NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

05.2015

Editor: Min Shi

Introduction

About NKIF Norsk Kinesisk Ingeniørforening (NKIF) is a non-profit, professional association dedicated to providing professional networking opportunities and promoting technology application. It is officially founded and registered in Oslo in 2014 and is open to all professions in Oil & Gas, Maritime and other relevant industries. The NKIF members include engineers, professors, research scientists, university postgraduate and undergraduate students etc. from both China and Norway. NKIF is organized by a Board with board members elected every second year by all NKIF individual and corporate members. The board members are unpaid volunteers with supports from all the members. The operation of NKIF will be open and transparent. NKIF is committed to: Promoting the professional network and collaboration both

within NKIF and with other associations Encouraging experience and knowledge sharing Supporting professional development Strengthening cooperation between industries and academia

world widely Being the bridge between the industries in China and Norway

I

NKIF provides: Technical seminar and lectures Career development forum Continuously updated latest industry events Publication of NKIF newsletter NKIF journal with technical and overview articles for relevant

engineering disciplines Posting of job opportunities from NKIF corporate members Benefits as a NKIF Member: Free to all NKIF organized events, e.g. technical

seminars/workshops Free subscription to NKIF newsletters and journals Informed with job opportunities in both Norway and China Expanded professional network towards companies and

engineers

II

Disclaimer

The materials in all the articles have been prepared by the

corresponding authors with the purpose to share general

information among the NKIF members. If you own rights to

any of the materials and do not want them to appear in the

NKIF eJournal, please contact the author or NKIF and they

will be promptly removed.

The views and opinions expressed in the articles are those of

the authors and are not necessarily reflective of NKIF.

Any form of redistribution of the materials in the articles in

NKIF eJournal is not allowed without permission from the

authors and NKIF.

NKIF eJournal Chief Editor

Haifeng Wu

2015.04.30

III

Contents

Introduction ………………………………………………… I

Disclaimer…………………………………………………. III

Marine Structures – From Conventional Ships and Offshore

Oil & Gas Platforms to Recent and Future

Developments………………………………………………. 1

An introduction of Sesam package with its application to

offshore structure design………….………………………..17

Risk based inspection analysis of structures.……………… 23

Arctic Offshore Operation: Challenges and Solutions…..... 37

How well can we predict the loads from ice……………….50

About the authors ………………………………………… 61

IV

1

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Marine Structures – From Conventional Ships and Offshore Oil & Gas Platforms to

Recent and Future Developments

Zhen Gao

Centre for Ships and Ocean Structures, Centre for Autonomous Marine Operations and

Systems and Department of Marine Technology, Norwegian University of Science and

Technology

Introduction

We live on the Earth with our major activities being carried out onshore. Although the oceans

are not suitable for human beings to live in directly, they cover more than 70% of the Earth’s

surface and do provide us the opportunities for sea transportation, exploitation of oil and gas,

production of seafood, utilization of offshore renewable energy, and infrastructure for

recreations. These opportunities are realized through man-made marine structures.

In this article, a brief introduction will be given to the historical development of marine

structures with focus on ships for sea transportation and offshore platforms for exploitation of

subsea oil & gas resources. The focus here are offshore platforms. Recent developments of

offshore renewable energy devices will be discussed, in view of the design challenges and the

needs for accurate numerical models for load and response analysis. The article also provides

an outlook on the concepts of future marine structures with unprecedented designs such as

floating bridges. Marine structures are designed on one hand to fulfil a certain function, and

on the other hand to ensure safety during the life-time operation. Design aspects concerning

safety for ships and offshore platforms will be discussed in detail. The difference between the

traditional ship design method using reference (or mother) ships and the first-principle design

approach for offshore platforms will be emphasized. Design analysis procedures considering

ultimate and fatigue limit states will be explained and in addition, the probabilistic design

approach as well as the principle of accidental limit state design will also be introduced.

Category of marine structures

Ships

Ships have a long history for transportation of materials, goods and passengers and now

become an important component of the world trade. The non-uniform distribution of natural

resources (such as coal, oil and gas, minerals, etc.) around the globe and the uneven use of

these resources in different countries call for an increasing world trade via sea transportation.

Internationalization of the world market and specialization of the manufacturing and

fabrication work encourages such an interconnected world trade network for transportation of

various goods from where they are produced to where they are consumed. Modern ships are

purposely designed and built to carry different types of raw materials and goods in order to

2

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

improve the efficiency and reduce the cost of sea transportation. These include bulk carriers,

oil tankers, LNG tankers, container ships, passenger ships, supply vessels for the offshore oil

& gas industry, war ships, etc. For ships, low resistance in order to limit power consumption

is an important requirement and the overall hull shape is commonly determined by transport

economics. Along with it, there is a significant development of international ports with highly

efficient loading and offloading systems and complex and effective logistics.

Bulk carriers are the most frequently used ships nowadays, making up 40% of the

international fleet and carrying 66% of the world trade. Oil tankers are becoming bigger and

bigger, transporting crude oil from the oil production countries (for example in the Middle

East) to the giant oil consumers (such as US, Japan, China, etc.). In LNG tankers, the gas is

liquefied at low temperature of -163°C and it is challenging to design a proper containment

which carries the fluid loading and yet provides an effective thermal insulation.

In the modern world, the majority of various goods are produced in a few developing

countries (such as China and India) where the labour cost is relatively low and they are

standardized for easy transportation by container ships to the developed countries in the North

America and Europe. Container ships are developed along with the need for distribution of all

kinds of goods to a vast number of end users in the form of standardized containers, which

can also be easily transported by trucks and trains onshore.

Comfortability and functionality with a number of choices of entertainments are the first

important features of a large cruise vessel. The recent trend of an increase in ship size and

cabin capacity demonstrates this. Safety is another crucial factor to consider for such ships

since they normally have a huge number of passengers on board. It is also important to

operate and manoeuvre safely in coastal waters.

Another category of ships are related to supply vessels or purpose-built offshore vessels for

supporting activities for the offshore oil & gas industry, such as transport of equipment and

personnel, vessels for installation of infrastructures (like subsea templates, pipelines and

power cables). These vessels normally have a ship shape, but an important concern is their

dynamic behaviour in waves during the operation at sea.

Oil & gas platforms

Different types of platforms [1] are envisaged (as shown in Figure 1) in the offshore oil & gas

industry at various geographical locations, including the North Sea, the Gulf of Mexico,

Brazil, the West Africa, the Persian Gulf, the Caspian Sea, Asia, etc. These platforms are

either bottom-fixed typically with gravity base or jacket foundations for small or moderate

water depths (up to 200-300m), or floating in deep waters with different hull shapes and

mooring systems, such as semi-submersibles, spars or ship-shaped Floating Production,

Storage and Offloading (FPSOs) with catenary mooring systems or Tension Leg Platforms

(TLPs) with tendons. Floating platforms are categorized based on the way they achieve the

static stability. A spar platform has a low Centre of Gravity (CoG) with heavy ballast at the

3

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

bottom, while a ship-type structure has a very large water-plane area and a semi-submersible

has well separated surface-piercing columns, providing sufficient restoring stiffness in pitch

and roll. TLPs reply on the design with excessive buoyancy of the floater (much larger than

the gravity), leading to a high pre-tension and stiffness in tendons. In recent years, similar

floating structures are proposed for supporting offshore wind turbines.

Figure 1 Offshore oil & gas platforms (1, 2) conventional bottom-fixed platforms; 3)

compliant tower; 4, 5) vertically moored tension leg and mini-tension leg platform; 6) spar; 7,

8) semi-submersibles; 9) floating production, storage, and offloading facility; 10) sub-sea

completion and tie-back to host facility) [1]

Based on the function of an offshore platform, it can be categorized as drilling platform or

production platform. The first type of platforms are required for exploratory drilling to

identify hydrocarbons in the subsea reservoir and therefore need large payload capacity and

deck area for drilling equipment with limited motions and good mobility. Production

platforms carry chemical plants which consist of separators, pumps, etc. and normally are

permanently moored for the production period corresponding to the platform service life.

The vast majority of offshore structures used today are bottom-fixed platforms. As compared

to floating platforms, bottom-fixed ones exhibit apparent advantages of having no rigid-body

motions in particular in heave, which are one of the major concerns for drilling platforms.

However, in deep or ultra-deep waters, floating platforms are inevitably deployed since

bottom-fixed structures for such water depths are too expensive.

Offshore renewable energy devices

Utilization of offshore renewable energy for electricity generation has a relatively short

history. During the oil crisis in late 70s, there were intensive pioneering research activities on

developing the technologies to utilize offshore renewable energy, in particular wave energy.

However, it did not result into a commercial development of wave energy technology. Since

90s, there is a significant development on offshore wind technology due to the success of the

4

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

onshore wind industry. Recently, there is an increasing interest in offshore renewable energy,

including offshore wind, wave and marine current (tidal and ocean current) energy. Nowadays,

offshore wind technology is by far the most developed technology, while both the wave and

marine current energy have not been developed into a fully commercial stage. The discussion

here will focus on offshore wind turbines and wave energy converters.

According to the types of foundations, offshore wind turbines may have bottom-fixed support

structures (such as monopile, gravity base, tripod or jacket) or floating support structures

(such as TLP, semi-submersible or spar), as shown in Figure 2. All of these structures support

a three-blade horizontal axis wind turbine (with variable speed and pitch control), which is

more or less standardized based on the development of the onshore wind industry. Vertical

axis wind turbine (which has a less power absorption coefficient) has not been widely used

onshore, but recently received a particular attention for floating concepts due to its advantages

of low CoG and independence of wind direction.

Figure 2 Bottom-fixed and floating wind turbine concepts [2]

As mentioned above, these concepts are ‘borrowed’ from the offshore oil & gas industry. The

experiences from both the onshore wind industry and the oil & gas industry have led to a

rapid development of offshore wind technology in particular floating wind technology in

recent years. Figure 3 shows three prototypes of floating wind turbines (one on spar and the

other two on semi-submersible floaters). However, it should be noted that most of the wind

turbines installed in the commercial offshore wind farms today are bottom-fixed monopile

and jacket wind turbines. The choice of foundations are mainly determined by the

consideration of cost. Floating wind turbines are not economically feasible for small water

depths (say less than 50-100m). In some parts of the world (such as Japan, Scotland, east

coast of US, South China Sea), the large water depth calls for floating wind turbine concepts.

5

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 3 Prototypes of floating wind turbines (left: Hywind [3]; middle: WindFloat [4];

right: Fukushima semi-submersible [5])

Although the wave power density is larger than that of the wind power, it is much more

difficult to convert wave power into electricity in particular at a commercial scale. In contrast

to wind and tidal energy, wave energy converters span a wide range of different concepts with

over a hundred different designs being proposed over the years, many of which are under the

active development. This might be one of the reasons that the wave energy technology has not

been commercialized since the research efforts have not been concentrated on one particular

technology.

According to the working principle, these devices can be classified into three main categories

[6], namely oscillating water column, oscillating bodies and overtopping, as shown in Figure

4. Many concepts have been developed into prototypes, such as Pelamis, WaveBob, Pico and

WaveDragon, as shown in Figures 5 and 6.

