Jacket Examples

TECHNICAL REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS

JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT
GUIDELINE FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:
EXAMPLES FOR JACKET PLATFORMS
REPORT NO. 95-3204
TECHNICAL REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS
JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT
GUIDELINE FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:
EXAMPLES FOR JACKET PLATFORMS
REPORT NO. 95-3204
DET NORSKE VERITAS
TECHNICAL REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS, Head Office: Veritasvn 1, N-1322 HVIK, Norway Org. NO 945 748 931 MVA
Date of first issue:
6 September 1996
Organisational unit:
Struct. Reliability & Marine Techn.
DET NORSKE VERITAS AS
Division Nordic Countries
Approved by:
istein Hagen
Principal Engineer
Veritasveien 1
N-1322 HVIK,Norway
Tel. (+47) 67 57 99 00
Fax. (+47) 67 57 74 74
Org. No: NO 945 748 931 MVA
Client:
Joint Industry Project
Client ref.:
Rolf Skjong
Project No.:
22210110
Summary:
This report documents two case studies on jacket structure reliability analysis, supporting the
report: Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - Application to Jacket
Platforms, in which experience and knowledge on application of probabilistic methods to
structural assessment are comprised and advice on probabilistic modelling and structural
reliability analysis of jacket structures is given.
The two case studies involving probabilistic response analyses of jacket structures are a
fatigue failure limit state (FLS) and a total collapse limit state (ULS).
This report should be read in conjunction with the reports:
Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - General, DNV Report no. 95-2018
Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - Application to Jacket Platforms, DNV
Report no. 95-3203.
Report No.:
95-3204
Subject Group:
P12
Indexing terms
Report title:
Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability
Analysis:
Examples for Jacket Platforms
structural reliability
jacket platforms
environmental loads
capacity
Work carried out by:
Gudfinnur Sigurdsson and Espen Cramer
No distribution without permission from the
Client or responsible organisational unit
Work verified by:
istein Hagen
Limited distribution within Det Norske Veritas
Date of this revision:
05.09.96
Rev.No.:
01
Number of pages:
108
Unrestricted distribution
DET NORSKE VERITAS
TECHNICAL REPORT
DET NORSKE VERITAS, Head Office: Veritasvn 1, N-1322 HVIK, Norway Org. NO 945 748 931 MVA
Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Examples for Jacket Plattforms Page No. 5
DNV Report No. 95-3204 Introduction
Sigurdsson,G and E. Cramer Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis- Examples for Jacket Platforms, DNV
Report 95-3204
Table of Contents
1 I NTRODUCTI ON ___________________________________________________________ 7
1.1 Objective________________________________________________________________________ 7
1.2 Failure Modes ___________________________________________________________________ 7
2 DESCRI PTI ON OF CONSI DERED NORTH SEA J ACKET ________________________ 8
2.1 General _________________________________________________________________________ 8
3 J ACKET FATI GUE LI MI T STATE ___________________________________________ 10
3.1 General ________________________________________________________________________ 10
3.2 Limit State Formulation __________________________________________________________ 11
3.2.1 The SN-Fatigue Approach______________________________________________________________ 11
3.2.1.1 General_________________________________________________________________________ 11
3.2.1.2 Uncertainty in SN-Curves __________________________________________________________ 12
3.2.1.3 Fatigue Damage Model ____________________________________________________________ 12
3.2.1.4 Limit State Formulation ____________________________________________________________ 13
3.2.2 The FM-Approach for Fatigue Assessment _________________________________________________ 13
3.2.2.1 General_________________________________________________________________________ 13
3.2.2.2 Crack Growth Rate________________________________________________________________ 14
3.2.2.3 Crack Size over Time______________________________________________________________ 14
3.2.2.4 Limit State Formulation ____________________________________________________________ 15
3.2.2.5 Uncertainty in FM-fatigue Approach__________________________________________________ 15
3.2.3 Inspection Updating___________________________________________________________________ 15
3.3 Load and Response Modelling _____________________________________________________ 17
3.3.1 General ____________________________________________________________________________ 17
3.3.2 Sea State Description__________________________________________________________________ 18
3.3.2.1 Main wave directions ______________________________________________________________ 18
3.3.2.2 Wave scatter diagram______________________________________________________________ 19
3.3.2.3 Wave spreading function ___________________________________________________________ 21
3.3.2.4 Wave spectrum model _____________________________________________________________ 23
3.3.2.5 Uncertainty Modelling _____________________________________________________________ 23
3.3.3 Global Structural Analysis______________________________________________________________ 24
3.3.3.1 General_________________________________________________________________________ 24
3.3.3.2 Wave Load Calculation:____________________________________________________________ 25
3.3.3.3 Structural Analysis: _______________________________________________________________ 25
3.3.3.4 Uncertainty in Global Structural Analysis ______________________________________________ 27
3.3.4 Local Stress Calculations_______________________________________________________________ 28
3.3.4.1 General_________________________________________________________________________ 28
3.3.4.2 Local Stress _____________________________________________________________________ 29
3.3.4.3 Uncertainties in Local Stress Calculation_______________________________________________ 31
3.3.5 Stress Range Distribution ______________________________________________________________ 32
Report 95-3204
3.4 Results_________________________________________________________________________ 34
3.4.1 General ____________________________________________________________________________ 34
3.4.2 Deterministic SN-Fatigue Analysis _______________________________________________________ 34
3.4.3 Probabilistic SN-Fatigue Analysis ________________________________________________________ 39
3.4.4 Probabilistic FM-Fatigue Analysis: _______________________________________________________ 43
3.4.5 Inspection Updating - Inspection Planning _________________________________________________ 44
4 TOTAL STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE LI MI T STATE______________________________ 47
4.1 General ________________________________________________________________________ 47
4.2 Limit State Formulation __________________________________________________________ 47
4.3 Load and Response Modelling _____________________________________________________ 48
4.3.1 Load Modelling ______________________________________________________________________ 48
4.3.2 Long-term Joint Environmental Model ____________________________________________________ 50
4.3.3 Annual Extreme Sea-state (Storm)________________________________________________________ 54
4.3.4 Extreme Wave Height _________________________________________________________________ 54
4.3.5 Hydrodynamic Loading ________________________________________________________________ 55
4.4 Capacity Model _________________________________________________________________ 58
4.5 Numerical Results _______________________________________________________________ 61
5 REFERENCES ____________________________________________________________ 68
6 APPENDI X A: WAVE ENVI RONMENT DESCRI PTI ON _________________________ 72
7 APPENDI X B: EI GENMODES OG STRUCTURAL RESPONSE ___________________ 75
8 APPENDI X C: PROBAN I NPUT FI LE : ULS APPLI CATI ON _____________________ 79
9 APPENDI X D: FORTRAN ROUTI NES : ULS APPLI CATI ON_____________________ 83
Report 95-3204
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
The objective of the example part of the Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis
for the structure types jacket, TLP and jack-up, is to
exemplify the use reliability analyses to selected failure modes for the specified structure type.
Two case studies are in the following carried out for a North Sea jacket structure in order to
illustrate the probabilistic approach for assessing the structural integrity. Both examples are
based on a Level-III reliability analysis procedure, where the joint probability distribution of the
uncertain parameters are applied in the computation of the estimated failure probability.
For completeness, some of the text from the report, Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability
Analysis - Application to Jacket Platforms (DNV 1995b) has been repeated herein.
1.2 Failure Modes
The two failure modes considered are:
the fatigue limit state (FLS) for failure of a critical joint in the jacket structure, where crack
growth initiating from the joint weld is considered
the ultimate limit state (ULS) for failure of the jacket structure, where total collapse of the
jacket structure is considered.
DNV Report No. 95-3204 Description of Considered North Sea Jacket
Report 95-3204
2 DESCRIPTION OF CONSIDERED NORTH SEA JACKET
2.1 General
The selected North Sea jacket structure analysed in the FLS and ULS case studies is an eight
legged jacket located at 107 m water depth. The choice of this particular structure is motivated
from the degree of structural redundancy of this structure, believed to be typical for North Sea
jackets.
In the structural model only the load bearing structure is included in the analysis, i.e. the top-side
and the risers are not accounted for directly. The top-side permanent loads and live loads are
incorporated through nodal and element masses at the top level of the structure.
The main characteristics of the jacket platform are given in Table 2.1. The applied FEM model is
illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Table 2.1 Main characteristics of considered jacket structure
Water depth 107. m
Topside dead load 48.47 MN
Topside live load 289.80 MN
Number of elements 504
Number of nodal points 211
DNV Report No. 95-3204 Description of Considered North Sea Jacket
Report 95-3204
Figure 2.1 Applied Structural model
DNV Report No. 95-3204 Jacket Fatigue Limit State
Report 95-3204
3 JACKET FATIGUE LIMIT STATE
3.1 General
As discussed in DNV (1995b), the probabilistic fatigue analysis is divided into the following
steps:
1. Probabilistic modelling of the environment (short-term and long-term).
2. Probabilistic modelling of the wave loading.
3. Stochastic assessment of the structural response (global and local).
4. Stochastic assessment of the fatigue damage accumulation.
In addition to the above steps, the analyses includes a stochastic modelling of the fatigue capacity
and the probabilistic evaluation, i.e. the probabilistic derivation of the likelihood of the event that
the accumulated fatigue damage exceeds the defined critical fatigue strength level.
In order to carry out a realisable fatigue evaluation of a jacket structure, it is necessary to
introduce some simplifying assumptions in the modelling:
For a short term period (a few hours) the sea surface is considered as a realisation of a zero-
mean stationary Gaussian process. The sea surface elevation is (completely) characterised by
the frequency spectrum, which for a given direction of wave propagation, is described by two
parameters, the significant wave height H
S
and a characteristic period like the spectral peak
period T
P
or the zero-mean up-crossing period T
Z
.
The long term occurrence probability of the sea state parameters ( H T
S P
or H T
S Z
diagram)
is known.
In order to apply the frequency domain approach for assessing the structural response, the
wave loading on structural members must be linearised and the structural stress response is
assumed to be a linear function of the loading, i.e. the structural and material models are
linear.
The relationship between the sectional forces and the local hot-spot stresses (SCFs) is known,
where an empirical parametric description is applied.
The influence and consequence of the following modelling aspects are discussed in detail in the
forthcoming;
The effect of applying different wave spectra, i.e. PM and JONSWAP spectra.
The effect of the linearisation of the wave loading is of significance for some structures, and
the influence of performing the linearisation at different sea-states is investigated. The study is
based on a stochastic linearisation techniques for three different sea states.
The influence of applying two different commonly applied parametric expressions for
definition of the SCFs.
Report 95-3204
3.2 Limit State Formulation
3.2.1 The SN-Fatigue Approach
3.2.1.1 General
SN-data are experimental data giving the number of cycles N of stress range S resulting in fatigue
failure. These data are defined by SN-curves for different structural details.
The SN-curves are based on a statistical analysis of experimental data. The data are presented as
linear or piecewise linear relations between log
10
S and log
10
N, where the design SN-curves are
obtained applying the mean value minus two times the standard deviation of the spreading for
log
10
N.
log log log
10 10 10
0
N K m S
N K S
S s
m
=
=
>
or
where
N number of cycles to failure for stress range S
K parameter in the SN-curve
m the inverse slope of the SN-curve
s
0
endurance limit
The numerical values for the relevant parameters are summarised in Table 7.10 in DNV (1995a).
For tubular joints, the T-curve, DNV CN 30.2 (DNV 1984b) is recommended for modelling the
fatigue capacity. In air, the T-curve has m=3, which changes to m=5 for N N K S
m
= = =
0 0
7
1 10 .
For cathodically protected structures in seawater the T-curve has m=3 and a cut-off value at
N N = =
0
8
2 10 .
The stress range levels below the endurance limit do not contribute to fatigue damage provided
the joint is situated in a region with sufficient cathodic protection. The endurance limit cannot,
however, be relied upon if the cathodic protection is insufficient.
The fatigue strength of welded joints is dependent on the plate thickness, t, with decreasing
fatigue strength with increasing thickness. For the T-curve, the reference thickness t is 32mm.
For other thicknesses, a modification of the T-curve is applied,
log log log log
10 10 10 10 0
4 32
N K
m t
m S S s =

> ,
or
N t K S
m m
=

( / )
/
32
4
, S s >
0
Report 95-3204
where t is the thickness in mm through which the potential fatigue crack will grow. The factor
( / )
/
t
m
32
4
is denoted the thickness-effect factor.
3.2.1.2 Uncertainty in SN-Curves
The uncertainties associated with a description in terms of empirical SN-curves are accounted for
by considering a stochastic S-N relation. The parameters of the deterministic linear or bilinear
relations are treated as random variables. In the current application, the T-curve for cathodic
protection in seawater is applied where the inverse sloop m is modelled as deterministic and K is
assumed Log-Normal distributed with the following characteristics:
[ ] [ ]
E K Std K
m m N N
m m N N
= =
= =
= = >
539 10 335 10
3
12 12
1 0
2 0
. .
The cut-off level N
0
is modelled as Normal distributed with
[ ] [ ]
E N CoV N
0
8
0
2 10 010 = = .
The uncertainties associated with the fatigue capacity for random loading is modelled as
unbiased Normal distributed with a CoV of 20%.
[ ] [ ]
E CoV = = 10 0 20 . .
3.2.1.3 Fatigue Damage Model
The accumulated fatigue damage is computed from the representative stress distribution and the
S-N capacity model. The accumulated damage depends on the number and magnitude of the
local stress cycles. Assuming the accumulated fatigue damage independent of the sequence in
which the stress cycles occur (no sequence effect), the damage accumulation D can be written as,
D
n
N
i
i
i
=
=
1
where n n S
i i
= ( ) is the number of cycles of stress range S
i
in the stress history and N N S
i i
= ( )
is the number of stress cycles of stress range S
i
necessary to cause failure. This formulation of
the fatigue damage accumulation is usually denoted the Miner-Palmgren approach.
The failure criterion defines the degree of accumulated fatigue damage that results in failure. For
a constant amplitude stress variation, it follows directly from the damage definition above that
failure occurs when D , where the fatigue capacity = 1, as the SN-curves are originally
derived from constant amplitude loading.
For a variable amplitude loading, the value of the Miner's sum at failure will typically be random
due to the inherent randomness in the stress history and the potential influence of sequence
effects.
For offshore structures, the number of stress cycles resulting in fatigue failure is typically large.
The Miner's summation then contains so many load terms that this inherent uncertainty can be
Report 95-3204
neglected and the accumulated damage can be represented by the expected value of m'th moment
of the local stress response process.
3.2.1.4 Limit State Formulation
The limit state function applied in the reliability analysis is defined as,
g x D ( ) =
where the random variable describes general uncertainty associated with the fatigue capacity
and D is the accumulated fatigue damage.
The accumulated damage is defined as the expected accumulated damage per stress cycle times
the number of stress cycles over the considered time period T,
D T D
long term cycle
=
0,
where
0,long term
is the mean number of stress cycles per time unit and D
cycle
is the expected
damage per stress cycle.
The expected damage per stress cycle is dependent on the local stress range response process and
the associated SN-curve, and will for the Weibull distributed long term stress range response
process be,
D
K
A
m
B
S
A K
A
m
B
S
A
cycle
m
B
m
B
= +

+ +

1
1
1
1
2
2 2 0 0
; ;
A and B are distribution parameters in the Weibull distribution,
( ) ( )
[ ]
F s s A
s
B
= 1 exp /
and ( ) ; and ( ) ; are the incomplete gamma functions, respectively.
3.2.2 The FM-Approach for Fatigue Assessment
3.2.2.1 General
The damage D calculated by the SN fatigue approach and the Miner-Palmgren rule is a damage
measure not related to any physically or measurable parameter. However, there exist a
measurable quantity which reflects the degree of fatigue accumulation and that is the size of the
developed fatigue crack.
Applying the developed crack size as a measure for the fatigue damage, the extent of fatigue
damage on the structure between the initial condition (design) and the failure condition can be
related to a physical measurable parameter. The degree of accumulated fatigue damage in a joint
can then be assessed based on the outcome of structural inspections determining the size of
observed fatigue cracks.
Report 95-3204
3.2.2.2 Crack Growth Rate
The basis for most fracture mechanics descriptions of crack growth is a relationship between the
average increment in crack growth during a load cycle and the range K of the parameter K.
The parameter K is called the stress intensity factor because its magnitude determines the
intensity or magnitude of the stresses/strains in the crack tip region. The influence of external
variables, i.e. the magnitude and type of loading and the geometry of the cracked body, is
modelled in the crack tip region through the stress intensity factor.
The relationship between the crack growth rate and the stress intensity range K has to be
determined experimentally. Fatigue experiments are normally performed with simple standard
specimens with through-the-thickness cracks subjected to constant stress range.
The general expression for the stress-intensity factor is K Y S a
tot
= , where S
tot
is the applied
stress and Y is the geometry function accounting for the effect of all the boundaries, i.e. the
relevant dimensions of the structure (width, thickness, crack size, crack front curvature etc.).
The crack growth rate in the crack depth and length direction, a and c, is defined through two
coupled differential equations,
dc
da
C
C
K
K
c a c
C
A
C
A
m
=
; ( )
0 0
( )
dN
da
C K
N a N
A
A
m
= =
1
0 0
; ( )
where the material parameters C
A
and C
C
may differ due to the general triaxial stress field. The
material property m depends mainly on the fatigue crack propagation, assumed to be independent
of the crack size, both in the depth and surface directions.
3.2.2.3 Crack Size over Time
Since the stress intensity factors in the two-dimensional expression for the crack growth rate
depend on the crack size in a complicated manner, it is generally not possible to obtain a closed
form analytical solution of the coupled differential equations, and numerical solution procedures
must be applied.
However, assuming a fixed aspect ratio a c / , for illustration purposes only, the crack size
(depth) over a time period with N stress cycles can be expressed as
( )
[ ]
da
Y a
C N t E S
m
m
a
a
N
m
= ( )
where a
0
is the size of the initial crack. The m'th moment of the stress range response for the
Weibull stress range distribution is,
[ ]
E S A
m
B
m m
= +
1
Report 95-3204
3.2.2.4 Limit State Formulation
The reliability assessments for fatigue crack growth is expressed as a limit state formulation. The
failure criteria is defined as,
a a
C N
0
where a
C
is the critical crack size defined as through the thickness cracking and a
N
is the depth
of the developed crack after N stress cycles.
The safety margin M is defined as,
M a a
C N
=
The failure probability, i.e. the probability that the depth of the crack exceeds the critical limit
within the time period T (or N cycles) is then,
P P M
F
= ( ) 0
3.2.2.5 Uncertainty in FM-fatigue Approach
There is uncertainty associated with the modelling of the FM-fatigue approach, both with respect
to the initial fatigue quality and the fatigue crack growth material parameters.
The initial fatigue quality is a material and manufacturing property, thus representing material
and process defects such as inclusions, as well as damage caused during fabrication and
installation which is not detected by quality control. In the example application, the initial fatigue
quality is expressed through the depth and length of the initial flaw.
In the example application, the initial crack depth is assumed as Exponential distributed with
mean value 0.11 mm and a fixed initial aspect ratio (a/c) which is varied in a parameter study.
The fatigue crack growth material parameters are dependent on the location of the considered
structural details. In the analysis, only details exposed to sea water are considered, and the fatigue
material parameters are modelled as,
m: Fixed with value 3.5
lnC: Normal distributed with mean value -31.01 and standard deviation 0.77.
The units for the lnC parameter is Newton and mm.
3.2.3 Inspection Updating
In-service inspection is performed in order to assure that existing defects in the structure do not
exceed maximum tolerable sizes during the service life. The in-service inspections are commonly
carried out applying Non-Destructive Examination (NDE), where the reliability of the NDE is
described by its ability to detect a defect as a function of the size of the defect, and by the
uncertainty associated with the sizing of an identified defect. The effect of inspection updating on
the estimated fatigue reliability of the structures is dependent on the target reliability level and
the detection ability of the particular NDE method.
Report 95-3204
The target reliability for fatigue failure depends on the consequence of failure and is briefly
discussed in DNV (1995b). In the current example the following procedure for assessment of the
target reliability for inspection planning is followed:
calculate the fatigue live of the component, T
life
(deterministic assessment using code
requirements)
define the design fatigue factor for no access for inspection and repair,
fatigue
(depending on
the classification of the component based on damage consequence) e.g. equal to 10 for
substantial consequences
define the time for the first inspection as T
T
insp
life
fatigue
1
=
. E.g. in the example given in section

