aTC 4617

A Critical Review of Transportation Analysis Procedures

by JW. Chianis and Andrea Mangiavacchi, Brown & Root Inc.

Copyright 1983 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 15th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, May 2-5,1983. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission to
copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT 1.0 INTRODUCTION

In recent years, with increased emphasi s upon There are two important cons i derat ions in the
deepwater field development, the si ze and weight of transportat ion ana lysi s of offshore pl atforms. From
offshore platforms have increased significantly. a navigational standpoint, the mission is considered
Consequently, platform transportation has become of successful if the pl atform/barge assembly completes
great importance, rei nforci ng the need for a better the trip from the fabrication yard to the
understanding of the problem. In the past, for installation site without mishap. This is ensured
relatively small structures, platforms were analyzed by enf orci ng a number of general stabil ity
for the combined effects of gravity and inertial criteri a. From a structura 1 standpoi nt, however,
loads only. The barge was usually assumed to be the platform is expected to reach its final
rigid, implying no structural interaction between installation site without suffering any major
the barge and the platform. For the larger and structural failure or significant fatigue damage as
heavier platforms built today, a more sophisticated a result of the transportation phase.
analysis must be performed. In this analysis the
complete platform/barge system is considered. This Offs hore platforms are usu ally f abri c at ed ina
method accounts for barge flexi bi 1 ity and the horizontal position, and are then skidded onto a
resulting platform/barge structural interaction. barge for the trip to the installation site. In its
Thi s paper examines both procedures and highl ights seagoing configuration the platform generally rests
the critical aspects and pitfall s of each. on skid beams, and is secured to the barge by
tie-downs. In this position, the platform is
Numerical results from a recent study are vu 1nerab le to vari ous struc tura 1 problems for two
presented to illustrate the differences in the two main reasons:
procedures. Specifically, several design related
questions pertaining to barge flexibility, motion * The platform is designed primarily for its
and force phase relationships, tie-down force inplace upright position.
distribution, platform stresses, fatigue,
interpretation of results, and conservatism of * The platform is quite flexible in the horizontal
results are addressed. po s it i on.

References and illustrations at end of paper.

327

- -----==---~-----===---====------==-------==------===-----==---==---
 These problems are further compounded by the * Compute the distribution of inertial forces on
fact that some of the largest pl atforms designed the p1atf orm on the basi s of the pred icted
today are in the range of 70D-1000 feet, whi le the max imum mot ions.
largest launch barges currently available do not
exceed 650 feet in length. This results in the * Perform a structural analysis of the platform for
platform overhanging the barge at one or both ends, the prescri bed inertial loads.
as well as on the sides. Depending on the geometry
of the p1atf orm and the barge, overhangs of up to Figure 1 shows a block diagram illustrating the
150 or 200 feet are possible. procedure just described. Specific details
concerning the inertial force approach are found in
the following sections.
During transportation, the platform/barge
assembly is subjected to cyclic wave forces. These 2.1 STRUCTURAL MODELING
forces induce motions and consequently accelerations
in the overall system. The inertial loads due to Since in most cases the transportation analysis
the accelerations, combined with gravity and the is conducted after the platform inplace analysis, a
hydrodynamic loads, constitute a self-equilibrating structural model of the platform should already be
set of loads acting on the overall assembly. avai lable. Sl ight modifications may have to be made
to the model so as to reflect the true
In general, the platform and the barge have as-transported configuration. Such items as pi les,
different stiffness and mass distributions. conductor guides and framing, launch runners,
Therefore, the dynamic characteristics and J-tubes, etc. should be included in the model as
ultimately the dynamic responses of the two their weight can be significant.
subsystems under the same loading are be expected to
be quite different. This indicates the need for a The structural model must also include suitable
coupled analysis, in which the structural restraint conditions. In this case, where the barge
interact ion between the pl atform and the barge can is considered to be infinitely rigid, the platform
be accounted for. This will allow a more realistic is supported at the bracing elevations by several
assessment of the loads transmitted from one short members (simulating the tie-downs), which in
subsystem to the other through the tie-downs. turn are connected to rigid supports. Additional
supports are inserted between two adjacent bracing
elevations to represent the presence of the skid
2.0 RIGID BARGE METHOD beams. The short members connected to these
mid-span locations are released from all rotations,
A widely used method of pl atform transportation so no moment transfer occurs. A typical
analysis utilizes the so-called rigid barge representation of the platform support condition is
approach. This procedure can be classified shown in Figure 2.
semi-deterministic because of its similarity to the
design wave approach in the inplace analysis of 2.2 MOTION CALCULATION
platforms. The procedure followed in an analysis of
this type consists of the following steps: Once the structural model is establ i shed, its
mass properties such as center of gravity and mass
* Define a design sea state correspondi ng to the moments of inertia are determined. These propert ies
maximum expected storm for a given return period. are then combined with those of the barge (including
ballast water) to define the overall platform/barge
* Predict the maximum motion responses of the mass propert ies. The system propert i es may need to
platform/barge system in all 6 degrees-of-freedom be transformed into a system convenient for motion
for the design sea state. calculation.