As we can see, compared to floating offshore oil & gas platforms, wave energy converters

may have a very different shape of floaters, which is a direct result of functionality

requirement of wave power absorption. In addition, the concept of oscillating bodies

maximizes the motions by resonance in waves and therefore the wave power absorption. On

the other hand, the structural responses will also be larger due to the resonant motions. This is

contradictory to the design principle to minimize the motions for offshore floating oil & gas

platforms. As a result, it will be more challenging to ensure the structural integrity for a wave

energy converter, although most of the research today still focuses on power maximization.

6

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 4: Wave energy technology classification [6]

Figure 5 Pelamis (left) [7] and WaveBob (right) [8]

7

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 6 Pico (left) [9] and WaveDragon (right) [10]

Floating bridges

Recently, the Norwegian Public Roads Administration has initiated a study on the potential to

replace ferries with fjord crossing concepts (bridges or tunnels) along the E39 route between

Kristiansand and Trondheim. The Sognefjord, which is about 4km wide and up to 1300m

deep, is the pilot site among the seven fjords for developing such concepts. Floating

suspension bridge concept (as shown in Figure 7) and submerged floating tunnel concept (as

shown in Figure 8) were proposed by different research institutes and industry companies.

The fjord width of 4km does not allow a suspension bridge with a single span. Therefore, the

design in Figure 7 considers two towers, sitting on floaters (rather than on the sea bed) in the

fjord with a depth of 1300m. The floaters are then moored to the sea bed by mooring lines.

Two additional bottom-fixed towers are placed close to the shore. The long span of the bridge

and the floating support structures present unique challenges for design in particular under the

simultaneous wave and wind loads.

The submerged floating tunnel concept in Figure 8 consists of two tunnels submerged in the

water and interconnected by cross tubes, and many surface floaters to support the submerged

tunnels and to provide vertical stiffness to ensure the rigidity of the complete system. The

non-homogeneous wave and current loads on the tunnels and the floaters might excite both

vertical and horizontal eigenmodes of the structure and are particularly difficult to model.

So far, these are just concepts that could be used for fjord crossings, but they represent a very

different marine infrastructure as compared to an offshore oil & gas platform. More research

and engineering efforts are required to build, install and operate such floating bridges.

8

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 7 Floating bridge concept [11]

Figure 8 Submerged floating tunnel concept [11]

Design principle, criteria and approaches

9

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Traditionally, conventional ships are designed based on empiricism, using reference ships (or

mother ships) and prescriptive ‘rule-book’ approaches. Such approaches were developed

gradually in the long history of ship technology and have been very useful and efficient to

extrapolate existing ship designs in small steps to those with larger dimensions, during the

years when direct calculation of loads/load effects and structural strength were not feasible.

However, new hydrodynamic or structural phenomena experienced by large ships or new

types of ships call for a different and a more rational approach for design by first principles

using analysis. The development of fundamental theory in hydrodynamics and structural

mechanics and dynamics, numerical analysis methods as well as computer science and

technology in recent decades enable the development and the application of first-principle

design approaches. Moreover, such approaches were practiced along the development of

offshore platforms for the oil & gas industry for which there were no experiences at all in its

early days.

Design based on first principles

Design by first principles requires explicit criteria for serviceability and safety. The most

important safety requirements for ships and floating platforms refer to avoidance of capsizing

or sinking and structural failure, which otherwise will occur and lead to catastrophic

consequences with fatalities, pollution or loss of property.

Static stability of a floating system is achieved by sufficient restoring stiffness against heeling

or tilting under mean external environmental (wind, wave and current) loads. This can be

realized by a proper design of centers of gravity and buoyancy, water-plane area of the floater

or mooring system. Typically, both intact and damage stability criteria need to be satisfied for

offshore oil & gas platforms. For floating wind turbines, the mean thrust force acting on the

wind turbine rotor will induce a significant overturning moment and it also varies as function

of mean wind speed with a maximum occurring at the rated wind speed. The design of the

floater needs take due consideration of this unique feature. However, the damage stability

criteria might not be necessary for floating wind turbines since the consequences of such

failure will normally only be loss of property. Stability check is not only applicable to floating

systems during normal operations, but also during temporary phases of transport and

installation. For example, a tension-leg platform is normally freely floating, possibly

supported with extra buoyancy during transport, while it has excessive buoyancy and a pre-

tensioned mooring system for normal operations. For bottom-fixed structures, like monopiles

and jackets, the overall stability is replaced by a strength criterion of the foundations (piles or

buckets), involving soil-structure interaction.

Structural safety is ensured in terms of load effects and strength depending upon relevant

failure modes. For marine structures, limit state criteria include ultimate limit state (ULS),

fatigue limit state (FLS) as well as accidental limit state (ALS). The ULS design ensures that

the extreme structural response (in a wider sense the extreme load effect) is smaller than the

10

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

ultimate strength of the component or the system. The failure modes considered are buckling

and yielding. In design codes, a load factor resistance design (LFRD) format is typically used

with both a load factor and a material factor to take into account the uncertainties in the

estimations of load effect and structural strength, respectively. A different set of the two

safety factors represents a different safety level, for example a different annual failure

probability. In a FLS design check, the life-time fatigue damage should be smaller than the

allowable fatigue damage, which are determined considering the consequences of such fatigue

failure and the access for inspection and repair of the potential fatigue cracks. Most of the

codes today still use the SN-curve approach for fatigue design. The fracture mechanics

approach is applied in connection with crack inspection planning, but it still has a big

uncertainty in modeling of crack initiation and propagation in real conditions. ALS criteria

deal with the design concerns for marine structures under abnormal loads, such as ship

collision, fire and explosion, loss of one mooring line, etc.

An important step in design of marine structures is to predict the structural responses under

the external environmental loads. Certainly, wave loads are of primary concern. Floating

structures are highly dynamical systems and need to be designed with a good dynamic

performance in waves. That means the rigid-body motions should be minimized and in

particular, a floating system should avoid resonant motions due to the first-order wave loads.

Otherwise, excessive motions and the associated inertial loads will lead to too large structural

responses and expensive designs. Therefore, the natural periods of rigid-body motions should

be designed outside the period range of main wave conditions, typically 5-25s. Two different

solutions are envisaged, one with semi-submersibles or spars and soft mooring systems to

have natural periods larger than 25s, and the other with TLPs and tendons to have natural

periods of the vertical motion modes (heave, pitch and roll) less than 5s. However, second-

order (or even higher-order) wave loads will excite these resonant motions, but the magnitude

of the induced responses are much lower. As mentioned above, some wave energy concepts

utilize the wave-induced resonant motions to maximize the power absorption and accordingly

become expensive due to the large structural responses. A tradeoff between the power and the

cost needs to be found for such systems.

Motion characteristics are not explicit safety criteria for design of marine structures.

Eventually, one needs to estimate the structural responses (at a stress level) in order to do a

design check. This requires analysis methods to predict hydrodynamic loads, to perform

motion response analysis and to do structural response calculation. Such design analysis is

normally performed using numerical methods and numerical models for load prediction and

response analysis. More and more, time-domain simulations are applied in which nonlinear

external loads can be modeled and the coupling between the responses induced by different

sources of loading can be included. Figure 9 shows the complexity of external loadings that a

TLP floating wind turbine might experience. In particular, both wind and wave loads might be

nonlinear and coupled to the induced motion and structural responses, and in addition the

wind turbine automatic control is typically applied in the time domain. The floating structure

and certainly the wind turbine rotor exhibit geometrical nonlinearities with large rigid-body

11

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

motions or deformations. These call for a nonlinear time-domain formulation of the dynamic

problem.

Figure 9 External loads on a TLP floating wind turbine [12]

From the structural response point of view, besides the quasi-static wind- and wave-induced

responses, responses of floating structures are typically governed by resonant rigid-body

motions and/or structural vibrations. Under such conditions, the damping from various

sources or mechanisms is crucial since the inertia loads cancel the restoring forces at the

resonance, and the damping forces are only the parameter that determines the response level

under the given excitations. An accurate estimation of the damping effect (for example soil

damping or structural damping) is difficult and requires further research efforts. Damping

cannot be measured directly and this adds another difficulty in the experimental study on

damping. On the other hand, the aerodynamic, hydrodynamic, structural or soil damping

effect strongly depends on the motion or vibration modes of the structure. This is a principle

that has been used in some of the active damping devices which are typically placed at the

position with a maximum displacement of a certain mode.

Structural analysis for design checks

Structural design of floating platforms can be broken down in two fundamental levels: local

strength and global strength, considering local loading and global loading, respectively. For

12

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

example, in a semi-submersible floating platform with braces, the dimension of the columns

or pontoons are determined by a local strength check, while the size of connecting braces are

decided from a global analysis, in which the global loads on the columns or pontoons are

balanced by the cross-sectional forces/moments in the braces.

Global strength check uses a stress-based, rational analysis to examine the entire structure as a

space frame for example for a semi-submersible with braces or, in the case of a spar, as a

single slender beam. Structural response analysis is based on the force and moment

equilibriums of the floater considering the distributed gravity/buoyancy loading, the external

loading from wind, current and waves, as well as the inertial forces due to platform motions

and the reaction forces from mooring lines and tendons. Local structural design check is

mostly based on empirical, classification rules (similar to those for ship structures) and

gravity/buoyancy loading. Loading on the floating structures is generally expressed as an

equivalent hydrostatic head.

Typically, the governing load cases for offshore platforms are related to the normal

operational cases, but in some cases, the loading in the transient phases (such as transportation

or upending of a spar) might be governing. Floating oil & gas platforms are wave-load

dominated, and the responses normally increase with the severity of wave conditions.

Therefore, the ultimate loads and load effects are related to the extreme design wave

conditions. A contour line (or surface) method with a certain correction factor might be used

to predict the long-term extreme responses. However, for offshore wind turbines dominated

by wind loads, the rotor is parked during the extreme wind conditions to reduce the

aerodynamic loads and the governing wind loads might be associated with a lower wind speed

around the rated value. Similar considerations are made for wave energy converters. It is then

important to notice that the design loads for these structures should be determined taking due

considerations of operational limits and survivability adjustments.

In recent decades, finite element (FE) and multi-body dynamics methods have been widely

used in static and dynamic analyses for design of marine structures. Such analysis includes

both analysis of structural responses under external environmental loads and analysis to

determine the ultimate strength of structures. As mentioned, both global and local analyses

can be performed using FE methods, see Figure 10. For FLS design checks, FE methods with

refined meshes (in the order of thickness by thickness for shell meshes) are also used for

determining the stress concentration factors (SCFs) via a linear structural analysis. Nonlinear

finite element analysis is normally performed for ultimate strength (for example buckling

strength) analysis of marine structures’ components or systems. For designs considering ALS

load conditions involving collision, fire and explosion, time-domain nonlinear finite element

analysis has to be applied.

13

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 10 FE models of marine structures (from left: a global semi-submersible model; a

global catamaran model; a refined column-brace model) [13]

To achieve safety, it is crucial to avoid errors in design, fabrication and operation. The design

phase is the most important phase from a life cycle perspective, since most of the important

decisions are made during this phase, regarding fabrication method, serviceability during

operation and safety during operation. Offshore oil & gas platforms are normally one of its

kind and prototype testing of such system is not practical. Due to the complexity, numerical

analysis using validated tools is crucial for design assessment. Numerical methods and codes

have been developed and validated against lab and field measurements and used for design

checks. For offshore renewable energy devices, one has to take into account the advantage of

mass production or mass installation in order to reduce the capital cost and therefore the cost

of energy.

