Proceedings of the Twenty-fifth (2015) International Ocean and Polar Engineering Conference www.isope.

org
Kona, Big Island, Hawaii, USA, June 21-26, 2015
Copyright © 2015 by the International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-89-0; ISSN 1098-6189

A Study on Fatigue Characteristic of an FPSO Flare Tower in Offshore West Africa

Ho Young Cho, Eun Byeol Cho, Sung Woo Seo, Byung Gook Kim and Joo Kyung Joo
Pangyo R&D Center, Samsung Heavy Industries
Seongnam, Gyeonggi, Korea

fatigue assessment on hull structure under motion acceleration and hull

ABSTRACT girder bending moment. In this paper a flare tower, which is the most
fatigue sensitive structure among topside modules, is analyzed taking
In general fatigue does not govern the design of FPSO topside however into account not only hull-wave interaction but wind fluctuation and
fatigue damage should be carefully investigated in flare tower low cycle loading/unloading both for on-site condition and FPSO
engineering. Cyclic stresses caused by motion, wind fluctuation, towing condition.
loading and unloading of cargo tank and hull girder wave bending
produce fatigue damages in flare tower. In this study selection of EL. 170.0 m
practical analysis methods and resultant fatigue damages of each EL. 166.0 m EL. 162.0 m
motion fatigue, wind fatigue, deflection fatigue and low cycle fatigue
are provided. Also a practical guideline for the fatigue assessment of an EL. 158.0 m
EL. 154.0 m
FPSO flare tower in offshore West Africa is suggested. EL. 150.0 m
EL. 145.0 m
KEY WORDS: Fatigue; FPSO; flare tower; West Africa; offshore.
EL. 139.0 m
EL. 132.0 m
INTRODUCTION
EL. 124.5 m
Fatigue assessment along with strength assessment is the main
engineering and design activity for FPSO topside design. In general EL. 116.5 m
fatigue does not govern the design of topside however fatigue damage
should be carefully investigated in flare tower engineering. Since a EL. 107.5 m
flare tower is far taller than other topside modules it is affected in some EL. 98.0 m
degree by FPSO motion and wind fluctuation. Also the flare tower is
welded onto hull deck and therefore relative support deflection causes
additional cyclic stresses in flare tower members. Two sources of EL. 87.0 m
relative support deflection are taken into consideration in this study.
One is loading and unloading of hull cargo tank, which is referred to as EL. 75.5 m
low cycle fatigue, and the other is hull girder bending under wave,
which is called as deflection fatigue in this paper. Consequently cyclic
stresses caused by motion, wind fluctuation, loading and unloading of
EL. 63.0 m
cargo tank and hull girder wave bending produce fatigue damages.

Full stochastic fatigue analysis was suggested for assessment at FPSO EL. 51.0 m
hull interfaces including flare tower foundation considering hull-wave
interaction (Na et al, 2003). Direct calculation based on Fatigue EL. 35.0 m
Methodology Specification was suggested also for assessment at FPSO EL. 38.5 m (column to hull stool)
hull interfaces including flare tower foundation considering hull-wave
interaction (Oh et al, 2003). Spectral fatigue assessment of FPSO hull
Fig.1 SACS analysis model
at offshore Nigeria was proposed by employing Jonswap spectrum for
wind wave and Gaussian spectra for swell (Hwang et al, 2007). The
Fatigue analysis considering all damage sources is in general required
researches aforementioned provide a useful guideline and result for

