In-place structural strength and fatigue analysis for floating platform topsides

(DMAR Engineering Inc. Houston Texas 77094 USA)

Chen Lizhong

Abstract This paper presents some insights on the state-of-the-art practice that has been utilized recently in the inplace structural strength and fatigue analysis for topsides on deepwater floating platforms such as tension leg platform (TLP) and semi-submersibles. Emphases are put on analysis software geometric and mass modeling hydrodynamic loading and its mappingand analysis procedures. In additionfor the in-place analysis using structure analysis computer system (SACS)the procedure of Visual Basic for Application (VBA) is developed to map AQWA-LINE hydrodynamic loading to the SACS integrated hull/topsides modelfor the in-place analysis using structure engineering system analysis model (SESAM)many computer aided applications are made to aid the post-processing. These applications have been used in structural analyses for a few TLP and semi-submersible platform topsides and are briefly introduced in this paper. Key words topsides TLP semi-submersible in-place structural analysis hydrodynamic loading SACS SESAM

1 Introduction
Over the past two decadesmore offshore drilling and production floating platforms (Fig.1)such as tension leg platform (TLP) semi-submersibles and spars have been installed in the deeper sea fields because near shore oil/gas reservoirs are exhausting oil/gas price is increasing and some key technologies are advancing [1]. Deepwater floating platforms demand less topsides weight to lower the vertical center of gravity (VCG) and thus improve the global performance which is critical for risers moorings and overall project feasibility.

Fig.1 Typical floating platform with topsides

Topsides structural weight accounts for about

Received 13 May 2013

35 % of the total topsides operating payload. Thereforeit is very meaningful to optimize the topsides structural design in terms of weight saving on the condition that the structural integrity is maintained all related codes and regulations requirements are satisfied and all structural members are properly sized. In order to achieve this goalsomething should be done as follows. 1) Loading conditions on topsides structures in pre- service and in- place stages should be clearly defined. 2) Loads should be obtained based on related codesmetocean datavendor datasound engineering judgment and assumptions and right tools. 3) All applicable loads should be applied to the analysis model properly and combined with code checking. 4) In order to fully account for the interactions between topsides and hull and transfer the hydrodynamic loading directlythe analysis models for topsides structures have to include both detailed topsides structural model and hull structural model (can be simplified as appropriate). The integrated topsides/ hull model is commonly large so that it is important to plan the analysis and code checking carefully in

24 ENGINEERING SCIENCES

terms of software selection running time code checking implementationcoordination between hydrodynamic analysis and structural analysis. 5) The structural analysis commonly involves a huge amount of datahundreds of members and load cases and many analysis and design cycles. Therefore in order to expedite the analysis and design process and reduce errors various computer tools should be developed for different purposes. This paper presents insights on many key aspects of the topsides in-place structural strength and fatigue analysis including software selection geometrical/ mass modelingboundary conditionsdesign loads environmental conditions environmental dynamic wave loads strength analysis and code checking and fatigue analysis methods. To help structural engineers understand dynamic wave loadingthis paper discusses characteristic global hydrodynamic responses statistical properties of waves and responses design wave approach hydrodynamic loading mappingverification and usage. For mapping hydrodynamic loads from AQWA- LINE results to structure analysis computer system (SACS) modelthe procedure of Excel- based Visual Basic for Application (VBA) is made and briefly introduced. For in- place structural analysis through structure engineering system analysis model (SESAM)many computer aids have been made to expedite the whole process from the beginning to the end.

2 Analysis software
Topsides structural analysis has been carried out mainly through SACS or SESAM. Developed by Engineering Dynamics Inc. (EDI) and recently acquired by Bentley SystemsSACS is an integrated suite of software that is capable to do loading generation static/dynamic structural analysis code checking and deterministic/spectral fatigue analysis. SACS has been widely used for offshore structural analysis in the oil/ gas industry. Developed by Det Norske Veritas (DNV)SESAM is a complete strength assessment system for engineering of shipsoffshore structures and risers based on the finite element (FE) methodology. SESAM is able to perform structural and hydrodynamic analysis. The following summarizes the strength and weakness of SACS and SESAM which serves as guidelines for analysis software selection. 1) SACS seamlessly integrates analysis model geometric inputsloading inputsanalysis and code

