DNV Report

TECHNICAL REPORT
JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT

GUIDELINE FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:
APPLICATION TO JACKET PLATFORMS
REPORT NO. 95-3203
DET NORSKE VERITAS
TECHNICAL REPORT
JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT

GUIDELINE FOR OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL
RELIABILITY ANALYSIS:
APPLICATION TO JACKET PLATFORMS
REPORT NO. 95-3203
DET NORSKE VERITAS
DET NORSKE VERITAS
TECHNICAL REPORT
Date of first issue:
Organisational unit:
5 September 1996
Struct. Reliability & Marine Techn.
DET NORSKE VERITAS AS

Division Nordic Countries
Approved by:
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
istein Hagen
Principal Engineer
Client:
Client ref.:
Project No.:
Joint Industry Project
Rolf Skjong
22210110
Summary:
A guideline for offshore structural reliability analysis of jacket structures is presented. The
guideline comprises experience and knowledge on application of probabilistic methods to
structural design, and provides advice on probabilistic modelling and structural reliability
analysis of jacket structures.
The characteristic features for jacket structures are outlined and a description of the analysis
steps required for assessing the response in jacket structures exposed to environmental actions
is given.
Model uncertainties associated with the response analysis of jacket structures are discussed
and recommendations are given for how to account for these uncertainties in the reliability
analysis.
Important limit state functions that should be considered in a Level-III reliability analysis of
jacket structural components are defined and discussed.
The experience gained from two case studies involving probabilistic response analyses of
jacket structures, a fatigue failure limit state (FLS) and a total collapse limit state (ULS), are
summarised.
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 - Examples for Jacket Platforms, DNV
Report no. 95-3204.
Report No.:
Subject Group:
95-3203
P12
Indexing terms
Report title:
Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability

Analysis:
Application to Jacket Platforms
structural reliability
jacket platforms
environmental loads
capacity
Work carried out by:
Gudfinnur Sigurdsson, Espen Cramer,

Inge Lotsberg, Bent Berge
No distribution without permission from the

Client or responsible organisational unit
Work verified by:
Limited distribution within Det Norske Veritas
istein Hagen
Date of this revision:
Rev.No.:
Number of pages:
05.09.96
01
80
Unrestricted distribution
DET NORSKE VERITAS, Head Office: Veritasvn 1, N-1322 HVIK, Norway Org. NO 945 748 931 MVA
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: Application to Jacket Plattforms

DNV Report No. 95-3203
Page No. 5
Introduction
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................................................7
1.1 OBJECTIVE ...............................................................................................................................................................7
1.2 DEFINITION OF A JACKET ..........................................................................................................................................7
1.2.1 General ............................................................................................................................................................7
1.2.2 Types of Jackets ...............................................................................................................................................8
1.2.3 Structural Design Parameters .........................................................................................................................8
1.2.4 Jacket Design Analysis ....................................................................................................................................9
1.3 ARRANGEMENT OF THE REPORT ............................................................................................................................... 9
2. RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS .............................................................................................11
2.1 CLASSES OF RESPONSE ...........................................................................................................................................11
2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS AND RESPONSE ..............................................................................................................12
2.2.1 Environmental Parameters............................................................................................................................12
2.2.2 Combination of Environmental Parameters ..................................................................................................12
2.2.3 Simulation of Wave Loads .............................................................................................................................13
2.2.4 Extreme Response Effects (ULS) ...................................................................................................................14
2.2.5 Fatigue (FLS) ................................................................................................................................................14
3. UNCERTAINTY MODELLING - TARGET RELIABILITY ..........................................................................16
3.1 GENERAL ...............................................................................................................................................................16
3.2 UNCERTAINTY MODELLING ....................................................................................................................................16
3.2.1 Overview........................................................................................................................................................16
3.2.2 Types of Uncertainty......................................................................................................................................16
3.2.3 Uncertainty Implementation ..........................................................................................................................17
3.3 TARGET RELIABILITY .............................................................................................................................................17
3.3.1 General ..........................................................................................................................................................17
3.3.2 Selection of Target Reliability Level..............................................................................................................18
4. DISCUSSION OF LIMIT STATES.....................................................................................................................20
4.1 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................20
4.2 BUCKLING FAILURE OF MEMBERS (ULS)...............................................................................................................22
4.2.1 Local Buckling of Members ...........................................................................................................................22
4.2.2 Global Buckling of Members .........................................................................................................................23
4.2.2.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 23
4.2.2.2 Limit State Function................................................................................................................................................. 25
4.2.3 Buckling of Members Subjected to External Pressure...................................................................................26

4.2.3.1 Background .............................................................................................................................................................. 26
4.2.3.2 Limit State Function................................................................................................................................................. 28
4.3 JOINT FAILURE (ULS) ............................................................................................................................................28

4.3.1 Background....................................................................................................................................................28
4.3.2 Limit State Function ......................................................................................................................................32
4.4 FATIGUE FAILURE AT HOT-SPOT OF WELDED CONNECTIONS (FLS) .......................................................................33
4.4.1 General ..........................................................................................................................................................33
4.4.1.1 Overview.................................................................................................................................................................. 33
4.4.1.2 System Aspects ........................................................................................................................................................ 34
4.4.2 SN-Fatigue Approach ....................................................................................................................................35

4.4.2.1 General..................................................................................................................................................................... 35
4.4.2.2 SN-Fatigue Modelling.............................................................................................................................................. 36
4.4.2.3 Uncertainty in SN-curves ......................................................................................................................................... 37
4.4.2.4 Fatigue Damage Model ............................................................................................................................................ 37
4.4.2.5 Limit State Formulation ........................................................................................................................................... 39
4.4.3 The FM-Approach for Fatigue Assessment ...................................................................................................39

4.4.3.1 General..................................................................................................................................................................... 39
4.4.3.2 Crack Growth Rate................................................................................................................................................... 40
4.4.3.3 Crack Size over Time ............................................................................................................................................... 41
4.4.3.4 Fatigue Quality......................................................................................................................................................... 43
4.4.3.5 Fatigue Crack Growth Material Parameters ............................................................................................................. 43
Sigurdsson,G; E. Cramer;I. Lotsberg, B.Berge Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis- Application to Jacket
Platforms, DNV Report 95-3203

Page No. 6
Introduction
4.4.3.6 Limit State Formulation / Failure Criteria................................................................................................................ 44
4.4.4 Load and Response Modelling ......................................................................................................................45

4.4.4.1 General..................................................................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.4.2 Sea State Description ............................................................................................................................................... 45
4.4.4.3 Global Structural Analysis ....................................................................................................................................... 50
4.4.4.4 Local Stress Calculation........................................................................................................................................... 52
4.4.5 Stress Range Distribution ..............................................................................................................................54

4.4.6 Formulation of Inspection Results.................................................................................................................57
4.4.7 Event Margins with Inspections Results:.......................................................................................................59
4.5 TOTAL STRUCTURAL COLLAPSE (ULS) ...................................................................................................................61
4.5.1 General ..........................................................................................................................................................61
4.5.2 Limit State Formulation.................................................................................................................................62
4.5.3 Distribution of the Annual Maximum Loading (Base-Shear) ........................................................................67
5. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION EXAMPLES .................................................................................................70
5.1 SUMMARY OF FATIGUE FAILURE LIMIT STATE - FLS EXAMPLE .............................................................................70
5.1.1 Modelling Approach ......................................................................................................................................70
5.1.2 Discussion of Results .....................................................................................................................................71
5.2 SUMMARY OF TOTAL COLLAPSE LIMIT STATE - ULS EXAMPLE.............................................................................72
5.2.1 Modelling Approach ......................................................................................................................................72
5.2.2 Discussion of Results .....................................................................................................................................73
6. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................................................75

Page No. 7
Introduction
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Objective
The objective of the application part of the project Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability
Analysis for the structure types jacket, TLP and jack-up, is to give
an overview of the characteristics of that structure's response to environmental actions,
a detailed guidance on the reliability analysis of that structure with respect to several
important modes of failure,
examples of reliability analyses applied to selected failure modes for that structure type.
The guidelines are intended for the application of Level III reliability analysis (DNV 1992b) to
the structure type; i.e. in which the joint probability distribution of the uncertain parameters is
used to compute the probability of failure. This is usually a fairly demanding type of analysis,
and is primarily expected to be applied in structural reassessment, in service inspection planning,
code development/calibration and for detailed design verification of major load bearing
components of the structure. Hence, the guidelines prepared in this project concentrate on the
requirements for these types of analyses, and do not make any attempt to embrace all aspects of
the decision process. However, within these limitations, our aim is to cover significant aspects of
the structural of reliability analysis.
1.2 Definition of a Jacket

1.2.1 General
Fixed steel offshore structures are often called jackets. The name jacket originates from the
early days of the offshore industry when a trussed structure, jacket, was placed over the piles to
provide lateral stiffness to withstand wave, current and wind forces.
Jackets have been installed in water depths ranging from 0 to 400 metres, and in conceptual
designs greater water depths have been considered. The steel weight and thus the cost increases
rapidly with water depth, therefore alternative platform solutions are often chosen for large water
depths. Jackets have been designed to support topside weights of up to about 50000 tonnes, and
it is feasible to design jackets for even larger topside weights.
The performance of jackets in hostile ocean environment has generally been good, although local
fatigue damages have occurred in the earlier platforms. There have been very few total failures,
and then only with the oldest platforms.

Page No. 8
Introduction
1.2.2 Types of Jackets

A jacket may be used to support a large number of facilities, and depending on the purpose
(drilling, production, utility, etc.) and ocean environment (water depth, waves, current, wind,
earthquake, etc., it may be a simple or a very complex structure. Figure 1.2 shows a jacket
designed to support drilling and production facilities.
Depending on the configuration, the jackets are classified (depending on the mode of installation)
as:
-
Self floater jacket
Barge launched jacket
Lift installed jacket
In early days the self floating jacket, which was floated out to the installation site and upended,
was quite popular because it required a minimum of offshore installation equipment. The barge
launched mode of installation has been most common as long as only smaller lifting vessels
were available. During the last ten years many platforms weighing less than 10.000 tonnes have
been lift installed, thus minimising the need for temporary installation aids.
Most often jackets have piled foundations, but lately jackets have also been designed with plated
foundations, which reduce installation time. Among the piled jackets it is distinguished between
those with piles in the legs, template type jacket, and those with piles arranged as skirts and
clusters, tower type jackets.
1.2.3 Structural Design Parameters

The jacket design is governed by the following:
- Functional requirements, i.e., support of topside, well conductors, risers, etc.
- Water depth
- Foundation soil conditions
- Environmental conditions, i.e., wave, current, wind, temperature, earthquake, etc.
Important items to be considered in an economical jacket design are:
- Jacket configuration
- Foundation (piled, plated, etc.)
- Type of installation (barge launch or lift installed)
- Use of high strength steel
- Use of cast nodes to improve fatigue performance.

Page No. 9
Introduction
1.2.4 Jacket Design Analysis

Shallow water depth jackets are generally designed with adequate strength based on a static
analysis where the wave loads are applied statistically on the structure. In addition a deterministic
fatigue analysis and earthquake analysis (if required) are carried out. The jacket is in addition
designed for the temporary installation phases. The natural period of the jacket is calculated to
establish the need for wave dynamic analysis.
Deep water jackets often exhibit dynamically amplified response when subjected to wave forces.
The reason is that these platforms have a longer fundamental period of vibration (closer to the
wave periods) than the shallow water platforms. These platforms need to be designed based on
both static and dynamic (stochastic) wave analyses. For the fatigue investigation a stochastic
dynamic fatigue analysis may be more suited than a deterministic fatigue analysis. Earthquake
analysis is carried out as required, and the jacket is designed for the temporary installation
phases.
As mentioned above deep water platforms may be dynamically sensitive to wave forces. The
frequency distribution of the random waves becomes a significant wave design parameter and the
selection of wave spectra for design analyses is therefore extremely important. Due to the long
fundamental period of vibration of the platform the fatigue behaviour may become one of the
critical design considerations.
1.3 Arrangement of the Report

The response of Jacket structures to environmental loads are described in section 2, together with
methods for computation of the resulting load effects. The model uncertainties associated with
the computation of these load effects and the selection of target reliability are discussed in
section 3. Important limit states are described in chapter 4, where also the stochastic modelling of
these failure modes are discussed. Section 5 provides a summary of two reliability analyses,
respectively for ultimate limit state and fatigue limit state for selected components in the Jacket
structure. The details of these analyses are presented in a separate report, Guideline for Offshore
Structural Reliability Analysis - Example for Jacket Platforms (DNV 1995b).
The present report is based on the general guidelines set out in the Guideline for Reliability
Analysis of Marine Structures - General, DNV (1995a). Companion applications are also
available for jack-ups and TLP structures.
Page No. 10
Introduction
Figure 1.2
Jacket designed to support drilling and production facilities

Page No. 11
Response to Environmental Actions
2. RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS

2.1 Classes of Response
An important task in the reliability evaluation of an offshore structure is identification and
modelling of all significant loads and load combinations which the structure is exposed to during
the service life.
The following Load Categories are defined for design and reassessment of jacket structures:
Permanent Loads (P)
Live Loads (variable functional loads) (L)
Environmental Loads (E)
Deformation Loads (D)
Accidental Loads (A)
This section mainly considers environmental loads and load effects related to jacket structures.
For structural engineering purposes, these environmental loads may be characterised mainly by
over-water wind loads, by surface wave loads and by current loads that exist during severe storm
conditions.
In the North Sea, the surface waves during storm conditions are of major importance in the
design of Jacket structures for deep water environments, where the wind loads only represent a
contribution of less that 5% of the total environmental loading. However, in the Gulf of Mexico
the wind loads are of major importance, having wind speeds during hurricane conditions
exceeding 50 m/s. Currents at a particular site can also contribute significantly to the total Jacket
loading, where current generally refers to the motion of water that arises from sources other than
surface waves. E.g., tidal currents arise from the astronomical forces exerted on the water by the
moon and sun, wind-drift currents arise from the drag of local wind on the water surface and
ocean currents arise from the drag of large-scale wind systems on the ocean.
During storm conditions, current velocities at the surface of more than 1 m/s are not uncommon,
giving rise to more than 10% of the total induced environmental force.
The following sections give a more detailed description of environmental loads and responses on
jacket structures. Regarding the other load categories, reference is made to DNV (1995a).

Page No. 12
2.2 Environmental Loads and Response

2.2.1 Environmental Parameters
The parameters describing the environmental conditions shall be based on observations from, or
in the vicinity of the actual location and on general knowledge about the environmental
conditions in the area. This is e.g. reflected in The Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, Guidelines
for Loads and Load Effects (NPD (1996)) where it is stated that in designing, the recording of
wave data should have a duration of at least 10 years (if wave loads are of major importance).
The main environmental parameters governing jacket design are:
wave height (H), wave period (T) and wave direction
current velocity, current direction and current profile
steady wind velocity, wind direction and wind profile
water level variations (tidal, storm surge and potentially field subsidence)
Further details and descriptions of these parameters may be found in the General Guideline,
Section 5 Loads. The above parameters are usually sufficient for jacket design in relatively
shallow waters with no structural dynamic effects present.
However, if the fundamental eigenperiods of the jacket system are at a level which may cause
resonance phenomena, additional environmental parameters are needed in the design. For such
circumstances the wave spectrum needs to be defined for different sea states, and the relative
occurrence rate of significant wave height (Hs) and zero up crossing period (Tz) (or spectral peak
period (Tp)) needs to be established. The wave spectra are usually of a single peak type (PM, or
JONSWAP), however double peak spectra may also be applicable for some areas.
Other environmental parameters which need to be evaluated in jacket design are:
ice and snow
marine growth (thickness, weight and variation with water depth)
temperature (sea/air)
earthquake
2.2.2 Combination of Environmental Parameters

Traditionally jacket design is performed by assuming wind, waves and current acting in the same
direction. The assigned probability level for each of the environmental parameters when
combining them may vary depending on the applicable code.
The NPD Guideline for Load and Load Effects (NPD (1996)) presents a combination of
environmental loads which has been extensively used the last decade, see Table 2.1. More
detailed procedures for assessing the combined environmental loading will normally be accepted
in design provided sufficient data and documentation are available. In this context one should be
aware of that jacket design is usually governed by the wave loads.
If simultaneous time series of environmental parameters exists, long term joint environmental
models may be used. Alternatively, the environmental parameters may be approximated by
marginal distributions as reflected in Table 2.1. For further details, see DNV (1995a) Section 5.