1614
to ensure necessary integrity throughout planned service life however it
is burdensome and not practical for structural engineers. Therefore
practical selection of damage sources and analysis methodologies
considering contribution of damage from each source to total damage
and benign environmental condition in offshore West Africa is required.
Wind speed and wave height in offshore West Africa are relatively low
and therefore site specific fatigue assessment can be proposed. In this
study selection of practical analysis methods for each motion fatigue,
wind fatigue, deflection fatigue and low cycle fatigue are proposed.
Final fatigue damages by aforementioned four sources of damage are
calculated and compared to conclude fatigue characteristic of a flare
tower in offshore West Africa. The damage comparisons are provided
separately for in-place condition and FPSO towing condition, in which
FPSO is assumed to be towed from Northeast Asia to offshore West
Africa, to account for different environmental condition. The procedure
and result of this study can be utilized as a practical guideline for the
future fatigue assessment of an FPSO flare tower in offshore West
Africa.
ANALYSIS MODEL
The analysis model is illustrated in Fig.1 with elevations (EL) and all
analyses are carried out by using SACS 5.5. The assembly of flare
tower and knock out drum module, which is a typical practice in FPSO
topside design and is referred to as a flare tower hereafter, is assumed
to be located at the Forward Starboard side of the FPSO in order to
apply the highest motion accelerations. The module consists of four
main legs with a top elevation of EL.170.0m and is fully fixed onto hull
deck (EL.35.0m) for all 4 legs. FPSO hull dimension is assumed to be
length of 320.0 m, breath of 60.0 m and height of 35.0 m.
Mass of the flare tower for FPSO towing condition is about 2400 ton
including structure, equipment, piping, stair, ladder and etc. Content in
equipment and piping, and live load are additionally added to mass of
the flare tower for in-place condition which is about 3300 ton.
Table 1. S-N curve and SCF
Connection Type [Detail Number] SCF S-N
curve
Tubular to Tubular [1] Efthymiou T and wave spectrum. Final fatigue damage is calculated by applying
Tubular / Tubular Inline [2] DNV Sec. 3.3.7 F3
Tubular / Cone Inline [3] DNV Sec.3.3.9 F3
Tubular bracing to WPG/Beam (Half 2.0 F3
Pipe) [4]
Tubular bracing to WPG/Beam (Web 3.0 F3
Stiffener) [5]
Star Plate [6] 2.5 D RP-C203. Main column to hull stool connection is assessed since it is
Gusset to WPG Web Fillet Weld [7] 3.0 W3
Beam In-line or crossing connection 2.0 W2
[8]
S-N curves provide the relationship between the applied stress range
(S) and the maximum allowable number of cycles for design against
fatigue (N). The selection of the curve depends upon the direction of
applied stress and the method of manufacture and inspection. The S-N
curves corresponding to joints in question are selected in compliance
with DNV-RP-C203. Peak local hot spot stresses are normally
calculated using stress concentration factors (SCF’s) for the detail,
which are applied on the nominal stress components at the relevant
location on the member. For simple tubular joints Efthymiou’s
1615
parametric equations were used to generate the SCF’s in SACS Fatigue
program (Efthymiou, 1988). SCF’s for non-tubular connections are in
general included in corresponding S-N curves and additional SCF’s, by
which eccentricity and fabrication tolerance are accounted for, are
taken into consideration as provided in the DNV-RP-C203. Typical S-
N curves and SCF’s used in this analysis are listed in the Table 1.
Design life of the FPSO is 25 years and towing period is 3 months.
Design fatigue safety factor of 3.0 is applied to all flare tower structure.
Fatigue damage is defined as a summation of individual fatigue
damages caused by each stress cycle according to Palmgren-Miner rule.
MOTION FATIGUE PROCEDURE
Fatigue damages induced by FPSO motion accelerations under wave
loading are assessed by a typical spectral approach. Dynamic
amplification of flare tower is negligible in the fatigue analysis since
natural period of first mode is 1.03 seconds and corresponding DAF is
approximately 1.0 and also considering dominant wave period of 5 to
15 sec. In-place and towing wave scatter are considered. To simulate
in-place sea-state of offshore West Africa, 3-peak Ochi-Hubble wave
spectrum is employed in order to account for wind sea, main swell and
secondary swell (Ewans et al, 2004). The 3-peak spectrum, which is
one of the distinguishing features of offshore West Africa, is applied as
user-defined spectrum in SACS Fatigue program. Wave scatter diagram