checking setting into one or a few input filesbecause of which a re-design cycle can be done very quickly. SACS provides reliable beam member code checking and tubular joint code checking capacity thereforeit is very suitable for topsides structures consisting of plate girders and tubular columns/ braces. HoweverSACS has very limited capacity to model plate elements and doesn t have any function to transfer/map hydrodynamic loading from hydrodynamic analysis results to structural model. In summarySACS is a better structural analysis software choice for floating platform topsides that mainly consists of beams columns braces and simple deck shear platingdepending on the hydrodynamic analysis softwarea computer program may need to be made to map hydrodynamic loading from hydrodynamic loading output to the SACS structural analysis model. Section 6.4 presents a VBA that can map hydrodynamic loading generated through AQWALINE to the SACS model. 2) While SACS is based on beam theory where beam elements are directly modeled without meshingSESAM is based on FE theory where all elements are generated through meshing geometric model. Because of thismember code checking in SESAM is cumbersome and time consumingthe redesign cycle is thus slowcomputer aided tools are necessary to streamline the member code checking process (refer to Section 7). 3) SESAM has complete tools for beam and plate geometric modeling and meshingit is the ideal structural analysis software choice for floating platform topsides that mainly consists of not only beams columnsbraces and simple shear platingbut also bulkhead and deck orthotropic plate panels. In addition SESAM also has a unique feature superelement technique. The structure models can be built in SESAM Patran- Pre or GeniE or other programs and saved as low level superelements. A top level superelement can readily be built up by merging the low level superelements via SESAM Presel. The superelement technique enables SESAM to handle detailed integrated hull/topsides model that can be used for both hull and topsides structural analysis and design. Fig.2 shows two integrated topsides/hull SESAM structural analysis models for a semi-submersible platform and a TLP respectively. 4) Another advantage of SESAM over SACS is that SESAM has a wide spectrum of hydrodynamic analysis capacityis able to internally transfer hydroVol. 11 No.4 Aug. 2013 25

dynamic loading to structural model and can do plat panel check according to DNV-RP-C201 [2].

Fig.2 Integrated topsides/hull SESAM structural analysis models for semi-submersible platform and TLP

3 Geometric and mass modeling

3.1 Geometric modeling All primary topsides structural components shall be modeled in a way as follows. 1) Primary load paths are simulated correctly. 2) Beam offsets are properly modeled. 3) Connections between beams and plating are simulated through rigid dummy linksrigid planes or restrain equations as appropriate. 4) Equipment pyramid dummy supports shall have small stiffness and end moment releases at the deck elevationwhich is to avoid stiffness contribution from the dummy structures and thus be conservative. 5) Major secondary platforms shall be modeled with their main frame members so that the load transfer is adequately simulated. In addition members 26 ENGINEERING SCIENCES

shall have end moment releases at the connections on the deck to minimize the stiffness contribution from the platforms. 6) Deck plating system shall be modeled with sound engineering judgment and practiceit shall be modeled in a way that the load path and function are reflected. If the deck plating is primarily for horizontal bracing onlyit can be modeled as large plate elements without stringers or stiffenersif the deck plating is of stiffened plate panels and as primary structural components the deck plate and girders shall be modeled explicitly and meshed. Geometric modeling philosophy for hull structure depends on the analysis software used. If SESAM is chosen for both topsides and hull structural analysis the hull analysis model can be used directly for the topsides structural analysis. If SESAM is chosen for topsides structural analysis and other softwares such as ANSYS is chosen for hull structural analysis the hull shall be modeled using SESAM in such a way that the interface part between the deck and the hull is modeled with sufficient details and other hull parts can be modeled with simplicity as long as the overall hull stiffness is accurately simulated and the outer shell mesh is fine enough for hydrodynamic analysis and loading mapping. For the topsides structural analysis using SACS in order to simulate the local stiffness at the interface between the deck and the hullthe upper parts of the hull columns above the mean water line (MWL) are modeled by using shell elements for hull wall steel plates and three- dimension (3D) beam elements for hull girders and stiffeners. The lower parts of hull columns and pontoons are modeled with beam elements for their global stiffness and hydrodynamic loading transfer. It is noted that member/plate offsets shall always be considered as appropriate and lower hull column and pontoon beam elements shall have stiffness that includes both hull wall and stiffeners. The stiffness may be conveniently obtained through hull analysis model. 3.2 Mass modeling In the topsides in- place structural analysis wave- induced inertial loads are simulated by specifying the model masses and rigid body accelerations of six degrees of freedom. The magnitude and location of mass components shall be modeled with high accuracy. The rigid body 66 mass matrix and center of gravity (COG) location assembled from the inplace analysis model shall be consistent with the glo-

