6.9 FE model of stern section showing the profile of the stern
6.10 FE model of stern section without deck showing the engine room section
6.11 Spring elements under the vessel model
6.12 API tool for implementing draft and hydrostatic pressure in the model
6.13 Hydrostatic pressure applied to the FE model
6.14 Closer look at the hydrostatic pressure applied
6.15 API tool for updating the mass elements in the model
6.16 Mass elements in the FE model of Blue Marlin
6.17 Skid beams on vessel model
6.18 Typical web frame details of the physical vessel
6.19 Typical web frame details of the FE model
6.20 FE model of SPAR and coordinate system axes
6.21 FE model of Hard tank section of the SPAR
6.22 FE model of Soft tank section of the SPAR
6.23 FE model of Heave plate section of the SPAR
6.24 FE model of the truss section of the SPAR
6.25 Line only FE model assembly of hard tank and truss
6.26 FE model of the SPAR without supports and outfittings
6.27 FE model of the hard tank supports
6.28 FE model of truss supports
6.29 FE model of SPAR with supports for 4 skid beam load-out
6.30 FE model of SPAR with supports for 3 skid beam load-out
6.31 FE model of SPAR with supports for 2 skid beam load-out
7.1 Uniform loading on skid beams
7.2 Constraint in bow section of the vessel
7.3 Constraints in stern section of vessel
7.4 Constraints in the spring elements
7.5 Draft level and hydrostatic pressure for the step hard tank on the vessel
7.6 Location of supports for 4 skid beams load-out
7.7 Location of supports for 3 skid beams load-out
7.8 Location of supports for 2 skid beams load-out
7.9 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by uniform loading

160
7.10 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step uniform loading with 4 skid beams
7.11 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by uniform loading
7.12 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step uniform loading with 3 skid beams
7.13 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by uniform loading
7.14 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step uniform loading with 2 skid beams
7.15 Location of highest equivalent stresses in uniform loading case analysis.
7.16 Rod elements connecting nodes on supports and skid beams
7.17 Constraints of the SPAR supports under the heave plates and soft tank
7.18 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by SPAR model loading
7.19 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.20 Plot of vessel model translation in Z-axis for the step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.21 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by SPAR model loading
7.22 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.23 Plot of vessel model translation in Z-axis for the step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.24 FE model of analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by SPAR model loading
7.25 Scaled total deformation of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.26 Plot of vessel model translation in Z-axis for the step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.27 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #1 – hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.28 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #2 – hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.29 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #3 – hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.30 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #4 – hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.31 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #1 - hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.32 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #2 - hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.33 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #3 - hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.34 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #2 - hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.35 Axial forces in rod elements on skid beam #3 - hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.36 Location of highest equivalent stresses in hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading case analysis.
7.37 Final position of SPAR hard tank supports on skid beams for entire SPAR on vessel
7.38 Final position of SPAR truss supports on skid beams for entire SPAR on vessel
7.39 Constraints in supports under heave plates for the step entire SPAR on vessel
7.40 FE model of analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams.
7.41 Total deformation of the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.42 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.43 FE model of analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams.
7.44 Total deformation of the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.45 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.46 FE model of analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams.
7.47 Total deformation of the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.48 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step entire spar on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.49 Location of highest equivalent stresses in entire SPAR on vessel by SPAR model loading case
analysis.
7.50 Final stowage position of SPAR hard tank supports on skid beams
7.51 Final stowage position of SPAR truss supports on skid beams
7.52 FE model of analysis step final stowage position of the SPAR with 2 skid beams.
7.53 Total deformation of the analysis step final stowage position of SPAR with 2 skid beams
7.54 Axial forces on the rod elements in the analysis step final stowage position of SPAR with 2 skid
beams

List of tables
3.1 Principal characteristics of Blue Marlin
4.1 Weight of SPAR components
4.2 Weight distribution of SPAR
6.1 Summary of FE model of the vessel
6.2 Properties of FE model of keel
6.3 Properties of FE model of bottom structure
6.4 Properties of FE model of bulkhead
6.5 Properties of FE model of deck
6.6 Properties of FE model of bow section
6.7 Properties of FE model of stern section

161
6.8 Properties of spring element under the vessel model
6.9 Properties of Mass element in vessel model
6.10 Comparison of FE model with the actual vessel.
6.11 Comparison of FE model with the actual vessel
6.12 Properties of FE model of hard tank
6.13 Properties of FE model of soft tank
6.14 Properties of FE model of Heave plates
6.15 Properties of FE model of Truss section
6.16 Properties of FE model of SPAR supports
6.17 Properties of FE model of SPAR with outfittings for 4 skid beam load-out
6.18 Comparison of FE model of SPAR with the design
7.1 Ballast condition for step hard tank on the vessel.
7.2 Load calculation for the uniform loading with 4 skid beams load-out
7.3 Load calculation for the uniform loading with 3 skid beams load-out
7.4 Load calculation for the uniform loading with 2 skid beams load-out
7.5 Summary of load calculation for all 3 steps of uniform loading
7.6 Summary of results of uniform loading cases
7.7 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by uniform
loading
7.8 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by uniform
loading
7.9 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by uniform
loading
7.10 Properties of rod elements
7.11 Summary of results of hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading cases
7.12 Load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.13 Load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.14 Load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.15 Summary of load on skid beams in step hard tank on vessel by SPAR model loading
7.16 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 4 skid beams by SPAR
. model loading
7.17 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 3 skid beams by SPAR
model loading
7.18 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step hard tank on vessel with 2 skid beams by SPAR
model loading
7.19 Ballast condition for the step entire SPAR on vessel
7.20 Summary of results of entire SPAR on vessel by SPAR model loading cases
7.21 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 4 skid beams
7.22 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 3 skid beams
7.23 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step entire SPAR on vessel with 2 skid beams
7.24 Highest equivalent stresses of the analysis step final stowage position of SPAR with 2 skid beams

162