,"'" SNAME Tren ctions, Vol. 88, 1980, pp.

195-223

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance in Offshore Transportation and Launching Operations
Rubin Szajnberg,1 Member, William Greiner,1 Associate Member, Henry H. T. Chen," Associate Member, and Philip Rawstron,1 Associate Member
The problems and solution techniques encountered in quantifying the safety factors involved in the transportation of large offshore structures on deck cargo barges are discussed in this paper. The primary factors considered are environmental force prediction, stability, motion and strength, and their interaction, which forms the criteria for selecting an acceptable barge/jacket configuration for towing and launching operations. The methodologies are presented and compared in light of the state of the art in naval architecture and structural analysis. and practical implications on the design of the tiedown system and jacket reinforcement are discussed based on past expe;~nces.

I Senior industrialist specialist, design engineer, project staff engineer, and senior engineer, respectively, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas.

Presented at the Annual Meeting. New York, N. Y., November

13-15, 1980, of THE SocIETY OF N AVAL ARCHITECT'S AND MARINE
ENGINEERS.

195

..
..

, ....

Introduction
1

I DUSTRY has made increasing demands over the past decade on the engineering disciplines to develop new technology and methods to transport and install deepwater structures in an e~ficient. a.n? safe manner. As the exploration and production activities of the offshore petroleum industry have ventured into deeper and more hostile waters, a number of attempts have been made to respond to these demands. GEMI I [1]2 and HIDECK [2] are novel approaches applied to the problem, and Side-launching and self-floating structures have also been proposed for the transporting effort. Yet transportation experiences in deepwater applications around the globe indicate that often the most economical method of transporting jackets or structures from fabrication yards to offshore locations remains the flat-deck cargo barge I' approach. Once on site, a derrick barge either lifts off the structure, or it is launched from the transporting oarge with a ~l~ctive com~in~~ion of ballasting and winching. A so-called third generation of barges was first designed and constructed _ in the early seventies [3] to perform the transportation task for large deepwater structures. Today there exists a fleet of barges which are designed to transport and launch deepwater- jackets and carry offshore structure modules. These vessels have large deck spaces, and enough stability, strength and reserve buoyancy to carry deck loads in excess of 25 000 tons [22500 metric tons (t)]. Table 1 is a partial list of the existing fleet, giving the vessels' main design particulars. Desig~ featur:s ~or this class of cargo barge generally include hea~y skid and tilting beams for launching the large jackets. A typlca~ launch barge arrangement is shown in Fig. 1. Quick ballasting pumps rated in the region of 2000 metric tons per hour are also usually installed to trim the barge during launch. . Sink~ge and stability considerations determine the principal dimensions of these barges. The stability criteria used consider a typical deck cargo which exhibits a high center of gravity above deck and a large windage area. The forward and aft rake segments of the barge are then designed to minimize resistance and promote good seakeeping and coursekeeping behavior. Generally, engineering analysis in the past has assured the relative safety of tows by closely following ship practice in determining environmental loads, stability and motion factors. However, demands for more-specific guidance criteria for cargo barge problems have grown as transportation practices have become more complicated. At the same time a similar pressure has been felt for design criteria for offshore structures to keep up with the increasing technology required for deepw~ter applications. This has resulted in various new guidelines being developed for general offshore use which now exist in the form of rules and recommendations. T~e r~se of .regulations did not automatically bring standardization to Industry practice, however, and the burden for produ~ing acceptabl~ designs to ensure safety during transportation and launching rests with naval architects and structural engineers. Tiedown braces, reinforcing members, towing arrangements, and ballast procedures all must be reevaluated because of the new and expanding applications in offshore use. The further responsibility of minimizing jacket structural damages due to fatigue and jacket slamming also rests with the designer. Agencies which to date have issued regulations to guide designers include the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Department of Energy U.K. (DOE), and the American Petroleum Institute (API). In addition, vessel regulations exist from classification
2

societ.ies such as Det norske Veritas (DnV), Lloyd's Register, Amencan Bureau of Shipping (ABS), and Bureau Veritas (BV), as well as from known consultant companies such as 1 oble Denton (ND) and United States Salvage Inc. These various agencies have tended to set different criteria or have chosen to leave the criteria to the contractor's discretion in the area of seakeeping and structural evaluations. These vari~tions exis~ particularly in the areas of predicting the maximum environmental conditions that will be experienced ~nroute a~d in certain i?tact stability criteria. Damage to Jackets dunng transportation and launch has been experienced as a result of a combination of problems derived from the preceding factors, and the loss of investment, apart from the loss of time, has sometimes run into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Besides a lack of agreement about rational methodologies fur barge stability'and structural analysis, there has also been, until recently, a lack of data available to carry out the necessary calculations to satisfy the regulatory bodies or to evaluate the barge/jacket transportation in terms of risk exposure from an owner's point of view. Yet the trend continues toward the use of steel jackets for deepsea oil production, and the safe transportation and launching of these jackets will remain a difficult task for engineers for many years to come. This paper addresses some of the critical problems in the area of offshore transportation and, based on past experience. attempts to approach in a unified and systematic manner the evaluations necessary for adequate barge performances in carrying out successful transportation operations. The paper approaches the task from the perspective of a naval architect or structural engineer who must analyze the transportation pro?l.em under investigation and make appropriate design decisions based on the critical inputs from practical considerations. The design task is divided into two parts for discussion. The first part reviews the various analytical echniques in the area of environmental load estimations, stability evaluations, motion predictions, structure analysis and risk assessment. It is intended to provide the reader with a review of the present industry standards for offshore transportation analysis, and expl~re the areas of uncertainty for future developments. Figure 2 Illustrates a typical design spiral for applying available techniques in a transportation analysis. ~he seco~d par.t of the paper concentrates on the practical desl.gn considerations which must be made when using the available tools and procedures for transportation studies. Due to the practical constraints such as barge availability, time, data and resource considerations, various tradeoffs have to be made. In actual operations a designer is confronted with decisions concerning motions versus stability and stability versus strength, as well as decisions regarding the level of detail to be performed ~nthe ana~ysis. These causal effects on the total safety of the Jacket dunng a transportation operation are discussed in light of past experiences. It is hoped that these practical experiences will help designers better understand the complex interactions of a transportation and launch operation for an offshore jacket. Ultimately, how~ver, the goal of the paper is not only to assist designers in m~klng appropriate-decisions in a transportation analysis, but to Improve overall performance during the actual transportation operation.

Transportation

analysis techniques

Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. Practical Oesign Approaches

~he problems of analyzing the safety of a particular tow are basically those of defining the interaction of the tow with its environment. The tools and techniques available to the designer must be directed toward the two primary damage or loss

196

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

"-

Table 1
L BARGE NAME Intennac 650

Typical deck cargo and launch barge characteristics

B 0 Tux Dlsp. DWT "'.T. LTons

LIB -

BIT

BID

TID

ft
198.12 650.0 190.0 623.0 183.0 600.0 176.8 580.0 160.0 525.0 152.4 500.0 93 137.16 450.0

ft
51.82 170.0 50.0 164 .0 47.2 155.0 4B.8 160.0 42.1 138.0 36.58 120.0 31.70 104.0

tt
12.19 40.0 11.4 37.4 11.6 38.0 11.0 36.0 10.7 35.1 10.06 33.4 9.14 30.0

Tilt Beam Lenath

lL
Ft

~ LTons

4.25 4.4

ft

3.82 3.8 9.4 30.8 8.06 26.42 7.5 24.6 7.66 25.13 75920 74700 84226 82900 49570 48790 41790 41130 57300 56398 66680 65630 39550 393~0 31730 31230 3.9 3.6 3.8 4.2 4.32 5.0 6.06

30.48 100 32.00 105 .81 .73 .70 .75 30.48 100 18.90 62 18.29 60 18.29 60

"'leoperl M44 Hl09 BAR 376 Hll0 Intennac 600 Oceanic

4.6 4.4 3.9 3.6 3.5

5.6 4.8

BAR 398 Golia! 10 BAR 267 Intennac 8AR 319 Golia! 6 BAR 362 Agano BAR 396 Intennac Gplia!3 400 500

121. 9 400.0 121. 92 400.0 115.82 380.0 106.68 350.0 101.19 332.0 100.0 328.0 91. 44 300.0 89.92 295.0 92.35 303.0 91.44 300.0 77.42 254 .0 76.2 250 .0 250 73.15 240.0

31. 94 104.8 30.48 100.0 30.48 100.0 24.38 80.0 27.43 90.0 27.0 88.6 27.43 90.0 29.87 98.0 27.43 90.0 27.43 90.0 24.0 78.8 21: 95 72.0 21. 95 72.0

7.62 25.0 9.14 30.0 7.62 25.0 7.62 25.0 6.10 20.0 7.0

8.87 29.1 7.27 23.85 5.29 17.36 5.12 16.79 5.18 17.01 5.55 18.25 4.66 15.29 4 ..88 16.0 5.42 17.8 4.82 15.8 5.0 16.3 3.63 11. 92 4.21 13.82

27605 27170 24600 24212 17607 17330 12294 12100 13930 13711 13868 13650 11176 11000

15281 15040 20400 20079 12456 12260 9449 . 9300 11308 11130 13868 13650 8636 8500

3.8 4.0 3.8 4.4 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.01

5.5 4.2 5.8 4.76 5.3 4.85 5.9 6.13 5.1 5.7 4.83 6.04 5.2

4.2 3.3 4.0 3.2 4.5 3.85 4.5 4.26 4.1 4.19 3.88 4.5 4.3

.76 .80 . 69 .69 .85 .79 . 77 .70 .81 .74 .80 .75 .805

15.24 50.

15.24 50 . 10.52 34.5 15.24 50.

-23.0 6.10
20.0 7.01 23.0 6.70 22.0 6.55 21. 5 6.19 20.3 4.88 16.0 5.23 17.16

15.24 50 .

12635 12436 10818 10648 9754 9600 6195 6095 6248 6150

10626 10459 8941 8800 8230 8100 5158 5075 5263 5180

3.4 3.33 3.22 3.5 3.3

11 .89 39

BAR 271 Intennac

6.25 20.5

TIL T

8EAM

PUMP

: _

: ROOM : . TK -.....T--._-- .-~;.., TK 2 ,!.-"':~

13

TOWING

WIRE BRIDLES FAIRLEAD BRACKET

o ollJDo----o;o---

.' C=====
.' I

0:0
-:--r

0:0
I

0.0
!

_
I'

,
I

IIJl'

:
I

-r - - - - - : e '

- - - ... -, --

- - ~- - - - - - - --- - - - _.. - -- - .. .J ;
0:0

I
. _ .. _

:::oJ
.

: --e_ "s..
,

. ~ _

I L. _ - -

--

o o

~_"""J._,. 0

0: 0
I -.---0 I

._ .._,._ ._._ . _ ..... .. _ -. . _,_

0:0
I I

~:C'

0:0
: ._ I

.._._

.-,,-_-1_"-

0:0
I I I

: :>'0

_,
---

_.... 0: " _,

PUMP ROOM

:c"OOLIN"G!WINCH: I WATER, 0
l .. _..

0:
I I

.. _._,.. .

:CCX>LJNG~
~

WATER WINCH
0 -- . -_ . -- --. _
I :

[=::::::=~= cr===----- .
. "'" ---------.---

I.! - -_. _.~- ------

__ . '1---".

,0 ---,..- .. --,--

....o.....-

_.J==::
0:0

-=:::I:=

=-::J
I~

0:0

0:0

0;0

-e~

Fig. 1

Typical launch barge arrangement

Practical DeSign Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

197

____________________________________
A = projected windage area AI = effective windage area of member or surface A = area under righting-arm curve as defined in Figs. 5 and 6
ACR = dynamic

Nomenclature
KG = vertical center of gravity above KGI =
baseline maximum allowable KG of barge with respect to sce weather criteria maximum allowable KG of barge with respect to see dynamic stability criteria maximum allowable barge KG for specified stability criteria light ship center of gravity metacentric height above baseline transverse radius of g} ration opera-

_
T R = return period/average interarrival time Tz = zero crossing period To = wave Period observed visually [TI = transformation coordinate coordinate TI = total exposure sea state T2 = 21r{mo/m2)1 V = relative", ind tensor from barge system to jacket system time to a particular 2 (1.0 - 0.OSt}2 velocity

stability criterion = 0.08 m-rad (15 ft-deg) for offshore service matrix in global

KG2 =

IAIGLOM:'

= acceleration coordinate

KGA =
KGLS

IAILOCAL = acceleration

matrix in local coor-

dinate B = barge beam B = area under wind heeling and rightin~ arm curves as defined in Fi~> S and 6 C = area und r w ind heeling arm curve as defined in Figs. 5 and 6 CA = added-ma . and viscous damping coeffi lent C. = effective- hape coefficient for open truss CH = height coef licient CHG = height and ~ust coefficient C, = shape coefficient for windage area Cm = shape coefficient for member of infinite length

= K.W = Ku = L

V IhrlO = wind velocity at to m above water level averaged over one-hour period Vc.w

of transportation tion in days L = length of barge LT = long ton

= duration

= current
shear

velocity

due

to wind

vce vcec

mass coefficient matrix '\1'w = wind heeling moment M = teady wind heeling moment at angle <I> Mwc = gust wind heeling moment .IV = number of wind area elements N = number of sea state observations in a day , = number of independent observations .(0') = expected number of cycles to failure at stress level 0' P = [SCe wind pressure = 0.053 + (LI 1330)2 l/m2

[."11 = generalized

= vertical center of gravity = vertical center of gravity of cargo above barge deck a. = projected area of a structural member or surface exposed to wind b, = truss block area

!(a)

ce

function for multidirectional sea state g = gravitational acceleration h; = vertical distance from center of wind pressure to center of underwater resistance

= spreading

= center of ~ra\ity

D = barge depth IT = translation RAO vector for surge, swav. and heave D = \eIOCii~ RAO's {) = acceleration RAO's