Page No. 13
Table 2.1 Combination of environmental loads with expected mean values (m) and annual
probability of exceedance 10-2 (ULS) and 10-4 (PLS), NPD (1996).
Limit State
Ultimate
Limit State
(ULS)
Progressive
Limit State
(PLS)
Wind
Waves
Current
Ice
Snow
10-2
10-1
10-1
10-4
10-2
10-1
-
10-2
10-1
10-1
10-2
10-4
10-1
-
10-1
10-2
10-1
10-1
10-1
10-4
-
10-2
-
10-2
-
Earthquake
10-2
10-4
Sea
level
10-2
10-2
m
m
m
m*
m*
m*
m
2.2.3 Simulation of Wave Loads

The Morriss equation has been widely applied in the design of jacket structures in the last
decades for assessing the wave induced loading. This is not a complete and consistent
formulation which fully simulates the wave loads. The Morriss equation has, however, proved to
give reasonable reliable results by careful selection of the drag (Cd) and inertia (Cm) coefficients
in combination with an appropriate wave theory.
The jackets are usually made up of tubulars with outer diameters varying typically from 0.3m up
to 6.0m (bottle legs). For deterministic static in-place analysis, a drag coefficient in the range 0.70.8 together with an inertia coefficient of 2.0 are often used in design. Anodes are usually
included in the modelling by increasing the drag coefficient with 8-12% depending on the
amount of anodes required.
Stokes 5th order wave theory is the most commonly applied wave theory in design of jackets.
The higher Stokes theory has a good analytical validity in deep water, whereas the fit to the
boundary conditions in shallow water is relatively poor. This theory is suitable as it describes the
wave kinematics above the mean water level and give information about the crest height which
in turn is needed in e.g. air gap calculations.
First order wave theory may also be used when the procedure for extrapolating the wave profile
above (and below) the mean water level is carefully selected. The Stream function gives a good
analytical validity over a wide range of wave conditions and is to be used in relatively shallow
waters. This theory also has a set of free parameters that can be adjusted to achieve the best fit to
the dynamic free boundary conditions. For very shallow waters Cnoidal & Solitary Wave may be
applicable. Other wave theories exists (e.g. New-Wave, Tromans et al. (1991)), however, the
experience with use is limited.
The energy distribution around the dominating wave direction is usually described by a cosine
distribution where the level of spreading is defined by the exponent in the cosine function,
typically varying from 2 - 8. For extreme load conditions, it is usually not recommended to
include wave spreading. This is e.g. reflected in NPD Guideline for Loads and Load Effects
(NPD (1996)) where it is recommended not to include wave spreading for significant wave
heights above 10 meters if it gives reduced load effect. This recommendation is based on actual
measurements/recordings in the North Sea. It has also been proposed to set the cosine exponent

Page No. 14
in the wave spreading function equal to the significant wave height (in meters). This implies
more or less long-crested waves for significant wave heights above 10 meters.
2.2.4 Extreme Response Effects (ULS)

For extreme load conditions a jacket is usually considered drag dominated. This is, however,
dependent on the wave conditions and the dimensions of the tubulars. For relatively deep water
jackets the drag dominance is shifted towards the inertia regime due to large diameter tubulars at
the lower jacket levels. For fatigue calculations the inertia regime is also having a higher
influence due to the importance of the intermediate wave heights in the fatigue damage
contribution.
In relatively shallow waters with low fundamental periods of the jacket, static deterministic
analyses will generally be sufficient. If the dynamic amplification is low (e.g. less than 5-10%),
the dynamic effects can be simulated by dynamic amplification factors (DAF) in combination
with static analyses. For extreme load analyses the dynamic amplification will be low, whereas
for fatigue analyses the degree of amplification will be higher and more important.
A spectral approach is required if the dynamic effects are dominant. For extreme load analysis
the level of dynamic amplification is limited due to the period spacing between jacket
eigenperiods and extreme wave periods. These aspects are further commented below for fatigue.
Concerning linear vs. non-linear structural analyses, there are examples of jackets in water depths
of 150 -200m and fundamental eigenperiods beyond 3 seconds where non-linear effects related to
wave loads are found to be very important. These non-linear effects are typically surface effects,
non-linear wave-current interaction and the non-linear drag forces. This implies that linearised
stochastic dynamic analyses may underestimate the response significantly if the dynamics are
dominating.
Design wave analyses are usually considered conservative, but this depends, however, on the
actual selection of design parameters in the analysis. For relatively deep water jackets it has been
found that time domain simulations commonly give higher responses than what may be
determined by single design wave analysis.
2.2.5 Fatigue (FLS)

Depending on the level of dynamic amplification, either a long-term distribution of single wave
heights (H) and associated wave periods (T), or a scatter diagram ( H s Tp or H s Tz ), is
needed in the fatigue assessment. As stated earlier, it is a requirement for the fatigue analysis that
the long-term environmental distributions have been established based on relevant measurements
and subsequent statistical post-processing. Long-term single wave height distributions are usually
limited to 10 - 20 H/T combinations whereas a scatter diagram may consist of up to 200 short
term sea states.
The wave induced stress range response needs to be determined for the fatigue analysis. Different
approaches may here be applied for assessing the stress range response. Usually different waves
(H/T combinations) are stepped through the structure with a step interval of 10-15 degrees and
from these curves the stress ranges are determined. Special considerations may be required for
elements in the splash zone as these elements are intermittent in and out of the water as the
waves are passing.

Page No. 15
The shape of the wave spectra has an influence on the response results. This is especially the case
when the fundamental eigenperiod of the jacket system is high and there is little damping in the
dynamic system such that resonance will occur. A dynamic system like this will e.g. give
significantly higher responses at resonance with a Jonswap spectrum compared to a PM
spectrum.
A linearisation of the drag forces is needed for dynamic analyses. Different methods exist for
performing this type of linearisation. One approach is to linearise with respect to a characteristic
wave height for each wave period. Members with intermittent submergence need to be treated
separately. The response results are strongly dependent on the chosen linearisation wave heights,
and especial attention should be made in the linearisation evaluation in order not to achieve overconservative results. Another and more consistent linearisation procedure is to apply the wave
energy spectrum, by assuming the ocean waves and the corresponding fluid kinematics to be
Gaussian processes.
Slamming on horizontal members in the splash zone needs to be taken into account in the FLS
design. Different approaches may be applied to determine the dynamic response and the number
of oscillations due to wave slamming. However, usually this effect is minimised by carefully
placing the horizontal levels of the jacket outside the splash zone.

Page No. 16
Uncertainty Modelling - Target Reliability
3. UNCERTAINTY MODELLING - TARGET RELIABILITY

3.1 General
There is a close connection between the uncertainty modelling and the target reliability level, as
the obtained reliability against e.g. fatigue failure or ultimate collapse in a reliability analysis is
dependent on the chosen uncertainty modelling, especially with respect to the implementation of
modelling uncertainties.
3.2 Uncertainty Modelling

3.2.1 Overview
This section provides general guidance in respect to uncertainty modelling as appropriate to the
ultimate and fatigue limit state modelling for jacket structures. In Section 4, the proposed models
accounting for the uncertainties related to the FLS and ULS analyses of jacket platforms are
described in detail.
For further guidance, see also Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - General
(DNV 1995a), Section 5, and the applied uncertainty modelling in Guideline for Offshore
Structural Reliability Analysis - Examples for Jacket Platforms (DNV 1995b).
In DNV Classification Notes 30.6, Structural Reliability Analysis of Marine Structures (DNV
1992b), a general description of the uncertainty modelling for marine structures is presented.
3.2.2 Types of Uncertainty

Uncertainties associated with an engineering problem and its physical representation in an
analysis have various sources which may be grouped as follows:
physical uncertainty, also known as intrinsic or inherent uncertainty, is a natural randomness
of a quantity, such as the uncertainty in the yield stress of steel as caused by a production
variability, or the variability in wave and wind loading.
measurement uncertainty is uncertainty caused by imperfect instruments and sample
disturbance when observing a quantity by some equipment.
statistical uncertainty is uncertainty due to limited information such as a limited number of
observations of a quantity.
model uncertainty is uncertainty due to imperfections and idealisations made in physical
model formulations for load and resistance as well as in choices of probability distribution
types for representation of uncertainties.
This grouping of uncertainty sources is usually adequate. However, one shall be aware that other
types of uncertainties may be present, such as uncertainties related to human errors. Transitions
between the quoted different uncertainty types may exist.

Page No. 17
3.2.3 Uncertainty Implementation

Uncertainties are represented in reliability analyses by modelling the governing variables as
random variables. The corresponding probability distributions can be defined based on statistical
analyses of available observations of the individual variables, yielding information on their mean
values, standard deviations, correlation with other variables, and in some cases also their
distribution types.
Variables for which uncertainties are judged to be important, e.g. by experience or by sensitivity
study, shall be represented as random variables in a reliability analysis. Their respective
probability distributions shall be documented as far as possible, based on theoretical
considerations and statistical analysis of available background data.
Dependency among variables may be important appear and shall be assessed and accounted for
when necessary. Correlation coefficients can be estimated by statistical analyses.
Model uncertainties in a physical model for representation of load and/or resistance quantities
can be described by stochastic modelling factors, defined as the ratio between the true quantity
and the quantity as predicted by the model for multiplicative correction factors. A mean value not
equal to 1.0 for the stochastic modelling factor expresses a bias in the model, and the standard
deviation expresses the variability of the predictions by the model. An adequate assessment of a
model uncertainty factor may be available from sets of field measurements and predictions.
Subjective choices of the distribution of a model uncertainty factor will, however, often be
necessary. The importance of a model uncertainty may vary from case to case and should be
studied by interpretation of parameter sensitivities.
3.3 Target Reliability

3.3.1 General
Target reliabilities have to be met in design in order to ensure that certain safety levels are
achieved. A reliability analysis can be used to verify that such a target reliability is achieved for a
structure or structural element. A difficulty in this context is that the uncertainties included in a
structural reliability analysis will deviate from those encountered in real life. This is because;
the reliability analysis does not include gross errors which may occur in real life
the reliability analysis, due to lack of knowledge, includes statistical uncertainty and model
uncertainty in addition to the physical uncertainty (epistemic) which is present in real life
the reliability analysis may include uncertainty in the probabilistic model due to distribution
tail assumptions
This means that a reliability index calculated by a reliability analysis is an operational or nominal
value, dependent on the analysis model and the distribution assumptions, rather than a true
reliability value which may be given a frequency interpretation. Calculated reliabilities can
therefore usually not be directly compared with required target reliability values, unless the latter
are based on similar assumptions with respect to analysis models and probability distributions.
This is a limitation which implies that target reliability indices cannot, normally, be specified on
a general basis, but only case by case for individual applications.
For a more detailed discussion of the subject of determining the target reliability level, reference
is given to the DNV (1995a).

Page No. 18
3.3.2 Selection of Target Reliability Level

Target reliabilities depend on the consequence and nature of failure, and to the extent possible,
should be calibrated against well established cases that are known to have adequate safety. In
cases where well established structures are not available for the calibration of target reliabilities,
such target reliabilities may be derived by comparison of safety levels established for similar
existing structural design solutions or through decision analysis techniques.
By carrying out a reliability analysis of a structure satisfying a specified code using a given
probabilistic model, the implicit required reliability level in this code will be obtained, which
may be applied as the target reliability level. The advantage with this approach compared to
applying a predefined reliability level, is that the same probabilistic approach is applied in the
definition of the inherent reliability of the code specified structure and the considered structure,
reducing the influence of the applied uncertainty modelling in the determination of the target
reliability level.
The use of codes could with advantages be applied e.g. in the determination of the minimum
acceptable reliability level, below which structural inspections for jacket structures exposed to
fatigue degradation are required. In the NPD, Act, regulations and provisions for the petroleum
activities (NPD 1996), it is stated that for structural details with no access for inspection or
repair, the design factors specified in Table 3.1 are to be applied in the design, dependent on the
consequence of failure of the detail. This could be interpreted as that a structural detail does not
need to be inspected prior to one 10th, or one 3rd, of the fatigue design life for substantial and no
substantial failure consequence, respectively. The reliability levels at these time periods (one
tenth, or one third of the design life) then consequently also correspond to the target reliability
level for which a structural inspection is required according to the code.
Table 3.1 Design fatigue factors when no access for inspection or repair exist
Damage
Consequence
No access or in
the splash zone
Substantial
consequence
10
No substantial
consequence
In general, acceptable structural probabilities of failure, specified as minimum values of target

reliabilities, depend on the consequence and nature of failure. The evaluation of the consequence
of failure comprises an evaluation with regard to human injury, environmental impact and
economical loss, whereas the nature or class of failure considers the type of structural failure.
Required minimal reliability levels make sense only together with a specification of a reference
period. The reference period should reflect the nature of the failure and is generally equal to the
anticipated lifetime of the structure, or simply one year. As a general statement it might be
argued that an annual target failure probability should be used when human life is at stake while
lifetime target failure probabilities applies if the consequence is material cost only.
The economical aspect will mainly depend on the economical consequence of the failure due to
repair cost, missing income and/or demand in the repair period. When the failure consequence
regards economic loss, minimum target structural failure probabilities may be specified by the

Page No. 19
operator based on requirements from national authorities and company design philosophy and/or
risk attitude. The safety level may therefore in general vary between the individual structures.
The direct consequence of failure for the environment could be included in the target safety level
related to economical consequences.
A major accident is likely to have a negative influence on the reputation of the company, both
towards the government and towards the society in general. The consequence of this effect is
difficult to quantify. It is probably related to the company philosophy or may simply be
considered as a part of the economical consequence.
The consequence of failure related to human injury will in large extent depend on the type of
failure and operational condition for the platform. E.g., in DNV CN 30.6 (DNV 1992b), the
criterion concerning human injury is to be formulated as the annual probability of failure (defined
as total collapse of the platform) shall not exceed 10-6 for no warning and serious consequences.
The target reliability level may also be based upon the proposed values presented in Table 3.2,
taken from DNV Classification Notes 30.6 (DNV 1992b). When predefined reliability levels are
applied as target values, care must, however, be made in the uncertainty modelling in order to
account for the same level of uncertainty as is reflected in the predefined target reliability level.
The target reliabilities, specified in Table 3.2., are therefore closely connected with the proposed
uncertainty modelling described in the Classification Notes.
Table 3.2 Values of acceptable annual failure probability and target reliability index
Class of Failure
Less Serious
Consequence
Serious
Consequence
PF = 10-3
PF = 10-4
= 3.09
= 3.71
II. Significant warning prior to

occurrence of failure in a nonredundant structure
PF = 10-4
PF = 10-5
= 3.71
= 4.26
III.No warning before the

occurrence of failure in a nonredundant structure
PF = 10-5
PF = 10-6
= 4.26
= 4.75
I. Redundant structure

Page No. 20
Discussion of Limit States
4. DISCUSSION OF LIMIT STATES

4.1 Introduction
The objective for all structural designs is to build structures which fulfil proper requirements
with respect to functionality, safety and economy. These three aspects are closely connected and
an iterative process is necessary to achieve the most optimal design. Current design practice is
based on partial safety factors and control against several limit states. A structure, or a structural
component, is considered not to satisfy the design requirements if one or more of the limit states
are exceeded. Four main categories of limit state are defined in the NPD regulations (NPD 1996):
Ultimate Limit State (ULS) which is defined on the basis of danger of failure, large inelastic
displacement or strains, comparable to failure, free drifting, capsizing and sinking.
Fatigue Limit State (FLS) which is defined on the basis of danger of fatigue due to the effect
of cyclic loading.
Progressive Collapse Limit State (PLS) which is defined on the basis of danger of failure, free
drifting, capsizing or sinking of the structure when subjected to abnormal effects.
Serviceability Limit State (SLS) which is defined on the basis of criteria applicable to
functional capability, or durability properties under normal conditions.
Only the fatigue limit state and the ultimate limit state will be discussed further in this report.
The Ultimate Limit State for a structure can be considered as the collapse of the structure. This
limit state is difficult to describe through simple design equations, and therefore the design is
normally performed at a component level where the capacity of the single joints and members
between the joints are analysed/designed separately. Alternatively, the capacity for the Ultimate
Limit State can be assessed by non-linear analysis. At present non-linear analyses are performed
for reassessment and requalification purposes, but is not considered to be practical at a design
stage. Also guidelines on how to perform such analyses are lacking. Therefore limit state
functions for reliability analysis of jacket structures will in general also be based on design
equations for single components.
The ULS limit state functions required for design of jacket structures are:
Capacity of members between the joints with respect to yielding and buckling. This includes
both local buckling and global bending buckling of the member, section 4.2.1-2. The local
capacity is further affected by external pressure which may interact with global member
buckling, section 4.2.3.
Capacity of joints, section 4.3
Traditional ULS design are based on load effects determined by elastic frame analyses.
It should be noted that the design equations in the design standards are based on characteristic
values which are defined at some fracture value or lower bound value. For reliability analyses the
limit states are based on the actual values, accounting for uncertainties, where the load and
material coefficients are not included in the equations for the limit state functions.

