Analysis and Design of Marine Structures – Guedes Soares & Romanoff (eds)

© 2013 Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-1-138-00045-2

A new generation of offshore structures

F.P. Brennan
School of Engineering, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK

C.M. Rizzo
DITEN, University of Genoa, Genova, Italy

ABSTRACT: Current offshore structural design guidance, knowhow and standards are based on Oil &
Gas industry research conducted mainly in the 1970s and 1980s. Since that time, European Steel Fabrica-
tors have made significant advances in volume manufacturing processes and these along with improve-
ments in steel performance, Quality Assurance and advanced structural analysis techniques promise lower
cost, reliable steel structures for use in Wind, Wave and Tidal power. In addition, there are several fun-
damental differences between conventional offshore Oil & Gas structures and those used in the emerging
offshore renewable energy sector, not least; the very large volume of similar structures, the unmanned
nature of installations and the cost margins involved. These combined with improved capabilities of mod-
ern offshore fabrication and design demand a fresh perspective on the Guidance and Standards available
to developers. This paper reviews the guidance available and identifies in particular fabrication, material
improvement techniques and modelling approaches that may be useful in the design, operation and main-
tenance of Offshore Structures for Renewable Energy.

1 INTRODUCTION Design standards and guidance for offshore

Offshore wind is increasingly becoming the driver
for Britain’s wind power. Statistics released by the
European Wind Energy Association (EWEA) in
February 2011 confirm that the UK is consolidating
its position as the world leader in the offshore wind
sector, with 1.3 GW installed, or 45% of the EU
total of 3 GW, compared to 854 MW for Denmark,
249 MW for the Netherlands and 195 MW for
Belgium. The current figures for installed capacity
at the time of writing (November 2012) is 1.86 GW,
and a further 665 turbines in construction, totalling
2.4 GW. In May 2010, a ground breaking report by
the Offshore Valuation Group, a coalition of gov-
ernment and industry organisations, showed that
the country’s offshore renewable resource matches
North Sea oil and gas in equivalent barrels of oil.
Using less than a third of the resource, the renewa-
bles sector could generate the energy equivalent of
1 billion barrels of oil per year, create 145,000 new
jobs, provide the Treasury with £28bn in tax receipts
and allowing Britain to become a net exporter of
electricity by 2050, whilst reducing carbon emis-
sions by 30% compared to 1990 levels. Carbon
Trust puts the figure at 230,000 jobs by 2050 in the
Offshore Wind Sector alone and that the UK could
capture a 10% share of the global offshore wind
market, which it estimates, could be worth up to
£170bn/year by 2050.
steel structures have evolved from the first com-
prehensive rules in the early 1970s primarily by
API (American Petroleum Institute, 2002) and the
UK Department of Energy which were developed
specifically for the Oil & Gas industry. Although
the Department of Energy guidance notes are no
longer maintained (by the UK HSE) and were
revoked in the late 1990s, these contain valuable
knowledge which is largely preserved through ISO,
HMSO OTO and certification authority docu-
ments in addition to API and certain other useful
publications.
In parallel, structural design methodologies
based on risk/reliability approaches have developed
over the same period (e.g. International Organiza-
tion for Standardization, 2008); the best exam-
ples encapsulated within the Eurocode series of
standards. As a result, whereas structural standards
and guidance exist to apply the most advanced risk
based design methodologies, there is an absolute
deficit in contemporary supporting information
to allow these to be implemented for maximum
advantage. For example, all standards allow the
use of higher strength weldable steels (>500 MPa)
but without appropriate component S-N design
curves the option of utilising these is beyond the
capability of any single design organisation and/or
fabrication yard. Similarly it seems incomprehensi-
ble that in the year 2012, post-weld heat treatment,

507
weld toe improvement, peening and other fatigue
alleviation techniques are not commonly exploited
in design of offshore steel structures, all because of
the lack of basic design information. Figure 1. Evolution of the T’ curve.
The emerging offshore renewables sector is
unlike the Oil & Gas industry in that structures
are unmanned and the commercial reality is that
The Health & Safety Executive (1999) explains
it cannot afford the luxury of designing for unrep-
that a total of 64 T-, X- and K-joint test results were
resentative reliability levels; the only way in which
used to obtain the T-Curve. More specifically, the
it can make a step change to significantly reduce
curve was formulated from the mean 32 mm chord
steel structure costs is to embrace modern steel and
wall thickness data curve less two standards devia-
fabrication techniques coupled with advanced reli-
tion based on the 16 mm chord wall thickness data.
ability based design approaches.