Ships and offshore platforms are traditionally and probably will be steel structures in the

future. In particular, high tensile steel (HTS) has been widely used now and led to a reduction

of the required structural dimensions. However, from a material strength point of view, the

fatigue property of such steel has not been improved and the fatigue problem becomes more

and more important for design assessment. A better understanding of the development of

fatigue cracks into fracture is of concern. This is an issue especially relevant in view of

conversions for other use, and extended service life of existing marine structures. On the other

hand, recent development in the welding technology has significantly improved the welding

quality and therefore the fatigue strength of marine structures. Materials technology has

enabled the development of innovative marine structures. For example, aluminium, titanium

and fibre-reinforced plastics have been used in high-speed/passenger vessels for which light

weight and high strength are important concerns.

Probabilistic design of marine structures

Marine structures are subjected to environmental loads from wind, waves and current, which

are of stochastic nature. The fabrication process, although highly automated today, introduces

a variation in the strength property of fabricated structures. Numerical methods or models

used to determine the loads/load effects as well as the strength of marine structures are not

perfect. Therefore, design of marine structures needs to consider these uncertainties and the

14

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

design codes should reflect them in the specified safety factors in the corresponding design

format.

In connection with a ULS design, a more relevant question is what will be the life-time

extreme response, rather than when the extreme response will occur. On the other hand, based

on the technology today, we are not able to predict the exact time series of environmental

conditions and therefore structural responses in the order of the life-time (20-50 years) of

marine structures. Statistical assessment is therefore needed. In general, this requires a

probabilistic rather than a deterministic assessment of load effects and structural strength.

The overall aim of structural design should be to reach an agreed acceptable safety level (for

example a target annual failure probability) by appropriate probabilistic definitions of

loads/load effects, and strength (or resistance) as well as safety factors. Such criteria should

be verified by reliability and risk approaches. Typically, a target annual failure probability of

10^-4 or 10^-5 depending on the consequences of the failure is considered for ULS and ALS

design of marine structures and 10^-3 or 10^-5 for FLS design. A higher safety factor would

imply a lower annual failure probability. In other words, the safety factors should be

calibrated by structural reliability analysis to reflect a target safety level. A higher safety

factor also means a more conservative and therefore costly design. Safety factors should be

specified differently for oil & gas platforms with failures leading to severe consequences

(such as fatalities, pollution and/or loss of property) and for offshore renewable energy

devices with loss of property as the major consequence. For offshore renewable energy

devices, cost reduction is the most important consideration for commercial development and

this requires more accurate numerical methods and models in order to reduce the uncertainties

associated with the prediction of load effects and to achieve a cost-effective design.

Design based on a design format with the above-mentioned safety factors is called a semi-

probabilistic design approach, and it is widely used now in the design of offshore platforms. A

complete probabilistic design requires an explicit assessment of the uncertainties in the

modeling of environmental conditions, external loads, motion and structural responses, as

well as structural strength and a direct calculation of the failure probability (typically

represented as annual failure probability) of a limit state function. Such limit state function is

based on a load effect-resistance formulation and corresponds to a certain failure mode (for

example due to ultimate load or fatigue load).

The theory of structural reliability has been well developed and it has been also used for

design of civil structures, such as buildings, bridges, etc. The most important work for

different applications are related to the uncertainty modeling and quantification. This is an

area requires further research efforts. Normally, the uncertainties associated with the load

effect prediction are much larger than those in the strength. In particular, the uncertainties

related to the environmental conditions require a collection of relevant wind, wave and

current data for a long-term period, either based on field measurements or hindcast numerical

models. To obtain an explicit safety measure for structures, the model uncertainty of the

15

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

relevant calculation method should be determined. The possible statistical error due to

limiting sampling size in time domain analyses should also be assessed.

Concluding remarks

Marine structures have been developed for the need of mankind for sea transportation,

exploitation of oil and gas, utilization of offshore renewable energy and will be further

developed in view of other use of the ocean space, such as production of seafood and

infrastructure for recreations. Along with these opportunities that the oceans provide to us,

there are still many technological challenges that we need to overcome for the development of

future marine structures.

Ships have a long history of development and design of ships have been mainly rule-based.

Offshore oil & gas platforms are normally designed based on first principles through direction

analysis which is enabled by the fast development of the computer science and technology, as

well as the numerical methods and codes. The rapid development of offshore renewable

energy devices in recent years benefits from such design principles and approaches. It can be

foreseen that a rational design approach for future marine structures should be based on [13]:

- Goal-setting; not prescriptive

- Probabilistic; not deterministic

- First principles; not purely experimental

- Integrated total; not separately

- Balance of safety elements; not hardware.

References

[1] Office of Ocean Exploration and Research (2008). Types of Offshore Oil and Gas

Structures. NOAA Ocean Explorer: Expedition to the Deep Slope. National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration.

[2] De Vries, W.E., van der Tempel, J., Carstens, H., Argyriadis, K., Passon, P., Camp, T. &

Cutts, R. (2010). Assessment of Bottom-mounted Support Structure Types with Conventional

Design Stiffness and Installation Techniques for Typical Deep Water Sites. Deliverable

D4.2.1 (WP4: Offshore Foundations and Support Structures), Project UpWind EU.

[3] Statoil (2015).

http://www.statoil.com/en/TechnologyInnovation/NewEnergy/RenewablePowerProduction/O

ffshore/Hywind/Pages/HywindPuttingWindPowerToTheTest.aspx?redirectShortUrl=http%3a

%2f%2fwww.statoil.com%2fhywind

[4] Principle Power (2015). http://www.principlepowerinc.com/products/windfloat.html

16

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

[5] FOWC (2013). Fukushima Floating Offshore Wind Farm Demonstration Project

(Fukushima FORWARD) – Construction of Phase I. Fukushima Offshore Wind Consortium.

[6] Falcão, A. F. O. (2010). Wave Energy Utilization: A Review of the Technologies.

Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 14 (3): 899-918.

[7] Pelamis (2015). https://www.youtube.com/user/PelamisWavePower

[8] WaveBob (2015). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hGoDXCyr54

[9] Pico (2015). http://www.pico-owc.net/

[10] WaveDragon (2015). http://www.wavedragon.net/

[11] Ferjefri E39 Project (2015).

http://www.vegvesen.no/Vegprosjekter/ferjefriE39/English/Fjordcrossings

[12] Butterfield, S., Musial, W., Jonkman, J. & Sclavounos, P. (2005). Engineering

Challenges for Floating Offshore Wind Turbines. In: Proceedings of the 2005 Copenhagen

Offshore Wind Conference, October 26-28, Copenhagen, Denmark.

[13] Moan, T. (2003). Marine Structures for the Future. Presentation for the Inaugural Keppel

Lecture held at the National University of Singapore on July 18, 2003.

17

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

An introduction of Sesam package with its application to offshore

structure design

Zhiyuan Pan

DNV GL

1. History

Sesam (Super Element Structural Analysis Modules) has a history that began with the

discovery of oil in the North Sea and with the first advances in computer technology in the

1960s. Created as a joint research project between Det Norske Veritas and the Norwegian

University of Science and Technology in Trondheim, it was the first software for structural

analysis of maritime and offshore structures based on the revolutionary finite element (FE)

methodology previously used in the aerospace industry. Since 1969, Sesam has been owned

and developed by DNV (DNV GL now). Over the last 45 years, the FE methodology in its

first version has been maintained and developed, serving as the central role in Sesam program

family.

Fig. 1. The 472 meter-height GBS platform Troll A with it Sesam FE model

18

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

In 1980’s, there were extensive activities in development of the Sesam package. The graphic

user interface for displaying and modelling was brought in. Moreover, the package as a whole

became versatile, such that it can be applied to all kinds of ships and offshore structures (GBS,

Jacket, FPSO and Semi-submersible) with more modules introduced. Among them, the wave

load analysis programs are crucial with the offshore structure going into deeper water.

During 1990’s, the development of new generation of Sesam was initiated. “Concept

modelling” was introduced in FE modelling tool GeniE. The users do not need to make very

single element as in the old days. With the concept model and properties assigned, the FE

model can be generated by a single click of keyboard. With the same concept model retained

for different purpose (global or local structure analysis, hydrodynamic analysis), more effort

can be paid to the analysis and design work, as the most engineer would like to experience.

The leading position in the offshore structure design market had been secured by the

integrated programs GeniE, HydroD and DeepC, where an increased focus was paid on

advanced 3D visualization, user-friendliness, the interaction with the background solvers are

controlled in a straightforward manner.

Today, Sesam is owned and marketed by DNV GL Software. There are hundreds of world-

wide users including the major shipyards, oil and marine & offshore design companies. With

the income re-invested into development, more cutting-edge and market required features are

in their way into the Sesam package.

2. SESAM as a family

Fig. 2. Family picture of Sesam

19

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

SESAM package includes dozens of modules, which can be classified roughly into four

groups: 1) preprocessing which make or refine analysis models, 2) motions and/or

environmental loads solvers for large volume and/or frame structures, 3) linear/nonlinear

structural analysis solvers, 4) post-processing tools, see Fig.2. Some of them have their own

user interface, whereas others are pure background solvers. These modules are communicating

with each other through the unique data storage format called “Sesam interface file”. Each

module can make its single step in the whole analysis loop, without knowing how its input

files are prepared or how its output files will be handled, as long as they are following the

same format. Such a common data format makes the Sesam package easy to be extended or

ported. With some moderate effort in adopting its I/O format, a new program can easily

position itself in the family. Among these Sesam modules, there are some 3rd

part tools, such

as Patran-pre and Xtract. Moreover, the cooperation with Marintek had brought in Mimosa,

Simo, Riflex for analysis with mooring lineas and Usfos for pushing over analysis for Jackets.

Over years, new modules enter into Sesam family, while some out-of-date modules are

replaced or quietly passing away. As the outcome of the collaboration with universities, the

core part of the FE analysis methodology in Sesam first version can still be found in the FE

solver, Sestra. The main hydrodynamic analysis program Wadam and Wasim are originated

from the academic research activities in Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). Such

cooperation with universities and other 3rd

parties are still ongoing and it keeps Sesam as a

whole package alive and in the front of the market.

Using Sesam for structural design will in practical involve many modules. Managing input

and output files for all analysis steps could be challenging without any help. Integrated

program environment are provided which can facilitate users in their interacting with the

functioning modules. Today, the end users always relate Sesam to these integrated programs

GeniE, HydroD and DeepC with their application in FE modelling and structural analysis,

hydrodynamics and stability analysis, as well as mooring and coupled analysis of deep water

systems. In case where the analysis covers many territories, it is possible to manage the whole

analysis workflow by using Sesam manager. With all relevant controlling parameters to each

involved module are scripted and the entire process is kept in a clean way in Sesam Manager,

it is possible to have the whole design loop automated or re-established after modification in

one or several steps.

3. Application in offshore structure analysis

Different from ship hull structure design for oil tanker or bulk carriers, where the rule based

loading conditions are given in prior, offshore floaters vary from one to the other, so that

direct wave load analysis is always required. The accurate wave load & global response

computation and load transfer is crucial to the structural design.

