Norsok N 004

NORSOK STANDARD N-004
Draft 3 to Rev. 3, November 2012
Design of steel structures
This NORSOK standard is developed with broad petroleum industry participation by interested parties in the
Norwegian petroleum industry and is owned by the Norwegian petroleum industry represented by The Norwegian
Oil Industry Association (OLF) and Federation of Norwegian Manufacturing Industries (TBL). Please note that whilst
every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy of this NORSOK standard, neither OLF nor TBL or any of their
members will assume liability for any use thereof. Standards Norway is responsible for the administration and
publication of this NORSOK standard.
Standards Norway Telephone: + 47 67 83 86 00
Strandveien 18, P.O. Box 242 Fax: + 47 67 83 86 01
N-1326 Lysaker Email: petroleum@standard.no
NORWAY Website: www.standard.no/petroleum
Copyrights reserved
NORSOK standard N-004 Draft 3 to Rev. 3, November 2012
FOREWORD 3
INTRODUCTION 3
1 SCOPE 4
2 NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIVE REFERENCES 4
2.1 Normative references 4
2.2 Informative references 4
3 TERMS, DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS 4
3.1 Terms and definitions 4
3.2 Abbreviations 5
3.3 Symbols 6
4 GENERAL PROVISIONS 9
5 STEEL MATERIAL SELECTION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING 10
5.1 Design class 10
5.2 Steel quality level 10
5.3 Welding and non-destructive testing (NDT) 11
6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES 13
6.1 General 13
6.2 Ductility 13
6.3 Tubular members 14
6.3.1 General 14
6.3.2 Axial tension 14
6.3.3 Axial compression 15
6.3.4 Bending 16
6.3.5 Shear 16
6.3.6 Hydrostatic pressure 17
6.3.6.1 Hoop buckling 17
6.3.6.2 Ring stiffener design 18
6.3.7 Material factor 18
6.3.8 Tubular members subjected to combined loads without hydrostatic pressure 19
6.3.8.1 Axial tension and bending 19
6.3.8.2 Axial compression and bending 19
6.3.8.3 Interaction shear and bending moment 21
6.3.8.4 Interaction shear, bending moment and torsional moment 21
6.3.9 Tubular members subjected to combined loads with hydrostatic pressure 21
6.3.9.1 Axial tension, bending, and hydrostatic pressure 21
6.3.9.2 Axial compression, bending, and hydrostatic pressure 23
6.4 Tubular joints 25
6.4.1 General 25
6.4.2 Joint classification 25
6.4.3 Strength of simple joints 28
6.4.3.1 General 28
6.4.3.2 Basic resistance 29
6.4.3.3 Strength factor Qu 30
6.4.3.4 Chord action factor Qf 30
6.4.3.5 Design axial resistance for X and Y joints with joint cans 31
6.4.3.6 Strength check 32
6.4.4 Overlap joints 32
6.4.5 Ringstiffened joints 33
6.4.6 Cast joints 33
6.5 Strength of conical transitions 33
6.5.1 General 33
6.5.2 Design stresses 33
6.5.2.1 Equivalent design axial stress in the cone section. 33
6.5.2.2 Local bending stress at unstiffened junctions 34
6.5.2.3 Hoop stress at unstiffened junctions 34
6.5.3 Strength requirements without external hydrostatic pressure 35
6.5.3.1 Local buckling under axial compression 35
NORSOK standard Page 1 of 275

6.5.3.2 Junction yielding 35

6.5.3.3 Junction buckling 36
6.5.4 Strength requirements with external hydrostatic pressure 37
6.5.4.1 Hoop buckling 37
6.5.4.2 Junction yielding and buckling 37
6.5.5 Ring design 37
6.5.5.1 General 37
6.5.5.2 Junction rings without external hydrostatic pressure 37
6.5.5.3 Junction rings with external hydrostatic pressure 38
6.5.5.4 Intermediate stiffening rings 38
6.6 Design of plated structures 38
6.7 Design of cylindrical shells 39
6.8 Design against unstable fracture 39
6.8.1 General 39
6.8.2 Determination of maximum acceptable defect size 39
7 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES 40
8 FATIGUE LIMIT STATES 40
8.1 General 40
8.2 Methods for fatigue analysis 40
9 ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE LIMIT STATES 41
9.1 General 41
9.2 Check for accidental actions 41
10 REASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURES 42
10.1 General 42
11 BIBLIOGRAPHY 43
12 COMMENTARY 44
Annex A (Normative) Design against accidental actions 60

Annex K (Normative) Special design provisions for jackets 122
Annex L (Normative) Special design provisions for ship shaped units 158
Annex M (Normative) Special design provisions for column stabilized units 201
Annex N (Normative) Special design provisions for tension leg platforms 241

Foreword
The NORSOK standards are developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry to ensure adequate safety,
value adding and cost effectiveness for petroleum industry developments and operations. Furthermore,
NORSOK standards are, as far as possible, intended to replace oil company specifications and serve as
references in the authorities’ regulations.
The NORSOK standards are normally based on recognised international standards, adding the provisions
deemed necessary to fill the broad needs of the Norwegian petroleum industry. Where relevant, NORSOK
standards will be used to provide the Norwegian industry input to the international standardisation process.
Subject to development and publication of international standards, the relevant NORSOK standard will be
withdrawn.
The NORSOK standards are developed according to the consensus principle generally applicable for most
standards work and according to established procedures defined in NORSOK A-001.
The NORSOK standards are prepared and published with support by The Norwegian Oil Industry
Association (OLF) and Federation of Norwegian Manufacturing Industries (TBL).
NORSOK standards are administered and published by Standards Norway.
Annex A, K, L, M and N are normative parts of this NORSOK standard.
Introduction
This NORSOK standard is intended to fulfil NPD regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc.
in the petroleum activities.
The design principles follow the requirements in ISO 19900.

1 SCOPE
This NORSOK standard specifies guidelines and requirements for design and documentation of offshore
steel structures.
This NORSOK standard is applicable to all type of offshore structures made of steel with a specified
minimum yield strength less or equal to 500 MPa. For steel with higher characteristic yield strength, see
Clause 12.
2 NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIVE REFERENCES

The following standards include provisions and guidelines which, through reference in this text, constitute
provisions and guidelines of this NORSOK standard. Latest issue of the references shall be used unless
otherwise agreed. Other recognized standards may be used provided it can be shown that they meet or
exceed the requirements and guidelines of the standards referenced below.
2.1 Normative references

API RP 2T, Planning, Designing and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms
DNV, Rules for classification of ships
DNV, Classification Note 30.7
DNV-OS-C101, Design of offshore Steel Structures
DNV-OS-H101, Marine Operations, General
DNV-RP-C201, Buckling Strength of Plated Structures
DNV-RP-C203, Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures
DNV-RP-C202, Buckling of Shells
DNV-OS-C502, Offshore Concrete Structures
ISO 19900, Petroleum and natural gas industries – General requirements for offshore
structures
ISO 19902, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed steel offshore structures
NORSOK G-001, Soil investigation
NORSOK M-001, Materials selection
NORSOK M-101, Structural steel fabrication
NORSOK M-120, Material data sheets for structural steel
NORSOK N-001, Structural design
NORSOK N-003, Action and action effects
NORSOK N-006, Assessment of structural integrity for existing offshore load-bearing structures
NORSOK Z-001, Documentation for operation
NS 3481, Soil investigation and geotechnical design for marine structures
NS-EN 1993-1-1, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-1: General rules and rules for
buildings
NS-EN 1993-1-5, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-5: Plated structural elements
NS-EN 1993-1-8, Eurocode 3: Design of steel structures - Part 1-8: Design of joints
2.2 Informative references

See Clause 11.
3 TERMS, DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

For the purposes of this NORSOK standard, the following terms, definitions and abbreviations apply.
3.1 Terms and definitions

3.1.1
can
verbal form used for statements of possibility and capability, whether material, physical or casual
3.1.2
may
verbal form used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the standard