in towing condition varies according to towing route and period of a
year and conservative route and period are selected. Motion Response
Amplitude Operator (RAO), which is responses of 6 degree of freedom
(DOF) motion to unit wave amplitude, is calculated from FPSO motion
analysis. 2 intermediate FPSO hull loading cases for in-place condition
and 1 loading case for towing condition are considered for RAO
determination. RAO’s for in-place fatigue analysis are applied for 22
on-site wave headings. RAO’s for towing fatigue analysis are applied
for all heading with 30 degrees interval. In the sea of offshore West
Africa in which swell occurs, wave directional spreading is defined by
wrapped normal spreading function (Ewans, 2001 and Ewans et al,
2004). Due to limitation of SACS, equivalent cosine spreading function
is calculated and applied. Transfer function which defines the ratio of
the range of cyclic stress to wave amplitude as a function of frequency
is generated in SACS Fatigue program. Root Mean Square (RMS)
cyclic stress range is then calculated as a function of transfer function
probability density function, which is defined by RMS cyclic stress,
and Palmgren-Miner rule.
HULL DELFECTION FATIGUE PROCEDURE
Fatigue damage induced by FPSO hull girder bending under wave
loading is first assessed with simplified approach according to DNV-
affected by hull deflection the most. The long term stress range is
defined by Weibull distribution and Weibull shape parameter (h) is
selected as 1.1 conservatively. Relative longitudinal and vertical
deflections on the connection in question are calculated based on wave
bending moment and then applied to SACS model to generate cyclic
stresses. Resultant principle stress and procedure described in DNV-
RP-C203 gives final damage of 0.025 at the connection.
Fatigue damages induced by FPSO hull girder bending under wave
loading contribute in some degree to total fatigue damage and therefore
it should be assessed more accurately by spectral approach. Deflection
RAO’s are calculated from FPSO hull whole ship FE model for each
wave heading and for each wave period to exactly match a set of wave
headings and wave periods of motion RAO’s. Overall procedure of hull
deflection fatigue is same as motion fatigue procedure explained above.
Simply adding damages caused by hull deflection and damages caused
by motion is not appropriate since at one hot spot in question, stress due
to motion and stress due to deflection can occur simultaneously and
since stress and damage are not in linear relationship. Therefore cyclic
stress from motion and cyclic stress from deflection should be added to
give final fatigue damages, if deflection fatigue damage is not
negligible, even though they are not presented in this paper.
WIND FATIGUE PROCEDURE
Assessment of fatigue damage caused by wind fluctuation is in general
not required for topside structural engineering since it is known that the
damage is much smaller compared to the damage caused by motion
acceleration and hull girder bending. However considering unique
features of flare tower having slender and tall structure, wind fatigue
might be checked. Quick fatigue damage assessment by deterministic
approach, which is very conservative, has been done by applying 1
minute wind speed and number of occurrence (25 years / 1 minute =
1.314 x 107). Despite small wind force and resultant low cyclic stress at
connections, maximum damage is 0.82 since the number of occurrence
(N) is enormous and S-N curves in DNV-RP-C203 do not have
horizontal slope region over the entire N. Therefore spectral wind
fatigue analysis is proposed to accurately assess wind fatigue damage.
Vortex induced vibration (VIV) fatigue is not of concern since general
practice of flare tower design does not allow VIV of any member.
The spectral wind fatigue analysis consists of dynamic analysis for
mass matrix and mode shape analysis, dynamic spectral wind analysis
and spectral wind fatigue analysis. The structural geometry, weight and
dead loads were taken from the motion fatigue model. The model is
modified to identify the joints which are retained for the dynamic
analysis. The dynamic analysis extracts the mode shapes and mass
matrix. The dynamic wind response using the various wind velocities
acting in the relevant directions generates the stresses and loads for the
fatigue analysis. A Harris wind spectrum is used to distribute the wind
loads and to create model responses which in turn are used to create a
generalized force spectrum. SACS then generates the stresses based on
the wind frequency and the structures modal natural frequency. The
model data file is modified once more for the spectral wind fatigue