It was recommended for joints in air or seawater
This paper focuses on Tubular Steel structures
where adequate protection against corrosion has
which are fundamental to larger wind turbine
been provided. A ‘Thickness Correction’ is applied
jacket structures and potentially for tidal stream
where the thickness is anything other than 32 mm;
and wave power installations. The following sec-
a value of 22 mm imposed for calculating fatigue
tions detail the background to current guidance
lives of joints with chord wall thicknesses less than
and highlight areas where there needs to be better
22 mm. A total of 59 T-, Y-, X- and K-joints of
information to support designers and operators of
16 mm were used to obtain the T’ Curve and this
Offshore Renewable Energy installations.
represents the largest subset of data with the wid-
est range of joint geometries and loading modes.
A simple assessment of the data showed that the
2 CONVENTIONAL S-N DESIGN slope (m) of the mean log10N vs. log10S line had
GUIDANCE a value which was very close to 3, and therefore a
fixed value of m equal to 3 was retained for con-
2.1 T curves sistency with earlier Guidance. A new thickness
correction based on deviation from 16 mm wall
The first recommendations for the design of tubu-
thickness was introduced.
lar joints against fatigue based on the use of S-N
It should be noted that the tests that make
curves were by the American Petroleum Institute
up the design curve were in the main carried
(API) and the American Welding Society (AWS) in
out over twenty-years ago, many of which were
1972 (Austin, 1994). The first S-N curve based on
completed thirty-years ago under very different
joint hot-spot stress was referred to as the X Curve
quality and welding control process that we apply
and was recommended by API RP2A in 1972. The
today. No pre- or post-weld heat treatment, weld
data used to obtain the S-N curve was obtained
toe grinding/repair/profile improvement was car-
from small T and K joint specimens tested in air
ried out and fatigue test controllers and data
under constant amplitude (Austin 1994, Health &
acquisition systems were very different to what we
Safety Executive, 1999).
expect today.
The 2nd edition of the UK Department of
Energy Guidance Notes guidance (1977) rec-
ommended the Q Curve, which is based on the 2.2 Local stress analysis of tubular joints
data generated by the API and the AWS (Myers,
Fatigue is a local (mesoscopic) phenomenon and
1998). Since this curve was published, two major
the type of fatigue experienced by large offshore
revisions have taken place. The first revision was
structures will normally be dominated by the
in 1984, the results from the UKOSRP and the
effects of local stress features. In tubular joints,
European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC)
stresses can be classified into three groups (Austin
sponsored research programme highlighted that
1994):
the Q curve could be unconservative under cer-
tain conditions. The S-N curve recommended in • Nominal stresses, which represent the struc-
this revision became known as the T curve. The tural response of individual members to applied
second revision was in 1996 incorporating a sig- loads;
nificant amount of new data which became avail- • Geometric (or Structural) stresses, which are
able on the fatigue behaviour of welded tubular developed due to the differences in deformation
joints (Health & Safety Executive 1999). The of brace and chord under applied loads;
new curve for tubular joints was designated the • Notch stresses, which occur in the weld toe
T’ curve (Chang 1997). Figure 1 summarizes this region caused by the extra stiffening effect of the
development. weld on the tube walls.

508
 The presence of notches, shoulders, etc., result
in modifications of the simple stress distribution.
This local high stress is termed a stress concentra-
tion and is described by the Stress Concentration
Factor (SCF); which may be obtained analytically
from elasticity theory, computationally from finite
element methods, and experimentally using meth-
ods such as strain gauges (Pilkey, 2008).
One of the most important terms to appreciate
when utilising the S-N approach for tubular joints
is the “Hot-Spot” Stress. Figure 2 shows the stress
field in the vicinity of a weld toe and is charac-
terised by a nominal (or remote) stress unaffected Figure 3. Electrical Resistance Strain Gauge Rosettes
for the measurement of Chord and Brace Hot Spot
by the joint geometry but increases steeply as the Stresses in a Tubular T-Joint.
toe is approached. For convenience a fictitious
“Hot-Spot” Stress is frequently defined as a linear
extrapolation of the stresses at two defined points
The S-N curves used in all the aforementioned
some distance from the weld toe.
standards and guidance documents incorporate
The definition of the Hot Spot Stress for tubu-
the Hot Spot Stress which omits the influence
lar joints was originally drafted by the review
of the weld geometry. This means that there has
panel of the United Kingdom Offshore Steels
been little incentive to improve weld toe geometry,
Research Programme (UKOSRP) and adopted
a detail that if improved could have a significant
by the UK Department of Energy guidance notes
beneficial effect on fatigue life.