3.1.3
Norwegian petroleum activities
petroleum activities where Norwegian regulations apply
3.1.4
operator
company or an association which through the granting of a production licence is responsible for the day to
day activities carried out in accordance with the licence
3.1.5
petroleum activities
offshore drilling, production, treatment and storage of hydrocarbons
3.1.6
principal standard
standard with higher priority than other similar standards
NOTE Similar standards may be used as supplements, but not as alternatives to the principal standard.
3.1.7
shall
verbal form used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the standard and from
which no deviation is permitted, unless accepted by all involved parties
3.1.8
should
verbal form used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable,
without mentioning or excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily
required
3.2 Abbreviations
ALS accidental limit state
API American Petroleum Institute
BSI British Standards Institution
CTOD crack tip opening displacement
DAF dynamic amplification factor
DC design class
DFF design fatigue factor
DFI design, fabrication and installation
DNV Det Norske Veritas
EA environmental actions
ECCS European Convention for Constructional Steelwork
FE finite element
FEM finite element method
FLS fatigue limit state
FPSO floating production storage and offloading
HF high frequency
IMO International Maritime Organisation
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
LF low frequency
MDS material data sheet
MPI magnetic particle inspection
NDT non-destructive testing
NMD Norwegian Maritime Directorate
NPD Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
RAO response amplitude operator
RCS Recognised Classification Society
ROV remotely operated vehicle
SDOF single degree of freedom

SQL steel quality level

SCF stress concentration factor
TLP tension leg platform
ULS ultimate limit state
WF wave frequency
3.3 Symbols
A cross sectional area, accidental action, parameter, full area of the brace/chord intersection
Ac cross sectional area of composite ring section
Ae effective area
Aw cross sectional area of web
B hoop buckling factor
C rotational stiffness, factor
Ce critical elastic buckling coefficient
Ch elastic hoop buckling strength factor
Cm reduction factor
Cmy, Cmz reduction factor corresponding to the member y and z axis respectively
C0 factor
D outer diameter of chord, cylinder diameter at a conical transition, outside diameter
Dc diameter to centeroid of composite ring section
De equivalent diameter
Dj diameter at junction
Dmax maximum measured diameter
Dmin minimum measured diameter
Dnom nominal diameter
Ds outer cone diameter
5
E Young’s modulus of elasticity, 2.1⋅10 MPa
G shear modulus
I, Iz, Is moment of inertia
Ic moment of inertia for ring composite section
Ich moment of inertia
IcT moment of inertia of composite ring section with external hydrostatic pressure and with
effective width of flange
Ie effective moment of inertia
Ip polar moment of inertia
Ka factor
L length, distance
L1 distance to first stiffening ring in tubular section
Lc distance to first stiffening ring in cone section along cone axis
Lr ring spacing
Mpl,Rd design plastic bending moment resistance
MRd design bending moment resistance
Mred,Rd reduced design bending moment resistance due to torsional moment
MSd design bending moment
MT,Sd design torsional moment
MT,Rd design torsional moment resistance
My,Rd design in-plane bending moment resistance
My,Sd in-plane design bending moment
Mz,Rd design out-of-plane bending moment resistance
Mz,Sd out-of-plane design bending moment
Nc,Rd design axial compressive resistance
Ncan,Rd design axial resistance of can
Ncg,Rd axial compression resistance of a grouted, composite member
Ncl characteristic local buckling resistance
Ncl characteristic local buckling resistance
Ncl,Rd design local buckling resistance
NE Euler buckling strength
NE,dent Euler buckling strength of a dented tubular member, for buckling in-line with the dent
NEg elastic Euler buckling load of a grouted, composite member
NEy,NEz Euler buckling resistance corresponding to the member y and z axis respectively

NSd design axial force

Nt,Rd design axial tension resistance
Nx,Rd design axial resistance in x direction
Nx,Sd design axial force in x direction
Ny,Rd design axial resistance in y direction
Ny,Sd design axial force in y direction
PSd design lateral force
Q factor
Qf chord action factor
Qg chord gap factor
Qu strength factor
Qyy angle correction factor
Qβ geometric factor, tubular joint geometry factor
R radius, radius of chord, radius of conical transition
Rd design resistance
Rk characteristic resistance
Sd design action effect
Sk characteristic action effect
T thickness of tubular sections, thickness of chord
Tc chord-can thickness
Tn nominal chord member thickness
VRd design shear resistance
VSd design shear force
W elastic section modulus
Z plastic section modulus
a stiffener length, crack depth, weld throat, factor
ai initial crack depth
am maximum allowable defect size
au calculated crack depth at unstable fracture
b factor
be effective width
c factor
d diameter of tubular cross section, brace diameter
d0, d1, d2 distance
ef flange eccentricity
fc characteristic axial compressive strength
fch,Rd design axial compressive strength in the presence of hydrostatic pressure
fcj corresponding tubular or cone characteristic compressive strength
fcl characteristic local buckling strength
fcl,Rd design local buckling strength, design local buckling strength of undamaged cylinder
fclc local buckling strength of conical transition
fcle characteristic elastic local buckling strength
fcr critical buckling strength
fd design yield strength
fE Euler buckling strength
fEpx, fEpy Euler buckling strength corresponding to the member y and z axis respectively
fEy, fEz Euler buckling strength corresponding to the member y and z axis respectively
fh characteristic hoop buckling strength
fhe elastic hoop buckling strength for tubular section
fhec elastic hoop buckling strength for cone section
fh,Rd design hoop buckling strength
fk, fkx, fky, fkp characteristic buckling strength
fm characteristic bending strength
fm,Rd design bending strength
fm,Red reduced bending strength due to torsional moment
fmh,Rd design bending resistance in the presence of external hydrostatic pressure
fth,Rd design axial tensile resistance in the presence of external hydrostatic pressure
fy characteristic yield strength
fy,b characteristic yield strength of brace
fy,c characteristic yield strength of chord
g gap

h height
i radius of gyration
ie effective radius of gyration
k, kg,kl, kσ buckling factor
l, lL length, element length
le effective length
pSd design hydrostatic pressure
r radius, factor
t thickness
tc cone thickness
teff effective thickness of chord and internal pipe of a grouted member
α coefficient, angle between cylinder and cone geometrical coefficient, factor
β factor
γ factor
γBC additional building code material factor
γf partial factor for actions
γM resulting material factor
γM0 material factor for use with EN-1993-1-1
γMb material factor EN-1993-1-8 bolts
γMw material factor EN-1993-1-8 welds
ε factor
η hoop buckling factor
θ angle
θc the included angle for the compression brace
θt the included angle for the tension brace
λ reduced slenderness, column slenderness parameter
λe reduced equivalent slenderness
λs reduced slenderness, shell slenderness parameter
µ coefficient, geometric parameter
ν Poisson’s ratio
ρ rotational stiffness factor
σa,Sd design axial stress in member
σac,Sd design axial stress including the effect of the hydrostatic capped end axial stress
σat,Sd design axial stress in tubular section at junction due to global actions
σequ,Sd equivalent design axial stress within the conical transition
σh,Sd design hoop stress due to the external hydrostatic pressure
σhc,Sd design hoop stress at unstiffened tubular-cone junctions due to unbalanced radial line forces
σhj,Sd net design hoop stress at a tubular–cone junction
σj,Sd design von Mises’ equivalent stress
σm,Sd design bending stress
σmc,Sd design bending stress at the section within the cone due to global actions
σmlc,Sd local design bending stress at the cone side of unstiffened tubular-cone junctions
σmlt,Sd local design bending stress at the tubular side of unstiffened tubular-cone junctions
σmt,Sd design bending stress in tubular section at junction due to global actions
σmy,Sd design bending stress due to in-plane bending
σmz,Sd design bending stress due to out-of-plane bending
σp,Sd design hoop stress due to hydrostatic pressure
σtot,Sd total design stress
σq,Sd capped end axial design compression stress due to external hydrostatic pressure
τT,Sd shear stress due to design torsional moment
ψ, ψx, ψy factors
φ factor

4 GENERAL PROVISIONS
All relevant failure modes for the structure shall be identified and it shall be checked that no corresponding
limit state is exceeded.
In this NORSOK standard the limit states are grouped into:
1. Serviceability limit states
2. Ultimate limit states
3. Fatigue limit states
4. Accidental limit states
For definition of the groups of limit states, reference is made to ISO 19900.
The different groups of limit states are addressed in designated clauses of this NORSOK standard. In
general, the design needs to be checked for all groups of limit states.
The general safety format may be expressed as:
Sd ≤ R d (4.1)
where
Sd = Sk γ f Design action effect

Rk
Rd = Design resistance
γM
Sk = Characteristic action effect
γf = partial factor for actions
Rk = Characteristic resistance
γM = Material factor
In this NORSOK standard the values of the resulting material factor are given in the respective clauses.
General requirements for structures are given in NORSOK N-001.
Determination of actions and action effects shall be according to NORSOK N-003.