To start with the hydrodynamic analysis, the equilibrium position should be found where the

buoyancy force is balanced with the gravity force plus the static pretention forces from the

mooring system. Two types of hydrodynamics analysis can be offered from SESAM: the

20

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

linear frequency domain analysis which can be used for short term or long term statistics

analysis (to find extremes, or for a stochastic fatigue check), or the time domain analysis

where current or forward speed can be accounted together with nonlinear effects. In the

frequency domain analysis, the dynamic forces shall be computed for a group of regular wave

conditions with a combination of wave periods and directions which cover the major

environmental and operational conditions of the offshore unit in question. The nonlinear time

domain analysis is normally used to evaluate the most critical states where the extremes (for

motions, sectional loads or local pressure) are found. The deviations from the linear analysis

shall be illustrated. The following dynamic loads shall be considered: inertial forces, wave

pressure acting on wet-hull, line loads on Morison beams and point loads from the mooring

systems. All these loads should be in balance in the quasi-static condition for FE analysis.

Fig. 3. Computational structual analysis workflow chart

In general, 3 types of material failure of the hull structure, yielding, buckling and fatigue, shall

be considered covering the whole life cycle of the offshore structure in question. The yielding

21

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

and buckling can be found in the Ultimate Limit State (ULS), where a group of design wave

loading condition shall be applied. In each of these conditions, a design wave is determined by

the long term statistics of a design criterion, such as sectional loads, accelerations and local

pressures. The Fatigue Limit State (FLS) assessment is based on complex stress transfer

functions established through direct wave load calculations combined with subsequent stress

response analyses. It is recommended to carry out a fatigue screening analysis on the global

structure model and a group of local models with refined mesh. It should be noted that the

same hydrodynamic analysis can be applied for both global structure and local models with

automatic load transfer. Moreover, the local fine mesh model does not need to be redefined in

global model, but can be modelled separately. A mapping process can be utilized to find the

deformation of the global model and apply as the boundary constrains to the local model. The

workflow of the ULS and FLS check on an offshore structure is illustrated in Fig. 3, where

each analysis step involves at least one Sesam module. Such a practice can be found in many

DNV codes or guidelines for offshore structure strength assessment.

Tab. 1 shows the modules used in the workflow in Fig. 3 with handling of the input and/or

output files. The modules found their position also in Fig. 2. Here, the super element number 1

corresponds to the global structure model, and 10 for the local structure model. The

numbering used here is just an instance, and could be different from case to case. All types of

input or output files involved, which are following the Sesam interface file format, are

illustrated with the table.

Sesam

Module

Application Input Output

GeniE FE Modelling T1.FEM

T10.FEM

HydroD/

Wadam

Global motion, ULS Loads, FLS

Loads to global model

T2.FEM T1.FEM

G1.SIF,L1.FEM,S1.FE

M

FLS Loads to local model T2.FEM T10.FEM L10.FEM,S10.FEM

Sestra FE analysis of global model T1.FEM, L1.FEM,

S1.FEM,

R1.SIN

FE analysis of local model T10.FEM, L10.FEM,

S10.FEM

R10.SIN

Cutres Sectional loads verification R1.SIN

Submod Setup boundary condition for sub-

model structure from the global

analysis result

R1.SIN, T10.FEM T10.FEM

Stofat Stochastic fatigue &

long term stress level

R1.FEM, R10.FEM

Postresp Short term/long term statistics G1.SIF

Xtract General graphical post-processing T#.FEM, G1.SIF,

L#.FEM, R#.SIN,

Tab. 1. Sesam modules usage with input & output files

22

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

T1.FEM: Global structure model

T2.FEM: Panel model

T10.FEM : Sub structure model

G1.SIF: Contains the global response analysis results

L#.FEM: Contains the hydrodynamic and inertial loading

R#.SIN: FE analysis result with stresses and deformation

4. Future

In recent years, to pave the way for the future, major efforts from DNV GL Software have

been paid, among which a couple of these activities can be highlighted as follows. First, the

infrastructure of the source codes is rebuilt to make Sesam more extensible and portable. To

name a few advantages, we could easily to port the application to new platform like Android,

or could for instance have the possibility to get the analysis job done on web-based application,

and have the model or the result stored in cloud, instead of offering Sesam as a product which

is normally to be installed with a CD into a desktop. Moreover, the size of the computational

model increases with the rapid development of the PC hardware. Transporting data between

modules using the interface file in the old way for large models could be very time-consuming.

Investigation has been carried out to make each SESAM modules as in-core services having

the common access to the computational data, so that writing and reading data files will be not

necessary. For example, meshing and re-meshing could be done with the storage of the model

file in memory, and the FE solver could be called directly with the access to the mesh data.

Sesam as a package has been undergone three major campaigns of development and moving

from different generations of computational platforms. Today, it is regarded as the most

comprehensive software solution for offshore structure design. It will continue to keep track

on the development of the best engineering practices of DNV GL in maritime and offshore

industries, and offers the best part of them to our world-wide users.

23

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

RISK BASED INSPECTION ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

WenBin Dong

DNV GL

ABSTRACT Offshore structures are subjected to environmental loads due to waves, current and wind, as

well as the effect of corrosion from salt water, and in some cases floating ice. In order to

maintain safety of offshore structures in service life with respect to fatigue, wear and other

deterioration phenomena especially, inspection, monitoring and repair are important measures. In

this paper the motivation of Risk Based Inspection planning is described. Operational

experiences with respect to degradation of various types of offshore structures are summarized.

The basic methodology and useful guidelines are introduced.

1. INTRODUCTION

Oil and gas are the dominant sources of energy in the world. Twenty percent of these

hydrocarbons are recovered from offshore. Various kinds of platforms are designed and used to

support exploratory drilling equipment, and the chemical (production) plants required to process

the hydrocarbons, see Figure 1. Safety is a significant challenge for offshore structures due to the

harsh ocean environment and the fire and explosion risk associated with hydrocarbons. Fatigue is

an important consideration for structures in areas with more or less continuous storm loading,

such as offshore structures in the North Sea and ships in worldwide operation, and especially for

dynamically sensitive structures and welded joints with high stress concentration [1]. The first

rules for offshore structures appeared around 1970 and included fatigue requirements, which

were later refined, especially after the fatigue-induced total losses of the jack-up Ranger I and

semisubmersible Alexander L. Kielland in 1979 and 1980, respectively [1]. Corrosion is another

important strength degradation phenomenon widely existed in the offshore structures due to the

effect of harsh environment, which is normally treated in the design by providing a corrosion

protection (e.g. coating protection) and a thickness allowance. In order to maintain safety of

offshore structures in service life with respect to fatigue, corrosion and other deterioration

phenomena especially, Inspection, Monitoring and Maintenance and Repair (IMMR) are

important measures. IMMR are increasingly focused on fatigue and other degradation

phenomena in the last 20 to 25 years. In order to optimize IMMR plan, risk based inspection

planning (RBI) for offshore structures is developed as a systematic, qualitative and quantitative

approach which combines theoretical models, test results and in-service experiences, e.g. the RBI

methodology developed by DNV GL. The method is specially developed for offshore structures

such as:

24

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

● Jacket ● TLP

● FPSO ● Deep Draft Floaters

● Jack-up ● Semi-submersible

● Concrete GBS ● Subsea template

In this paper the motivation of RBI analysis for different offshore structures is presented.

Operational experiences with respect to fatigue degradation are summarized. The basic work

principle of the approach and useful guidelines are introduced.

Figure 1 Selected offshore platforms

Jacket

(http://www.scivita.com/)

Jack-up

(http://www.saff-rosemond.com/)

Concrete GBS

(http://www.arcmachines.com/)

Semi-submersible

(http://www.basstech.se/)

TLP

(http://www.marinetechnology.mobi/)

FPSO

(http://www.offshore-technology.com/)

25

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

2. CHARACTERISTIC FEATURES OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

Various types of platforms are applied in the offshore oil and gas industry, as presented in Figure

1. Their main function is to provide support of facilities for drilling operation or the oil and gas

production. While drilling units have to be designed to be mobile and appear as ships, semi-

submersibles and other shapes, production platforms will be located permanently on a site and

involve jackets, guyed tower, tension-leg platforms (TLPs), semi-submersibles and other types

[1]. While jackets consist of relatively slender tubular members, ships are composed of stiffened

panels. Semi-submersibles may consist of stiffened flat or curved panels and some slender

tubular braces.

2.1 LIMIT STATES

Design criteria for offshore structures are based on limit state formulations and semi-

probabilistic design principles, see e.g. ISO 19900[2] and NORSOK N-001[3]. The relevant limit

states are summarized in Table 1[1].

Table 1 Safety criteria.

Limited states Description Remarks

Ultimate (ULS) Overall “rigid body” stability

Ultimate strength of structure,

mooring or possible

foundation

Different types of criteria

apply

Component design check

Fatigue (FLS) Failure of (welded) joints Component design check

depending on residual system

strength after fatigue failure

Accidental collapse (ALS) Ultimate capacity1 of damaged

structure (due to fabrication

defects or accidental loads) or

operational error

System design check

1 Capacity to resist “rigid body” instability or total structural failure.

2.1.1 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE

ULS criteria for overall stability of bottom-fixed structures are based on overturning forces due

to wave, current and wind and stabilizing forces due to permanent and variable payloads.

Stability of floating structures is analyzed in terms of overturning moment by wind only, and

uprighting moment due to the hydrostatic pressure on the inclined body [4].

Load effects (member and joint forces) due to permanent and variable deck loads as well as wave

and current loads, are usually used to check the ultimate structural strength of marine structures,

which are obtained by a linear global analysis. Stiffened flat panels and cylindrical shells are

commonly used in offshore structures. Ultimate strength formulations for such components are

traditionally obtained from strength of material formulations and substantiated by extensive test

26

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

results. However, direct ultimate strength analysis, using finite element methods and accounting

for nonlinear geometric and material effects are being used together for design. Usually

acceptable safety is achieved by designing individual platform components based on

characteristic values of load effects and resistances, and appropriate partial safety factors.

2.1.2 FATIGUE LIMIT STATE

Fatigue criteria have been originally considered for fixed offshore platforms sincere the early

1970s. Fatigue also became an important consideration for mobile units around 1980 due to the

severe accidents since then, if not before. In the ship industry explicit fatigue assessment became

a common part of ship design since the early 1990s, when the major classification societies

introduced explicit fatigue design and assessment procedure in their rules.

Fatigue-induced catastrophic accidents for semi-submersible and jack-up platforms occurred

around 1975-1980. The fatigue cracking of the on tankers had some impact on the concern about

fatigue in design around 1990. The most

Severe accidents induced by fatigue were usually caused by gross errors, e.g. complete absence

of fatigue design check, bad design detailing, gross fabrication defects, non-redundant structure,

as well as lack of or deficient inspection.

Fatigue is an important consideration for structures in areas with more or less continuous storm

loading (such as the North Sea) and especially for dynamically sensitive structures [1]. Fatigue

strength is usually described by SN curves that have been obtained by laboratory experiments.

Fracture mechanics methods have been applied to assess the different stages of crack growth,

including calculation of residual fatigue life beyond through thickness crack, which is normally

defined as fatigue failure. The detailed information about crack propagation is also required to

plan inspections and repair. The basic design formula based on SN-curves and Miner-Palmgren’s

hypothesis could be written as:

𝐷 = ∑𝑛𝑖

𝑁𝑖𝑖 ≤ ∆ (1)

Where ni and Ni are the number of loading cycles and number of cycles to failure, respectively.

The calculation of the fatigue loading involves estimating stress ranges in various sea states in

the long-term period, see e.g. API [5], NORSOK N-003 [6].