328

- - -
-----
-- -
- -- --
---
--- --- -
--
 A motion analysis is then performed to maximum angular motions (in .degrees) of the
determine the platform's maximum expected response body-f i xed system with respect to the space-fixed
to the prescri bed sea state. Thi sis usually done system.
by first obtai ni ng the motion responses to a series
of regular sinusoidal waves of unit amplitude. This [T] [T J. [T Q J. [T J
lX " Y
type of motion representation is commonly called
Response Jlmplitude Operator (RAO). Spectral
analysis techniques are then applied to determine
o
o llcosa -si na] lCO~y si ny
COSlX si nlX' 0 1 0 -Slny COsy
motion responses to irregular waves. One shou ld be
aware, however, that once irregular wave responses -sinlX COSlX sina o cosa 0 0

are calculated from a given set of regular wave

motion RPO's, all phase relationships between the
six degrees of freedom are lost. cosa COSy cosa siny -sina

Typically, the spectral analysis results COSlX COSy +

sinlX sina COSy - sinlX cosa .. [3J
obtained from motion analysis are given in terms of
COSlX siny sinlX sina siny
significant response. This represents an average of
the highest one-third responses. An estimate of the sinlX siny + COSlX sina siny- COSlX cos a
maximum, or most probable extreme response can be COSlX sina COSy si nlX COSy
computed from a significant response by appl icat ion
of the following relationship,
To s'how a 11 degrees of freedom, Equ at i on 2 can
be rewri tten in an expanded form,
. . . . . . . . . [lJ
I
where the significant value of the motion response I
I
is given by RSIG, RMAX is the desired maximum [T] I
expected va 1ue, and N is the number of cyc les whi ch I
I
is derived from the defined duration. I
-----i------ . . . [4J
I
2.3 INERTIAL LOAD GENERATION I
I
I [T]
The maximum responses predicted by motion I
analysis, which are typically reported in a global
I
I
or space-f i xed coord i nate system, must be
transformed into a coordinate system which moves where the vector X} represents the max imum t
with the structural system. This type of coordinate accelerations of the platform/barge system in the
system, called the local or body-fixed system, must space-f ixed system in the surge, sway, heave, ro 11,
be used so that proper loading directions are pitch, and yaw modes. The maximum accelerations in
maintained as the platform/barge assembly rotates. the body-fixed system are given by the vector x} t
A typical transformation procedure follows, representing the six local degrees of freedom which
move with the system.
RL = [T] R G . . . . . . . [2J
It should be noted that lX, a, y and X -X
1 6
where L represents the local or transformed system are statistical values representing a maximum
and G represents the global system. The predicted response which is defined as the maximum
transformation matrix is given by [T] and is shown amplitude of the response fluctuation about some
below based upon a yaw-pitch-roll sequence. The mean value. Because of the manner in which these
ang1es ~, B, y represent the roll, pitch, yaw reponses were derived, the values will always be

329

---
-
- --
----- ---~---===-=------------===-- ~
-- -
---==---~
--
---=--
----
- - -- -

~:-

-=----....::: _' _-=-=--.--c-~~_ ----~~ "=~=--~_O-_- - --

-~~
~~-- '--

-'~-:'::""-
~:_''''-:....:.=-,-:--, ',' ,-.:.
__ -=",O~'"_- ---7-- - - -~,-
,:.'-',': ..:,.-.---

- ,-~.-~-},~-- - ;~~_--:~~_~o --
,- -~.-

-':' '- -~~ --~~ _:_~~: "-~::-~~ ~ ~- ~----==-----~ - -'. --= - - :.....'-' -~ - -::~-- .
-~ ,:-=~~._" ~~
-~;~~
~_ ... ' ~
---=
'__ <_-. __c. :;:0--. _ .'.
~-: -~-- --~
~-

-
-==-
--:;:.---

~'---::--- -
~-~ - ---

- ~~ .-. --'-- ....

~.
-d'---
~.

--
__
',-. .- '.

. ... ~.
.- - --- - - ' - : -
-.. ~.--~-~-' .. --,,---

- ~~-.--.- <.e-:'-.-='_-~:'::'-
--
ound to be positive. For this reason, various sign * Utilize spectral analysis techniques to compute
combinations of maximum response parameters such as maximum predicted stresses for the design storm
1,2,3
ingu1ar displacement, 1inear acceleration, and sea state. A fatigue analysis, consisting
4
kngular acceleration should be investigated to cover of cumulative damage ratio (CDR) calculations
~ wide range of realistic possibilities. These may also be performed if desired.
naximum motion combinations are obtained for each
~ave heading of interest, resulting in a series of Figure 3 shows a block diagram illustrating the
inertial load conditions to be used in the procedure just described. Specific detai1s
;tructural analysis. concerning the flexible barge approach are found in
the following sections.
?.4 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
3.1 BARGE STRUCTURAL MODELING
Once the maximum motion combinations are
iefined, an equivalent number of inertial load cases The barge is normally modeled as a space frame,
:an be computed from prior knowledge of the mass although this is not strictly necessary. Two
~istribution. The stresses induced in the platform objectives should be kept in mind when developing a
by the motions and the relative accelerations are suitable barge model. These are, 1) to simulate the
then cc+nputedfor each case. primary structural characteristics of the barge in
terms of vertical, lateral, and torsional rigidity,
In addition to stresses, the structural and 2) to simulate the weight distribution and mass
analysis will provide the support reactions properties. Sufficient details of the barge can
resulting from the applied inertial loading. usually be obtained from shipyard drawings to
Tie-down load information can be taken directly from establish the barges primary structural
these results. properties. Member sizes are chosen for the
structural model and a calibration procedure is
3.0 FLEXIBLE BARGE METHOD followed to ensure similarities in stiffness. The
member weights can be adjusted to achieve the proper
The flexible barge approach is a relatively new weight distribution.
procedure for the transportation analysis of
offshore platforms. Because the barge structural 3.2 PLATFORM STRUCTURAL MODELING
characteristics are accounted for, this procedure is
expected to be well suited for very large deepwater As in the previous method, a structural model
platforms. The calculation procedure consists of of the jacket should already exist from prior
the following steps: inplace analysis. Again, slight modifications
should be made to the platform model to make it
* For a series of unit amplitude regular waves, consistent with the as-transported configuration.
1) compute the 6 degree-of-freedom motions of the The tie-down members are considered next, when the
platform/barge system, and 2) compute the barge and platform model are merged.
hydrodynamic pressure loads on the barge.
* Conpute the inertial loads on the platform/barge 3.3 MERGING PLATFORM AND BARGE MODEL
system caused by the regular wave responses.
* Perform a structural analysis on the platform/ The tie-down, skid beam and and tilt beam
barge systm for all forces due to unit amplitude members are very important in the overall structural
waves; these forces include inertial loads as model because they represent the interface between
well as hydrodynamic loads. the platform and the barge. It is through these
* Define a design sea state corresponding to the members that the loads due to platform/barge

maximum expected storm for a given return period. interaction are transferred.