The steel fabrication shall be according to the requirements in NORSOK M-101.

5 STEEL MATERIAL SELECTION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR

NON-DESTRUCTIVE TESTING
5.1 Design class
Selection of steel quality and requirements for inspection of welds shall be based on a systematic
classification of welded joints according to the structural significance and complexity of joints. The main
criterion for decision of DC of welded joints is the significance with respect to consequences of failure of the
joint. In addition the geometrical complexity of the joint will influence the DC selection.
The selection of joint design class shall be in compliance with Table 5-1 for all permanent structural
elements. A similar classification may also be used for temporary structures.
Table 5-1 Classification of structural joints and components
1) 2)
Design Class Joint complexity Consequences of failure
DC1 High
Applicable for joints and members where failure will have
3)
substantial consequences and the structure possesses limited
4).
residual strength.
DC2 Low
DC3 High
Applicable for joints and members where failure will be without
3) 4).
substantial consequences due to residual strength.
DC4 Low
Applicable for joints and members where failure will be without

DC5 Any 3)
substantial consequences.
Notes:
1) Guidance for classification can be found in Annex K, L, M and N.
2) High joint complexity means joints where the geometry of connected elements and weld type leads to high restraint
and to triaxial stress pattern. E.g., typically multiplanar plated connections with full penetration welds.
3) “Substantial consequences” in this context means that failure of the joint or member will entail
- danger of loss of human life;
- significant pollution;
- major financial consequences.
4) Residual strength means that the structure meets requirements corresponding to the damaged condition in the
check for accidental damage limit states, with failure in the actual joint or component as the defined damage. See
Clause 12.
5.2 Steel quality level

Selection of steel quality level for a structural component shall normally be based on the most stringent DC
of joints involving the component. Through-thickness stresses shall be assessed.
The minimum requirements for selection of steel material are found in Table 5-2. Selection of a better steel
quality than the minimum required in design shall not lead to more stringent requirements in fabrication.
The principal standard for specification of steels is NORSOK M-120, Material data sheets for rolled structural
steel. Material selection in compliance with NORSOK M-120 assures toughness and weldability for
structures with an operating temperature down to -14 °C.
Cast and forged steels shall be in accordance with recognised standards.
If steels of higher specified minimum yield strength than 500 MPa or greater thickness than 150 mm are
selected, the feasibility of such a selection shall be assessed in each case.
Traceability of materials shall be in accordance with NORSOK Z-001.

Table 5-2 Correlation between design classes and steel quality level
Design Class Steel Quality Level
I II III IV
DC1 X
DC2 (X) X
DC3 (X) X
DC4 (X) X
DC5 X
(X) = Selection where the joint strength is based on transference of tensile stresses in the through thickness direction of the plate. See Clause 12.
5.3 Welding and non-destructive testing (NDT)

The required fracture toughness level shall be determined at the design stage for joints with plate thickness
above 50 mm when for joints in design class DC1, DC2 or DC3.
The extent of non-destructive examination during fabrication of structural joints shall be in compliance with
the inspection category. The selection of inspection category for each welded joint shall be in accordance
with Table 5-3 and Table 5-4 for joints with low and high fatigue utilisation respectively.
Welds in joints below 150 m water depth should be assumed inaccessible for in-service inspection.
The principal standard for welder and welding qualification, welding performance and non-destructive testing
is NORSOK M-101.
1)
Table 5-3 Determination of inspection category for details with low fatigue utilisation
2)
Design Type of and level of stress and direction in relation to Inspection category
Class welded joint.
Welds subjected to high tensile stresses transverse to the
weld.
6) A
DC1 and Welds with moderate tensile stresses transverse to the 3)

DC2 weld and/or high shear stresses.
7) B
Welds with low tensile stresses transverse to the weld 4)

8) C
and/or moderate shear stress.
Welds subjected to high tensile stresses transverse to the 3)
6) B
weld.
DC3 and Welds with moderate tensile stresses transverse to the 4)
7) C
DC4 weld and/or high shear stresses.
Welds with low tensile stresses transverse to the weld 5)
8) D
and/or moderate shear stress.
All load bearing connections. D
DC5
Non load bearing connections. E
Notes:
1) Low fatigue utilisation means connections with calculated fatigue life longer than 3 times the required fatigue life
(design fatigue life multiplied with the DFF).
2) It is recommended that areas of the welds where stress concentrations occur be marked as mandatory inspection
areas for B, C and D categories as applicable.
3) Welds or parts of welds with no access for in-service inspection and repair should be assigned inspection category
A.
B.
C.
6) High tensile stresses mean ULS tensile stresses in excess of 0.85 of design stress.
7) Moderate tensile stresses mean ULS tensile stresses between 0.6 and 0.85 of design stress.
8) Low tensile stresses mean ULS tensile stresses less than 0.6 of design stress.

1)
Table 5-4 Determination of inspection category for details with high fatigue utilisation
3)
Design Direction of dominating principal stress Inspection category
Class
Welds with the direction of the dominating dynamic
2)
principal stress transverse to the weld ( between 45°and A
DC1 and 135°)
DC2 Welds with the direction of the dominating dynamic
4)
principal stress in the direction of the weld ( between - B
45°and 45°)
principal stress transverse to the weld ( between 45°and B
4)
135°)
DC3 and
DC4 Welds with the direction of the dominating dynamic
principal stress in the direction of the weld ( between - C
5)
45°and 45°)

principal stress transverse to the weld ( between 45°and D
135°)
DC5
principal stress in the direction of the weld ( between - E
45°and 45°)
Notes:
1) High fatigue utilisation means connections with calculated fatigue life less than 3 times the required fatigue life
(design fatigue life multiplied with the DFF).
2) Butt welds with high fatigue utilisation and SCF less than 1.3 need stricter NDT acceptance criteria. Such criteria
need to be developed in each case.
3) For joints in inspection categories B, C or D, the hot spot regions (regions with highest stress range) at welds or
areas of welds of special concern shall be addressed with individual notations as mandatory for selected NDT
methods.
A.
B.