= constant =

reflecting trapolation line distribution plot

best-fit exon Weibull

DCG = complex RAO at syst m ce Dz = absolute vertical motion RAO D(x,1j,z) = relative vertical motion RAO from
specific location D(H 1/3,P.) = cumulative fatigue damage per unit time for a specific sea state and heading DVQYAGE = expected fatigue damage during transportation FWIND = wind force IFI = generalized nodel force vector IFwl = complex wave forces acting on barge IFml = complex motion-induced acceleration forces GM,GMT = transverse metacentric height GZo = righting arm for KG = 0 H = vertical distance between centers of above and underwater areas H 0 = ccnstant reflecting intercept of best-fit line on Weibull plot HI '3,H, = igrnficant wave height if 1/3 = extreme design sea state associated with a return period T R Ho = wave height from visual observation lu = mass moment of inertia [K I = generalized stiffness coefficient matrix

=
P(nodamage)

0.005

+ (L/14

2(0)2 LT/ft2)

= probability

of no damage

PE(li 1/3) = encounter probability (probability of one or more exceedances of hazardous events) Pj(O') = probability density function of stress range PI (Ii Id = probability of occurrence of sea state HI/3 P{N = m 1 = probability of hazardous events P(O' > iT) = probability of stress level exceeding iT return interval based on number of voyages between recurrence R = vertical relative motion displacement RAO's if = RAO vector for roll, pitch, and yaw R. = Reyonlds number RAO = response amplitude operator RAO(w,v,p.) = RAO at frequency w, speed v, and headings p. R..\ .. X = maximum A Q(H
I 3)

number of hazardous events occurring during period L mo = mean square value of stress, equal to area under stress response spectrum m2,m4 = 2nd and 4th spectral moments above spectral density axis Po probability of stress level exceeding & = p(O' > &) q = wind pressure

r = position lul,lul

vector from system ce to a specific location = generalized displacement and acceleration with respect to structural coordinate system

v = velocity :r = r-coordinate or location Ij = Ij-coordinate or location z = z-coordinate or location ::1 = z-coordinate of a member stillwater level

above

a = spacing ratio of open truss a = wind direction with respect

member axis

to

righting arm ignifi-

a,{J

= coefficients

for CHC wind speed profile

to define

= probability of exceeding cant wave height

f3
11

= aerodynamic = displacement

solidity ratio

S(w)

wave spectral density function

111.. = light ship displacement e = spectral broadness factor

1'/ = shielding

T = duration or period T = natural roll period of barge

effect coefficient

198

Practical Design Approaches

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

o = pitch

angle or incident angle of hazardous

aN

lJ = pitch angular acceleration

A = rate of arrival events 11 = heading angle p

= most probable extreme stress level iJ = arbitrary threshold stress level or yield stress

= =

density of air "'" 1.225 kg!m3 (00765 Ib/ft3) stress level

cP = solidity ratio cP = heel angle CPJ = first intercept angle on righting! heeling arm curve

or second intercept angles on righting! heeling arm curves CPm = angle of maximum righting arm (i, = roll angular acceleration

CPd = lesser of downflooding

= yaw rotation or heading angle = yaw angular acceleration w = frequency = 2. T

modes for the tow, namely, stability losses and structural failures. First, stability of the barge must be assessed to insure that the barge will not capsize in the anticipated wind and waves, and secondly, the action of these waves on the barge and jacket must be determined to define the slamming and inertia loads to which the jacket and tiedowns will be designed. The external forces and moments created by environmental parameters such as wind and waves must be analyzed, on both the basis of their probabilistic occurrence and on their interaction with the barge/iacket system under tow. The state of the art of naval architecture and structural engineering provides a variety of methods applicable to these transportation analysis tasks, and a discussion of these methods now follows. Environmental loads Environmental loads used in the transportation analysis comprise those oceanographic processes which will ultimately affect the structural safety and integrity of the tow. Primarily, these forces include the wind, wave, and current loads as described in this subsection. Methods prescribed by several authorities for determining environmental extremes for wind and
SYSTEMS EVALUATION

wave parameters are briefly outlined in Table 2. An overview of sources of data and an approach to predicting environmental conditions during a tow are presented in the following. Wind. Wind forces and moments are used in stability calculations to determine the magnitude of overturning loads. In general, wind forces which act on exposed structures may be expressed as a function of wind speed, direction, projected area and shape:
(1)

where
p = density of air V = relative wind velocity CHGf = wind speed coefficient of member which includes

height and gust effects

= O'(Z/lO)/I as explained in Appendix 1 C, = windage area coefficient of member which in-

cludes shape, shielding, and solidification effects caused by wind blowing from angle a

<s->:
COST CONSIDERATIONS

RISK ASSESSMENTS

<, ~

BARGE /JACKET /CONFIGURATION

<,
PROB OF NO DAMAGE

DESIGN MODIFICATION BALLASTING FINAL TlEDOWN

(
STflUCTURE __ ANALYSIS ~:~\iJe:Rc~CAL DA GE (PR08A8L1STI\l --

'-:::,E:,i~"~'"
CLIENT ( / CONTRACTOR S6:~~~ SPECIFICAliOHS ~~:~~~ PRED (DETERMINISTIC) \

/,"\
TUG SELECTION'----AND TOW SPEED 8ARGE ~) SELECTION

!~:::.~'"

x
TRAJECTORY SIMULATION

WIND SPEED

<,

ACC.lMOTION

INTACT/DAMAGE STA81L1lY CRIT ERIA \ )

CURRENT, WAVE HEIGHT PERIOO___..

SPECTRAL WAVE DATA

_ ENVIROMENTAL DATA PREDICTION

MODEL TEST~

/
-

PARTICIPATION FACTOIIS

'.

FINAL CHECK

/ LAUNCH SIMULATION

WAVE

~ MOTION

\ HYDROSTATIC STABILITY CALCULATIONS

INOUCED LOADS SLAN PRDICTION

MOTION ANALYSIS

LOAD

Fig. 2

Design spiral

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

199

Table 2
lHeO[ 25~ A8S 26 USCGf 27 70 knots
. Return

Summary of wind and wave load requirements

DnV RULES [21] OOE [28] DnV GUIDELINES [18J N08LE DENTON [ 19]
-Re turn

BV[ 24J

USGS[ 23J

DESCRIBE NORMAl. OPERATING CONDITIONS

Co.

period eq. 50 years for struct. calc.

on <> z:
3

Return period equal I month 'Wave Probable. of -6 Occurrence 4 x 10 'Lacking weather predict ion: Es tab 11 shed wi nd 35 kn. Gust 50 kn. Return period eq. 50 years Wave probable. of occurrence 10-8 'Lacking prediction: Established wind 70 kn. Gust 100 kn. Ha If val ues of the operational condo

'" e
0
Co.

s
~
=> '" s :: '"

<>

SEVERE STORM ( EXTRE"'E CONDITIC~S

100 knots

I
I I
50 knots ( except USCG does not specify)

Return period equal three times the duration of cperation (except operational phase of rig) -For operational phase for ODU, the design period eq , 100 years DnV does not spec ify operational and extreme conditions separately

70 knots for ty calculations 'Return period for structure

stabi I iof eq , 50 calc.

Return period eq. three times the expected durat i on of the opera ti on

period of 10 years

100 knots in s tab i l tty calculations Return period of 50 years for structura 1 ca lc .

'" =>

z:

SHELTE=<EJ LOCA !~, S

NOT SPEC I F I ED

I
I
t

Return period to the length tow, but never than one week towing within hours from she area)

equal of the less (for 48 Iter

NOT SPECIFIED

WIND AVERAGi~G PERIDD -

~OT ISPECIFIED

Sustained Gust

- I hr.

ONE MINUTE WIND

- 10 ~ec .75 H 1.68 s T H v SEE RULES Hs Hma/l.i6 ~IOHs<T< T=IO sec Ro 11'20-25" Pitch' 12.5-15" Heave 2g

NOT SPECIFIED NOT SPEC IFIED

~OT WAVE o'AIW1ETFS IjSPECIFIED (OR BARSE /()TION '~~I

. 82 Tv .98

J20Hs

ai = projected area of member or surface exposed to

wind The estimation of total wind load acting on the barge/jacket combination is calculated based on the summation of forces acting on each individual member. Three methods of calculation which can be used to estimate a total wind load are summarized in Appendix 1. Current. Estimates of currents are used together with maximum wind and wave parameters to define the power requirements for the tug employed for a tow in stalling weather conditions. Towline pull at the indicated current speed must be sufficient to overcome both the maximum wind forces on the structure and the drag on the barge due to current and waves. The current velocity may be computed by combining global circulation and tidal currents, if applicable, with wind-induced currents. In the absence of statistical data on maximum current velocities, the wind-induced current may be estimated based on the following relationship:
V c.w = 0.02 V IhrlO (2)

where Vc.w is the current velocity due to wind shear, and V IhrlO is the wind velocity averaged over one hour at 10-m (33 ft) height. Barge resistance curves may be calculated by using the barge form series presented in references [4J and [5J. Waves. Wave pressure forces produce the oscillatory heave, sway, surge, pitch, roll, and yaw motions of a vessel. These first-order motions induce significant inertia loads on the jacket and tiedown braces, all of which require careful attention in the analysis. Second-order effects, such as wave drift forces and add~ resistance to tow, may also require special consideration for particular towages. The methods of obtaining wave loads on a barge are essentially the same as those for shiplike forms. However, modifications are necessary in order to evaluate the added-mass and damping coefficients because of the large B/T ratios of barges,
200 Practical Design Approaches

and a more appropriate technique should be applied (for example, Frank's close-fit method [61). Furthermore, it is necessary to modify some of the resulting hydrodynamic coefficients in the equations of motion to account for three-dimensional effects due to the small L/B ratios of barges. Wave load calculations then proceed in the same manner as for ships [7J. Besides the hydrodynamic pressures acting on a barge hull, wave-induced vibratory loads, such as slamming and springing, should also be considered. Although the theoretical prediction of these loads is still unresolved, empirical relationships have been developed for estimating the slam impact loads on the barge as well as on overhanging jacket structures [8, 9J. Environmental data. Environmental data for a transportation study, unlike environmental criteria for fixed offshore structures, which usually are provided by the owner, most often are the responsibility of the towing contractor. A contractor will normally be required to provide the necessary design information on wind and wave conditions, subject to approval by the client and a cognizant regulatory agency or both. The final choice of environmental conditions will depend directly on the towing route, time of the year the towing will take place, ability to get to a sheltered area, and the assumed recurrence period of environmental extremes. The predicted or assumed weather conditions used for developing the design loads for the transportation phase of an offshore construction project thus playa significant role in evaluating and designing barge/jacket systems, especially with respect to the barge hydrostatic stability, barge and jacket strength, and seafastening design parameters. Wind and wave data are presently available from three sources: direct measurements, hindcasting techniques and ship observations. 1. Direct measurement at the location of interest will give a designer the most accurate form of environmental data. The types of instruments most commonly used to measure waves in spectral form may include wave staffs, wave buoys, and shipborne wave recorders.

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

'1

Due to the expense of maintaining an instrument at one location for long periods of time, measured data are not usually available for the site of interest, and when they are, generally there is not a record of sufficient length. In the case of a rransportation analysis, data are required at all points along the route. This makes it extremely unlikely that direct measurement will be available for the entire route and duration. 2. A more readily available source of wind and wave data is the hindcasting technique. This procedure utilizes the daily surface pressure charts for an ocean area, and estimates the surface winds from this information. Finally, the wind fields are used to estimate the local waves, which are allowed to propagate from one area to another to build a complete picture of the sea state at any desired point in space and time. The earlier hindcasting methods developed by Pierson, Newman, and James (PNJ) [10] and Sverdrup, Munk, and Bretschneider (SMB) [Ll ] are presently being superseded by techniques known as spectral wave models. Spectral models consider the generation, propagation, and decay properties of individual frequency components of wave specta [12] and, therefore, will provide more detail and perhaps more accurate descriptions of the wave climate. Although no model yet available has been able to accurately predict daily events, it has been proven that hind casting techniques do provide true statistical data when long-term records are utilized [13]. Fortunately, long-term statistics are one of the basic requirements, for transportation analyses. When using hindcast data it is valuable when possible to make comparisons with other representative, independentlymeasured data. This procedure assures that the hindcast techniques used will be suitable for the specific site under investigation. Such factors as shoaling, local wind variations, grid spacing, swell, generating areas outside the assumptions of the model, and the insufficient numbers of weather stations available to build reliable pressure systems maps, may lead to erroneous hindcast results in certain locations. 3. Ship observations for most ocean areas based on a compiled massive data source can also be used in a transportation study. However, these data should be used with caution since they are derived from data collected by merchant vessels passing through areas randomly. It must also be recognized that the observations taken are made visually by untrained observers, and that it is extremely difficult to observe accurately wave heights and periods from a moving vessel. Furthermore, it must be noted that merchant vessels also tend to avoid the worst storm conditions, and therefore a lack of storm condition data may bias the sample. These factors of bias are offset by the availability and inexpensiveness of these data, which have been compiled into tabular format and published by various authorities, such as the U. S. National Climatic Center [14] and the U. K. National Physical Laboratory [15]. Other sources of summarized ship observations can be found in reference [16]. Several attempts have been made to correlate visual wave observations with measured wave data in order to overcome the shortcomings of the observation technique. These attempts have resulted if!a diversity of correction formulas for both wave height and period, but the consensus seems to be that the visual observer tends to underestimate the small waves and overestimate the larger waves. Design environmental conditions. Design environmental conditions which may occur during the passage must be predicted once the most suitable source or sources of wave data have been selected for the tow. Normally the data used in predictions should cover all months during which the tow could take place plus one month before and one month after the tow period. This procedure helps to smooth out the anomalies which are sometimes present in monthly wave statistics. For

long ocean tows it has been a practice to carry out a simulation which routes the tow through actual past weather conditions, with adjustments of speed as necessary. The accumulated environmental statistics from many voyage simulations can then be used to develop predictions of significant and extreme environmental conditions. The design sea state for the towing operation can be derived from a data base which contains the percentage-of-exceedance statistic for significant wave heights, and the ioint-probabilitv distribution of both wind speed and wave height and period. The cumulative probability of each significant value is then plotted on Weibull probability paper for extrapolation of sea states at a desired probability level. The joint height and period probability is used to determine the range of mean spectral periods for the extrapolated significant wave height in describing the design sea state. The extreme wind and sea state in terms of the Weibull distribution can be ascertained by applying the techniques described later in the Risk Assessment subsection. Experience has shown that the two-parameter Weibull distribution fits most sea state statistics well. A true Weibull distribution is represented by a straight line on the plot, as shown in Fig. 3. The best-fit straight line can be drawn through the data by linear regression or by other methods such as maximum likelihood estimation. Particular emphasis should be placed on the higher points, and a weighted square fit may be required to arrive at a reasonable answer. Once a designer has derived an empirical model for the probabilistic occurrence of particular sea states, he must then select a probability level to determine the extreme design sea state for the specified towing operations under analysis. The probability level may be selected according to risk level and encounter probability, or by the probability of zero damage outlined in the Risk Assessment subsection. In the past, a simple and intuitive approach has normally been adopted. The desired probability level may be presented as a function of return interval based on the number of voyages between recurrences and the average tow duration. The probability of sea state less than the design sea state, H 1/3, is therefore given by 1 (3) P(H 1/3) = 1 - R X L X N where R = return interval based on number of voyages between recurrences L = duration of tow in days N = number of sea state observations in a day Practical experience indicates that a range between 100 to The significant wave height corresponding to probability level is then used as a design sea state description for motion and strength calculations.
200 voyages is normally considered adequate.

