Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Offshore Rigs?
Dr J. E. Harding, A. Onoufriou and S. K. Tsang
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING, IMPERIALCOLLEGE OF SCIENCEAND TECHNOLOGY,
LONDON
SYNOPSIS
This paper presents a discussion on a literature survey
of collision damage to offshore structures.
It assesses the data and information that are
available and presents views on what should be the
aims of future research.
Results of sample analysis are presented and serve
to indicate the risk associated with the area of
post-damage strength reserve.
INTRODUCTION
The number of platforms being used either for oil
exploration or for producing oil has grown substantially over the last few years both in the North Sea
and other areas of the world. Apart from the daily
risk of collisions from supply boats and other small
craft, large vessels including tankers have increased
dramatically in size and sophistication in recent
times making the risk of a major ship-structure
collision seem inevitable. This paper looks at the
data available on these risks, what is known about
the likely damage caused, and what can be predicted
in terms of subsequent platform performance. It is
essentially a commentary on a literature survey of
the collision field but some new data are presented at
the conclusion of the paper that underline the
potentially catastrophic risk that is being faced.
THE RISKS
When the word platform or rig is mentioned in the
offshore oil context almost all engineers would turn
their mind to the large number of fixed rigs
progressively appearing in the waters off the British
coasts. Again, many engineers are aware that these
platforms are stocky in nature and contain, in
general, multiple redundancies. This in itself
provides a sense of security, as it could be thought
that all but a major collision is unlikely to cause
anything other than element damage and is
extremely unlikely to result in major structure
failure, with resultant loss of the platform and major
potential loss of life. This is, in part, probably
essentially valid. Minor collisions with bracing
members will certainly result in local damage,
denting or bending, but the degree of redundancy
would normally be sufficient to ensure overall
platform stability. But how many braces can be
damaged in this way? Such damage might often go
unrecorded or uninvestigated.
32
~0
o
other
tn
u 30
20
ec
u
:_
~?~ \'~t
10
0
.... .
1aM
\\Xl
ftshing
\11
vessels
1 I 1
tess
101
thon
to
101
200
supply vessels
\ ",,
\
"
201
to
500
\
501 1001 2001 ' 5001 I10001 I o v e r I
to
to
to
to
to
20000
1000 2000 SO00 10000 20000
TYPE OF DAMAGE
In order to predict the effects of a collision between
two bodies, the deformation and energy-absorbing
characteristics of both bodies need to be known.
While limited knowledge is available in this area for
ships, knowledge of the behviour of shell structures
subject to lateral loading of types relevant to
collisions is extremely scarce.
References 6-8 give some information on the
energy absorbed in ship collisions in relation to the
damage volume, and the approaches developed give
reasonable guidance for major impacts. The forces
involved are not, however, predicted and application to small impacts appears to be unreliable.
References 9-11 look at the protection of reactors
in nuclear-powered ships. Two modes of failure are
encountered, deformation failure where decks and
stiffeners buckle over a relatively large area, and
cracking which is much more localised and occurs
when the stiffener or deck spacing decreases. The
last reference demonstrates the feasibility of a
collision protection system.
A paper by Reckling, 2) on ship/ship collisions,
establishes that plastic effects predominate and this
would almost certainly be true in the field of offshore
structures. Estimates of energy absorption are also
made and could provide useful background data to
the problem being discussed.
Other references 3-19) deal primarily with impact
damage to ship structures. All provide useful data on
energy absorption and possible guides to analysis
and experimental techniques that can be applied to
Collisions
offshore structure collision, but provide no directly
usable data on the subject.
It was not until recently that the problem of
impact damage to shell structures has been
addressed. References 20 and 21 and references 1
and 4 deal more specifically with the effects of ship
impact on offshore structures.
Reference 20, for example, looks at the problem
of energy absorption in axially compressed
cylindrical shells struck by bulbous bows. The paper
outlines various buckling modes and relates them to
the successive development of plastic mechanisms.
A series of tests is described and analytical formulae
are used to calculate the energy absorption of the
shells. Agreement is poor, however, and the paper
concludes that special efforts should be made to
study the mechanisms of collapse and the
significance of dynamic effects. It also concludes that
to account for all energy-absorbing components
would make the theoretical models very complex.