6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

6.1 General
This clause gives provisions for checking of ULSs for typical structural elements used in offshore steel
structures, where ordinary building codes lack relevant recommendations. Such elements are tubular
members, tubular joints, conical transitions and some load situations for plates and stiffened plates. For
other types of structural elements NS-EN 1993-1-1 for member design and NS-EN 1993-1-8 for other joints
than tubular joints apply. See also sub clause 6.5.1 and 6.7.
The material factor γΜ is 1.15 for ULSs unless noted otherwise.
The material factors according to Table 6-1 shall be used if NS-EN 1993-1-1 and NS-EN 1993-1-8 are used
for calculation of structural resistance:
Table 6-1 Material factors
Type of calculation Material factor 1) Value
Resistance of Class 1,2 or 3 cross-sections γM0 1.15
Resistance of Class 4 cross-sections γM1 1.15
Resistance of member to buckling γM1 1.15
Resistance of net section at bolt holes γM2 1.3
Resistance of fillet and partial penetration welds γMw 1.3
Resistance of bolted connections γMb 1.3
1) Symbols according to NS-EN 1993-1-1 and NS-EN 1993-1-8.
For resistance check where other material factors are used than given in Table 6-1 the recommended
material factor in NS-EN 1993-1-1, NS-EN 1993-1-5 and NS-EN 1993-1-8 should be multiplied by an
additional building code material factor γBC = 1.05
The ultimate strength of structural elements and systems should be evaluated by using a rational, justifiable
engineering approach.
The structural analysis may be carried out as linear elastic, simplified rigid–plastic, or elastic-plastic
analyses. Both first order or second order analyses may be applied. In all cases, the structural detailing with
respect to strength and ductility requirement shall conform to the assumption made for the analysis.
When plastic or elastic-plastic analyses are used for structures exposed to cyclic loading (e.g. wave loads)
checks shall be carried out to verify that the structure will shake down without excessive plastic deformations
or fracture due to repeated yielding. A characteristic or design cyclic load history needs to be defined in such
a way that the structural reliability in case of cyclic loading (e.g. storm loading) is not less than the structural
reliability for ULSs for non-cyclic actions. It should be checked as a minimum that the structure will carry all
loads throughout the entire storm comprising the ULS environmental condition.
In case of linear analysis combined with the resistance formulations set down in this NORSOK standard,
shakedown can be assumed without further checks.
6.2 Ductility
It is a fundamental requirement that all failure modes are sufficiently ductile such that the structural
behaviour will be in accordance with the anticipated model used for determination of the responses. In
general all design procedures, regardless of analysis method, will not capture the true structural behaviour.
Ductile failure modes will allow the structure to redistribute forces in accordance with the presupposed static
model. Brittle failure modes shall therefore be avoided or shall be verified to have excess resistance
compared to ductile modes, and in this way protect the structure from brittle failure.
The following sources for brittle structural behaviour may need to be considered for a steel structure:
1. Unstable fracture caused by a combination of the following factors:
- brittle material;

- a design resulting in high local stresses;

- the possibilities for weld defects.
2. Structural details where ultimate resistance is reached with plastic deformations only in limited areas,
making the global behaviour brittle, e.g. partial butt weld loaded transverse to the weld with failure in the
weld.
3. Shell buckling.
4. Buckling where interaction between local and global buckling modes occur.
In general a steel structure will be of adequate ductility if the following is satisfied:
5. Material toughness requirements are met, and the design avoids a combination of high local stresses
with possibilities of undetected weld defects.
6. Details are designed to develop a certain plastic deflection e.g. partial butt welds subjected to stresses
transverse to the weld is designed with excess resistance compared with adjoining plates.
7. Member geometry is selected such that the resistance does not show a sudden drop in capacity when
the member is subjected to deformation beyond maximum resistance. An unstiffened shell in cross-
section class 4 is an example of a member that may show such an unfavourable resistance deformation
relationship. For definition of cross-section class see NS-EN 1993-1-1.
8. Local and global buckling interaction effects are avoided.
6.3 Tubular members
6.3.1 General
The structural strength and stability requirements for steel tubular members are specified in this section.
The requirements given in this section apply to un stiffened and ring stiffened tubulars having a thickness t ≥
6 mm, D/t < 120 and material meeting the general requirements in Clause 5. In cases where hydrostatic
pressure are present, the structural analysis may proceed on the basis that stresses due to the capped-end
forces arising from hydrostatic pressure are either included in or excluded from the analysis. This aspect is
discussed in Clause 12.
In the following subclauses, y and z are used to define the in-plane and out-of-plane axes of a tubular
member, respectively.
The requirements assume the tubular is constructed in accordance with the fabrication tolerances given in
NORSOK M-101.
The requirements are formulated for an isolated beam column. This formulation may also be used to check
the resistance of frames and trusses, provided that each member is checked for the member forces and
moments combined with a representative effective length. The effective length may in lieu of special
analyses be determined according to the requirements given in this chapter. Alternatively the ULSs for
frames or trusses may be determined on basis of non-linear analyses taking into account second order
effects. The use of these analyses requires that the assumptions made are fulfilled and justified.
Tubular members subjected solely to axial tension, axial compression, bending, shear, or hydrostatic
pressure should be designed to satisfy the strength and stability requirements specified in 6.3.2 to 6.3.6.
Tubular members subjected to combined loads without hydrostatic pressure should be designed to satisfy
the strength and stability requirements specified in 6.3.8. Tubular members subjected to combined loads with
hydrostatic pressure should be designed to satisfy the strength and stability requirements specified in 6.3.9.
The equations in this section are not using an unique sign convention. Definitions are given in each
paragraph.
6.3.2 Axial tension

Tubular members subjected to axial tensile loads should be designed to satisfy the following condition:
Afy (6.1)
N Sd ≤ N t,Rd =
γM
where

NSd = design axial force (tension positive)

fy = characteristic yield strength
A = cross sectional area
γM = 1.15.
6.3.3 Axial compression

Tubular members subjected to axial compressive loads should be designed to satisfy the following condition:
Af c (6.2)
N Sd ≤ N c,Rd =
γM
where
NSd = design axial force (compression positive)
fc = characteristic axial compressive strength
γM = see 6.3.7
In the absence of hydrostatic pressure the characteristic axial compressive strength for tubular members
shall be the smaller of the in-plane or out-of-plane buckling strength determined from the following equations:
f c = [1.0 − 0.28λ 2 ] f cl for λ ≤ 1.34 (6.3)
0.9 (6.4)
fc = fy for λ > 1.34
λ 2
f cl kl f cl (6.5)
λ = =
fE πi E
where
fcl = characteristic local buckling strength
λ = column slenderness parameter
fE = smaller Euler buckling strength in y or z direction
5
E = Young’s modulus of elasticity, 2.1⋅10 MPa
k = effective length factor, see 6.3.8.2
l = longer unbraced length in y or z direction
i = radius of gyration
The characteristic local buckling strength should be determined from:
fy (6.6)
f cl = f y for ≤ 0.170
f cle
 f  fy (6.7)
f cl = 1.047 − 0.274 y  f y for 0.170 < ≤ 1.911
 f cle  f cle
fy (6.8)
f cl = f cle for > 1.911
f cle
and
t
f cle = 2 Ce E
D

where
fcle = characteristic elastic local buckling strength
Ce = critical elastic buckling coefficient = 0.3
D = outside diameter
t = wall thickness
fy
For > 0.170 the tubular is a class 4 cross section and may behave as a shell. Shell structures may
f cle
have a brittle structure failure mode. Reference is made to 6.2. For class 4 cross sections increased γM
values shall be used according to Equation (6.22).
6.3.4 Bending
Tubular members subjected to bending loads should be designed to satisfy the following condition:
fmW (6.9)
M Sd ≤ M Rd =
γM
where
MSd = design bending moment
fm = characteristic bending strength
W = elastic section modulus
γM = see section 6.3.7
The characteristic bending strength for tubular members should be determined from:
Z f yD (6.10)
fm = fy for ≤ 0.0517
W Et
  f D   Z  fyD (6.11)
f m = 1.13 − 2.58 y    f y 0.0517 < ≤ 0.1034
  Et    W  Et
  f D   Z  fyD fy (6.12)
f m =  0.94 − 0.76 y    f y 0.1034 < ≤ 120
  Et    W  Et E
where
π [D 4 − (D − 2t) 4 ]
=
32 D
Z = plastic section modulus
=
1 3
6
[
D − (D − 2t) 3 ]
fy
For > 0.170 the tubular is a class 4 cross section and may behave as a shell. Shell structures may
f cle
have a brittle structure failure mode. Reference is made to 6.2. For class 4 cross sections increased γM
values shall be used according to Equation (6.22).
6.3.5 Shear
Tubular members subjected to beam shear forces should be designed to satisfy the following condition:

Af y (6.13)
VSd ≤ VRd =
2 3γ M
where
VSd = design shear force
fy = yield strength
A = cross sectional area
γM = 1.15
Tubular members subjected to shear from torsional moment should be designed to satisfy the following
condition:
2I p f y (6.14)
M T,Sd ≤ M T, Rd =
D 3γ M
where
MT,Sd = design torsional moment
π
Ip = polar moment of inertia =
32
[D 4
− (D − 2t ) 4 ]
6.3.6 Hydrostatic pressure
6.3.6.1 Hoop buckling