--n
.JU
 In a similar manner to the rigid barge method, because, at every instant in time, there is a
members simulating tie-downs are placed at every balance between the pressure forces acting on the
major elevation of the platform, and members barge and the motion-induced inertial forces. There
simulating the skid beams are placed at every is no gross rigid body motion of the system except
mid-elevation. Tilt beams are modeled by horizontal for the oscillating motions occurring about the
members representing the true vertical stiffness systems mean position. Performing a static
determined from structural drawings. Very stiff analysis on this type of system requires a great
vertical members are used to link the horizontal deal of care. If the system is completely
tilt beam members with the main platform legs. The unrestrained (as it should be), the least unbalance
support condition specified for structural analysis in the loads will yield meaningless structural
will be discussed in a later section. deflections. To avoid this, fictitious supports are
usually included. These supports, while preventing
Once the platform and barge are connected, the rigid body motions, will introduce reactions.
mass properties of the ccmbined system can be However, if fair equilibrium exists between the
obtained. At this point a certain amount of ballast pressure loads and the inertial loads, these
is added to the model so that displacement and mass reactions will be small enough to be ignored.
requirements are satisfied. Figure 4 shows a typical support condition for the
flexible barge method. Table 1 shows some typical
3.4 HYDRODYNAMIC LOAD GENERATION values illustrating the equilibrium balance. These
values show the results for one load condition, that
As already mentioned, all loads acting on the is to say one unit amplitude wave of a particular
system are ccmputed on a per unit amplitude wave frequency at a single wave heading angle.
basis. This computational procedure applies
throughout the structural analysis, so that even the In the actual structural analysis, a series of
StreSS results appear per unit wave amplitude. equations are solved to determine the joi nt
displacements, the member loads, and the resulting
The motion responses of the system to a series stresses. The governing equation to be solved is
3f unit amplitude regular waves are first simply a derivation of the DAlembert principle
determined. These motions, in the form of which states that a body is always in instantaneous
accelerations, are in turn used to compute inertial dynamic equilibrium under a system of applied
loads on the system. For the same waves, forces. These forces are 1) external forces acting
Hydrodynamic pressure loads on the hull of the barge on the body to cause motion, and 2)
are computed. This results in a set of load data counter-balancing forces acting in a direction
For structural analysis which contains several load opposite to the body accelerations. For harmonic
conditions generated by a number of unit amplitude excitation, this equation for structural equilibrium
regular waves at various wave heading angles. becomes,

At this point, the global equilibrium of the [K]{x)= [FH}ei[M][; );) . . . . . .. [5]
system should be verified for each load condition.
Should any unbalance be detected, appropriate where [ FH] represents the system of applied loads
corrections should be made. Once all unbalances are such as hydrodynamic forces, and [M] {~) represents
corrected, the structural analysis can be performed. the system of inertial loads created by rigid body
motion only (dynamic amplification due to the
3.5 STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS elasticity of the structure is neglected). The
matrix [K] represents the structural stiffness, and
A platform/barge system during transportation [x] is the vector containing the joint
is a free-free system. The systm is in equilibria displacements. led loadsare obtdined from
The appl

A-,
as 1
the solution of the equations of motion of the Two additional structural analyses are
platform/barge assembly when considered as a performed. The first is simply a gravitational
6 degree-of-freedom rigid body system. loading condition with the platform/ barge system in
stillwater. These results give member stresses due
[F)eiUt =([m]+[A])[X) +[B][~~+[C] [X] . . .[61 to steel weight, ballast, buoyancy, and other static
loads, and represent the mean stress of the system.
In this equation, (X], ~~), [X) are respectively the
The other analysis is also performed in the
displacement, velocity and acceleration of the
stillwater condition but at a small roll angle.
center of gravity of the platform/barge assembly,
With further processing, the stresses produced by
[m] is the mass matrix of the system, [A] [X]
the unit roll angle can be used to approximate the
represents hydrodynamic forces due to added mass,
stresses caused by the static weight eccentricity
[B] {X) represents hydrodynamic forces due to
due to large roll angles. The procedure for
damping, and [C] [X) represents the hydrostatic
canputing stress RAOS, correcting for large angle
restoring forces.
roll effect, and the method for computing the stress
response spectra are outlined below.
Equation 6 describes the motions of the rigid
body system about its own center of gravity in only
The initial structural analysis will yield the
6 degrees-of-freedom. The linear acceleration terms
.. complex dynamic stresses for a series of selected
xl , ;2 , ;3 of {~] in Equation 5 of each
unit amplitude waves and wave headings. These
joint in the structure can be approximated by,
results are designated by ~*(M,u), where o
represents the wave frequency, P represents the wave
xL=xG+;Xr+WX(WXr) . . . . . ..[7]
heading, (-) stands for complex and (*) indicates
that the quantities are per unit amplitude wave.
where, XG, is the linear acceleration of the
.. The incremental change in stress due to a unit roll
center of gravity and represents the Xl, X2, and
angle is ccnnputedby,
X3 terms of [X] . The term, ~, is the angular
acceleration about the center of gravity and
represents the X4, X5, and X6 terms of {X] . Aa:=uu-ug . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .[81
The term, w, is the angular velocity about the
,.
center of gravity and represents the X4, X5 ard where uu represents the stresses due to a unit
~6 t.e~S of (~]. The vectorial distance between
roll angle and ag represents the stresses due to
the center of gravity and the discrete point is and buoyancy in the stillwater
static weight
shown by r. The local hydrodynamic forces, given in
condition. The stress correction for the actual
Equation 5 as [FH] , are computed in a roll-back
roll angle is simply the product of the incremental
procedure once the local joint displacements,
change in stress due to the unit roll angle and the
velocities, and accelerations are known. -*
roll angle due to a unit amplitude wave, 6 .