3.4.5, T
life
=80 years, the consequence of failure is evaluated to be substantial and
fatigue
= 10. , resulting in T
insp 1
8
= years (see Figure 3.9)

define the target reliability as the reliability at service time T
insp 1
. E.g. in the example given in
section 3.4.5,
target
=32 .
The detection ability for the NDE method is defined as a function of a defect size, through
Probability of Detection (POD) curves.
In DNV (1995a) typical POD curves for different inspection scenarios are presented. The curves
are defined on the form,
( )
P c
c x
b
( )
/
2 1
1
1 2
0
=
+
where the values for the distribution parameters x
0
and b depend on the inspection scenario.
In the application example, the influence of inspection updating is accounted for in the
estimation of the fatigue reliability of the structure over the service life.
In Table 3.1, typical values for x
0
and b for different inspection scenarios are given. The
corresponding POD curves are shown in Figure 3.1.
Report 95-3204
Table 3.1 POD distribution parameters for different inspection scenarios
Inspection Scenario x
0
b
MPI under water 2.950 0.905
MPI above water;
ground test surface
4.030 1.297
MPI above water;
not ground test surface
8.325 0.785
Eddy Current 12.28 1.790
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Crack length (mm)
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
P
r
o
b
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

O
f

D
e
t
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
P
O
D
)
MPI Under water
MPI Above water; ground test surface
MPI Above water; not ground test surface
Eddy current
Figure 3.1 POD curves for different inspection scenarios.
3.3 Load and Response Modelling
3.3.1 General
The major time varying loads on jacket structures are generally wave induced loads. An adequate
description of ocean waves is therefore necessary for assessing the fatigue accumulation in the
structure.
The long-term stress range response distribution is defined based on a weighted sum of Rayleigh
distributed stress ranges within each short-term condition, i.e. the stress process for each short-
term period is considered to be a narrow banded zero-mean stationary Gaussian process.
In the spectral fatigue analysis, only the load response caused by fluctuating wave loading is
considered. The applied wave model assumptions do not give an exact description of the real sea
state. However, from an engineering point of view they are very attractive due to the
simplifications they imply in the structural analysis.
Report 95-3204
This chapter focuses on the load and response modelling applied for fatigue assessment. First the
sea environment model is considered. Then the load response model and the global structural
analysis, defining the transfer functions for selected forces, are described. Finally the local stress
analysis is discussed. The sources of uncertainty and their treatment are also discussed.
3.3.2 Sea State Description
The load model is based on a description of the wave conditions within a set of stationary short
term sea states. Each sea state is characterised by
Main wave direction
0
, measured relative to a given reference direction
Characteristic sea state parameters:
- Significant wave height, H
S
, defined as the average of the upper third of the wave heights
- Mean zero up-crossing period, T
Z
, defined as the time between successive up-crossing of
the still water level, averaged over the number of waves.
Wave spreading function
Wave spectrum model e.g. PM or JONSWAP spectra
For each sea state, the long-term probabilities of the different main wave directions are given
along with a wave scatter diagram for each direction. A wave scatter diagram defines the
occurrence probability for each set of H
S
and T
Z
values.
A unique wave spreading function is assigned to all of the wave-statistics defined by each
assigned scatter diagram.
3.3.2.1 Main wave directions
The main wave direction denotes the middle direction for each of the sectors. The analysis is
only performed for waves in these discrete directions. The sector numbering and main wave
directions are shown in Figure 3.2.
Report 95-3204
N
Reference direction
(Global X-axis)
N
E
S
W
8 1
7
6
4
3
2
5
M
ain
w
av
e directio
n
n
o
. 2

2
Wave spreading
function
a) b)

2
w( , )
2
- 9
0
- 4
5
0
4
5
9
0
Reference direction
(Global X-axis)
Figure 3.2 (a) Applied sector numbering, (b) Main wave direction in the structure co-
ordinate system.
The main wave directions are given by a set of prescribed discrete directions. The probability
distribution of the main wave direction is given as a discrete distribution with
P
i
probability that the main wave direction is

i
, i=1,2,.., N
where N
is the number of possible main wave directions, and

P
i
i
N
=
=
1
1
Eight different main directions are considered i.e. N
=8 . The wave directions and the

corresponding discrete probabilities are shown in Appendix A.
3.3.2.2 Wave scatter diagram
A bi-variate discrete form of the wave scatter diagram is applied. The scatter diagram gives
the occurrence frequency of a discrete number of combinations of ( H
S
, T
Z
), where 106 sea
states are used to describe the sea environments, see Table 3.2 (confer Appendix A).
For the oceanographic area considered no directional-dependent wave statistics is available,
and the same wave scatter diagram is consequently applied for all wave directions, see Table
3.2.
Report 95-3204
Table 3.2 Applied wave scatter diagram, given as a relative occurrence frequency of
100,000 observations.
H
s
T
z
(sec.)
(m)
1.5 2.5 3.5 4.5 5.5 6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5
0.5 2 102 1962 3562 1703 522 382 233 110 25 20 10 0
1.5 0 40 3218 10066 9638 4847 2253 1067 640 244 101 41 0
2.5 0 4 165 2788 9877 7438 3642 1346 338 161 23 11 0
3.5 0 0 3 151 2059 7426 3866 1390 364 115 50 16 2
4.5 0 0 0 2 147 2372 4357 1570 507 76 57 23 4
5.5 0 0 0 0 12 165 2431 1550 500 112 44 16 8
6.5 0 0 0 0 0 8 310 1408 394 149 42 13 7
7.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 486 365 93 42 13 4
8.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 47 279 54 23 12 4
9.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 88 50 11 3 1
10.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 6 36 12 2 1
11.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9 7 1 0
12.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 1 0
13.5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
The discrete values of the ( H
S
, T
Z
) data are approximated by a joint log-normal distribution.
The cumulative distribution function is
( ) F h t
h t
H T s z
s z
S Z
,
log
,
log
, =

1
1
2
2
where ( ) x y , , is the cumulative distribution function for a pair of standardised normally
distributed random variables with correlation coefficient . The marginal distribution for H
S
is
( ) F h
h
H s
s
S
=

log
1
1
and the conditional distribution of T
Z
given the value of H
S
is, (see Figure 3.3)
( )
( )
F t h
t h
T H z s
z s
Z S
|
log log
, =
+

2
2
1
1
2
2
1
Report 95-3204
H
S
T
Z
h
S
j
h
S
i
p t h
T H Z S
Z s
i
i
|
( | )
p t h
T H Z S
Z s
j
j
|
( | )
Figure 3.3 Marginal continuous probability density function for H
S
with continuous
probability density function for T
Z
given H
S
.
The distribution function is thus specified by 5 parameters ( )
1 1 2 2
, , , , and these are
uniquely related to the moments of ( H
S
, T
Z
) as
[ ]
E H
S
= +
exp

1
1
2
2
[ ]
E T
Z
= +
exp

2
2
2
2
[ ] [ ] ( ) ( )
Var H E H
S S
=
2
1
2
1 exp
[ ] [ ] ( ) ( )
Var T E T
Z Z
=
2
2
2
1 exp
[ ] [ ] [ ] ( ) ( )
Cov H T E H E T
S Z S Z
, exp =
1 2
1
3.3.2.3 Wave spreading function
The wave energy spreading function is introduced to account for the energy spreading among
directions for a short crested sea. Real sea waves are not infinitely long crested and directional
spectra are required for a complete statistical description of the sea. The directional spectra
accounts for the spreading of wave energy by direction as well as frequency. A spectrum in
terms of direction is assumed of the form
( ) ( ) ( ) S S w

, =
Report 95-3204
where ( ) w is the wave energy spreading function, which is herein assumed independent of
the wave frequency.
It is assumed that the wave energy is spread over a set of directions in a region of / 2 on
both sides of the main direction. The function is selected in such a way that it gives higher
weights to the directions closer to the main direction. For a long crested sea the wave energy
spreading is not introduced by definition. The wave energy spreading function for a given
main wave direction
i
may in general depend on ( H
S
, T
Z
).
The common modelling of wave energy spreading function is a frequency independent cosine
power function of the form:
( ) ( )
w
N
N
i
N
i i

, cos =
+
<
1 2
1
2
1
2
1
2

and zero otherwise. ( ) is the gamma function,
i
is the main wave direction no. i, and N is a
non-negative number. Figure 3.4 shows the directional function for different values of N . For
large values of N , all the energy is concentrated around the main wave direction.
i ( ) degree
N = 20
N = 10
N = 4
N = 2
-90 -45 0 45 90
c = 0.5
Figure 3.4 The spreading function for different values of the cosine power N.
The spreading function weights are obtained by integration of the energy spreading function
over the proper ranges. The analytical spreading function is discretised, and the analytical
directionality function is approximated by a histogram. The ordinate of each histogram box
corresponds to the area of the analytical function over the width of the box.
In the current study, the influence of varying degree of wave spreading is investigated.
Report 95-3204
3.3.2.4 Wave spectrum model
A one side Gamma spectrum is applied in the analysis. The one sided Gamma spectrum is
uniquely defined in terms of the sea state parameters ( ) H T
S Z
, ,
( )
( )
S A B

= >

exp ; 0
The gamma spectrum may have a variety of shapes depending on the values of the parameter
giving the power of the high frequency tail and the parameter describing the steepness of
the low frequency part. The constants A and B are related to H
S
and T
Z
by
A H
T
S
Z
=

1
16
2
1
3
1
3
2
1
2
B
T
Z
=

2
1
3
2
2
The values = 4 and = 5 it yields the PM spectrum, (Pierson and Moskowitz 1964).
3.3.2.5 Uncertainty Modelling
Uncertainties in the wave description for the following quantities are considered:
main wave direction,
significant wave height H
S
mean zero crossing period T
Z
wave scatter diagram
wave energy spreading function
one-dimensional wave spectrum
Other types of uncertainties, such as uncertainties in the still water level, the effect of currents,
and the distribution of the main wave directions, are not explicitly included as these uncertainties
are judged not to be of major importance. These uncertainties are instead implicitly accounted for
by introducing modelling uncertainties.
Uncertainty in main wave direction
This uncertainty is accounted for explicitly by defining probability density functions for the
main wave directions. By conditioning on the main wave direction in the computation of
fatigue damage, the overall damage is obtained by a weighted integration of the conditional
damage over all possible directions, weighted w.r.t. the probability density for the wave
direction.
The probability distribution of the main wave direction is given as a discrete distribution
where eight different directions are considered, see Appendix A.
Report 95-3204
Uncertainty in wave scatter diagram
A continuous joint log-normal distribution is applied to represent the long-term wave scatter
diagram for ( H
S
, T
Z
). The uncertainty in the diagram is included by considering uncertainty
in the distribution parameters for the joint distribution. The underlying distribution function is
defined by the estimated distribution parameters
$
,
$
,
$
,
$
,
$

1 1 2 2
. These best estimates are

next multiplied by random variables X
1
- X
5
, yielding the distribution parameters:

1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 3 2 2 4 5
= = = = =
$
;
$
;
$
;
$
;
$
X X X X X
X
1
- X
5
are defined as mutually independent unbiased Normal distributed random variables,
having Coefficients of Variations according to Table 3.3.
Table 3.3 Uncertainty measures (CoV) in the modelling of the bi-variate Log-normal
long-term distribution of the wave environment.
V
X
1
V
X
2
V
X
3
V
X
4
V
X
5
0.10 0.06 0.10 0.06 0.02
Uncertainty in wave energy spreading function
The sensitivity of the fatigue life to the wave spreading is investigated through a parameter study.
Uncertainty in wave spectrum model
A one-dimensional wave spectrum ( ) S
, defined by the one sided Gamma spectrum, is

applied. The uncertainty in the wave spectrum is accounted for by modelling the spectral
parameters ( ) , as Normal distributed random variables. The mean values and coefficient of
variations are given by
[ ] [ ]
[ ] [ ]
E CoV
E CoV

= =
= =
5 0 05
4 0 05
.
.
It should be noted that the mean values of the spectral parameters, ( ) , , i.e. = 4 and = 5,
correspond to the PM spectrum.
3.3.3 Global Structural Analysis
3.3.3.1 General
The structural response to wave induced loading is determined by the use of finite element
methods (FEM). This includes modelling of the structural stiffness, the damping (only for
Report 95-3204
dynamic analysis), the influence of marine growth, the stiffness from the foundation and the
wave induced loading.
The structure is modelled using PREFRAME (DNV (1984a)). The finite element model is an
idealised representation of the real structure, and the following simplifications are made:
Smaller eccentricities are not modelled.
Eccentricities in the joints are not modelled
The soil/structure interaction is simplified by assuming fixed support in the soil
The marine growth is not included in the calculation of the natural frequencies.
The jacket is analysed as a frame with members connected at idealised rigid joints. In reality
the joints are flexible, and on the global level, the joint flexibility is known to have some
influence on the response, (Bouwkamp et al. (1980), Fessler and Spooner (1981), UEG
(1984)). The joint flexibility affects the bending moments in braces, the axial force
distribution and the natural frequencies.
3.3.3.2 Wave Load Calculation:
The linear Airy wave theory is adopted for fatigue analysis. In the Airy theory, the water
particle velocity and accelerations are linear with the wave amplitude. The linear wave theory
is based on the assumption that the wave height is much smaller than both the wave length
and the water depth.
Hydrodynamic loading on the jacket structure is calculated by Morison's equation, (Morison
et al. (1950)), not incorporating the structural motion. The in-line force p per unit length on a
vertical slender cylinder in unsteady flow is defined as,
p u u u = + C
D
C
D
d n n m n

2 4
2
&
where is the water density, D is the diameter, u
n
and
&
u
n
are respectively the water particle
velocity and acceleration normal to the cylinder, and C
d
and C
m
are the drag and inertia
coefficients, respectively.
The drag and inertia coefficients are difficult to measure under realistic flow conditions and
large uncertainties are related to their magnitude, (Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981). However, to
simplify the analysis these coefficients are assumed to be constant for all the structural force
segments, and the following values are applied,
C
d
= 0 7 . C
m
= 2 0 .
The wave load calculation is performed using WAJAC (DNV (1992)).
3.3.3.3 Structural Analysis:
The major element of the frequency domain analysis is the determination of the response of
the structure for a unit sinusoidal wave as function of the wave period, or angular frequency.
This function is called the response transfer function, ( ) H
F
.
Report 95-3204
The response transfer functions for section forces and moments in each beam end are derived
for eight different wave directions, analysing the structure subjected to waves of different
angular frequencies. For the computation of the transfer function, 49 different wave periods
(frequencies) are selected, consisting of (seconds)
(1.00, 1.40, 1.60, 1.70, 1.80, 1.90, 1.95, 2.00, 2.10, 2.20, 2.35, 2.50, 2.65, 2.70, 2.90, 3.15,
3.50, 3.70, 3.90, 4.10, 4.50, 4.70, 4.80, 5.10, 5.25, 5.40, 5.55, 5.80, 6.00, 6.30, 6.45, 6.60,
6.80, 6.90, 7.20, 7.60, 7.90, 8.30, 8.50, 8.80, 9.25, 0.50, 13.00, 15.00, 18.00, 21.00, 25.00,
30.00, 35.00)
The wave periods have been selected in order to adequately define the transfer function over
the expected range of wave energy. Special care has been given in the modelling of the
transfer function for wave periods close to the eigenperiods of the structure (the three largest
eigen-periods are calculated to be in the area 2.0 - 1.90 sec., see Appendix B).
The relationship between the wave height and wave induced force is non-linear due to the
drag term in the Morison equation. To incorporate this non-linearity in a linear analysis, a
stochastic linearisation is applied, where the response is computed using the non-linear force
and then linearised in one sea state, (Borgman (1967)).
In the following, the influence of applying the following three different sea states in the
stochastic linearisation has been considered:
H T
H T
H T
S Z
S Z
S Z
= =
= =
= =
35 6 5
55 7 5
8 5 9 5
. . sec.
. . sec
. . sec
m
m
m
The linearisation of the drag term introduces uncertainties in the response modelling for
members where the drag load is of importance. However, for the range of the waves mainly
contributing to the fatigue accumulation, the inertia forces are dominating for jacket
structures, and the relationship between the wave height and the load response is
approximately linear for the major part of the elements.
The linear wave theory does not account for the fluctuating water surface due to the passage of
waves and is strictly applicable only up to the still water level (SWL). The use of a linear
approach can, therefore, not define realistic forces around the still water level. Various
methods have been suggested to modify the linear wave theory to incorporate the variable
submergence effect, e.g. (Chakrabarti (1971,1976), Wheeler (1970), Hogben et al. (1977) ). It
must be expected that the establishment of transfer functions for these elements is associated
with large uncertainties.
The transfer function are calculated using the DNV-SESAM program modules, i.e. WAJAC
(DNV (1992)) and SESTRA (DNV (1991)).
In order to study the effect of dynamics in the fatigue analysis, both the quasi-static and the
dynamic transfer functions have been calculated. In Figure 3.5, the quasi-static and dynamic
transfer functions for the axial force in one of the most fatigue critical braces in the jacket
structure are shown.
Report 95-3204
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0
Frequency (rad/sec.)
0.0E+0
5.0E+5
1.0E+6
1.5E+6
M
e
m
b
e
r