analysis. The wind loads and associated areas are added to the model
for consideration as part of the fatigue analysis. Wind averaging period
of 1 minute is applied to both basic wind loading and dynamic
amplification determination. The wind scatter is defined for each
direction using the Weibull distribution to match in-place and towing
wind scatter diagram.
LOW CYCLE FATIGUE PROCEDURE
According to DNV-RP-C203 low cycle fatigue is in general not of
concern with respect to structural engineering of topside module.
However interface between flare tower and hull can be affected by low
cycle fatigue since the column is relatively stiff and welded onto hull
deck. Therefore fatigue damage induced by loading and unloading of
cargo tank and corresponding hull girder bending is assessed by
deterministic approach in which the cyclic loading and the number of
occurrence are reasonably definable. Relative longitudinal and vertical
deflections are calculated based on loading and unloading still water
bending moment of hogging condition and then applied to SACS model
to generate cyclic stresses. The resultant stress is then multiplied by 2
to account for cyclic stress between hogging and sagging condition.
Cycles of loading and unloading is calculated as 25 years x 365 days /
10 days (period of offloading to shuttle tanker) = 912. Maximum
damage at main column to hull stool connection, which is affected by
1616
hull deflection the most, is 0.00062. The maximum damage is very low
and therefore it is concluded that low cycle fatigue is negligible for
flare tower.
FATIGUE CHARACTERISTIC – MOTION, DEFLECTION
AND WIND
Fatigue analyses for motion fatigue, deflection fatigue and wind fatigue
are performed conforming to the procedures proposed and described in
this paper and the resultant damages are presented hereafter. Low cycle
fatigue is neglected as already explained. Typical two result plot types
are illustrated; one is ‘Maximum damage for each connection detail’
and the other is ‘Damage at main connection along flare tower height’.
Connection detail number is presented in Table 1. Elevations of main
connection of flare tower are shown in Fig. 1. Main connection
indicates connection between main column and hull stool or main
girder or main horizontal brace at south-east corner along the flare
tower height. For the purpose of easy comparison, all graphs are plotted
with same Y-axis range, from 0.00 to 0.10 excluding wind fatigue
damages which are very small. Some damage values above 0.10 are
presented by text on graph.
Maximum damage by motion fatigue for each connection detail is
illustrated in Fig. 2. Maximum damage is 0.23 at beam in-line
connection on upper deck of knock out drum module during FPSO
towing. Damages at tubular connections are relatively low however it
should be noted throughout the analysis results that all non-tubular
connections are assessed by applying conservative S-N curve selection
and SCF calculation and therefore they can be reduced by applying
actual S-N curves and SCF’s. It is shown damages of 3-month towing
condition are much greater than those of 25-years in-place condition.
Therefore with respect to motion fatigue, towing condition is governing
and in-place condition contribute only small portion to total fatigue
damage owing to benign sea-state of offshore West Africa.
In-place Towing
0.10
0.23
0.08
0.06
Damage
0.04
0.02
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Connection detail number
Fig.2 Motion fatigue - maximum damage for each connection detail
Damage by motion fatigue at main connection along flare tower height
is illustrated in Fig. 3. Maximum damages are found at EL. 35m which
is a column to stool connection and damage sharply decreases as
elevation increases. All the damages above EL. 63m are approximately
0. Inertia forces of each flare tower member caused by FPSO motion
are transferred to columns and then transferred to boundary of flare
tower and therefore lower part of flare tower is affected by motion
fatigue the most. Design of this part of flare tower is also governed by
strength requirement and thus both strength and fatigue strength should
be fully considered for the engineering of flare tower lower part. As
already explained in Fig. 2, damages in towing condition are far greater
than those in in-place condition.
 height is illustrated in Fig. 5. Overall damages are low and maximum
In-place Towing
damages are found at EL. 35m which is column to stool connection and
0.10 damage sharply decreases as elevation increases. Damages are only
found in the boundary points, bearing nodes and incoming members to
0.08 the bearing nodes as boundary effect only influence members around
boundary.
0.06
Damage