It should be noted that in theory each of the Ayr(WJ)=AU:.~ (W) . ..0 . . . . .. [9]
response quantities, such as structural joint
displacements or system rigid body displacements and
The total complex dynamic stress produced by a
their time derivatives, are complex quantities.
unit amplitude wave including roll effect is then
These complex variables are decomposed, and all
given by,
computations involving these variables are performed
twice, once for the real part and once for the ~r(w,u) =~(u,p) + A ~r(W,lJ) . . . . . . . .[101

imaginary part. Therefore, the structural analysis

must be performed for twice the number of Stress RAOS can now be found for given wave
combinations of wave frequencies and wave headings frequencies and wave headings by the following
desired. equation.

---
 * 4.0 DEEPWATER PLATFORM APPLICATION
RAO(M,IJ)= ~(RE(;*r(W, I.l))
)2+ (IM(~(U,P)))2. .[111
Differences between the two transportation
Finally the stress response spectra can be
analysis procedures will now be shown by comparing
computed by combining the stress RPQs with a wave
results from a typical deepwater platform
spectrum representing the design storm sea state by
application. A canparison of platform stresses and
the following relation,
tie-down axial loads is presented for a prescribed
storm sea state of 6 hour duration. The results
So (u,H) =IRAO(W,LI) 12. Sw(w) . . . . . . . 0 .[l*]
from both methods are in the form of maximum
predicted values using the procedures outlined in
where SW(M) is the spectral density function previous sections.
representing the design sea state.
The deepwater platform under consideration is
The mean square value of the dynamic stress is approximately 710 feet in length, and the barge on
given by, which the platform is to be transported is 623 feet
m in length. Because of the deck configuration of the
MO(P) = Sm(w,p)dw . . . . . . . . . . . . .[13]
barge, a platform overhang of 145 feet is
0
/
necessary. The following table gives the basic
properties of the platform/barge system for a draft
where the integration is performed over the range of
of 18.7 feet.
regular wave frequencies one wave heading at a
time. Finally, the maximum alternating stress due
Platform Weight 36,000 kips
to the selected design sea state can be found by,
Barge Weight 43,500 kips
Ballast Weight 37,500 kips
ALT(P) = ~- . . . . . . . . . .[14]
Transverse Radius
of Gyration 94.17 ft
where N represents the number of cycles. To find
Longitudinal Radius
the total expected maximum stress, the maximum of Gyration 186.67 ft
alternating stress is added to the mean stress, ug. Vertical Center of
Gravity from Keel 50.46 ft
Longitudinal Center of
MAX(P) = fogl UALT(~) . . . . . . . . . . . .[15] Gravity from Aft Most
Point of Platform 413.00 ft
Transverse Metacentric
This total stress represents the maximum Height 78.31 ft
predicted stress for all applied loads caused by Longitudinal Metacentric
Height 1,607.00ft
hydrodynamic pressure, inertial forces, stee1
weight, and buoyancy.

Motion calculations for the platform/barge

The procedure just described is applied to all system were first carried out for a series of unit
the member ends of the structural model for all amplitude regular waves. Wave forces and
desired wave headings. hydrodynamic coefficients were calculated based on
5, 6, 7
the well-known strip theory. Since both
Maximum predicted tie-down loads for the design analysis methods utilize the same procedure in
sea state are obtained in the same manner. All six determining motions, the motion responses were
component of loads can be computed. In analogy with identical. These results are shown in Figures 5 and
the maximum stress, maximum member loads are 6 in RAO format. This is where the similarity
computed for all wave headings. between the two methods ends.