Page No. 21
The Progressive Collapse Limit State is used to design the platforms for accidental events having
a probability of occurrence larger than 10-4. Accidental events such as explosion, fire and ship
impacts are considered. The accidental events are defined from Quantitative Risk Analyses, see
Section 2 of Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability - General (1995a). Possible damage to
the structure is calculated based on an elasto-plastic analysis, and the structure is then analysed
with that damage for a given environmental loading. This analysis is similar to that of an
Ultimate Limit State analysis, but with different load and material coefficients in the design
equation according to the NPD regulations, (NPD 1996).
The Serviceability Limit State is used for control of deflections and accelerations of the topside
structures, but is hardly used for the design of jacket structures.
The potential application areas for structural reliability analyses of jacket structures are within
detailed design verification and for in-service inspection planning. For important components,
the failure modes comprise;
Jacket members (legs and braces) (ULS):
* Buckling of members:
- Local buckling of members
- Global buckling of members
- Buckling of members subjected to external pressure
* Total structural collapse due to environmental loading (e.g. wave and current loading on
the jacket and wind loading on the superstructure)
Tubular joints (ULS):
* Joint failure
Tubular joints and connections (FLS):
* Fatigue at hot-spots in welded connections
In the following sections the above component failure modes due to buckling failure of members,
joint failure and fatigue failure are discussed, and examples for models which may be applied in
a reliability analysis are given. Furthermore, a simplified limit state for system failure defined as
total structural collapse due to environmental loading is discussed, where the total structure is
considered as a single component.

Page No. 22
4.2 Buckling Failure of Members (ULS)

4.2.1 Local Buckling of Members
The susceptibility to local buckling of tubular members is a function of member geometry and
yield strength. The behaviour of a tubular subjected to a bending moment is shown in Figure 4.1.
As the capacity behaviour is dependent on the geometry and material characteristics, it is
convenient to define the tubulars in section classes (Eurocode 3 (1993)) as illustrated in Table
4.1
Table 4.1 Requirements to section classes in Eurocode 3
Section Class I
d/t 11750/fy
Section Class II
Section Class III
Section Class IV
11750/fy d/t 16450/fy 16450/fy d/t 21150/fy
fy = yield strength (MPa)
d = diameter
21150/fy d/t
t = thickness
The section classes are defined as follows:

Class I :
cross-sections are those which can form a plastic hinge with the rotation capacity
required for plastic analysis.
Class II:
cross-sections are those which can develop their plastic moment resistance, but have
limited rotation capacity.
Class III:
cross-sections are those in which the calculated stress in the extreme compression
fibre of the steel member can reach its yield strength, but local buckling is liable to
prevent development of the plastic moment resistance.
Class IV:
cross-sections are those in which it is necessary to make explicit allowances for the
effects of local buckling when determining their moment resistance or compression
resistance. Tubulars belonging to this section class may also be defined as a shell
structure.
These section classes are not defined for conditions with external pressure, and tests or numerical
analyses must be carried out for documentation. This is controlled under section 4.2.3.
Figure 4.1 Tubular capacity in bending for different section class dependent on degree of
deformation .

Page No. 23
4.2.2 Global Buckling of Members

4.2.2.1 Background
The procedure for design of tubulars subjected to a bending moment according to the NPD
regulations is based on linear elastic analysis as if all tubulars were belonging to section class III.
(Reference is made to Eurocode 3 (1993) with respect to requirements to section classes which
for tubulars are shown in Table 4.1). This procedure is considered to be sufficient for tubulars
subjected to external pressure.
The procedure for design of tubulars in air is considered conservative for section classes I and II
as yielding of the section is allowed (by definition of section class). A higher capacity accounting
for the plastic section modules is directly achieved through a non-linear analysis. The increase in
the bending capacity by going from elastic to plastic section modules is a factor of 4/=1.27.
The effect of plastic section modulus is more directly incorporated in the API design equations
than that of NPD although it is opened for plastic design also in the NPD regulations.
Other items related to buckling of tubular members are:
- effective buckling lengths
- buckling curves
- effect of external pressure.
In a design analysis it is common to assume a buckling length that is representative for typical
member configurations as X-braces, K-frames, single braces, jacket legs and piles. The effective
buckling length is dependent on the joint flexibilities and for X-braces also on the amount of
tension force in the crossing element. It is also a matter of discussion whether the buckling length
should be measured from centreline to centreline of jacket legs which can be argued for in the
case of a combined collapse of the braces and the legs, or if the buckling length should be
associated with the face to face length between the legs which may be argued for considering
buckling of a single brace. The effective buckling length may be derived from analytical
considerations. However, the effective buckling lengths derived from theoretical considerations
are longer than the buckling lengths obtained from tests of frame structures loaded until collapse.
It should be noted that the basis for the buckling curves in the different codes is different. The
API buckling curve is derived as a lower bound value for low slenderness while it is equal to the
Euler stress for high slenderness values which may be considered as an upper bound value for
that region. Another definition of a buckling curve is used in the AISC (1986). The background
for the buckling curves used in design of steel structures in European design standards is based
on work carried out within the European Convention for Constructional Steelwork which is
presented in Manual on Stability of Steel Structures (1976). The design curves are presented by
their characteristic values which are defined as mean values minus two standard deviations along
the slenderness axis. The test results are assumed normal distributed.
It is also noted that the requirements to allowable fabrication eccentricity are different associated
with the various buckling curves. For the European buckling curves, a straightness deviation at
the middle of the column equal 0.0015 times the column length is allowed, while for API and
AISC the corresponding numbers are 0.0010 and 0.00067, respectively.
Different buckling curves used for design of tubular members are shown in Figure 4.2.

Page No. 24
The design equation for global member buckling in the NPD regulations (NPD 1996) reads
c + B b* + B b
fy
where
N
c =
= design axial compressive stress
N = axial force
A = section area
B = bending amplification factor =

1
N
NE
N E = Euler buckling load

b = c (
*
fE =
NE
fy
fk
1)(1
fk
m fE
f k = characteristic buckling strength derived from the buckling curve
Buckling stress
1.2
ECCS,NPD,DNV
API LRFD
API WSD/AISC
Euler
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0
0.5
1.5
2.5
3.5
Reduced slenderness
Figure 4.2
Different buckling curves used for design of tubular members

Page No. 25
4.2.2.2 Limit State Function
The limit state function for global buckling of members can be formulated as
G = f y ( c + B b + B b )
*
where
f y = yield strength
c =
N
A
= design axial com pressive stress
N = axial force
A = section area
B = bending amplification factor =
1
1
N
NE
N E = Euler buckling load

fy
f
*
b = c (
1)(1 k )
fk
fE
NE
fE =
A
f k = buckling strength derived from the buckling curve

Page No. 26
4.2.3 Buckling of Members Subjected to External Pressure

4.2.3.1 Background
The capacity of tubulars subjected to axial force, bending and external pressure may be designed
based on the guidelines on design and analysis provided by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
(NPD 1996) with additional guidance by Lotsberg (1993), or by a design procedure presented by
Loh (1990). In the following the design procedure given by NPD and Lotsberg is given. It should
be noted that it is only the effective axial force that contributes to the axial stresses that enhance
buckling, see Figure 4.3. The axial stress resulting from the external pressure do contribute in the
equation for the von Mises stress considering yielding, but does not contribute to the axial force
that gives global buckling stress.
Figure 4.3
Illustration of effective axial force to be used for global buckling. (The total
stress is governing for the local structural behaviour in terms of yielding
and local buckling)
The equation for global buckling is modified to account for the effect of external pressure as
follows:
ac =
B + B 2 4 AC
2A
where
A = 1+
f y2
f ea2

B=(
C=
2 f y2
f ea f ep
2p
Page No. 27
1) p
f y2 2p
f ep2
f y2
fea = elastic buckling stress with respect to axial force
f ea
2E t
=k

12(1 2 ) l
k = 1+
. l 4 (1 2 )
0123
r
)
r 2 t 2 (1 +
150t
fep = elastic buckling stress in hoop direction with respect to external pressure
f ep
t
= 0.25
r
p = stress in hoop direction due to external pressure

The equation for global buckling is then modified as follows
c + B *b + B b
ac axp
m
where axp = axial stress in the tubular due to end cap pressure = p/2.
For other notations see section 4.2.2. Note that c now is derived as the effective axial stress
(without including the end cap stress resulting from external pressure).
An example of the difference between the effective axial stress and the total stress in a tubular
member as function of the water depth is shown in Figure 4.4. It is noted that the difference is
small for water depths below say 100 metres, but that it becomes significant for deep-water
structures.

Page No. 28
4.2.3.2 Limit State Function
The limit state function for global buckling of members subjected to external pressure can be
formulated as,
G = ac axp ( c + B *b + B b )
with notation as given in section 4.2.1.
200
Effective stress
180
Total stress
160
Allowable stress
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
200
400
600
800
1000
Waterdepth in m
Figure 4.4
Axial stress in the tubular as function of water depth and external pressure
at global member buckling
4.3 Joint Failure (ULS)

4.3.1 Background
A number of design equations have been established for the static strength of tubular joints. The
equations in API (1991) and NPD (1996) show a similar shape although the coefficients are
different as also might be expected as the API RP2A is based on allowable stresses, while the
NPD has based the design on the partial coefficient method since 1977. The following work is
based on the NPD regulations, but only small modifications would be required to revert to
another standard such as that of API or HSE.
It should be mentioned that work on joint capacities is being carried out within the development
of a new ISO standard on design of steel offshore structures. This work should be considered as
basis for limit state functions when it is available.
The following symbols are used:

Page No. 29
T = Chord wall thickness

t = Brace wall thickness
R = Outer radius of chord
r = Outer radius of brace
= Angle between chord and considered brace
D = Outer diameter of chord
d = Outer diameter of brace
a = gap (clear distance) between considered brace and nearest load-carrying brace measured
along chord outer surface
= r/R
= R/T
g = a/D
fy = Yield strength
Qf = See Table 4.3
Qg = See Table 4.2
Qu = See Table 4.2
Q = See Table 4.2
N = Axial force in brace
MIP = In-plane bending moment
MOP = Out-of-plane bending moment
Nk = Axial load capacity of brace(as governed by the chord strength)
MIPK = In-plane bending moment capacity of brace(as governed by the chord strength)
MOPK = Out-of-plane bending moment capacity of brace(as governed by the chord strength)
ax = Axial stress in chord
IP = In-plane bending stress in chord
ax = Out-of-plane bending stress in chord

Table 4.2
Page No. 30
Values for Qu (Characteristic values)
Type of joint and geometry
Type of load in brace member

Axial
T&Y
2.5 +19
(2.7 +13)Q
0.90(2 +21)Qg
0.3
(1 0.833 )
Q =
.
10
. 01
.a/T
18
Qg =
18
. 4g
In-plane bending
Out-of-plane
bending
5.00.5
3.2/(1-0.81)
for > 0.6

for 0.6
for
20
for
> 20
but in no case shall Qg be taken less than 1.0.
Table 4.3
Values of Qf
Loading
Qf
Axial
1.0-0.03A2
In-plane bending
1.0-0.045A2
Out-of-plane bending
1.0-0.021A2
where
A =
2
2
ax
+ 2IP + 2OP
0.64 f y2
The characteristic capacity of the brace subjected to axial force is determined by

Nk = Qu Q f
fyT 2
sin

Page No. 31
The characteristic capacity of the brace subjected to in-plane moments is determined by

M IPk = Qu Q f
df y T 2
sin
The characteristic capacity of the brace subjected to out-of-plane moments is determined by

M OPk = Qu Q f
df y T 2
sin
2
M
N M IP
1
+ OP
+
N k M IPk
M OPk m
where m is a material coefficient =1.15.
Figure 4.5
Simple Tubular Joint

Figure 4.6
Page No. 32
Force displacement relationship for a tubular joint
4.3.2 Limit State Function

The limit state function for the static capacity of tubular joints can be formulated as
2
M
N M IP
M
N M IP
+ OP ) or G = log(
G = 1 (
+
+
+ OP )
N k M IPk
M OPk
N k M IPk
M OPk
where the equations given above are used to calculate Nk, MIPk and MOPk with Qu from Table 4.4
and A as given below.
Table 4.4
Values for Qu based on 50 per cent fractiles (median values)

Axial
T&Y
2.8 +21
(3.0 +14.6)Q
(2.6 +27)Qg
In-plane bending
Out-plane bend.
5.60.5
3.6/(1-0.81)
The parameter A for calculation of Qf in Table 4.4 is obtained as:
A2 =
2
+ 2IP + 2OP
ax
f y2

Page No. 33
The CoV values in Table 4.5 for Qu may be used for the reliability analysis based on the
presented limit state functions. Qu is normal distributed. For CoV for yield strength, see DNV
(1995a).
Table 4.5
Values for CoV for Qu

Axial
T&Y
0.10
0.10
0.20
In-plane bending
Out-plane bend.
0.10
0.10
4.4 Fatigue Failure at Hot-spot of Welded Connections (FLS)

4.4.1 General
4.4.1.1 Overview
Jacket structures of all types are generally subjected to cyclic loading from wind, current,
earthquakes and waves, which cause time-varying stress effects in the structure. The
environmental quantities are of random nature and may be more or less correlated to each other
through the generating and driving mechanisms. Waves and earthquake loads are generally
considered to be the most important sources for structural excitations. However, earthquake
loads are only taken into account in the analysis of structures close to, or within tectonic areas,
and will not be included here. Wind and current loads represent an insignificant contribution to
the fatigue loading and may be ignored in the fatigue analysis of jacket structures.
A fatigue analysis of offshore structures can in general terms be described as a calculation
procedure, starting with the environment (waves) creating stress ranges at the hot-spot regions
and ending with the fatigue damage estimation. The link between the waves and the fatigue
damage estimate is formed by mathematical models for the wave forces, the structural behaviour
and the material behaviour. The probabilistic fatigue analysis may be divided into four main
steps:
1) Probabilistic modelling of the environmental sea states (short- and long-term modelling)
2) Probabilistic modelling of the wave loading
3) Structural response analysis (global and local)
4) Stochastic modelling of fatigue damage accumulation.
The above steps are covered in DNV (1995a). In the following, it will be focused on the
application to jacket structures.
In addition to the above steps, the analysis 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.