Tubular members subjected to external pressure should be designed to satisfy the following condition:
fh (6.15)
σ p,Sd ≤ f h,Rd =
γM
p Sd D (6.16)
σ p,Sd =
2t
where
fh = characteristic hoop buckling strength
σp,Sd = design hoop stress due to hydrostatic pressure (compression positive)
pSd = design hydrostatic pressure
γM = see 6.3.7
If out-of-roundness tolerances do not meet the requirements given in NORSOK M-101, guidance on
calculating reduced strength is given in Clause 12.
fh = fy , for f he > 2.44f y (6.17)
0.4 (6.18)
f 
f h = 0.7f y  he  for 2.44f y ≥ f he > 0.55f y
 f y 
f h = f he , for f he ≤ 0.55f y (6.19)
The elastic hoop buckling strength, fhe, is determined from the following equation:
t (6.20)
f he = 2 C h E
D
where
Ch = 0.44 t/D for µ ≥ 1.6D/t
for 0.825D/t ≤ µ < 1.6D/t
3 4
= 0.44 t/D + 0.21 (D/t) /µ
= 0.737/(µ - 0.579) for 1.5 ≤ µ < 0.825D/t

= 0.80 for µ < 1.5

and where the geometric parameter, µ, is defined as:
L 2D
µ= and
D t
L = length of tubular between stiffening rings, diaphragms, or end connections
6.3.6.2 Ring stiffener design

The circumferential stiffening ring size may be selected on the following approximate basis:
tL r D 2 (6.21)
I c = f he
8E
where
Ic = required moment of inertia for ring composite section
Lr = ring spacing
D = diameter (see Note 2 for external rings)
Notes:
1. Equation (6.21) assumes that the yield strength of the stiffening ring is equal to or greater than that of the tubular.
2. For external rings, D in Equation (6.21) should be taken to the centroid of the composite ring.
3. An effective width of shell equal to 1.1 D ⋅ t may be assumed as the flange for the composite ring section.
4. Where out-of-roundness in excess of tolerances given in NORSOK M-101 is permitted, larger stiffeners may be
required. The bending due to out-of-roundness should be specially investigated.
Local buckling of ring stiffeners with flanges may be excluded as a possible failure mode provided that the
following requirements are fulfilled:
h E
≤ 1.1
tw fy
and
b E
≤ 0.3
tf fy
where
h = web height
tw = web thickness
b = half the width of flange of T-stiffeners
tf = thickness of flange
Local buckling of ring stiffeners without flanges may be excluded as a possible failure mode provided that:
h E
≤ 0.4
tw fy
Torsional buckling of ring stiffeners with flanges may be excluded as a possible failure mode provided that:
3.5 h
b≥
hE
10 +
r fy
Check for torsional buckling of the stiffener shall be made according to DNV RP-C202 /13/.
6.3.7 Material factor

The material factor, γM, is given as:

γ M = 1.15 for λ s < 0.5 (6.22)
γ M = 0.85 + 0.60λ s for 0.5 ≤ λ s ≤ 1.0

γ M = 1.45 for λ s > 1.0
where
2
σ c,Sd σ  (6.23)
λs = ⋅ λ c +  p,Sd  ⋅ λ h
f cl  fh 
where fcl is calculated from Equation (6.6) or Equation (6.7) whichever is appropriate and fh from Equation
(6.17), Equation (6.18), or Equation (6.19) whichever is appropriate.
fy fy (6.24)
λc = , and λh =
f cle f he
fcle and fhe is obtained from Equation (6.8), and Equation (6.20) respectively.
σp,Sd is obtained from Equation (6.16) and
(6.25)
N Sd M 2y,Sd + M 2z,Sd
σ c,Sd = +
A W
NSd is negative if in tension.
6.3.8 Tubular members subjected to combined loads without hydrostatic pressure
6.3.8.1 Axial tension and bending

Tubular members subjected to combined axial tension and bending loads should be designed to satisfy the
following condition at all cross sections along their length:
1.75 (6.26)
 N Sd  M 2y,Sd + M 2z,Sd
  + ≤ 1.0
N  M Rd
 t,Rd 
where
My,Sd = design bending moment about member y-axis (in-plane)

Mz,Sd = design bending moment about member z-axis (out-of-plane)
NSd = design axial tensile force
If shear or torsion is of importance, the bending capacity MRd needs to be substituted with MRed,Rd calculated
according to subclause 6.3.8.3 or 6.3.8.4.
6.3.8.2 Axial compression and bending

Tubular members subjected to combined axial compression and bending should be designed to satisfy the
following condition accounting for possible variations in cross-section, axial load and bending moment
according to appropriate engineering principles:
0.5
  
2 (6.27)
 
2
  
N Sd 1  C my M y,Sd   C mz M z,Sd  
+ +  ≤ 1.0
N c,Rd

M Rd  N Sd   N Sd  
1− 1−
 N Ey   N Ez  
 
and at all cross sections along their length:

(6.28)
N Sd M 2y,Sd + M 2z,Sd
+ ≤ 1.0
N cl ,Rd M Rd
where
NSd = design axial compression force

Cmy, Cmz = reduction factors corresponding to the member y and z axes, respectively
NEy, NEz = Euler buckling strengths corresponding to the member y and z axes, respectively
f cl ⋅ A
N cl ,Rd = design axial local buckling resistance
γM
π 2 EA (6.29)
N Ey = 2
 kl 
 i 
y
π 2 EA (6.30)
N Ez = 2
 kl 
 i 
z
k in Equation (6.29) and Equation (6.30) relate to buckling in the y and z directions, respectively.
These factors can be determined using a rational analysis that includes joint flexibility and side-sway. In lieu
of such a rational analysis, values of effective length factors, k, and moment reduction factors, Cm, may be
taken from Table 6-2. All lengths are measured centreline to centreline.
Table 6-2 Effective length and moment reduction factors for member strength checking
(1)
Structural element k Cm
Superstructure legs
- Braced 1.0 (a)
(2)
- Portal (unbraced) k (a)
Jacket legs and piling
- Grouted composite section 1.0 (c)
- Ungrouted jacket legs 1.0 (c)
- Ungrouted piling between shim points 1.0 (b)
Jacket braces
- Primary diagonals and horizontals 0.7 (b) or (c)
(3)
- K-braces 0.7 (c)
(3)
- Longer segment length of X-braces 0.8 (c)
Secondary horizontals 0.7 (c)
Notes:
1. Cm values for the cases defined in Table 6-2 are as follows:
(a) 0.85
(b) for members with no transverse loading,
Cm = 0.6 - 0.4 M1,Sd/M2,Sd,
where M1,Sd/M2,Sd is the ratio of smaller to larger moments at the ends of that portion of the member
unbraced in the plane of bending under consideration. M1,Sd/M2,Sd is positive when the number is bent in
reverse curvature, negative when bent in single curvature.
(c) for members with transverse loading,
Cm = 1.0 - 0.4 NSd/NE, or 0.85, whichever is less, and NE = NEy or NEz as appropriate.
2. Use effective length alignment chart in Clause 12.
3. At least one pair of members framing into the a K- or X-joint shall be in tension if the joint is not braced
out-of-plane. For X-braces, when all members are in compression, the k-factor should be determined
using the procedures given in Clause 12.
4. The effective length and Cm factors given in Table 6-2 do not apply to cantilever members and the
member ends are assumed to be rotationally restrained in both planes of bending.