In-place Towing
0.04 0.10

0.02
0.08
0.0020
0.00
0.06

Damage
0.0000
35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
87.0
98.0
107.5
116.5
124.5
132.0
139.0
145.0
150.0
154.0
158.0
162.0
166.0
170.0

35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
Elevation of joint (m) 0.04

Fig.3 Motion fatigue - damage at main connection along flare tower

height 0.02

Maximum damage by deflection fatigue for each connection detail is 0.00

35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
87.0
98.0
107.5
116.5
124.5
132.0
139.0
145.0
150.0
154.0
158.0
162.0
166.0
170.0
illustrated in Fig. 4. Maximum damage is 0.038 at beam crossing
connection on process deck of knock out drum module during FPSO
towing however the value can be lowered by applying actual SCF. Elevation of joint (m)
Second highest damage is 0.0047 at column to stool connection during Fig.5 Deflection fatigue - damage at main connection along flare tower
FPSO towing. Overall fatigue damages induced by hull girder bending height
are much lower than those induced by FPSO motion. Similar to motion
fatigue result, damages caused by hull girder bending during FPSO In-place Towing
towing is far greater than those during in-place condition. 1.6E-08

Effect of relative deflection chiefly depends on bending stiffness of

columns between hull stool and process deck. In this paper length of 1.2E-08
the column is around 2.5 m and this short length results in relatively
Damage

high statically indeterminate forces and resultant cyclic stresses at the 8.0E-09
members in vicinity of flare tower boundary. Since bending stiffness of
column is proportional to length to the power of -3, if the length of
column from hull deck to process deck is determined so that the column 4.0E-09
is flexible enough to absorb hull deflection without high stress then
deflection fatigue can be most likely neglected in flare tower fatigue
0.0E+00
assessment. To check the effect of column length variation, column 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
length is increased from 2.5 m to 4.0m and re-run of deflection fatigue Connection detail number
analysis of towing condition is performed. Consequently maximum
fatigue damage decreases from 0.038 to 0.018 at the same connection. Fig.6 Wind fatigue - maximum damage for each connection detail
The revised damage of 0.018 can be further reduced by applying actual
SCF. In-place Towing
1.6E-09
In-place Towing
0.10
1.2E-09
0.08
Damage

8.0E-10
0.06
Damage

0.04 4.0E-10

0.02
0.0E+00
35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
87.0
98.0
107.5
116.5
124.5
132.0
139.0
145.0
150.0
154.0
158.0
162.0
166.0
170.0

0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Elevation of joint (m)
Connection detail number
Fig.7 Wind fatigue - damage at main connection along flare tower
Fig.4 Deflection fatigue - maximum damage for each connection detail height

Damage by deflection fatigue at main connection along flare tower Maximum damage by wind fatigue for each connection detail is

1617
illustrated in Fig. 6. Maximum damage is 1.49x10-8 at tubular to tubular Maximum damage due to deflection is even lower than 0.01. Overall
connection at EL. 169.6 m during FPSO towing. Contrary to the results damages are very low owing to benign sea-state and thus fatigue
of motion fatigue and deflection fatigue, maximum damage is found in strength is not of concern in offshore West Africa.
upper part of flare. Damages of towing condition are governing since
the towing wind speed is higher than in-place wind speed. Damage of in-place condition at main connection along flare tower
Consequently damages caused by wind fatigue are minimal and can be height is illustrated in Fig. 9. Overall damages are minimal and
neglected. damages are only found at boundary points at EL. 35 m.

Damage by wind fatigue at main connection along flare tower height is Maximum damage of towing condition for each connection detail is
illustrated in Fig. 7. Overall damages are very low and maximum illustrated in Fig. 10. Maximum damage is 0.23 at beam in-line
damages are found at EL. 35m which is column to stool connection. connection on upper deck of knock out drum module, which is caused
Contrary to the results of motion fatigue and deflection fatigue, damage by FSPO motion. Damages caused by hull deflection are much smaller
does not simply decrease as elevation increases rather it fluctuates. The than those caused by FPSO motion.
damage variation along the flare height is related to wind speed
variation. Higher wind speed in higher elevation cause relatively large Motion Deflection
wind force in middle and upper part of flare and damages of this area is 0.10

0.23
to some extent similar to damages of lower part.
0.08
FATIGUE CHARACTERISTIC – IN-PLACE AND TOWING
0.06

Damage
Among 4 fatigue loadings considered in this paper, low cycle fatigue
and wind fatigue can be neglected due to very low fatigue damages by 0.04
the loadings. Therefore plots hereafter show comparison between
motion fatigue and deflection fatigue.
0.02

Motion Deflection 0.00

0.10 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Connection detail number
0.08 Fig.10 Towing - maximum damage for each connection detail

0.06 Damage of towing condition at main connection along flare tower

Damage

height is illustrated in Fig. 11. Maximum damages are found at EL.

0.04 35m which is column to stool connection and damage sharply decreases
as elevation increases. For motion fatigue, all the damages above EL.
0.02 63m are approximately 0. For deflection fatigue, damages are only
found at boundary points and all other damages are approximately 0.
0.00
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Motion Deflection
Connection detail number
0.10
Fig.8 In-place - maximum damage for each connection detail
0.08
Motion Deflection
0.10 0.06
Damage

0.08 0.04

0.06
Damage

0.02

0.04 0.00
35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
87.0
98.0
107.5
116.5
124.5
132.0
139.0
145.0
150.0
154.0
158.0
162.0
166.0
170.0

0.02
Elevation of joint (m)

0.00 Fig.11 Towing - damage at main connection along flare tower height
35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
87.0
98.0
107.5
116.5
124.5
132.0
139.0
145.0
150.0
154.0
158.0
162.0
166.0
170.0

Maximum damage during entire FPSO life, including 3-month towing

Elevation of joint (m) and 25-year in-place, for each connection detail is illustrated in Fig. 12.
Fig.9 In-place - damage at main connection along flare tower height Maximum damage caused by FPSO motion is 0.24 and maximum
damage caused by hull deflection is 0.046. FPSO motion is a governing
Maximum damage of in-place condition for each connection detail is cyclic loading with respect to flare tower fatigue assessment. As
illustrated in Fig. 8. Maximum damage is 0.017 at tubular-to-cone in- explained above with Fig. 4, if the length of column is determined so
line connection at EL. 64 m, which is caused by FSPO motion. that the column is flexible enough, then deflection fatigue can be most
likely neglected in flare tower fatigue assessment.