Q-o
 In the rigid barge approach, the motion R,40s A direct comparison of selected maximum
were combined with a wave spectral density function combined stress results is shown in Table 4 with
to obtain statistical characteristics of the motion positive values indicating tensile stress and
response. In this case, the responses were computed negative values indicating compressive stress.
as maximum responses. Table 2 shows the maximum Maximum axial loads for those tie-downs shown in
response values for a storm sea state (1.S.S.C. wave Figure 14 are given in Table 5, where compression is
spectral formulation) of 6 hours duration shown as a positive value.
characterized by a mean spectral period of 12
seconds and a significant wave height of 30 feet. 4.1 PLATFORM MAXIMUM STRESS
These response values, which are in the space-fixed
coordinate system, are single amplitude and are Members 1 and 2, as shown in Figure 15, are in
given with respect to the platform center of the overhang area on Row A of the platform and are
gravity. After a transformation was made from both main leg members. Member 1 is on Row 4, a
space-fixed coordinates to bodyfixed coordinates, launch leg, where Member 2 is on outboard Row 1.
the load condition table was prepared. This table Considering the way in which the rigid barge model
is shown in Table 3. Having supported the platform is supported, it is understandable how the stresses
in a manner shown in Figure 2, the structural in member 1 could be so small. When barge
analysis was performed. A computer plot of the flexibility is introduced, the results become more
platform structural model is shown in Figure 7. realistic. These results show a tendency of stern
This figure shows the platform in its transported seas to represent the worst case for maximum stress
position with the axes, X to bow, Y to port, and Z in the Row A launch legs. Member 2 is also very
up. illustrative. In the rigid barge method the only
loads on Member 2 are inertial loads. When
In the flexible barge approach, motion data comparing these stresses to those from the method
consisting of linear and angular accelerations, as which includes barge flexibility, a 26 percent
well as the hydrodynamic pressure load distribution, decrease is seen in stern seas. In beam seas the
are stored for each unit amplitude regular wave. A stresses predicted by both methods at Member 2, are
total of 92 load conditions were analyzed, because 3 much closer. This is because in a transverse plane
wave headings and 15 regular wave frequencies were where the platform/barge assembly is very strong,
used. The analysis for each load condition was the flexibility contribution to stress is minimized.
performed on a per unit amplitude wave basis. For
this analysis a platform structural model (identical Members 3 and 5, and 4 and 6, are located on
to the one shown in Figure 7) and barge structural launch Row 4 and outer Row 5 respectively. In Table
model, shown separately in Figure 8, were combined 4, Members 3 and 4 show a tendency to be
together to form a platform/barge assembly. overpredicted by the rigid barge method in stern and
quartering seas. In this case it appears that
stresses are dominated by inertial loading. In beam
Once the platform/barge assembly was given seas, however, the results show that stuc.tural
support conditions like those shown in Figure 4, the interaction is present and the stresses predicted by
structural analysis was performed. Selected the rigid barge method are low. Members 5 and 6,
deflection plots are presented in Figures 9-12 for unlike 3 and 4, are located over the barge. As a
various unit amplitude wave load conditions. A result, those stresses computed in stern and
deflection plot of the static or stillwater load quartering seas by the rigid barge method are
condition is shewn in Figure 13. Statistical underpredicted by as much as 48 percent. Beam seas
response values such as maximum stress and maximum shows an overprediction of the stresses by the rigid
tie-down loads were obtained only after the member barge method because of the application of the
stress and tie-down load RAOS were determined. maximum motions.

-- .


Structural Members 7 and 8 are vertical members except for tie-down Rows 2 and 3. The tie-down
in the plane of Row 4 and are in the vicinity of the axial loads predicted by the flexible barge method
platform overhang. The results Show large shw larger values on the up-wave or starboard side,
differences, as much as 35 percent, between the two where the loads predicted by the rigid barge method
methods. In all sea directions, the flexible barge show virtually no difference between port and
method predicts lower stress values than the rigid starboard.
barge method. Members 9, 10, 11 and 12, which are
diagonals in the plane of Row 4 show opposite One of the advantages of the flexible barge
results. In all cases, the stresses predicted by method is that the response of the system to several
the rigid barge method are lower (up to 2-1/2 times) irregular sea states can easily be obtained where
than those stresses predicted by the flexible barge the rigid barge method can not. Figures 19-25 sbw
method. the maximum alternating axial loads of the fourteen
tie-down members for a range of irregular sea states
The results from four other members, 13, 14, 15 with mean spectral periods from 5 to 16 seconds.
and 16 are given to show the overestimation of These results represent the dynamic portion of the
stress by the rigid barge method in an area of axial load and are presented as load per foot
little structural interaction. significant wave height. In order to obtain the
true maximum axial load, the maximum alternating
4.2 TIE-COWN FORCE DISTRIBUTION axial load must be added to the mean axial load
ccmputed from the stillwater load case. The mean
The locations of tie-down members are shown in axial loads are listed below.
Figure 14. For convenience, the tie-downs are
labled P for port, S for starboard and 1 through 7 Mean Axial Load (kips)
going from stern to bow. Figures 16-18 show the Tie-Down
results of the tie-down axial load analysis by the Row Port Starboard
two methods for the 6 hour storm sea state. The
axial load values are plotted against the 7 3,758 3,759
longitudinal position of the tie-downs going from 6 3,113 3,112
bow to stern. These values are again shown in Table 5 1,662 1,668
5. 4 1,208 1,218
3 2,083 2,085
In stern seas, Figure 16, the two methods give 2 2,124 2,106
similar results except for tiedown Row 1 at the 1 3,371 3,317
overhang. At this location, the axial load
predicted by the rigid barge method is 32 percent 5.0 CONCLUSIONS
higher than that calculated by the flexible barge
method. A slight difference in results is seen at There are two fundamental differences between
tie-down Rows 3 and 7 where the flexible barge the two transportation analysis procedures. These
method gives higher results. The large difference differences involve the method of support, either

in the port tie-down results calculated from the flexible or rigid, and the treatment of loading,
rigid barge method can be attributed to an either st~hastic or semi-deterministic. The

insufficient number of load condition combinations. results which have been presented illustrate rather
well the differences between the two basic analysis
Quartering and beam seas, Figures 17 and 18 philosophies. Some of the more important design
respectively, show more pronounced differences in related conclusions are summarized below.
the results. In both cases the results computed
from the rigid barge method are consistently higher - The rigid support condition is not adequate for

than those computed from the flexible barge method proper analysis of the platforms main launch