6.3.8.3 Interaction shear and bending moment

Tubular members subjected to beam shear force and bending moment should be designed to satisfy the
following condition provided that the direction of the shear force and the moment vectors are orthogonal
within ± 20°:
M Sd V VSd (6.31)
≤ 1.4 − Sd for ≥ 0.4
M Rd VRd VRd
M Sd VSd (6.32)
≤ 1.0 for < 0.4
M Rd VRd
6.3.8.4 Interaction shear, bending moment and torsional moment

Tubular members subjected to beam shear force, bending moment and torsion should be designed to satisfy
the following condition provided that the direction of the shear force and the moment vectors are orthogonal
within ± 20°:
M Sd V (6.33)
≤ 1.4 − Sd
M Red, Rd VRd VSd
for ≥ 0.4
VRd
M Sd VSd
≤ 1.0 for < 0.4
M Red, Rd VRd
where
Wf m,Red
MRed,Rd =
γM
 τ T,Sd
2

fm,Red = fm 1 − 3 
 fd 
M T,Sd
τT,Sd =
2πR 2 t
fy
fd =
γM
R = radius of tubular member
γM = see 6.3.7
6.3.9 Tubular members subjected to combined loads with hydrostatic pressure

The design provisions in this section are divided into two categories. In Method A it is assumed that the
capped-end compressive forces due to the external hydrostatic pressure are not included in the structural
analysis. Alternatively, the design provisions in Method B assume that such forces are included in the
analysis as external nodal forces. Dependent upon the method used in the analysis, the interaction
equations in either Method A or Method B should be satisfied at all cross sections along their length.
It should be noted that the equations in this section are not applicable unless Equation (6.15) is first satisfied.
For guidance on significance of hydrostatic pressure, see Clause 12.
6.3.9.1 Axial tension, bending, and hydrostatic pressure

Tubular members subjected to combined axial tension, bending, and hydrostatic pressure should be
designed to satisfy the following equations in either Method A or Method B at all cross sections along their
length.

Method A (σa,Sd is in tension)

In this method, the calculated value of member axial stress, σa,Sd, should not include the effect of the
hydrostatic capped-end axial stress. The capped-end axial compression due to external hydrostatic
pressure, σq,Sd, can be taken as 0.5σ p,Sd . This implies that, the tubular member takes the entire capped-end
force arising from external hydrostatic pressure. In reality, the stresses in the member due to this force
depend on the restraint provided by the rest of the structure on the member. The stress computed from a
more rigorous analysis may be substituted for 0.5σ p,Sd .
(a) For σa,Sd ≥ σq,Sd (net axial tension condition)
σ a,Sd − σ q,Sd σ my,

2
Sd + σ mz,Sd
2 (6.34)
+ ≤ 1.0
f th,Rd f mh,Rd
where
σa,Sd = design axial stress that excludes the effect of capped-end axial compression arising from
external hydrostatic pressure (tension positive)
σq,Sd = capped-end design axial compression stress due to external hydrostatic pressure (=
0.5σ p,Sd ) (compression positive)
σmy,Sd = design in plane bending stress
σmz,Sd = design out of plane bending stress
fth,Rd = design axial tensile resistance in the presence of external hydrostatic pressure which is
given by Equation (6.35):
fy (6.35)
f th,Rd = [ 1 + 0.09B 2 − B 2η − 0.3B]
γM
fmh,Rd = design bending resistance in the presence of external hydrostatic pressure which is given
by Equation (6.36):
fm (6.36)
f mh,Rd = [ 1 + 0.09B 2 − B 2η − 0.3B]
γM
γM = see 6.3.7
and Equation (6.37):
σ p,Sd (6.37)
B= , B ≤ 1.0
f h,Rd
fh (6.38)
η = 5−4
fy
(b) For σa,Sd < σq,Sd (net axial compression condition)
σ a,Sd − σ q,Sd σ my,

2
Sd + σ mz,Sd
2 (6.39)
+ ≤ 1.0
f cl,Rd f mh,Rd
f cl (6.40)
f cl,Rd =
γM

where fcl is found from Equation (6.6) and Equation (6.7).

f he
When σ c,Sd > 0.5 and f cle > 0.5f he , Equation (6.41) should also be satisfied:
γM
2
f he   (6.41)
σ c,Sd − 0.5 σ 
γM
+
p,Sd
 ≤ 1.0
f cle
− 0.5
f he  f he 
γM γM γ 
 M 
in which σ c,Sd = σ m,Sd + σ q,Sd − σ a,Sd ; σc,Sd should reflect the maximum combined compressive stress.
M 2z,Sd + M 2y,Sd
σ m,Sd =
W
γM = see 6.3.7
Method B (σac,Sd is in tension)
In this method, the calculated member axial stress, σac,Sd, includes the effect of the hydrostatic capped-end
axial stress. Only Equation (6.42) needs to be satisfied:
σ ac,Sd σ my,
2
Sd + σ mz,Sd
2 (6.42)
+ ≤ 1.0
f th,Rd f mh,Rd
where
σac,Sd = design axial stress that includes the effect of the capped-end compression arising from
external hydrostatic pressure (tension positive)
6.3.9.2 Axial compression, bending, and hydrostatic pressure

Tubular members subjected to combined compression, bending, and hydrostatic pressure should be
proportioned to satisfy the following requirements at all cross sections along their length.
Method A (σa,Sd is in compression)
0.5
 2
  
2  (6.43)
    
σ a,Sd 1  C myσ my,Sd   C mzσ mz,Sd  
+   +   ≤ 1.0
f ch,Rd f mh,Rd σ σ
 1 − a,Sd   1 − a,Sd  
   

f Ey   f Ez  
σ a,Sd + σ q,Sd σ my,

2
Sd + σ mz,Sd
2 (6.44)
+ ≤ 1.0
f cl,Rd f mh,Rd
where
σa,Sd = design axial stress that excludes the effect of capped-end axial compression arising from
external hydrostatic pressure (compression positive)

π2E (6.45)
f Ey = 2
 kl 
 i 
y
π2E (6.46)
f Ez = 2
 kl 
 i 
z
fch,Rd = design axial compression strength in the presence of external hydrostatic pressure which
is given by the following equations:
−1 (6.47)
1 f cl 2σ q,Sd σ q,Sd  2σ q,Sd 
f ch,Rd = [ξ − + ξ 2 + 1.12 λ 2 ] for λ < 1.34 (1 − )
2γM f cl f cl  f cl 
and
−1 (6.48)
0.9 f  2σ q,Sd 
f ch,Rd = 2 cl , for λ ≥ 1.34 (1 − )
λ γM  f cl 
where
ξ = 1 − 0.28λ 2 (6.49)
f he
When σ c,Sd > 0.5 and f cle > 0.5f he , Equation (6.41), in which σ c,Sd = σ m,Sd + σ q,Sd + σ a,Sd , should
γM
also be satisfied.
γM = see 6.3.7
Method B (σac,Sd is in compression)
(a) for σac,Sd > σq,Sd
0.5
 2
  
2  (6.50)
    
σ ac,Sd − σ q,Sd 1  C myσ my,Sd   C mzσ mz,Sd  
+  σ  + σ   ≤ 1.0
f ch,Rd f mh,Rd − σ q,Sd − σ q,Sd
 1 − ac,Sd   1 − ac,Sd  
    

f Ey   f Ez  
σ ac,Sd σ my,
2
Sd + σ mz,Sd
2 (6.51)
+ ≤ 1.0
f cl,Rd f mh,Rd
σac,Sd = design axial stress that includes the effect of capped-end axial compression arising from
external hydrostatic pressure (compression positive)
f he f cle f he
When σ c,Sd > 0.5 and > 0.5 , Equation (6.41), in which σ c,Sd = σ m,Sd + σ ac,Sd , should also be
γM γM γM
satisfied.

(b) for σac,Sd ≤ σq,Sd

For σac,Sd ≤ σq,Sd, Equation (6.51) should be satisfied.
f he f cle f he
When σ c,Sd > 0.5 and > 0.5 , Equation (6.41), in which σ c,Sd = σ m,Sd + σ ac,Sd , should also be
γM γM γM
satisfied.
γM = see 6.3.7
6.4 Tubular joints
6.4.1 General
The following provisions apply to the design of tubular joints formed by the connection of two or more
members. Terminology for simple joints is defined in Figure 6-1. Figure 6-1 also gives some design
requirements with respect to joint geometry. The gap for simple K-joints should be larger than 50 mm and
less than D. Minimum distances for chord cans and brace stubs should not include thickness tapers.
Figure 6-1 Detail of simple joint
Reductions in secondary (deflection induced) bending moments or inelastic relaxation through use of joint
elastic stiffness may be considered. In certain instances, hydrostatic pressure effects may be significant.
6.4.2 Joint classification

Joint classification is the process whereby the axial force in a given brace is subdivided into K, X and Y
components of actions, corresponding to the three joint types for which resistance equations exist. Such
subdivision normally considers all of the members in one plane at a joint. For purposes of this provision,
brace planes within ±15º of each other may be considered as being in a common plane. Each brace in the
plane can have a unique classification that could vary with action condition. The classification can be a

mixture between the above three joint types. Once the breakdown into axial components is established, the
resistance of the joint can be estimated using the procedures in 6.4.3.
Figure 6-2 provides some simple examples of joint classification. For a brace to be considered as K-joint
classification, the axial force in the brace should be balanced to within 10 % by forces in other braces in the
same plane and on the same side of the joint. For Y-joint classification, the axial force in the brace is reacted
as beam shear in the chord. For X-joint classification, the axial force in the brace is carried through the chord
to braces on the opposite side.
Additional explanation of joint-classification is found in Clause 12.