(Department of Energy, 1984) and stated that it
was: “the greatest value around the brace-chord
intersection of the extrapolation to the weld toe
3 SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENTS
of the geometric stress distribution near the weld
SINCE THE ORIGINAL FATIGUE
toe. This hot spot stress incorporates the over-
DESIGN GUIDANCE
all effects of joint geometry (i.e. relative size of
brace and chord) but omits the stress concentrat-
3.1 Linear elastic fracture mechanics
ing influence of the weld itself which results in a
local stress distribution”. There is not a general Linear Elastic Fracture Mechanics (LEFM) has
agreement for the calculation of the hot spots developed significantly in the past forty years and
stresses (Berge, 1985), but the most common is its understanding and application for damage
the extrapolation region defined in the CIDECT tolerant structures is now widespread. Designers
(Zhao, 2001) design guide. sometimes misunderstand its potential and very
The Hot-Spot Stress was developed at a time often LEFM is only used after damage has been
when the only way of reliably measuring stress detected. The Offshore Oil & Gas industry has now
was through Electrical Resistance Strain Gauges very much embraced LEFM particularly for struc-
on a physical model (Fig. 3). Nowadays with tural life-extension activities supporting service
Finite Element Analysis, DIC and other methods inspection planning, reliability assessments based
of measuring notch stresses, the Hot Spot Stress on “what-if ” scenarios etc., In many ways the tradi-
could be seen as a hindrance. tional S-N approach shackles the quality fabricator
and designer from implementing good fabrication
practice as the Hot-Spot Stress S-N design curves
give no benefit to weld toe improvement. Design
Standards do in some cases give limited benefit
for toe grinding and peening e.g. DNV will allow
up to a factor of 3.5 on life for certain S-N Curves
but these are very crude and conservative meas-
ures that are likely to significantly underestimate
the enormous potential of using surface treatment
techniques for fatigue life improvement that can
be modelled and predicted with a combination of
notch stress crack initiation understanding along
with LEFM crack propagation techniques.
Figure 2. Nominal and hot-spot stresses (Bureau LEFM is the understanding and modelling of
Veritas 2000). stable crack growth. The stress intensity factor (K)

509
(Etube et al, 2000) is a crucial parameter in this
subject area and is a function of the Notch Stress
in addition to the component geometry and load-
ing mode. If the stress intensity factor in a poten-
tial crack path is known, then the rate at which this
crack will grow can be predicted from the Paris
Law, along with the loading and certain material
properties.
Fracture Mechanics also allows the calculation
of the effects of beneficial residual stresses due
to peening on fatigue life and a real opportunity
exists to combine Fracture Mechanics understand-
ing alongside S-N if it is considered properly at
minimal additional cost from the outset of any new
test programme.
Fracture Mechanics standards exist through
BS7910 (British Standards Institution, 2005) and
API 579 (API/ASME, 2007) for geometries and
welded components of the type used and likely to
be used for Offshore Wind.
Often LEFM is criticised as too sensitive to
the quality of input variables to be relied upon
for design purposes. Rizzo (2007) carried out
a sensitivity analysis of LEFM calculations
of typical welded joints by applying reliability
approaches. Parameters describing loading con-
ditions introduced the larger uncertainties whilst,
among strength parameters, the initial crack size
dominates rather than material or geometrical
parameters. Clearly good quality input data and
suitable calibration against experimental testing
are always necessary to obtain valuable results as
in any other engineering analysis.
An alternative to LEFM is represented by the
application of approaches based on the Notch Stress
Intensity Factor (N-SIF) concept, like the Strain
Energy Density approach (SED) or the Peak Stress
Method (PSM), see Figure 5, such methods were
recently revived in scientific literature and applica-
tion in everyday working practice appears promis-
ing in the near future. A comprehensive literature
review of such methods is reported in Rizzo (2011)
Figure 4. LEFM prediction of wind turbine monopile
crack growth (stress range 60 MPa, section thickness
85 mm, 355 D Steel).