Stability In general, stability rules for barges are set to establish a factor of safety against capsizing due to inadequate dynamic stability, and against sinking or capsizing due to inadequate cornpartmentation. The criteria which these rules set up are based on both the predicted environmental conditions and the statistical data on the survival of models and real ships in these predicted conditions [17]. The differences in hull form between offshore construction barges and ships result in basic differences in st~tical stability characteristics, as shown in Fig. 4. Compared with most other ship forms, a barge has a high maximum righting arm and a large area below the righting-arm curve. On the other hand,
201

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

o.99999

o ."n5 ,0. "9

o. "950 e.

f/

--

- --

"'

o._0 o.t9000

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
I

iI"

J
\oJ

o.ssoco I /

::!o.90000
: '":> <.) <.)
0

o z

1I

... 0 eoooc o
~ 0.7""""

/
/

::::; a;

;:;0
o

.60000

'"

Q.

.eoooo

\oJ

:/
,-

Fig. 3 Sample plot of significant wave height distribution on Weibull paper

>
.40000

I-

~o
::> ::> u
:Ii

I I I I I I I I

0. :v>nnn

!>OOO

o.2~
o 15000.

I I I I
4 5 6 7 I 9 ,0. 17.0 20 30 40 50 60 70 '090' 00

o .10000
Z

SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT

due to its high B/D ratio, the barge's range of positive stability is often low, with corresponding low angles of downflooding and of maximum righting arm. The regulations selected for use with deck cargo barges are those which most closely conform to barge characteristics. Tables 3 and 4 represent a summary of intact and damaged stability rules, regulations and recommendations from a variety of sources, and are not comprehensive lists. These rules may be broken into three categories. First, there are rules which
8m-Maximum 8m Righting Arm Angle Angle

80' - Downflooding

have been developed specifically for deck cargo barges. These are the DnV guidelines [18], the ND guidelines [19], and the USCG deck cargo barge rules [20]. Each of these contains explicit or implied cautions for using their rules/guidelines for large overhanging structures and exceptional towages. The second category includes rules for the design and construction of offshore structures, such as those published by Dn V [211, DOE (U.K.) [22], the United States Geological Survey (USGS) [23], and Bureau Veritas [241. Each of these contains specific requirements for loadout, transportation, launching and upending of steel jackets. In general, they offer a more uniform set of guidelines for determining environmental loads and risk levels. The third category contains rules developed for offshore mobile drilling units (OMDU's), and includes those issued by the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization (IMCO) [251, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [261, and the U. S. Coast Guard. These rules are included because there are similarities in the stability problems of a barge/jacket tow and those of an OMDU in that they both exhibit high centers of gravity and large, often complex, wind heeling areas. In this respect, the OMDU rules have been predecessors of the other two categories of rules presented. All of the stability criteria consider the features of the barge geometry which have the greatest effect on stability, namely: characteristics of righting-arm curves, wind heeling, and meta centric height of loaded barge.

HEEL Fig. 4

ANGLES

(DEG.l

Comparison of righting-arm curve characteristics for barges and ships

202

Practical Design Approaches

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

Table 3 ~y
IMeo t 25 ]

Summary of Intact stability requirements

ONV (24) ~UlER

ITEM
WINO fORCE CALCU~A110N

A8S

(26)

6 ...Z<4} (

I
I
I
AREA.

'Ol

,28)

I 0
G.O[ r I..IHE S {IS]

NOBLE

OENiON (l9] OTHER

USGS

(23)

USCG

[20)

USCG [271 r,'/2,CS:-.V'A

-TUNNEL TEST

GJIOELlN(S

.ECOGNIZEO "E
MOOS

of:1I2fCV:'''S,1\6
-RECOGNIZ,: ME 1 HQ:>S PROFlL.E PftOJiC NORfIo!~l WIN::'

R[COG"" TUNNEL

HO 1ES"

NC,i 5PECTIfiEC

48S
WtND

OR

F=ll2fCs

"':1..5 p\e

f: PA

S""'I\j;',"~:"S

coors
TUNNEL -ExPERIENCE WITM SIWILAR

." ~
Z W

WINDAGE

ARE A

. PROFILE

I~
cr
<1 0

~ ::>
MINIMUM fOR WINO STABILITY

P.OJECTED A'EA DE. DECK A.EA

DUE AND TO TRIM HEEL 50 CONO STORM YEAR 'NINO, I HOUR AVER FOR SUSTAINED WIND 10 SEe~ GUST

rc
T(

ON ~lAN( DIRECTION

.
I

S"RU-:'''

URES

PROJECTED A,*' ON THE PLANE HORIoW. TO T>t rORCE

DIRECTION

A:L{2VCGL

O-T)

'360 "'IS
NORMAL 514 MIS SEVE RE

I INurE
SUSTAINED WINO WI1H RE TURN PERIOD THREE THE [QUAL TI"'4 S OF

hit NLrTE SUS1A'NE: WINO WITM 10 YEAR

M NU w'TIi

cr
::> 0
W

I SUSTAINED WIN0I
qtTURN EQUAl TlholES

I h4INUTE WITH PERIO~

SUSTAINEO

WINO

WIN:> PRESSURE EOUATION p:: 0.53

10 YEAq

RETURN

EVALVATION

RE

u"1H

PERIOD

2~ 7

MIS

P[r.tIOO TI'1QEE THE

cr

SHEL TER

i.oc
USCGl

~ ~ ~
Z

Z W

IE'ECPT

LACKING OBSERVATIONS

L[NGTH

LC:NGTooI OJ:

IL1I3301' 11/"'1

OPEQATION (NOT LESS THAN I wH1(1

OPERATION IN';)'!" LESS T..I."" I WEE"')

36.0 "IS
NORholAL 51.4

COND STO.",

MIS SEVE.E

HAlf OF TH VALUE FOR OPERA' !HG CONDo IN SHELTER AREA WINO HEELING COSINE FOR SHIP TYPE CONF IGURAT ION NOT SPECIFIED TO BE CALCULATED FOR SUFfiCIENT NO OF HEEL ANGLE S INITIAL COSINE FOR SHIP l'fPE CONFIGURATION NOT SPECIFIED

=:;
"OWENT
VARIATION

W W

:r

TO 8E
CALCULATED FOR SUFFICIENT

z i

--

NO or
AHGLES

HEEL

~
~(f)

>-

G"T

POSITIVE 'USCG GMT ~ 005 M

GMT~

030M

NOT

SPECIFIEO

G"T ~ 0.30

'GWT ~ -AREA

PAH/6TV8

TO RA ... }. 008 M-Rod

m~
<tz
~W

MINIMUM STATICAL STA81LIl

RANGE

SECOND INTERCEPT RIGHTING HEELING CURVE OF AND ARM

NOT

SPECIFIED

0-'5
LONG MOVES MOVES 12 h)

<0

DEGREE

NOT

SPECIFIED

v>~

OF POSITIVE Y

~cr
ZW

0-20
fiELD (LESS

0<t::> ~O

_cr
AREA RATIO GREATER OR

-WINO St-iOU ..D NO'" INCLUDED EOUA

t,

rrr ec r
BE

I
NOT HE OOWNfL.OCXlfrffi SHOULD 20 SPECIFIEO OF RANGE A.NGLE EXCEED

TO

1.40

COMMENTS

--

IHBlI(8+C) CALCULATED
RATIO Of

AS

RIGHTING ST,tDY

--

--

LIB. BID 8 T10

SPECIFIE.D

A.EA TO GUSTARA
EXCLUDING WIND HEEL

Table 4

Comparison of damage stability criteria

BV [24) DnV RULES
[21]

IMCO [25]

USCG [27]

ABSII DOE [26] [2B] One

DnV [18]

HOBLEDENTON [19] See IMCO

1 . 'im

USGS [23] One

...
0 0-

~ '" ~ -c

...

Number of Compartments Flooded at anyone time

~ I ~

One or more.

Depends on damage penetrations. 1.5m 2.3m to the upper deck 1.5m

~ ~ ~ General

IBeam Penetration lonQitudinal

~:!; IVertical

1.5m 1.5m 3.()n 2.3m From the bot too shell

Not Specified

Not Spec ified Deck Edge Should Not be Submerged Not Spec ified

The fi ne l water line tak i ng into account sinkage. trim & heel. should be flooding be low the lower edge of the opening through which any progressive mi ght occur.

Oooe conpar tment damage does not caps i ze or sink structure

V> 0-

Minimum Wind Speed

25.7m/s

~ ... '" '" :; ~

tx
0-

One hour sustained wind & 10 see gust with one month of return period. lacking this: 18.()n/s Sustained Wind' = 25.7m/s Gust

1/2 of predicted sustained wind for return period eq. three three times the 1.ngth of the tow

25.7m/s

25.7m/s (or applied for intact stab. or 20.6 for inside. if less)

>-

'" 0-

-' -

Heeling Moment Variation Initial Height Metacentri c -

Cosine

Hot Specified ) 0.3()n w/o wind effect with Sufficient Stabil ity Wind

Cosine Not Specified to Withs tand

Hot Specified

..
.1

'" ~
0

...
V>

Not Specified

Dynamic Stabil ity -Area Ratio (A+B)/(B+C)

) 1.40. calculated respect to gust & established wind

Sufficent stabi1ity to proceed safely to repair location.

) 1.40. area calc. perfonned from the new origin at angle of heel

--

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

203

em - Maximum Righting

Arm

90F - DownfloodinQ
(I)

Righting

Arms

0::

.... I....
::f

92- Second
Intercept

. PXAXH. GM T (required) = tl. (4) X tan1> The USCG dynamic criterion, which is used in conjunction with the weather criterion, requires that the area under the righting-arm curve up to the maximum righting arm be greater than or equal to 0.08 rn-rad (15 ft-deg). These two criteria are usually used to formulate a curve of maximum cargo VCG above deck (VCGc) versus draft or cargo deadweight. Characteristically, the weather criterion limits the VCG at shallow drafts while the dynamic criterion limits it at deeper drafts. The maximum allowable KG of the barge and cargo can be determined for each of the criteria as described in the following: Area ratio criteria: KGA = BV criteria:

HEEL

ANGLES

(OEG.)

Fig. 5

Definition of area ratio criteria

5o~d 0

(GZo - 1.40

Mw)

d1>
(5)

tl.
1 - cos1>d

In so doing, each criterion makes two implicit assumptions: (i) that the righting moments at sea are qualitatively represented by stillwater righting moments, and (iy that the assumed wind speed and heeling moments are representative of the environmental overturning moments. The principal intact stability criterion used for a majority of these rules/guidelines is the area ratio criterion. This states that there must be a minimum of 40 percent reserve righting-arm area over wind heeling arm area to the lesser of either the downflooding or second intercept angle (see Fig. 5). A standard 51.4-m/s (100 knot) wind speed is generally assumed for worldwide applicability in the absence of values predicted based on location and time of year. The BV criterion for statical stability differs slightly from the foregoing. It requires a minimum of 40 percent reserve righting-arm area over a gust wind heeling area, excluding the steady wind heeling arms from both areas (see Fig. 6). Lacking statistical observations, an established wind speed of 36.1 m/s (70 knots) and a gust wind of 51.4 m/s (100 knots) are to be used. In addition, BV rules require that the area subtended by the righting-arm curve be greater than 0.10 m-rad (18.8 ft-deg), The USCG weather criterion establishes a minimum GMT based on the wind heeling moment due to barge and deck cargo. The wind pressure used is a function of barge length:

c s;

~d (

140 GZo-~Mwc

d1>-j;:Mws(1)d-1>tl
(6)

04

cos1>l- cos1>d USCG weather and dynamic criteria: KGl = KMT - P X A X H/(tl. X tane (7a)

50
KG2 = where KGA
:! KGl

<Pm

GZO

ACR

1 - cos1>m or KG2, whichever is less

(7b)

(7c)

The maximum VCG of cargo above deck may then be calculated by VCG =
c

tl.. KGA - tl.LS KGLS - D tl. - tl.LS

(8)

where tl.LS and KGLS are barge operational light ship properties. The three criteria described were applied to a 91.4-m (300 ft) deck cargo barge to obtain VCGc-versus-draft curves, as shown in Fig. 7. To calculate these curves, the windage area was assumed to vary with VCGc, so that A = L(2 . VCGc H = VCGc

+ D - T)
- T /2

(9a) (9b)

+D

RIQhtinQ Arms

em eOF

(I)

ffi I....
::f ,

Gust Wind Heeling Arms

Steady Wind HeelinQ Arms

HEEL

ANGLES

(OEG.l

Fig. 8

Definition of Bureau Veritas area ratio criteria

Note that for the ABS and BV curves shown, the area ratios were calculated based on the conservative assumption that downflooding will occur at a tank vent close to the barge's side. When the ratios were calculated to the second intercept, the allowable VCGc rose between 0 and 7 percent. The area ratio and BV criteria curves are, of course, very sensitive to the wind velocities used. When an actual wind speed prediction is made, the comparison between these criteria may be somewhat different. Figure 8 was developed based on a wind speed of 30.9 m/s (60 knots) for the area ratio criteria, based on a 50-year return period and an averaging period of one minute. For the same prediction, the BV criteria steady wind speed is 26.2 ta]; (50.8 knots) or a one-hour wind, and the gust wind speed becomes 33.6 m/s (65.3 knots), or a tensecond wind. It should be noted that the tendencies shown here may not hold for barges which are significantly different from the one
for the Analysis of Barge Performance

204

Practical Design Approaches

DECK CARGO BARGE

91.4mX

27.4m X6.lm

DECK

CARGO

BARGE

91.4", X 27.4
(300' X90'X

1ft

X6.'