Page No. 34
In order to carry out a realistic fatigue evaluation of a jacket structure, it is necessary to introduce
some simplifying assumptions in the modelling. These assumptions consist of:
For a short term period (a few hours) the sea surface can be 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, can
be described by two parameters, the significant wave height HS and some characteristic
period like the spectral peak period TP or the zero-mean up-crossing period TZ .
The long term probability distribution of the sea state parameters ( HS TP or HS TZ
diagram) is known.
Applying frequency domain approach for assessing the structural response, the wave loading
on structural members must be linearised and the structural stress response must be 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 parameter description is most common.
Fatigue is the process of damage accumulation in a material undergoing fluctuation stresses and
strains caused by time-varying loading. Fatigue failure occurs when the accumulated damage is
exceeding a critical level. The fatigue process experienced by most offshore structures is highcycle fatigue, i.e. the fluctuating nominal stress levels are below the yield strength and the
number of cycles to failure is larger than 10 4 . Fatigue damage in welded structures is likely to
occur at the welded joints due to the stress concentration at areas of geometric discontinuity.
Notches and initial defects caused by the welding processes may also occur in this area.
Traditional fatigue design of jackets is based on the SN-fatigue approach where fatigue failure is
assumed to occur when the crack has propagated through the thickness of the member. However,
at a design stage without any observed cracks in the structure, the estimated fatigue damage
based on fracture mechanics is normally less reliable than that derived from SN data due to the
difficulties involved in assessing the initial crack size. Applying the SN-approach, the fatigue
damage is measured in degree of damage, D , from an initial value 0 to , where is defined
as the fatigue damage accumulation resulting in failure, depending on the detail considered and
the selected SN-curve.
When performing a reliability updating on the basis of structural inspections for cracks, the
inspection outcome can not be used directly to update the degree of damage accumulation unless
the fracture mechanics approach is applied. In order to also be able to perform reliability
updating when the SN approach is applied, a procedure for establishing a relationship between
these two fatigue approaches is proposed in the following.
4.4.1.2 System Aspects
Jacket structures are typically redundant with respect to brace failures and a total structural
collapse will not occur before several members have failed. After a member has failed due to e.g.
fatigue, the applied loading will be transferred by the remaining members, i.e. a redistribution of
the load through the structure occurs. In the damaged structure, each remaining member has
already some accumulated fatigue damage, and due to the redistribution of the stresses in the
structure the rate of damage accumulation will change. By accounting for the changes due to
failure in other members, the total damage at a section can by formulated mathematically. Once

Page No. 35
the time to failure for each individual section in a sequence is defined, the sequence event is
defined as the intersection of a set of section failure events for which the time to failure for each
individual section is less than the lifetime of the structure.
Usually, there will be many alternative sequences leading to collapse, and the total structural
failure is the event that one of these collapse sequences occurs.
A system reliability approach is required when the probability of total structure failure
accounting for the progressive nature of collapse is to be estimated. One of the difficulties with
such an approach is that for typical structures there are a very large number of sequences leading
to failure, and that it is not feasible to include all of these in the analysis. Usually, however, only
few of the failure sequences have significant contributions to the total failure probability.
Therefore, in most structural reliability analyses, a search technique can be used to identify
important failure sequences and the system failure event is approximated as the union of
important sequences.
4.4.2 SN-Fatigue Approach

4.4.2.1 General
The fatigue life of a joint may in general be characterised by three time intervals:
Tinitial
The crack initiation period or first discernible surface cracking.
Tth
The total time until the crack has propagated through the thickness.
Tsec
The total time until gross loss of structural stiffness with extensive through thickness
cracking (defined as section failure).
Based on inspections for fatigue cracks in the joints, a fatigue reliability updating based on the
outcome of the inspections can be carried out applying Bayesian updating. The inspection results
can for the SN-approach not be used directly to update the estimated accumulated fatigue
damage. However, if a relationship between the damage accumulator D in the SN-approach and
the crack size was available, it would be possible to utilise the inspection results for reliability
updating.
No guidelines or established procedures are available for establishing the relationship between
the accumulated fatigue damage from the SN-approach and the crack size. This relationship may,
however, be obtained by calibrating the parameters describing the crack propagation in the
fracture mechanics approach. In the following the parameters are calibrated by fitting the
probability of having a through thickness crack as a function of time obtained from the fracture
mechanics approach to the results obtained from the SN-approach, applying e.g. least-squares
fitting.
It should be noted that calibrating the through thickness cracking to a SN-curve is in general
inconsistent, as the crack initiation period included in the SN-approach is not incorporated in the
fracture mechanics formulation. This may lead to unconservative results in the reliability
updating based on the outcome of inspections.
More consistent results may be obtained by applying only the SN-curve for the crack
propagation period (if available) in the calibration of the fracture mechanics material parameters,
i.e. a SN-curve describing the number of load cycles it takes for an already initialised crack to

Page No. 36
propagate through the thickness. This approach assumes there exists a model available to
estimate the crack initiation time and that the time period until inspection is greater than the
crack initiation time.
However, very limited information is available for describing the crack initiation time and the
SN-curves for the crack propagation period. The calibration of the fracture mechanics parameters
is therefore in the present study based on SN-curves where the crack initiation period is included
in the modelling of the fatigue capacity applying the SN approach. It should in this connection
also be noted that for welded details, the crack initiation period is relatively small compared to
the whole fatigue life.
4.4.2.2 SN-Fatigue Modelling
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 design SN-curves are based on a statistical analysis of experimental data. They are given as
linear or piece-wise linear relations between log10S and log10N. A design curve is defined as the
mean curve, minus two standard deviations of log10N obtained from the data fitting. The standard
deviation is computed based on the assumption of a fixed and known slope.
The design SN-curves are thus of the form
log 10 N = log 10 a 2 log10 N m log 10 S
or
N = K S
S > S0
where
N
number of cycles to failure for stress range S
a constant relating to the mean SN-curve
log10 N
the standard deviation of log10N
the inverse slope of the SN-curve
S0
stress range level for which change in slope occurs, i.e. for bilinear SNcurve or endurance limit for single slope SN-curve
log10 K
log 10 a 2 log10 N
The bilinear SN-curve is defined as,

K S m
N =
K S m2
2
S > S0
K S 0 m = K 2 S 0 m2
S S0
where m2 is the inverse slope of the SN-curve ( for endurance limit at S 0 ).

The numerical values for the relevant parameters are summarised in table 7.10 in DNV (1995a).
For tubular joints, the T-curve (DNV 1984) is recommended for modelling the fatigue capacity.

Page No. 37
In air, the T-curve has m=3, which changes to m2 =5 at N = N 0 = 10 7 . For cathodically protected
structures in seawater the T-curve has m=3 and a cut-off value at N = N 0 = 2 108 . Knowing N 0
and K, the stress range level S 0 can be obtained by
K
S0 =
N0
1
m
The fatigue strength of welded joints is dependent on the plate thickness, t, with decreasing
fatigue strength with increasing thickness. The design T-curve is used when the thickness t in a
tubular joint is less than 32 mm. For the thickness t 32 mm a modification of the T-curve is
performed, and the modified T-curve becomes,
log10 N = log10 K
t
log10 m log10 S
32
4
S > S0
or
N = ( t / 32 )
The factor ( t / 32 )
m/ 4
m/ 4
K S
S > S0
is denoted the thickness-effect factor.
4.4.2.3 Uncertainty in SN-curves
The uncertainties associated with describing the fatigue capacity through empirical SN-curves
are accounted for by considering a stochastic SN-relation. This may be done by treating the
parameters in the deterministic linear or bilinear SN-relation as random variables. I.e. by
modelling the inverse slope m as deterministic and fitting the log10N test data from the fatigue
tests to the Normal distribution. The uncertainty modelling of the SN-curve can then be obtained
by modelling K as a Log-Normal distributed stochastic variable. E.g., for the T-curve with
cathodic protection in seawater, where the inverse sloop m is modelled as deterministic and K is
modelled as Log-Normal distributed, the stochastic modelling of the SN-curve is defined by the
following properties:
E[ K ] = 539
. 1012
m = m1 = 3
m = m2 =
Std [ K ] = 335
. 1012
N N0
N > N0
The importance of modelling the cut-off level N 0 as stochastic should also be evaluated. For
stochastic modelling of N 0 the Normal distribution should be selected, e.g. with
E[ N 0 ] = 2 108
CoV [ N 0 ] = 010
.
4.4.2.4 Fatigue Damage Model
The accumulated fatigue damage is computed from the representative stress distribution and the
SN-capacity model. The accumulated damage depends on the number and magnitude of the

Page No. 38
applied 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=
i =1
ni
Ni
where ni = n( S i ) is the number of cycles of stress range S i in the stress history and N i = N ( S 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 1 , as the SN-curves are originally derived from constant amplitude
loading.
For a variable amplitude loading, the value of the damage accumulation D 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 will typically be
large and the inherent uncertainty in the damage accumulation will approach zero. The damage
accumulation, D, is then sufficiently represented by a summation of the expected value of m'th
moment of the local stress response process.
Modelling of the uncertainties associated with the fatigue capacity, , is based on results from
random loading fatigue tests. Because the fatigue behaviour is influenced by many factors,
among them the variability inherent in the material, it is difficult to interpret the test results.
However, there seems to be some coherence to recent published results for welded details, where
a slight non-conservative bias is suggested implemented with uncertainties around 30-60%.
Experimental data suggests that the Miner-Palmgren rule predicts fatigue failure reasonable well
for random loading on loaded components, and that the influence of sequence effects is usually
negligible for random loading typical for offshore structures.
However, for welded joints it appears that the Miner-Palmgren rule is slightly non-conservative.
Biases, in the ratio between the predicted damage and the measured damage, down to 0.7 to 0.8
have been observed.
The response process in the estimation of the fatigue damage accumulation is usually assumed to
be a narrow banded Gaussian process. However, the fatigue stresses may typically be somewhat
wide banded and a rainflow correction factor for wide banded response processes may therefore
be introduced.
The rainflow correction factor for wide banded processes indicates a compensating bias
compared to the bias introduced due to the random loading on welded joints applying the MinerPalmgren rule. Therefore, the Miner-Palmgren damage is in the following used unbiased and no
rainflow correction factor is included.
The uncertainty due to this phenomenon as well as model uncertainties are accounted for by
modelling fatigue failure to occur when the total damage D exceeds , where is defined as
stochastic, for which the Normal distribution is recommended with:
E[ ] = 10
.
CoV [ ] = 0.20

Page No. 39
4.4.2.5 Limit State Formulation
The limit state function applied in the reliability analysis is expressed as,
g ( D, ) = D
The random variable describes general uncertainty associated with the fatigue capacity and D
is the accumulated fatigue damage.
Defining the mean number of stress cycles per time unit to be 0,long term , the total accumulated
fatigue damage in a service period T can be expressed as
D = T 0,long term Dcycle
Dcycle is the expected damage per stress cycle, which depends on the distribution of the local
stress range response process and the associated SN-curve.

Applying a bi-linear SN-curve (e.g. the T-curve) and assuming the stress range distribution
within each sea state j , to be Rayleigh distributed, the expected damage per stress cycle in sea
state j is taken as:
Dcycle =
j
1
K2
(2
2 St j ( )
m2
m2
S0
+ 1 2 2
1 +
;
2 2 2 St j ( ) K
S0
m

1 + ;
2 2 2St j ( )
where (; ) and (; ) are the Incomplete and Complementary Incomplete Gamma functions,
respectively, and St j ( ) is the standard deviation of the stress process in sea state j .
The expected damage per stress cycle Dcycle is obtained by summing the weighted expected
damage over all sea states, weighted by the relative number of stress cycles within each sea state.
For a Weibull distributed long term stress range distribution, the expected damage per stress
cycle is calculated as:
D cycle =
m2
K2
m2 S 0 B 1 m m S 0 B
1 +
; + A 1 + ;
B A
B A K
where A and B are distribution parameters in the Weibull distribution,
Fs ( s ) = 1 exp ( s / A)
4.4.3 The FM-Approach for Fatigue Assessment

4.4.3.1 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, the size of the
developed fatigue crack may be applied as a measurable quantity to reflect the degree of fatigue
damage accumulation when the FM-fatigue approach is applied.
Applying the developed crack size as a measure for the fatigue damage accumulation, the extent
of fatigue damage on the structure between the initial condition (design) and the failure condition

Page No. 40
can be related to this physical measurable parameter. The degree of accumulated fatigue damage
in a joint can then be assessed based on the outcome of inspections aiming at determining the
size of fatigue cracks in the joint.
4.4.3.2 Crack Growth Rate
The basis for most fracture mechanics descriptions of crack growth is a relationship between the
average increment in crack growth and the range K of the stress intensity factor K during a
load cycle. The factor is defined as the stress intensity because its magnitude determines the
intensity 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 main motivation for applying a crack growth model where the stress distribution through the
thickness is taken into account is that it has been observed that the propagation of fatigue cracks
depends highly on the stress distribution. The crack propagation depends further significantly on
the initial size and the initial aspect ratio of the crack.
In order to predict the fatigue crack growth of a surface crack, it is assumed that the crack growth
per stress cycle at any point along the crack front follows the Paris and Erdogan equation. This
equation states that, at a specific point along the crack front, the increment in crack size dr ( )
during a load cycle dN is related to the range of the stress intensity factor K r ( ) for that
specific load cycle through
dr ( )
dN
= C ( )( K ( ))
r
where Cr ( ) and m are material parameters for that specific point along the crack front and
is the location angle.
To simplify the problem it is assumed that the fatigue crack initially has a semi-elliptical shape
with axes a and c, and that the shape remains semi-elliptical as the crack propagates. This
implies that the crack depth parameter a and the crack length 2c are sufficient parameters for
describing the crack front. As a result of this simplification in the modelling of the crack front
curvature, the general differential equation for the crack growth rate can be replaced by two
coupled differential equations,
da
= C A ( K A ) m ; K A > K th
; a( N 0 ) = a 0
dN
dc
= CC ( K C ) m ;
K C > K th ; c( N 0 ) = c 0
dN
The subscripts A and C refer to the deepest point and the end point of the crack at the surface,
respectively. The material parameters C A and CC may differ due to the general triaxial stress
field. The material property m mainly depends on the fatigue crack propagation, assumed to be
independent of the crack size, both in the depth and surface directions. Normally the failure

Page No. 41
criterion refers to a critical value of the crack depth a or the crack length 2c (for surface cracks);
and the equations are conveniently rewritten as:
C K
C
= C
da C K A
dc
; c( a ) = c
0
dN
C K A
da
; N (a ) = N
0
By either fixing the aspect ratio or by expressing the crack length as a function of crack depth,
the first of the above equations is reduced to a constant, and the second equation can be solved
separately. This is referred to as one dimensional crack growth model.
The general expression for the stress-intensity factor is K = Y S tot a , where S tot is the applied
stress and Y is the geometry function accounting for the effect of the boundaries, i.e. the relevant
dimensions of the structure (width, thickness, crack size, crack front curvature etc.).
4.4.3.3 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 to the coupled differential equations, and numerical solution procedures
have to be applied to solve the coupled ordinary first order differential equations.
In the following, the equivalent one dimensional crack growth model is applied for illustration
purposes only. (For a fixed aspect ratio a / c , or by expressing the crack length as a function of
crack depth, an equivalent one dimensional crack growth model can be defined).
The crack growth rate, or the increment in the crack size per stress cycle, is for one-dimensional
crack growth in the depth direction expressed as,
da
dN
= C ( K ( a , c ))
The variables in the differential equations may, for crack growth models not having a lower
threshold, be separated and integrated to give,
a(t )
a0
Ym
da
a
= C ( S i )
N (t )
i =1
where a ( t ) is the crack depth at time t and N ( t ) is the total number of stress cycles in the time
period [0,t ] .
The number of stress cycles to fatigue failure until a critical crack size resulting in e.g. unstable
fracture or plastic collapse is reached, is for offshore structures generally large, and the sum of
the stress ranges can be expressed using the mth moment of the stress range distribution.
The damage accumulation from the stress response process can then be expressed as,
[ ]
( a N ) = C N ( t ) E S