510
Figure 5. Notch Stress Intensity Factor (N-SIF) based
approaches included in the classification of fatigue assess-
ment approaches by Radaj, Sonsino & Fricke (2006).
and a useful application to a typical ship structural
detail is detailed by Fischer et al. (2011).
In short, N-SIF represents an extension of
LEFM to notches whereas LEFM can only deal
with cracks. It is therefore the parameter describ-
ing the singular stress field at a notch tip analogous
to the stress intensity factor in fracture mechanics.
While very refined meshes are necessary to numeri-
cally assess the N-SIF using finite element analysis,
it has been demonstrated that under certain condi-
tions the N-SIF is directly related to the SED aver-
aged in a defined control volume or to the peak
value of the principal stress.
Such approaches overcome the problem of sin-
gular stress fields and implementation in numeri-
cal analysis appears less cumbersome than for
LEFM. These therefore are promising approaches
to account for the effects of the weld and other
local effects.
3.2 Weld toe improvement methods
It is well known that surface geometry and other
improvement methods can greatly increase the
fatigue strength of structural details. Indeed as a
mesoscopic phenomenon, fatigue is initially gov-
erned by very local parameters which describe the
conditions of the material/geometry at the point
where the crack is likely to start. Weld toe fatigue
cracks initiate from undercuts, cold laps or sharp
crack-like imperfections which are an inherent fea-
ture of most welding processes.
Although quantitative assessment of weld
improvement can be difficult to define, in general
a multiplicative correction factor is applied to S-N
life predictions whose value is very often empiri-
cally derived depending on the applied improve-
ment method.
A general reference concerning fatigue strength
improvement methods for weldments is provided
by the International Institute of Welding (IIW,
Hobbacher et al, 2008). In addition to methods
for protection against environmental conditions
(e.g. painting and resin coating) two main catego-
ries of improvement methods are considered:
a. Methods for improvement of weld profile:
machining or grinding of weld transition at the
toe, remelting of the weld toe by TIG-, plasma
or laser dressing;
b. Methods for improvement of residual stress
conditions: peening (hammer-, needle-, shot-,
brush-peening or ultrasonic treatment), over-
stressing (proof testing), stress relief.
The effects of all improvement techniques are
sensitive to the technique used and the applied
loading and are all most effective in the low stress
high cycle regime. They may also depend on the
material, the structural detail, the applied stress
ratio and the dimensions of the welded joint.
Consequently, determination of their effectiveness
can be rather difficult.
The aim of grinding is to remove defects and
imperfections and to create a smooth transition
between weld and parent material, reducing the
stress concentration. By weld dressing, the weld
toe is remelted in order to remove the toe imperfec-
tions and again creating a gradual profile from the
weld to the component surface. In both cases IIW
restricts the benefit applied to the fatigue strength
of the corresponding non improved joint to a fac-
tor of 1.3.
By hammer, shot or needle peening, the material
is plastically deformed at the weld toe in order to
introduce beneficial compressive residual stresses.
An improvement factor of 1.3 on strength is also
considered for mild steel while for high strength
steel (yield > 355 MPa) or aluminum, a factor of
1.5 can be applied within limits.
The DNV guidelines for offshore wind turbine
support structures (2010) account for improved
fatigue performance of welded structures by
grinding and provide detailed qualitative specifica-
tions. Improved S-N curves can be applied to girth
welds if grinding is carried out according to rules’
specifications.
In total an improvement in fatigue life by a
factor of 3.5 can be obtained for tubular joints
following the aforementioned guidance and
recommendations. Furthermore, the S-N curve
slope can also be reduced having a significant ben-
eficial effect on fatigue life predictions.
A complete section of the DNV Recommended
Practice for offshore structures (2010) is devoted to
improvement methods. General reference is made
to IIW provisions on post weld improvement and
to the fact that improvement of the toe will not
improve the fatigue life if cracking from the root is
likely. The weld profiling effect by machining and
grinding is taken into account in structural analysis
by reducing the stress concentration factor at the
511
Figure 6. Example weld toe profiling descriptions
reported in DNV RP (2010).
hot spot. It is worth noting that very detailed and
quantitative descriptions of weld toe profiling are
provided (see Fig. 6), including even the specifica-
tion of appropriate grinding tools as well as pre-
scriptions for surface roughness.
A strong message from this paper is that there
is a significant increase in fatigue strength when
appropriate weld toe improvement methods are
applied according to specifications detailed in
existing rules and guidance and that considerable
further improvement is likely following research
and development efforts specifically for marine
and offshore renewable energy applications.
