Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
ON OCEAN STRUCTURES
Eko B Djatmiko
Department of Ocean Engineering
Faculty of Marine Technology ITS
Surabaya January 2012
1. INTRODUCTION
Damage and failure on ocean steel structures (OSS: offshore platforms,
ships, etc): mainly due to fatigue; at primary, secondary or tertiary
structural elements (intensity increases with corrosion)
Fatigue damage is one of the most important failure modes in OSS,
which are subject to continuous dynamic variable amplitude loading,
comprises of:
Low frequency (quasi-static) cyclical load brought about the wave excitation,
at the rate of some 107 ~ 108 times during the operational life of the OSS (abt
20 years)
High frequency (dynamic) cyclical loads which can be classified into transient
loads (slamming, wave slapping, hull whipping) and steady loads (engine
vibration, propeller, hull springing), at the rate of 106 times during the
operational life of the OSS (abt 20 years)
Very low frequency (static) cyclical load brought about the variation of logistic
loads and hydrostatic loads (tidal), at the rate of 4000 ~ 8000 times during the
operational life of the OSS (abt 20 years)
Cyclic loads due to the irregular thermal gradient brought about the climate
and cargo temperatures, at the rate of 7000 times during the operational life
of the OSS (abt 20 years)
1-1
FLS
Fatigue Design Criteria of Offshore Structures according to API RP 2AWSD and API RP 2A-LRFD:
1-3
A year later in March 1981, the investigative report concluded that the rig
collapsed owing to a fatigue crack in one of its six bracings (bracing D-6),
which connected the collapsed D-leg to the rest of the rig. This was traced to
a small 6 mm fillet weld which joined a non-load-bearing flange plate to this D6 bracing. This flange plate held a sonar device used during drilling
operations. The poor profile of the fillet weld contributed to a reduction in its
fatigue strength.
Further, the investigation found considerable amounts of lamellar tearing in
the flange plate and cold cracks in the butt weld. Cold cracks in the welds,
increased stress concentrations due to the weakened flange plate, the poor
weld profile, and cyclical stresses (which would be common in the North Sea),
seemed to collectively play a role in the rig's collapse.
1-5
1-6
There are two general types of fatigue tests conducted. One test focuses on
the nominal stress required to cause a fatigue failure in some number of
cycles. This test results in data presented as a plot of stress (S) against the
number of cycles to failure (N), which is known as an S-N curve. A log scale is
almost always used for N.
The data is obtained by cycling smooth or notched specimens until failure.
The usual procedure is to test the first specimen at a high peak stress where
failure is expected in a fairly short number of cycles. The test stress is
decreased for each succeeding specimen until one or two specimens do not
fail in the specified numbers of cycles, which is usually at least 107 cycles. The
highest stress at which a runout (non-failure) occurs is taken as the fatigue
threshold. Not all materials have a fatigue threshold (most nonferrous metallic
alloys do not) and for these materials the test is usually terminated after about
108 or 5x108 cycles.
Since the amplitude of the cyclic loading has a major effect on the fatigue
performance, the S-N relationship is determined for one specific loading
amplitude. The amplitude is expressed as the R ratio value, which is the
minimum peak stress divided by the maximum peak stress. (R=min/max). It is
most common to test at an R ratio of 0.1 but families of curves, with each
curve at a different R ratio, are often developed.
(source: www.ndt-ed.org)
2-3
A variation to the cyclic stress controlled fatigue test is the cyclic strain controlled
test. In this test, the strain amplitude is held constant during cycling. Strain
controlled cyclic loading is more representative of the loading found in thermal
cycling, where a component expands and contracts in response to fluctuations in
the operating temperature.
It should be noted that there are several short comings of S-N fatigue data.
First, the conditions of the test specimens do not always represent actual
service conditions. For example, components with surface conditions, such
as pitting from corrosion, which differs from the condition of the test
specimens will have significantly different fatigue performance.