bal mass in the hydrodynamic analysis model. Generally the basis for mass modeling is the project weight control report. The target mass for in- place analyses is the not-to-exceed (NTE) mass of the topsides. Commonly the following mass concepts are employed to model masses. 1) Modeled structural self- weight. All modeled steel beams and plates have mass contributiontheir mass is calculated in the analysis model through their material density thickness and cross section. 2) Point/joint mass. Point mass is a concept in GeniE to model a single concentrated mass at a single specified locationsimilarlyjoint mass is a single concentrated mass in SACS that is applied on a joint. Together with pyramid dummy support structures point and joint masses are commonly utilized to similar major heavy equipments. 3) Equipment concept mass. In SESAM GeniE equipment concept mass is used to define and distribute a bulk mass over a specified area. When the GeniE concept model is meshedequipment concept mass is automatically meshed into point masses which are distributed and applied to nodes in the covered area. 4) Footprint mass. In SACSfootprint mass is used to define and distribute a bulk mass over a specified area through skid beams. Inertia forces will be applied on the cross points among skid beams and deck supporting beams. SESAM equipment concept mass and SACS footprint mass are used to apply area masses such as miscellaneous bulk massescompany reserve and laydown area masses. Commonlythe modeled mass in a topsides inplace analysis model falls into one of the following categories modeled structural self-weight unmodeled structural weightmajor equipmentsmajor access platforms pipe racksliving quarters (LQ)laydown areas and residual masses. Eventually the mass of the topsides in- place analysis model needs to be calibrated against the weight control report. The first calibration step is to ensure that all of the above mass categories are correctly modeledthe second step is to approximately calibrate the mass magnitude and COG for each construction module the last step is to adjust the residual mass so that the total modeled mass and COG are the same as the NTE mass and COG as specified in the weight control report.

4 Boundary conditions and balancing loading

Loads on a deepwater floating platform are balanced in nature. In realityrestraint of the platform is provided by water pressure on the hull outer shell mooring lines/tendons and risers. In terms of modelingrestraint from mooring lines and risers is simulated by springs at the keel around pontoons with approximately equivalent stiffness. Vertical restraint from water pressure is simulated by springs at the keel with total vertical stiffness calculated based on the water plane area of the columns. Lateral restraint from water pressure is simulated by springs at the keel with horizontal stiffness being taken as 10 % of the vertical water plane stiffness. It is accepted that a small amount of rigid body motion will exist in the model due to unbalanced forces on the in-place analysis model. This is because of inherent imperfections in the geometric and mass modeling processesthe above mentioned boundary conditions keep the rigid body motion to a practical minimum. Large applied forces on topsides that create significant unbalanced conditionssuch as wind loads and inertial loads and riser loads are rebalanced by applying forces at the four keel corners in order to eliminate excessive rigid body motion.

5 Design loads and environmental conditions

Deepwater floating platform topsides shall be designed for all load conditions that will be experienced during the topsides whole life cycle. For topsides inplace structural analysisthe following design loads are commonly considered [3- 6]a. static loadsincluding dead loads buoyancy loads (i.e. static water pressure on hull wet surface) static mooring and riser loadsand balancing loadsb. operational static loads including crane operational loads drilling operational loads and live loads c. environmental static loads including wind loads current loads and inertial loadsd. environmental dynamic wave loads. Environmental dynamic wave loads are loads induced by wavesthey are obtained through hydrodynamic analysis. Wave loads are stochastic processes in nature and thus need to be characterized by their statistic propertiessuch as probability distribution and power spectral density [4]. Howeverin order to simplify the loads for design purpose design
Vol. 11 No.4 Aug. 2013 27

waves are determined through hydrodynamic analysis and statistical analysis for design environmental conditions so that the design wave induced loads can produce the extreme values of defined global responses [5]. Section 6 will discuss the environmental dynamic wave loads in details. Typicallydeepwater floating platform topsides are designed for in-place operating and extreme environmental conditions if working stress design (WSD) is used [6]or for ultimate limit state (ULS) and accidental limit state (ALS) environmental conditions if load and resistance factor design (LRFD) is used [7]. As a part of design basis operating and extreme (ULS or ALS) environmental conditions are specified as storms of certain return periods. Table 1 lists definitions for operating and extreme environmental conditions in some locations around the world.
Table 1 Typical regional environmental conditions
Gulf of Mexico South China Sea North Sea Location 10-year winter storm 1-year tropic storm 1-year storm Operating 100-year hurricane 100-year tropic storm 100-year storm Extreme