Reference 21 assesses methods available for
estimating energy absorption characteristics by
comparison with experiments. A series of tests on
ring-stiffened cylinders under static and dynamic
loading is described. The paper also presents a
simple numerical model for predicting the postdamage strength of bracing elements.
Reference 22 deals with similar topics. It also
studies the effect of velocity on load-carrying
capacity and concludes that velocities of 1-2 m/s will
increase load-carrying capacity by about 10 per cent
compared with static strength.
While reference 1 looks at the impact between
ships and vertical rigid cylindrical columns, the
paper concentrates on the damage to and energy
absorption characteristics of the ships. It also
provides estimates of the forces involved and
indicates that a typical force for a tanker collision
might be in the range of 100-200 MN, while a supply
vessel collision may be one order of magnitude
lower.
Figure 2 gives an example of a calculation of the
force-indentation relationship for a supply vessel
and tanker.
Figure 3 shows the relationship between impact
force and ship displacement, illustrating the
variation with the diameter of the column. Apart
co u m n a i o = f 5 m
250
between
frames ....
UPPLY
VESSEL
40
on
30
o:,o~m
20
co~hspon between
transverse
frames
10
1
3 InOentot=on(m)
100
TANKER
50
&
6 Indentation(m)
(token
Figure 2
tanker
WheoO - -
from tel 1)
33
C o l u m n dia 1.5m
20C
10C
"~ sc
E
- 10
SUPPLY
,~ VESSEL
o
Z
~//
3 4 5
TAN KER
10
20
50
100
200
~__
S h i p d i s p l a c e m e n t l o a d e d (103 t o n )
( t a k e n f r o m ref. t )
34
Displacement
RESIDUAL $'rRENGTH
The question which often requires an answer in the
context of residual strength is whether the damaged
platform is able to sustain the extreme loads to
which it will be subjected after impact. The
secondary question is, what form of repair is needed,
if one is required? It must be remembered that
repairs at sea are often difficult and expensive and
assessment of the need and extent of repair is all
important. Knowledge of the post-damage strength
of the member or platform is of great benefit when
2 m/s
-"
fc
local deformation
10 E
~, ~0
c
0.8"6
~6
o.6~
=
o
O.Z, .
-6 2
_J
INITIAL CONFIGURATION
Figure 5 Example of collapse mechanism of a semisubmersible structure when hit by a collision force at the
middle of a diagonal brace
0-2~_
-
0.1
10
Slope
fc
of force
100
deformation
[MN/m ](taken
fro~
curve
ref. 25 )
Collisions
repairs are being contemplated and is also of the
greatest importance when assessing the need, in the
extreme, for platform abandonment or, for example
in the case of a floating structure, for towing the
platform back to the yard. Decisions may need to be
taken extremely quickly without time for extensive
analysis, so general guidance from existing data
would prove invaluable in this respect.
References concerning this particular subject area
are very sparse indeed. It is only now that a true
understanding of the elasto-plastic behaviour of the
type of shells used in offshore structures is beginning
to develop. The behaviour under complex loading is
still not understood. The complexities, therefore, of
introducing local damage to an individual shell have
only recently been amenable to accurate analysis.
The problem of the global behaviour of a fixed rig
with for example a damaged brace is relatively
simple, providing you assume the brace is missing or
use data, which is available, on the residual member
rigidity. But because of the number of variables
involved, such as member sizes, platform configuration, type of damage, etc., it does not lend itself to
research leading to simple guidance procedures.
Subsequent damaged structure analysis tends to be
more appropriate.
On the element side, for example a large-diameter
stiffened tubular such as the main leg of a floating
platform, the problem does lend itself to parametric
study with varying shell slenderness, stiffener
geometry and dent shape and depth. Nonetheless
virtually no work has been performed in this area at
present. Analysis by the second author of this paper
on local panel denting of a ring-stiffened cylinder
using a large-deflection elasto-plastic finite element
package indicates that dent sizes of only five plate
thicknesses in a cylinder with an R/t of 300 and ring
spacing 0.15R can reduce the axial strength by over
50 per cent. This indicates that the subsequent
strength would probably be insufficient to carry the
extreme environmental loading even if the potential
conservatism of the code rules were realised (the
code rules tend to be a lower bound of cylinder
strength with different imperfections, and a real
structure is likely to fall part way across the strength
scatter band). The dent noted is modest in a cylinder
of such high slenderness, but the latter is typical of
many floating structures. Figure 7 shows the strength
against dent depth relationship for this particular
tube.