f
o
r
c
e

t
r
a
n
s
f
e
r

f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
Quasi-static analysis
Dynamic analysis
Figure 3.5 Quasi-static and dynamic transfer functions for an axial force in one of the
most critical braces in the structure with respect to fatigue failure.
3.3.3.4 Uncertainty in Global Structural Analysis
Uncertainty in wave load models:
The uncertainty/bias introduced using Airy's wave theory in the fatigue analysis is believed to
be insignificant for most structures, water depths and wave climates of interest.
A full probabilistic model of the loading is very complicated due to the complex interrelations
between the parameters in Morrison's equation. Although the prediction of the drag and inertia
coefficients at a given time is rather uncertain, the prediction of the average value over a
longer period is associated with less uncertainty and supports the selection of a relatively
simple probabilistic model.
Uncertainties in the load calculations due to the effect of currents, the relative particle
velocities, marine growth, free surface effects and tidal effects are included through
uncertainty modelling of the transfer function.
Uncertainty in structural analysis:
The uncertainty/bias introduced in the derivation of the transfer function could be related to
the significant wave height H
S
, e.g. by multiplying the calculated transfer functions ( ) H
calc

obtained in the structural analysis by a 2nd order polynomial function of H
S
, i.e. the applied
( ) H
appl
transfer functions for a given sea state ( ) H T
S z
, is expressed as:
( ) ( )
( )
H H X X H X H
appl calc a b S c S
= + +
2
Report 95-3204
where the parameters, X
a
, X
b
and X
c
, define the uncertainty/bias in the transfer functions
due to the applied wave theory.
If no information is available for the uncertainty/bias in the calculated transfer function, X
b
and X
c
should be set equal to zero (0.0) and the mean value of X
a
should be set equal to one
(1.0). Herein, no uncertainties are assigned to X
a
, X
b
and X
c
.
Uncertainty in structural behaviour:
The uncertainties in the structural behaviour are due to the uncertainties in both the structural
and soil-structure stiffness properties, the damping properties and the model uncertainties
coming from the mathematical idealisation of the structure. The latter model uncertainty is
believed to be rather small and is included in the uncertainty model in connection with the
computation of local stresses.
The uncertainty related to the stiffness properties results in uncertainty associated with the
estimated modal eigenfrequencies and the corresponding mode shapes. The uncertainty in the
damping mainly influences the dynamic amplification. These uncertainties are included in the
modelling of the transfer functions as
( ) ( ) H X H
H appl
=
where ( ) H
appl
is the transfer function given above and X
H
represents the modelling
uncertainties in the structural behaviour. X
H
is defined as a normally distributed random
variable with,
[ ] [ ]
E X CoV X
H H
= = 10 01 . .
3.3.4 Local Stress Calculations
3.3.4.1 General
The global FEM analysis discussed above yields the transfer functions H
F
i
( ) for section
forces and moments F t
i
( ) in each beam end, e.g., for axial force, in-plane and out-of-plane
bending moments. These end reactions are used to calculate the nominal stresses in the braces.
The nominal stresses from the global analysis are scaled with the Stress Concentration Factors
(SCF) to account for local geometrical effects.
Existing design codes, (e.g. API (1991, 1993), AWS (1984), DoE (1984)), use different
definitions of the SCFs. The hot-spot stress is the present application defined as: the greatest
value around the brace/chord intersection of the extrapolation to the weld toe of the geometric
stress distribution near the weld. This hot-spot stress definition incorporates the effects of the
overall geometry but omits the stress concentrating influence of the weld itself which results in a
local stress concentration.
Parametric formulas exist only for simple joints with members in one plane. In real structures
one finds very few of these simple joints. No reference is made to sign, location, or orientation of
the stress values representative of the SCFs. Little information is available on SCFs in
Report 95-3204
overlapping and/or multiplanar and/or grouted and/or ring stiffened joints. An inherent
shortcoming of the available SCF equations for K-joints is that they were derived under balanced
axial forces or self-equilibrated bending moments. Experimental work performed by Dijkstra and
de Back (1980), shows that the SCFs are highly dependent on the type of loading on the
individual member.
A comparison between various parametric formulas available for an axially loaded T-joint at the
chord saddle, demonstrated that significant differences existed (Lalani et al. (1986) ).
In the current analysis, the SCFs are calculated using FRAMEWORK ( DNV (1993b)) where the
parametric formulas proposed by Efthymiou (Efthymiou (1985, 1988) have been applied. The
results obtained using these formulas are compared to results obtained using the parametric
formulas proposed by Kuang (Kuang et al. (1977)).
3.3.4.2 Local Stress
In general, there are six load cases for each free end. However, it is common approach in the
fatigue assessment of jackets to neglect the effect of the torsional moments and the shear forces
in the analysis.
The hot-spot stress is then calculated as:
hot ax ipb
ipb
local opb
ipb
local
SCF
N
A
SCF
M
I
z SCF
M
I
y = ' '
where
N the axial force in the brace
M
ipb
the In-Plane Bending moment in the brace
M
opb
the Out-of-Plane Bending moment in the brace
A the cross section area
I the moment of inertia for the pipe section
y z
local local
' , ' the co-ordinates of the stress point relative to the section centre of gravity, in
the in-plane/out-of-plan axis system
SCF
ax
SCF for axial stress
SCF
ipb
SCF for in-plan bending stress
SCF
opb
SCF for out-of-plan bending stress
The SCFs are calculated for eight locations around each brace/chord intersection. See DNV
(1993b) for a more detailed description of the hot-spot stress calculations.
Based on the transfer functions H
F
i
( ) for all section forces (i.e. i=1: axial force, i=2: IPB
moment and i=3: OPB moment), the cross section properties and the SCFs, the spectral density
of the hot-spot stress in a unidirectional sea state is defined from:
S I I H H S
i
j i
j F F
i j

( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
*
=
= =

1
3
1
3
Report 95-3204
where the asterisk denotes the complex conjugate and
I
SCF
A
ax
1
=
I
SCF
I
z
ipb
local 2
= '
I
SCF
I
y
iob
local 3
= '
In Figure 3.6, the stress response spectral density function for one of the most critical hot-spots in
the considered jacket structure with respect to fatigue failure is shown. In the figure, the spectral
density functions are obtained using both the quasi-static and the dynamic transfer functions. The
stress spectral densities are presented using both the PM and JONSWAP unidirectional wave
spectra for wave direction =0deg. , H
S
=55 . m and T
Z
=75 . sec.
It is seen that the PM and the JONSWAP wave spectra give approximately identical results, but
that the dynamic amplification for this selected sea state is of significance for the stress response.
Report 95-3204
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
S
t
r
e
s
s

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
S
t
r
e
s
s

s
p
e
c
t
r
a
l

d
e
n
s
i
t
y
Applying PM wave spectr u m
Quasi-static response
Dynamic response
Applying JOSWAP wave spectrum
Quasi-static response
Dynamic response
Figure 3.6 Stress spectral densities, obtained using both quasi-static and dynamic
transfer functions, and two different wave spectra, the Pierson-Moskowitz
spectrum (PM) and the JONSWAP spectrum.
3.3.4.3 Uncertainties in Local Stress Calculation
It is a common practice to check the fatigue life at 8 points along the brace/chord intersection.
However, the parametric formulas for the SCFs do not provide information about the variation
of SCFs along the intersection brace/chord, which leads to uncertainties in the estimation of
the maximum resulting hot-spot stress over the intersection due to axial force, in-plane and
out-of-plane bending moments.
Report 95-3204
Because the position of the hot-spot is not known, a common procedure is to simply add the
maximum stresses derived separately from the axial and bending loads in order to estimate the
hot-spot stress, which will usually result in conservative estimates. The degree of
conservatism depends on the actual geometry and the contribution of bending stresses to the
total hot-spot stress.
Uncertainties associated with the modelling of the SCFs are defined at two levels:
One single common uncertainty factor is assigned to all the stress concentration factors.
This uncertainty measure accounts for fabrication inaccuracies and approximations made in
the stress calculation or joint classification, and is modelled through X
SCF Common
.
Individual uncertainty factors are in addition assigned to the SCFs for each degree of
freedom, i.e. for axial load X
SCF ax
, in-plan bending moment
X
SCF ipb
and out-of-plan
bending moment
X
SCF opb
.
All uncertainties in the SCFs are modelled as independent unbiased Normal distributed
random variables with coefficient of variation as presented in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4 Uncertainty measures (CoV) on the modelling of the SCFs.
Variable CoV
X
SCF Common
0.05
X
SCF ax 0.20
X
SCF ipb 0.20
X
SCF opb 0.20
3.3.5 Stress Range Distribution
Calculation of the fatigue life involves estimation of the total number of stress cycles and the
"crack driving force", i.e. the m'th moment of the stress range distribution,
[ ]
E S
m
. In the
example, these measures are established by the peak counting method. implying that the number
of stress cycles is equal to the number of up-crossings of the mean level, and that the stress range
is defined as two times the peak value.
The fatigue damage can be derived directly through a weighted summation of the accumulated
fatigue damage within each sea-state the structure is exposed to over the lifetime. Alternatively,
it can be derived from an estimated long-term stress range distribution, where the long-term
stress range distribution is calibrated to a weighted sum of the stress range distribution within
each short term sea-state. The latter approach is desirable due to computational efficiency when
the probabilistic fatigue evaluation of the structure involves inspection updating.
Report 95-3204
The direct approach and the stress-range calibration approach results in comparable fatigue
damage estimates, as can be seen from Figure 3.7, where the calibration of the long-term stress
range distribution is based on the approach presented in DNV (1995b).
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
Service time (years)
0.0
1.0
2.0
3.0
4.0
5.0
6.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

i
n
d
e
x
Calibtation of Weibull Load Model
Sum of short term damages
Weibull load model
Weibull parameters:
E[Ln(A)] = 1.7 ; CoV[Ln(a)]=0.12
B=0.83
Figure 3.7 Calibration results: The fitted Weibull stress range distribution is calibrated
to the original long term stress range distribution in order to obtain the same
fatigue reliability as the original load model.
Report 95-3204
3.4 Results
3.4.1 General
The most fatigue sensitive structural elements are identified through a frequency domain SN-
fatigue analysis (stochastic fatigue analysis). The load-response model from Section 3.3 is
utilised.
A stochastic linearisation is applied where three different sea states are considered for the
linearisation,:
H T
H T
H T
S Z
S Z
S Z
= =
= =
= =
35 65
55 75
85 95
. . sec.
. . sec
. . sec
m
m
m
Insignificant differences in the calculated fatigue lives are obtained for the three sea states, which
indicate that the loading on the considered structure is dominated by linear inertia forces.
The base case for the fatigue analysis is using transfer functions obtained from a dynamic
analysis, the parametric equations proposed by Efthyminu for deriving the SCFs, the PM sea
spectrum, and the assumption of long crested (uni-directional) sea.
The results for the base case are compared with results from equivalent fatigue analyses where
different common modelling alternatives are compared. The following variations are considered:
using a quasi-static approach for deriving the transfer functions, Kuang's model for deriving the
SCFs, JONSWAP sea spectrum and the influence of different levels of short crested sea.
In the following, the fatigue lives for the different members in one of the most critical joints in
the jacket structure, joint 589, is considered in the comparison analysis.
The quasi-static and dynamic transfer functions as well as the SCFs are calculated using
SESAM.
3.4.2 Deterministic SN-Fatigue Analysis
In Table 3.5, the geometrical characteristics for the selected joint with associated joint members
are shown.
In Table 3.6-9, the derived fatigue lives for the defined base case and the respective comparison
analyses are presented. The base case is presented first in each table. It is seen that the different
members of the considered joint have quite comparable fatigue lives, except for member 152
where a fatigue life more than seven times the other members is obtained.
In table 3.6, the base case results are compared with the corresponding fatigue results applying a
quasi-static, instead of a dynamic, approach for deriving the transfer functions. It is seen that the
quasi-static approach, the derived fatigue lives are, as expected, longer than for the dynamic
approach (by a factor 1.3-4.0). However, the unconservative estimates obtained by the quasi-
static approach are not valid for member number 152, indicating that the dynamically derived
fatigue life for member 152 can have been influenced by numerical inaccuracies in the analysis.
Joint 152 is therefore not considered further in the comparison analysis, but the results obtained
are shown.
In table 3.7, the fatigue lives obtained for the base case using the Efthyminu empirical model for
deriving SCFs are compared with the equivalent model using the Kuang model for the SCFs. The
Report 95-3204
obtained fatigue lives are longer with a factor of 2-7 for the Kuang model (not considering joint
152)
In table 3.8, the fatigue lives obtained for the base case using the PM wave spectrum are
compared with the equivalent results using the JONSWAP wave spectrum. Only a minor
increase in the fatigue lives is observed using the JONSWAP spectrum.
In table 3.9, the fatigue lives are derived for different degrees of wave spreading. It is seen that,
as expected, the estimated fatigue lives are increasing with the level of wave spreading, but that
this increase in only minor.
Table 3.5 Selected joint with associated members considered in the fatigue life comparison
analysis of the North Sea jacket structure.
Joint Number 589
Member Number 123 152 372 373 401 402
Member diameter (m)
Chord
Brace
3.50
0.90
3.50
1.00
3.50
1.40
3.50
1.40
3.50
1.10
3.50
1.30
Member thickness (m)
Chord
Brace
0.065
0.025
0.065
0.045
0.065
0.040
0.065
0.045
0.065
0.030
0.065
0.060
Joint type KTT YT KTK KTK KTK KTK
Report 95-3204
Table 3.6 Comparison of dynamic and quasi-static fatigue analysis results.
Joint Number 589
Member Number 123 152 372 373 401 402
Dynamic Analysis:
Fatigue life (years)
Cycles per year
Hot spot Position
Hot spot Number
246
1.2210
7
Brace-side
10
1780
1.1710
7
Chord-
side
13
80
9.8510
6
Chord-
side
4
87
8.9010
6
Chord-
side
10
158
9.8810
6
Chord-
side
4
63
1.2010
7
Chord-
side
16
*
Quasi-Static Analysis:
Cycles per year
Hot spot Position
Hot spot Number
323
5.1610
6
Brace-side
10
228
4.5810
6
Chord-
side
13
114
4.9910
6
Chord-
side
4
119
5.2710
6
Chord-
side
10
273
5.2210
6
Chord-
side
4
247
6.1410
6
Chord-
side
10
*
*Please note that depending on the applied model, different hot-spot positions or hot spot
numbers can be found to be critical.
Report 95-3204
Table 3.7 Comparison of fatigue analysis results using the Efthyminu and the Kuang
empirical models for deriving the SCFs.
Joint Number 589
Member Number 123 152 372 373 401 402
Efthyminu:
Cycles per year
Hot spot Position
Hot spot Number
246
1.2210
7
Brace-side
*
10
1780
1.1710
7
Chord-
side
13
*
80
9.8510
6
Chord-
side
4
87
8.9010
6
Chord-
side
10
158
9.8810
6
Chord-
side
4
63
1.2010
7
Chord-
side
16
Kuang:
Cycles per year
Hot spot Position
Hot spot Number
1910
1.2210
7
Chord-
side
*
10
951
1.1110
7
Chord-
side
16
*
215
1.0110
7
Chord-
side
4
266
9.2410
6
Chord-
side
10
478
1.0210
7
Chord-
side
4
135
1.2210
7
Chord-
side
16
Efthyminu SCFs:
SCF
ax
SCF
ipb
SCF
opb
4.943
3.152
7.445
16.88
4.287
8.843
4.958
3.162
7.782
4.220
2.899
6.925
3.264
2.500
4.900
6.607
4.253
7.883
Kuang SCFs:
SCF
ax
SCF
ipb
SCF
opb
3.320
2.500
4.238
20.40
3.866
7.699
3.830
2.634
4.796
3.325
2.500
3.514
2.500
2.500
2.541
5.543
3.656
5.961
Report 95-3204
Table 3.8 Comparison of fatigue results using the PM and the JONSWAP wave spectrum.
Joint Number 589
Member Number 123 152 372 373 401 402
PM Spectrum:
Cycles per year
Hot spot Position
Hot spot Number
246
1.2210
7
Brace-side
10
1780
1.1710
7
Chord-
side
13
80
9.8510
6
Brace-side
4
87
8.9010
6
Brace-side
10
158
9.8810
6
Brace-side
4
63
1.2010
7
Brace-side
16
*
JONSWAP Spectrum
Cycles per year
Hot spot Position
Hot spot Number
304
1.2210
7
Brace-side
10
1890
1.1510
7
Brace-side
13
88
9.8410
6
Brace-side
4
91
8.8010
6
Brace-side
10
190
1.0010
7
Brace-side
4
79.6
1.1810
7
Brace-side
10
*
Report 95-3204
Table 3.9 Comparison of fatigue results using different levels of wave spreading.
Joint Number 589
Member Number 123 152 372 373 401 402
One Dimensional:
Cycles per year
246
1.2210
7
1780
1.1710
7
80
9.8510
6
87
8.9010
6
158
9.8810
6
63
1.2010
7
Spread cos
8
( ):
Cycles per year
301
1.2310
7
2170
1.1410
7
91
9.7910
6
95
9.1810
6
178
1.0310
7
70
1.2210
7
Spread cos
4
( ):
Cycles per year
324
1.2310
7
2440
1.1210
7
98
9.8110
6
99
9.3110
6
191
1.0510
7
72
1.2310
7
Spread cos
2
( ):
Cycles per year
328
1.2310
7
2690
1.1110
7
105
9.8410
6
103
9.4110
6
204
1.0610
7
72
1.2310
7
3.4.3 Probabilistic SN-Fatigue Analysis
For the probabilistic SN-fatigue analysis, the load and response model described in section 3.3 is
applied. The fatigue damage is calculated using the Miners sum and SN T-curve, and the limit
state formulation defined in section 3.2.1 is applied. The stress range distribution within each sea
state is assumed Rayleigh distributed.
In table 3.10, the applied modelling parameters and uncertainty measures discussed in section 3.2
and section 3.3 are summarised.
The estimated fatigue reliability over the service life of the structure is shown in Figure 3.8
applying transfer functions derived from a dynamic and quasi-static analysis. It is observed that
the quasi-static approach gives approximatly 50% longer estimated fatigue live at the same
fatigue reliability level than the dynamic approach.
The results are given both using the advanced load model description within each sea state and
for the calibrated long term Weibull stress distribution. It is seen that the calibrated long term
stress distribution is able to represent the more advanced stress response model very accurately.
The calibrated long term Weibull stress response model is applied in the FM-fatigue analysis for
the inspection planning.
The significant importance factors obtained from the fatigue reliability analysis are shown in
Table 3.11 for the advanced load model and in Table 3.12 for the calibrated long term load
model. It should be noted that these estimated importance factors vary only slightly over the
service live of the structure. It is seen, as expected, that the uncertainties associated with the
Report 95-3204
modelling of the fatigue capacity (the SN-curve) and the estimation of the local stress response
(the SCFs) are the most important uncertainty contributions to the fatigue reliability assessment.
Report 95-3204
Table 3.10 Model parameters and uncertainty measures applied in the probabilistic SN-
fatigue analysis. Units in [N, mm]
Uncertainty Source Distribution Mean CoV
SN-curve:
log
10
K
m
1
m
2
N
0
Normal
Fixed
Fixed
Normal
12.661
3.0
210
8
1.9610
-2
--
--
0.10
Miners Sum:
Normal 1.0 0.20
Wave scatter diagram:
X
1
(
[ ]
E H
S
)
X
2
(
[ ]
E T
Z
)
X
3
(
[ ]
Std H
S
)
X
4
(
[ ]
Std T
Z
)
X
5
(
[ ]
H T
S Z
, )
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
Fixed
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.10
0.06
0.10
0.06
0.02
--
Wave spectrum (PM)