6 Environmental dynamic wave loads

Environmental dynamic wave load is one of the most significant loads that the deepwater floating platforms experience in the in- place condition [5]. Definingcalculating and transferring wave loads are not as straightforward as other loadswhich involve metocean datahydrodynamic analysisstatistical analysisload mapping and verification. For topsides inplace structural analysis it is essential for the responsible engineers to understand the fundamental knowledge of environmental dynamic wave loaddesign wave method and load transfer. This section briefly reviews characteristic global dynamic responsesstatistical properties of waves and responses and design wave determination. In additiona wave load mapping application is introduced for SACS in- place analysis. 6.1 Characteristic global hydrodynamic responses Characteristic global hydrodynamic responses are forces at cut cross sections of the platform rigid body in the hydrodynamic analysis which are important parameters for design wave determination. For topsides in- place structural analysisthe characteristic global hydrodynamic responses that govern vari28 ENGINEERING SCIENCES

ous aspects of the design are first selected. Design peak values for these responses are calculated for different environmental loading conditions through hydrodynamic analysis and statistical post-processing. Design waves are finally determined so that they can produce the same peak response values. For examplepeak platform accelerations are critical for the whole topsides structural design and peak pry/ squeeze forces are critical for the nearby area around hull- topsides connections. Therefore characteristic global hydrodynamic responses that are associated to topsides accelerations and pry/squeeze forces need to be considered in the design wave determination. The following listed characteristic global hydrodynamic responses commonly govern for the topsides in- place designa. split (pry/squeeze) force between pontoonsb. torsion moment about a transverse horizontal axis c. shear force between the pontoons d. longitudinal acceleration of deck masse. transverse acceleration of deck massf. vertical acceleration of deck mass. More details on those characteristic global hydrodynamic responses can be found in Ref. [5]. 6.2 Statistical properties of waves and responses Sea waves by nature are random processes. For engineering purposes sea wave processes can be idealized by stationary Gaussian stochastic processes. The stationary Gaussian stochastic process can be completely characterized by a certain power spectral density (PSD) function. The JONSWAP spectrum and the Pierson- Moskowitz spectrum are most frequently utilized to describe wave processes in offshore engineering which are characterized by the following parameterssignificant wave heightaverage zero- upcrossing period and peak [4]. The above parameters shall be specified in the project specifications as metocean criteria. According to the linear stochastic system theory the PSD functions of the input and output processes can be related through the system complex transfer function H( ) as follows [5] (1) S out ( ) = H 2 ( ) S in ( ) In marine engineering where the hull hydrodynamic system is idealized as a linear system and the wave as the input Gaussian stochastic process the magnitude of the system transfer function |H ( ) | is conventionally called the response amplitude operator (RAO). Obviously RAO is a function of frequency and associated to a certain output. By defi-

nitionRAO can be obtained by passing a series of unit amplitude sinusoidal input with different frequencies through the linear systemand the series of re-

sponse magnitudes form the RAO function as shown in Fig.3.

Fig. 3 Illustration for RAO

6.3 Design wave approach The most rational method for the topsides inplace structural analysis for a deepwater floating platform is to carry out a stochastic analysis in the frequency domain. Howevera design wave approach is commonly utilized because it is simpler and easier to be implemented. It also satisfies the need for the simultaneity of the responses and the merits of the stochastic approach are retained by using the extreme stochastic values of some characteristic global response parameters in the selection of design waves [5]. In the design wave approacha set of regular waves with selected wave heights and frequencies are utilized in different load cases to carry out the topsides in-place structural analysis. These waves are determined by the following procedure and will produce the most probable maximum governing global response parameters [5]. 1) Characteristic response parameters and corresponding wave headings may be chosen according to the code such as Ref. [5] and engineering judgment. Typical characteristic response parameters are listed in Section 6.1. 2) For a characteristic global response parameter its RAO is obtained by running the hydrodynamic model for a series of waves with unit amplitudes and selected frequencies. The PSD function of the response parameter is equal to the production of wave PSD and the squared RAO. 3) The most probable maximum (MPM) value of the response parameter with 90 % is commonly used as the design extreme value. The direct and quick way to calculate the MPM is through the short- term statistical analysis based on the response PSD [5]. Howeversince the design wave approach is based on the linear system assumption and the nonlinear effect may be significant when the platform motion is large under the extreme environmental condition the

