Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
ISSN 1818-4952
IDOSI Publications, 2014
DOI: 10.5829/idosi.wasj.2014.30.08.14126
Assessment
Fatigue
Jacket
Platforms
INTRODUCTION
Experience over the last 100 years and many
laboratory tests [1] have proven that a metal may fracture
at a relatively low stress if that stress is applied a great
number of times. It is known that sometimes a crack will
form and grow under the repeated action of applied
stresses that are lower than those required for yielding the
same material under unidirectional static loading. Such
fractures are referred to as fatigue failures. The initially
small crack formed at the point of high localized stress
grows or spreads until the remaining solid cross section
of the load-carrying member is not sufficient to transmit
the load and the member fractures. Offshore structures are
designed to resist continual wave loading which may lead
to significant fatigue damage on individual structural
members and other types of loads due to severe storms,
corrosion, fire and explosion etc. Fatigue life is one of the
major concerns for the offshore installations since the
utilization of tubular members gives rise to significantly
high stress concentrations in the joints. Most steel
Corresponding Author:
Suez Gulf
Tubular joints
1000
(ti * ni)/ n
(Hsi* ni)/ n
(1)
(2)
1001
The advantage in this case is to consider the individual periods of each of these sea-states, where waves with same
height also have a range of different periods that allows constructing long term distribution fatigue. The wave data
are provided on a statistical basis where a cell of the diagram represents a particular combination of the relation between
the zero crossing time period Tz of each block, (which is based on the type of the wave energy spectrum), the
significant wave height Hs and its probability of occurrence.
Energy Wave Spectrum: There are basically three wave spectra commonly used [15, 1516], the Pierson Maskovitz
(ISSC), JONSWAP and Ochi-Hubble Double Peak. The P-M spectrum is valid for the entire world while the
JONSWAP is valid for the North Sea. The OHDP spectrum is very limited use, where the P-M and JONSWAP
are frequently applied in offshore engineering.
The following equation presents the P-M and JONSWAP spectra:
=
S ( )
*g *
5
* exp *
4
where:
= Angular wave frequency =
2*
Tw
<
or 0.09 if
exp 0.5*
*
p
p
(3)
; Tw = Wave period; Tp= Peak period or significant wave height period Tz;;
2*
Tp
>
; g= Gravity acceleration;
p
and
= Spectral width
Wave Heights: The wave height corresponding to each wave frequency will be based on a constant wave steepness
of
Hw = Hw
L
2
w g * Tw
2
, 1:18 or 1:20, based on the average steepness from the wave scatter diagrams. The influence of wave
steepness is minor in case of smaller fatigue waves are inertia dominated and hence, linearized forces are insensitive to
wave steepness. The applied wave theory should be appropriate for the fatigue analysis based on the maximum wave
height and water depth.
Linearized Wave Theory: Linearized (Airy) wave theory [15] is adopted to model the wave elevation, water particle
velocity and acceleration. The water surface elevation of an irregular wave can then be calculated by the linear
superposition of the wave components. According to the linear random wave theory, the water surface
elevations and particle kinematics (the velocity and acceleration) are all Gaussian distributed and are therefore fully
defined by the variances of their associated probability distributions, which are equal to the area under their frequency
spectra.