Page No. 42
where the term ( a N ) is an indicator of the damage accumulated by the crack growth from an
initial crack size value a0 to a crack size a N after N stress cycles
aN
(a N ) =
a0
da
a
For variable amplitude loading, the sequential order of loads may have an influence on the crack
growth rate, however, the sequence effect is typically of minor importance for offshore
structures.
The above model can be directly extrapolated to be valid also for crack growth models involving
threshold levels on the stress intensity factor. Special attention then has to be made in the
derivation of the m'th moment of the stress intensity range as the stress intensity is a function of
both the crack size and the stress level. For crack growth models involving thresholds, the
damage indicator can be expressed as
aN
(a N ) =
a0
da
G(a ) Y
where G ( a ) is a reduction factor in the range [ 0 1] , depending on the threshold level K th and
the stress range process S .
When the long-term distribution of stress ranges S is defined through a Weibull distribution,
with scale parameter A and shape parameter B, the m'th moment of the stress range is
[ ]= A
E S
1 +
and the reduction factor G ( a ) can be shown to be,

B
K th
m
1 + ;

B A Y a
G( a ) =
m
1 +
where ( ) and ( ; ) are the gamma function and the complementary incomplete gamma
function, respectively.
For a stationary Gaussian stress range process, a good approximation in the accumulation
analysis is obtained by replacing the Gaussian process with an equivalent ideal narrow banded
process with the same spectral moments 0 and 2 . The m'th moment of the stress range then
becomes,
[ ] = (2
E S
2 0
1 +
and the mean number of stress cycles in a time period T is equal to the mean number of upcrossings of the mean stress level in that period

N T = 0T =
Page No. 43
4.4.3.4 Fatigue Quality
One element affecting the fatigue life of a component is the initial fatigue quality. 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.
For the purpose of design, the initial fatigue quality can be characterised by the initial crack size
and/or the time to fatigue crack initiation. The initial crack size a0 and the time to crack
initiation T0 (or number of load cycles N 0 ) are often not well-known parameters and should
therefore be considered as random variables with a certain statistical distribution.
The time to crack initiation is being defined as the time from beginning of fatigue loading to the
time of possible crack detection. Data on N 0 for welded steel offshore structures, which are
coupled to a crack size a0 are sparse. However, for welded structures a common approach is to
neglect the crack initiation time due to the presence of initial weld defects.
Cracks existing in the structure entering service include defects considered acceptable according
to codes, as well as those undetected during fabrication and installation. It is a formidable task
carrying out calculations allowing for the occurrence of defects in all shapes, locations and
orientations which might arise, and it is common practice to simplify the modelling by assuming
the cracks to be of the same type, i.e. undercuts oriented normal to the principal stress at the
location, or that they can be grouped. Since planar defects, like lack of penetration, undercuts,
etc. are similar in nature to a crack, the number of cycles to initiate a fatigue crack from such
defects is small compared to the overall life.
Surface defects are usually more dangerous than embedded defects as they are often located at
stress concentrations and normal to the principal stress. Experience has shown that almost all
fatigue cracks resulted from an initial surface defect.
4.4.3.5 Fatigue Crack Growth Material Parameters
Fatigue tests indicate a considerable amount of scatter in the obtained fatigue capacities, which is
believed to be a result of inhomogeneous material properties. However, fatigue cracks associated
with welded joints may propagate through different materials, i.e. the weld metal, the heataffected-zone (HAZ) or the base (plate) material. For welded joints, cracks often initiate at the
weld toe from undercuts, slag inclusions and/or initial cracks, and propagate through HAZ and
into the base material. Thus, the crack growth data used for fatigue life predictions must be
representative, concerning inhomogeneous material and differences in material properties.
Relevant crack growth data for welded joints should be expressed through the material
parameters m and C in the Paris equation. Crack growth data are generated in the laboratory
under constant cyclic loading on simple specimens with accepted characterising stress intensity
factors. The challenge is to define reasonable distributions for the material parameters and to
estimate the distribution parameters based on available laboratory test results.

Page No. 44
Several studies have indicated a high negative correlation between m and lnC. However, the
choice of randomisation should be based on a judgement of what is a reasonable representation
of reality. The probability model implicit in the recommendations for Paris constants in BSI PD
6493 (1991) and DNV (1984) is based on a deterministic m and randomised C. It is important for
this description that the typical crack growth rates (low and intermediate) are adequately fitted.
In Table 4.6, published values for lnC and m are given according to DNV (1984). The values are
based on collected data from various investigations and are recommended when other relevant
information is not available.
Table 4.6
Modelling of lnC and m in Paris equation. Units [N, mm]
Environment
lnC (mean, std.dev.)
In air and non corrosive
3.1
Normal(-29.84, 0.55)
In sea water
3.5
Normal(-31.01, 0.77)
It should be noted that the values for lnC given above are only valid for the units [N, mm], and
that it is necessary to adjust the values for other units. The most typical conversion is from mm to
m:
ln( C ) [ N,m ] = ln( C ) [ N,mm ] ( m 15
. + 1) ln(1000 )
Offshore structures are subjected to numerous cycles in the low crack growth rate regime, and it
is therefore of importance to establish the threshold values, K th , below which stress intensity
the crack is non-propagating. Considerable scatter has been reported for the modelling of the
threshold level, and for stress intensities close to the threshold level the crack growth rates are
found to be sensitive to the mean stress and environmental factors.
4.4.3.6 Limit State Formulation / Failure Criteria
Many uncertainties are related to the fatigue life predictions of offshore structures, both for
application of SN-curves, the Miner type cumulative damage models, and the fracture mechanics
based models. Uncertainties in the loading conditions, the material parameters, the initial fatigue
quality and the stress intensity factor have to be considered. In probabilistic fracture mechanics
these parameters are represented by random variables.
Reliability assessments for fatigue crack growth can be expressed as limit state formulations. The
failure criteria may be defined as,
aC a N 0
where a C (or c C ) is the critical crack size based on serviceability criteria, e.g. through the
thickness crack or economic repair limits, or ultimate collapse criteria, i.e. unstable fracture and
plastic collapse, or buckling that significantly reduces the static strength. a N is the size of the
developed crack after N stress cycles.

Page No. 45
As the damage indicator ( a ) is a monotonically increasing function of the crack size, failure
occurs when the damage indicator for the critical crack size ( a C ) is exceeded by the
accumulated load effect C i =1 S i . The failure criterion can then be written as
N
aC
( a C ) ( a N ) =
a0
Y(x)
dx C S i
i =1
and the safety margin M is defined as

aC
M=
a0
Y(x)
dx C S i
i =1
The failure probability, i.e., the probability that the size of the crack exceeds a critical limit
within the time period T (or N) is then,
PF = P( M 0 )
4.4.4 Load and Response Modelling

4.4.4.1 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 shortterm 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.
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.
4.4.4.2 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, TZ , defined as the time between successive up-crossing of
the still water level, averaged over the number of waves.

Page No. 46
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 TZ values.
A unique wave spreading function may be assigned to all, or a subset, of the wave-statistics
defined by each assigned scatter diagram.
Main wave directions:
Sets of wave observations may be sorted with respect to the main wave directions if
directional buoy or hindcast data are available with statistics on the observations for different
sectors. Otherwise, the statistical properties for the waves may be assumed identical for all
sectors. The main wave direction denotes the middle direction for each of the defined sectors,
and the structural analysis is for simplicity only performed for waves at these discrete
directions. Each main wave direction i is defined by the incoming wave direction angle i ,
measured relative to a given reference direction, defined as the structures global x-axis. An
example of sector numbering and main wave directions is shown in Figure 4.7.
Wave spreading
function
- 90
ct
dire
ave
n w o. 2
i
a
n
M
ion
45
w(, 2 )
b)
-4 5
a)
90
S
Reference direction
(Global X-axis)
Reference direction
(Global X-axis)
Figure 4.7 a) Example of 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 probability that the main wave direction is i , i=1,2,.., N
i
where N is the number of possible main wave directions, and


N
P
i =1
Page No. 47
=1
Eight different main directions are considered i.e. N = 8 .

Wave scatter diagram:
The scatter diagram gives the occurrence frequency of a discrete number of combinations of
( HS , TZ ), where the scatter diagram is commonly defined on a bi-variate discrete form. The
discrete values of ( HS , TZ ) data may be approximated by an analytical bi-variate distribution,
e.g. a joint log-normal distribution,
log h log t
1
2
s
z
FH S TZ ( hs , t z ) =
,
;
1
2
where (;) is the cumulative distribution function for a pair of standardised normally
distributed random variables with a correlation coefficient . The marginal distribution for
H S is
log hs 1
FHS ( hs ) =
and the conditional distribution of TZ given the value of H S is (see Figure 4.8)
FT
log t + 2 ( log h )
z
s
1
2
t |h =
HS ( z s )
2
2 1

Page No. 48
TZ
pTZ | Hs (t Z | hS j )
j
pTZ | Hs (t Z | hSi )
i
hS i
HS
hS j
Figure 4.8 Marginal continuous probability density function for HS with continuous
probability density function for TZ given HS
The distribution function is thus specified by 5 parameters (1 , 1 , 2 , 2 , ) and these are

uniquely related to the moments of ( H S , TZ ) as
2
E[ H S ] = exp 1 + 1
2
2
E[TZ ] = exp 2 + 2
2
( ( ) )
( exp( ) 1 )
Var[ H S ] = E[ H S ] exp 12 1
2
Var[ TZ ] = E[ TZ ]
2
2
Cov[ H S , TZ ] = E[ H S ] E[ TZ ] exp( 1 2 ) 1
From the available wave scatter diagram, the best estimates
(1, 1, 2 , 2 , )
( , ,
1
, 2 , ) for
are obtained. When different scatter diagrams are applied, i.e. separately for
each main wave direction, the fitting should be made separately for each wave direction.
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

Page No. 49
S (, ) = S ( ) w()
where w() is the wave energy spreading function, which is herein assumed independent of
the wave frequency.
It is commonly 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 ( HS , TZ ).
The common modelling of wave energy spreading function is a frequency independent cosine
power function of the form:
N
+ 1
2
1
w , i =
cos N i
N 1
+
2 2
i <
and zero otherwise. () is the gamma function, i is the main wave direction no. i, and N is a
real number. Figure 4.9 shows the directional function for different values of N . For large
values of N , all the energy is concentrated around the main wave direction.
c = 0.5
N = 20
N = 10
N=4
N=2
-90
-45
45
90
i ( degree)
Figure 4.9 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. 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.
Wave spectrum model:
The wave spectrum defines the distribution of wave energy over different frequencies for a
specified sea state. A commonly applied wave spectrum is the one side Gamma spectrum,
where the Gamma spectrum is uniquely defined in terms of the sea state parameters ( H S , TZ ) ,
S ( ) = A exp B
; >0

Page No. 50
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 TZ by,
2
1
A = HS
16
TZ
3
2
1
2
2
B=
TZ
1 2
3 2
The values = 4 and = 5 yields the PM spectrum (Pierson and Moskowitz 1964).
4.4.4.3 Global Structural Analysis
The structural response to wave induced loading may be determined by the use of finite element
methods (FEM). This includes modelling of the structural stiffness, the damping (only for
dynamic analysis), the influence of marine growth, the stiffness from the foundation and the
wave induced loading.
The finite element model is an idealised representation of the real structure, where the following
simplifications are commonly introduced,
Smaller eccentricities are not modelled.
Eccentricities in the joints are often not modelled.
The marine growth is not included in the calculation of the natural frequencies.
The jacket is modelled as a frame with members connected at rigid joints. In reality the joints
are flexible, and on the global level the joint flexibility is known to have some influence on the
derived response, (Appendix C DNV (1977), 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.
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 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 = Cd
D
2
u n u n + Cm
u n
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 Cd and Cm are the drag and inertia
coefficients, respectively.

Page No. 51
The uncertainty or bias introduced in the fatigue damage calculation using the linear Airy
wave theory is generally not significant for most structures, water depths and wave climates
considered.
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 ( ) .
The response transfer functions for section forces and moments in each beam end are derived
for different wave directions, analysing the structure subjected to waves of different angular
frequencies.
The angular frequencies, or wave periods, should be selected in order to adequately define the
transfer function over the expected range of wave energy. Special care to be given in the
modelling of the transfer function for wave periods close to the eigenperiods of the structure.
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, two
basic approaches exist.
One is to linearise the drag force and compute the response based on the linearised load, i.e.
wave height linearisation.
The other approach is to compute the response using the non-linear force and then linearise
the response in one sea state, i.e. stochastic linearisation, (Borgman (1967)).
When a stochastic linearisation is applied, the influence of applying different sea states for
the linearisation should be considered.
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 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 uncertainty/bias introduced 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 in H S , i.e. the applied H appl ( ) transfer functions for a given
sea state ( H S , Tz ) is expressed as:
H appl ( ) = H calc ( ) X a + X b H S + X c H S

Page No. 52
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).
4.4.4.4 Local Stress Calculation

The global FEM analysis discussed above yields the transfer functions H Fi ( ) for section
forces and moments Fi ( t ) 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. (DNV (1984), AWS (1984), DoE (1984), API (1991, 1993),), use
different definitions of SCF. The hot-spot stress is here 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.
Parameteric formulas exist only for simple joints with members in one plane (e.g. Efthyminu
(1985, 1988), Kuang et. al (1977)). 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 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 parameteric formulas available for an axially loaded T-joint at
the chord saddle (Lalani et al. (1986)), demonstrated that significant differences existed.
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 may be calculated as (DNV (1993b)):
hot = SCFax
N
A
SCFipb
M ipb
I
z ' local SCFopb
M ipb
I
y ' local
where
N
the axial force in the brace
M ipb
the bending moment in the brace about the IPB-axis
M opb
the bending moment in the brace about the OPB-axis
the cross section area
the moment of inertia for the pipe section

Page No. 53
y ' local , z ' local
the co-ordinates of the stress point relative to the section centre of gravity, in
the in-plane/out-of-plan axis system
SCFax
SCF for axial stress
SCFipb
SCF for in-plan bending stress
SCFopb
SCF for out-of-plan bending stress
It is a common practice to check the fatigue life of 8 points along the brace/chord intersection,
i.e. the SCFs are calculated for eight locations around each brace/chord intersection.
Based on the transfer functions H Fi ( ) for all section forces (i.e. i=1: axial force, i=2: in-plan
bending moment and i=3: out-of-plan bending moment), the cross section properties and the
SCFs, the spectral density of the hot-spot stress in a unidirectional sea state is defined from:
3
S ( ) = I i I j H Fi ( ) H F j ( ) S ( )
*
i =1 j =1
where the asterisk denotes the complex conjugate and

I1 =
I2 =
I3 =
SCFax
A
SCFipb
I
SCFiob
I
z ' local
y ' local
The parametric formulas for SCFs do not provide information about the variation of SCFs
along the intersection brace/chord. This lead to uncertainties in the estimation of the real hotspot stress when the maximum resulting stress due to axial force, in-plane and out-of plane
bending moments is to be defined.
Because the position of the hot-spot is not known, a common procedure is to add the
maximum stresses derived separately from the axial and bending loads in order to obtain the
hot-spot stress. Such an approach will usually result in conservative estimates of the hot-spot
stresses. The degree of conservatism depends on the actual geometry and the contribution of
bending stresses to the total hot-spot stress. In order to reduce the degree of conservatism, the
Uncertainty associated with the modelling of the SCFs may be defined in two levels:
The first level is one single common uncertainty factor on all the stress concentration
factors. The uncertainty in stress concentration is due to the fabrication inaccuracies and
approximations made in the stress calculation or joint classification.
The second level is uncertainty on the SCFs for each degree of freedom, i.e. for axial load,
in-plan bending moment and out-of-plan bending moment.