MPM from the short- term statistical analysis may be less than the desirable extreme value. Thereforethe coupled nonlinear time-domain simulation of 3 h duration is commonly necessary to get the desirable extreme valuesespecially for accelerationsand then the MPM can be adjusted accordingly. In addition the MPM needs to be adjusted according to model test results and wave long-term distribution. 4) The peak periods of the RAO and/or the peak periods of the response PSD function are chosen as the periods of the design wave. 5) The design wave height (DWH) is finally obtained through dividing the MPM by the value of the RAO at the chosen period of the design wave. The above procedure is carried out for each wave direction/sea state of interestand for each global response parameterresulting in a set of DWHs and associated frequencies. The topsides in- place structural analysis will be carried out based on this set of regular waves for wave loading cases. Table 2 shows one typical set of design waves that are obtained through the above procedure. 6.4 Hydrodynamic load mapping A given unit amplitude wave with a periodhydrodynamic analysis generates real and imaginary sets of water pressure on wet panels and rigid body accelerations of six degrees of freedom. It is straightforward to transfer/map rigid body accelerations to structural analysis model it needs a certain algorithm to transfer water pressure from panels to shell elements in the structural analysis model. If SESAM is utilized for both hydrodynamic analysis and topsides structural analysisthere is a seamless mechanism built in SESAM to map hydrodynamic loads from hydrodynamic analysis results to the structural analysis. IfhoweverSACS is used for topsides structural analysisa computer application is needed to transfer hydrodynamic load data to
Vol. 11 No.4 Aug. 2013 29

Table 2 Typical defined design waves for topsides structural analysis

Load No. CL 1 CL 2 CL 3 CL 4 CL 5 CL 6 CL 7 CL 8 CL 10 CL 11 CL 12 CL 13 CL 14 CL 15 CL 16 CL 17 CL 18 CL 19 CL 20 CL 21 CL 22 CL 23 CL 24 CL 25 CL 26 CL 27 CL 28 CL 29 CL 9 Response description Longitudinal split force, to (+)x Transverse split force, to (+)y Pitch moment about y-axis Roll moment about x-axis Heading/() 180 270 330 300 315 315 225 225 180 270 330 210 300 240 45 135 225 270 315 45 90 90 0 0 Period/s 11.5 11.5 8.5 8.5 11.5 11.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 8.0 Amplitude/m 8.45 8.41 3.95 3.87 10.01 10.04 5.34 6.12 9.78 8.69 8.67 8.55 8.56 5.35 5.93 5.40 5.94 6.02 6.17 6.05 9.80 9.52 9.80 9.80 9.83 9.54 9.82 6.11 6.03 Responsea 217.29 2 627.19 2 224.06 66.79 66.79 68.29 68.29 1.04 1.09 154.07 155.32 159.23 159.32 1.05 0.72 0.99 0.73 0.73 1.12 0.74 1.22 1.17 1.22 1.31 1.20 1.13 1.20 1.32 223.61 Horizontal accelerationb/(ms-2) 0.14 1.26 0.74 1.03 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.14 1.30 0.12 0.80 0.78 1.00 0.99

Longitudinal shear force, to (+)x Longitudinal shear force, to (+)x Transverse shear force, to (+)y Transverse shear force, to (+)y Longitudinal acceleration Transverse acceleration Vertical acceleration

Longitudinal split force, to (+)x Longitudinal split force, to (+)x Transverse split force, to (+)y Transverse split force, to (+)y Horizontal acceleration Horizontal acceleration Horizontal acceleration Horizontal acceleration Horizontal acceleration Horizontal acceleration Horizontal acceleration Vertical acceleration Vertical acceleration Vertical acceleration Vertical acceleration Vertical acceleration Vertical acceleration Vertical acceleration

13.5 11.5 11.5 12.0 12.0 10.5 10.5 10.5 10.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 13.5 8.0 8.0 8.0

135 180 225 270 315

Notea. 90 % fractile responsem/s2 for accelerationacceleration responses are measured at model coord (0048)b. corresponding horizontal acceleration in topsides measured at model coordinate (0 0 62)

the SACS model. For a semi-submersible platform projectSACS is used for topsides structural analysis and AQWA- LINE is used for hydrodynamic analysisan Excel- based VBA procedure is developed by the author to map the panel pressure data from AQWA- LINE output to the SACS in- place analysis model. Results directly from an AQWA- LINE run contain sets of real and imaginary components of rigidbody accelerations at COG and hydrodynamic pressures on hull wet panels. Each set corresponds to one unit amplitude sinusoidal wave with one design wave frequency. In the SACS modelthe lower hull is modeled by 3D beam elements aligned along the center 30 ENGINEERING SCIENCES