1002
A a + 0.5
Cd vr2 D +
Cm Ar ar
(4)
(6)
where:
SCFg = Stress concentration factor due to the gross
geometry of the detail considered
SCFw = Stress concentration factor due to the weld
geometry
SCFte = Additional stress concentration factor due to
eccentricity tolerance (nominally used for plate
connections only)
SCFta = Additional stress concentration factor due to
angular mismatch (normally used for plate
connection only)
SCFn = Additional stress concentration factor for
un-symmetrical stiffeners on laterally loaded
panels, applicable when the nominal stress is
derived from simple beam analysis
Fatigue Parameters
Stress Concentration Factor (SCF) for Simple Tubular
Joints: Hot-spot stress ranges at each point will be
calculated [19, 19] using multiplying the stress range with
the appropriate stress concentration factors (SCFs) for
axial, in-plane bending (IPB) and out-of-plane bending
(OPB). The aim of the stress analysis [2120] is to calculate
the stress at the weld toe (hot spot), hot spot. The
stress concentration factor due to the geometry effect is
defined as:
SCF = hotspot
normail
(5)
1003
applied
= SCF *
computed
allowable
(9)
2
2
IPB * ( SCFIPB ) ) + ( OPB * ( SCFOPB ) )
(8)
In lieu of detailed fatigue analysis, simplified fatigue
analyses, which have been calibrated for the design wave
climate, may be applied to tubular joints in template type
platforms that [19]: Less than 400 feet (122 m) of water,
Constructed of ductile steels, Have redundant structural
framing, Have natural periods less than 3 seconds.
A schematic diagram of the Simplified procedure
based on the API- 2A [19] is shown in Fig. 4. The
simplified fatigue analysis involves designing all tubular
joints in the structure such that the peak hot spot stresses
for the fatigue design wave do not exceed the allowable
peak hot spot stresses:
1005
1007
H max =
(10)
Di * Ti
Di
(11)
Pi * H i(b*m )
Ti
(12)
Tmax =
Di =
Di * H i
Di
1008
NE
SE
SW
NW
0.0 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.5
1.5 - 2.0
2.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 3.0
3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
4.0 - 4.5
4.5 - 5.0
8,614,406
223,184
5,782
150
4
0
0
0
0
0
785,255
837
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
130,872
143
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
224,274
32,316
4,657
671
97
14
2
0
0
0
121,331
19,183
3,033
480
76
12
2
0
0
0
168,191
2,102
27
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,668,273
34,209
701
15
0
0
0
0
0
0
1,006,408
40,053
1,594
63
3
0
0
0
0
0
12,719,010
352,027
15,794
1,379
180
26
4
0
0
0
Total
8,843,526
786,092
131,015
262,031
144,117
170,320
1,703,198
1,048,121
13,088,420
Hs [m]
0.0 - 0.5
0.5 - 1.0
1.0 - 1.5
1.5 - 2.0
2.0 - 2.5
2.5 - 3.0
3.0 - 3.5
3.5 - 4.0
4.0 - 4.5
4.5 - 5.0
0.465
1.395
2.325
3.255
4.185
5.115
6.045
6.975
7.905
8.835
12,719,010
-
352,027
-
15,794
-
1,379
-
Total
12,719,010
352,027
15,794
1,379
180
180
-
26
-
4
-
0
-
0
-
26
13,088,420
Total
12,719,010
352,027
15,794
1,379
180
26
4
0
0
0
2.75
3.25
3.75
4.25
4.75
8.096
8.801
9.454
10.065
10.640
0.00
0.00
50.0
0.30
100.0
0.60
Block ID
No. of waves
% of block
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
8,843,526
786,092
131,015
262,031
144,117
170,320
1,703,198
1,048,121
67.57
6.01
1.00
2.00
1.10
1.30
13.01
8.01
Total
13,088,420
Joint ID
47
92
137
182
R/A
0037
0.113
0.149
0.172
0.171
0.147
0.112
0.082
0.087
0041
0.155
0.189
0.194
0.166
0.120
0.098
0.081
0.111
0129
0.154
0.203
0.229
0.215
0.166
0.115
0.090
0.106
0132
0.114
0.131
0.145
0.135
0.100
0.068
0.067
0.101
0223
0.417
0.416
0.421
0.442
0.457
0.451
0.424
0.410
0227
0.370
0.346
0.354
0.385
0.426
0.448
0.430
0.402
0073
0.114
0.151
0.170
0.160
0.124
0.086
0.068
0.079
0077
0.097
0.148
0.167
0.145
0.094
0.046
0.031
0.072
0141
0.121
0.160
0.183
0.174
0.144
0.102
0.084
0.095
0144
0.178
0.224
0.223
0.200
0.143
0.098
0.090
0.123
0269
0.246
0.288
0.323
0.323
0.288
0.241
0.234
0.230
0273
0.222
0.182
0.111
0.095
0.104
0.107
0.153
0.203
R/B
227
272
317
Fig. 8: Critical Damage for 1 Yr. Wave 8 directions (Eastern Suez Gulf)
presenting one direction form the total 8 directions with
illuminating the zero values form the computation.