3.3 Monitoring, inspection, repair and maintenance
Developments in inspection and maintenance of
ship and offshore structures in general have been
reported extensively e.g. by Rizzo (2008a, 2008b)
and Rizzo (2011). Section 13 of the DNV offshore
wind guidelines (2010) deals with in-service inspec-
tion, maintenance and monitoring of offshore
wind farms, following the experience and knowl-
edge learned over decades concerning ships and
offshore structures by classification societies, rules
and international conventions.
During the assumed 20 years lifetime, periodical
inspection consists of three levels of inspection, i.e.
general visual inspection, close visual inspection
and nondestructive examination.
However, contrary from ships, inspection for
fatigue cracks at least every-year/five-years may
be waived in an offshore wind turbine structure
depending on which design philosophy has been
used for the structural detail in question: when the
fatigue design of the structural detail has been car-
ried out by use of safety factors corresponding to an
assumption of no access for inspection, then there is
no need to inspect for fatigue cracks, while if smaller
safety factors have been used for the fatigue design,
inspections then need to be carried out.
In general, the lower the safety factor, the shorter
the interval between consecutive inspections.
Reliable inspection, such as an inspection by eddy
current or a magnetic particle inspection can grant
a reduced inspection interval calculated on the
basis of the safety level to be achieved. It is inter-
esting to note that DNV Recommended Practice
for offshore structures (2010) explicitly provides a
target safety level in terms of failure probability as
follows (Fig. 7):
• If a fatigue crack is without substantial conse-
quence an accumulated probability of 10−2 may
be considered acceptable and a larger inspection
interval allowed;
• If the consequence of a fatigue crack is substan-
tial, the accumulated probability of a fatigue
failure should be less than 10−4 and inspections
should take place at shorter intervals.
In fact, the time interval to the next inspec-
tion is estimated based on fracture mechanics and
probabilistic analysis taking the uncertainty in
Figure 7. Accumulated probability of fatigue crack as
function of service life for 20 years calculated fatigue life,
DNV (2010).
Figure 8. Failure probability of typical welded joints
assuming no detection or perfect repair at each 5th year
inspection (Rizzo, 2007).
512
the inspection method into account. It was dem-
onstrated (see Fig. 8 (Rizzo, 2007)) that only the
last inspection results significantly contribute in
the updating of the model, the effect of the previ-
ous inspections in the updated life predictions is
negligible. Therefore, differently from ships requir-
ing fixed inspection intervals because of opera-
tional reasons, the optimization of the inspection
interval (based on no inspection carried out until
a target reliability level is reached) has real poten-
tial to optimise Capex and Opex for offshore wind
structures.
4 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
This paper summarised in broad terms the origin
of the fatigue guidance currently applied to off-
shore tubular joints, monopoles are not specifically
dealt with but have similar characteristics. The
paper highlights the fact that whereas significant
strides an understanding fatigue behaviour in the
offshore environment certain historical practices
are today hindering the effective optimization of a
new generation of offshore structures for wind and
marine energy application. The following conclu-
sions are emphasised:
• Hot-Spot stress based S-N curves do not allow
the flexibility for designers to properly benefit
from weld toe improvement techniques;
• High strength weldable steels may benefit design-
ers but there is inadequate information available
to allow their wide spread use;
• Thickness correction in modern weldments
is likely to be overly conservative (volumetric
effect);
• Environmental Reduction Factors are generally
based on fatigue crack propagation studies and
do not represent short crack or a crack initiation
phase;
• Overall, there is a need to update the fatigue
database for modern welded steel components
under representative loading and environmental
conditions embracing notch stress and fracture
mechanics based approaches in order to reduce
the costs of offshore renewable energy struc-
tures whilst increasing reliability and structural
performance.
• Notch stress intensity factor and energy based
approaches are exciting developments that needs
to be developed further if designers are to ben-
efit from these emerging concepts;
• Reliability based design and structural assess-
ment allows both inspection and maintenance
optimisation according to appropriate target
reliability and an understanding of the degree
of confidence in life predictions.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The background to the T-Curves is based largely
on a much larger yet unpublished review con-
ducted by Estivaliz Lozano Minguez at Cranfield
University.
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute/American Society for
Mechanical Engineers, 2007. API 579-1/ASME FFS-1
2007, Fitness-For-Service.
American Petroleum Institute, 2002. API RP 2A-WSD:
Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, Twenty First
Edition.