(source: www.ndt-ed.org)
2-4
log N
log S
log S
log S
a)
b)
c)
log N
log N
log S
a
b
c
log N
2-6
log S
S-N curve for structural joint configuration with shorter fatigue life tend
to be leaner/lower slope (see Fig. 2.6)
N 2 > N1
Si
N1
N2
log N
Figure 2.6. Comparison of S-N curves with lower and higher slope
2-7
NS m A
or
(2.1)
2-8
CLASS
log A
15.3697
4.0
14.0432
3.5
12.6007
3.0
12.5169
3.0
12.2370
3.0
F2
12.0900
3.0
11.7525
3.0
11.5662
3.0
12.6606
3.0
Figure 2.9. S-N curve for brittle aluminum with a UTS of 320 Mpa
(peculiar curve pattern in comparison to steel structure)
2-12
t
N N0 0
t
m/4
A
because N 0 m
S
A t
hence N m 0
S t
(2.2)
m/4
2-13
D
i 1
ni
n
n
n
n
1 2 3 ......... m
N i N1 N 2 N 3
Nm
(3.1)
where:
ni = number of cycles of stress range at intensity Si (N/mm2) which actually
occur on the structural joint brought about external load excitation (wave)
Ni = number of cycles of stress range at intensity Si (N/mm2) which will yield
fatigue failure on the joint in question. The figure may be obtained from an
S-N curve for an appropriate joint
Si = stress range (or DSi); twice of stress amplitude that is experienced by the
joint (N/mm2)
In accordance to Palmgren-Miner hypothesis, the failure of the joint takes
place when the damage index D approaches value of 1.0.
3-1
S i S i ( nom) SCF
(3.2)
The nominal stress range, Si(nom), is obtained from the analysis of regular
wave load (deterministic analysis) to generate internal forces and/or
moments on the structural components in question, appropriately
correspond to the wave in the Metocean data.
The wave load so obtained is further accounted for in the structural
analysis, for instance global analysis by using a conventional stress
analysis or by means of global FEM (eg. SAP, GTSTRUDL, etc) to derive
the nominal stress range, Si(nom).
The value of SCF for a joint may be found by adopting peculiar formulae as
can be found in references by Almar-Naess (1985), API (1980), Munse
(1984), etc.
SCF is not necessary to be computed when the FEM could directly produce
stresses on the detail structure (eg. NASTRAN, ANSYS, ABACUS)
3-2
The number of cycles ni for any stress range Si which arises due to the
wave load is characterized by wave height Hi (m) and period Ti (sec) can
be calculated by using the following equation:
Pi T
ni
Ti
(3.3)
PT
PT
P1T
PT
2 3 ........ m 1
N 1T1 N 2T2 N 3T3
N mTm
(3.4)
The fatigue life T is finally found by solving the above eq. (3.4) by taking
into account Pi , Ni and Ti as shown in the example contained in Table
3.1.
3-3
Ti(det)
Pi
Si(N/mm2)
Ni
Pi/(NixTi)
0.0 1.5
0.8781
11
1.059E+09
2.763E-10
1.5 3.0
0.1035
32
4.303E+07
4.811E-10
3.0 4.5
0.0124
79
2.860E+06
6.194E-10
4.5 6.0
0.0042
124
7.395E+05
6.310E-10
6.0 7.5
10
0.0011
158
3.575E+05
3.077E-10
7.5 10.0
11
0.0005
191
2.024E+05
2.246E-10
10.0 12.5
12
0.0001
226
1.222E+05
6.822E-11
0.999
Total =
2.608E-09
T(sec) = 3.834E+08
T(yrs) = 12.157
Calculated from
S-N curve equation:
Ni = A/Sim
Calculated by:
m
T D
i 1
N i Ti
Pi
3-5
2
1.5
z (t) in m
0.5
0
-0.5 0.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
60
-1
-1.5
-2
-2.5
Time, t (sec)
Random waves (as in the case of any random signal), as shown by the time history
in Fig. 4.1, by means of Fast Fourier Transform could then be presented in the form
of wave spectra (see references on sea waves).
4-2
Stress Analysis,
(FEM)
RAO = S/zw
Wave Load
Analysis
(Regular)
RAO = zFw/zw
Second Stage: transforming the Load RAO into Stress RAO for
particular joints under observation by performing stress analyses
(most appropriately applying FEM) see Fig. 4.2
w
STAGE I
STAGE II
4-3
Wave
(H & T)
3m
40o
2m
30o
Load Cond.
Full Load
Wave Dir.