It is assumed that the stress range only characterizes the fatigue strength and using the SN data

according to N=KS-m

and the Weibull distribution (with scale parameter A and shape parameter

B) for the stress range, the long-term cumulative damage may be written as

𝐷 =𝑁𝑇

𝐾[

𝑠0

𝑙𝑛𝑁0

1𝐵

]𝑚𝛤(𝑚 𝐵⁄ + 1) =𝑁𝑇

𝐾𝑆̅𝑚 (2)

Where NT is the total number of cycles in the long-term period considered, s0 is the wave

induced stress response with an exceedance probability of 1/N0, m is the inverse slope of the SN

curve, Γ() is the Gamma function. The scale parameter A in the Weibull distribution is

A=s0/(lnN0)1/B

. 𝑆̅ is an equivalent constant stress range that represents the random loading. K is

the material parameter in the SN curve.

27

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Equation (2) could be used as a basis for an early screening of fatigue proneness, by using a

simple (conservative) estimate of the extreme response, s0 and by assuming the shape parameter,

B of the Weibull distribution based on experience.

Fatigue design criteria for offshore structures in Norway are dependent upon inspectability and

consequences of failure since 1984, as given in Table 2. Therefore, the acceptable fatigue

damage depends upon whether there is inspection or not. The acceptance criterion in Table 2 is

based on two consequence classes. The treatment of both the consequence and inspection issue,

however, could be improved, e.g. by taking the fatigue design factor, FDF (Table 2) as a function

of a more precise measure of residual strength and an explicit measure of the effect of inspection

including the quality of the inspection [1].

Table 2 Fatigue design factor (FDF) to multiply the planned service life to obtain required

the design fatigue life [3]

Classification of structural

components based on damage

consequence1

No access or in

the splash zone

Access for inspection and repair

Accessible (inspection according to

generic scheme is carried out)

Below splash zone Above splash zone

or internal

Substantial consequences 10 3 2

Without substantial consequences 3 2 1 1 The consequences are substantial if the accidental collapse limit state (ALS) criterion is not

satisfied in case of a failure of the relevant welded joint considered in the fatigue check.

28

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

2.1.3 ACCIDENTAL COLLAPSE LIMIT STATE

Structural robustness checks are usually based on resistance against progressive failure after

removal of any one component, alternate paths and redundancy. The ALS check given in

NORSOK N-001[3] is a more explicit and quantitative survival check of a damaged structural

system. It is assumed that the damage is due to accidental loads such as fires, explosions, ship

impacts or fabrication defects corresponding to an annual exceedance probability of 10-4

and

should be specified by risk analysis [7], considering relevant risk reduction actions such as use of

sprinkler/inert gas system or fire walls for fires and fenders for collisions. Permanent

deformation, rupture of parts of the structure, nonlinear material and geometrical structural

behavior need to be accounted for to estimate damage.

The structure should be able to survive the various damage conditions – without global failure,

considering environmental loads with an annual exceedance probability of 10-2

. A conventional

ULS design check, based on a global linear structural analysis and component design checks

using truly ultimate strength formulations could be used. More accurate nonlinear analysis

methods could be also applied.

Figure 2 Fatigue cracks: (a) crack developing from location II in brace D-6 in ALK; (b) crack in tubular

joint; (c) 24m crack in tanker Castor

(a)

(b) (c)

29

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 3 Development of cracks into ultimate consequences, and barriers to prevent such consequences

2.1.4 EFFECT OF CORROSION

Corrosion is an important strength degradation phenomenon widely existed in the offshore

structures due to the effect of harsh environment. Coating (paint or monel wrap), cathodic

protection and/or a plate thickness allowance are usually used to prevent or reduce the effect of

corrosion for design. Corrosion and its negative effects on ultimate strength and fatigue

resistance are to be considered during operation. The main types of corrosion patterns are general

corrosion, pitting corrosion, grooving corrosion and weld metal corrosion. Studies have shown

that the corrosion rate exhibits a very large scatter depending upon location in the structure. The

sea environment, e.g. in North Sea as compared to West Africa or Gulf of Mexico, is also a factor

of influence on corrosion rates. Once the corrosion protection system breaks down, free

corrosion effects start to take place on the surface of the structural component. The stress level is

increased and the strength is reduced due to the thickness reduction from corrosion. Increased

stress increases the fatigue crack growth rate. The effect of corrosion on the crack propagation

rate may be presented by the SN-curves or by introducing a correction factor Ccorr to the material

or crack growth parameter C used in the fracture mechanics models. As there is obviously a large

implied uncertainty, this factor should be modelled as random variable in reliability analysis.

30

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

2.2 OPERATIONAL EXPERIENCES

The event sequence caused by a crack would depend upon the geometry of the structure. At the

design stage, scantlings and local geometry are determined to ensure a certain fatigue life, under

a limited stress level, plus crack initiation and growth rate as well as a high fracture resistance.

Several examples of cracks in platforms and ships are illustrated in Figure 2 [8]. The possible

sequences can occur and be controlled as illustrated in Figure 3 [8]. The residual resistance

against progressive crack propagation and ultimate collapse as well as inspection and repair

efforts have dominate effects on various sequences. All sequences in principle imply costs,

fatalities usually result only if there is total collapse of the whole structure or deck structure.

Through thickness cracks may imply loss of containment, hence leakage of oil or gas, with

undesirable consequences.

An overview of experiences with fatigue cracks in offshore structures operating in the North Sea

[1] and examples of fatigue crack experiences in ships [9] are briefly highlighted below.

Jackets. Proper fatigue design practice for North Sea jackets appeared around 1970–80.

Inspections have been carried out on the outside by divers or by remotely operated vehicles due

to lack of access inside the underwater jacket structure. Inspection/repair costs per joint are in

general much higher than those for ships and semisubmersibles.

A large amount of inspections has been devoted to North Sea fixed platforms since the last part

of 1970, throughout the 1980s. The fatigue failure of the Alexander L. Kielland contributed to

the attention to inspections. However, in the 1990s the limited amount of cracks detected

suggested that the prediction methods were conservative, and that the likelihood of fatigue cracks

was much less than initially anticipated. Studies found that the number of propagating cracks

predicted is typically 3 to 10 times too high, and it is most conservative for new structures [10].

On the other hand it should be noted that 2% to 3% of the fatigue cracks detected occurred in

joints which are not predicted to be susceptible to fatigue. This fact is mainly due to the

occurrence of gross fabrication defects. The average crack depth of the propagating cracks

detected was 4.8 mm, with a small percentage of through thickness cracks. Another lesson is the

big difference in relative crack occurrences in platforms installed before and after 1978.

Semisubmersibles. The most critical joints in semisubmersibles are tubular joints, which are

normally designed to transfer loads by means of membrane stresses, with much less bending than

in unstiffened tubular joints in jackets. Design requirements were initiated due to fatigue failures

that occurred in semisubmersibles in 1965–70. But the application of fatigue criteria varied, even

for platforms built in 1970–80. The total loss of the Alexander Kielland platform in 1980 was

initiated by a fatigue failure. Cracks were especially observed on Alexander Kielland and its

sister rigs at locations similar to the critical joint of Alexander Kielland. However, these cracks

were smaller than the one that caused failure of the brace, because of the absence of the

fabrication defect on these other locations. Although the total length of such defects maybe quite

long, repair is easy to complete by grinding. Extraordinary surveys carried out after this accident

on these North Sea platforms revealed many cracks, especially in brace-column connections

[11]. Even today the brace-column and column-pontoon connections for semis with long

31

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

pontoons are still a challenge due to the complex geometry and high stress concentration (SC)

involved. For this reason cast pieces are applied at the high SC areas, while welds are located in

lower stress regions. The most fatigue-prone and critical areas of a semisubmersible are much

more limited in extent than in ships. This allows inspections to be focused. In addition,

inspections can be carried out from inside the structure. This has a significant effect on the

quality and costs of inspections.

Ships. Cracks have been known to be a common phenomenon in ships for decades. Cracks in the

main hull girder of a ship will grow continuously until global rupture of the hull. Fatigue failure

is normally defined as a crack through the plate thickness. The information about the crack

propagation from a through-thickness crack until fracture is necessary for the assessment of

critical crack size of ship hulls.

Fatigue was considered a serviceability requirement since periods with crack occurrences in the

1960s and 1970s. However, explicit fatigue requirements for hatch-corners in containerships and

LNG tanks were not introduced before 1991-92. The new fatigue design rules were introduced

due to the significant fatigue problems experienced for side longitudinals of 2- to 5-year-old

VLCC tankers in the Alaska-California trade [8]. A large amount of cracks occurred at the

intersections between side longitudinals and primary members in tankers, especially at bulkheads

and adjacent web frames. It has become evident that fatigue of the hull girder was a governing

strength criterion since 1985 with the first purpose-build ship for oil production in the North Sea.

However, it was realized too late to ensure that the vessel was built with adequate fatigue life.

The required safety level was then achieved by a more extensive inspection program, but with

the economic penalty of more inspections and crack repairs [12]. Similar experiences also exist

with shuttle tankers [13].

32

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

3. RBI ANALYSIS FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

Inspections are the basis for assessing the condition of the offshore platforms. The purpose of

inspection planning is to specify an inspection strategy that in a cost efficient way ensures that

legislative and operator requirements to safety are fulfilled and can be documented.

Risk based inspection (RBI) provides a consistent framework for decision making under

uncertainties. The main principle of this approach is that different inspection strategies are

compared in terms of the risk they imply. Risk is normally defined as the product between

likelihood and consequence of failure, which may be assessed for the safety of personnel as well

as for monetary costs or any other criterion of relevance for the installation. The RBI approach is

a condition based approach by which the inspection effort is fitted to the condition of the item

and prioritized in accordance with the importance of the individual items and the different

deterioration mechanisms. In practice, RBI analyses are usually performed for process systems

and structures separately. This paper is mainly focus on the RBI analyses of offshore structures,

and fatigue deterioration is highlighted.

3.1 RBI METHODOLOGY DESCRIPTION

Figure 4 shows the various activities undertaken in Risk Based Inspection [14]. The circle

illustrates the dynamic nature of the method. In practice RBI is usually divided into a so-called

risk screening process and a detailed assessment process. Figure 5 shows the typical tasks of

Risk Based Inspection planning for structures [14], which are briefly explained as follows:

Collection of Available Information The purpose of this task is to provide the required

information for subsequent assessment, and to document the basis for the study. The RBI

analysis is normally based on existing design documentation, reducing the need for additional

analyses.

Perform Portfolio Risk Ranking The purpose of this task is to perform a qualitative ranking of

a fleet of platforms to evaluate the need for further RBI analysis and prioritize the order of

platforms to be subjected to further work based on a qualitative, but consistent estimate of risk.

The likelihood and the consequences of failure due to fatigue, corrosion, scouring, and other

relevant deterioration mechanisms are evaluated, and the high risk structures are identified.

RBI Analysis including Cost Optimization The purpose of this task is to conduct RBI analysis

for individual structures. This can be the structures which have been specified as the most critical

ones in the Portfolio Risk Ranking, if performed. A suite of dedicated tools for structural RBI

assessments are available for the analysis, e.g. ORBIT Structure and SESAM programs from

DNV GL for maritime and offshore engineering analyses.

33

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 4 Simplified illustration of the five tasks of the RBI process

Figure 5 Simplified illustration of the five tasks of the RBI process

Prepare Inspection Scheduling handbooks The purpose of this task is to collect and group the

proposed inspection plans obtained in Task 3 into suitable inspection intervals (campaign

34

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

inspections). Deliverables from this task are handbooks, giving recommendation for inspection

scheduling.