1ft

L~OO' X 90' X 20') :r 6.0 ... c,

W

20')

.0 - - - - - -U. S. C.G U.S.C.G. B.V. B.V. A.B.S. DYNAMIC WEATHER CRITERIA CRITERIA

o
){

'\

...
X
Il.

"

u ~5.0

\
\ \\

--_.---

O.lm-Rod AREA

CRITERIA RATIO CRITERIA

o.J o <,
){

\ \
\

----------------

U.S.C.G. U.S. C.G. 8.V. I.V.

OYMAIIIIC CRITERIA WEATHER CRITERIA CRITERIA CRITERIA

0.1 -"'4

w >
al
<l
C>

\\' \
\ \1 --'I

V. = 36.0
\\

"'I, ,

V,= 51.4 "'I,

:.l 5. o
w > o
al
<l4.0

AREA RATIO

AREA RATIO CRITERIA

V, .26.2 mls , "- = 55.6 AI S AREA ItATIO CRITERIA

V

"'I,

V = 51.4 m/,

.50.9

"'I,

.04.0

a::
<l
U

\
__

'.
\1
\. I.

o
C>

a::
<l

u,

o
C>

5.0

\ '~ \ ,~
~
"

...
C>

o 10
u

>

o.J ..J al

~\ \'
~"

>

o.J ..J

~Z.O
o

:J
<l

~':" <,

~ o
..J ..J

~ 2.0

\~
\~
1.0
\ \

<l

~ ::> ~ ~

:f
X
4(

~ 1.0

i
~

,,

O.OL------'---------;-'----0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B DRAFT/DEPTH

O.O'L..-

--------------0.4 0.2

0.6

0.8

DRAFT/DEPTH

Fig. 7

Comparison of stability criteria for worldwide service

Fig. 8

Comparison

of stability for given wind condition

used. The curves are presented simply to show the range of results which can be expected for typical stability calculations. Motion calculations ./ Wave forces are the single most important environmental factor causing a vessel's dynamic motions. Consequently, as was noted in the Introduction, stress on a jacket induced by the combined jacket/barge system motion should be analyzed early on in the design process. Ship motion programs have become the standard tool for such seakeeping analysis, and barge motion in six degrees of freedom can be readily calculated. BARMOT (barge motions) 128], a computer program especially suited for barge motion analysis, is one such program which provides a frequency domain solution that has demonstrated good agreement with model test results. The program considers motions to be linear, harmonic, and small amplitude, and the nonlinear effect due to viscous damping is taken into account in roll motion by an iterative procedure. The solution Ior regular wave excitation is in terms of a set of response amplitude operators (RAO's) and phase angles at the combined center of gravity (CG) of the jacket/barge system for different encounter frequencies and headings. Once the program obtains the motion RAO at the system's CG, the motions in three orthogonal directions can be calculated at any discrete location away from the combined center of gravity. The frequency RAO in complex form can be transferred to any specified location using the following relations: D(x,y,z) = Dee

The velocity and acceleration RAO's are simply calculated by differentiating displacement RA~'s:_ J? -:: s?t.J)~ W (; e'V J) (7\, C) , 21) D = iwDe1wt (lla)

fj

= -w2De,wt

(llb)

.~

In order to facilitate the strength calculations, the absolute acceleration has to be transformed into the jacket coordinate system (see Fig. 9). This global-to-local transformation is achieved by using a transformation tensor based on a rollpitch-yaw sequence by ITj = [TjROLL X [TjPITCH X [TjVAw where (12)

ARBITRARY NODAL~t1~~k-~~ POINT

~--~
Y'

+ R. X r

(10)

e-

where D represents the translation RAO vector for surge, sway and heave; R is the rotational RAO vector for roll, pitch and yaw; and r is the position vector from combined CG to the specific location.

/
Fig. 9 Barge/jacket

z
coordinate systems

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

205

[T) = [cosO, cosy; cosO siny; sinl/>sinO cosy; - siny; cosr/> cost/! cos + sinr/> sinO cost/! sinl/>siny; + cosl/>sinO cost/! cosr/> sinO siny; - sino sint/! where I/> the roll rotation, 0 the pitch rotation, and y; the yaw is rotation. Vessel acceleration in the local coordinate system is then given by the relation

-sinO ] sine sinO cosr/> cosO

lul,lul
IFI

= generalized

displacement and acceleration with respect to a local coordinate system fixed on the structure a generalized nodal force vector

IAILOCAL

= [TIIAlcLOBAL

(13)

Besides the inertia accelerations induced by motion, an eccentric gravitational acceleration due to roll and pitch motion should be accounted for. The component for acceleration due to earth's gravity, which is basically nonharrnonic in nature, can be resolved for small roll and pitch angles as follows:

IAI = IAlLOCAL

+ (-gk)

if .

(14)

..

The three linear accelerations, including gravity, in the local coordinate system then become X = Ax - A;Y, + gO (I5a) _ _/ Y = Ay + Azr/> + gr/> (I5b) i = Az + Az8 _ Ayr/> ./ (15c) The angular acceleration, , 8, :.;",remains the same as be- " fore. J Predictions of relative motion between a jacket structure and the wave are critical in order to gain some insight into barge/ jacket slamming, particularly where the jacket overhangs. The estimation of slamming loads on overhanging jacket members is a difficult subject which has attracted many research efforts (29). Though far from complete, theoretical derivation and preliminary results indicate that the slamming load is a function of the relative motion that exists between the jacket member and water surface, and the impact velocity entering into the water, which is similar to ship slamming. In frequency domain the RAO for relative vertical motion at any specified location, x, y, z, is given by, R( ) D ( ) ['k( . () x,y,z = z x,y,z - exp t x cosu. + .Y SInJ-L)] 16 where R is the vertical relative motion displacement RAO's and D;z; is the absolute vertical motion RAO. Relative velocity RAO's are readily developed as follows: '\ o, = iwD:e!wt (17) The derived information can then be used to simulate the jacket member submergence and the impact velocity in the time domain for slam investigations in conjunction with model tests. Statistics on the probability of slamming can also be calculated using a theoretical formula [8]. Structure analysis After determining the motion characteristics of the barge/ jacket system, the designer can then calculate the stresses induced by the motion during transportation. Classically, the equation of motion of an elastic undamped system subjected to arbitrary motion-induced loading may be represented in matrix form as .

For complex structures such as a jacket, the matrices [K] and [M] may be readily generated using a number of existing finite-element programs, such as the in-house DAMS package (design and analysis of marine structures) [30]. By treating the jacket; barge system as a whole, the generalized inertial acceleration due to barge motion and in terms of RAO's may be derived for each node as described in the Motion Calculation subsection. Ideally, a dynamic analysis should be carried out to account for the contribution from high modes of jacket vibration. Since the high-frequency springing is a rare occurrence, however, a static analysis may suffice. It is important to note that when barge deflection is significant due to high wave loadings, it is necessary to include the barge in the finite-element model together with the hydrodynamic loads. The forcing function now becomes

IFI = IFml + IFw) (19) where IFwi is the complex wave force acting on the barge and IF m I represents the complex motion-induced forces. An inhouse program, SEALOAD [31], has been developed for this purpose. The inertia, gra vitational and wave loads at each frequency, both in real and imaginary parts, are treated as a static load case in the structural analysis. The resulting solution for the system in terms of displacement in the inertial frame is then converted back to physical coordinates to obtain stress levels. When the stress distribution around a tubular joint is desired, a stress concentration factor is applied. The desired stress RAO's on the circumference of the tubular joint can then be determined using the stress concentration factors. Once the desired stress RAO's are obtained, the response statistic can be readily calculated by applying the well-known principle of superposition for linear systems. Given the spectral density function S(w) of the wave, and the RAO in regular seas, the response statistics in an irregular sea can then be calculated in terms of its spectral moments
mj =

So'"

So211' w!RA02(w,v,J-L'S.w)f(a)dadw

(20)

where RAO(w,v,J-L) is the RAO at frequency w, speed v, and heading J-L,and f(a) represents the spreading function. Generally, the peak value of the stress follows a Rayleigh distribution for short-term predictions. The probability of the stress level being greater than a certain threshold value 0- is given by
Pia

> 0-) = exp(o-z/2mo)

(21)

[M lIiil
where
[M)

+ [KlIul

IF)

[K]

= generalized = generalized
trix

where mo is the mean square value of the stress equal to the area under the stress response spectrum, and can be evaluated by equation (20). . n-. Furthermore, the most probable extreme value of t~ A.J.JV.M (18) sponses expected to occur once in N independent observations 'Cail6e estimated by the following asymptotic expression for large N [32]:
UN

mass coefficient matrix stiffness influences coefficient ma-

=~

[on N)I/2

+ ~ X 0.5722

(In N)-1/2

... )

(22)

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Sarge Performance

For a given response spectrum, N can be estimated by using the zero-crossing period Tz in seconds, and the duration of exposure T in hours:
N = 3600 X T /T2

Q(H1/3) for which

I - P(H1/3)

= exp[-

(~~3)kl

(2&).

(23)
(24)

H1/3 = Ho[-ln Q(H1/3)P/k

(28b)

Tz = 27r(mo/mz)l/2(1.0 where
f

- 0.05 f)2

is the spectral broadness factor

E= (l

mz2/mo/m4)1/2

For long-term prediction, however, there normally exists uncertainty of the parameter mo due to random variation of wave spectral shape. Thus, the probability of a exceeding a threshold level fr, and taking into account the parameter's uncertainty, is given by a combined Rayleigh-normal distribution. A detailed explanation of the procedure can be found in
[33].

In fatigue damage assessmen s which consider the entire range of stress, as well as the total number of stress cycles, the mean period of the stress cycles has to be determined. Typically the zero-crossing period T 2 is used, which is defined in equation (24). By using the well-known Palmgren-Miner rule, the cumulative fatigue damage per unit time for a particular sea state, H1/3, and heading, J.I., can be, estimated:
/ (25)

where Q(H 1/3) is the probability of exceeding the significant wave height, H1/3, and H0 and k are two parameters indicating the intercept and slope of the best-fit line on Weibull paper. Once the design significant wave height has been established, a range of characteristic periods may be used in order to ensure an accurate and sufficient determination of the maximum response. The period range, usually in terms of mean spectral period T 1, may be obtained from a theoretical joint probability density function of H 1/3 and T 1, or, in the absence of data, the designer may use the value recommended by some classification society. For example, Dn V specifies the following range of wave periods [18]: VlOH1/3

< T1 < V20H1/3

(29)

where Pj(u) represents the probability density function of the stress range, and N; (c) is the expected number of cycles to failure at stress level a from a fatigue curve. Hence, the total expected fatigue damage during the transportation can be estimated by
Dvoyage

L
/

T;

X D/

(26)

where H 1/3 is the design significant wave height in meters. For fixed offshore structure designs, the probability level is usually translated into a so-called maximum design wave height with N-year return period. This notion, however, is less meaningful for a towing operation which lasts days, or a maximum of several weeks. Given a particular return period, it is not at all clear what risk is being taken for a specified towing operation. A more meaningful criterion is therefore needed to convert the return period of hazardous events into missionrelated statistics. One way of arriving at a meaningful risk level for a specified towing operation is to use the notion of encounter probability. Provided that the extreme sea state and wind speeds are rare events during the transportation, the probability of these hazardous events occurring may be described by a Poisson model
[35]: .

- ,.

eLA(L'A)m where T, is the total exposure in Area i encountered, and D, is P(m) = , (30) the cumulative fatigue damage, taking. into considerationjhe .' m. sea state and heading probabilities I~::~. aj S-eA-~ where L represents the duration of transportation, 'A is the rate d -: ~ 1,. of arrival of hazardous events, and m is the number of hazo, = L L Pk(H 1/3)Pj(J.I.)D(H 1/3J.1.) (27) ardous events occurring during L. k j The return period, or average interarrival time, TH, is given by A special-purpose program, TPFA TIG (Transportation Probablistic Fatigue Analysis) [34], has been developed in-house (31) for the purpose of calculating fatigue damage and maximum stress during transportation. The encounter probability, defined as the probability of one or more exceedances of -tbe hazardous events during L time Risk assessment units of exposure, is given by In a transportation study the question the designer must PECH1/3) = 1 - exp( -L/T H) (32) answer for the jacket owner is, "What will the level of risk be in transporting the jacket from fabrication yard to production where H 1/3 is the design sea state associated with a return period site?" TR. Notice that the encounter probability is a function of One way of defining the risk level is to determine the return towing time as well as the return period of the hazardous events, period associated with the design environmental conditions which can be extrapolated from a Weibull probability plot as which the barge/jacket may encounter during a specified peshown in Fig. 3. ~ riod and tow route. These possible environmental extremes Furthermore, for a given design sea state H1/3,the peak stress then become the design sea state and wind conditions which follows a Rayleigh distribution. Thus, the probability of the the designer can use for stability, motion and structural analysis maximum stress exceeding the yield stress fr can be estimated to ensure that the barge/jacket system will "survive" during by equation (21). The probability of no damage during the transportation. Thus, the probability associated with the design entire voyage is given by sea state and extreme wind conditions indicates a measure of risk level during the tow. P(no damage) = 1 - PE(H1/31"o) In the long-term oceanographic statistics, each sea state is . = exp ((33) generally represented by its significant wave height, H1/3, and a characteristic wave period. Recorded data have shown that H1/3generally follows a Weibull extreme probability density where Po is the probability pto > fr) as shown in equation function . (21).

t-u-..cP-7

i:0)

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Bar~e Performance

207

PR06ABILITY

OF

NO

OA!!AGE

FOR

Po ( (T""> -O.O!!

tr)

I '" 10~~===========-

-0.10
-0.2!!