Page No. 54
4.4.5 Stress Range Distribution

The fatigue strength is expressed in terms of the number of stress cycles N of stress range S
leading to failure. Statistics for the number of stress cycles and the stress range distribution must
consequently be produced from the statistical description of the hot-spot stress process.
For a random stress process the definition of stress cycles is not unique and several different
methods can be applied to define the number of stress cycles, including the peak counting
method, the range counting method and the rain flow counting. A detailed description of the
methods can be found in e.g. (Madsen et al. (1986)).
For a narrow band stress process there is only one maximum between two consecutive up
crossings of the mean level making the identification of stress cycles straightforward. The three
mentioned counting methods also give identical results for such a process. For a wide band
process or a process with a multi-mode spectral density function, there may be several local
maxima between one up crossing of the mean level and the following mean up crossing, and the
three counting methods will give different results.
The rain flow counting method gives generally results which are in better agreement with
experimental results than the peak counting method which tends to overestimate the fatigue
damage, and the range counting method which tends to underestimate the fatigue damage. The
rain flow counting method is, however, used for time series of the stress process and has not yet
been formulated for a response described by its spectral density function, even for a Gaussian
stress process.
For offshore jacket structures with insignificant dynamic amplification, the hot-spot stress
process tends to be narrow-banded as the wave loading is reasonably narrow banded and the
structure behaves in a quasi-static manner. However, cancellation effects may give rise to a
bimodal or even multi modal spectral density functions for the response.
Jacket structures which have a large resonant component in the response also have narrow
banded response as the damping ratio generally is small. It is therefore believed that there is not
introduced any error of importance by assuming the stress response process to be narrow banded
and applying the peak counting method.
The calculation of the fatigue life involves an estimation of the total number of stress cycles and
m
the "crack driving force", i.e. the m'th moment of the stress range distribution, E [ S ] . Applying
the peak counting method, the stress range is defined as two times the peak value and the number
of stress cycles is equal to the number of up crossings of the mean level. The mean number of
stress cycles for a stationary stress process in a time period T is then
N T = 0T
where 0 is the mean up-crossing rate of the process. For a narrow banded Gaussian stress
process the stress ranges are Rayleigh distributed with the distribution function
2
s
;
FS ( s ) = 1 exp
2
8 ( Std ( ))
s>0
where Std( ) is the standard deviation of the stress process.

m
The mth moment of the local stress range response process E [ S ] is calculated as :

E [S ] = ( Std ( )) ( 2 2 ) (1 +
m
Page No. 55
Knowing the spectral density of the stress response, 0 and Std( ) are:
0 =
( Std ( )) = 0
2
where i is the i'th spectral moment, defined as:
To estimate long term properties for E [ S ] and 0 , the long term distribution of sea states
( H S TZ ) must be taken into account.
m
The long term distribution of stress ranges is obtained as the weighted average of the short term
distributions, weighted with the relative number of stress cycles within each specific short term
sea state. Each sea state is described by the significant wave height H s , the mean zero crossing
period Tz and the mean wave direction . For each hot-spot, the short term stress range
distribution function for the i'th sea state is defined as FS ( s, H s , Tz , ) i , where FS () is given by the
equations above with standard deviation depending on ( H s , Tz , ) .
The fraction of sea states with the i'th combination of ( H s , Tz , ) is denoted by qi , and the mean
zero crossing frequency for the stress process with this sea state parameter combination is
denoted as 0,i . The long term mean zero crossing frequency is
0, long term = qi 0, i
H s Tz
since the sum of the weights qi is unity. The expected number of stress cycles in a time period T
is obtained by multiplying 0, long term by T.
The long term distribution of stress ranges may now be determined as
FS , long term =
0, long term
qi 0,i FS ( s, H s , Tz , )i
H s Tz
This long term distribution function is of a somewhat complicated form and requires
considerable computation time.
When performing the updating of the estimated fatigue reliability based on the outcome of
inspections, there are usually no observations available of the environment, loads or response of
the structure. It is therefore an unnecessary complication to apply a rather detailed load model in
the reliability updating based on inspections of cracks. A more computational advantageous
procedure is instead to model the load in terms of a long term stress distribution at each hot-spot,
where the applied long term stress distribution is derived from the detailed analysis. A fit of the
computed long-term distribution to a simpler distribution may be used.

Page No. 56
The two parameter Weibull distribution has been confirmed in many studies to provide the best
fit for such a long term distribution of the load response. The load model with a large number of
random variables can be simplified to a model with only two uncertain distribution parameters
applying a long term Weibull stress range distribution:
The task is then to determine the values for the distribution parameters which result in a close
agreement between the original and the fitted distribution, where the goodness of the fit is judged
by the difference in the estimated fatigue damage by using the two approaches.
Experience shows that the value of the shape parameter B is typically in the area between 0.8 and
1.2, with the lower values for drag loading dominated structures and the higher values for inertia
loading dominated structures.
The estimated fatigue damage D within a time period T having a Weibull long term stress range
distribution and a fatigue capacity defined through a SN-curve (not accounting for possible
threshold or change in slope) is given as
D=
0, long term T
K
[ ]
E S
0, long term T
K
m
A 1 +
The Weibull distribution parameters can be determined by fitting the Weibull distribution at two
fractile levels. The fractiles corresponding to these two levels define three stress range intervals.
An intuitively good choice for selecting the two fractile levels for which the fitting is to be
determined is the fractile levels dividing the contribution to the fatigue damage into three equal
intervals.
With the SN-curve slope parameter m = 3 and the Weibull shape parameter B = 1 , such a
division is obtained for the 95'th and 99'th percentile fractile levels. Defining the corresponding
stress values for the original long term stress range distribution s95 and s99 , the Weibull
parameters A and B for the fitted distribution are then
k ln s0.99 ln a 0.95
A = exp
k 1
B=
ln( ln 0.05)
ln s0.95 ln A
where
k=
ln( ln 0.05)
ln( ln 0.01)
= 0.718
Experience shows that the fit is quite stable for varying choices of the fractile level, which
confirms the goodness in the choice of the Weibull distribution. More elaborate fitting
procedures may involve fitting several fractile levels using with a least square, or other, fitting
procedure.
Uncertainties associated with the original long term distribution can be reflected through a
stochastic modelling of the fitted long term Weibull distribution parameters by assuming the
parameters ln( A) and 1 / B to be e.g. bivariate normally distributed.
The stochastic Weibull distribution parameters can be fitted in an equivalent manner. Knowing
the variance and the second spectral moment of the hot-spot stress within each sea-state and the

Page No. 57
long term distribution of sea states for the given structural location, the five quantities E [ln( A)] ,
Std [ln( A )] , E [1 / B] , Std [1 / B] and [ln( A),1 / B] can be estimated based on three cumulative
probability levels approximately dividing the fatigue contribution into four areas of equal
magnitude, applying two stress levels at each probability level, (Skjong & Torhaug (1991)).
This procedure requires six FORM analyses in order to estimate the five parameters and thus
requires considerable resources, and for some cases an alternative procedure may be required due
to possible convergence problems in the FORM analyses. An alternative and much simpler
stochastic fitting procedure is summarised in the following;
calculate two (deterministic) fatigue lives Tlife 1 and Tlife 2 applying constant slope SN-curve
for two different, m1 and m2 , where the long term fatigue damage is calculated as a sum of
partial damages within each short term sea state (e.g. a stochastic fatigue analysis using the
SESAM software system).
calculate the equivalent Weibull parameters A and B which give the same fatigue lives, by
solving (numerically) the following two equations with two unknown parameters (i.e. A and
B):
Tlife 1 =
Tlife 2 =
K
0 ,long term A
(1 + m1 / B )
m1
K
0,long term A
m2
(1 + m2 / B )
The influence of different choices of m1 and m2 on the estimated value of the Weibull shape
and scale parameters A and B has been studied and is shown to be very limited.
calculate the probability of failure as function of the service time, applying a probabilistic SNfatigue approach, where the long term fatigue damage accumulation is calculated as a sum of
the partial damages within each short term sea state.
assume B to be deterministic and ln( A) to be Normal distributed with mean values equal to
the value obtained by solving for the two equations above. Calibrate the uncertainty in ln( A)
such that the probability for fatigue failure over time, applying the Weibull distribution,
approximates the results obtained when the long term fatigue damage accumulation is
calculated as the sum of the partial fatigue damages within each short term sea state.
This simple procedure is applied in the application example presented in DNV (1995b).
4.4.6 Formulation of Inspection Results

The objective of an in-service inspection plan is to keep the structure at an acceptable safety level
during its service life with respect to human lives, pollution, operation (production) and costs of
structure and equipment. The discussion of updating with respect to in-service inspections
presented in this subsection is limited to fatigue related inspections for a single location.
In-service inspection is performed in order to assure that the existing cracks in the structure,
which may have been present from the initial delivery or have arisen at a later stage during the
service time do not exceed maximum tolerable sizes. The reliability of a Non-Destructive

Page No. 58
Examination (NDE) is described by the ability to detect an existing crack as a function of the
crack size and by the uncertainty associated with the sizing of an identified crack.
The detection ability as a function of a defect size is defined by the Probability Of Detection
(POD) curve,
P( x ) = P( detection of crack x )
where x is the size of the crack (usually crack length 2c ). It can be shown that the cumulative
distribution function for the smallest detectable crack size is expressed through the POD curve.
In the General Guideline (DNV 1995a) typical POD curves for different inspection scenarios are
presented. The curves are defined on the form,
P ( 2c ) = 1
1
1 + ( 2c / x 0 )
where the values for the distribution parameters x 0 and b depend on the inspection scenario.
In Table 4.7 typical values for x 0 and b for different inspection scenarios are given. The
corresponding POD curves are shown in Figure 4.10.
Probability Of Detection (POD)
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
MPI Under water
MPI Above water; ground test surface
0.20
MPI Above water; not ground test surface

Eddy current
0.00
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
Crack length (mm)
Figure 4.10
POD curves for different inspection scenarios.

Table 4.7
Page No. 59
POD distribution parameters for different inspection scenarios

x0
MPI under water
2.950
0.905
MPI above water;

ground test surface
MPI above water;
not ground test surface
Eddy Current
4.030
1.297
8.325
0.785
12.28
1.790
Inspection Scenario
Regardless of whether or not cracks are detected, each inspection provides additional information
to that available at the design stage which can be used to update the reliability. This can lead to
modifications of future inspection plans, changes in the inspection method, or a decision on
repair or replacement.
When a repair of a detected crack is made it is important to account for the information that a
repair was necessary. Often it is not possible to determine if the unexpected large crack size has
been caused by a large initial size, by material properties poorer than anticipated, or by a loading
of the crack area larger than anticipated.
The updating based on inspection results can be performed with the stress range distributions
resulting from detailed uncertainty modelling of the environmental conditions (sea scatter
diagram, wave energy spreading and wave spectrum), response transfer function and stress
concentrations.
It is, however, extremely time effective to calibrate a stress range distribution with a smaller
number of random variables. The distribution parameters, A and B, for the approximated longterm Weibull stress range distribution, are calibrated to include the uncertainties described above.
Inspection updating is based on the definition of conditional probability,
P( F | I ) =
P( F I )
P( I )
P( F | I ) is the probability that event F occurs given that event I occurs. For example, if F is the
failure of a structural component and I is the inspection event, then P( F | I ) is the estimated
probability of failure given the inspection outcome.
4.4.7 Event Margins with Inspections Results:

The influence of the inspection results are in the reliability modelling formulated through event
margins.
An inspection results in either no detection or the detection of a crack. This can be formulated as
follows,
i) 2c( Ti ) 2c pod

Page No. 60
ii) 2c( T j ) = 2cobs

In the first case, no cracks were found in the inspection after the time Ti , implying that any
cracks were smaller than the smallest detectable crack size 2c pod , where 2c pod is defined from
the POD curve for the applied NDE method.
In the second case, a crack size 2cobs is observed after the time T j , where 2cobs is random due to
uncertainties in the crack sizing.
For each inspection which does not result in a crack detection, an event margin Hi , i = 1,2,K s ,
can be defined similar to the safety margin used to describe fatigue failure, where for a 1-D crack
propagation model may be formulated as:
Hi =
a ( 2 c pod )
Y(x)
a0
[ ]
dx C N i E S
This event margin is positive as the developed crack size is smaller than the detectable crack
size.
For each measurement resulting in the detection of a crack, an event margin H j can similarly be
defined as
Hj =
a ( 2 c obs )
a0
Y( x)
[ ]
dx C N j E S
This safety margin is zero as the developed crack size is equal to the observed crack size.
The situation is envisaged where no crack is detected in the first r inspections at a location, while
a crack is detected by the r+1'th inspection and its size is measured at this and the following s-1
inspections. The updated failure probability is in this case
PF = P( g( X ) 0 | H1 > 0 K H r > 0 H r +1 = 0 K H r + s = 0 )
u
A more general situation involves simultaneous consideration of several locations with

potentially dangerous cracks for which inspections are carried out. The updating procedure still
applies when due consideration is taken to the dependence between basic variables referring to
different locations. A more detailed description concerning failure probability calculations of
parallel systems is given in the DNV PROBAN Theory Manual (DNV 1993a).
In addition to inspection, the knowledge that a repair has been performed can be used to update
the failure probability. When a repair is made at time N rep stress cycles, the crack length a rep is
measured. The event margin H rep is defined as
arep
H rep =
a0
Y( x)
[ ]
dx C N rep E S m = 0
The crack size present after repair and a possible inspection is a random variable a 0,new and the
material properties after repair are mnew and C new . These variables may or may not be the same

Page No. 61
as the original depending on the type of repair, grinding or welding repair. The safety margin
after repair is M new ,
M new =
aC
a0 , new
Y( x)
mnew
mnew
dx Cnew ( N N rep ) E S mnew
and the updated failure probability after repair is

PFu = P( M new 0 | H rep = 0)
4.5 Total structural collapse (ULS)

4.5.1 General
The structural behaviour near a total collapse failure can be very complex and expensive to
assess. This complexity can be due to the non-linear mechanical behaviour of the structure and
the applied loading and load distribution near failure. The structural behaviour beyond the first
member-failure, depends not only on the degree of static indeterminacy, but also on the ability of
the structure to redistribute the load and the post-failure behaviour, e.g. the ductility of the
individual members and joints.
In addition, the probability of system failure depends on the uncertainty of the load, uncertainty
of the member capacity and the correlation between the uncertain parameters. For a perfectly
balanced structure (i.e. the first member failure has the same probability of occurrence for all
members in a linear analysis, or designed with the same utilisation ratio) the system effects for
overload capacity beyond the first member failure are strictly due to the randomness in the
member capacities. In contrast, in a more realistic unbalanced structure the system effects are
both due to deterministic and probabilistic effects. In an unbalanced structure, the utilisation ratio
is different for the different members, both in the intact and in the potentially damaged states of
the structure. Hence, deterministic system effects are present because the remaining members in
the structure can still carry the load after one or several members have failed. In addition,
randomness in the member capacities gives a probabilistic contribution to the collapse capacity.
A major question is then how important the probabilistic effect is as compared to the
deterministic effect.
Based on results from reliability analyses, the following characteristic features of the ultimate
load capacities for offshore structures are identified:
- The uncertainties in the structural capacity are much less than in the loading.
- Due to highly correlated load effects, the different failure sequences for the members are
highly correlated.
- Offshore structures are usually not balanced, which means that there is one or a few failure
modes which dominate.
A complete reliability analysis of a real multi-leg jacket structure with respect to structural
collapse (overload failure) is very complicated and intractable, and simplifications
(approximations) are required.
Experience based on simulation studies (Dalane (1993), Sigurdsson et al. (1994)), of both
balanced and unbalanced designed jacket structures at water depth about 70 m, has shown that