Austin, J.A. 1994. The role of corrosion fatigue crack
growth mechanisms in predicting the fatigue life of
offshore tubular joints, PhD Thesis, University of
London.
Berge, S. 1985. On the effect of plate thickness in finite of
welds. s.l.: Engineering Fracture Mechanics. Vol. 21,
No. 2.
British Standards Institution, BS 7910:2005, Guide to
methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in
metallic structures.
Bureau Veritas 2000. BV Rules for the Classification of
Steel Ships, Paris, Marine Department.
Chang, E. 1997. Parametric Study for Non-Destructive
Fatigue Strength Evaluation of Offshore Tubular
Welded Joints, PhD Thesis, University of London.
Department of Energy, 1984. Offshore Installations: Guid-
ance on Design and Construction, London, HMSO.
DNV 1992. Classification Note 30.6.
DNV, 2010. Offshore Standard DNV-OS-J101, Design
of offshore wind turbine structures.
DNV, 2010. Recommended Practice DNV-RP-C203
Fatigue Design Of Offshore Steel Structures.
Etube L.S., Brennan F.P. and Dover W.D. 2000. A New
Method for Predicting Stress Intensity Factors In
Cracked Welded Tubular Joints, International Journal
of Fatigue, Vol. 22, Issue 6, pp. 447–456.
Fischer, C., Rizzo, C.M., Fricke, W. 2011. Fatigue assess-
ment of hopper knuckles according to N-SIF based
approaches, IMAM 2011, The International Congress
of International Maritime Association of the Medi-
terranean, 13–16 September 2011, Genova, Italy, in
Sustainable Maritime Transportation and Exploita-
tion of Sea Resources—Rizzuto & Guedes Soares
(eds), Taylor & Francis Group, London, ISBN 978-0-
415-62081-90.
513
Health and Safety Executive, 1999. Background to new
fatigue guidance for steel joints and connections in
offshore structures, Offshore Technology Report—
OTH 920390.
Hobbacher A. et al 2008. IIW Fatigue Recommenda-
tion, document IIW-1823-07, ex XIII-2151r4-07/
XV-1254r4-07, International Institute of Welding,
Paris.
International Organization for Standardization, 2008.
ISO 2394:2008 General principles on reliability for
structures.
Myers, P.T. 1998. Corrosion fatigue and fracture
mechanics of high strength jack up steels, PhD Thesis,
University of London.
Pilkey, W. 2008. Peterson’s stress concentration factors,
New Jersey and Canada, John Willey and Sons.
Rizzo, C.M. 2007. Application of Reliability Analysis to
the Fatigue of Typical Welded Joints of Ships, Schiff-
stechnik/Ship Technology Research 54, 89–100. ISSN
0937-7255.
Rizzo, C.M. 2011. Application of advanced notch stress
approaches to assess fatigue strength of ship structural
details: literature review. Report 655, Schriftenreihe
Schiffbau, Technische Universität Hamburg-Harburg,
Germany. (59 pp.), ISBN 978-3-89220-655-2.
Rizzo, C.M. 2008. Ch. 13—Inspection of aged ships and
offshore structures. In: Condition assessment of aged
structures, Eds. Paik, J.K. and Melchers, R.E. (Wood-
head publishing Ltd.), 367–406. ISBN 978-1-84569
334-3.
Rizzo, C.M. 2008. Ch.15—Maintenance of aged ships
and offshore structures. In: Condition assessment of
aged structures, Eds. Paik, J.K. and Melchers, R.E.
(Woodhead publishing Ltd.), 430–458. ISBN 978-1
84569-334-3.
Rizzo, C.M. 2011. Life cycle of ships and offshore struc-
tures-inspection and survey of ship structures: an
introduction. A Rational Overview of Ships Inspec-
tion and Maintenance Regime. In Ships and Offshore
Structure, [Ed. Jeom Kee Paik], in Encyclopedia of
Life Support Systems (EOLSS), Developed under the
Auspices of the UNESCO, Eolss Publishers, Oxford,
UK, [http://www.eolss.net], www.eolss.net/outline-
components/Ships-Offshore-Structures.aspx.
UEG Offshore Research 1985. Design of tubular joints
for offshore structures, Volume 2, Norwich.
Zhao, X.L. et al. 2001, Design guide for circular and rec-
tangular hollow section joints under fatigue loading,
TUV-Verlag, Germany, CIDECT publication.