Implementation into inspection management system The purpose of this task is to implement

the proposed inspection scheduling into the client’s inspection management system. The results

from the inspection planning should be prepared on such a form that electronic transfer of data

into the inspection management system is facilitated.

For the RBI analysis performed in Task 3, reliability methods have been identified efficient for

planning in-service inspection for fatigue cracks, accounting for both the detection accuracy and

the sizing accuracy for observed cracks. The time to first inspection and the inspection intervals

based on a specified required safety level can be assessed. Reliability methods could also be used

to optimize the design solutions. The most important issue for RBI analysis of structures is to

estimate the probability of a failure as function of time. Then the risk cost can be determined by

combining the probability of failure with the associated failure cost.

For fatigue failure of offshore structure, the failure criterion for fatigue limit state, based on the

fracture mechanics approach, may be stated by

𝑔(𝑋) = 𝑎𝑐 (𝑋1) − 𝑎𝑁 (𝑋2) (3)

where ac represents the critical crack size; aN represents the crack size after N cycles; N

represents

the cycle numbers; X1 and X2 represent a vector of stochastic parameters respectively (stress,

crack length, fatigue strength, etc.); X=[X1,X2].

The failure probability, e.g., the probability that the crack size exceeds a critical crack size within

the time period t (or N) is then

𝑃𝐹 = 𝑃(𝑔(𝑥) ≤ 0) (4)

First order reliability methods (FORM), second order reliability methods (SORM) and monte

carlo simulations could be used for the reliability calculations.

Figure 6 shows a typical example of the event tree for inspection planning. T0, T1, T2, T3 and T4

represents the inspection time. 1 represents crack has been found and repaired. 0 represents there

is no findings. More details could be found in [15].

35

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 6 Inspection scheme

3.1 INSPECTION RELIABILITY

Non-destructive examinations (NDT) are commonly used to localize and size defects in

structures. The inspection reliability for the NDT method is defined as a function of a defect size,

through Probability of Detection (PoD) curves. PoD curves are available for the following

inspection methods:

Flooded Member Detection (FMD).

Eddy Current (EC).

Magnetic Particle Inspection (MPI).

Alternating Current Field Measurement (ACFM).

The probabilistic distribution functions of PoD for EC, MPI and ACFM could be presented as :

𝑃𝑜𝐷(𝑎) = 1 −1

1+(𝑎

𝑋0)

𝑏 (5)

Where a = crack depth in mm

X0 = distribution parameter (= 50% median value for the PoD)

b= distribution parameter

36

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

More details are given in [14].

4. CONCLUSIONS

RBI approach has been successfully applied to various offshore structures, e.g. jackets,

semisubmersibles, FPSO, jack-ups, as well as the pipelines and the mooring lines. It will be

playing a more and more important role for the safety of offshore structures in future.

In addition, with the development of offshore renewable energy utilization, safety is also

becoming a more and more important issue, especially for offshore wind energy. In offshore

wind industry, RBI approach has been applied to the support structures of offshore wind turbine

[16], and the mechanical components in the drive train of wind turbines [17]. The application is

still very limited up to now, and more research work is needed.

5. REFERENCE

[1] Moan,T., Reliability-based management of inspection, maintenance and repair of offshore structures. Structure

and Infrastructure Engineering, 2005, Vol.1, No. 1.

[2] ISO 19900, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Offshore Structures –Part 1: General Requirements, 1994

(Int. Standardization Organization:London).

[3] NORSOK N-001, Structural Design, 1998 (Norwegian Technology Standards: Oslo).

[4] Clauss, G., Lehmann, E. and Østergaard, C., Offshore Structures, 1991, Vol. 1 (Springer Verlag: Berlin).

[5] API (1993/1997), Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms,

API RP2A-WSD July 1993 with Supplement 1 with Sect., 17.0, Assessment of Existing Platform, February 1997

(American Petroleum Institute: Dallas).

[6] NORSOK N-003, Actions and Action Effects, 1999 (Norwegian Technology Standards, Oslo).

[7] Vinnem, J.E., Offshore Risk Assessment, 1999 (Kluwer Academic Publishers:Dordrecht).

[8] Moan, T., Fatigue Reliability of Marine Structures, from the Alexander Kielland Accident to Life Cycle

Assessment. International Journal of Offshore and Polar Engineering, 2007, Vol. 17, No.1.

[9] Sucharski, D., Crude oil tanker hull structure fracturing: an operator’s perspective, in Ship Structure Committee,

in Proc. Symposium and workshop on the prevention of fracture in ship structure, Washington, D.C., 1997.

[10] Vårdal, O.T. and Moan, T., Predicted versus observed fatigue crack growth. Validation of probabilistic fracture

mechanics analysis of fatigue in North Sea jackets, in Proc. 16th OMAE Conference, Yokohama, Japan, 1997, paper

no. 1334.

[11] Potthurst, R., Coates, A.D. and Nataraja, R., Fatigue Correlation Study – Semi-submersible Platforms,

OTH88288, Report, 1989 (Department of Energy: U.K.).

[12] Bach-Gansmo, O., Carlsen, C.A. and Moan, T., Fatigue assessment of hull girder for ship type floating

production vessels, in Proc. Conf. on Mobile Offshore Units, 1987 (City University: London).

[13] Hansen, H.R., Nielssen, N.B., and Valsgård, S., Operational Experiences with Double Hull Tankers, Int Conf

Design & Oper of Double Hull Tankers, RINA, London, 2004.

[14] DNV ENERGY, RBI HANDBOOK FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES GENERAL, 2008 (Det Norsk Veritas:

Høvik).

[15] Dong W.B., Gao Z., Moan T., Fatigue reliability analysis of jacket-type offshore wind turbine considering

inspection and repair. In:Proceedings of EuropeanWind Energy Conference2010.Warsaw, Poland; 2010.

[16] Dong, W.B., Moan, T. & Gao, Z., Fatigue reliability analysis of the jacket support structure for offshore wind

turbine considering the effect of corrosion and inspection. Reliability Engineering & System Safety, 2012, Vol. 106.

[17] Dong, W.B., Xing, Y.H., Moan, T. & Gao, Z., Time do-main based gear contact fatigue analysis of a wind

turbine drivetrain under dynamic conditions. International Journal of Fatigue, 2013, Vol. 48.

37

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Arctic Offshore Operation: Challenges and Solutions

Biao Su

SINTEF

Introduction

There is a growing interest in hydrocarbon exploration and production in Arctic waters,

where one of the pronounced challenges is the presence of sea ice. The ice creates a number

of additional challenges compared to open water operations. Key factors are the physical

properties and dynamics of sea ice. In principle it is possible to distinguish between first-year

sea ice, multi-year sea ice and the presence of ice bergs. Ice bergs and multi-year sea ice may

show to impose actions that make structures to be costly to build and operate. There are also a

number of other factors that influence the design of Arctic structures in a conservative

direction, due to for instance lack of knowledge and operational experience, where an upper

bound conservative solution is chosen for the design (Bonnemaire et al., 2007).

Fixed structures may show to be attractive or the only possible solutions in shallow waters.

Such structures range from very shallow water artificial island concepts, to GBS (gravity-

based structure) solutions, loading towers and moored vessels possible for a range of water

depths. Moored, floating vessel concepts may show to be the most attractive solutions in an

Arctic environment. This applies to most operations, including drilling, production and

offloading of hydrocarbons. Several of the extreme ice events may be solved by effective ice

management, including ice intelligence, risk evaluation and icebreaker assistance.

Comprehensive use of ice management has shown to be a key factor when operating in ice

covered waters (Eik, 2010).

Arctic offshore challenges

Environmental issues are by most people considered to be more critical in the Arctic than in

other areas. Remoteness and climate factors will anyway make operations, for instance clean

up (i.e. after an oil spill) more difficult, and thereby the consequences of an accident higher.

By arguing that the risk is a product of the probability of failure and the consequences of an

accident, one may conclude that the probability of accidents in the Arctic should be reduced

as compared to other areas. This leads anyway to a focus on safety and reliability of Arctic

structures, which also imposes requirements for increased redundancy and backup solutions

for safe operations. This discussion is not taken any further here.

38

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Operational factors from the physical environment such as icing (see e.g. Figure 1), remote

location, and duration of daylight, temperature and wind, addressed as "winterization issues"

are not discussed here, nor the discussion of safety related to evacuation of personnel.

Figure 1 An example of the icing effect, SALM Offshore Sakhalin Island, December 16,

2004 (http://www.canatec.ca).

There are a number of other technical challenges that has to be addressed in a concept

evaluation for Arctic conditions. The key element in an evaluation is the capability to resist

and operate safely at the site specific physical environment, here focused on the operations in

ice.

The ice enviorment in the Arctic and Sub-Arctic seas ranges from areas with dynamic ice

conditions where ice is present occasionally to areas with ice cover every year and possible

more than 6 months of the year. In brief the ice conditions can be characterized by type of ice

(first-year, multi-year and icebergs), the cover in percentage, the drift characteristics and

intrusion of features like sea ice ridges, hummocks and stamukhas. Examples of the physical

environment and the ice cover are shown in Figures 2-3, and more details are found in Løset

et al. (2006).

The level of the ice actions on an offshore structure will depend on several main factors as

listed below:

The resistance in intact ice (level ice) is a function of the ice thickness, ice strength

properties and the shape and size of the structure. The mode of ice failure against the

structure has a significant effect on ice actions (see e.g. Figure 4).

39

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

The ice drift and its characteristics will represent challenges if weather-vaning is

needed. Drift patterns may influence the action level in general, and sudden changes

in the ice drift may lead to high action situations and overloading of the system.

The ridges are normally thought to represent the ultimate loads when present. First-

year sea ice ridges consist of a consolidated upper layer, often considered as 2-3 times

level ice thickness, a sail, which is the observed part from the air, and piled ice blocks,

forming the keel (see e.g. Figure 5). The keels can extend from 20 to 30 m depending

on location. The total thickness for a multi-year ridge was reported to be 40 m

(Johnston et al., 2009). Ridges and their properties are also challenging to model in an

ice tank, due to thermodynamics or confinement scaling challenges.

In many cases, the iceberg impacts on offshore structures will give the design load in

accordance with the Abnormal Limit States (ALS). The need to avoid direct

interactions between offshore structures (including mooring lines, risers and

pipelines) and icebergs requires that icebergs must be reliably detected, so they can be

managed or avoided through disconnection. This is a significant challenge especially

when the icebergs are below 30 m wide and in the presence of sea ice (see e.g. Figure 6).

Figure 2 A hypothetical sea ice dynamics scenario (Wikipedia).

40

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 3 Sea ice concentrations (amount of sea ice covering an area,

http://seaiceatlas.snap.uaf.edu).

Figure 4 Failure modes of sea ice, depending on parameters such as ice thickness, ice

velocity, ice temperature and the shape and size of the structure.

41

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 5 Hypothetical interaction between two floes, resulting in a pressure ridge

(Wikipedia).

Figure 6 Small icebergs in sea ice.

Arctic offshore solutions

Offshore operations have been, and still are, successfully conducted in almost any kind of ice

regime. Spanning from ultra shallow waters of 3 m in the Caspian to depths more than 1000

m in the Arctic Basin, various types of drilling operations have been carried out. Oil

42

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

production is safely carried out in the iceberg stream at Grand Banks and even the heavily

ridged multi-year ice in the Beaufort Sea has been handled in a safe way (Eik, 2010).