lines of hull columns and pontoons. The hydrodynamic loading mapping process is just to transfer panel pressure onto these beam elements. 6.5 Hydrodynamic wave loading verification There is a huge amount of hydrodynamic loading data that needs to be automatically transferred to the structural analysis model either through the commercial program itself or through the in- house computer application. To ensure that the structural model receives the right hydrodynamic loading one key step in the topsides in- place structural analysis is to verify the hydrodynamic wave loading mapped from the hydrodynamic analysis results. Acceleration is the most important hydrodynam-

ic loading component for topsides. It is critical to check if the structural analysis model receives the right accelerations and the desirable maximum accelerations for all wave headings are realized in the model. Cantilever supported unit point masses may be put at the interested locations so that accelerations at those locations can easily be extracted from shear forces of the support members in the structural analysis results. Accelerations from structural analysis shall be verified against accelerations obtained directly from the hydrodynamic analysis and the maximum acceleration realized in the structural analysis shall be greater than the desirable extreme values provided by the hydrodynamic analysis. Hydrodynamic wave loading shall also be verified based on other characteristic global hydrodynamic responses. Taking SESAM structural analysis for example the FE model is set up so that all the Wadam- generated hydrodynamic pressuredrag load and accelerations are applied directly on to the shell model. Therefore it is not possible to visualize the pressure mapping using SESAM. The best way to validate the load mapping process is then to compare the Wadam- calculated section forces/moments with Cutes- calculated results. Wadam calculates the section forces/moments of a structure due to wave excitation and rigid body motion. Cutres cuts sections through the structural modeland calculates section forces/ moments by integrating the resultant stresses. Comparison is conducted for squeeze/pry load. Fig.4 shows RAO comparisons of squeeze/pry load. It is shown that the results predicted by Wadam and Cutres have matched well and the load mapping process has worked as intended.

Fig.4 Validation of hydrodynamic loading by comparing global responses (pry/squeeze force in this chart) obtained through hydrodynamic analysis and structural analysis
Note 1 kips=4.448 kN 1 ft=0.304 8 m

6.6 Use of mapped hydrodynamic loads Mapped wave loads in the structural analysis model are just real ( in-phase ) and imaginary ( outof- phase ) components of rigid body accelerations and water pressures on the wet hull shell elements or resulted pressure forces on the lower hull beam elements. For each wave heading- frequency combination two load cases corresponding to real and imaginary componentsare defined in the structural analysis model. For example if design waves are specified as in Table 2we select 29 different design waves and have 58 wave load cases defined in the structural analysis model. The above 58 load cases do not comprise real loads on the structure. For each specific design wave the actual wave loads (Fdesign_wave) are time- dependent and shall be obtained through the following formula H design_wave H design_wave F de sign _wave =( ) sin ( t ) R +( ) cos( t ) I 2 2 (2) Where Hdesign_wave is the DWH R is the loads in the real component load caseI is the loads in the imaginary component load case ( t ) is the phase angle that varies over time. We call the linear load combination in Eq. (2) a harmonic load combination. The topsides structure shall be designed against the above harmonic load combinations. For SESAM analysis the stress results are first obtained for the real and imaginary unit wave load casesthen the code checking is carried out based on the harmonic stress combinationwhich is similar to Eq. (2). For SACS analysisthe above harmonic load combination is realized by specifying a limited number of evenly spaced phase angles ( t)i over the range [0 360] which will lead to many regular load combinations. The error between the actual continuous harmonic combination of Eq. (2) and the discrete harmonic combinations is established as follows with respect to a certain phase angle interval ( t ) || sin ( t ) + | | max sin t + )] - i =max 1,2,, N i | t [0,)[ ( | (3) ( t) 1 - cos( ) 2 Where N = 360/ ( t ) ( t ) i = (i 1) [ ] ( t) . If the phase angles are chosen to be spaced at 12 i.e. ( t ) = 12 the error would be 0.55 % . Thereforefor each harmonic combinationit is accurate enough to use 30 regular linear load combinations corresponding to 30 phase angles spaced at 12.

Vol. 11 No.4 Aug. 2013 31

7 Strength analysis and code checking

Topsides in-place structural strength analysis and code checking can be summarized as the following

stepsgeometric modelingmass modelinghydrodynamic loading importing major static forces inputtingstructural analysisload combination and code checking. Fig.5 shows a typical strength analysis and code checking procedure using SESAM.