The co-relation between the Hs & Tz is constant for
all blocks presenting a particular percentage of
occurrences for each direction independently as shown in
Table 6.
Wave Spectrum: The fatigue assessments scatter
diagrams are based on Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum [16].
The wave spectrum is calculated in SACS through the
Fatigue Module for the fatigue life predictions. Table 7
shows the percentage of the eight blocks to present the
ratio to the total number of waves extracted from the PM
spectrum values for Tz (note: the Hs & Tz all constant
for all block spectra).
1011
Joint ID
47
92
137
182
R/A
0037
0.114
0.142
0.161
0.160
0.143
0.117
0.091
0.093
0041
0.150
0.178
0.183
0.160
0.123
0.097
0.091
0.117
0129
0.155
0.193
0.215
0.203
0.165
0.124
0.104
0.118
0132
0.100
0.124
0.135
0.124
0.098
0.069
0.066
0.091
0223
0.416
0.415
0.420
0.437
0.450
0.446
0.424
0.409
0227
0.375
0.355
0.362
0.387
0.420
0.437
0.424
0.400
0073
0.115
0.143
0.159
0.151
0.123
0.093
0.078
0.088
0077
0.097
0.138
0.153
0.134
0.095
0.057
0.044
0.061
0141
0.123
0.156
0.173
0.164
0.138
0.104
0.094
0.103
0144
0.173
0.211
0.219
0.191
0.146
0.108
0.103
0.131
0269
0.248
0.284
0.315
0.316
0.284
0.245
0.234
0.230
0273
0.204
0.175
0.115
0.096
0.103
0.105
0.150
0.190
R/B
227
272
317
Case of Study
-----------------------------------------------Jkt. Row
Joint ID
Row-A
0037
0041
0129
0132
0223
0227
0073
0077
0141
0144
0269
0273
Row-B
Current
No Current
-------------------------------------------------------------------SACS Model
--------------------------------------------------------------------1
2
% Change
0.149
0.189
0.215
0.135
0.457
0.430
0.160
0.148
0.174
0.224
0.323
0.222
4.03%
5.82%
5.58%
8.15%
1.53%
1.40%
5.63%
6.76%
5.75%
5.80%
2.17%
8.11%
0.143
0.178
0.203
0.124
0.450
0.424
0.151
0.138
0.164
0.211
0.316
0.204
5.06%
Table 10: Dynamic Modes Results Basic Model (Tn = 2.5 sec)
Mode No.
Period (sec)
Frequency (Hz)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
2.494
2.283
1.636
1.031
0.853
0.527
0.436
0.422
0.407
0.323
0.307
0.274
0.269
0.253
0.401
0.438
0.611
0.97
1.173
1.898
2.294
2.372
2.455
2.92
3.255
3.651
3.718
3.953
56.09
72.37
82.02
82.08
97.49
97.49
97.49
97.50
97.81
97.82
97.84
97.84
97.85
98.85
17.24
81.05
81.40
93.87
93.88
97.81
97.81
97.81
97.84
98.27
98.33
98.33
98.34
98.38
1014
0.01
0.17
0.17
0.35
0.36
2.74
2.75
4.07
4.18
15.87
86.16
86.16
92.89
92.92
Mode Shape
Cantilever (+) X dirc
Cantilever (-) Y dirc
Twist
Intermediate Bracing level Cantilever
Bottom Bracing level Cantilever
Intermediate Bracing level Cantilever
Twist
Twist
Drift
Compaction
Bottom Bracing Level Deflection
Twist
Bottom Bracing Level Deflection
Bottom Bracing Level Drift
3.
4.
1017
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
1018
1019