---
XXI

-
=. ..- ..=__-._____ .-. . . . .. ... _
.-, .. -__.
 legs. This is evidenced by the near-zero ACKNOWLEDGD4ENTS
stresses in Member 1.
- Platform/barge structural interaction seems to The authors wish to thank the management of
play an important role even in the outboard legs Brown and Root, Inc., specifically Mr. Joe C.
on the platform launch face. Lochridge, Mr. James D. Gamel and Mr. Demir I.
- The stresses in any diagonal member lying in one Karsan for their encouragement and support in this
of the 1aunch rows will consistently be effort. The authors would also like to acknowledge
undepredicted if the rigid support approach is the contributions ofMessrs. Scott B. White, Richard
u sed. Stresses were significantly amplified when E. Moore, and David W. Hartell in the analysis.
barge flexibility was considered. For Members Special thanks to Ms. Kathryn L. Shofner in the
9-12, the maximum combined stress was preparation of the manuscript and to Mr. Matthew
underpredicted by an average 49 percent for stern Logsdon and the CADDS group for their preparation of
seas and 33 percent for beam seas. the tables.
- The stresses in any vertical member of the launch
rows will be conservative if computed from the REFERENCES
rigid barge method.
- The flexible barge method S hoWS that any 1. Zedan, M. F., Bayazitoglu, Y. O., Chianis, J.
horizontal, vertical, or diagonal members lying and Tein, Y.: A Quasi-Static Approach for
in any longitudinal plane will be governed by Transportation Analysis of Offshore
stern or head seas rather than beam seas. Only Platforms, Offshore Technology Conference
members lying in a transverse plane will be Proceedings, OTC Paper No. 4161 [1981].
governed by beam seas. 2. Wallis, J. R., Bayazitoglu, Y. O., Ch~man, F.
- The rigid support condition tends to overpredict M. and Mangiavacchi, A.: Fatigue Analysis of
the stresses in members which are in areas of Offshore Structures, Offshore Technology
negligible barge structural interaction. The Conference Proceedings, OTC Paper No. 3379
stresses in members 1316 evidence differences in [1979].
the range of 70-90 percent. This shows how loads 3. Tein, Y., Chianis, J. W., Teymourian, J., and
computed from simultaneously occurring maximum Chou, F.: An Integrated Motion and Structural
mo~ions leads to extremely conservative results. Analysis for Tension Leg Platforms, Offshore
- It was expected that large differences would Technology Conference Proceedings, OTC Paper
appear in the tiedown load results for stern No. 4072 [1981].
seas, but this was not the case. The overall 4. Clough, R. W. and Penzien, J.: Dynamics of
distribution of axial loads agreed well between Structures, McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York,
the two methods. In quartering and beam seas, N.Y. [1975] 502-504.
however, a significant difference in the two 5. Ogilvie, T. F. and Tuck, T. O.: A Rational
~,11
methods was seen. Overall, the rigid barge Strip Theory of Ship Motion, Part
method gave larger load values except in the near Department of Naval Architecture and Marine
vicinity of the tilt beam. Engineering; The University of Michigan, Report
No. 013 [1969].
In general, there can be substantial 6. Salvensen, N., Tuck, E. O., and Faltinsen, O.:
differences in the results predicted by the twu Ship Motions and Sea Loads, Transactions of
transportation analysis procedures. It has been the Society of Naval Architects and Marine
shown that for the case of the larger and heavier Engineers [1970] 250-287.
platforms, platformlbarge structural interaction can 7. Frank, W.: The Frank Close-Fit Ship Motion
have a significant effect on the analysis results. Computer Program, Naval Ship Research and
Small platfotms, decks, or modules, on the other Development Center, Report 3289 [1970].
hand, can be analyzed sufficiently well with the
less costly rigid barge method.

..
CJCio

-
=. ..- ..=__-._____ .-. . . . .. ... _
.-, .. -__.
 TABLE 4COMPARISON OF MA;l#:BME::MBINED STRESS AT SELECTED
TABLE 1EQUILIBRIUM BALANCE RSSULTS FOR BARGE FLEXIBILITY METHOD

TO]& FT~RCE MAXIMUMSTRESS IKSII

TOTAL INERTIAL
sYSTEM DEGREE FORCE DUE TO
OF FREEDOM

1
HYDRODYNAMIC
PRESSURE LOAD
1
SYSTEM MOTIONS
M5N~,ER
I
s TERN
SEAS I
OUA~:::lNG
I
::&
I
METHOO I METHOO 2 METHOO I IMETHOO 2 METHOO I METHOD 2

SWAY (LB) ~z. 44. I 1- 8,71 1- 053 \ - 6.67 1- 0,61 1- 4,09 1-0,54

2 - 4,69 - 3,45 - 4.57 - 4.91 - 4.[5 - 4,41

3 2.02 2.45 2.09 2.31 1.71 0,77

HEAVE (LB) -542, -542,
4 109 1.32 1.[8 1.38 1,11 0,88
I I 6,62 3.49 4.30 3.79 2.12 3.98
5
I ROLL [FT-LB) I 104900. I 104400
4.76 3.74 3.47 3.90
6 6,62 3,42