Fig.5 Typical SESAM in-place strength analysis procedure

It is noted that the structural analysis may have many different runs for different environmental conditionsfurthermoreif the gravity of a module is applied by steps and the support boundary conditions change from step to stepit is important to consider the sequential gravity loading effect in the in- place strength analysis. Eventually all structural components shall be checked according to certain loading combinations and project specified steel design codes from American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) [8]American Petroleum Institute (API) [6]DNV [7] and Norsk Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon (NORSOK) [9]. The structural integrity shall be ensured with respect to the stresslocal bucklingbeam and panel buckling which form the structural code checking hierarchy. At the first level of the structural code checking hierarchyvon Mises stresses of plate/shell elements shall be checked against the allowabledetailed local finite element analysis (FEA) models are often necessary for von Mises stress checking at nodes. At the second levellocal buckling strength of plates and member section components such as flanges and webs needs to be checked by using compactness crite32 ENGINEERING SCIENCES

ria or flat plate buckling checking codes such as DNVRP-C201 [2]. At the last levelbeams and panels shall be checked for their yielding and global buckling strength through steel member design codes and plate panel design codes. For topsides structural strength and code checking using SESAMbecause the whole process is involved with complicated geometrical and mass modelingmany loads and load combinationsand a huge amount of code checking for beams and platesit would be very meaningful to use various in-house computer aided tools to make the whole process more efficient and minimize the possible mistakes. For a few projects the following computer aided tools were made and are found to be very useful a. various SESAM GeniE JScript applications for data importing and exporting between GeniE model and Exceland for other purposesb. GeniE JScript applications and Excel- based VBA for topsides mass modeling based on the weight control database c. GeniE JScript applications for applying wind forces and other static forcesd. Excel- based VBA for generating SESAM Xtract Framework and Platework load combination journal files (.JNL files) based

on the load combination matrix e. Excel- based VBA for extracting forces from SESAM Xtract output files f. Excel- based VBA for generating SESAM XtractFramework and Platework code checking journal files (.JNL files) g. Excel-based VBA for sorting and extracting plate panel stresses from Platework code checking results output files.

8 Fatigue analysis
Offshore structural steel fatigue is caused by oscillating stresses. Since waves as input are random processessteel stresses as output are random processes, too. Any estimated fatigue damage shall be considered as an empirical statistical expectation value because the source is stochastic and the S- N curves are empirical. Commonlythe floating platforms are assumed to be linear systems so that any stress response PSD is just the production of deterministic squared RAO and the input wave PSDwhich forms the basis for many fatigue estimation methods. Steel fatigue damage is determined by the statistical distribution of the stress oscillating range and applicable S- N curve. Fatigue damage can be cumulated through Palmgren-Miner rule. According to stress calculation methods and S- N curve selectionthere are two commonly fatigue life estimation methods as follows [1011]. 1) Nominal stress method. This method is based on nominal stresses from classic beam elements and plate elements without local structural details modeled. The local nominal stresses at the interested spots are estimated by applying a stress concentration factor (SCF) to the nominal stresses SCFs depend on the connection details and can be obtained from code specified values or detailed FEA. Eventually the nominal stress S- N curves and the local nominal stresses are used together to estimate the fatigue life. 2) Hot spot stress method. In order to assess the fatigue life for some complicated details for which it is difficult to select a applicable nominal stress S- N curve and use the nominal stress method the hot spot stress method needs to be used. This method uses the hot spot stress and a compatible S- N curve. The hot spot stress commonly refers to the stress at the toe of weld. For tubular jointsthe hot spot stresses can be obtained through member nominal stresses and SCFsand SCFs can be calculated through Efthymiou formulae. For other jointshot spot stresses are commonly obtained through detailed FEA and stress extrapolation.