Figure 4.3. Operational scenario (box of operation) of OSS
Table 4.1. ABS Wave Scatter Diagram for Unrestricted Service Classification
[ABS, GUIDE FOR: SPECTRAL-BASED FATIGUE ANALYSIS FOR FLOATING PRODUCTION,
STORAGE AND OFFLOADING (FPSO) INSTALLATIONS, May 2010]
Wave Periods
Wave
Heights
(m)
3.5
4.5
5.5
6.5
7.5
8.5
9.5
10.5
11.5
12.5
13.5
Sum
Over All
Periods
0.5
260
1344
2149
1349
413
76
10
5610
1.5
55
1223
5349
7569
4788
1698
397
69
21158
2.5
406
3245
7844
7977
4305
1458
351
65
10
25670
3.5
113
1332
4599
6488
4716
2092
642
149
28
20161
4.5
30
469
2101
3779
3439
1876
696
192
43
12625
5.5
156
858
1867
2030
1307
564
180
46
7016
6.5
52
336
856
1077
795
390
140
40
3688
7.5
18
132
383
545
452
247
98
30
1906
8.5
53
172
272
250
150
65
22
990
9.5
22
78
136
137
90
42
15
522
10.5
37
70
76
53
26
10
282
11.5
18
36
42
32
17
156
12.5
19
24
19
11
88
13.5
10
14
12
51
> 14.5
13
19
19
13
77
24880
26874
18442
8949
3335
1014
266
100000
Sum Over
All Heights
326
3127
12779
4-4
8
7
1
1
1
Hs (m)
4
1 2
3 2
1 4
6 11 10
11 23 31 40 59 47 14
3 44 58 49 61 69 144 48 21
1
1
1
2
10
12
14
16
Tp sec)
SS(w)
S(w)
2
RAO = S/zw
Number of cycles
Short-term
1
(1/det)
n0
m2
m0 SS (w ) dw
m0
pS(S)
ps (S )
S1 S2
S3 S4
Sm
S S 2 / 2 m0
e
m0
m2 w 2SS (w ) dw
0
4-7
N L ( n0 pi p j pk ) xTL
i
(4.1)
where :
NL = number of stress cycles in the long-term
TL = lifetime of the structure (secs)
no = number of cycles per unit time (1/sec); can be found from the interval
operation in the short-term (see Fig. 4.5):
n0
1
2
m2
m0
(4.2)
p L (S )
n
i
pi p j p k p s ( S )
n
i
(4.3)
pi p j p k
S S 2 / 2 m0
ps (S )
e
m0
(4.4)
4-9
Hi & Ti
n0m-2
n0m-1
n0m
Load cond
n01
n02
n03
x p i . p j . pl
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
4-10
SUMMARY ON
THE PROCEDURE OF FULL-SPECTRAL FATIGUE ANALYSIS
1. Performing the regular wave load analysis to derive RAO of the structural responses
(Bending Moment, Shear Force); carried out for a number of appropriate wave directions
(eg. 0, 45, 90, 135, 180 degs)
2. Transforming the structural response RAOs into the stress range RAOs (using stress
analysis, or FEM)
3. Defining the operational scenario of the OSS by considering among others: the metocean
data (wave scatter diagram, joint probability of H & T, wave direction), loading conditions,
advancing speeds (for travelling ships), spectral variation (if any), and so on
4. Computing the stress spectra for all mode of operation as defined in point 3)
5. Computing number of cycles (eq. 4.2) and distribution of stress cycles in the short-term as
can be represented by Rayleigh distribution (eq. 4.4) for each operational mode in point 3)
6. Computing the distribution of stress cycles in the long-term (which is the summation of all
the short-term stress cycle distributions) by considering the designed operational life T (in
years seconds) and all the probabilities of elements within operational mode in point 3),
and solving eqs. (4.1) and (4.3) the long-term stress range distribution will follow the
theoretical Weibull distribution
7. Correlating results of the analysis and computation of stress cycle distribution in the longterm as obtained in point 6) with the fatigue data represented by S-N curve by
implementing the Palmgren-Miner rule (eq. 4.1) to finally determine the fatigue life of the
structural joint under observation.
4-11
ni
n3
nm
n1
n2
D
.........
N1 N 2 N 3
Nm
i 1 N i
(5.1)
If p(S) is the stress pdf which can be defined in such a way hence p(Si)dS is
equivalent to the number of oscillation of stress component with the peak
value lies within an interval dS and with the mean value of Si. Further by
taking f and T as the mean frequency which vary randomly and the overall
operational time, respectively, hence the increase of the damage due to Si
which will take place during an interval T is:
T f p ( S i )dS
dD
N S i
(5.2)
5-1
N(Si) is number of cycle which would bring about damage at stress level Si.