Figure 6-2 Classification of simple joints

6.4.3 Strength of simple joints
6.4.3.1 General
The validity range for application of the equations defined in 6.4.3 is as follows:
0.2 ≤ β ≤ 1.0
10 ≤ γ ≤ 50
30° ≤ θ ≤ 90°
g
≥ −0.6 (for K joints)
D
The equations can be used for joints with geometries which lie outside the validity ranges, by taking the
usable strength as the lesser of the capacities calculated on the basis of:
a) actual geometric parameters,
b) imposed limiting parameters for the validity range, where these limits are infringed.
The above geometry parameters are defined in Figure 6-3 to Figure 6-6.
d
d β=
D
t
D
γ=
2T
T
θ τ=
t
T
crown crown
D
saddle
Figure 6-3 Definition of geometrical parameters for T- or Y-joints
d d
β=
D
t
D
γ=
T θ 2T
D t
τ=
T
Figure 6-4 Definition of geometrical parameters for X-joints

dA
dA dB
βA = βB =
D D
BRACE A dB
tA
tB
tA tB
τA = τB =
BRACE B
T T
g
θA
T θB
D
D γ=
2T
Figure 6-5 Definition of geometrical parameters for K-joints
dB
dA dC dA dB dC
βA = βB = βC =
B D D D
A tB C
tA tC
tA tB tC
τA = τB = τC =
T T T
θB
T θA θC
D D
γ=
g AB g BC 2T
Figure 6-6 Definition of geometrical parameters for KT-joints
6.4.3.2 Basic resistance

Tubular joints without overlap of principal braces and having no gussets, diaphragms, grout, or stiffeners
should be designed using the following guidelines.
The characteristic resistances for simple tubular joints are defined as follows:
f yT 2 (6.52)
N Rd = QuQf
γ M sin θ
f yT 2d (6.53)
M Rd = QuQf
γ M sin θ
where
NRd = the joint design axial resistance
MRd = the joint design bending moment resistance
fy = the yield strength of the chord member at the joint
γM = 1.15
For joints with joint cans, NRd shall not exceed the resistance limits defined in 6.4.3.5

For braces with axial forces with a classification that is a mixture of K, Y and X joints, a weighted average of
NRd based on the portion of each in the total action is used to calculate the resistance.
6.4.3.3 Strength factor Qu

Qu varies with the joint and action type, as given in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3 Values for Qu

Brace action
Joint Axial Tension Axial Compression In-plane Out-of-plane
Classification Bending bending
K (16 + 1.2γ ) β 1.2Q g
min 
 40β 1.2Q g
Y 30 β 2.8 + (20 + 0.8γ )β 1.6 (5 + 0.7γ ) β 1.2 2.5 + (4.5 + 0.2γ ) β 2.6
min 
 2.8 + 36β 1.6
6.4 γ (0.6 β )
X 2 (2.8 + (12 + 0.1γ )β )Q β
The following notes apply to Table 6-3:

(a) Qβ is a geometric factor defined by:
0.3
Qβ = for β > 0.6
β (1 − 0.833β )
Q β = 1.0 for β ≤ 0.6
(b) Qg is a gap factor defined by:
3
 2.8 g  g
Q g = 1 + 0.21 −  for ≥ 0.05, but Q g ≥ 1.0
 D  D
g
Q g = 0.13 + 0.65φγ 0.5 for ≤ −0.05
D
t f y,b
where φ =
T f y,c
fy,b = yield strength of brace (or brace stub if present)
fy,c = yield strength of chord (or chord can if present)
Qg = linear interpolated value between the limiting values of the above expressions for
g
− 0.05 ≤ ≤ 0.05
D
6.4.3.4 Chord action factor Qf

Qf is a design factor to account for the presence of factored actions in the chord.
σ a,Sd σ my,Sd (6.54)

Q f = 1.0 + C1 − C2 − C3 A 2
fy 1.62 f y
The parameter A is defined as follows:

2 (6.55)
 σ   σ my,2
Sd + σ mz,Sd
2

A =  a,Sd  + 
2

 f   1.62 f 2 
 y   y 
where
σa,Sd = design axial stress in chord, positive in tension
σmy,Sd = design in-plane bending stress in chord, positive for compression in the joint footprint
σmz,Sd = design out-of-plane bending stress in chord
fy = yield strength
C1, C2, C3 = coefficients depending on joint and load type as given in Table 6-4
Table 6-4 Values for C1, C2 and C3

Joint type C1 C2 C3
K joints under balanced axial loading 0.2 0.2 0.3
T/Y joints under brace axial loading 0.3 0 0.8
X joints under brace axial loading
β ≤ 0.9 0.2 0 0.5
β = 1.0 -0.2 0 0.2
Linear interpolated values
between β = 0.9 and β = 1.0
All joints under brace moment loading 0.2 0 0.4
The average of the chord loads and bending moments on either side of the brace intersection should be
used in Equations (6.54) and (6.55). The chord thickness at the joint should be used in the above
calculations.
6.4.3.5 Design axial resistance for X and Y joints with joint cans
For Y and X joints with axial force and where a joint can is specified, the joint design resistance should be
calculated as follows:
 T 
2
 (6.56)
N Rd =  r + (1 - r ) n  N
  Tc   can,Rd
 
where
Ncan,Rd = NRd from Equation (6.52) based on chord can geometric and material properties,
including Qf calculated with respect to chord can
Tn = nominal chord member thickness
Tc = chord can thickness
r = Lc/2.5 D for joints with β ≤ 0.9
(4β − 3) ⋅ L c
= for joints with β > 0.9
1.5 D
Lc = effective total length. Figure 6-7 gives examples of calculation of Lc
In no case shall r be taken as greater than unity.

d1
d2
Brace 1 Brace 2
θ
a b
Tn
Tc
Nominal Chord
Chord Can
Brace 3 Brace Length L c
d3 1 2a + d 1
2 2b + d 2 /sin θ
3 2c + d 3
Figure 6-7 Examples of chord length Lc
6.4.3.6 Strength check

Joint resistance shall satisfy the following interaction equation for axial force and/or bending moments in the
brace:
2 (6.57)
N Sd  M y,Sd  M
+ + z,Sd ≤ 1
 
N Rd  M y,Rd  M z,Rd
where
NSd = design axial force in the brace member
NRd = the joint design axial resistance
My,Sd = design in-plane bending moment in the brace member
Mz,Sd = design out-of-plane bending moment in the brace member
My,Rd = design in-plane bending resistance
Mz,Rd = design out-of-plane bending resistance
6.4.4 Overlap joints

Braces that overlap in- or out-of-plane at the chord member form overlap joints.
Joints that have in-plane overlap involving two or more braces may be designed using the simple joint
provision of 6.4.3 with the following exemptions and additions:
a. Shear parallel to the chord face is a potential failure mode and should be checked.
b. 6.4.3.5 does not apply to overlapping joints.
c. If axial forces in the overlapping and through braces have the same sign, the combined axial force
representing that in the through brace plus a portion of the overlapping brace forces should be used to
check the through brace intersection capacity. The portion of the overlapping brace force can be
calculated as the ratio of cross sectional area of the brace that bears onto the through brace to the full
area.