Based on experiences in the past, the main concepts of offshore structures and their feasibility

for Arctic waters are listed as below (Hannus and Bruun (2010)):

Bottom founded structure - concrete structure or steel caisson (see e.g. Figure 7)

Strengthes:

- Large topside weight

- Can resist large ice loads

- Can be designed to take iceberg

- Protection of riser systems and water intakes

- Can have drilling trough shaft

Weaknesses:

- Only applicable for shallow Arctic waters

Bottom founded structure - jacket platfrom

Strengthes:

- Straight forward fabrication of substructure

- Industry has long experience with jacket structures

- Have been applied in level ice (see e.g. Figure 8)

Weaknesses:

- Only applicable for shallow Arctic waters

- Requires offshore lift of topside

- Conductors open for ice interaction

- Small topside weight

- Vibration challenges in ice - self exitation of structure (see e.g. Yue et al., 2009)

- Cannot resist iceberg interaction

Ship-shaped structure

Strengthes:

- Well proven in Beaufort Sea (see e.g. Figure 9)

- Proven disconnection of risers and mooring

- Self-propelled after disconnection

- Straight forward deck integration

- Large deck carrying capacity

- Can be designed with dynamic positioning (DP) and icebreaking azimuth

propellers: ice milling and propeller wash

43

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Weaknesses:

- Limited capacity through swivel

- Subsurface ice transport (see e.g. Figure 10) can be a hazard for mooring lines,

risers, cathodic protection and water intakes

- Sudden changes in the ice drift may lead to high action situations and overloading

of the system (see e.g. Figure 11)

Semi-submersible platform

Strengthes:

- Proven concept (well established in harsh environment)

- Large topside capacity

- Can handle large number of risers

- Good motion characteristics in open water

Weaknesses:

- Unacceptable large ice loads: ice will crush towards and accumulate between the

vertical columns

- Mooring and riser disconnection systems not proven

- Flexible risers need special protection in ice zone

Shallow draft buoy

Strengthes:

- Well proven in Beaufort Sea (see e.g. Figure 12)

- Large deck carrying capacity

- Large hull volume for storage and marine systems

- Traditional and straight forward construction and fabrication methods

- May be transported to shore for dry docking and repair

- Short time for re-connection of mooring and riser systems

Weaknesses:

- Large diameter attracts large ice loads - heavy mooring system

- Motions in open water not proven.

- Not proven disconnection system with multiple risers and mooring connected in a

common riser buoy

- Subsurface ice transport due to shallow draught

Tension Leg Platform (TLP)

Strengthes:

- Proven concept (well established in harsh environment)

44

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

- Large deck payload

- Can handle large number of rigid top-tensioned risers, dry trees

- Exellent motion characteristics in open water

- Single leg TLPs can be designed for limited ice loads

Weaknesses:

- Cannot be disconnected in case of ice conditions exceeding design criteria

SPAR

Strengthes:

- Proven concept (SPARS in the Gulf of Mexico)

- Acceptable ice loads

- Good motions in open water

- Can be disconnected and reconnected

- Only mooring and cathodic protection exposed to subsurface ice transport

Weaknesses:

- Limited deck capacities

- Long time for mooring re-connection after disconnection

- Disconnection/re-connection systems not proven

Figure 7 Steel Drilling Caisson (SDC) on location (http://www.canatec.ca).

Figure 8 Jacket platforms in JZ20-2 oil field, Bohai Sea (Yue et al., 2009).

45

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 9 Beaufort Sea drilling operations from a moored drillship (http://www.canatec.ca).

Figure 10 Illustration of the subsurface ice transport which can be a hazard to for mooring

lines and risers (Bonnemaire et al., 2007)

Figure 11 Example of a 90° sudden change of drift direction observed during the IMD tests

(Spencer and Jones, 1995). The time series show the mooring load first in straight drift and

then during a 90 deg change of drift direction.

46

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 12 Kulluk icebreaking drill barge and icebreaking supply vessel, Beaufort Sea

(http://www.canatec.ca).

Ice management

One of the most important lessons from the past is that the ice management system has been a

key factor when operating in ice covered waters (Eik, 2010). Without proper ice intelligence,

risk evaluation, ice breaker assistance (see e.g. Figure 13) and the possibility to escape the

drilling site, it would probably not have been possible to work in the strong multi-year ice in

Beaufort Sea. The associations with ice management may depend on the regions that are

under consideration: in Beaufort Sea ice management is typically about breaking and clearing

sea ice (see e.g. Figure 14), while ice management at Grand Banks typically concerns iceberg

deflection (see e.g. Figure 15). In some areas the presence of both sea ice and icebergs will be

expected, however, technology for handling icebergs frozen in the sea ice (see e.g. Figure 16)

is not proven.

The major conclusions regarding ice management are listed as below (by Eik (2010)):

Comprehensive use of ice management is explained as a key factor for the success in

Arctic offhsore operations.

Technology for iceberg handling in open water is considered as proven.

Technology for handling icebergs frozen in the sea ice is not considered proven.

Technology for breaking sea ice is proven for a wide range of severe conditions

including multi-year ice and ice ridges. However, it is expected that there may be ice

conditions more severe than the most powerful icebreakers can handle.

Use of azimuth propeller systems on icebreakers have been seen to contribute to

significant improvements in the icebreaking capability (the ability to clear ice around

a structure) and more important for offshore operations.

47

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Technology for detection and tracking of ice features will have to include a wide

range of tools. Use of unmanned aeroplanes, unmanned underwater vehicles and multi

beam sonar may be considered as possible future supplements to existing ice detection

tools.

It is recommended that evaluation of ice management capabilities is performed at an

early stage when planning new operations and in the evaluation of new drilling and

production concepts.

Future work regarding methodology for implementation of ice management

capabilities in concepts/operations is recommended.

Figure 13 Typical components of an ice management system (ISO/FDIS 19906).

48

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 14 Illustration of two-stage ice management wherein two icebreakers reduce floe size

of the drifting ice to levels that exert manageable loads on the protected stationary vessel

(Hamilton et al., 2011).

Figure 15 Towing an iceberg from a collision course with an oil platform, Photo by Randy

Olson (http://www.amusingplanet.com).

49

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure 16 Iceberg frozen in sea ice.

References

Bonnemaire, B., Jensen, A., Gudmestad, O.T., Lundamo, T. and Løset, S., 2007. Challenges

related to station-keeping in ice. 9th

Annual INTSOK Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.

Eik, K. J., 2010. Ice management in Arctic offshore operations and field developments. Ph.D.

thesis, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, Norway.

Hamilton, J., Holub, C., Blunt, J., Mitchell, D. and Kokkinis, T., 2011. Ice management for

support of Arctic Floating operations. Proceedings of OTC Arctic Technology Conference,

Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, USA.

Hannus, H. and Bruun P.K., 2010. Conceptual design for Arctic waters [PowerPoint slides].

Lecture No. AT-327: Arctic Offshore Engineering, University Centre in Svalbard (UNIS),

Longyearbyen, Svalbard.

Johnston, M., Masterson, D. and Wright, B., 2009. Multi-year ice thickness: knowns and

unknowns. Proceedings of the 20th

International Conference on Port and Ocean Engineering

under Arctic Conditions (POAC), Luleå, Sweden.

Løset, S., Shkhinek K.N., Gudmestad O.T. and Høyland K.V., 2006: Actions from ice on

Arctic offshore and costal structures. Krasnodar, St. Petersburg, Russia, 2006, 271 p.

Spencer, D., and Jones S.J., 1995. Experimental Investigation into the Response of a Moored

Tanker to Changes in Ice Drift Angle. Institute of Marine Dynamics, Ottawa, Canada.

Yue, Q., Zhang, L., Zhang, W. and Kärnä, T., 2009. Mitigating ice-induced jacket platform

vibrations utilizing a TMD system. Cold Regions Science and Technology, Vol. 56, pp. 84-

89.

50

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

How well can we predict the loads from ice

Fengwei Guo

DNV GL Oil & Gas

Abstract

The research activities contributing to ice load assessment are summarized. The industry

standards containing ice load equations are briefly reviewed, including the most updated ISO

19906 (Petroleum and Natural gas industries - Arctic Offshore Structures). In order to fill in

the large number of technical gaps and correct many inconsistency in ISO 19906, in 2009 a

Joint Industry Project called ICESTRUCT was launched by DNV (now DNV GL) and other

23 participants (operators, designers, academic institutes). ICESTRUCT was finished in 2012,

and the outcome is highly appreciated by the designers. Based on ICESTRUCT results, DNV

GL is developing a recommended practice to help designers facing challenges of ice loads

calculation. From the research point of view, the knowledge and resources needed to reduce

the uncertainty of ice load estimation are discussed.

1. Introduction

The attraction of Arctic resources (petroleum, minerals, fishery, etc.) becomes a popular topic

in the past years, both in public media and industry (Figure.1). In fact, the industry activity in

the Arctic region dates back to 1960’s – 1980’s, especially in Alaska and Canadian Beaufort

Sea. The industry interest in the Arctic has been always fluctuating with oil price and

profitability.

Figure.1 Petroleum in the Arctic

Apart from the oil & gas business, the research on high latitude areas has been always active

for many different reasons. For example, a bridge was built in 1997 in northeast of Canada

51

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

(Figure.3), and the ice loading became a big challenge. In cold regions, river ice might

become a remarkable hazard, especially in the spring when ice cover breaks into large

amount of ice rubbles, which can damage the hydraulic facilities or lead to flooding

(Figure.4).

Figure.2 Two offshore structures in ice environment

Figure.3 Confederation bridge in Canada

52

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure.4 River ice break-up (Yellow river)

Dealing with these problems requires the knowledge on one subject: how does ice behave

under external loading? Researchers might be more interested in the fundamental questions

like:

Ice is a solid material, it looks quite similar to rock or concrete, how similar are they?

How strong is ice?

What are the differences between sea ice and fresh water ice?

On the other hand, the designers might ask the practical questions like:

I need to design a concrete platform in ice, how should I calculate the design ice load?

I need to design a container ship traveling across the Northern sea route, how should I

design the hull plating and stiffening?

I suppose the ice load depends on ice thickness, how can I estimate the ice thickness,

say, for 100 year return period?

If I need to consider ice berg, how can I estimate the frequency of ice berg impact?

In order to answer the fundamental questions, a lot of efforts have been made to improve the

understanding of mechanical behaviour of ice. Unfortunately, so far ice mechanics is a quite

immature field, because ice is an extremely complex material. Table.1 lists the most

important factors affecting the mechanical behaviour of ice.

Table.1 The governing factors to mechanical behaviour of ice

The crystal structure of ice

The temperature in ice

The porosity

The loading direction, if the ice is anisotropic

The loading rate

The boundary conditions

53

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Despite the difficulties and bottlenecks in ice mechanics, the industry has to take the

challenges making use of previous experience and knowledge. Based on limited information,

many ice load equations are developed and adopted in industry standards. In addition, some

private consultants also provide services on ice load assessment.

It is always interesting to compare the ice loads predicted by different methods. Figure.5 and

Figure.6 shows two surveys conducted in 1996 and 2006. In general, significant deviations

still exist among the predictions by different methods.