Normal
Normal
5.0
4.0
0.05
0.05
Structural response:
X
H
Normal 1.0 0.10
Local stresses (SCFs)
X
SCF Common
X
SCF ax
X
SCF ipb
X
SCF opb
Normal
Normal
Normal
Normal
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.05
0.20
0.20
0.20
Report 95-3204
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
5.5
6.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

i
n
d
e
x
Weibull parameters:
E[Ln(A)] = 1.7 ;
CoV[Ln(a)]=0.12
B=0.83
Dynamic analysis
Advanced load model
Weibull load model
Quasi-Static analysis
Advanced load model
Weibull load model
Weibull parameters:
E[Ln(A)] = 1.61 ;
CoV[Ln(a)]=0.12
B=0.75
Figure 3.8 The estimated SN-fatigue reliability of the joint as function of the service life
Table 3.11 The importance factors in the reliability analysis, using the advanced stress
model
Variable log
10
K X
1
X
2
X
SCF Com
X
SCF ax X
H
Importance fact. (%) 40-45 5-10 1-5 4-8
3
20-25 10-15
Table 3.12 The importance factors in the reliability analysis, using the Weibull stress model
Variable log
10
K ln( ) A
Importance fact. (%) 45-50 5-10 40-45
Report 95-3204
3.4.4 Probabilistic FM-Fatigue Analysis:
The main advantage for using a Fracture Mechanics (FM) fatigue model compared to a SN
fatigue model, is that the outcome of structural inspections can be incorporated in the FM fatigue
model. For the SN fatigue model, the inspection results can not be used directly for updating of
the degree of fatigue damage accumulation.
In order to utilise the inspection results also for the SN fatigue approach, the FM fatigue model is
calibrated directly to the original SN fatigue model. Applying a probabilistic FM fatigue analysis,
the initially estimated uncertainty model can be modified based on the additional information
gained about the system over the service life, e.g. the inspection results of no crack detection or
crack detection (with possible crack size assessment). The additional information from the
fatigue crack inspections is then applied directly for updating of the estimated fatigue reliability
level over the remaining service life after the inspection.
The applied FM fatigue approach is based on the 2-dimensional crack propagation model, where
the crack growth rate is calculated using Paris equation. The geometry function is calculated
using the parametric equations proposed by Raju and Newman (Raju and Newman (1981,
1986)). In order to account for the local stress concentrations due to the weld toe, the stress
magnification factor M
k
given in PD6493 (BSI 1991) is applied.
The parameters describing the crack propagation in the fracture mechanics approach are fitted
such that the probability of having a through thickness crack as function of time applying the
fracture mechanics approach is comparable with the equivalent result applying the SN-approach.
The fitting is based on a least-squares analysis.
Three fitting parameters are proposed for this purposes:
1. the expected value of the initial aspect ratio crack-depth/half-crack-length ratio
[ ]
E a c
0 0
/
2. the expected value of the model uncertainty for the geometry function
[ ]
E Y
model
3. the standard deviation of the material parameter ln( ) C
a
, i.e. Std C
a
(ln( ))
Using all three parameters in the calibration will not provide a unique fitting solution. The
expected value of the aspect ratio
[ ]
E a c
0 0
/ is therefore pre-selected and the other two
parameters are calibrated in order to match the probabilistic FM fatigue results with the
equivalent probabilistic SN fatigue results.
Three different values are selected for the expected value of the initial aspect ratio, i.e.
[ ]
E a c
0 0
01 03 05 / . , . , . = . With basis in brace number 372, the calibrated parameters in the FM
fatigue model for the different selections of the expected value of the initial aspect ratio are
shown in Table 3.13.
The results from the probabilistic fatigue analysis are shown in Table 3.14, both for the original
SN-fatigue analysis and the three different FM-fatigue analyses. It is seen that all three cases give
a good approximation to the SN reliability results. In the subsequent updating analysis, the fitted
distribution parameters obtained from Case-1 are applied. Similar analysis using the parameters
from Case-2 and Case-3 have been performed, where empirically the same results as for Case-1
are obtained. This indicates that the reliability updating is not sensitive to the choice of
parameter set as long as the FM-results give a good fit to the SN-results.
Report 95-3204
The applied uncertainty modelling for the probabilistic FM analysis is shown in Table 3.15.
Table 3.13 Three different selection of parameters to be applied in the FM-fatigue
analysis.
FM-fatigue
[ ]
E a c
0 0
/
[ ]
E Y
model
Std C
a
(ln( ))
Case-1 0.10 0.938 0.443
Case-2 0.30 0.958 0.446
Case-3 0.50 0.990 0.471
Table 3.14 Comparison of the fatigue reliability results from the SN-fatigue analysis and
the calibrated FM-fatigue analysis.
Reliability Index: = -
-1
[ P
F
]
Time SN-fatigue FM-fatigue
Case-1
FM-fatigue
Case-2
FM-fatigue
Case-3
3 (years) 4.30 4.30 4.28 4.28
8 (years) 3.21 3.21 3.23 3.23
20 (years) 2.23 2.23 2.26 2.26
50 (years) 1.30 1.30 1.29 1.29
3.4.5 Inspection Updating - Inspection Planning
Applying the FM fatigue model, it is possible to derive the influence of an inspection on the
estimated fatigue failure probability for specified inspection quality. The inspection quality is
expressed through the likelihood of detecting an existing crack as a function of the size (length)
of the crack.
In the estimation of the inspection plan for the jacket in the case study, the target inspection
reliability level is defined as the reliability level of the structure at one tenth of the fatigue design
life, being after 8 years of service with reliability index = 32 . . In Table 3.15, the applied
uncertainty model for the probabilistic FM fatigue analysis is shown together with the applied
inspection model.
In figure 3.9, it is shown how the estimated fatigue reliability of the inspected joint increase after
the inspection when no fatigue cracks were detected. Based on the specified target reliability
level, a new structural inspections will have to take place after 15 years of service.
In Table 3.16, the importance factors for the modelled stochastic variables are presented prior to
first inspection, and after one and two inspections. It is observed that the modelling detection
ability of the last inspection is having a large influence of the estimated reliability level.
Report 95-3204
Table 3.15 Model parameters and uncertainty measures applied in the probabilistic FM-
fatigue analysis. Units in [N, mm, s]
Uncertainty Source Distribution Mean CoV
FM model
a
0
a c
0 0
/
a
critic
ln C
A
*
m
T
0
Exponential
Normal
Fixed
Normal
Fixed
Fixed
0.11
0.10
65.0
-31.01
3.5
0.0
1.0
0.10
--
0.014
--
--
Inspection Model
2
1
c
pod
2
2
c
pod
POD curve x
0
295 = .
x
0
295 = .
b = 0 905 .
b = 0 905 .
Stress Response Model
ln A
B
r
memb stress .
**

0
Normal
Fixed
Normal
Fixed
1.7
0.84
0.20
0.312
0.12
--
0.10
--
Geometry Function
Y
model
Y
MK
***
t
plate
l
attachm
****
Normal
Normal
Fixed
Fixed
0.938
1.0
65.0
80.0
0.10
0.10
--
--
* C C
C
m
A
=
11 .
** Ratio of membrane stress to total stress.
*** Model uncertainty on the M
K
factor given in PD-6493 (BSI (1991))
**** Length of weld attachment considered PD-6493 (BSI (1991))
Report 95-3204
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
3.0
3.5
4.0
4.5
5.0
R
e
l
i
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

i
n
d
e
x
1
.

I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

T
=
8

y
e
a
r
s
2
.

I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

T
=
1
5

y
e
a
r
s
Target reliability
3
.

I
n
s
p
e
c
t
i
o
n

a
t

T
=
2
4

y
e
a
r
s
Reliability over Time
No inspection performed
No crack found at 1st inspection
No crack found at 2nd inspection
Figure 3.9 Estimated updated reliability against fatigue failure based on the inspection
outcome of no crack detection.
Table 3.16 The importance factors for the fatigue reliability analysis over the service
life, accounting for the number of structural inspections.
Importance Factors (%)
Variable: ln( ) A ln( ) C
A
Y
model
Y
MK
a
0 2
1
c
pod
2
2
c
pod
Prior to Insp., t = 8 years 58-60 22-24 10-12 4-5 2-3 not-used not-used
After 1.insp., t = 15 years 30-36 10-15 5-8 1-2 < 1 40-50 not-used
After 2.insp., t = 24 years 40-45 14-16 8-10 < 1 2-4 6-7 20-25
DNV Report No. 95-3204 Total Structural Collapse Limit State
Report 95-3204
4 TOTAL STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE LIMIT STATE
4.1 General
In reliability analyses of jacket structures for structural collapse (ULS), the uncertainties
associated with the determination of the hydrodynamic loading are generally much greater than
for the estimation of the collapse capacity. As the problem formulation is load driven, a proper
modelling of the hydrodynamic loading is therefore important.
In DNV (1995b), a procedure for probabilistic modelling of the structural collapse is discussed.
In the following, an example of a reliability analysis of total collapse of a jacket structure is
considered.
The selected North Sea jacket structure is the same as for the FLS study presented in the previous
section, being an existing North Sea structure located at 107 m water depth. The choice of this
particular structure is motivated from the degree of structural redundancy, believed to be typical
for North Sea jackets.
In the structural model only the load bearing part of the jacket is included directly in the
modelling. The top-side permanent loads and live loads are incorporated through nodal and
element masses at the top level of the structure.
The main characteristics of the jacket platform are presented in section 2.
4.2 Limit State Formulation
The limit state function for a given load direction , is expressed as,
( )
g cc l cc l , =
where CC is the jacket collapse capacity for direction , measured as the total base-shear
capacity of the structure, and L is the annual extreme base-shear loading.
In the current example, the jacket collapse capacity is obtained by performing a non-linear push-
over analysis with the computer program USFOS (USFOS (1996)). The hydrodynamic loads on
the jacket are calculated by WAJAC (DNV (1992)).
Report 95-3204
4.3 Load and Response Modelling
4.3.1 Load Modelling
The annual extreme base-shear loading acting of the structure, L , is expressed as,
L X L L
L jack jack wind
= +
L
jack
is the calculated hydrodynamic loading with associated model uncertainty X
L jack
, and
L
wind
is the wind loading. Possible hydrodynamic loading on the deck structure is not included
in the analysis.
L
jack
is generally stochastic due to randomness (aleatory uncertainties) in the sea state, e.g.
uncertainties associated with the description of the wave height, the wave period and the current
speed.
For a given environmental situation, the maximum base shear loading over the wave cycle,
L
jack
, is obtained by time stepping a Stokian 5th wave through the structure, where the
hydrodynamic loads on the members are calculated using Morisons equation. The calculated
current speed is added vectorially to the wave induced particle speed. In the example analysis, the
Morisons coefficients are assumed deterministic, with the following values
C C
D M
= = 0 70 16 . .
The model uncertainty X
L jack
is introduced to account for the overall uncertainties associated
with the applied load models for a given environmental condition (e.g. the uncertainties in the
modelling of the hydrodynamic parameters and the marine growth). The model uncertainty is
assumed equal and fully correlated for all load directions .
As discussed in DNV (1995b), numerous studies have been performed on the quantification of
model uncertainties associated with the load prediction. However, no general recommendation
can at present be made based on these studies.
In the current example, the global model uncertainty, X
L jack
, is modelled as unbiased normal
distributed with CoV=20%.
The load directions are discretised into eight directions with occurrence frequency as
specified in Table 4.1 (see also Appendix A and Figure 2.1), where for a given environmental
load direction, the wave, wind and current directions are assumed to be identical.
The wind loading is for all load directions defined by
L C U
wind wind w
=
2
where U
w
is the 1-hour mean wind speed and C
wind
is the wind coefficient, dependent on the
structural configuration. In Table 4.2, the applied wind coefficients are specified for different
wind directions.
Report 95-3204
Table 4.1 Load direction occurrence frequency
Load direction : NW W SW S SE E NE N
( ) P
0.11 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.12

Table 4.2 Wind coefficient C
wind
for the different wind directions
Wind direction: NW and SE SW and NE N, S, W and E
C
wind
[MN/(m/s)
2
] 0.0020 0.0030 0.0025
The sea water level is assumed deterministic and equal to the mean water level.
The current speed profile is given by
V z
V
Z
Z
Z Z
V Z Z
c
C MWL
C MWL
( )
/
=

|
\
|
|
<
0
1 7
0
0
where V
C MWL
is the current speed at the mean water level (MWL), Z
0
is the MWL depth
(107m) and Z is the distance from the sea-bed. The current profile is shown in Figure 4.1.
Current Speed (m/sec)
0.00
20.00
40.00
60.00
80.00
100.00
120.00
D
i
s
t
a
n
c
e

f
r
o
m

s
e
a
-
b
e
d
MWL
Figure 4.1 Current speed profile
Report 95-3204
4.3.2 Long-term Joint Environmental Model
In order to establish the probability distribution of the annual maximum base-shear load acting
on the structure for a given direction, a joint distribution of the corresponding wave height
(Stokes 5th), wave period and the current speed is needed. A proper description of the
environmental condition is therefore required, i.e. the long term variations of the sea state
characteristics and the short term description of the environmental condition (wave, current,
wind) for a given sea state. In the following the model is outlined:
The long term description of the environmental conditions for each load direction is defined
by the joint probability density function,
( ) ( ) ( ) ( ) ( )
f h t v u f t h f v h f u h f h
H
s
T
z
V
c
U
w
s z c w
T
z
H
s
z s
V
c
H
s
c s
U
w
H
s
w s H
s
s
, , , =
I.e., given H
s
(and ), the random variables T
z
, V
c
, and U
w
are assumed to be mutually
independent. For the oceanographic area in which the applied jacket is located, no directional
information for the wave statistic is available, and the same wave scatter diagram is applied for
all directions. The discrete values of the ( H
S
, T
Z
) data are shown in Figure 3.1.
The conditional distribution of the current speed at MWL, given the significant wave height, is
assumed to be Normal distributed with mean and standard deviation (unit: m/sec.),
[ ]
E V h h
c s s
= + 02 004 . .
[ ]
Std V h
c s
=01 .
The conditional distribution of the 1-hour mean wind speed, given the significant wave height is
assumed to be Normal distributed with mean and standard deviation (unit: m/sec.) (Dalane and
Haver (1995));
[ ]
E U h h
w s s
= + 55 18 . .
[ ]
Std U h h
w s s
= 49 026 . .
The conditional distribution of the mean crossing period T
z
, given the significant wave height is
assumed to be Lognormal distributed (unit: sec.) (Bitner-Gregersen and Haver (1989));
( )
( )
f t h
t
t
T H z s
z
z
z s
=

1
2 2
2
2

exp
ln
where
[ ] [ ]
= = E T h Var T h
z s z s
ln | ln |
2
and the following functions define the estimates for and
2
( )
= + a a h
s
a
1 2
3
( )
2
1 2 3
= + b b b h
s
exp
The parameters a a a b b
1 2 3 1 2
, , , , and b
3
are determined by calibration to observed data, i.e. the
scatter diagram for the structural location considered, using least squares technique. Applying
the scatter diagram in Table 3.1, the following results are obtained
a
1
122 = . a
2
0382 = . a
3
0456 = .
Report 95-3204
b
1
00623 = . b
2
0255 = . b
3
0297 = .
The fitted and observed results are shown in Figure 4.2 - 4.4. Figure 4.2 and figure 4.3 show the
observed and fitted mean and standard deviation of ( ) ln T
z
. In figure 4.4 the observed and fitted
marginal distribution of T
z
are shown. It should be noted that the marginal distribution of T
z
does not follow any known distribution type and is in figure 4.4 plotted on Weibull paper only to
compare the observed data and the fit. As can be seen, the obtained fits are in good accordance
with the observed data.
The same marginal distribution of the significant wave height is assumed for all directions, and a
3-parameter Weibull distribution is applied;
( )
( )
f h
h h
H s
s s
s
=

|
\
1
exp
The distribution parameters (scale parameter), (shape parameter) and (location
parameter) are established by non-linear least square fitting to the observed data, where the
following results are obtained for the considered location,
=2 23 . =137 . =0281 .
In figure 4.5 the observed and fitted marginal distributions of H
s
are shown. As can be seen, the
obtained fit is in good accordance with the observed data.
Report 95-3204
Figure 4.2 Observed and fitted mean value of ( ) ln T
z
.
Figure 4.3 Observed and fitted standard deviation of ( ) ln T
z
.
Report 95-3204
Figure 4.4 Observed and fitted marginal distribution of T
z
(plotted on Weibull paper)
Figure 4.5 Observed and fitted marginal distribution of H
s
Report 95-3204
4.3.3 Annual Extreme Sea-state (Storm)
The annual largest loading is assumed to occur when the largest wave, in the largest annual storm
(i.e. annual largest H
s
) passes the structure. The annual largest significant wave height,
H
s max ,
, for a given load direction , is derived from the long term distribution of the arbitrary
significant wave heights as
( ) ( )
[ ]
F h F h
H s H s
N
s s
storm
, max
, max ,max

=
where N
storm
is the number of annual storms in direction , obtained by
( ) N N P
storm storm
=

where N
storm
=1460 is the total number of 6-hours storms in one year and ( ) P
is the direction
occurrence probability previously specified.
4.3.4 Extreme Wave Height
The distribution of the largest wave height for a given stationary sea state or storm (i.e. specified
H
s
and T
z
) out of N
wave
wave cycles may be obtained by
( ) ( )
[ ]
F h h F h h
H H s H H s
N
s s
wave
max
, max , max
, ,

=
where the number of waves N
wave
is estimated as
N
T h
wave
z s
=

, max
and = 6 hours (21,600 sec.) is the specified duration of a storm.
The Weibull distribution is applied for the wave height distribution in a stationary sea state
(Forristall (1978) ),