1618
 dependent upon the other requirements such as strength
Motion Deflection requirement, vortex induced vibration and etc.
0.10 2. Among 4 fatigue loadings, motion fatigue is a governing case.

0.11

0.24
Deflection fatigue affects connections in the vicinity of flare
0.08 tower boundary to some extent. Wind fatigue and low cycle
fatigue produce very low damages and these fatigue loadings
0.06 can be neglected unless special consideration is required for
Damage

0.04
0.02
0.00
1 2 3 4
Connection detail number
Fig.12 In-place & towing - maximum damage for each connection
detail
Damage during entire FPSO life at main connection along flare tower
height is illustrated in Fig. 13. Maximum damages are found at EL.
35m which is column to stool connection and damage sharply decreases
as elevation increases. For motion fatigue, all the damages above EL.
63m are approximately 0. For deflection fatigue, damages are only
found at boundary points and all other damages are approximately 0.
some reason.
3. Deflection fatigue can be most likely neglected in flare tower
fatigue assessment if the length of column from hull deck to
process deck is determined so that the column is flexible
enough to absorb hull deflection without resulting in high
stress.
5 6 7 8 4. Between FPSO towing condition and in-place condition,
FPSO towing condition is a governing condition and in-place
condition loadings produce low fatigue damages.
5. According to the characteristic of flare tower fatigue, it is
also concluded that fatigue damage of other topside modules
and pipe racks of an FPSO in offshore West Africa are in
general not of concern since modules and pipe racks
experience less inertia force by FPSO motion, modules are
isolated from hull deflection by bearing pad and also pipe
racks have more flexible columns compared to flare tower.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Motion Deflection The authors would like to thank Pangyo R&D Center, Samsung Heavy
0.10 0.11 Industries for the time and resources to prepare the material in this
paper.
0.08
REFERENCES
0.06
Damage

DNV-RP-C203 (2012) Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures

Efthymiou, M (1988). “Development of SCF formulae and generalized
0.04 influence functions for use fatigue analysis,” Proceedings of offshore
tubular joint conference, surrey, United Kingdom
0.02 Ewans, K, Forristall, GZ, Olagnon, M, Prevosto, M and Iseghem, SV
(2004) West Africa Swell Project (WASP) Final Report
0.00 Ewans, K (2001). “Directional Spreading in Ocean Swell,” The Fourth
International Symposium on Ocean Wave Measurement and Analysis,
35.0
38.5
51.0
63.0
75.5
87.0
98.0
107.5
116.5
124.5
132.0
139.0
145.0
150.0
154.0
158.0
162.0
166.0
170.0

San Francisco, ASCE, 517-529

Elevation of joint (m) Hwang, OJ, Kwon SM, Park, GW, Kang JK and Heo, JH (2007).
Fig.13 In-place & towing - damage at main connection along flare “Spectral Fatigue Assessment of Agbami FPSO Hull for Onsite and
tower height Seagoing as per ABS’s SFA Guidance,” 26th International Conference
on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, San Diego, ASME,
CONCLUSION 251-257.
Na, JH, Lee, IH, Sim, WS and Shin, HS (2003). “Full Stochastic
The main conclusions derived from motion fatigue, wind fatigue, Fatigue Analysis for Kizomba ‘A’ FPSO-Hull Interface Design,”
deflection fatigue and low cycle fatigue analysis of an FPSO flare 22nd International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
tower in offshore West Africa described in this paper are: Engineering, Cancun, ASME, 143-148.
Oh, MH, Sim, WS and Shin, HS (2003). “Fatigue Analysis of Kizomba
1. With respect to structural engineering of a flare tower of an 'A' FPSO using Direct Calculation based on FMS,” Offshore
FPSO in offshore West Africa, fatigue damage is not of Technology Conference, Houston, OTC.
concern and flare tower member sizing is in general

1619