Page No. 62
the ultimate capacity, or collapse capacity, of the structures can be related directly to the total
base-shear force on the structures. Also the load pattern (e.g. the wave height, the wave period
and the model describing the link between the wave kinematics and the wave forces, i.e. the drag
coefficient, the mass coefficient in Morison equation and marine growth) was shown to have
minor effect on the calculated collapse capacity obtained in the push-over analysis. It is,
however, recommended that the sensitivity of the collapse capacity to the wave height and period
is analysed e.g. by performing push-over analyses applying different load patterns (different
waves). For deeper water, the load pattern will have more effect and the collapse capacity should,
if possible, be related directly to the total over-turning moment rather than to the total base-shear
force. However, this will dependent on the structural details being critical, for the legs it is the
overturning moment that is considered and for the braces it is the shear force.
In reliability assessment of jacket structures, the evaluation is generally load driven, i.e. the
uncertainties in the load modelling are much greater than in the collapse capacity modelling. The
above referred simulation studies of collapse capacity of jackets have shown that the coefficient
of variation CoV [ L] for the annual extreme base shear loading L on the structures are about 0.4,
while the coefficient of variation CoV [CC ] for the base-shear capacity of the structures are about
0.05- 0.10, dependent on the applied CoV for the yield stress. Furthermore the simulations
showed that the CoV for the collapse capacity was much smaller than the uncertainty in the yield
capacity (approximately 50%) and it was shown that the Normal distribution gives an acceptable
fit of the uncertainty distribution of the CC.
Reliability analysis of these structures have shown that the importance of modelling the collapse
capacity as a random variable is insignificant, which indicates that the median or the mean
collapse capacity E[ CC] can be used with good accuracy. In this analysis, data from the North
Sea were used for estimating the uncertainties in the sea state. The drag coefficient CD , the mass
coefficient C M and the marine growth Mg were modelled as random variables, which reflects the
uncertainties in prediction of extreme wave/current load condition for a given sea state. In
. ,a
Sigurdsson et. al. (1994) and van de Graaf et. al (1994) it is shown that for CoV [CC ] < 01
deterministic description of the collapse capacity is suitable for quantification of the probability
of collapse failure.
In the studies referred to above, only intact structures are considered. Similar simulation studies
have been performed for different damage-scenarios of the structures (results not published),
indicating the same results as presented above.
The indication concerning the insignificance of modelling the collapse capacity CC as stochastic,
is, however, based on study of a limited number of structures. More extensive studies on the
importance of modelling the randomness in the collapse capacity, including evaluation of
correlation between the load pattern and the collapse capacity, are needed for making a more
general conclusions in this subject.
4.5.2 Limit State Formulation

By relating the collapse capacity to the total base-shear (or the total over-turning moment) the
collapse capacity, for a given load direction , can be represented by a single random variable
CC , and the annual extreme loading (i.e. the base-shear or the over-turning moment) can be
represented by a single random variable L . The limit state function for the reliability analysis
can then for load direction be expressed as,

Page No. 63
g ( cc , l ) = cc l
The collapse capacity CC , for a given load direction , can be expressed as
CC = X CCanalysis X CC model CCcalc
where CCcalc is the calculated capacity, X CC analysis is the model uncertainty, introduced in
order to account for the inconsistence in the analysis and X CC model is the model uncertainty in
the calculated capacity, which is generally dependent on the geometry of the structure, material
properties, the load pattern and the load direction, and other parameters.
The model uncertainty X CC model can in general be assessed by comparing the calculation with
results obtained by experiments or advanced numerical analysis. Usually limited information is
available for quantifying the model uncertainty and the uncertainty it is common to model this
uncertainty by a unconditioned Normal or Log-normal distributed stochastic variable.
The model uncertainty X CC analysis can be assessed by considering the results obtained by
different engineers, considering the same structure and identical environmental criteria. It should
be noted that the analysis uncertainty include both the load and the response modelling, but is
included here on the capacity model. The analysis uncertainty is function of the type of analysis
undertaken. In DNV (1995a) Section 6, the analysis uncertainties for different type of analyses of
jack-ups and deep water floaters are outlined, and the CoV varies from about 10%-65%
dependent on the complexity of the analysis. For collapse analysis of jackets, no data have been
found in the literature and the results given in DNV (1995a) Section 6, can not be applied
directly for jacket structures. As an indication, however, a CoV in the order of 10%~20% is
reasonable.
The calculated capacity CCcalc is inherently stochastic due to uncertainties in material and
geometric properties. As discussed above, the calculated capacity may, however, for most
practical purposes be assumed deterministic. The functional relation of the CCcalc and the
wave/current profile applied for load calculation in the push-over analysis must be considered for
each case.
The annual extreme base-shear loading acting of the structure, L , can be expressed as;
L = X L jack L jack + Lwind + X L deck Ldeck
L jack is the calculated hydrodynamic loading with associated model uncertainty X L jack .
Lwind is the wind loading. Ldeck is the calculated hydrodynamic loading on the deck structure
with associated model uncertainty X L deck , only applicable when the wave hit the deck.
L jack and Ldeck are stochastic due to randomness (aleatory uncertainties) in the sea state for
given load direction , i.e. the wave height, the wave period, current speed and uncertainties
(epistemic) in the hydrodynamic parameters applied in the load calculations.
The model uncertainties X L jack and X L deck are introduced to account for uncertainties in
the applied models for hydrodynamic loading for a given environmental condition, which can in
general be assessed by comparison with results obtained by experiments or advanced numerical

Page No. 64
analyses. Modelling of these uncertainties are highly dependent on the theoretical models and the
uncertainty level included in L jack and Ldeck .
A number of studies are available concerning the load prediction accuracy for given wave
condition, e.g. Haring et. al. (1979), Nerzic and Lebas (1988), Heideman and Weaver (1992),
Elzinga and Tromans (1992). The results from these studies vary significantly, both in bias and
scatter, e.g. the CoV varies in the range of 10%-35%. The predictions are based on different
wave theories with different choices of hydrodynamic coefficients, and some studies do not
account for possible current loading. The main conclusion that can be drawn is, however, that
considerable uncertainty seems to be related to the load prediction.
In Nerzic and Lebas (1988), it has been demonstrated that the uncertainty in load prediction is
not independent of the calculated loading (the CoV decrease with increasing wave height).
Haver (1995) presents a review and a discussion of some available information about
uncertainties in load and response estimates for jackets. The main conclusion is that uncertainties
in the hydrodynamic forces are completely governed by the inherent randomness (aleatory
uncertainties) of the annual largest wave. It is therefore crucial that this quantity is properly
modelled. Concerning uncertainties being more of an epistemic nature, priority should be given
to reduce the uncertainties related to the description of the wave conditions. Thereafter
uncertainties related to the load calculation procedure could be attacked. In the study by Haver
(1995), the model uncertainties are assumed to be unbiased and the impacts of possible bias is
not considered in the evaluation.
In Puskar et.al. (1994), a comparison of the calculated and observed platform damage during the
hurricane Andrew in the Gulf of Mexico on August 24th-26th. 1992 is performed. The calculated
and the true ratio of capacity to load are compared, i.e. the model uncertainties in the capacity
X CC model and the jacket loading X L jack are represented by a single bias factor. The conclusions
from this study, based on an evaluation of 13 platforms, indicated a bias factor with mean value
in the range of 1.1 - 1.2 and CoV of 0.1.
It should be noted that the model uncertainty depends on the procedures applied for calculating
the wave force and the ultimate capacity, and the platform design. The platforms studied by
Puskar et al. (1994) had failure mechanisms associated primarily with K-joints and the
foundation (pile hinging and pile plunging), and the results may differ for platforms with other
failure modes.
The failure probability of the structure may be derived by considering a failure in each specified
wave direction ( i , i = 1K N dir ) as a separate failure event with failure mode L i CC i . The
annual system failure probability may be obtained by calculating the union of all the failure
events, i.e. a series system, given by
} {
Pf annual P L 1 CC 1 U L 2 CC 2 UKU L N CC N dir

dir
As discussed above, the uncertainties in the environmental prediction usually dominating in the
reliability analysis. When the difference between the considered environmental directions are
considerable, say 45o or more, the uncertainties for the different directions can be assumed uncorrelated. For small failure probabilities the total failure probability may be approximated as the
sum of the individual failure probabilities for each wave directions,

Pf annual
Page No. 65
( Pf annual | i ) P( i )
i =1, N dir
where P() is the probability of the load direction and Pf annual is the conditional annual
probability of collapse failure given the load direction , which is obtained by
Pf annual = P{ L CC }
1 FL ( x ) f CC ( x ) dx
X
FCC ( x ) f L ( x ) dx
X
where X is vector of the stochastic variables going into the reliability model, FL ( ) and
FCC ( ) are the conditional cumulative annual probability distributions of the load and the
collapse capacity given the load direction , respectively, and f L ( ) and f CC ( ) are the
corresponding probability density functions.
For a small Pfannual , the total system failure probability Pf over a given time nlife (years) can be
estimated as,
Pf nlife Pf annual
An overview over a procedure for probability analysis of structural collapse is shown in Figure
4.11.

Structural
Data
Page No. 66
Joint Environmental
Model (HS ,TP ,Cur,...)
Uncertainties
(H,T,Cd,Mg,Y,...)
Limit State
Capacity - Load
PROBAN
Only one call for each

wave direction, when the
Collapse Capacity is
modeled as deterministic
Non-Linear
Push-over Analysis
(E.G.: USFOS)
Hydrodynamic
Loading
(E.G.: WAJAC)
Results :
PF
Sensitivities
Figure 4.11 Probability analysis of structural collapse - Overview

Page No. 67
4.5.3 Distribution of the Annual Maximum Loading (Base-Shear)

In order to establish the probability distribution of the annual maximum base-shear load FL
acting on a given structure, a proper description of the environmental situation is needed.
Quantities to be determined are the long term variations of sea state characteristics, the short term
description of the environmental condition (wave, current, wind etc.) within a given sea state,
and the load model for the base shear loading.
The joint environmental model described in DNV (1995a) Section 5 is recommended for the
long term modelling of the environmental conditions. In the following a brief description of this
model is presented.
The following environmental parameters are included:
1-hour mean wind speed, U w

specified wind and main wave directions, (assumed to be identical)
current speed (collinear with wind and waves), Vc
significant wave height, H s
characteristic spectral period, e.g. the spectral peak period Tp or the mean zero crossing
period Tz
sea water level, D

The long term description of the environmental conditions is thus given by the joint probability
density function
f H s Tz Vc U w D ( hs , t z , v c , uw , d , ) = f H s Tz Vc U w D ( hs , t z , v c , uw , d ) f ()
The direction variable is conveniently divided into a defined number N dir of sectors and is
described by the corresponding probability mass function p ( i ), i = 1,K, N dir . Furthermore, the
description for each sector is establish by factorising the joint distribution as follows,
f Hs Tz Vc U w D ( hs , t z , v c , uw , d ) =
f Tz
Hs
(t z hs , ) fV H ( vc hs , ) fU
c
Hs
( uw hs , ) f D H ( d hs , ) f H ( hs )
s
i.e., given H s and , the random variables Tz , Vc , U w and D are assumed to be mutually
independent.
There is no theoretical preference when it comes to deciding on probabilistic models for the
various conditional density functions. The respective choices have therefore been based on an
empirical basis. In DNV (1995a) a discussion of these probabilistic models is given.
The annual largest loading is assumed to occur when the largest wave (or wave crest) in the
largest annual storm, i.e. annual largest H s , passes the structure. Under a Poissonian assumption
for rare events, the distribution of the annual largest significant wave height, H s, max , for a

Page No. 68
given load direction , may be derived from the long term distribution of the arbitrary significant
wave heights as,
FH
s , max
h = F
h
( s ) [ H ( s )]
N storm
where N storm is the number of annual storms.

However, in the load calculation the distribution of the largest wave height or crest height, and
the corresponding wave period are needed. Different models can be found in the literature, for
predicting the wave height distribution for a stationary sea state, see e.g. Haring (1976), Forristall
(1978), Nss (1983), Krogstad (1985), Vinje (1988).
Knowing the conditioned wave height distribution, FH
Hs
( h h , ) , the distribution of the

s
largest wave height out of N wave wave cycles, H max hs , , may be obtained as,
FH
max H s
( h h , ) = [ F
H Hs
( h h , )]
N wave
The number of waves N wave in a sea state is in general a stochastic variable conditioned on the
significant wave height and can be obtained as.
N wave =
Tz hs
where is the duration of the storm (e.g. 6 hours or 21600 sec.) and Tz hs is the mean zero
crossing period conditioned on the significant wave height.
Forristall (1978) and Krogstad (1985) propose Weibull distribution for the wave heights of a
stationary sea state i.e.
FH
Hs
h hs , = 1 exp
hs
where = 213
. and = 2.26 (Krogstad (1985) propose = 2.28 ). For this case the distribution of
the largest wave height in the largest storm may be obtained as,
H max H s , max

h hs , max , = exp N wave exp
h

s ,max
Concerning wave-deck impact loads, the crest height of the waves becomes an important
parameter. In this case it appears that the crest height should be selected as the primary wave
characteristic rather than the wave height. Haver (1995) discusses this problem and points out
that applicable models are available also for predicting non-Gaussian crest heights. However, at
the present some difficulties arise when the non-Gaussian crest height are associated with a
proper wave profile. Fitting a Stokes 5th order wave to this crest leads to considerable
overestimation of the wave height, e.g. for North Sea location, the 100-years wave height
becomes nearly 2m higher than the 100-years wave height obtained directly from the wave height
statistics.

Page No. 69
It is therefore recommended to apply the wave height as a primary wave characteristic and
combine this with a 5th order Stokian wave profile. The corresponding wave period may be
obtained as,
TH max
0.9 T p
= or
1.2 T
z
when Tp is applied as a characteristic spectral period

when Tz is applied as a characteristic spectral period
Knowing the long term joint distribution of the environmental conditions, the conditional wave
height distribution and the uncertainties in the load calculation procedures (either global model
uncertainty parameters or uncertainties in the basic parameters as the hydrodynamic parameters
etc.), the annual largest long term wave load distribution can be establish by combining a general
probability analysis program (e.g. SESAM:PROBAN, DNV (1993a)) and a wave/current loading
program (e.g. SESAM:WAJAC, DNV (1992a)).
An alternative and much more efficient reliability procedure is to establish, once and for all, a
response surface defining the total base-shear loading for each load direction as function of
characteristic parameters. The response surface gives a functional relationship between the total
base-shear and a set of defined variables. E.g., a 6-dimensional response surfaces could be
defined as a function of hmax (5th order Stokes wave), t H max , vc , c D , c M and the thickness of
the marine growth M g . The response surface is linked to the PROBAN application in order to
calculate the total base-shear loading for a given outcome of the stochastic variables.

Page No. 70
Summary of Application Examples
5. SUMMARY OF APPLICATION EXAMPLES

5.1 Summary of Fatigue Failure Limit State - FLS Example
5.1.1 Modelling Approach
As discussed in Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability Analysis - General (DNV 1995a), a
probabilistic fatigue analysis may be divided into the following four steps:
1. Probabilistic modelling of the environment (short-term and long-term modelling)
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, a stochastic modelling of the fatigue capacity is required. The
probability against fatigue failure is obtained through a probabilistic evaluation of the likelihood
of the event that the accumulated fatigue damage exceeds the defined critical fatigue capacity.
In order to carry out a realistic fatigue evaluation of a jackets structure, it is necessary to
introduce some simplifying assumptions in the modelling. These assumptions consist of;
For a short term period (a few hours) the sea surface can be 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, can
be described by two parameters, the significant wave height HS and some characteristic
period like the spectral peak period TP or the mean zero-mean up-crossing period TZ .
The long term probability distribution of the sea state parameters ( HS TP or HS TZ
diagram) is known.
A frequency domain analysis is adequate. Applying a frequency domain approach for
assessing the structural response, the wave loading on structural members must be linearised
and the structural stress response must be assumed to be a linear function of the loading, i.e.
the structural and material models are assumed linear.
The relationship between the sectional forces and the local hot-spot stresses (SCFs) is known.
For this purpose, an empirical parametric description is most common.
The influence and consequence of the following modelling aspects are discussed in the
application example;
The effect of applying different wave spectra, i.e. PM and JONSWAP spectra.
Influence of wave spreading on the estimated fatigue capacity.
The effect of the linearisation of the wave loading. This can for some structures be of
significance. A study investigating the influence of performing the linearisation at different
sea-states is carried out. This study is based on a stochastic linearisation techniques for three
different sea states.
Two different parametric equations for calculation the SCFs are compared.