08

-O.!!O

-0.632
ENCOUNTER PROBABILITY

0.2

00~----~0~Z----~0~4----~0~.6~--~0~.8~----71~0--!!ISSION PERIOO / RETURN PERIOO

Fig. 10

Risk levels as a function of mission period and design sea state return period

,.

Figure 10 shows a plot of encounter probability level and probability of no damage at various Po versus the ratio of mission period and return period. \'otice that if the most probable extreme value is used for the design criterion. there is a probability of 0 6.3:2 that the extreme value will be higher than the most probable \ alue. Such a risk level is generally unacceptable in practice for intermediate and long voyages. This leaves the designer the choice between increasing the return period of the design sea state and using a design stress level with a lower probability of exceeding the yield stress.

is the practical problem that confronts the designer in transportation analysis. In standard ship practice the vessel KG can be altered to some extent in order to decrease stability to a nominal level. while varying the vessel's natural roll period in order to reduce motion. and thus keep wear and tear on passengers. crews. cargo and machinery at a minimum level. Alternatively. bilge keels. fin stabilizers and antiroll tanks. and other active and passive devices may be used to modify a ship's motion characteristics. However, proper ballasting and cargo allocation remain the most common means available for control of merchant ship motions. The position of the vertical center of gravity (KG) of a jacket is determined by the depth of the barge and the height of the "hI beams. Therefore. the KG of the system may only be altL-r,d through ballasting. which may have little effect on the barues GM, due to the variation of K,\l with draft. A designer ab" has available several passive roll-limiting devices which can alter a barge's natural period. but the most practical solution is etten the selection of a barge with characteristics that compliment the needs of the mission under study. Barge selection can be particularly important because offshore tructures are especially sensitive to transportation loads due to their great size and weight, and because jacket design configurations are optimized for their in-place loading rather than for towing conditions. It is also often true that a decrease in barge motions will result in a direct decrease in steel weight of the tiedown system and jacket and. therefore, in a reduction In its acquisition cost. The designer's concern. then. is that of motion control rather than maximum stability. The relationship between motion and stability is demonstrated in the following examples. Because the roll motions often cause the most severe loading on the cargo. the examples consider only the effect of the barge's roll motions in sea states of varying wave heights. The natural roll period of the barge. T <p. may be expressed

Practical design considerations

The preceding section has described the acceptable criteria and the approaches to the essential elements needed to perform a transportation study. The paper now addresses some of the practical aspects a designer faces when analyzing an offshore transportation operation. Design decisions are affected both by the state of the art of naval architecture and structural analysis. and by the practical factors involved. such as time and data available and level of analysis requested. Thus. each transportation study performed will vary its use of available methodologies. Consequently, the final determination for the level of effort in any transportation study is a result of weighing the anticipated gains (monetary) with choices about acceptable methodologies. The basic criterion a designer must use to develop a rational, consistent .1Od practical methodology for transporting a structure is that of safetv: the analvsis should insure that the vstern will not capsize or' be broke~ up. The practical design considerations. therefore. center about the apparent tradeolfs between motions and stability. and the effect these two factors have on structural strength. This section now turns to the practical options the de igner can deploy to .eep the H" f'1.lIHI its cargo \\ ithin the pn-dicted requirements for a particular mission. Barge motions and stability

a T
'" where
'=

27rKn .-\.V g G LVIT '"

(3-t)

CA = added mass coefficient of barge = F{Kn/B. BIT) Kxr = roll radius of gyration of barge/jacket

system

It has long been know n that .l vessel with :.I high dt'~rt'e of stability wdl have stiff or jerk\ motions, because as the C.\I of the vessel b raised, the low er its natural period I)t'COIlH:'S. This tradeoff betwe-en d y na mic ,tallilit) and motion accel.-rution

The only means of changing the natural roll period for a given barge and jacket is by adding or moving ballast. Adding ballast lowers the KG and increases the draft. while the position of the ballast affects the svsterns inertia. To avoid roll resonance it is necessary to operate the barge so that its natural period will not likely be in the range of the majority of a given sea state's energy. As an illustration of this. the period range for the maximum spectral energy density of a Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum has been plotted for ignificant wave heights up to 9 m (:!9.5 ft) (see Fig. I l ). :\ote that with this spectrum, less than LO percent of the total wave energy is at periods greater than the range indicated. Assume that Barges [ and II are ballasted so that their natural periods are L.5.-t and 13.:2 seconds (s), respectively. It can then be seen that Barge [ will be in resonance in sea states with significant wave heights greater than .').9 m (19.:3 ft). while Barge II (the larger barge) wil] be in resonance for significant wave heights greater than -t.-t m (1-t.-t It). Therefore. from a roll motions standpoint, the smaller. less table barge probably would be more acceptable for tows where significant wave heights greater than -t.-t m are expected. The idea of variuble-stubility (that is, variable wuterplane) burucs has resulted from the need to "tune" barges for partie-

208

Pracucal Oesiqn Approaches for he A.I arysis of Barge Per ormance

ular jacket tows. Through thf' use of modular barzr such as Flexifloat 136;, or b~ variable free-flooding arrang. ",'111., it may be possible to suit a barge to the needs of a particular jacket towage operation This matching of barge and to can be accomplished b) reducing the water plane inertia of tilt' vessel, and thereby approach its minimum intact and damaged stability limit while at the same time minimizing its anticipated motion responses. The ability to significantly varv a vessel': waterplane properties to increase its suitability for particular voyage requirements is unique to barges, and provides all effective means to control barge accelerations. AntirolJ tanks, such as those used in ships, also have the advantage of being able to be "tuned" to a specific frequency for a particular tow. However, they are usually only effective over a short range of wave periods, and would have to be quite large to be of significant value. Thus, antirolJ tanks have seen little application in deck cargo barges. Once a barge has been selected for the towage under study, the use of bilge keels remains the most common method to further moderate barge roll motions. It is also usually the least expensive approach. In general, bilge keels will damp roll motions over a wide range of barge drafts and wave periods by increasing the added mass and viscous damping of the barge. The effects of bilge keels of varying sizes on a particular towage can be seen in Fig. 12. It should be noted that the roll RAO's may begin to increase again for bilge keels beyond a certain optimum size. Barge motions may, therefore, be minimized through the use of a variety of designer-controlled variables. These include the selection of the barge and ballasting configuration, the use of variable-stability barges to "tune" for specific towages, and the use of bilge keels and other motion-damping devices.

BARGES 19

I II

914M~27~MX61'" (300' X 90'X 20')

18

(158MX30SMX7.6M (380'XI00'X2S')

17

a Z o
'"

II)

16

u w
15

00 0-14

_a:: a::w wn.

-'<f

n. '" 13

-'w on.
a::
-'<f <fa::

-'

12

::>u ... w
<fn.

a:: ...

11

Z"'IO
I I

s~ ...1-

." .
9 B 7L0.2 PERIOD RANGE fOOl 50% OF WAVE ENERGY (CENTERED ABOU T~[A,)

~
0.4

~ 0.6 DRAFT / DEPTH

~
0.8

~
10

o
SIGNIFICANT

.
4 6 8

10

WAVE

HEIGHT

(METERS)

Fig, 11

Variation of natural roll period with operating draft and variation of spectral peak period with significant wave height

5.0

DECK CARGO BARGE I01.2mX274mX6.lm (332' X 90'X 20')

40

-::I
...J ...J)(

O~

X
3.0

BARGE WITHOUT BILGE KEELS

a::N
BARGE WITH(30') (45') (60') BILGE B'_GE B,GE KEELS KEELS KEELS

Q ...

a::
w
II)

~
20 Z 0 CL
II)

09,. 14,. I 8

a::
...J ...J

a::

10

r:

10 WAVE PERIOD

15

20

Fig, 12

Variation of roll RAO's for bilge keels of various lengths

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Sarge Performance

209

ELEVATIONFRAMING-=----_, JACKET LE

STBD TUBULAR " TIEDOWN

FWD

PLATE

TIEDOWN

LONG'L

SHEAR

PLATE

Fig. 13

Typical tiedown arrangement

Strength Several levels of analysis are possible for determining loads and stress levels in the barge/iacket system. depending most importantly on the designer's concern over the magnitude of these loadings. Obviously, for a tow of short duration in relatively protected waters, only a very simple and conservative analysis will be performed to reduce the overall loadings and the required tiedown arrangements. It may even be deduced that it is safe to use a standard tiedown size and an arrangement based on successful usage in the past. Figure 13 shows a few examples of typical tiedown arrangements. For tows of intermediate duration, where more exposure to hostile weather is anticipated, simple hand calculations are often performed to size tiedowns. In this analysis certain conservative assumptions are necessary due to the fact that tiedowns are normally a redundant structure (that is, the problem is statically indeterminate). For a common tiedown arrangement, possibly the most straightforward assumption is to replace the jacket by a set of lumped weights and lumped inertias at its tiedown points. This information may be easily available from previous computer analysis of the jacket structure, or may be handcomp';!ted from drawings or estimated simply by knowing the jacket s length and center of gravity. This method is similar to that used for launching calculations [:371. The next question that often arises is what sort of acceleration to use with this quasi-static system. The simplest method would be to apply some standard maximum motions to the barge in the manner described by one of several authorities [l9, 381. The problem which arises in using this approach is in determining the interaction nf various. accelerations acting si210 Practical Design Approaches

."

multaneously on a given member. A common approach is to assume that the worst loading will come from beam seas when the roll angle and roll and heave accelerations are at their maximum. A number of possible worst loading conditions may then be developed by alternating the directions of these loads. This simple approach is suitable for preliminary design and stress estimation of tiedown bracings. The worst-load condition is less sensitive with respect to the relative signs of these accelerations when the barge/jacket configuration is symmetric. In some cases, the number of loading conditions may be reduced by simple inspection, though as the load size and complexity increases for large structures, the ability to do so decreases. As the jacket size increases, tiedown and jacket stress estimations become more important. Failure of jacket members from fatigue damage during transportation is a genuine concern to the designer. Normally the structural analysis of the jacket has been focused about its in-place loads, with a certain amount of bracing added to accommodate its lying on its side during construction and transportation. When the transportation analysis is done, the finite-element model for the jacket is modified by altering the support points and adding the tiedowns and skid beam to the structural model. Dynamic transportation loads may then be applied by transferring the linear and angular accelerations to lumped masses at each node of the model. The resulting stress distribution is used then to determine whether the jacket structure is adequate or whether some modification is required. The results are also used to size and position the tiedowns. The question :lgaill arises as to the validity of the maximum

for the AnalYSIS of Barge Performance

Table 5

Expected participation factor matrix for 6-deg acceleration and angular motions
HCELERATION SWAY DUE TO' H[AVE 0.0 4NGUlt..~ t.."~~l[P.ATIO"l DUE TO' PIlCH ~OLl 0.0
Y-

LINEAR SURGE SU~GE SWAY HEAVE YAW R!l'lL PIlCH ROLLM PIlCHM 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 o .0
Y-

~N4Ut ~~

YAW 0.0

POLL0.0
Y-

",rTION DUE TO' PIICHM 0.0

o.a
100 .00 -30. 96 o .0

0.0
Y-

x x x
Y.

x
Y-

- 34 .89 100 .00 0.0

x
Y-

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

-64. 95

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

44 . ) 0 -45.24

o .0 0.0 o .0 0.0

x
Y-

% %

39 .09 x 0.0 100. 00 % 0.0 -100. 00 x 0.0

x
x

Y-

0.0 -100 .00 o .0 100.00 0.0

'0

-&8 22 x 0.0

40. 30 x 0.0 -40. 30 % 0.0

%

x
x x
%

x
Y-

~
Y-

0.0 0.0 0.0

x x x
%

88 22 x 0.0
Y.

x x

SHORT

TERM

RESPONSE

STATISTICS

(SINGLE

AMPLITUDE)

PER UNIT

HI/3

IN FT .

UNIDIRECTIONAL UNIT ISSC

LONG

CRESTED

SEA IS ASSUMED IS USED' 0.45)4E-02 0.6)63E-Ol 0.1353E 00 0.8596E 01 0.4262E 00 0.2351E 00

WITH MEAN

HEADING WAVE

ANGLE' PERIOD 0.0 o.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

90.0

DEGREES

SPECTRAL

FORMULATION 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

10 .0 SECONDS 0 .H23t-02 O. 3199E-OI 0 097E-OI O. 1242E 02 0 .3655E 00 O. lonE 00 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.2353E-OI 0.1534E 00 0.306~E 00 0.1364E C2 0.2543E 00 0.5125E 00
0

MEAN SQ. VALUE R.M.S. VALUE SIGNIFIC. VALUE Tl.PERIOD (SEC) BROADt~ESS (EPS) MPMAX. IH .5 HR

0 .9806[-02 0 .9902[- 0 1 O. I ?8OE 00 0 .BI2lE 01 0 .3809E 00 0 .3458 E 00

0 .0 .0

o. 0
0.0 0.0 0.0

NOTE

MULTIPLY FOR THAT

BY THE SIGNIFICANT SEA STATE.

WAVE

HEIGHT

TO ARRIVE

AT THE CORRECT

RMS.