Depending on the stress range statistical distributionsthere are the following fatigue analysis categories that have been utilized in the topsides structural fatigue assessment. 1) Deterministic fatigue analysis. In the situation where the cyclic loading can be assumed to be deterministici.e. the loading change ranges and their cycles can be specifiedthe fatigue damage can be simply calculated by the Palmgren-Miner rulewhich refers to the deterministic fatigue analysis. The fatigue induced by crane operational loading is usually assessed through deterministic fatigue analysis. 2) Simplified fatigue analysis. This analysis first assumes that the long- term stress range distribution can be expressed as a two-parameter Weibull distribution. Then the two parameters Weibull shape parameter and scale parameter are calibrated based on a reference design environmental loading condition such as the extreme condition. Finallythe fatigue damage can be estimated through a simple formula based on a proper S- N curve and the largest stress range under the reference design loading condition. Simplified fatigue analysis is often utilized for secondary steel fatigue assessment and fatigue screening. 3) Spectral fatigue analysis. The spectral fatigue analysis defines the long- term stress range distribution through short- term Rayleigh distributions and wave scatter diagrams. By assuming that the shortterm stress range induced by a seastate wave has a Rayleigh distributionthe damage from this seastate wave can be estimated through a closed-form formulathen the total damage from all seastate waves can be accumulated through Palmgren-Miner rule based on seastate probability distribution. The spectral fatigue analysis has been widely utilized in the deepwater floating platform hull and topsides structural fatigue assessment in the detailed engineering stage. 4) Fatigue analysis through time domain simulation. The above mentioned spectral fatigue analysis assumes that the whole floating platform system is linear and the response processes are narrow banded Gaussian stationary processes. Howeverin a situation where the nonlinear and/or low- frequency response components are significant it is not conservative to use spectral fatigue analysis anymore. For this situation a fatigue analysis through time domain simulation may be needed. In this analysis a time history of a seastate wave is first simulated based on its PSD and input into the coupled nonlinear hydrodyVol. 11 No.4 Aug. 2013 33

namic analysis. Thenthe governing response time history is output and its change range distribution can be obtained through the rainflow counting method. Through many such simulations a few equivalent load cases can be determined so that the fatigue damage can be calculated from these loading cases with their numbers of cycles. The fatigue assessment for the connections between spar hull and topsides is sometimes carried out through this time domain simulation method. The use of fatigue analysis methods depends on the specific project. A typical SESAM fatigue analysis procedure for topsides structure is shown in Fig.6.

the same time maintain the structural integrity and meet all the requirements. For this purposeresponsible structural engineers need to completely understand all steps in the structural analysis including modeling loading and code checking. This paper addresses many key aspects of the state- of- the- art topsides in- place structural strength and fatigue analysiswhich helps structural engineers choose the right software determine and apply hydrodynamic loading correctlyand carry out code checking properly. In additionthis paper shows that the whole analysis process can be made more efficiently through various computer aided applications. References
[1] Zhang DagangDeng ZhongchaoYan Fasuo. An introduction to hull design practices for deepwater floating structures [J]. Journal of Marine Science and Application 2009 8(2) 123-131. [2] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- RP- C201 Buckling strength of plated structures [S]. Norway Det Norske Veritas 2010. [3] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- OS- C103 Structural design of column stabilised units (LRFD method) [S]. NorwayDet Norske Veritas 2008. [4] Det Norske Veritas. DNV-RP-C205 Environmental conditions and environmental loads [S]. Norway Det Norske Veritas 2010. [5] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- RP- C103 Column- stabilised units [S]. Norway Det Norske Veritas 2010. [6] American Petroleum Institute. RP 2A-WSD Recommended practice for planningdesigning and constructing fixed offshore platformsWorking stress method (21st edition) [S]. Washington DC American Petroleum Institute 2005. [7] Det Norske Veritas. DNV-OS-C101 Design of offshore steel structures general (LRFD method) [S]. Norway Det Norske Veritas 2011. [8] American Institute of Steel Construction. Steel Construction Manual (13th edition) [M]. Chicago American Institute of Steel Construction 2005. [9] Norsk Sokkels Konkuranseposisjon. N-004 Design of steel structures [S]. Norway NORSOK 2004. [10] Det Norske Veritas. DNV- RP- C203 Fatigue design of offshore steel structures [S]. Norway Det Norske Veritas 2008. [11] American Bureau of Shipping. Guide for the Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures [M]. USAHoustonAmerican Bureau of Shipping 2003.

Fig.6 Typical SESAM fatigue analysis procedure

9 Conclusions
Floating platform topside structure supports lots of heavy equipment and is subjected to substantial environmental loads during its whole life cycletopside steel weight accounts for about 35 % of the total topside operating pay load. It is essential to optimize the structural design reduce the structural weight and at

Author Chen Lizhongmaleborn in 1971obtained his Ph.D. in structural engineering from Texas Tech University. Now he is a registered professional structural engineer in DMAR Engineering Inc. in HoustonTexas. He has published more than 10 papers on structural dynamicswind engineering and stochastic processes. He specializes in floating system structural design and analysis. He can be reached by E-mail lchen@dmar-engr.com

34 ENGINEERING SCIENCES