7 -[8,64 -24.61 -17,37 -26 78 -16,33 -21,13

I PITCH (FT-LB) I -12830. I -,2580
8 -16.02 -17.92 -15,27 -19.44 -14.15 -15.49

9 -27,03 -11.70 -24.09 -13,10 -19,91 - 9.59

I YAW (FT-LB)
I
52550,
I 52920
10 18,03 7,35 13,68 8,08 7,61 5,80

II -20.38 -1$,42 -16.79 -15,64 -12. T5 -10.69

12 8,56 4.32 5,77 4,80 5.40 3.26

13 - 5,53 - 8,02 - 5.59 - 9.69 - 7.65 -10.57

TABLE 2-MAXIMUM MOTION RESPONSES TO IRREGULAR STORM SEA STATE
r [4 6,S2 4.70 8,61 16,37 [1.39 18,62
LONGCRESTEJ
RE3POWLWIORT
SRES?EO
RESPONSE
15 - 2,99 -831 - 4.75 -12.24 - 4.80 -14.98
S#FFN OUA:E~WNG E$SM
16 - 5,01 - 4.86 - 5,32 - 6,09 - 6.63 - 6,90
METHoD [ - BARGE FLEXIBILITY IS cONSIDERED
LINEAR ACCELERATION[FT/SEC2 1 METHOO 2 - PLATFORM IS RIGIDLY SUFPORTED
SURGE 1,29/1,25 1.22/ 1.{2 0.15/0.99
1
SWAY 0.00/2,38 3.14/4.38 7,90/5,69
TAGLE 5COMPARISON OF MAXIMUM AXIAL LOAD IN TIE-OOWN
MFAVF 12.25/2.89 I 3.22/4. 17 6,98/5.20 MEMSERS
1
ANGULARDISPLACEMENT[DEG) MAXIMUM AXIAl LDAO IN TIE-DOWN MEMBER fKIPSl
TIE-
0,00/8,93 12.53/14.24 22.35/18.07 O;;N S5jT~N QUA::;JING ym:
ROLL
PITCH 15.66/5,52 [ 5,49/4.89 o .44/4 ,04
METHOO I METHOO 2 METHOO I METHOO 2 METHOD I METHOD 2
t YAW 10,00/[,68 I 2.48/1 .82 I 0,16/ 1,?5
P-7 6536, 253 I 5633, 7162. 7058, 8012,
AN6ULARACCELERATION
(DEG/S[C21
5-7 6534, 595 I 6826. 7165, 8130. 8033,
ROLL 0,00/2,06 2.86/3.37 5.43/4.31
P-6 431s 2141. 4448. 5872 5510, 6595,
PITCH 1.24/1,33 1.46/1,28 0,14/1,21
s-6 4318, 4292. 5092. 5928. 6331. 6651.
VAW o 00/0 44 0,64/0,5[ o ,04/0 ,60
P-5 4524. [490, 3726. I 5755. 4140. 6638.

s-5 4530. 4592. 4137. 5827, 4578. 6712.

P-4 2876, 1030. 2591, 3383. 2936. 3605

TABLE 3RIGID BARGE METHOO LOAD CONOITION TASLE s-4 2886 2776. 2745. 3407 3249. 3635,

ANGULAR ANGULAR
&&;JNACCk&f%ON DISPLACEMENT ACCELERATE ON WAVE
H2#G
NO.
SURGE SWAY HEAVE ROLL PITCH YAW ROLL PITCN YAW

I + + + + + 0.
2 + + + + + + 0.
3 + + + + + 0.

4 + + + + 0.
5 + t + + 0.
6 + + + + + 0,
7 + + + + + 45.
Wcclw m-ookn CONWRT PUTFORM
8 + + + + - - + + 45, LOCATIONS,W5LR$, STQUCNRAL !AOOELTO
m sms 4S-TWIWOKTED Cwolno!i
9 + + + + + - - 45,

10 + + - - + + 45.
-
II + + + + 45,

12 + - + - + + + 45, OEEW401E14ASS PROPFJTKS

13 + + + - + - + - + 45,

14 + + - + + + - 45.

15 - + - + + + - - 45.

[6 + + + + + 45.

!7 + + + 45.

18 + + + + 45, COWEHT SIGMFICMT

RESPONSES TO

Es-o
WXIWJM RESPONSES
19 + + + + + - - 90,

20 + + + + + 90, SEEK KOTION COM51NATtONS

TO FQRH W.?TIALLO)J
21 + + + + 90, WNQITTOM TWLE

22 t + + + + - + 90, 7RNWORM 5PKIFIXW

WWJJIIIYW$ES To
23 + + 1+ + 90,

24 - - + + + 90. PERFoRM STRUCT06AL XAxlkm

WLYSIS FOR ML TUE5SR_Ro&UPPOR
25 0 0 +g 0 0 0 0 0 0 STATIC LO!O COWTIONS

Fig. 1-Transportation analysis procedure using the rigid barge

melh~d,
 Ff9.2-pl&tfo,m SuPFart for rwd barge tran$podation analysc$methti

PERFORHA STRUCTURAL 4NALVSIS

$==!
FOR 41L COiASINATlONSOF WAVE
FREQUENCY, WA!IHEADMG. AND

~,\ ::;,R::L

?ALUES FOR STRESSES

AND KUBSR LOADS
SPECIFY OURA~lCN Fig, 4-Platfomubarge support for ffex(ble barge tkansportatcm analysis methcd
:; AO;SICI SEA
E COAIPUTE LOADS MD STRESSE
FOR STATIC FORSES END SUM
WITH STATISTICAL RESULTS.

Ftg,3T,.sFOltat,O a,.ly$tS PrOCed,,e s,ngthe&,Qe kibfffty melhod

REGULAR WAVE RESPUNSE REGULAR WAVE RESPONSE

...
IT SUA.,
OUWIIERIKG
SEAS(45 WC> ROLL. oumrmiw SEAS (45. OEGI
A SWAT, BEAM SEAS ,90 Kc> A ROLL. K*M SEAS 190. DEGI
x HEhVE, 5TERN SEAS co DEG1 x PITCH, .TERM SEAS [0. DEcI
x HEkvE OUARTERINC SEAS (45. OEG) * PITCH. OUARTERIMG SEAS (4S. DEG)
x HEAVE. SE4M SEAS 190. QEG) x TAN OUARIERING SEAS 14S. DEG)

4.0

PROGRAM
-=%%& c#T&o
% 4
9. 3. 5. II.
IJAVE FREOUENCY 10 (RAD/SEC1
F1g,5-T,anslat,onal motion FIAOsof platformh.rg esystern Flg,6-Angulw motion RAOs Of Platfonribarge sysl.m
!! m-! i
 +-
. ---

A
\
\

\A \

x ~9. 15-M.mber end Iocatl.os for maxhn.m comhned stress .wmpa,!s.n

PORT
llE-DwNS,
BARCE
r- 1: x
STARBOARD

rORr
FLEXIBILITY
TIE-owNS,
rk~-oouns
8ARGE

PLA7F0RH Is
FLEX,BIL,
Riclct
1S

Y
C0HS10E&2h

T ,S

5uFPoRTC0
CO S, DEREO

L..-

Fig, 12-De fonnat(on plot of Launch Row4 lot st,l[wate, bad canti!ion

L-

TIE-DOWN LONG. POSITION (FEET)

m9. le-TI@dOWil ,X,* 10ad Comparison--ster. se=

c! PORT llE-DOMns, Bwwf FLEXIBILITY Is CONSIDERED

A STARBOARD TIE-OOUMS, B~GE FLEXIBILITY is COMSLDER2U
x PORr lIE-DOW4S, PLAtVORn IS RI GID1, SUPPORTED
x 5TAR80AR0 71 C. DOWNS. DLA,FORN [S RIGIDLY SUPPORTED