From eq. (5.2) the expected damage that would take place in a certain
period T, could then be obtained by integrating contributions of all cycles of
the stress components, that is:
E ( D) T f
0
p L (S )
ds
N (S )
(5.3)
NL m
E ( D)
S p( S )ds
A 0
(5.4)
5-2
p L (S )
x S
l l
x 1
S x
exp
l
(5.5)
where:
l = scale parameter
x = form parameter
The value of l is a function of the extreme stress range.
The value of x is a function of the structural configuration and operational
sea site; for the general equation x may range between 0.75 up to 2.0; for
ocean structure x may range between 0.9 (mostly for large structures) up
to 1.1. (mostly for small structures).
5-3
S
S
ln N L
l
Se
l Se( ln N L ) 1 / x
or
(5.6)
NL m x S
D
S
A 0
l l
x 1
S x
exp ds
l
(5.7)
5-4
S
Taking x
l
willgive
N L m (1 m / x ) 1
D
l x
exp x dx
A
0
(5.8)
G(n) e t t n 1 dt
(5.9)
Approximation of gamma
function:
Stirling Formula :
G( x 1)
2x x / e
5-5
Analogy of the factor within the integral in eq. (5.8) and (5.9) yields:
NL m
l G(1 m / x )
A
(5.10)
N L Se m
D
G(1 m / x )
m/x
A (ln N L )
(5.11)
this is referred to as
the CLOSED-FORM
5-6
APPENDIX A.
CLASSIFICATION OF STRUCTURAL JOINTS (refer also to Fig. 2.8)
A-1
A-2
A-3
A-4
A-5
A-6
A-7
A-8
A-9
A-10
APPENDIX B
STRESS CONCENTRATION FACTOR
maks
n
B-1
Pada titik yang berdekatan di suatu sambungan antara chord dan brace
nilai SCF yang terjadi akan berbeda, karena kedua member mempunyai
parameter-parameter dan orientasi yang berbeda. SCF untuk brace
diberi notasi SCFb dan untuk chord diberi notasi SCFc.
Hot spot adalah lokasi pada suatu sambungan (tubular) dimana terjadi
tegagan tarik/tekan maksimum. Secara umum diidentifikasi sda tiga tipe
tegangan dasar yang menyebabkan munculnya hot spot (Becker, et al.,
1970):
1. Tipe A, disebabkan oleh gaya-gaya aksial dan momen-momen yang
merupakan hasil dari kombinasi frame dan truss jacket.
2. Tipe B disebabkan detail-detail sambungan struktur seperti geometri
sambungan yang kurang memadai, variasi kekakuan yang bervariasi
disambungan dan lain-lain.
3. Tipe C, disebabkan oleh faktor metalurgis yang dihasilkan dan kesalahan
pengelasan, seperti undercut, porosity, dan lain-lain.
B-2
BEBAN
AKSIAL
BEBAN
AKSIAL
IN PLANE
BENDING
IN PLANE
BENDING
BRACE
BRACE
d
OUT OF
PLANE
BENDING
OUT OF
PLANE
BENDING
D
L
Parameter Turunan:
= 2L/D
= t/T
= d/D
x = g/D
= D/2T
= sudut antara brace dan chord
B-3
Untuk Aksial:
K s . . .(6.78 6.42.
1/ 2
). sin
(1.7 0.7. 3 )
K b 1 0.63.K c
K c K 'c K o .K "c
K 'c (0.7 1.37.
sin
.( 0.5. / ).( / 2 / sin ). sin
Ko
1 1.5 /
0.5
0.5
K b 1 0.63.Ks
B-5
3. Persamaan Kuang
Untuk Chord:
SCFAX / T ,Y 1.981 0.057 1.2 0.08 1.33 sin 1.694
3
7 40
0 .2 0 . 8
0 .3 0 . 8
0.02 x 1.0
8.3 33.3
30 0 90 0
Untuk Brace:
0.120 1..35 3 0.550 1.33
SCFAX / T ,Y 3.751
sin 1.94
SCFIPB / T ,Y 1.301 0.23 0.6 0.38 sin 021
SCFOPB / T ,Y 1.522 0.801 0.852 0.543 sin 2.033
SCFOPB / T ,Y 0.796 0.281 0.852 0.543 sin 2.033
B-6