( )
F h h
h
h
H H s
s
s
, ,
, exp
=
|
\
1
where the parameters are defined as = 213 . and =2 26 . .
The distribution of the largest wave height in a given storm with H H
s s
=
,max
is then obtained as
Report 95-3204
( )
F h h N
h
h
H H
s wave
s
s max , max
max , max
max
, max
, exp exp
=
|
\
|
|
1
]
1
1
The wave period corresponding to the largest wave height is defined as,
T T
H z
max
= 1.2
Applying the model described above, the wave characteristics shown in Table 4.3 are obtained,
where the subscript x% denotes the annual probability of exceedance, i.e. 50% is the median
value, 1% is 100 years condition and 0.01% is the 10,000 years condition.
Table 4.3 Obtained wave characteristics
Annual maximum significant
wave height H
s, max
(m)
Annual maximum wave height
H
max
(m)
Direction N
storm
H
s, max,50%
H
s,max,1%
H
s, max, . 0 01%
H
max,50%
H
max,1%
H
max, . 0 01%
All 1460 10.1 13.8 17.4 18.3 25.8 33.4
NW 161 7.9 11.9 15.7 14.5 22.2 29.9
W 190 8.1 12.1 15.9 14.8 22.5 30.1
SW 292 8.5 12.4 16.2 15.6 23.2 30.8
S 321 8.6 12.5 16.3 15.7 23.4 31.0
SE 146 8.0 11.8 15.7 14.3 22.1 29.7
E 102 7.5 11.5 15.4 13.7 21.5 29.1
NE 73 7.1 11.2 15.1 13.0 20.9 28.6
N 175 8.0 12.0 15.8 14.6 22.4 30.0
4.3.5 Hydrodynamic Loading
Knowing the wave height and period, and the current speed profile, the hydrodynamic loading is
calculated using WAJAC. In order to make the reliability analysis more efficient, a response
surface has been established for all eight directions. The response surface provides the total base
shear on the jacket as function of the wave height, wave period (5th order Stokes wave) and the
current speed at MWL.
Figure 4.6 shows the total hydrodynamic base shear loading for the eight considered directions as
function of the wave height, for specified wave period and current speed. Figure 4.7 shows the
base shear loading for the NW direction as function of the wave height for different wave period
and current speed combinations.
Report 95-3204
20 25 30 35 40
Wave height (m) (5th order Stokes)
50
100
150
200
250
300
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
M
N
)
Current speed Vc(MWL) = 0.8 m/sec
Wave period T= 15 sec
Load direction
NW
SE
SW
E
20 25 30 35 40
50
100
150
200
250
300
B
a
s
e

S
h
e
a
r

(
M
N
)
Load direction
W
E
S
N
Current speed Vc(MWL) = 0.8 m/sec
Wave period T= 15 sec
Figure 4.6 The total base shear due to hydrodynamic loading as function of wave height
It is observed in Figure 4.7 that the base shear increases exponential with the wave height, but
that the current speed and the wave period also have some significance.
For a given wave period and current speed, the base shear L
jack
can be approximated with a
simple empirical relation as L a H
jack
b
= . As an example, for the NW direction with V
c
=08 .
m/sec and T = 15 s, the parameters are a = 0.20 and b = 1.93. The obtained fit is shown together
with the original derived wave loading results in Figure 4.8.
Report 95-3204
20 24 28 32 36 40
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
N
M
)
Vc : Current speed at MWL (m/sec) ; T : Wave period (sec.)
Vc = 0.0 T = 13
Vc = 0.0 T = 15
Vc = 0.0 T = 17
Vc = 0.5 T = 13
Vc = 0.5 T = 15
Vc = 0.5 T = 17
Vc = 0.8 T = 13
Vc = 0.8 T = 15
Vc = 0.8 T = 17
Figure 4.7 The total base shear hydrodynamic loading as function of the wave height.

20.00 25.00 30.00 35.00 40.00
Wave height (m)
50
100
150
200
250
300
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
M
N
)

Calculated by WAJAC
Power-fit : log(L)=B*log(H)+A
Fitted Equation:
log(L) = 1.92731 * log(H) + -1.6047
Alternate equation:
L = (X**1.92731) * 0.20095
L : Base shear in MN
H : wave height in m
Load direction : NW, Vc(MWL) = 0.8 m/sec., T = 15 sec.
Figure 4.8 Analytical fit of the base shear as function of the wave height
Report 95-3204
4.4 Capacity Model
The collapse capacity CC , for a given load direction , is expressed as
CC X CC
CC model calc
=
CC
calc
is the calculated capacity and X
CC model
is the overall modelling uncertainty
associated with the estimated collapse capacity. The model uncertainty X
CC analysis
, accounting
for possible inconsistencies in the analysis, is here assumed 1.0.
The model uncertainty X
CC model
accounts for all the uncertainties in the modelling of the
structural non-linear FEM analysis (geometry and material properties) and is assumed identical
and fully correlated for all load directions. X
CC model
is taken as unbiased Normal distributed
with CoV=0.15.
The calculated base shear capacities CC
calc
and the load level for the eight load directions
are shown in the table below, where the load level defines the scaling factor on the
hydrodynamic loading resulting in total collapse of the structure. The load condition considered
is a 5th order Stokian wave profile with H = 26 m and T = 14.0 s, v
C MWL
= 1.0 m/s and u
w
= 0.0.
Table 4.4 The calculated structural collapse capacity for the eight load directions (MN).
Direction NW W SW S SE E NE N
Load-level 2.52 2.98 3.21 3.49 2.71 3.52 3.22 3.01
Capacity CC
calc
194.9 246.8 301.5 297.1 222.1 289.3 299.0 247.6
Since, the same long term joint environmental distribution is applied for all load direction, the
load-level in Table 4.4 indicates that the NW and SE directions are the most critical
directions. It should, however, be noted that the load-level parameter in the table can not be
related directly to the probability of failure, as the occurrence probabilities for the different load
directions are not equal. E.g. P SW P NW

( ) ( ) 2 , i.e. the probability of an extreme
load condition is higher for the SW than the NW direction (see Table 4.1) and the non-linear
relationship between the base shear and the wave height and period varies for the different
directions.
The calculated capacity CC
calc
is in general a function of the hydrodynamic load profile
applied in the push-over analysis. In order to evaluate the sensitivity of the capacity to the
applied load profile, 15 different profiles have been studied. The results are shown in Figure 4.9.
It is seen that for larger waves, the push-over capacity is almost independent of the applied wave
height but that a dependence exist for the wave period. The obtained relationship between the
capacity and the wave heights and wave periods are included in the reliability analysis.
Report 95-3204
20.0 22.0 24.0 26.0 28.0 30.0
Wave heights (m)
190.0
200.0
210.0
220.0
230.0
240.0
C
o
l
l
a
p
s
e

C
a
p
a
c
i
t
y

(
M
N
)
Wave comming from North-West
Collapse Capacity for different wave periods
(solid line show the applied fit)
Wave periode = 19.0 sec.
Collapse Capacity as function of different wave profiles
(wave-height and period - 5th order Stoke wave)
Figure 4.9 Collapse capacity as function of wave height and wave period
Report 95-3204
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (m)
0.0E+0
5.0E+7
1.0E+8
1.5E+8
2.0E+8
2.5E+8
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
N
)
H = 20.0 m
T = 19.0 sec
T = 16.5 sec
T = 14.0 sec
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (m)
0.0E+0
5.0E+7
1.0E+8
1.5E+8
2.0E+8
2.5E+8
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
N
)
T = 19.0 sec
T = 16.5 sec
T = 14.0 sec
H = 24.0 m
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (m)
0.0E+0
5.0E+7
1.0E+8
1.5E+8
2.0E+8
2.5E+8
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
N
)
T = 19.0 sec
T = 16.5 sec
T = 14.0 sec
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (m)
0.0E+0
5.0E+7
1.0E+8
1.5E+8
2.0E+8
2.5E+8
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
N
)
T = 19.0 sec
T = 16.5 sec
T = 14.0 sec
H = 26.0 m H = 28.0 m
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Displacement (m)
0.0E+0
5.0E+7
1.0E+8
1.5E+8
2.0E+8
2.5E+8
B
a
s
e

s
h
e
a
r

(
N
)
T = 19.0 sec
T = 16.5 sec
T = 14.0 sec
H = 30.0 m
Load-Displacement curves for different wave patterns
Wave direction : North-West
Figure 4.10 Load-displacement curve for different wave profiles
Report 95-3204
4.5 Numerical Results
The statistical properties of the stochastic variables included in the reliability model are
summarised in Table 4.5. The hydrodynamic parameters C
d
and C
m
in Morisons equation and
the marine growth Mg are modelled as deterministic, with the following values:
C
d
= 070 . C
m
=16 .
Mg
Z Z
Z Z
=
> +
+
0 0 2 0
0 01 2 0
0
0
. .
. .
m
m m
where Z
0
is the MWL depth (107 m) and Z is the distance from the sea-bed.
PROBAN (DNV (1993a)) is applied for the reliability calculations, and the implementation is
shown schematically in Figure 4.11. The derived FORTRAN routines are enclosed in Appendix
D.
A response surface for the hydrodynamic loading has been applied, with the current speed at
MWL, the wave height and the wave period (5th Stokian wave) as response co-ordinates. A
FORTRAN code has been developed in order to define the response surfaces for all the eight
load directions automatically, where WAJAC is used for the load calculation. The program code
is shown in Appendix D. The PROBAN input-file for one load direction is given in Appendix C.
Table 4.5 Statistical properties for the stochastic parameters (summary).
Parameter Description Distribution
H
s
Significant wave height Weibull distributed :
( ) F h
h
H s
s
s
=

|
\
1 exp

=2 23 . =137 . =0281 .
H
s max ,
Annual largest H
s
( ) ( )
[ ]
F h F h
H s H s
N
s s
storm
, max
, max , max
=
F
H H
s
Wave height distribution in
a stationary sea state (storm)
Conditional Weibull distribution
( )
F h h
h
h
H H s
s
s
=
|
\
1 exp
= 213 . =2 26 . .
F
H H
s max
Largest wave height in a
stationary sea-state
( ) ( )
[ ]
F h h F h h
H H s H H s
N
s s
wave
max
max max
=

|
\
1
]
1
1
exp exp
max
N
h
h
wave
s
Report 95-3204
T
z
Mean zero-crossing period Conditional Log-Normal distribution
[ ] ( )
= = + E T h a a h
z s s
a
ln |
1 2
3
[ ] ( )
Var T h b b b h
z s s
ln | exp = +
1 2 3
a
1
122 = . a
2
038 = . a
3
0 46 = .
b
1
0 062 = . b
2
0 26 = . b
3
030 = .
U H
w s
1-hour mean wind speed Conditional Normal distribution
= + 55 18 . . h
s
Std h
s
= 49 0 26 . .
V H
c s
Current speed at MWL Conditional Normal distribution
= + 0 2 0 04 . . h
s
Std =01 .
X
L jack
Global model uncertainty in
the hydrodynamic loading
Normal distributed
=10 . COV = 0 2 .
X
CC model
Global model uncertainty in
the calculated collapse
capacity
Normal distributed
=10 . COV = 015 .
In Table 4.6, the annual probability of failure (SORM) and the importance factors are shown.
In Table 4.7, the design point values for the stochastic variables are shown. As can be seen, the
wind loading is less than 2% of the total loading and can in this example be omitted in the
analysis. For the hydrodynamic loading, the wave loading contributes with about 75% and the
current loading with about 25% of the total hydrodynamic loading.
Report 95-3204
PROBAN
ULSfunc
Proban function library
Purpose : Calculate hydrodynamic base
shear loading, using response surface.
Input : H, T, Vc, Cd, Mg, BS_model
Output : Base shear loading
BaseShear
Response surface modul, calculating
the response for given function coordinates.
Input : H, T, Vc, Cd, Mg
Response
Data file contaning response surface
coordinates and responses.
Input : H, T, Vc, Cd, Mg
Data base (file)
Purpose: Modify the calculated collapse
capacity of the jacket as function of H and T
Input : H, T, calculated base shear capacity
Output : Modified base shear capacity
CollCap
Response surface modul, calculating
the response for given function coordinates
Input : H, T
Output : Change in the calc. capacity
Resp5D
Data file contaning response surface
coordinates and responses.
Input : H, T
Output : Change in the calc. capacity
Data base (file)
Proban input file
Figure 4.11 Reliability calculation - implementation overview
Report 95-3204
Table 4.6 Annual probability of failure and importance factors
Annual failure Importance factors (%)
Load direction probability Env. loading Model uncertainties
P
f
annual
L
jack
& L
wind
X
L jack
X
CC model
NW 4.810
-5
79 9 12
W 1.510
-5
79 9 13
SW 1.310
-5
75 9 16
S 0.610
-5
79 8 13
SE 2.610
-5
77 9 14
E 0.210
-5
80 8 12
NE 0.310
-5
78 9 14
N 1.310
-5
79 9 13
All directions
13 10
5

*
*(series system, no correlation between the different directions)
Table 4.7 Design point values for the stochastic variables
Load H
s
T
z
H T
V
c
U
w
L
wind
L
jack
X
L jack
X
CC model
direction
(m) (sec) (m) (sec) (m/sec) (m/sec) (MN) (MN)
NW 14.4 12.3 28.5 14.9 0.80 31.4 2 126 1.23 0.79
W 15.0 12.5 30.3 15.0 0.82 32.5 3 153 1.25 0.77
SW 14.8 12.2 30.8 14.7 0.82 32.2 3 177 1.26 0.74
S 15.7 12.9 32.3 15.4 0.85 33.7 3 179 1.26 0.76
SE 14.5 12.3 28.9 14.8 0.80 31.5 2 137 1.25 0.77
E 15.6 12.8 32.1 15.4 0.85 33.5 3 176 1.25 0.76
NE 14.8 12.2 30.8 14.7 0.82 32.2 3 174 1.27 0.74
N 15.0 12.6 30.5 15.1 0.83 32.6 3 153 1.25 0.77
As shown in Table 4.6, the annual failure probability for the different directions is in the order of
10
5
, and the design point for the wave height H shown in Table 4.7 is close to the 10,000 years
condition for the wave height, confer Table 4.3. This indicates that the inherent uncertainty in the
wave height is the dominating parameter in the reliability analysis. The contribution from the
model uncertainties are, however not negligible.
Report 95-3204
In order to study the importance of the model uncertainties, the uncertainty in the mean zero-
upcrossing period T
z
and the uncertainty in the current speed at MWL V
c
, the following cases
are studied:
CASE-1: Effect of uncertainties in T
z
and V
c
The NW load direction is considered. For given outcome of H
s
, the T
z
and V
c
are
modelled as deterministic, equal to the median value defined in Table 4.5, i.e.
( )
( )
T a a h
z s
a
= + exp
1 2
3
V h
c s
= + 0 2 0 04 . .
Results : P
f
annual
=

46 10
5
. i.e. for given outcome of H
s
, it follows that T
z
and
V
c
can be modelled as deterministic (see Table 4.6)
CASE-2: Effect of the uncertainty for the calculated hydrodynamic loading X
L jack
.
Only the NW load direction is considered in the studies. Mean values in the range
of 0.9-1.1 and CoV in the range of 0.0-0.4 are studied, considering both the Normal
distribution and Log-Normal distribution. The results are shown in Table 4.8 and
4.9
Table 4.8 Annual failure probability P
f
annual
as function mean and CoV,
X
L jack
Normal distributed
CoV
[ ]
E X
L jack
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.9 0.9010
-5
1.210
-5
2.210
-5
4.510
-5
8.510
-5
1.0 2.110
-5
2.710
-5
4.810
-5
9.210
-5
17.110
-5
1.1 4.810
-5
5.610
-5
9.510
-5
18.110
-5
28.710
-5
f
annual
X
L jack
Log-Normal distributed
CoV
[ ]
E X
L jack
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.9 0.9010
-5
1.210
-5
2.510
-5
6.510
-5
16.810
-5
1.0 2.110
-5
2.710
-5
5.810
-5
12.910
-5
32.010
-5
1.1 4.810
-5
5.710
-5
10.610
-5
21.210
-5
55.010
-5
Report 95-3204
As can be seen, the choice of distribution for X
L jack
is not significant for the
results, only for unrealistic height CoV some differences are obtained. It is also
shown that a 10% variation in the mean value (bias), change the failure probability
by approximately a factor two. In the base case model CoV=0.2 was proposed. By
reducing this value to 0.1, the failure probability will reduce with a factor two.
Ignoring the model uncertainty in the calculated hydrodynamic loading will lead to
underestimation of the failure probability by a factor two.
CASE-3: Effect of model uncertainty in the calculated collapse capacity X
CC model
.
Only the NW load direction is considered in the studies. Mean values in the range
of 0.9-1.1 and CoV in the range of 0.0-0.4 are studied, where X
CC model
is
modelled as Normal distributed. The results are shown in Table 4.10.
For CoV < 0.2, the effect of model uncertainty in the calculated collapse capacity
for the failure probability is similar as for X
L jack
, but for large CoV (> 0.2) the
estimated failure probability increases dramatically.
f
annual
X
CC model
Normal distributed
CoV
[ ]
E X
CC model
0.0 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.9 4.310
-5
6.010
-5
10.310
-5
26.110
-5
38510
-5
195010
-5
1.0 1.810
-5
2.610
-5
4.810
-5
11.210
-5
30110
-5
173010
-5
1.1 0.8110
-5
1.210
-5
2.310
-5
6.110
-5
24610
-5
157010
-5
CASE-4: Effect of ignoring the relationship between the capacity and the wave height and
period.
The calculated collapse capacity is obtained by applying the 100 years wave
condition shown in table 4.3, and the median value of the wave period. Only the
NW load direction is included in the studies, where following wave condition is
obtained;
H = 22.2 m T = 13.3 sec.
Results : P
f
annual
=

53 10
5
. i.e. the 100 years wave condition can be applied in
the push-over analysis in order to obtain the calculated collapse capacity
and the relationship between the capacity and the wave height and period
can be omitted.
CASE-5: Effect of ignoring the model uncertainties
Report 95-3204
X
L jack
and X
CC model
are set equal to unity in the reliability model.
Results : P
f
annual
=