SIGNIFICANT

AND THE MOST

PROBABLE

MAXIMUM

RESPONSES

loads as well as to determine the combination of accelerations to be used in the jacket stress analysis. It is important to emphasize that the maximum loading condition cannot always be determined by simple inspection as in the case of tiedown designs. Therefore, a more rational method is needed to find the so-called "participation factors" for each of the motion components when one of them reaches its maximum in a given sea state and duration. The estimation of the participation factor is achieved by utilizing the notion of cofactors in random processes [39J. The analysis, using basic Six-degree motion RAO's and phase angle, determines the relative percentage values of its expected maximum when one of the responses (accelerations or angular motion) is at its maximum. Table 5 gives an example of the participation factor from the CARGO (participation factors) computer program 140J matrix for a typical jacket/barge system in unidirectional beam sea. The results have been verified with the time history simulation using the same acceleration and motion RAOs. The expected maximum values of the acceleration and motion using frequency domain analysis seem to be in good agreement with the time domain simulation, except in the case of roll responses, as shown in Table 6. The "participation factors" expressed in terms of percentage of their respective motions may also be calculated by using the average values of the time history runs.
Table 6

After the participation factor of the acceleration and motion for different headings and sea conditions has been determined, the jacket structure can be readily analyzed by transforming the responses at the barge/jacket combined center of gravity to modal forces and moments in a local coordinate system to solve for member stresses by using an existing finite-element package such as DAMS. It should be noted, however, that although this approach provides a more rational basis for treating the maximum motion-induced stresses. it still involves rnanv simplified assumptions which may not realistically represent the actual conditions under tow. First, the calculated motion-induced stresses are not rigorously derived, using a set of average values of participation factors for a given seastate and duration. Secondly, the effect of the barge's structural response on the jacket is not taken into consideration. Finally. the result cannot be used for a rigorous fatigue analysis, which could l critical for certain \\ pes of jackets. The ultimate approach to the jacket/barge structural analvsis is to model tilt:' system as a whole by the finite-element method. Both h\'dro(hna'mic and hydrostatic loads can be applied to the barge using the computer program SEALOAD. In this way, the effect, of barge/jacket structural interaction call be accounted for The results obtained by the TPFATIG postprocessor an- ill term, of member stress RAO's, which can be
system

Maximum heave, sway, roll acceleration and roll angle with their respective participation factors for a barge/jacket in beam seas from time history (ISse spectrum H 1'3 = 20 It; Tl = 10 sec) Heave Accelerat ft/S~ ion. Sway Accelerat ftlS" -1.579 (33.4~' ) 4.727 (l00"! ) ":'3.291 (80.:20, ) 3.143 (66.5%) i,,~ . Roll Acceleration, deg/S~

Holl Anul. dp~ -;1.151 (39.9%) 4.020 (50.9%) - 7.424 (91.0%) 7.898 (lOOCi, )

....

Heave acceleration Sway acceleration Roll acceleration Roll angle

NOTES:

6.828 (lOO'}(j -2.233 (32.7<;() 1.78:2 (26.1Ci) -2.397 (35.1 ';cl

o.sso
n~.9"') - 1.19,
(66.7rC)

1.79;, (100"; I .-1.,8-1 (99.:16(", )

1. 2.

The values indicated are t.he average values from six time-history simulat ion runs. The negative signs are used to indicat.e the opposite direction to the maximum responses.

Practical Design Approaches

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

211

STAGE

0 - WINCHING

STAGE

I -

SLIDING

STAGE

2 -

ROTATING

STAGE

~ - SLIDING

e.

/
STAGE 4 - CLEARING BARGE

SKID BEA~ BARGE

Fig. 14( a)

Launch stages for an offshore jacket

combined for maximum stress prediction and fatigue damage from an estimation using stress concentration factors. As outlined previously in the Structure Analysis subsection. this approach represents a more coherent methodology for a jacket/barge analv is. nfortunateiy, the volume of computation may be prohibitive and justified in only a limited number of ca es. A barge structure, however, may be checked for adequacy with an alternative and simpler approach. First, the primary hull bending tress is obtained by the traditional method of calculating the limiting stillwater and wave-induced bending moments, using the barge section modulus and the design wave height. Bending stresses should be obtained for both tow and launch conditions based on the actual jacket and ballast configuration. Second, for some barges the carrying capacity of the deck may be in question due to the high local loads transferred frorn the cargo through the kid beam. These loads tend to peak sharply at the major framing elevations where loads are distributed in from other parts of the jacket. Such loads may be in the region of l/~ to 1/6 of the jacket's total weight. This load is distributed by the skid beams to the deck frames and eventually to the transverse bulkheads and side shell.
212 Practical Desrqn Approaches

The third consideration is the barge's local strength in way of the tiedown structure. Experience shows that this is where much of the member failure occurs, especially fatigue failure for members periodically in tension. The design must consider the local strength of the deck relative to the maximum (compressive) load expected, and also consider the periodic tensile loads that will be present. Jacket launch considerations Barge requirements determined by launch considerations will often have a significant effect on barge selection for transportation. Barge SUitability for launch is defined by various parameters, starting with the overall strength of the barge as defined by its maximum tilt pin reactions, the length and flexibility of the tilt beams, and the hull girder section modulus. Other barge parameters include stahilitv L haructeristics at high trims, and compartmentation and hallastability. The objective of the launch analysis is to define a method to transfer the jacket from the barge to the water in the srnoothcst and safest manner possible. This process involves minimizins; jacket and barge stresses and maximizing both barge and jac .et stability. A primary consideration is to minimize the launch's

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

sensinvity

to small

variations

In the establi: hed configura-

The main concern in am launch analvsis Ct'nters,about predicting the dynamic lx-havior of th Jacket and barge. Therefore. design prediction must con ider tilt' d)namic of the svslem, w hich are norrnallv derived from model test or from computer simulations which produce a time history of the launch or from both 14J I. A typical stern launch can be divided into S stages for evaluauon, a shown in FI~ J .1\a ). Figure 14(v) shows the launching of a large offshore jacket The most critical stage for both jacket and barge is usually rotation of the jacket on the tilt beams ( tage 2) Stresses in the barge are at a maximum due to both the unfavorable longitudinal distribution of weight, and the concentrated local loadings at the tilt beam supports. Typically, launch barges are highly reinforced at the launch end, and together with the tilt beams are rated with a maximum reaction capacity. On the other hand, the barge section modulus is normally dose to the nominal value required for all ocean service barges, and the hull bending stress must therefore be closely monitored. Both the tilt beam and hull girder loadings may be moderated to some extent by the prudent positioning of ballast prior to launch (see Figs. ISa and ISb). Increasing the barge trim has the effect of immersing more of the jacket early in the launch, which results in an increased buoyant force that reduces the load on the barge. While a high trim tends to add to hull bending stress, placing the ballast near midship reduces the inherent hogging moment on the barge. Jacket rotation is also a critical stage in the launch process due to the fact that the jacket is supported only by a short span of tilt beam. In general, the more of the jacket that is immersed, the lower the jacket stress will be due to the buoyancy of the submerged section of the structure. The barge's transverse and longitudinal stability will decrease rapidly if the barge is allowed to trim to such angles that either the bow emerges or the stern submerge in the water. As an example of the trim effect. d) namic stability has been calculated for a range of trims for barges of various depths (Fig. 16). The use of a high trim angle produces another hazard, that of jacket stalling. High trim increases the probability that the jacket will slow down on entering the water, and thi slowing effect may cause the structure to stall, or "hang up," on the barge. In this case, both the drag and buoy ant forces on the jacket act to prevent rotation and separation. When high trim angles are inevitabl in a particular launch, a light draft is often used to minimize jacket submergence prior to Stage 2. ~ hile the launch operation is of short duration and generally performed under good weather conditions, the possibility exists that the jacket may hang up during launch and remain on the tilt beams for some period of time. A major concern is that the jacket may skew on the launch rails or launch in an unpredictable fashion. Either of these situations can lead to damage of the jacket or barge. The authors feel that an adequate criterion would be to require that the barge heel no more than the angle at which the jacket would begin to skew (2 to 5 deg) in a nominal beam wind. The value for wind speed used could be determined based on the maximum one-minute average wind to develop in 24 hours from an initially calm sea state. Two other items of importance addressed by a launch simulation concern the maximum ubmergence of the jacket as it clears the barge ( tage 4), and the final attitude of the structure in the water. The trajectory of the jacket is normally governed by the initial draft and trim of thebarge, along with the type of lubrication used on the jacket runners. A designer can control additional items, such as extent of added weight (skirt piles, boat landings, etc.) and added buoyancy (flotation tanks) affixed to the jacket at launch. The

non Launch dqnanncs

Fig. 14(b) Launching of the 700-ft-long. 10 OOO-tonChevron "Garden Banks" jacket. The structure is being launched in the Gulf of Mexico from the 66 OOO-dwt Brown & Root launch barge BAR 376

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

213

L=914" ~0.4

(~OO')
(90') T. (9000LT)

a::
I

B=27.4" 6=9150

2 2
C) Z

a::

DEPTH=

7.6

0.3

;: :r C)
C;:0.2

X
2
00.1 DEPTH = 5 I

2 :J 2

~
a::

--'-F.:.:.WD=---_ 2 BALLAST

It
o

AI'T
I

.
,

L.J

..

%L

IlL

X 100'1.

LOCATION

TRIM

Fig. 15(a)

Variation of barge stresses with longitudinal position of ballast

Fig. 16

Variation of dynamic stability with trim for various barge depths

oJ
/

'" > '"

oJ
II)

TI

'" or '" ... '" :2

-e
oJ

T2

~ ~
;:

--~~----~~----~O------~;----~2~--"
%L BALLAST LOCATION

FWD

lit

AFT.

Fig, 15(b)

Variation of tilt beam stresses with longitudinal position of ballast-

designer will be evaluating all options in terms of their ability to reduce jacket and barge stress as well as their potential to impede the progress of the launch, so that the launch analysis minimizes the risks involved in the launch process. Model tests For practical consideration in a transportation study, scalemodel tests are often necessary, in addition to the analytical. methods, in order to confirm and verify barge selection. A model test offers an analog representation of the true physical circumstances while analytical methods provide a quantitative assessment of s stem d namics. A designer often must exhibit a fair knowle ge 0 ,an experience in, practical operations in order to combine the two results, given the experimental errors, or scale effects, in modeling and the simplifying assumptions made in theoretical models. A model test program could consist of the two following components in order to meet the requirements of a towing transportation study. l. Towing testL ~ resistance tests in calm water and waves seakeeping stability tests in severe sea states 2. Launch tests: sea eeping tests during launch launch and upending simulation These test programs would enable the designer to confirm the transportation design analysis by determining the barge/ jacket stability, motion and acceleration. The behavior of scale 214

models during launching and upending can be easily interpreted visually for comparison against analytically predicted results. This method of verification is particularly useful for more sensitive analysis when' computation is lacking. A few modeling problem will usually exist due to the complexity of a jacket structure. It is important that the model should represent closely the full-scale structure in ,weight. inertia and shape. While the barge i usually simple to construct, the off-the-shelf range of miniature tubing sizes may determine the scale factor between the model and full-size structure. Buoyancy calculations normally are performed to ensure that the buoyancy of each level and frame of the jacket is correct, so that even though some members are not exactly scaled, the final hydrostatics of the model and prototype will agree closely. Finally, both barge and jacket models must be accurately balanced and ballasted to the correct CG position and inertia. By using the similitude relationships between the model and the prototype based on Froude number scaling, the motion, force and time measurements can be transferred quantitatively from the model to the prototype. It should be noted that drag-induced forces, which arise from the viscosity of the water, cannot be scaled to the same ratios as acceleration-induced forces. The viscous drag will be slightly higher on the model than on the prototype. The motions of a jacket on the barge in waves are one of the most important aspects of the model test. Regular wave results, in terms of amplitude and phases at different frequencies of interest, are recorded for deriving motion RAO's, which can then be readily compared with theoretical results. Particular attention should be directed to getting the roll motion RAO's in beam seas, where the nonlinear viscous damping and added-mass effects are important. Several tests using different wave slopes should be used to check linearity as umptions. Other motions and accelerations are often measured at the jacket CG and at those extreme locations where the highest local inertia loads tend to act. For launching and upending tests it is extremely important. to closely simulate the actual properties of the barge's skid and tilt beams. Often. small variations in properties such as the sliding coefficient of friction between skid beam and launch runner will have a strong influence on the launch procedure. Therefore, the sensitivity of launch and upending to initial barge trim, friction coefficients. and variations in the centers of gravity and buoyancy of the jacket is often tested. Standard procedures have now been developed by most of the reputable tank facilities for these types of te ts.

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

Summary and conclusions

Thi paper has attempted to present, in a unified and systematic manner various analysis techniques involved in the design a~d eval~ation of an offshore jacket transport~tion operation. Appropriate discussions of rules and regulations have been included in view of the lack of industry-wide standards for the area. The methodology outlined in the paper is not intended to detail the unique problems of a particular barge /jacket under tow. Rather, the procedures have been given as a general overview of the steps in the process, to be used as a guide for individual planning in carrying out a transportation study. In this respect, examples based on past experiences have been included to illustrate various tradeoffs between static stability versus dynamic loading, level of detail of analysis versus resource availability, and so on. The state-of-th~-art development of naval architecture and structural analysis continues to provide more tools for design and investigation of the complex interaction between stability, motion, strength and risk levels in a transportation study, and various options are now available to designers to ensure the safety of a jacket under tow. Based on past experiences in carrying out these studies, a summary of the conclusions and recommendations for continued development efforts follows. 1. Although the standard methods for wind force and moment calculations differ somewhat in their detailed procedures, they are generally in agreement between various classification societies. A more uncertain area, however, is determining the maximum design wind condition and sea state for the tow. Various classification societies have specified 50or lOO-year return periods similar to fixed offshore structure designs. It is felt that a more appropriate design criterion should be established based on the risk levels, such as encounter probability, which takes into consideration the voyage duration. 2. Stability criteria for deck cargo barges have been largely derived from ship and offshore mobile drilling units. Further research into the actual mechanism of barge capsizing, ineluding factors such as water on deck and restoring force from jacket member immersion, is necessary to determine an adedd bI quate level of barge/jacket intact an amage sta i ity. 3. Tradeoffs between static stability and dynamic loadings induced by barge motion are possible for certain types of barge/jacket combinations. The designer is advised to investigate various alternatives within the constraints of stability, taking into consideration the predominant wave excitation periods Other design options, such as possible ro I1- d am ping devices. should also be considered. 4. Local damage on overhanging jacket members due to slamming is often a concern in a tow, and the exact impact force on the jacket is still an area under researc h . Computer simulations and model tests should be performed to investigate the degree of seriousness of such impact, and to gain insight into the source of the dynamic effects of slamming. 5. Several levels of structural analysis for both the jacket and barge have been outlined and their re Iative merits d iscussed The choice of technique may largely depend on experiences with the type of barge/jacket for a similar tow route, and on available resources for the study. Generally, for a long voyage where barge as well as jacket structur.al damage i.s~f critical concern, it is recommended that a detailed probablistic analysis of maximum stress level, fatigue and loca I d amage be carried out. For relatively short towing operations a less-detailed, standard type of calculation may be adequate to back up past experiences. 6. In the area of risk assessment for a towing study, a pro-

cedure has been proposed to assess the level of risk based on the encounter probability of the predicted maximum sea state, probability of no damage, and other mission-related statistics. It is hoped that further developments in this area will provide a rational approach for evaluating on a common basis safety factors for a transportation operation. Finally it should be stressed that a successful jacket deployment operation involves many phases of careful planning from load out, tow, and launching to jacket upending. The paper has addressed some important aspects of the transportation and launching phases of the operation. As practical experience and research efforts continue to accumulate, the engineering disciplines in the marine field can better respond to industry's demand for effective, safe offshore transportation and installation procedures.

Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Brown & Root, Inc., whose sponsorship made this paper possible, and they appreciate deeply the encouragement and support given by Mr. J. C. Lochridge, vice president, the late Mr. W. A. Morgan, the late senior department manager, and especially by Mr. David Kummer, senior engineer. This paper includes a large amount of information from regulatory and consultive organizations. The authors would particularly like to thank those at the U. S. Coast Guard, Det norske Veritas, the National Maritime Institute (D.O.l., u. K.), and Noble Denton and Associates, Ltd. for their help in providing the information. Special thanks are also due Mrs. K. Fonda for her dedication in typing the manuscript, and to Ms. M. E. Archer for her great assistance as our technical writer and editor. The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Brown & Root, Inc.

References
Blight,G. J. and Tuturea, D. P.. "The GEMINI Method of Installing Deepwater Platforms," SNAME,Gulf Section, March 1978: 2 Blight, G. J., "HIDECK," SNAME,Gulf Section West, Apnl
1 1978.

3 Martin,M.R.,"What to Expectin the Way of MarinePlatforms to Corne" Offshore, Nov. 1972. 4 Moss,J. L. and Townsend, G J., III, "Desig~,Considerations and Resistance of Large Towed Sea-GoingBarges, SNAMET&R Bulletin 1-29, 1969. 5 Blight, G. J. and Dai.B. Y.T., "Resistanceof Offshore Barges and Required Tug Horsepower," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper 3320, Houston,Texas, May 1978. 6 Frank, W., "The Frank Close-Fit Ship Motion Computer Program," aval Ship Research and Development Center, Report

3289,1970.

7 Kim,G H. and Chou, F., "Wave-ExcitingForcesand Moments on an Ocean Platform in Oblique Seas,"Offshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper 1180, Houston,Texas, April 1970. 8 Ochi, M. K. and Motter, L. E., "Prediction of Slamming Characteristicsand Hull Responses ShipDesign," TRANS. SNAME, for Vol. 81, 1973. 9 Miller, B. L., "Wave Slamming Loads on Horizontal Circular Elements of Offshore Structures," Trans. RINA, 1977. 10 Pierson,W. J., Neuman G.:and James,R. W., Practical Method
for Observing and Forecasting Ocean Waves by Means of Wave Spectra and Statistics, Publication No. 603, United States avy Hydrodynamics Office, Washington, D. G, 1955. 11 Bretschneider,G L., "Revisionand Waves Forecasting, Deep and ShallowWater," Proceedings, SixthConference on Coastal En-

gineering, American Society of Civil Engineers Council on Wave Research, 1958. 12 Cardone, V.J., Pierson, W. J., and Ward, E. G., "~indcasting, the Directional Spectra of Hurricane-Generated Waves, Journal oJ Petroleum Technology, Vol. 25, 1976, pp. 385-394. 13 Chen, H. T., Hoffman, D., and Chen, H. H., "The lmple215

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

70

60

50

en

II:

r :J!

z
..J

40

~
(f)

....
>
CD

30

r<!)

:I:
20

:I:

10

OL1.0

~
1.1 HEIGHT

~
1.2 COEFFICIEN T

~
1.3 CHG OR

~
1.4

~~
1.5

~~
1.6

"rr;.;
IMea

Fig. 17

CHG, height and gust coefficient, DnV; CH, height coefficient,

26 Rules for Building and Classijicatton=Ojjshore Mobile mentation of 20- Year Hindcast Wave Data in the Design and OperaDrilling Units, American Bureau of Shipping, 1973. tion of Marine Structures," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 27 Requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Department Paper 3644, Houston, Texas, 1978. 14 Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations, U. S. of Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard, 1978. 28 "BARMOT User's Manual: Barge Motion Computer ProNaval Weather Service Command, National Climatic Center, Ashegram," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, Inc., ville, N. G, 1978. 15 Hogben, . and Lumb, F. E., Ocean Wave Statistics, National Houston, Texas, 1979. . '"29 Karlan, P. and Gilbert, M. ., "Impact Forces on Platform Physical Laboratory, United Kingdom, 1967. 16 Hoffman, D. and Miles, M., ..Analysis of a Stratified Sample - Horizonta Members in the Splash Zone," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC Paper 2438, Houston, Texas, 1976. of Ocean Wave Records at Station ZANDIA," SNAME, Panel H-7, 30 "DAMS User's Manual Level I: Design and Analysis of Marine 1976. 17 Snyder, Eric D., "Capsizing of Deck-Loaded Barges in Irregular Structures," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, Beam Seas," Research Report 48104, Department of aval ArchitecInc., Houston, Texas, 1978. ture and Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, 31 "SEA LOAD User's Manual," Marine Engineering Division Michigan, July 1974. Publication, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1979. 18 Towing Operations Guidelines and Recommendations for 32 Longuet-Higgtns, M. S., "On the Statistical Distribution of the Heights of Sea Waves," Journal of Marine Research, Vol. 2, No.3, Barge Transportation, Det norske Veritas Report No. 78-404, Oslo, 952. 1978. 19 General Guidelines for Transport of Modules on Barges in \ 33 Chen, H. T., "Long Term Prediction of Offshore Vessel ReNorthern European Waters, oble Denton & Associates, Ltd., London, -sponses for Design and Operability Evaluations," Offshore Technology June 1978. Conference, OTC Paper 3800, Houston, Texas, 1980. 20 Stability Criteria for Barges, U. S. Coast Guard, Technical Note 34 "TPFATIG User's Manual, Transportation Probabilistic Fatigue No. 3-69, 1969. Analysis," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, 21 Rules for Construction, Designing and Inspection of Offshore Inc., Houston, Texas, 1980. 35 Borgman, L. E., "Risk Criteria," Journal of Waterways and Structures. Det norske Veritas, Oslo, 1977. Harbor Division, Proceedin.s, ASCE, Aug. 1963. 22 Guidance on the Design and Construction of Offshore In36 Robishaw, Paul A., . Flexifloat Construction Systems," Robstallations, Department of Energy, Her \\ajestys Stationery Office, London, 197-t. ishaw Engineering, Inc., personal correspondence, Houston, Texas, 23 Requirements for Verifying the Structural lntegritu of OCS Oct. 1978. 37 Andrews, Harrison B., "Launching," Principles of Naval ArPlatforms, Prefared by American Bureau of Shipping, ew York, chitecture, J. P. Comstock, Ed., 51 AME, 1967, pp. 752-781. U. S. Geologica Survey, 1978. :38 "Notes on Transverse Stability on Floating Vessels, Freeboard, 24 Rules and Regulations for the Construction and Classification Bulwarks and Freeing Ports. Hatches and Access Openings," Dynamics of Offshore Platforms, Bureau Veritas, Paris, 1975. ASSociated u.it]: Rolling, United States Salvage Association. Inc., New 25 "Safety Measures for Special Purpose Ships," Code for the York. N. Y., 1968. Construction and Equipment of Mobil Offshore Drilling Units, DE 39 Hutchison, B. L. and Bringloe, J. T., "Application of Seakeeping XIX/6, I~ICO, 23 March 1978.

216

Practical Desiqn Approaches for the Analysis of. Barge Performance

Analysis," Marine Technology, 'Vol. 15, o. 4, Oct. 1978, pp. 416431 40 "CARGO User's Manual," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, lnc., Houston, Texas, 1980. 41 "FLAPS User's Manual. Flotation and Launching Analysis Program," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, December 1977.
WInd Pressure 111 ~ (a (ZI )6

Appendix 1
Wind moment assessment methods
Three levels of sophistication in wind moment assessment are presented here. The simplest and usually the most conservative is the USCG deck cargo barge method [20J, which is dependent only on barge particulars. It is most often used in determining the maximum allowable VCGc for each draft. The second method is used by most OMDU rules and entails breaking down the windage area into component parts and applying height and shape coefficients. The most sophisticated method is found in design and construction (D&C) rules for offshore structures, and entails a detailed member-by-member calculation using height, shape and shielding effects. In each case the computation may be broken into two parts, the effects and the area, shape and shielding effects. Note that only USCG [27J, IMCO [25J, and DnV [21J formulas are presented; other approaches are similar in most respects. Wind pressure In the USCG rules [27J a constant wind pressure is assumed over the entire windage area, and is dependent on barge length, as noted in Table 2 of the paper. In OMDU rules a wind speed may either be a predicted value or an appropriate assumed value prescribed by the rules, The wind speed varies with height according to a tabular height coefficient based on the one-seventh power law:
(35)

V1hr10)2 A.1

sin

TO
a and 6 from Table

No

Spacing
Q
&

Ratio

d/B

Area Solidity S ~ a Shielding Factor 1.0 TableB.1

" &

Is Item - 1 Open Truss or 2 Single Member or Surface

Shape

Coefficient
0::

Cs

Coo

Tables B.2. 8.3. B.4. and 8.5

Yes

where q = wind pressure in kg/m2 (Ib/ft2) for member k = constant = 0.623 (0.00338) CH = height coefficient (from IMCO [25], Table 2) V = wind speed in m/s (knots) The wind speed used in D&C rules is also either predicted or prescribed based on severe storm conditions. This wind speed is then modified to account for height, gust and angle of incidence for each member or section of a projected area (Dn V [21 J), where
(36)

Fig. 18

Wind moment calculation by DnV method (tables mentioned refer to reference [21))

values of CH for heights from 0 to 70 m (230 ft). From Fig. 17 it appears that the averaging period to be used for OMDU rules is greater than 1 h. Area, shape and shielding The USCG rules [27] are generally used with the block windage area assumptions as given by equations (9a) and (9b). These assumptions are best used when the solidity ratio of the deck cargo approaches 1. The OMDU rules commonly present a table of shape coefficients to be used in the area calculations. Component areas may be calculated by thefollowing rule:
(37)

where V1hrlO = wind speed, I-hour (h) averaging period, 10 m above SWL p = air density ~ 1.225 kg/m3 (0.0765 Ib/ft3) CHS = height and gust coefficient = O'(Z;/1O),8, Z in meters = 0'(Zd32.8)B, Z in feet (j = incident angle Zi = height of member above water surface {3= height coefficient dependent on wind averaging period (from DnV [21J, Table A.l) 0' = gust coefficient based on wind averaging period (from DnV [21J Table A.l) Figure 17 compares C HG with the square root of IMCO

where Aj = effective area of member or members Gj = projected area of member Cs = shape coefficient (from IMCO [25J, Table 1) In OMDU rules, shielding may be accounted for in truss-type
217

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

structures by applying a shape coefficient of 0.3 to the block (or outline) area of each truss face. The windage area calculations for D&C rules may be quite complex, due to the fact that this method normally applies to defining wind forces for structural loading and in situ overturning moments. The basic equation for elemental area is either (DnV [21]):
(38a)

where
ql,AI = as defined in equations (35-38a,b) hi = vertical distance from center of pressure to center

of resistance N = number of area elements The moment should be calculated at a sufficient number of heel angles to define a heeling moment (arm) curve. For vessels with ship-shape hulls the moment is assumed to vary with the cosine of the heel angle.

or
(38b)

where factor from [21] (Table B.l) based on ex, {3 faces Cs = shape coefficient from [21] (Tables B.2, B.3, B.4, and B.5) = kCa> aj = projected area of member in direction of wind Ce = effective shape coefficient from. 21] (Table B.6) based on 8 and He 1> = solidity ratio = projected area of truss members divided by block area of truss normal to wind hi = block area of truss ex = spacing ratio--distance between member centers divided by least dimension of b, Re = Reynolds number {3 = aerodynamic solidity ratio = 1>a from [25] (Table B.1)
1/ = 1.0 for windward

= shielding

Appendix 2
Typical towing approval procedures
The following is a list of typical calculations, drawings, and procedures required for a towing approval. Loadout plan Barge arrangement, capacity plan and ballast system drawing Main and emergency towing arrangement Barge and jacket structural drawings, including seafastening Tug specification Tug bollard pull calculation, including barge resistance prediction Ballasting and stability study (intact and damage for transit and launch operation) Weather and route trip prediction, including points of shelter Barge/iacket motion response Study of loads and stresses in barge, jacket and seafastening Logistics procedure (command and communication system, emergency procedure, methods of handling and securing jacket after launch and upending procedure) Crane barge specifications ' Study of jacket behavior during launching, flotation and upending

"-

A flow chart of these calculations is given in Fig. 18. The Dn V windage area calculations would normally be used only in the transportation analysis when areas determined by either of the other methods appear overly conservative for stability purposes.