Figure.5 Ice load survey by Croasdale, 1996

(1.5 m thick ice on 100 m wide structure)

Figure.6 Ice load survey by Timco, 2006

(1.5 m thick ice on 100 m wide structure)

54

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

2. Research contributing to ice load assessment

The research on ice and ice load can date back to early 20th

century. Several technical

conferences are organized to encourage relevant publications, and a few journals become

popular on the relevant topics. Table.2 lists the most important conferences and journals. In

addition, some of the research work can be found in other journals on fracture mechanics,

structure dynamics, civil engineering, etc.

Table.2 Conferences and journals focusing on ice related subjects

2.1 Ice mechanics & ice properties

A representative publication on ice mechanice is the book by Sanderson (1988). The

technical review by Timco (2010) set a milestone on engineering ice mechanics. Ice

mechanics focuses on the ice’s behaviour under external loading, and the effects which

influence the mechanical properties. Figure.7 shows the photo of a compression test on ice

sample and crystal structure in ice.

Figure.7 Ice compression test & Crystal structure in cross section of ice (Timco, 2010)

Conferences

POAC

www.poac.com (free proceedings online)

IAHR Ice symposium

OMAE

ISOPE

ATC (Arctic technology conference)

Journals

Cold Regions Science and Technology

International Journal of Offshore and Polar

Engineering

55

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

So far we have had a good understanding of the ice mechanical behaviour, but due to its

natural growth process, the properties of sea ice are still unpredictable, resulting in the

challenge of predicting ice loads.

2.2 Full scale measurements

Like other environmental loadings, full scale measured information is invaluable to verify

and calibrate the ice load models. Since 1960’s many offshore installations have been

instrumented to gather data on ice loads. Figure.8 shows an example of a steel jacket platform

in the Bohai Sea, China. The structure was instrumented with load panels to measure ice

loads, accelerometers to measure the structure’s response, video cameras to calibrate the ice

thickness & ice drifting speed, etc.

Figure.8 The full scale measurements conducted in the Bohai Sea, China (Qu, 2006)

In order to collect information on different type of structures under various ice conditions,

many full scale structures have been used, and Table.3 lists some representative ones.

Table.3 Full scale structures instrumented for ice load research

Location Structure type

Canadian Beaufort Sea Caisson

Baltic Sea Concrete GBS

Bohai Sea Caisson & steel

jacket

Eastern Canada Bridge pier

56

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

2.3 Model tests

Because of the cost and incomplete data from full scale environment, model tests are always

attractive. Nevertheless, model tests have to deal with the scaling effects. Since there is

limited study on the scaling effects in model test in ice, the scaling laws from hydrodynamic

test have been used, Froude’s law, Cauchy law, etc.

Figure.9 shows a picture from a model test in ice basin, and Table.4 lists some of the ice

basins for model tests.

Figure.9 A picture of model test in ice basin (Karulina etc, 2011)

Table.4 Model test ice basins

2.4 Numerical simulations

Even though the ice mechanics theory is immature, many researchers have been trying to

simulate the ice acting on structures, using various numerical techniques. Figure.10 shows an

example of simulating ice load on four-leg structure.

Figure.10 An example of numerical simulation on ice load on structure (Karulina etc, 2011)

Location Name

Hamburg, Germany HSVA

Helsinki, Finland Aker Arctic

Ottawa, Canada NRC laboratory

St.Petersburg, Russia Krylov institute

57

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

3. Industry standards

Based on the extensive research work, many standards or recommended industry practices

are developed to help the designers facing the challenges of ice load calculations. The most

relevant standards are listed as follows:

1. API, API RP 2N (1995), Recommended practice for planning, designing, and

constructing structures and pipelines for arctic conditions, American Petroleum

Institute

2. CSA, CSA 471-04, (2004)

3. DNV-OS-J101

4. GL, GLO-03-319, (2003), Germanischer Lloyd, Guideline for the construction of

fixed offshore installations in ice infested waters

5. IEC, 61400-3 IEC (2004), WG3, Recommendations for design of wind turbine

structures with respect to ice loads.

6. RIL, RIL-144, (2001), Finnish civil engineers association, Guideline for the loading

of structures.

7. SNiP, SNiP 2.06.04.82* (1995), Russian national standards.

8. ISO 19906 Arctic Offshore Structures Standard

ISO 19906 is the most updated standard for structure design and operation in ice covered

waters (Figure.11). The standard is very lengthy (over 460 pages) which collects a large

amount of information and research findings from many experts.

Figure.11 Front cover of ISO 19906

58

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

4. ICESTRUCT JIP and DNV GL development

When ISO 19906 development was approaching the end in 2009, some designers criticized

the standard because of some inconsistent expressions and difficulties for the designers who

has limited background knowledge on ice loads.

The comments and requests from the industry trigged a big joint industry project called

ICESTRUCT, which was initiated in 2009, and the goal was to make a ’cook book’ for most

non-specialist designers. Table.5 lists all the participants in the JIP.

Participant Country Note

DNV

(now DNV GL)

Norway Classificatio

n

society

Statoil Norway Operator

Shell Netherlands Operator

ENI Italy Operator

Repsol YPE

S.A.

Spain Operator

Bluewater Netherlands Designer

Transocean U.S.A. Contractor

Daewoo South Korea Contractor

Hyundai South Korea Contractor

Keppel Singapore Designer

SBM Offshore Netherlands Designer

Dr.techn.Olav

Olsen

Norway Designer

Multiconsult Norway Consultant

IMPaC

Offshore

Germany Designer

ILS Oy –

Consulting

Finland Designer

Aker Arctic Finland Designer

NRC Canada Institute

HSVA Germany Ice basin

NTNU Norway Institute

Chalmers Univ.

Technology

Sweden Institute

Clarkson

University

U.S.A. Institute

Dalian Univ.

Technology

China Institute

St. Petersburg

State Polytech.

University

Russia Institute

Table.5 Participants in ICESTRUCT JIP

59

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Figure.12 ICESTRUCT Guideline

The outcome of ICESTRUCT JIP is a guideline for designers (Figure.12), and 13 chapters of

background reports (confidential).

Based on the achievements in ICESTRUCT and inputs from relevant commercial projects,

DNV GL is developing a recommended practice for assessing ice environment and design ice

loads on various structures.

Concluding remarks

The ice loads research has been progressing relatively slowly, mainly due to the difficulties in

ice’s mechanical behaviour. The fracture mechanics of solid material is not enough to support

the problem of ice load estimate;

The ISO 19906 and oncoming DNV GL recommend practice represent the state of the art on

the subjects of structure design in ice covered waters.

In order to improve the understanding of ice loads, more industry activities and more full

scale measurements are must-dos.

60

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

References

Croasdale, K.R. (1996). Ice loads consensus study update. OMAE 1996, Volume IV,

Arctic/Polar technology, pp 115-118.

Karulina, M., Shkhinek, K., etc. Theoretical and experimental investigations of level ice

interaction with four-legged structures. The 21st POAC proceedings. POAC11-032.

Qu Y., Yue Q.J., etc. A random ice force model for narrow conical structures. Cold Regions

Science and Technology, 2006, Vol.45, pp148-157.

Sanderson, TJO. Ice Mechanics, Risks to Offshore Structures. Graham & Trotman, London,

1988, 253 p.

Timco, G. and Johnston, M. (2004). Ice loads on the caisson structures in the Canadian

Beaufort Sea. Cold Regions Science and Technology 38, pp185 - 209.

Timco G.W., Croasdale K. 2006. How well can we predict ice loads. Proceedings of the 18th

IAHR International Symposium on Ice, pp167-174.

Timco G.W., Weeks, W.F. 2010. A review of the engineering properties of sea ice. Cold

Regions Science and Technology, Vol.60 (2010), pp 107-129.

61

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

About the author

Zhen Gao, male and born on November 24, 1977, is currently a

researcher and an adjunct associate professor at the Centre for

Ships and Ocean Structures (CeSOS) and Department of Marine

Technology, Norwegian University of Science and Technology

(NTNU). He got his Bachelor and MSc degrees from Shanghai

Jiao Tong University in China in 2000 and 2003, respectively.

He obtained his PhD degree at NTNU in 2008 and he was

awarded the annual ExxonMobil Research Prize for Best

Doctoral Thesis in Applied Research from NTNU in 2008. His

main research work focuses on dynamic analysis of offshore

wind turbines (both bottom-fixed and floating) and wave energy

converters, marine operations related to installation and maintenance for offshore wind

turbines, probabilistic modeling and analysis of wind- and wave-induced loads and load

effects in offshore structures, as well as structural reliability assessment of offshore platforms.

He has co-authored 82 peer-reviewed papers (including 32 journal papers and 50 conference

papers). He has co-supervised 4 PhD and 15 master graduates, and currently he is co-

supervising 10 PhD and 5 master students at CeSOS, NTNU. He is a member of the Specialist

Committee V.4 Offshore Renewable Energy in the International Ship and Offshore Structures

Congress (ISSC) for 2009-2012 (committee member) and 2012-2015 (committee chair). He is

also a member of technical committee for several international conferences, including the

Scientific Committee of Structures, Safety and Reliability Symposium, International

Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering (OMAE) since 2011. He has

participated or is now participating in several research projects and education programs on

offshore renewable energy, including EU FP6 SEEWEC Project (2007-2009), EU FP7

MARINA Platform Project (2010-2014), IEA OC4 Project (2010-2012), EU FP7 MARE-

WINT Project (2012- ) and EWEM (European Wind Energy Master) Program (2013- ).

62

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Pan Zhiyuan holds a Ph.D. in naval architecture and offshore engineering. He

has been working at DNV Software (now DNV GL Software) since 2006, with

activities on delivering trainings and technical support for world-wide Sesam

users, programming with Sesam hydro modules, such as Wadam, Wasim,

HydroD, Postresp, etc. He has 15 years research experience on environmental

loads and responses of marine structures, mainly focusing on motions and

wave loads of marine floaters with potential flow theory.

Wenbin Dong

Senior Structural Engineer (DNV GL AS)

2012 – Present, Oslo area, Norway

PhD (Centre for Ships and Ocean structures/NTNU)

2008 - 2012, Reliability of offshore wind turbines, Trondheim area, Norway

Project Officer (Maritime Research Centre/NTU)

2007 – 2008, Singapore City, Singapore

Master (Tianjin University of China)

2004 – 2007, Naval architecture and Ocean Engineering Major, Tianjin City, China

Bachelor (Tianjin University of China)

2000 – 2004, Naval architecture and Ocean Engineering Major, Tianjin City, China

63

NORSK KINESISK

INGENIØRFORENING

Biao Su, received his PhD degree in Marine Structures from

Norwegian University of Science and Technology. More than 10 years

work and research experiences in icebreaking ships and Arctic offshore

operations. He is currently working at SINTEF Fisheries and

Aquaculture. Main interests are aquaculture structures, fluid-structure

interactions, Arctic technology and Arctic offshore engineering.

Fengwei Guo, spent 12 years in Dalian University of Technology, major in

Engineering Mechanics. He finished PhD in 2011 with thesis on ice load on

vertical structures and ice induced vibrations. During 8 years’ research work,

he was involved in field work on production platforms in the Bohai Sea,

design and planning of model test in ice basin, analysis of test data and

calibration with structural analysis. From June 2011 to December 2014 he

was working in DNV Arctic research team, and participated in a number of

research and commercial projects related to ice loads and structural analysis.

Currently he is working in the section of Environmental loading & Response,

DNV GL Oil & Gas Norway. He is also a member of technical panel for ISO

19906 revision.