Data that are generally available associated with
this problem are included in references 27-31.
References 28-30 deal essentially with the problem
of damaged braces in a comprehensive manner.
Both experimental and analytical approaches are
used. The latter is based on elasto-plastic frame
analysis and it is interesting to note that the former
includes testing full-scale damaged pieces recovered
st,ren.~iOhF
|
yield/
R/t = 300
Ring spacing = 0.15 R
stren(~th[.
I"
k
Imperfection type
dent overal( bulge with
omp[itude eclual to DnV
tolerance.
dent * experimentally
measured imperfections
}~
0.6~ " ~ * i ,
0.4
~,,,~.
~
"
02
2-0
35
4!0
6.0
8!0 101.0
dent depth/thickness
12.0
1/.0
CLANPEDTUBES
08
~-
1"0
0"8
ii~i
PPORTED TUBES
0.4
Oyo.6
0,2
from
~pl L
ret Z5 )
36
CONCLUSIONS
This paper has assessed the amount of information
available in the area of damage to offshore
platforms.
The information indicates that risk of significant
structural damage due to collision is in excess of risks
associated with normal structural design accepted by
codes of practice.
Studies conducted to date have concentrated on
the areas of collision probability and damage
prediction, the latter mainly in the area of energy
and deformation involvement in ship/ship impacts.
The authors believe that the areas of greatest
relevance to practical designers of big structures are
damage control and damage effect. Neither have
received significant attention in the past.
The authors also conclude that there is a
significant difference in the problems associated with
fixed and floating rig structures. The former involve
largely the problem of overall structural redundancy
while the latter is more concerned with main
element response as redundancy is often negligible
in global terms. Specimen results are presented in
the paper that highlight the dangers that exist.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the use of a finite
element package developed at Imperial College by D.
Bates and U. Trueb in the production of the results
shown in Figure 7 of this paper.
REFERENCES
AMDAHL,J. and FURNESS, O. Ship Collisions with Offshore
Platforms. Hamburg: Intermaritec, 1980.
2 The Risk of Ship/Platform Encounter in UK Waters. Report
commissioned by the Department of Energy, Offshore
Energy Technology Board. National Maritime Institute,
R39, 1978.
3 'A Survey of Rig Mishaps.' Offshore, June 1974.
4 FURNESS,O. and AMDAHL,J. 'Computer Simulation Study of
Offshore Collisions and Analysis of Ship-Platform Impacts.'
Applied Ocean Research, 1980, 2, No. 3.
5 MACDUFF,r. 'Probability of Collision, A Note on Encounters
between Ships, Terra Firma and Offshore Structures.'
Fairplay International Shipping Weekly, March 1974.
6 HAGASAWA,H., ARITA,K., TANI, M. and OKA,S. 'A Study on the
Collapse of Ship Structure in Collision with Bridge Piers.'
Transactions of Society of Naval Architects of Japan, 1977,
l
8
9
10
11
12
13
37
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
26
142.
38
Discussion
Design of Circular and Rectangular Hollow Section Columns*
Author's closure to discussion by Rondal and
Maquoit
It is worth emphasizing that the author's paper dealt with
standard rolled hollow sections, the wall-width/thickness
ratios of which preclude local buckling, while the tests at
Liege related to relatively thin walled sections with the
possibility of interaction between local and overall
instability. Clearly, with the plate slenderness adopted in
the tests conducted at Li6ge, the column collapse load
could depend as much on local plate imperfections as on
residual stresses. As far as the author is aware, Braham,
Grimault and Rondal have not given information on local
plate imperfections existing in their test specimens, t22)
Thus, the lower failure loads for stronger axis bending
mentioned by Rondal and Maquoi could well have been
Granada Publishing Limited, PO Box 9, 29 Frogmore, St AIbans, Herts AL2 2NF England. Granada Granada Publishing
Printed in Great Britain by The Leagrave Press Limited, Luton, Beds.