10.0(

3.0
-- ..
TIE-OOUN LONG. POSITION (FEE;)
F@, 77Tie.down .,,.1 load com~ar,mwqmtertng seas
 !!EMBER S-7. STERN SEAS {0, DEG,
& MEHBER S-7, OdART. SEAS (45. BEG]
m PORT TIE-DOWNS. BARGE FLEXIBILITY IS CONSIDERED
A STARBOARD TIE-DOWNS. BARGE fLEXIBI1., rY ,S CONS,,7EREC, x HEMBER S-7. BEAM SEAS 190 DEc1
x PORT II E-OOUNS. pLAtfORH is RIGIDLY SUPPORrEB % MEMBER P.7, 5TERN SEAS (o 9EG)
* srARBOARD TtE-tIouNs. PLATFORH IS R,G!DLY SUPPOR, EO x KMJER P-7. 00AR1. SEAS (4S. OEC1
e HEHBER P-7. BEAN SEAS (90, DEG)

TIE-DOWN
FIs, 18 Tie.d.wn
LONG.
da{
.228.
POSITION

load cnmpakm-bwmseas
342.
(FEET]
456,
WOCRA!i
C:E;P:l,E:

570
MEAN SPECTR4L
Flg,39Maxhntim
PER LOO (SECONOS)
altemal,n~aml bad, tie.down Row 7
II
6 138
.ROCRAH
C;::;::;

16.0

MEMBER S-8, ~lERN SEAS (0. Kc) 1 MEMBER S.5 STERN SEAS (0, DEc)
A t!ft!3ER S-6. OUAR1. SEAS c45, DEG, A IW!8ER S-3. OdAR1. SEAS [45, DEc)
x !H12ER S-6. BEAH SEAS (90. OEG1 x KHBER S-$. BEAM SEAS (90 DEG)
x llFtiBER P-6. $lERN SEAS (O. OEG) x filH2ER P-5. STERN SEAS 10, OEG,
x MEMBER P-6. WART. SEAS 145, DEG1 x tlE&ER P-5. OdART. CEAS (4S, DEG,
@ MEMBER P-6. BEAM SEAS (90. DECI e MEHBER P-5. BEAH SEAS (90. DECI

)
MEAN
1.
7.2

SPECTRAL
Flg.20-Maxinwm
9.4
PER[!IO (SECONLIS)
alternating ZIXFI1Ibad, lb.dwn
11,6

ROW6
13.8
pROCRAM
C:EM&TT:D

0
MEAN
IIIi
SPECTRAL
Flg,2i Maximumaltwnating
9.4
PER1OD
a.ld
(SECONOSI
11.6

load, t,e.down RLW5

13.8
 !4EHBER S-4 ?lERN SEAS (0. DEG1 MEMBER S-3. 51EFW SEAS (O. OECI
A MEM2ER S-4 OLIART. 5ChS (45. DEC) A itEH2ER S.3. OdAR,. KAS (45. QEC)
x HEuBER S-4 BEAM SEAS ,90. DEc) x HEMBER S-3. BEAM SEM (90. DEC)

# MEHBFR P-4. 51ERN SEAS (0. DEC1 % MEMBER P-3. 51U?N SEAS (0 DEGI

x MEMBER P-4. OdART. SEAS (45. DEG1 x MEMBER P.3. OdART. SEAS (45. OEG1

e MEMBER P-4. BEAM SEAS ,90. DEG) e MEMBER P-3. BEAM 2EAS <90. DEG1

.60.9

2
u. ,.28.9
.
m
.
g

G 96.90

.
;

&
z 64. !)0
\ /
$
0
-1
.
.
/ ,
E 32. !30

J@l--
7.0 2 9.4
I
11,6 13.8
PROGRAM
CO#&E:

0
9.00
5.0 7.2 %4 116 13.8
PROCRAM
C$..:y:

16.0
MEAN SPECTRAL PERIOD (sEcONDS) MEAN SPECTRAL PERIOD (SECONOSI

F[g. 22-Maximum alternating ax!d load, blown Rowe F19.22-Maximum alternating ulal Ioad, tiudwn RL%43

m MEtMER S-2. 3TERM SEAS [0. DEC) t!fU9ER S-1. $TERM SEAS (0 OEC1
4 NEMBER S-t OUAR1. SEAS (45. OEC) A ltEt40ER S-1 OUAU1. $CAS (4S DEG1
x MEMBER 5-2. BEAM SEAS [90. DEG) x HEtiEER S-1. BEAM SEAS [90 DEG>
* ME!19ER P-2. 51ERN SEAS 10, DFG) K MEMt7ER P-1. $lERN SEAS 10 DEG1
x tlEtiBER P-2. OdART. WAS 145. DEG1 x MEHBEQ P-1 OUAR1. 5EAS 14S OEG1
e REH2ER P-2. BEAti SEAS (90. DEC1 e WiBER P-1. BE4fl SEM 190. DEC)

-L--L-
1 I
t

----

4----

/-

, I I I
) 7.2 9.4 II 6 0 7,2 0
MEAN SPECTRAL PERIOO (SECONOS) HEAN SPECTRAL PERIOO [SECONOS)
Fig, 24-Max, mum alternating awd load. Ile.down Row 2 Flg.25Maximum altemal[ng axial load, tie.dwin Row 1