Wind moments
The wind moment used in the USCG rules [27] is given by the P X A X H defined in equation (4). The wind moments for both OMDU and D&C rules are calculated by
(39)

Discussion
.
.;:

,
tinely made. It is our experience that the coursekeeping performance can improve with properly designed skegs. However, since the skegs add resistance to the barge hull there is some trade-off between the course stability and the added skeg drag [42,43,44] (additional references follow some discussions). The authors mention using bilge keels to reduce the barge rolling. We would like t? know what is the effect of the bilge keels on the towed barge s coursekeeping performance? We concur with the authors' statement that the designer's concern is that of motion control. It appears that while excessive trim is undesirable, some trim by the stern may improve the towed barge coursekeeping performance. To illustrate our point, Fig. 19 shows the barge lines and detail of the skeg with a movable flap. This barge is a notched stern barge used in a previous study [44]. Its particulars are summarized in Table 7. The trajectory of a light mounted at station 1 of the barge was recorded by means of an optical tracker during the coursekeeping test. Several skeg flap angles were used and the corresponding trajectories are compared in Fig. 20. Starting

Robert Latorre, Member, Frederick Ashcroft. Membe~nd' Stuart Cohen, Member 'J- The authors are to be commended on their compr he~s.ive discussion of the factors in selecting an acceptable ba~ge/jacket configuration for towing and launching offshore ttructures. Our questions concern another aspect which is brieHv mentioned, the coursekeeping behavior of the towe((barge. Typically when towing such large structures as shown in the front-is-piece photo two or more towing tugs may be employed. However, for the smaller launch barges in Table l, the barge may be towed by a bridle and towing hawser attached to a single t~g. With the large deck cargo the lorigtrudinal shift in the tow s center of gravity could affect the yawing and swaying of the towed barge. Have the authors any experience in how this has affected the course keeping ~rformance of the towed barge? e , At the University of Michigan, re istance tests as well as the towed barge coursekeeping performance model tests are rou2 8
Practical Desiqn Approaches

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

---------

------LOwER TANGENT

------------------------~~---L--~~--~CL
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 9

15
I

14

17

OF

RUOO,q 5700<

I,
;3.CO

, , ,
/
I

F:=:I
H ~.c--+!
:C~!
~

r
I

~'r======='f==
-

cT-.-----------skeg details

====,==:::::::/
14

SO'

17 CO'

showing movable

skeg flap Fig. 19 Barge lines

from offset of 9 ft the barge's yaw and sway motions were minimum at the lO-deg setting. In Fig. 21 it is clear that the trim by the stern reduces the sway and yawing of the barge and improves the coursekeeping performance. Have the authors . considered using the ballast tanks to obtain a suitable trim for both seakeeping and coursekeeping? We are grateful to have this opportunity of discussing the

coursekeeping performance of towed barges and congratulate the authors again on their fine paper. Additional references
42 Latorre. R. and Ashcroft. F., "Recent Developments in Barge Design, Towing, and Pushing," Marine Technology. Vol. 17. No.1. Jan 1981, pp. 10-21.

I
en

~I
-

en

-I

TOWED BARGE MODEL TRAJECTORY EFFECT OF SKEG FLAP ANGLE KEY A-TESTS 1 2 3 0 DEG 10 DEG 15 DEG

I
a,

~(
FULL EVEN Vs 48 96 144 DISTANCE, feet LOAD KEEL 6 kts en

~I
I

TOWE D BARGE MODEL TRAJECTORY EFF ECT OF BARGE TRIM A-TESTS KEY NO TRIM 1 2 TRIM BY STERN lO,nches Full scal~

V
V
~ %

/2

I~:;:/
1~ 2~

~----'--'----'---'--~-'----'---'
192 240 Effect of skeg flap angle

START

START

FULL LOAD 15 DEG FLAP ANGLE V!, 6 kts I I I

~
DISTANCE,

feet

Fig. 20

on

towed barge model trajectory

Fig. 21

Effect of stern trim on towed barge model trajectory

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

219

Table 7

Principal particulars of barge model

Name Length Beam Full load Draft Wetted surface Displacement Block Coefficient . otch length
:"JOTES:

Symbol LWL
B
Taft Tfwd

Model (X = 40) 3.788 ft l.500 ft 0.:349 ft 0.349 ft 13.531 ft2 3.752 ft3 233.70 lb (68F) 0.816 1.5 ft

Barge 351.50 ft 60.00 ft 13.96 ft 13.96 ft 21 649.00 ft2 6861 LTSW (59) 0.816 60.00 ft

More offshore tow monitoring is required to give greater insight into barge hydrodynamics and the problems of towline failure. Monitoring enables response to multidirectional sea states to be measured and enables greater control of the towing operation.
Bruce L. Hutchison, Member

S
'V

CB
I"

1. Towing bridle with legs equal to one beam was connected at corner of barge head log. 2. Tracker light mounted at station 1 in Fig. 19. 3. Monofilament line used for towing hawser material. 4. Initial offset at 9 ft or six model beams.

-t.'3 Latorre, R., "Improvement of Barge Towin~; Translations of Selected Japanese and Russian Technical Articles, ' Department of '.Hal Architecture and Marine Engineering Report, niversity of \lichigan .. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Report No. 226, May 1980. l-t Latorre, R., Ashcroft, R., and Cohen, S., "Investigation of Barge Towing Performance, Phase I Experiments," Proceedings, 19th American Towing Tank Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July 1':1. O. W. P. Stewart, Member

This comprehensive paper emphasizes that barge roll motion is relatively lightly damped and tends to exhibit large-amplitude resonant response. At large amplitudes, however, linear theory breaks down, added mass and inertia terms vary and the buoyancy force becomes highly nonlinear. Hence, the response amplitude is not necessarily a function only of damping at resonance. This problem is compounded when the vessel has large overhanging cargo which partly immerses during a roll cycle. Depending upon the wave height and frequency, and cargo geometry, the cargo may pick up hydrostatic and hydrodynamic forces which are in phase with the diffraction roll moment and consequently increase roll response amplitudes. Alternatively the phasing of the forces may be such that they oppose the diffraction roll moment and roll response will be reduced. In a recent study using a 3-D time-history program, the nonlinear buoyancy forces acting on the cargo acted in phase with the primary forcing terms and resulted in a roll motion amplitude of 30 deg. Reducing the cargo overhang changed the phasing of the cargo-induced buoyancy forces and resulted in a roll amplitude of only 13 deg in the same waves with the same mass distribution. The paper rightly emphasizes the importance of model tests which must be used to calibrate computer programs. It is common practice to adjust the roll damping in otherwise linear programs so that peak resonant response predicted matches that found in the model test, assuming other parameters to be correct. This may be highly erroneous especially where cargo immersion takes place. One of the primary reasons for marine deck cargo loss or damage is towline failure. The prediction of towline tensions is generally restricted to the calculation of the mean static component. and a safety factor of typically two times the tug bollard pull is used to take account of the dynamic component. Recent research with a North Sea barge tow shows that even in moderate weather (-t-m significant wave height) the dynamic tension component in the line can result in peak tensions of t\\ ice the mean value and that the ratio of dynamic to mean force increases with increasing wave height. .::20
Practical Design Approaches

The authors have presented an interesting and useful paper covering many different aspects of barge performance analysis. The presentation in Tables 3 and 4 of summarized barge intact and damaged stability requirements is a particularly useful contribution. I would like to concentrate my remarks on the topics of motion calculations and strength as presented in this paper. It should be noted that equations (12), (lSa), (l5b), (l5c) and (16) in the preprint contain several printer errors. These errors have been noted in my correspondence with the authors and will presumably be corrected in the TRANSACTIONS: Some further comments are appropriate to the transformation from earth to vessel coordinates. Equation (12) and the associated transformation tensor imply sequential rotations about the z-axis (yaw), the y-axis (pitch) and the x-axis (roll). For rotations in reverse sequence the order of multiplication of the individual transformation tensors would have to be reversed and a different final transformation tensor would result. This points up the fact that the transformation tensor depends upon the sequence of rotations. The transformation matrices are not cumulative and in general finite angles of rotation cannot be represented by vectors. Infinitesimal rotations can however be represented by vectors and this result can be viewed as acceptable since it falls within the assumptions underlying most ship motion analysis. The assumption of small angles of rotation can be used to simplify the transformation tensor by replacing trigonometric terms with their small angle approximations. Under this scheme cosines are replaces by + 1.0, sines are replaced by the argument angle, and products of sines are ignored. If this is done the following skew-symmetric transformation tensor is obtained:

ITI =

[-~

()

-cJ>

-!]
1

This result would be obtained for small angles of rotation regardless of the sequence of rotation and therefore forms a very useful invariant basis for coordinate transformations. Concerning equation (16) for the relative vertical motion, it should be observed that (following correction of the errors in the preprint) care must be taken before applying this expression to determine the precise expression for the incident wave and the exact definition of the response phase angle. These factors may necessitate some modifications to equation (16) depending on the specific definitions. The authors in their section on strength make the observation that their utilization of the participation factors involves many Simplified assumptions and may not realistically represent the actual conditions under tow. In this assessment they are correct and I would like to offer the following observations on how the ituation can be improved. First I would observe that it is not necessary to restrict the analysis to unidirectional seas, as we [391 also derived the cofactors in a directional sea spectrum. Second, and most important, the determination of the cofactors need not be restricted to the motions at the combined center of gravity. The cofactors can be derived at whatever point is of interest (for

for the Analysis of Barge Performance

example, at the location of a mass or structural element). Indeed, failure to do so may lead to serious errors. For example, Table 8 with this discussion, taken from program CARGO 139], shows the variation with location in the cofactor C:y for a 400-ft barge in beam seas with TJ = 11.5 sec. The advantage to combined load analysis of evaluating the cofactors at the point of interest should be apparent. Finally, the development of the cofactor concept does not lead to the maximum of a process consisting of a linear combination of correlated vector processes. To obtain the maximum of such a process the cross cospectral moment matrix is required. This matrix is an invariant for a given load condition, speed, heading and spectral shape. Once this matrix is derived, the spectral moments and thereby the response statistics for any process expressible as a linear combination of the base vector processes can be easily determined. A short technical note on this topic has been submitted to the Journal of Ship Research.
Dennis C, Perryman,3 Visitor

Table 8

Acceleration cotactors, Cry

Heig ht
Above Deck, ft 0 1;. :lO

Y = -46.7
ft -0.H6;; -O.HIlI -0.844

)" =
It

0.0

). = 46.7 ft -U.2:l:l -0.061 0.04,

-O.I;,!! -0.684 -0.;;96

ting as much time and effort in the tow design as was expended in the structure's design.
Kaare Lindemann,4 Visitor

r.

I.
, ,!

From a meteorologist's point of view, it is refreshing to see the amount of effort injected into the collection and utilization of environmental data as outlined in this paper. In an attempt to further the engineering science, the authors have shown a realization that related technology must also keep pace. This is evident from their statement that spectral wave models are superseding PNJ, 5MB manual hind cast techniques. Exception might be taken, however, of the statement that "no model yet available has been able to accurately predict daily events .... " The discusser's firm, as well as the u.s. Navy, uses an operational version of a spectral wave model to predict directional wave spectra at various grid points over a given geographic region. We have used one such model in the North Sea daily since 1976. These models are highly accurate in 24-hr forecasts and are able to provide useful forecasts for up to 72 hours. A given model may contain limitations in its ability to make predictions for some regions as a result of man's inability to provide accurate wind data as input, but, on the whole, the models perform very satisfactorily and with consistently accurate results. Very often, ship reports constitute the only available data base with which to simulate a towing operation. As the authors have pointed out, ship reports must be used cautiously. An alternative to ship reports is the Spectral Ocean Wave Model (SOWM) data generated by the u.S. Navy. These data are output twice daily and are already gridded. The fair-weather bias of ship reports is omitted in the SO\\'M data, and grid spacing is sufficient to yield representative profiles of wind and wave statistics. Using SOWM data contributes directly to the main advantage of a tow simulation-repeating the voyage through past weather conditions for a number of years. The authors have noted this technique as being useful in deriving design criteria and exceedance statistics. The practical design criteria and related references as tabulated by the authors are highly commendable. If more investigations of this type were to be carried out so that a summary table would not be necessary, a real benefit to the offshore industry would be realized. Convincing marine surveyors to agree on the design criteria would be a monumental achievement, second only to getting naval architects to agree on anything! A reliable method of determining design criteria for the towing operation is of utmost importance when considering the fact that many structures today are towed in much worse conditions than will ever occur at the launch site for the entire life of the structure. The authors have made a good case for put3 Oceanroutes,

Barge transportation is a matter of concern to regulatory bodies classification societies and marine survevors. The principles and methods used by such bodies to e~aluate the safety of barge transportation are well described in the paper. The authors have also noted the important difference in limits between ship and offshore design and barge transportation. In ship and offshore design, the design philosophy is that the structure should have a good chance to survive a lifetime operation. This means that the structure should survive all possible loads which, it has a fair chance to be exposed to during its lifetime. In popular terms this is often expressed as the 20-year wave for ships and the 50 to 100-year wave for offshore structures. For barge transportation the philosophy is parallel. but in practice the extreme condition used for barge transportation is different from that of ships and offshore structures. The time spent on the tow is an important parameter, often resulting in less strict criteria. In fact, barge transports may be permitted with strict limits on permissible environmental conditions provided possible points of shelter can be reached before a storm rises. The methods available, however, are not always complete in their description of the problem, and some uncertainties are associated with the results obtained. Among others I can mention barge roll motion, relative motion, slamming phenomena, fatigue analysis and barge vibratory responses (springing). In addition the operational limitations are not always well defined. When tows are to be approved based upon such analyses the limiting sea state is even more uncertain, resulting in large safety factors. Much is to be gained in barge transport efficiency, economy and safety by concentrating efforts in obtaining more knowledge on limiting conditions and the phenomena which cause them and methods used to assess them. The state of the art in barge transportation analysis techniques and hence the procedures used to evaluate the safety of a transport is not satisfactory and further development is required. A new dimension should also be added to the design and operational evaluation, namely, the capabilities of the operator or towmaster. A careful transport evaluation based on a sound technical analysis may be jeopardized by an operator who does not fully understand or who is not capable of assessing the limiting conditions. Hence rules and regulations should be developed further to take into account certain minimum requirements for operator education and training. Requirements should also be made for instrumental aids, putting the operator in a position to better evaluate the conditions. This is an area where marine research has been neglected, and more emphasis should be placed on such studies in the years to come.
4

Inc., Palo Alto, California.

Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway. 221

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

~ __

=-

~ __~

-,

~--~~~