07 10
5
. i.e. ignoring the model uncertainties in the reliability
model leads to underestimation of the failure probability by a factor 7 (seven).
It should be noted that the results presented in the cases above are in principle only valid for the
current example, but it is expected that the results will be similar for other North Sea jackets.
DNV Report No. 95-3204 References
Report 95-3204
5 REFERENCES
API (1991); API Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms, American Petroleum Institute RP 2A, Nineteenth Edition, August 1991.
API (1993); API Recommended Practice for Planning, Design and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design, American Petroleum Institute Recommended
Practice (RP 2A-LRFD), First Edition, July 1993.
American Welding Society (AWS) (1984). Structural welding code, AWS D1.1-84.
Bitner-Gregersen, E.M., and Haver, s: (1989); Joint Long Term Description of Environmental
Parameters for Structural Response Calculation, Proceedings of the 2nd International Workshop
on Wave Hindcasting and Forecasting, Vancouver, B.C., April 25-28, 1989.
Borgman, L.E. (1967); Spectral analysis of ocean wave forces on piling, Journal of Waterways
and Harbour Division, ASCE, Vol. 93, pp.129-156.
Bouwkamp, J.G. et al. (1980); Effects of joint flexibility on the response of offshore towers,
Proc. OTC, Paper 3901, Houston, Texas.
BSI PD6493 (1991); Guidance on methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in fusion
welded structures, British Standard Institute, 1991.
Chakrabarti, S.K. (1971); Discussion on dynamics of single point mooring in deep water, Journal
of Waterways, Harbours and Coastal Eng. Div., ASCE, Vol.97, No. WW3.
Chakrabarti, S.K. (1976); Total forces on submerged randomly oriented tube due to waves, Proc.
OTC\, Paper 2495, Houston, Texas.
Dalane, J.I. and Haver, S. (1995); Requalification of an Unmanned Jacket Structure Using
Reliability Methods, OTC 7756, Houston, May 1995.
Department of Energy (DoE) (1984a); Background to new fatigue design guidance for steel
welded joints in offshore structures, United Kingdom Department of Energy 1984, London.
Report 95-3204
Department of Energy (DoE) (1984b); Offshore Installations: Guidance on Design and
Construction, United Kingdom Department of Energy, HSMO, London, April 1984.
Dijkstra, O.D. and de Back, J. (1980); Fatigue strength of tubular T- and X-joints, Proc. OTC\,
Paper 3696, Houston, Texas.
DNV (1995a), Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - General, DNV Technical
Report 95-2018, Det Norske Veritas, 1995.
DNV (1995b), Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - Application for Jacket
Platforms, DNV Technical Report 95-3203, Det Norske Veritas, 1995.
DNV (1993a) PROBAN; PROBAN Version 4 - Theory Manual, Det Norske Veritas Research
Report no. 93-2056, Hvik, Norway 1993.
DNV (1993b) FRAMEWORK, Steel Frame Design - Theoretical Manual, DNV Sesam
Technical Report 93-7076, 01-AUG-1993.
DNV (1992) WAJAC, Wave and Current Loads on Fixed Rigid Frame Structures - Users
Manual, Det Norske Veritas Sesam AS, technical report 92-7052, May 25, 1992.
DNV (1991) SESTRA; Super Element Structural Analysis - Users Manual, Veritas Sesam
System A.S, technical report 91-7033, September 1, 1991.
DNV (1984a), PREFRAME, Pre-processor for Frame Structures - Users Manual, Veritec,
technical report 82-6003, Revision 5, October 1, 1984.
DNV (1984b); Fatigue Strength Analysis for Mobile Offshore Units, Classification Notes no.
30.2., Det Norske Veritas, August, 1984.
Efthymiou, M. et al. (1985); Stress concentration in T/Y and gap/overlap K joints, Proc.
BOSS'85, Delft, The Netherlands.
Efthymiou, M. (1988); Development of SCF formulae and generalised influence functions for
use in fatigue analysis, Shell International Petroleum Mij. B.V., OTJ88 Resent Developments in
Tubular Joints Technology, Surrey, UK, 5 October 1988.
Report 95-3204
Fessler, H. and Spooner, H. (1981); Experimental determination of stiffness of tubular joints,
Proc. IOS'81, Glasgow, Scotland.
Forristall, G.Z. (1978); On the Statistical Distribution of Wave Height in a Storm, Journal of
Geophysical Research, Vol. 83, No. C5, 1978.
Hogben, N. et al. (1977); Estimation of fluid loading on offshore structures, Proc. Institution of
Civil Engineers, Vol.63, Part 2, Sept., London, UK.
Kuang, J.G., Potvin, A.B. and Leick, R.D. (1977); Stress concentration in tubular joints, Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal 5472, August, 1977.
Lalani, M., Tebbett, I.E. and Choo, B.S. (1986); Improved fatigue life estimation of tubular
joints, Proc. OTC, Paper 5306, Houston, Texas.
Morison, J.R., O'Brian, M.P., Johnson, J.W. and Schaaf, S.A. (1950); The force exerted by
surface waves on piles, Petroleum Transactions, AIME, Vol.189, pp.149-154.
Raju I.S and Newman J.C (1981): An empirical stress-intensity factor equation for surface
crack, Engineering Fracture Mechanics, Vol 15, pp.185-192.
Raju I.S. and Newman J.C. (1986): Stress-intensity factors for circumferential surface cracks in
pipes and rods under bending and tension loads, Fracture Mechanics, Vol.17, AST, STP 905, pp.
709-805.
Pierson, W.J. and Moskowitz, L. (1964); A proposed spectral form for fully developed wind seas
based on similarity theory of S.A. Kitaigorodskii, Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol.69,
Nr.24, December.
Sarpkaya, T. and Isaacson, M. (1981); Mechanics of wave forces on offshore structures, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Underwater Engineering Group (UEG) (1984); Node flexibility and its effects on jacket
structure, UEG publication Report UR22, London.
USFOS (1996); USFOS - A Computer Program for Progressive Collapse Analysis of Steel
Offshore Structures, SINTEF Report no. STF71 F88039, Dated 1996-01-01.
Report 95-3204
Wheeler, J.D. (1970); Methods for calculation forces produced by irregular waves, Journal of
Petroleum Technology.
DNV Report No. 95-3204 APPENDIX A: Wave Environment Description
Report 95-3204
6 APPENDIX A: WAVE ENVIRONMENT DESCRIPTION
****** ****** ****** ****** ** *** ****
******** ******** ******** ******** *************
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
******* ********** ******* ********* ** ** **
******* ********* ******* ********** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** ** **
******** ******** ******** ********* ** ** **
****** ****** ****** ****** ** ** ** **
*********************************************
* *
* F R A M E W O R K *
* *
* Postprocessing of Frame Structures *
* *
*********************************************
Marketing and Support by DNV Sesam
Program id : 2.1-03 Computer : VAX 4000-105A
Release date : 22-JUL-1994 Impl. update : None
Access time : 11-AUG-1995 15:32:05 Operating system : VMS V5.5-2H4
User id : V24GUIDE CPU id : 1059811820
Account : 22210110 Installation : Veritec, V2VAX
Copyright DET NORSKE VERITAS SESAM AS,
P.O.Box 300, N-1322 Hovik, Norway
Dir WavSta Prob
--------------------------------
0.000 SCAT1 1.100E-01
45.000 SCAT1 1.300E-01
90.000 SCAT1 2.000E-01
135.000 SCAT1 2.200E-01
180.000 SCAT1 1.000E-01
225.000 SCAT1 7.000E-02
270.000 SCAT1 5.000E-02
315.000 SCAT1 1.200E-01
Total probability: 1.00
Hs Tz Prob Typ L-param N-param Gamma SigA SigB WaveSpr
----------------------------------------------------------------------
5.000E-01 1.500 2.000E-05 P-M NONE
5.000E-01 2.500 1.020E-03
5.000E-01 3.500 1.962E-02
5.000E-01 4.500 3.562E-02
5.000E-01 5.500 1.703E-02
en000E-01 6.500 5.220E-03
5.000E-01 7.500 3.820E-03
Report 95-3204
5.000E-01 8.500 2.330E-03
5.000E-01 9.500 1.100E-03
5.000E-01 10.500 2.500E-04
5.000E-01 11.500 2.000E-04
5.000E-01 12.500 1.000E-04
1.500E+00 2.500 4.000E-04
1.500E+00 3.500 3.218E-02
1.500E+00 4.500 1.007E-01
1.500E+00 5.500 9.638E-02
1.500E+00 6.500 4.847E-02
1.500E+00 7.500 2.253E-02
1.500E+00 8.500 1.067E-02
1.500E+00 9.500 6.400E-03
1.500E+00 10.500 2.440E-03
1.500E+00 11.500 1.010E-03
1.500E+00 12.500 4.100E-04
2.500E+00 2.500 4.000E-05
2.500E+00 3.500 1.650E-03
2.500E+00 4.500 2.788E-02
2.500E+00 5.500 9.877E-02
2.500E+00 6.500 7.438E-02
2.500E+00 7.500 3.642E-02
2.500E+00 8.500 1.346E-02
2.500E+00 9.500 3.380E-03
2.500E+00 10.500 1.610E-03
2.500E+00 11.500 2.300E-04
2.500E+00 12.500 1.100E-04
3.500E+00 3.500 3.000E-05
3.500E+00 4.500 1.510E-03
3.500E+00 5.500 2.059E-02
3.500E+00 6.500 7.426E-02
3.500E+00 7.500 3.866E-02
3.500E+00 8.500 1.390E-02
3.500E+00 9.500 3.640E-03
3.500E+00 10.500 1.150E-03
3.500E+00 11.500 5.000E-04
3.500E+00 12.500 1.600E-04
3.500E+00 13.500 2.000E-05
4.500E+00 4.500 2.000E-05
4.500E+00 5.500 1.470E-03
4.500E+00 6.500 2.372E-02
4.500E+00 7.500 4.357E-02
4.500E+00 8.500 1.571E-02
4.500E+00 9.500 5.070E-03
4.500E+00 10.500 7.600E-04
4.500E+00 11.500 5.700E-04
4.500E+00 12.500 2.300E-04
4.500E+00 13.500 4.000E-05
5.500E+00 5.500 1.200E-04
5.500E+00 6.500 1.650E-03
5.500E+00 7.500 2.431E-02
5.500E+00 8.500 1.550E-02
5.500E+00 9.500 5.000E-03
5.500E+00 10.500 1.120E-03
5.500E+00 11.500 4.400E-04
5.500E+00 12.500 1.600E-04
5.500E+00 13.500 8.000E-05
6.500E+00 6.500 8.000E-05
6.500E+00 7.500 3.100E-03
6.500E+00 8.500 1.408E-02
6.500E+00 9.500 3.940E-03
6.500E+00 10.500 1.490E-03
6.500E+00 11.500 4.200E-04
6.500E+00 12.500 1.300E-04
6.500E+00 13.500 7.000E-05
7.500E+00 7.500 2.500E-04
Report 95-3204
7.500E+00 8.500 4.860E-03
7.500E+00 9.500 3.650E-03
7.500E+00 10.500 9.300E-04
7.500E+00 11.500 4.200E-04
7.500E+00 12.500 1.300E-04
7.500E+00 13.500 4.000E-05
8.500E+00 7.500 2.000E-05
8.500E+00 8.500 4.700E-04
8.500E+00 9.500 2.790E-03
8.500E+00 10.500 5.400E-04
8.500E+00 11.500 2.300E-04
8.500E+00 12.500 1.200E-04
8.500E+00 13.500 4.000E-05
9.500E+00 8.500 6.000E-05
9.500E+00 9.500 8.800E-04
9.500E+00 10.500 5.000E-04
9.500E+00 11.500 1.100E-04
9.500E+00 12.500 3.000E-05
9.500E+00 13.500 1.000E-05
1.050E+01 8.500 1.000E-05
1.050E+01 9.500 6.000E-05
1.050E+01 10.500 3.600E-04
1.050E+01 11.500 1.200E-04
1.050E+01 12.500 2.000E-05
1.050E+01 13.500 1.000E-05
1.150E+01 9.500 2.000E-05
1.150E+01 10.500 9.000E-05
1.150E+01 11.500 7.000E-05
1.150E+01 12.500 1.000E-05
1.250E+01 10.500 1.000E-05
1.250E+01 11.500 4.000E-05
1.250E+01 12.500 1.000E-05
1.350E+01 11.500 1.000E-05
Total probability: 1.0
DNV Report No. 95-3204 APPENDIX B: Eigenmodes og Structural Response
Report 95-3204
7 APPENDIX B: EIGENMODES OG STRUCTURAL RESPONSE
Report 95-3204
Report 95-3204
Report 95-3204
DNV Report No. 95-3204 APPENDIX C: Proban Input File : ULS Application
Report 95-3204
8 APPENDIX C: PROBAN INPUT FILE : ULS APPLICATION
Proban input file for load direction North-West:
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
% Proban input file
% file name : NW.inp => Load direction : North-West
% Reliability analysis of Jacket due to total collapse of the jacket
% Project : Guideline
% Gudfinnur Sigurdsson June 18. 1996
%----------------------------------------------------------------------
%
%-------------------------------------
% marginal distribution of Hs :
%-------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE alfa 'alfa ' FIXED 2.230
CREATE VARIABLE beta 'beta ' FIXED 1.374
CREATE VARIABLE gamma 'gamma ' FIXED 0.281
CREATE VARIABLE Hs 'Hs ' DISTRIBUTION Weibull Alp-Beta-Low alfa beta gamma
%
%-------------------------------------------------------
% Annual number of storms for the different direction
%-------------------------------------------------------
% Nstorm = total number of 6 hours storms = 1460
% NW_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in NW-dir = 0.11*1460 = 161
% W_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in W-dir = 0.13*1460 = 190
% SW_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in SW-dir = 0.20*1460 = 292
% S_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in S-dir = 0.22*1460 = 321
% SE_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in SE-dir = 0.10*1460 = 146
% E_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in E-dir = 0.07*1460 = 102
% NE_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in NE-dir = 0.05*1460 = 73
% N_Nstorm = Annual number of storms in N-dir = 0.12*1460 = 175
%---------------------------------------------------------------------
%
% Annual maximum Hs:
%----------------------
COPY VARIABLE Hs NW_Hs
ASSIGN EXTREME-VALUE NW_Hs MAX-OF-N 161
%
%-------------------------------------
% conditional distribution of Tz
%-------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE a1 'a1 ' FIXED 1.22
Report 95-3204
CREATE VARIABLE b1 'b1 ' FIXED 0.0623
CREATE VARIABLE b2 'b2 ' FIXED 0.255
CREATE VARIABLE b3 'b3 ' FIXED -0.297
%--------------------------------------
% NW-direction
%----------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Hs_a3 ' Hs**a3' FUNCTION Power NW_Hs a3
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Hs_b3 'Hs * b3' FUNCTION Product ( ONLY NW_Hs b3 )
CREATE VARIABLE NW_ElnTz 'E[Ln Tz) = a1+a2*Hs**a3' FUNCTION Linear-Comb ( ONLY a1
1 a2 NW_Hs_a3 )
CREATE VARIABLE NW_exp_Hs_b3 'exp(Hs*b3)' FUNCTION Exp NW_Hs_b3
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Std_lnTz 'Std(Ln(Tz))' FUNCTION Linear-Comb ( ONLY b1 1 b2
NW_exp_Hs_b3 )
CREATE VARIABLE NW_LnTz 'Ln(Tz) ' DISTRIBUTION Normal Mean-StD NW_ElnTz NW_Std_lnTz
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Tz 'Tz NW-dir' FUNCTION Exp NW_LnTz
%
%----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Modelling of wave height appying Forristall approach
% The modelling is done applying dummy (0,1) uniform dist. i.e. U(0;1)
% i.e. distribution transformation
%
% F_Hmax = exp(-Nwave * exp( -delta*(hmax/hs)**alfa ) )
%
% where ; alfa = 2.13 delta = 2.26
%
% => hmax = hs * ( -1/delta * ln( - ln(U)/Nwave ) )**(1/alfa)
%
% where Nwave is number of wave in the storm
% i.e. Nwave=tau/Tz = 21600/Tz (tau is the storm duration = 6 hours=21600 sec.)
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE U1 'Dummy var: uniform(0;1)' DISTRIBUTION Uniform Limits 0 1.0
CREATE VARIABLE lnU1 'Dummy var: ln(U1)' FUNCTION Log U1
CREATE VARIABLE D1_213 'Dummy var: 1/2.13' FUNCTION Division 1 2.13
%-------------
%NW-direction
%-------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Nwave 'Number of waves in a storm' FUNCTION Division 21600 NW_Tz
CREATE VARIABLE NW_lnU1_N 'Dummy var: ln(U1)/Nwave' FUNCTION Division lnU1 NW_Nwave
CREATE VARIABLE NW_ln_U1_N 'Dummy var: - ln(U1)/Nwave' FUNCTION Division NW_lnU1_N -1
CREATE VARIABLE NW_lnlnU1N 'Dummy var: ln(- ln(U1)/Nwave)' FUNCTION Log NW_ln_U1_N
CREATE VARIABLE NW_lnlnU1N_1 'Dummy var: ln(-ln(U1)/Nwave)/-2.26'
FUNCTION Division NW_lnlnU1N -2.26
CREATE VARIABLE NW_lnlnU1N_2 'Dummy var: (ln(-ln(U1)/Nwave)/-2.26)**(1/2.13)'
Report 95-3204
FUNCTION power NW_lnlnU1N_1 D1_213
%
%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% nn_Hmax : max wave for direction nn, using Forristall model for wave heights
%---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Hmax 'Hmax : NW-dir' FUNCTION Product ( ONLY NW_Hs NW_lnlnU1N_2 )
%
%--------------------------------------------------
% Wave period for extreme wave (5th order Stoke):
%--------------------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Tmax 'Wave period : 1.2*Tz' FUNCTION Product ( ONLY NW_Tz 1.2 )
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------
% Current speed : Normal dist with E[] = Ecurr and Std= STDcurr
%-------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Ecurr 'mean Current speed in NW-dir'
FUNCTION Linear-Comb ( ONLY 1 0.2 0.04 NW_Hs )
CREATE VARIABLE STDcurr 'Std of the Current speed' FIXED 0.1
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Curr 'Current speed in NW-dir' DISTRIBUTION Normal Mean-Std NW_Ecurr STDcurr
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------
% Wind speed : Normal dist with E[] = Ewind and Std= STDwind
%-------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Ewind 'mean 1-hour wind speed in NW-dir'
FUNCTION Linear-Comb ( ONLY 1 5.5 1.8 NW_Hs )
CREATE VARIABLE NW_STDwind 'Std for 1-hour wind speed in NW-dir'
FUNCTION Linear-Comb ( ONLY 1 4.9 -0.26 NW_Hs )
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Wind 'Wind speed in NW-dir' DISTRIBUTION Normal Mean-Std NW_Ewind NW_STDwind
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Wind2 '(NW_Wind speed)**2' FUNCTION Power NW_Wind 2
%
%-------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Wind load : = Cwind * Wind**2
% Cwind = 0.002 for directions : NW and SE
% Cwind = 0.003 for directions : SW and NE
% Cwind = 0.0025 for directions : N, S, W and E
% the wind speed in given in m/sec and the loading is in MN
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_Cwind 'Wind load parameter in NW-dir' FIXED 0.002
CREATE VARIABLE NW_WindLoad 'Wind loading' FUNCTION product ( ONLY NW_Cwind NW_Wind2 )
%