Page No. 71
The long-term stress range distribution is defined through a calibrated Weibull distribution.
In order to account for the outcome of the structural inspections in the estimation of the fatigue
reliability of the structure, the fatigue capacity needs to be evaluated applying the Fracture
Mechanics (FM) fatigue approach. A procedure for calibrating the FM-fatigue model to the SNfatigue model is further presented in the application example.
5.1.2 Discussion of Results

The selected North Sea jacket structure that is analysed for the FLS study is 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 a typical characteristic for North Sea
jackets.
In order to identify the most fatigue sensitive structural elements, a frequency domain SN-fatigue
analysis (stochastic fatigue analysis) is performed.
The fatigue lives for the different members in one of the most critical joints in the jacket
structure, joint 589, is considered for the comparison analysis, see Table 5.2.
Table 5.2. Selected joint with associated members to be evaluated for the fatigue life
comparison analysis of the North Sea jacket structure.
Joint Number
Member Number
589
123
152
372
373
401
402
Chord
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
3.50
Brace
0.90
1.00
1.40
1.40
1.10
1.30
Chord
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
65.0
Brace
25.0
45.0
40.0
45.0
30.0
60.0
Joint type
KTT
YT
KTK
KTK
KTK
KTK
Member diameter (m)
Member thick. (mm)
The base case for the fatigue analysis is the use of the transfer functions obtained applying 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 fatigue results obtained from the base case are compared with results from equivalent fatigue
analyses where different common modelling alternatives are considered. The following
variations are compared; the use of a quasi-static approach for deriving the transfer functions, the
use of Kuang's model for deriving the SCFs, the use of a JONSWAP sea spectrum, and the
influence of modelling different degrees of short crested sea.

Page No. 72
The quasi-static and dynamic transfer functions as well as the SCFs are calculated using
SESAM.
Based on the results from the analysis, the following conclusions are made:
The study shows that insignificant differences in the calculated fatigue lives are obtained for
different selections of linearisation sea state, indicating that the loading on the considered
North Sea structure is dominated by linear inertia forces.
The approximation of assuming narrow banded stress response is acceptable.
A dynamic and a quasi-static approach for deriving the transfer functions are compared. It is
observed that applying a quasi-static approach, longer derived fatigue lives are obtained than
for the dynamic approach (by a factor 1.3-4.0).
The fatigue lives obtained applying the Efthyminu empirical model and the Kuang model for
deriving the SCFs are compared. Longer fatigue lives are obtained applying the Kuang model
(by a factor of 2.0-7.0).
The fatigue lives obtained applying the Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum and the
JONSWAP wave spectrum are compared. Only a minor increase in the estimated fatigue lives
are observed using the JONSWAP wave spectrum compared to the PM spectrum.
It is further observed that the estimated fatigue lives are increasing with the level of wave
spreading, but only to a minor degree.
Based on the obtained stress range distribution within each sea state, a long term stress range
distribution is established and approximated to a Weibull distribution. The obtained fatigue
results applying the calibrated long term Weibull distribution for describing the stress ranges
matched the original obtained fatigue results over the service life.
For the probabilistic fatigue analysis using the SN-approach, large influence of the uncertainty
associated with the modelling of the SN-curve capacity and the modelling of the SCF factors
are identified.
In order to carry out probabilistic inspection updating, it is necessary to express the fatigue
reliability of the joints through a FM-approach. The example application study shows that it is
possible to give a good description of the fatigue reliability obtained from the SN-fatigue
approach applying the FM-fatigue approach when the crack initiation time is assumed to be
small.
The probabilistic evaluation applying the FM-approach shows that the uncertainty associated
with the modelling of the local SCFs, the geometry function and the material parameter C in
the FM model have a large influence on the uncertainty modelling.
For probabilistic inspection updating, the inspection accuracy of the last inspection has a large
influence on the estimated updated reliability level.
5.2 Summary of Total Collapse Limit State - ULS Example

5.2.1 Modelling Approach
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

Page No. 73
for the estimation of the collapse capacity. As the problem formulation is load driven, a proper
modelling of the hydrodynamic loading is therefore important.
The limit state function applied in the reliability analysis, is expressed as,
g ( cc , l ) = cc l
where CC is the jacket collapse capacity measured as the total base-shear capacity of the
structure and L is the annual extreme base-shear loading, for a given load direction .
In the example application, the jacket collapse capacity is derived 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 (1992a)).
Modelling and physical uncertainties have been accounted for both in the capacity modelling and
in the environmental description and hydrodynamic loading. See the Example Application report
(DNV 1995b) for a more detailed description of the uncertainty modelling.
5.2.2 Discussion of Results

The selected North Sea jacket structure that is analysed for the ULS study is the same as for the
FLS study, being an existing North Sea structure located at 107 m water depth.
The study shows that the uncertainty in the ultimate capacity model contributes to less than 15%
of the total uncertainty, and that the major portion of the total uncertainty is associated with the
environmental load description (~80%), where the inherent uncertainty in the wave height is the
dominating parameter in the reliability analysis.
At design point, the wind loading contributes to less than 2% of the total loading and may for
probabilistic analyses of jacket structures be considered as deterministic. For the hydrodynamic
loading, the wave loading contributed with about 75%, and the current loading with the
remaining 25%.
A parameter study is carried out in order to investigate different modelling approaches on the
estimated failure probability for total collapse. The results of the parameter study can be
summarised as follows:
CASE-1: Effect of uncertainties on Tz and Vc
Only the NW load direction is considered in the study. For given outcome of H s ,
the Tz and Vc are modelled as deterministic.
Results : For given outcome of H s , the Tz and the Vc can be modelled as
deterministic.
CASE-2: Effect of the model uncertainty in the calculated hydrodynamic loading X L jack .
Variations in the mean value of X L jack in the range of 0.9-1.1 and the CoV in the
range of 0.0-0.4 are studied, considering both a Normal distribution and a LogNormal distribution.

Result:
Page No. 74
The choice of distribution for X L jack is not significant. It is also shown

that a 10% change in the mean value (bias) changes the failure
probability by approximately a factor of two.
CASE-3: Effect of model uncertainty in the calculated collapse capacity X CC model .

Variation in the mean value of X CC model in range of 0.9-1.1 and the CoV in the
range of 0.0-0.4 are studied, where X CC model is modelled as Normal distributed.
Results: 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 larger
CoV ( > 0.2) the estimated failure probability increases dramatically.
CASE-4: Effect of ignoring the relationship between the capacity and the wave height and
period.
The calculated collapse capacity is obtained by applying a 100 years wave condition
and the median value of the wave period.
Results : 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 X L jack and X CC model in the reliability
modelling.
Results : Ignoring the model uncertainties in the reliability model will lead to
underestimation of the failure probability by a factor of approximately
seven.
It should be noted that the results presented in the case studies above are in general only valid for
the current example, but it is expected that the results will be similar also for other North Sea
jackets.

Page No. 75
References
6. 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.
AISC (1986); Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD), Specification for Structural Steel
Buildings, AISC, Chicago, 1986.
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 2495, Houston, Texas.
Dalane J.I. (1993); System Reliability in Design and Maintenance of Fixed Offshore Structures,
Dr. ing thesis, Department of Marine Structures. Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim,
Norway.
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.

Page No. 76
References
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
1980, 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 (1992a); 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 (1992b); Structural Reliability Analysis of Marine Structures, Classification Notes no.
30.6., Det Norske Veritas, July 1992.
DNV (1984); Fatigue Strength Analysis for Mobile Offshore Units, Classification Notes no.
30.2., Det Norske Veritas, August 1984.
DNV (1977); Rules for the Design, Construction and Inspection of Offshore Structures, Det
Norske Veritas, 1977.
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.
Elzinga, T. and Tromans, P.S. (1992); Validation of Newwave Theory and RDWF Predictions
against Measured Global Loading on North Sea Jackets, Boss-92, London, 1992.

Page No. 77
References
EUR, Interaction Diagrams between Axial Load N and Bending Moment M for Columns
Submitted to Buckling: Improvement of Methods Proposed in Standards and Codes. Report EUR
14546 EN. Published by the Commission of the European Communities. Directorate-General
XIII. Telecommunications, Information Market and Exploitation of Research L-2920
Luxembourg.
Eurocode 3 (1993): Prosjektering av stlkonstruksjoner Del 1-1: Generelle regler og regler for
bygninger, 1. utgave februar 1993. NS_ENV 1993-1-1.
European Convention for Constructional Steelwork (1976), Manual on Stability of Steel
Structures.
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.
Haring, R.E., Olsen, O.A. and Johansson, P.I., (1979); Total Wave Force and Moment vs. Design
Practice, Proceeding of ASCE Civil Engineering in the Oceans IV Conference, September 1979.
Haring, R.E., and Spencer, L.P., (1979); The Ocean Test Structure Data Base, Proceeding of
ASCE Civil Engineering in the Oceans IV Conference, September 1979.
Haring, R.E. and Oseborne, A.R. and Spencer, L.P. (1976); Extreme Wave Parameters Based on
Continental Shelf Storm Wave Records, Proc. of 15th Coastal Engineering Conference, ASCE,
1976.
Haver S. (1995); Uncertainties in Force and Response Estimation, E&P FORUM Workshop Uncertainties in the Design Process, paper no. 3.15-229, London, November 2-3, 1995.
Heideman, J.C. and Weaver, T.O. (1992); Static Wave Force Procedure for Environmental Data
on Design, Proceeding of Civil Engineering in the Oceans V, College Station, November 1992.
Hogben, N. et al. (1977); Estimation of fluid loading on offshore structures, Proc. Institution of
Civil Engineers, Vol.63, Part 2, Sept., London, UK.

Page No. 78
References
Kuang, J.G., Potvin, A.B. and Leick, R.D. (1977); Stress concentration in tubular joints, Society
of Petroleum Engineers Journal 5472, August, 1977.
Krogstad, H.E. (1985); Height and Period distributions of extreme waves, Applied Ocean
Research, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1985.
Lalani, M., Tebbett, I.E. and Choo, B.S. (1986); Improved fatigue life estimation of tubular
joints, Proc. OTC 1986, Paper 5306, Houston, Texas.
Lotsberg, I. (1993): Note on Tubular Members Subjected to Combined Axial (+Bending)
Loading and External Pressure According to NPD Guidelines on Design and Analysis of Steel
Structures in the Petroleum Activity. Det Norske Veritas. Dated February 5th, 1993.
Loh, J. T. (1990): A Unified Design Procedure for Tubular Members. OTC Paper No. 6310.
Houston, May 1990.
Madsen H.O., Krenk S. and Lind N.C. (1986); Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA.
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.
Nerzic, R. and Lebas, G. (1988); Uncertainties in Wave Loading from Full-Scale Measurements,
BOSS-88, Trondheim, June 1988.
NPD (1996), Acts, Regulations and Provisions for the Petroleum Activities, Vol 2. The
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate, 1996.
NS 3472 Prosjektering av stlkonstruksjoner. Beregning og dimensjonering. NBR Juni 1984.
Nss, A. (1983); On the Statistical Distribution of Crest to Through Wave Heights, NHL-Report,
R-143-83, Norwegian Hydrodynamic Laboratories, Trondheim, 1983.
OTH 89 308 Background to New Static Strength Guidance for Tubular Joints in Steel Offshore
Structures. Department of Energy, 1990.
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.

Page No. 79
References
Puskar, F.J., Aggarwall R.K., Cornell C.A., Moses, F., Petrauskas, C. (1994); A Comparison of
Analytically Predicted Platform Damage During Hurricane Andrew, Proc., Offshore Tech. Conf.,
OTC 7473, Houston, TX, May, 1994.
Petrauskas, C., Heideman, J.C. and Berek, E.P. (1993); Extreme Wave-Force Calculation
Procedure fir the 20th Edition of API RP-2A, OTC 7153, Houston, May 1993.
Petrauskas, C., Botelho, D.L.R.., Krieger, W.F. and Griffin, J.J. (1994); A Reliability Model for
Offshore Platforms and its Applications to ST151 H and K Platforms during Hurricane
Andrew (1992), BOSS-94, Boston, July 1994.
Sarpkaya, T. and Isaacson, M. (1981); Mechanics of wave forces on offshore structures, Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, New York.
Sigurdsson G., Skallerud B., Skjong R., J.Amdahl J. (1994): Probabilistic Collapse Analysis of
Jackets. 13th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
(OMAE'94), Houston USA, February 1994.
Sigurdsson G. and Torhaug R., (1993); Discussion of the fatigue crack model used as decision
basis for probabilistic inspection planning, 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics
and Arctic Engineering (OMAE'93), Glasgow Scotland, June 1993.
Skjong R. and Torhaug R. (1991); Rational Methods for Fatigue Design and Inspection Planning
of Offshore structures, Marine Structures, 4 pp. 381-406.
Tromans P.S., Anaturk A.R. and Hagameijer P. (1991): New Model for the kinematics of Large
Ocean Waves - Application as Design Wave, ISOPE Conf., 1991
van de Graaf, Tromans P.S. and Efthymiou M. (1994): The Reliability of Offshore Structures and
its Dependence on Design Code and Environment. OTC 7382, 1994.
van de Graaf, Efthymiou M. and Tromans P.S. (1993): Implied Reliability Levels for RP 2ALRFD from Studies of North Sea Platforms, SUT Conference on API-LRFD, London, Dec 1993.
The Reliability of Offshore Structures and its Dependence on Design Code and Environment.
OTC 7382, 1994.
Vinje, T. (1988); On the Statistical Distribution of Wave Heights, Wave Crest and Wave Trough,
Veritec A/S, Oslo, 1988

Page No. 80
References
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.
Wheeler, J.D. (1970); Methods for calculation forces produced by irregular waves, Journal of
Petroleum Technology.

DNV Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

DNV Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

TECHNICAL REPORT

JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT

REPORT NO. 95-3203

DET NORSKE VERITAS

JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT

REPORT NO. 95-3203

DET NORSKE VERITAS

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Struct. Reliability & Marine Techn.

DET NORSKE VERITAS AS

Joint Industry Project

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability

Work carried out by:

Gudfinnur Sigurdsson, Espen Cramer,

No distribution without permission from the

Work verified by:

Limited distribution within Det Norske Veritas

DET NORSKE VERITAS

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

4.2.3 Buckling of Members Subjected to External Pressure...................................................................................26

4.3 JOINT FAILURE (ULS) ............................................................................................................................................28

4.4.2 SN-Fatigue Approach ....................................................................................................................................35

4.4.3 The FM-Approach for Fatigue Assessment ...................................................................................................39

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

4.4.3.6 Limit State Formulation / Failure Criteria................................................................................................................ 44

4.4.4 Load and Response Modelling ......................................................................................................................45

4.4.5 Stress Range Distribution ..............................................................................................................................54

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

1.2 Definition of a Jacket

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

1.2.2 Types of Jackets

Self floater jacket

Barge launched jacket

Lift installed jacket

1.2.3 Structural Design Parameters

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

1.2.4 Jacket Design Analysis

1.3 Arrangement of the Report

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

DNV Report No. 95-3203

Jacket designed to support drilling and production facilities

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Response to Environmental Actions

2. RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL ACTIONS

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Response to Environmental Actions

2.2 Environmental Loads and Response

2.2.2 Combination of Environmental Parameters

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Response to Environmental Actions

2.2.3 Simulation of Wave Loads

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Response to Environmental Actions

2.2.4 Extreme Response Effects (ULS)

2.2.5 Fatigue (FLS)

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Response to Environmental Actions

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Uncertainty Modelling - Target Reliability

3. UNCERTAINTY MODELLING - TARGET RELIABILITY

3.2 Uncertainty Modelling

3.2.2 Types of Uncertainty

Guideline for Offshore Structural Reliability: Application to Jacket Plattforms

Uncertainty Modelling - Target Reliability