CREATE VARIABLE Cd 'Cd' Fixed 0.7
CREATE VARIABLE Mg 'Marine growth' Fixed 0.01
%
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% NB !! the response surface for the hydrodynamic loading is given in Newtons
Report 95-3204
% but the capacity and the wind loading is in MN =>
% the L_jack is scaled by factor 1.e-6
%--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Total loading :
%--------------------
CREATE VARIABLE X_L_jack 'Model unc. in hydrodynamic load calc' DISTR Normal Mean-CoV 1. 0.2
CREATE VARIABLE NW_L_jack 'Calculated Base Shear in NW-dir'
FUNCTION BaseShear NW_Hmax NW_Tmax NW_Curr Cd Mg X_L_jack
CREATE VARIABLE NW_BS 'Total Calculated Base Shear in NW-dir'
FUNCTION Linear-Comb ( ONLY 1.e-6 NW_L_jack 1 NW_WindLoad )
%-------------------------
% Collapse Capacity :
%-------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE X_CC_model 'Model unc. in the capacity' DISTRIBUTION Normal Mean-CoV 1 .15
CREATE VARIABLE NW_CC_calc 'Calc. Collapse capacity' FIXED 194.9
CREATE VARIABLE NW_CC_mod 'Modification due to H and T'
FUNCTION CC_modify NW_Hmax NW_Tmax NW_CC_calc
CREATE VARIABLE NW_CC 'Collapse capacity NW-Dir' FUNCTION Product ( ONLY X_CC_model NW_CC_mod )
%
%---------------------------
% Limit State : CC - BS
%---------------------------
CREATE VARIABLE NW_CC_BS 'CollCap - Base Shear' FUNCTION Difference NW_CC NW_BS
%
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% End of input file for NW-direction%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
DNV Report No. 95-3204 APPENDIX D: FORTRAN Routines : ULS Application
Report 95-3204
9 APPENDIX D: FORTRAN ROUTINES : ULS APPLICATION
In the following, the soubroutines applied in the ULS application are shown. Both the routines
applied together with PROBAN in the reliability analysis, and the program applied for
development of the response surface for base-shear loading on the structure are shown. The
response surface routines are not included, as these are have not been developed within the
project.
PROGRAM make_rsp
program make_rsp
C
C------------------------------------------------------------------------
C program for establishing respons surface for base-shear loading
C on a jacket for eight different direction automatically
C the following cooridinates are applied :
C GROW : marine growth
C CURR : current speed at MWL
C CD : Cd parameter in Morisons equation
C H : wave height (5th order Stokes wave)
C T : wave period (5th order Stokes wave)
C
C Coded by : Gudfinnur Sigurdsson
C------------------------------------------------------------------------
implicit real*8 (a-h,o-z)
character*12 resfile(8)
character*4 dir(8)
character*4 Char(5)
real*8 mmg(100),hh(100)
dimension z(10),force(100),ccd(100),ccm(100),waveper(100),
1 curr(100)
C
resfile(1) = 'Dir-NW.res'
resfile(2) = 'Dir-W.res'
resfile(3) = 'Dir-SW.res'
resfile(4) = 'Dir-S.res'
resfile(5) = 'Dir-SE.res'
resfile(6) = 'Dir-E.res'
resfile(7) = 'Dir-NE.res'
resfile(8) = 'Dir-N.res'
dir(1) = '0. '
dir(2) = '45. '
dir(3) = '90. '
Report 95-3204
dir(4) = '135.'
dir(5) = '180.'
dir(6) = '225.'
dir(7) = '270.'
dir(8) = '315.'
open(70,file='test1',status='unknown')
D0 = 107.3
THFAC = 0.9
A0 = -2.6
A1 = 6.59
A2 = 0.382
c
idim=5
Char(1)='GROW'
Char(2)='CURR'
Char(3)='CD '
Char(4)='H '
Char(5)='T '
C number of coordenates for Marine growth = 1
nummg=1
startmg=0.01
deltamg=0.03
C number of coordenates for Cm = 1 (not included in the response surface
numcm=1
startcm=1.6
deltacm=0
C number of coordenates for current speed = 5
numcurr=5
startcurr=0.0
deltacurr=0.2
C number of coordenates for Cd = 1
numcd=1
startcd=0.7
deltacd=0.3
C number of coordenates for wave height = 6
numh=6
starth= 15.0
deltah= 3.0
C number of coordenates for wave period = 4
Report 95-3204
numt=4
startt=13.0
deltat=2.0
do 5 j=1,nummg
mmg(j)=startmg+(j-1)*deltamg
5 continue
do 6 j=1,numcurr
curr(j)=startcurr+(j-1)*deltacurr
6 continue
do 7 j=1,numcd
ccd(j)=startcd+(j-1)*deltacd
7 continue
do 8 j=1,numh
hh(j)=starth+(j-1)*deltah
if(hh(j).gt.34.) hh(j) = 34.
8 continue
c-- max wave height is set to 34.0 m
C because we get breaking wave at T=12.5 sec for h=35 m
do 11 j=1,numt
waveper(j)=startt+(j-1)*deltat
11 continue
do 9 j=1,numcm
ccm(j)=startcm+(j-1)*deltacm
9 continue
do 999 idir = 1,8
open(60,file=resfile(idir),status='unknown')
write(60,*) idim
write(60,530) nummg,Char(1)
write(60,530) numcurr,Char(2)
write(60,530) numcd,Char(3)
write(60,530) numt,Char(5)
write(60,530) numh,Char(4)
do 80 i=1,100
idiff=nummg-(i-1)*6
ndiff=6
if(idiff.gt.0) then
if(idiff.lt.6) ndiff=idiff
ist=(i-1)*6+1
isl=(i-1)*6+ndiff
Report 95-3204
write(60,520)(mmg(j),j=ist,isl)
else
goto 81
endif
80 continue
81 continue
do 82 i=1,100
idiff=numcurr-(i-1)*6
ndiff=6
if(idiff.gt.0) then
ist=(i-1)*6+1
isl=(i-1)*6+ndiff
write(60,520)(curr(j),j=ist,isl)
else
goto 83
endif
82 continue
83 continue
do 84 i=1,100
idiff=numcd-(i-1)*6
ndiff=6
if(idiff.gt.0) then
ist=(i-1)*6+1
isl=(i-1)*6+ndiff
write(60,520)(ccd(j),j=ist,isl)
else
goto 85
endif
84 continue
85 continue
do 86 i=1,100
idiff=numt-(i-1)*6
ndiff=6
if(idiff.gt.0) then
ist=(i-1)*6+1
isl=(i-1)*6+ndiff
Report 95-3204
write(60,520)(waveper(j),j=ist,isl)
else
goto 87
endif
86 continue
87 continue
do 88 i=1,100
idiff=numh-(i-1)*6
ndiff=6
if(idiff.gt.0) then
ist=(i-1)*6+1
isl=(i-1)*6+ndiff
write(60,520)(hh(j),j=ist,isl)
else
goto 89
endif
88 continue
89 continue
cm = ccm(1)
do 120 img=1,nummg
grow=mmg(img)
do 110 icu=1,numcurr
U=curr(icu)
do 100 icd=1,numcd
cd=ccd(icd)
do 95 it=1,numt
t=waveper(it)
write(60,500) grow,U,cd,t
do 90 ih=1,numh
h=hh(ih)
force(ih)=0.
c
c--- det tages ikke hensyn til overflade haevning her :
D = D0
c
c
c data to subroutine waveload
c
Z(1) = CD
Z(2) = CM
Z(3) = GROW
Z(4) = U
Report 95-3204
Z(5) = D
Z(6) = H
Z(7) = T
write(70,*)z
CALL WAVELOAD(dir(idir),Z,FH)
force(ih)=fh
write(70,*)'fh =',fh
90 continue
do 91 i=1,100
idiff=numh-(i-1)*6
ndiff=6
if(idiff.gt.0) then
ist=(i-1)*6+1
isl=(i-1)*6+ndiff
write(60,510)(force(k),k=ist,isl)
else
goto 92
endif
91 continue
92 continue
95 continue
100 continue
110 continue
120 continue
close(60)
999 continue
c
500 format('Mg Uc Cd T: ',4(1pe10.3,3x))
510 format(10x,6(1pe12.5,1x))
520 format(6(1pe12.5,1x))
530 format(i10,5x,a4)
stop
END
c
c-------------------------------------------------------------------------
subroutine waveload (dir,xvar,force)
c-------------------------------------------------------------------------
c
integer i,iunix,system
double precision xvar(10),force,h
Report 95-3204
character*4 dir
external system
c control of input
c control for negative input values
do 100 i=1,10
if(xvar(i).lt.0.)then
xvar(i)=0.
endif
100 continue
c control for maximum values
c drag coeff. CD
if(xvar(1).gt.9.9)then
xvar(1)=9.9
endif
c initia coeff. CM
xvar(2)=9.9
endif
c marine grow GROW
if(xvar(3).gt.1.)then
xvar(3)=1.
endif
c current U
xvar(4)=9.9
endif
c waterdepth D
c if(xvar(5).gt.175.)then
c xvar(5)=175.0
c endif
c wavehight
xvar(6)=40.0
endif
c perriod T
xvar(7)=25.0
endif
c increase the significanse of wavehight
Report 95-3204
h=xvar(6)
c calculate the forces by wajac
c make inputfile to wajac
call inwaj(dir,xvar)
c run wajac
iunix=system('wajac < wajac.inp >! wajac.res')
C--remove tmp files
iunix=system('rmtmp')
c find maxs base shear from wajac results
call reswaj(force)
return
end
c***************************************************************
subroutine inwaj(dir,xvar)
c---------------------------------------------------------------
c
c This subroutine makes the inputfile 'wajac.inp'. The original
c inputfile is given in the file 'wajac'. The program do:
c 1) reads the file 'wajac.old'
c 2) makes the changes defined by the parameters in xvar
c 3) write the new file on 'wajac.inp'
c
c input:
c cd = xvar(1) : drag coefficient
c cm = xvar(2) : inertia coefficient
c grow= xvar(3) : marine growth
c u = xvar(4) : current
c d = xvar(5) : waterdept
c h = xvar(6) : wavehight
c t = xvar(7) : wave period
c dir = wave direction
c
c---------------------------------------------------------------
double precision xvar(10),cd,cm,grow,u,d,h,t
double precision crntprof(10),crntdepth(10)
integer numcrnt
Report 95-3204
character string*79,inpfile*20,oldfile*20,dir*4
c initiating
cd = xvar(1)
cm = xvar(2)
grow= xvar(3)
u = xvar(4)
d = xvar(5)
h = xvar(6)
t = xvar(7)
write(70,*)'xvar',xvar
c--
c the current profile is calculated as
c curr(z) = curr(MWL) * (z/Depth)**(1/7) z < Depth
c curr(z) = curr(MWL) z > Depth
c where curr(MWL) = u
c Depth = d
c--
c the current speed is calculated in seven depths i.e.
c
numcrnt = 7
crntdepth(1) = 0.0
crntdepth(2) = 2.0
crntdepth(3) = 10.0
crntdepth(4) = 50.0
crntdepth(5) = 80.0
crntdepth(6) = 107.3
crntdepth(7) = 150.0
do 10 icrnt=1,numcrnt
if (crntdepth(icrnt).LE.d) then
crntprof(icrnt) = u * (crntdepth(icrnt)/d)**(1./7.)
else
crntprof(icrnt) = u
endif
10 continue
inpfile='wajac.inp'
oldfile='wajac.old'
open(1,file=inpfile,status='unknown')
open(2,file=oldfile,status='old')
100 read(2,'(a)',end=300)string
if(string(1:4).eq.'COEF ') then
write(1,'(a30,f10.8,a10,f10.8)')
+ string(1:30),cd,string(41:50),cm
elseif(string(1:4).eq.'MGRW') then
write(1,'(a30,f10.8,a20)')
Report 95-3204
+ string(1:30),grow,string(41:60)
elseif(string(1:4).eq.'CRNT') then
write(1,'(a40,f10.2,2x,e10.2,a20)')
+ string(1:40),crntdepth(1),crntprof(1),
+ string(61:79)
do 110 i=2,numcrnt
read(2,'(a)',end=300)string
string=' '
write(1,'(a40,f10.2,2x,e10.2,a20)')
+ string(1:40),crntdepth(i),crntprof(i),
+ string(61:79)
110 continue
elseif(string(1:4).eq.'DPTH') then
write(1,'(a10,f10.6)')string(1:10),d
elseif(string(1:3).eq.'SEA') then
write(1,'(a15,f4.1,1x,f4.1,6x,a40,a4)')
+ string(1:15),h,t,string(31:70),dir
else
write(1,'(a79)')string
endif
goto 100
300 continue
close (1)
close (2)
return
end
c***************************************************************
subroutine reswaj(force)
c---------------------------------------------------------------
c
c This subroutine reads the result from 'wajac.res'. The
c program find the maxs base shear (load)
c
c output:
c force = max base shear force
c---------------------------------------------------------------
character string*79,resfile*20
integer iload,i,imax
double precision force,f(100),f1,f2,f3,fmax,a,b,c,xmax
resfile='wajac.res'
open(1,file=resfile,status='old')
Report 95-3204
iload = 0
fmax = 0.
100 read(1,'(a)',end=300)string
if(string(8:11).eq.'STEP ') then
iload = iload + 1
read(string(41:52),*)X_force
read(string(57:68),*)Y_force
f(iload) = (X_force**2+Y_force**2)**0.5
endif
goto 100
300 continue
close (1)
do 400 i=1,iload
if(f(i).ge.fmax) then
imax = i
fmax = f(imax)
endif
400 continue
if(imax.eq.1 .or. imax.eq.iload) then
write(70,*)' worning !! ; max load is outside the area'
write(70,*)' imax = ',imax
if(imax.eq.1) then
f1 = f(imax)
f2 = f(imax+1)
f3 = f(imax+2)
endif
if(imax.eq.iload) then
f1 = f(imax-2)
f2 = f(imax-1)
f3 = f(imax)
endif
write(70,*)'f1,f1,f3 ',f1,f2,f3
else
f1 = f(imax-1)
f2 = f(imax)
f3 = f(imax+1)
endif
c fit a second order parabel to f1,f2 and f3
c f(x)= a+bx+cx**2, vhere f(0)=f1,f(1)=f2,f(2)=f3
a = f1
b = 0.5*(-3*f1+4*f2-f3)
c = f2 - a - b
Report 95-3204
c maximum force
xmax = -b/(2*c)
fmax = a+b*xmax+c*xmax*xmax
force = fmax
write(70,*)'f1,f1,f3,fmax ',f1,f2,f3,fmax
return
end
Report 95-3204
SUBROUTINE ULSfunc
SUBROUTINE ULSfunc( OPTION, FUNCNO, MODE, NF, FC,
CIO I I I I I
+ NX, X, NDX, XC, XINC,
CIO I I I I I
+ NDX1, XC1, XINC1, NDX2, XC2, XINC2,
CIO I I I I I I
+ IVAL, CVAL, F, DF, D2F, ISTAT )
CIO O O IO IO O O
C
INTEGER FUNCNO, NF, FC(NF), NX, NDX, XC(NDX), NDX1,
+ XC1(NDX1), NDX2, XC2(NDX2), IVAL, ISTAT(NF)
CHARACTER*(*) OPTION, MODE, CVAL
DOUBLE PRECISION X(NX), XINC(NDX), XINC1(NDX1), XINC2(NDX2),
+ F(NF), DF(NF,NDX), D2F(NF,NDX1,NDX2)
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C PART OF: PROBAN
C
C PURPOSE: Library of ULS analysis: Probability assessment of Collapse of jackets
C Project : Guideline
C
C RESTRICTIONS:
C
C INPUT:
C OPTION Determines what must be passed back to the calling routine:
C = 'SUBLNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of a sublibrary
C = 'SUBLDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of a sublibrary
C = 'SUBLNFUNC' : Return IVAL = Number of functions in a
C sublibrary
C = other value: passed on to function
C SUBLNO Sublibrary number
C FUNCNO Function number inside sublibrary
C MODE Passed on to function
C NF Passed on to function
C FC Passed on to function
C NX Passed on to function
C X Passed on to function
C NDX Passed on to function
C XC Passed on to function
C XINC Passed on to function
C NDX1 Passed on to function
C XC1 Passed on to function
C XINC1 Passed on to function
C NDX2 Passed on to function
Report 95-3204
C XC2 Passed on to function
C XINC2 Passed on to function
C F Passed on to function
C DF Passed on to function
C
C OUTPUT:
C IVAL Varies, depending on OPTION
C CVAL Varies, depending on OPTION
C CVAL may also be used to pass a one line error message
C back to PROBAN. If any ISTAT value is not = 0, the
C contents of CVAL will be presented as an error message if
C CVAL is not empty (CVAL will always be empty on input).
C F Function value(s)
C DF Gradient(s)
C D2F Second order derivative(s)
C ISTAT Return status:
C = 0 : OK.
C = 1 : Numerical or other error, cancel further calculations
C =-1 : Numerical error, X yields F < 0
C =-2 : Numerical error, X yields F = 0
C =-3 : Numerical error, X yields F > 0
C
C CODED BY:
C Robert Olesen, VSS, November 1991 (template layout)
C Gudfinnur Sigurdsson DNVI-240 April 1996
C
C REVISIONS:
C
C COPYRIGHT (C) 1991, VERITAS SESAM SYSTEMS
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C METHOD:
C
C INTERNAL VARIABLES:
C
C COMMON VARIABLES:
C Var: IO Type Common/File Description
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
ISTAT(1) = 0
C
IF (OPTION(1:4).NE.'SUBL') THEN
C
IF (FUNCNO.EQ.1) THEN
Report 95-3204
C
C---- Calculation of total base-shear loading
CALL BaseShear( OPTION, MODE, NF, FC, NX, X, NDX, XC, XINC,
C
ELSEIF (FUNCNO.EQ.2) THEN
C
C---- Calculation of Collapse capacity
C
CALL CollCap( OPTION, MODE, NF, FC, NX, X, NDX, XC, XINC,
C
C
ELSE
C
C---- Called with illegal function number.
C Pass an error message back to PROBAN in CVAL.
C
WRITE(CVAL,9100) FUNCNO
ISTAT(1) = 1
C
END IF
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'SUBLNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of this sublibrary. The name must contain
C alphanumeric characters or hyphens ('-') and can be at most 12
C characters long. eg: 'Sublibrary' or: 'MySubl-11'
C
CVAL = 'ULS-FUNC'
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'SUBLDESC') THEN
C
C---- Return description of this sublibrary. The description should
C not be longer than 50 characters
C
CVAL = 'Collapse Analysis of jackets'
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'SUBLNFUNC') THEN
C
C---- Return number of functions in this sublibrary
C
IVAL = 2
Report 95-3204
C
END IF
RETURN
C
9100 FORMAT('ULSfunc called with illegal function number: ',I12)
C End of ULSfunc
END
Report 95-3204
SUBROUTINE BaseShear
SUBROUTINE BaseShear( OPTION, MODE, NF, FC, NX, X, NDX, XC, XINC,
CIO I I I I I I I I I
CIO I I I I I I
CIO O O IO IO O O
C
INTEGER NF, FC(NF), NX, NDX, XC(NDX), NDX1, XC1(NDX1),
+ NDX2, XC2(NDX2), IVAL, ISTAT(NF)
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C PART OF: PROBAN
C
C PURPOSE: Calculate Base Shear loadin on jacket using
C response surface
C
C INPUT:
C H : wave height (5th Stokes)
C T : wave period (5th Stokes)
C Curr : Current speed at MWL
C Cd : Drag coefficient in Morison equation
C Mg : Marine growth
C BS_model : model uncertainty in the Base Shear Calculation
C = 'FUNCVAL' : Return F(1..NF) = value of the function
C coordinate(s) specified in FC(1..NF)
C = 'FUNCNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of the function
C = 'FUNCDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of the function
C = 'FUNCNCOORD' : Return IVAL = Dimension of the function
C value. Return IVAL = 0 if this number is
C given as input by the user
C = 'COORDNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of the coordinate of
C the function specified in FC(1). This
C will not be requested if the function has
C only one coordinate.
C = 'COORDDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of the coordinate
C = 'FUNCNARG' : Return IVAL = Number of arguments in the
Report 95-3204
C function. Return IVAL = 0 if this number
C is given as input by the user
C = 'ARGNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of the argument in the
C function specified by XC(1).
C = 'ARGDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of the argument
C in the function specified by XC(1).
C = 'FUNCTYPE' : Return CVAL = Type of the function
C CVAL = 'INDEX': Index type function
C Everything else means continuous.
C = 'FUNCGRAD' : Return IVAL = gradient calculation
C capability of the function
C = 0: The function cannot return gradients
C = 1: The function can return first order
C gradients
C = 2: The function can return first and
C second order gradients
C MODE Mode of calculation. Only used when function calculation
C is required:
C = 'FIRST CALL' : This is the first entry during an analysis
C into the function for a given variable.
C The variable name is passed in CVAL.
C = 'DESIGN POINT' : Function is called with design point
C value as input (FORM/SORM only)
C NF Number of active function coordinates
C FC Indices of the active function coordinates
C NX Number of arguments in function
C X Function arguments if calculation is required
C NDX Not used.
C XC XC(1) is used to identify an argument to get name
C and description.
C XINC Not used.
C NDX1 Not used.
C XC1 Not used.
C XINC1 Not used.
C NDX2 Not used.
C XC2 Not used.
C XINC2 Not used.
C
C OUTPUT:
Report 95-3204
C F Function value(s) (See OPTION = 'FUNCVAL' above)
C ISTAT Return status for calculation for each function coordinate:
C = 0 : OK.
C
C CODED BY:
C Gudfinnur Sigurdsson, DNVI, June 1996
C
C REVISIONS:
C
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
DOUBLE PRECISION H,T,Curr,Mg,Cd,BS_model,BS_load
DOUBLE PRECISION Z(5),FNCVAL
INTEGER I, L, IX, LF
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C METHOD:
C
C
C INTERNAL VARIABLES:
C
C COMMON VARIABLES:
C Var: IO Type Common/File Description
C
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C---- Initialize status values
C
DO 800 I=1,NF
ISTAT(I) = 0
800 CONTINUE
C
C-------------------------- Function value ------------------------------
C
IF( OPTION.EQ.'FUNCVAL') THEN
C
C---- Introduce Memnonics
C
Report 95-3204
H = X(1)
T = X(2)
Curr = X(3)
Cd = X(4)
Mg = X(5)
BS_model = X(6)
C---
C Curr : Current speed at MWL
C Cd : Drag coefficient in Morison equation
C Mg : Marine growth
C BS_model : model uncertainty in the Base Shear calculation
C
C---- Return function value(s).
C
C Loop over the requested function coordinates
C
DO 1100 L=1,NF
C
C---- Extract the requested function coordinate
C
LF = FC(L)
C
C LF=1, Base Shear calculated applying response surface
C LF=2, New model-2 (not available)
C LF=3, New model-3 (not available)
C
IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
C
Z(1) = Mg
Z(2) = Curr
Z(3) = Cd
Z(4) = T
Z(5) = H
C
C Calling the response surface modul response for calculation the total
C Base-Shera loading.
C Parameter list : (idim,Z,BS_load)
C idim : dimension of the response surface = 5
C Z(idim) : the coordinate for which the response is calculated for
C BS_laod : the calculated response (output from the modul)
C
Call response(5,Z,BS_load)
FNCVAL = BS_model*BS_load
Report 95-3204
C
C ELSEIF (LF.EQ.2) THEN
C
C
C---- Calculate new model for Baseshear loading
C
C ELSEIF (LF.EQ.3) THEN
C
C---- Calculate new model for Baseshear loading
C
C
ENDIF
C
C---- Calculate the value and set the proper status
C
F(L) = FNCVAL
ISTAT(L) = 0
C
1100 CONTINUE
C
C----------------------- Function properties ---------------------------
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of function
C The name must contain alphanumeric characters or hyphens ('-')
C and can be at most 12 characters long.
C eg: 'X22yyy' or: 'Func-Name'
C
CVAL = 'BaseShear'
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCDESC') THEN
C
C---- Return description of function
C The description should not be longer than 50 characters
C
CVAL = 'Base Shear loading on Jacket'
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCNCOORD') THEN
C
C---- Return dimension of the function
C Return IVAL = 0 if the dimension is to be input by the user
C If more Limit-load models are added, IVAL must be changed
C to be equal to the number of models included
Report 95-3204
C----
IVAL = 1
C
ELSE IF( OPTION.EQ.'FUNCTYPE' )THEN
C
C---- Return the type of a function ('INDEX' or otherwise)
C Presumed not to be an index function. Change to 'INDEX' if it is
C
CVAL = 'DUMMY'
C
ELSE IF( OPTION.EQ.'FUNCGRAD') THEN
C
C---- Return gradient calculation status:
C 0: No gradients are provided
C 1: First order gradients are provided
C 2: First and second order gradients are provided
C
IVAL = 0
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'COORDNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of a coordinate of the function.
C
C---- Extract the coordinate which name is requested
C
LF = FC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the coordinates and return the proper name
C
C IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
C CVAL = 'MODEL-1'
C ELSE IF (LF.EQ.2) THEN
C CVAL = 'MODEL-2'
C CVAL = 'MODEL-3'
C ENDIF
C
IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Base-Shear'
ENDIF
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'COORDDESC') THEN
Report 95-3204
C
C---- Return description of a coordinate of the function.
C This need not be defined if the function has only one coord.
C
C---- Extract the coordinate which description is requested
C
LF = FC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the coordinates and return the proper description
C----
IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Base Shear load on Jacket using Response surface'
C CVAL = 'Model-2'
C CVAL = 'Model-3'
ENDIF
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCNARG') THEN
C
C---- Return number of arguments in function
C Set this number to 0 if it is to be input by the user
C
IVAL = 6
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'ARGNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of argument XC(1) in function. The name must
C obey the same restrictions as the function name
C
C---- Extract the argument which name is requested
C
IX = XC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the arguments and return the proper name
C
IF (IX.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Wave Heigth'
ELSE IF (IX.EQ.2) THEN
CVAL = 'Wave Period'
CVAL = 'Current'
CVAL = 'Cd'
Report 95-3204
CVAL = 'Mg'
CVAL = 'Model uncer'
END IF
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'ARGDESC') THEN
C
C---- Return description of argument XC(1) in function. The
C description should not use more than 50 characters
C
C---- Extract the argument which description is requested
C
IX = XC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the arguments and return the proper description
C
IF (IX.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Wave Heigth - 5th order Stokes wave'
CVAL = 'Wave period - 5th order Stokes wave'
CVAL = 'Current speed'
CVAL = 'Drag Coefficient - Cd'
CVAL = 'Marine Growth - Mg'
CVAL = 'Model uncertainty'
END IF
C
END IF
C
RETURN
END
Report 95-3204
SUBROUTINE CollCap
SUBROUTINE CollCap( OPTION, MODE, NF, FC, NX, X, NDX, XC, XINC,
CIO I I I I I I I I I
CIO I I I I I I
CIO O O IO IO O O
C
INTEGER NF, FC(NF), NX, NDX, XC(NDX), NDX1, XC1(NDX1),
+ NDX2, XC2(NDX2), IVAL, ISTAT(NF)
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C PART OF: PROBAN
C
C PURPOSE: Modify the calculated Collapse Capacity of a Jacket
C as function of H and T
C
C INPUT:
C Cap_calc : calculated collapse capacity (define factor=1.0 in respone
C surface
C
C = 'FUNCVAL' : Return F(1..NF) = value of the function
C coordinate(s) specified in FC(1..NF)
C = 'FUNCNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of the function
C = 'FUNCDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of the function
C = 'FUNCNCOORD' : Return IVAL = Dimension of the function
C value. Return IVAL = 0 if this number is
C given as input by the user
C = 'COORDNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of the coordinate of
C = 'COORDDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of the coordinate
C = 'FUNCNARG' : Return IVAL = Number of arguments in the
C function. Return IVAL = 0 if this number
Report 95-3204
C is given as input by the user
C = 'ARGNAME' : Return CVAL = Name of the argument in the
C function specified by XC(1).
C = 'ARGDESC' : Return CVAL = Description of the argument
C in the function specified by XC(1).
C = 'FUNCTYPE' : Return CVAL = Type of the function
C CVAL = 'INDEX': Index type function
C Everything else means continuous.
C = 'FUNCGRAD' : Return IVAL = gradient calculation
C capability of the function
C = 0: The function cannot return gradients
C = 1: The function can return first order
C gradients
C = 2: The function can return first and
C second order gradients
C MODE Mode of calculation. Only used when function calculation
C is required:
C = 'FIRST CALL' : This is the first entry during an analysis
C into the function for a given variable.
C The variable name is passed in CVAL.
C = 'DESIGN POINT' : Function is called with design point
C value as input (FORM/SORM only)
C NF Number of active function coordinates
C FC Indices of the active function coordinates
C NX Number of arguments in function
C X Function arguments if calculation is required
C NDX Not used.
C XC XC(1) is used to identify an argument to get name
C and description.
C XINC Not used.
C NDX1 Not used.
C XC1 Not used.
C XINC1 Not used.
C NDX2 Not used.
C XC2 Not used.
C XINC2 Not used.
C
C OUTPUT:
C F Function value(s) (See OPTION = 'FUNCVAL' above)
Report 95-3204
C ISTAT Return status for calculation for each function coordinate:
C = 0 : OK.
C
C CODED BY:
C Gudfinnur Sigurdsson, DNVI, June 1996
C
C REVISIONS:
C
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C
DOUBLE PRECISION H,T,Cap_calc,CC_capacity
DOUBLE PRECISION FNCVAL
INTEGER I, L, IX, LF
C
C-----------------------------------------------------------------------
C---- Initialize status values
C
DO 800 I=1,NF
ISTAT(I) = 0
800 CONTINUE
C
C-------------------------- Function value ------------------------------
C
IF( OPTION.EQ.'FUNCVAL') THEN
C
C---- Introduce Memnonics
C
H = X(1)
T = X(2)
Cap_calc = X(3)
C---- Return function value(s).
C
C Loop over the requested function coordinates
C
DO 1100 L=1,NF
C
C---- Extract the requested function coordinate
Report 95-3204
C
LF = FC(L)
C
C LF=1, calculate collapse capacity
C LF=2, (not available)
C LF=3, (not available)
C
IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
FNCVAL = Cap_calc*CC_capacity(H,T)
C
ENDIF
C
C---- Calculate the value and set the proper status
C
F(L) = FNCVAL
ISTAT(L) = 0
C
1100 CONTINUE
C
C----------------------- Function properties ---------------------------
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of function
C
CVAL = 'CC_modify'
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCDESC') THEN
C
C---- Return description of function
C
CVAL = 'Modification of Collapse capacity for Jacket'
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCNCOORD') THEN
C
C---- Return dimension of the function
C Return IVAL = 0 if the dimension is to be input by the user
C If more Limit-load models are added, IVAL must be changed
C to be equal to the number of models included
C----
Report 95-3204
IVAL = 1
C
ELSE IF( OPTION.EQ.'FUNCTYPE' )THEN
C
C---- Return the type of a function ('INDEX' or otherwise)
C Presumed not to be an index function. Change to 'INDEX' if it is
C
CVAL = 'DUMMY'
C
ELSE IF( OPTION.EQ.'FUNCGRAD') THEN
C
C---- Return gradient calculation status:
C 0: No gradients are provided
C 1: First order gradients are provided
C 2: First and second order gradients are provided
C
IVAL = 0
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'COORDNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of a coordinate of the function.
C
C---- Extract the coordinate which name is requested
C
LF = FC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the coordinates and return the proper name
C
IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = ' '
ENDIF
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'COORDDESC') THEN
C
C---- Return description of a coordinate of the function.
C This need not be defined if the function has only one coord.
C
C---- Extract the coordinate which description is requested
C
LF = FC(1)
C
Report 95-3204
C---- Branch on the coordinates and return the proper description
IF (LF.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Modify Collapse Capacity using Response surface'
C CVAL = ' Model-2'
C CVAL = ' Model-3'
ENDIF
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'FUNCNARG') THEN
C
C---- Return number of arguments in function
C Set this number to 0 if it is to be input by the user
C
IVAL = 3
C
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'ARGNAME') THEN
C
C---- Return name of argument XC(1) in function. The name must
C obey the same restrictions as the function name
C
C---- Extract the argument which name is requested
C
IX = XC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the arguments and return the proper name
C
IF (IX.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Wave Heigth'
CVAL = 'Wave Period'
CVAL = 'CC_calc'
END IF
ELSE IF (OPTION.EQ.'ARGDESC') THEN
C
C---- Return description of argument XC(1) in function. The
C description should not use more than 50 characters
C---- Extract the argument which description is requested
C
IX = XC(1)
C
C---- Branch on the arguments and return the proper description
IF (IX.EQ.1) THEN
CVAL = 'Wave Heigth - 5th order Stokes wave'
Report 95-3204
CVAL = 'Wave period - 5th order Stokes wave'
CVAL = 'Calculated collapse capacity'
END IF
END IF
RETURN
END
Report 95-3204
FUNCTION CC_capacity
C**********************************************************************
C* Function : Calculates the modification of the collapse capasity for known
C* wave height and period
C**********************************************************************
DOUBLE PRECISION FUNCTION CC_capacity(H,T)
INTEGER Nmax,Npoint,Ndim,NumInt
INTEGER idim1,idim2,idim3,idim4,idim5,Maxdim
PARAMETER (Maxdim=5,Nmax=20,Ndim=2,NumInt=2)
DOUBLE PRECISION wigtpotens,capacity
DOUBLE PRECISION point(Ndim),H,T
DOUBLE PRECISION H_T,Delta,Ccap
COMMON/Ccap1/ Npoint(Maxdim)
COMMON/Ccap2/ H_T(Maxdim,Nmax),Delta(Maxdim)
COMMON/Ccap3/ Ccap(1,1,1,Nmax,Nmax)
CHARACTER FIRSTCALL*1
DATA FIRSTCALL /'Y'/
SAVE FIRSTCALL
C**********************************************************************
C* INPUT: *
C* H DP Wave height
C* T DP Wave period
C**********************************************************************
C* CODED BY : Gudfinnur Sigurdsson DATE: June 1996 *
C* REVISED BY: DATE: *
C**********************************************************************
C
IF(FIRSTCALL.EQ.'Y')THEN
call Inp_HT(Maxdim,Nmax,Ndim,Npoint,Delta,H_T,Ccap)
FIRSTCALL='N'
ENDIF
point(1) = H
point(2) = T
C---
C calculate the collapse capasity by using
C interpolation i.e. response surface, where the
C modul resp5D is applied
C---
idim1=1
idim2=1
idim3=1
idim4=Nmax
Report 95-3204
idim5=Nmax
wigtpotens=2.d0
call resp5D(idim1,idim2,idim3,idim4,idim5,Nmax,Maxdim,Ndim,
1 NumInt,Npoint,wigtpotens,H_T,Ccap,point,
2 Delta,capacity)
CC_capacity = capacity
C
RETURN
END
Report 95-3204
SUBROUTINE Inp_HT
SUBROUTINE Inp_HT(Maxdim,Nmax,Ndim,Npoint,Delta,H_T,
1 Ccap)
INTEGER NUM_H,NUM_T,Maxdim,Nmax,Ndim
INTEGER i,j,ISTAT,iH,iT
INTEGER Npoint(Maxdim)
DOUBLE PRECISION Delta(Maxdim),Maxval,Minval
DOUBLE PRECISION H_T(Maxdim,Nmax),Ccap(1,1,1,Nmax,Nmax)
CHARACTER streng*80,HTfile*25
do 1 i=1,Maxdim
Delta(i) = 0.d0
Npoint(i) = 1
do 1 j=1,Nmax
H_T(i,j) = 0.d0
1 continue
ISTAT=0
HTfile=' '
WRITE(*,110)
40 WRITE(*,*)'DATA FILE FOR Capacity vs. H & T DATA'
WRITE(*,*)' (DEFAULT : H_T.dat) '
READ(*,'(a)') HTfile
IF(HTfile.EQ.' ') HTfile='H_T.dat'
OPEN (77, FILE=HTfile, STATUS='OLD',IOSTAT=ISTAT)
IF (ISTAT .NE. 0) THEN
WRITE(*, *) ' Wrong filename, PLEASE TRY AGAIN!'
WRITE(*, *) ' '
GOTO 40
ENDIF
30 READ(77,'(a80)',END=999) streng
if(streng(1:1).eq.' ') then
READ(streng,*) NUM_H
else
goto 30
endif
READ(streng,*) NUM_T
else
goto 31
Report 95-3204
endif
READ(streng,*) (H_T(4,j),j=1,NUM_H)
else
goto 32
endif
READ(streng,*) (H_T(5,j),j=1,NUM_T)
else
goto 33
endif
do 2000 iH=1,NUM_H
READ(streng,*) (Ccap(1,1,1,iH,iT),iT=1,NUM_T)
else
goto 34
endif
2000 continue
999 CONTINUE
CLOSE(77)
Npoint(4)=NUM_H
Npoint(5)=NUM_T
do 4 i=Maxdim-Ndim+1,Maxdim
maxval=H_T(i,Npoint(i))
minval=H_T(i,1)
Delta(i)=dabs(maxval-minval)
4 continue
110 FORMAT(////)
RETURN
END

Jacket Examples

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Jacket Examples

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT

DET NORSKE VERITAS

. E.g. in the example given in section

= years (see Figure 3.9)

probability that the main wave direction is

is the number of possible main wave directions, and

=8 . The wave directions and the

. These best estimates are

, defined by the one sided Gamma spectrum, is

0.11 0.13 0.20 0.22 0.10 0.07 0.05 0.12

You might also like