d. For both in-plane or out-of-plane bending moments, the combined moment of the overlapping and
through braces should be used to check the through brace intersection capacity. This combined moment
should account for the sign of the moments. The overlapping brace should also be checked on the basis
of the chord having through brace properties. Further, through brace capacity shall be checked for
combined axial and moment loading in the overlapping brace. In this instance the Qf associated with the
through brace shall be used.
Joints with out-of-plane overlap may be assessed on the same general basis as in-plane overlapping joints,
except that axial force resistance should normally revert to that for Y joints.
6.4.5 Ringstiffened joints

Design resistance of ringstiffened joints shall be determined by use of recognised engineering methods.
Such methods can be elastic analyses, plastic analyses or linear or non-linear finite element analyses. See
Clause 12.
6.4.6 Cast joints

Cast joints are defined as joints formed using a casting process. They can be of any geometry and of
variable wall thickness.
The design of a cast joint requires calibrated FE analyses. An acceptable design approach for strength is to
fy
limit the stresses found by linear elastic analyses to the design strength using appropriate yield criteria.
γM
Elastic peak stresses may be reduced following similar design principles as described in Clause 12,
Comm. 6.4.5.
6.5 Strength of conical transitions
6.5.1 General
The provisions given in this section are for the design of concentric cone frusta between tubular sections.
They may also be applied to conical transitions at brace ends, where the junction provisions apply only to the
brace-end transition away from the joint.
6.5.2 Design stresses
6.5.2.1 Equivalent design axial stress in the cone section.

The equivalent design axial stress (meridional stress) at any section within the conical transition can be
determined by the following equations:
σ ac,Sd + σ mc,Sd (6.58)

σ equ,Sd =
cosα
N Sd (6.59)
σ ac,Sd =
π(D s − t c cos α ) t c
M Sd (6.60)
σ mc,Sd =
π
(D s − t c cos α ) 2 t c
4
where
σequ,Sd = equivalent design axial stress within the conical transition
σac,Sd = design axial stress at the section within the cone due to global actions
σmc,Sd = design bending stress at the section within the cone due to global actions
Ds = outer cone diameter at the section under consideration

tc = cone thickness (to be equal or larger than the thickness of the smaller tubular)
α = the slope angle of the cone (see Figure 6-8)
NSd and MSd are the design axial force and design bending moment at the section under consideration. σac,Sd
and σmc,Sd should be calculated at the junctions of the cone sides.
CL. CL.
0.5D
t
L1 be
Lc
tc
α α
Figure 6-8 Cone geometry
6.5.2.2 Local bending stress at unstiffened junctions

In lieu of a detailed analysis, the local bending stress at unstiffened tubular-cone junctions can be estimated
by the following equation:
Dj (6.61)
σ ml,Sd = 0.85 (σ at,Sd + σ mt,Sd )tanα
t
σml,Sd = local design bending stress

Dj = cylinder diameter at junction
t = tubular member wall thickness
σat,Sd = design axial stress in tubular section at junction due to global actions
σmt,Sd = design bending stress in tubular section at junction due to global actions
6.5.2.3 Hoop stress at unstiffened junctions

The design hoop stress at unstiffened tubular-cone junctions due to unbalanced radial line forces may be
estimated from:
Dj (6.62)
σ hc,Sd = 0.45 (σ at,Sd + σ mt,Sd )tanα
t
At the smaller-diameter junction, the hoop stress is tensile (or compressive) when (σat,Sd + σmt,Sd) is tensile (or
compressive). Similarly, the hoop stress at the larger-diameter junction is tensile (or compressive) when
(σat,Sd + σmt,Sd) is compressive (or tensile).

6.5.3 Strength requirements without external hydrostatic pressure
6.5.3.1 Local buckling under axial compression

For local buckling under combined axial compression and bending, Equation (6.64) should be satisfied at all
sections within the conical transition.
f clc (6.63)
σ equ,Sd ≤
γM
where
fclc = local buckling strength of conical transition
For conical transitions with slope angle α < 30°, fclc can be determined using Equation (6.6) to Equation (6.8)
with an equivalent diameter, De, at the section under consideration.
Ds (6.64)
De =
cosα
For conical transitions of constant wall thickness, it would be conservative to use the diameter at the larger
end of the cone as Ds in Equation (6.64).
6.5.3.2 Junction yielding

Yielding at a junction of a cone should be checked on both tubular and cone sides. This section only applies
when the hoop stress, σhc,Sd , is tensile.
For net axial tension, that is, when σequ,Sd is tensile,
fy fy
σ equ,
2
Sd + σ hc,Sd − σ hc,Sd σ equ,Sd ≤
2
but σ equ ≤ (6.65)
γM γM
For net axial compression, that is, when σequ,Sd is compression,
fy (6.66)
σ equ,
2
Sd + σ hc,Sd + σ hc,Sd | σ equ,Sd | ≤
2
γM
where
σequ,Sd = σ at,Sd + σ mt,Sd for checking stresses on the tubular side of the junction =
σ ac,Sd + σ mc,Sd
for checking stresses on the cone side of the junction
cos α
fy = corresponding tubular or cone yield strength.
The local bending stress σmlt,Sd at a junction of a cone should be limited according to the following for σequ,Sd
at both sides of the junction:
f y  σ equ,Sd 2  (6.67)
σ ml,Sd ≤ 1.5 1−
γM  f y 2 

γM = see 6.3.7

6.5.3.3 Junction buckling

This section only applies when the hoop stress, σhc,Sd , is compressive. In the equations, σhc,Sd denotes the
positive absolute value of the hoop compression.
For net axial tension, that is, when σequ,Sd is tensile,
a 2 + b 2η + 2 ν a b ≤ 1.0 (6.68)
where:
σ equ,Sd (6.69)
a=
fy
γM
σ hc,Sd (6.70)
b=
f hj
γM
and ν is Poisson’s ratio of 0.3 and η is defined in Equation (6.38)

For net axial compression, that is, when σequ,Sd is compressive,
f clj (6.71)
σ equ,Sd ≤
γM
and
f hj (6.72)
σ hc,Sd ≤
γM
where
fclj = corresponding tubular or cone characteristic axial local compressive strength
fhj can be determined using Equation (6.17) to Equation (6.19) with fhe = 0.40E t/Dj and corresponding fy.
The local bending stress σmlt,Sd at a junction of a cone should be limited according to the following for σequ,Sd
at both sides of the junction:
f y  σ equ,Sd 2  (6.73)
σ ml,Sd ≤ 1.5 1−
γM  f y 2 

γM = see 6.3.7

6.5.4 Strength requirements with external hydrostatic pressure
6.5.4.1 Hoop buckling

Un stiffened conical transitions, or cone segments between stiffening rings with slope angle α < 30°, may be
designed for hoop collapse by consideration of an equivalent tubular using Equation (6.44) or Equation
(6.51) as appropriate. The effective diameter is D/cosα, where D is the diameter at the larger end of the cone
segment. The equivalent nominal axial stress should be used to represent the axial stress in the design. The
length of the cone should be the maximum distance between adjacent rings for ring-stiffened cone
transitions or the maximum unstiffened distance, including the prismatic members on both ends of the cone,
for un stiffened cone transition. Note that the prismatic members on both ends of a ring-stiffened cone should
be checked against the stipulations in 6.3.9.
6.5.4.2 Junction yielding and buckling

The net design hoop stress at a tubular-cone junction is given by the algebraic sum of σhc,Sd and σh,Sd, that is
σ hj,Sd = σ hc,Sd + σ h,Sd (6.74)
where
σh,Sd = design hoop stress due to the external hydrostatic pressure, see eq. (6.16)
When σhj,Sd is tensile, the equations in 6.5.3.2 should be satisfied by using σhj,Sd instead of σhc,Sd. When σhj,Sd
is compressive, the equations in 6.5.3.3 should be satisfied by using σhj,Sd instead of σhc,Sd.
6.5.5 Ring design
6.5.5.1 General
A tubular-cone junction that does not satisfy the above criteria may be strengthened either by increasing the
tubular and cone thicknesses at the junction, or by providing a stiffening ring at the junction.
6.5.5.2 Junction rings without external hydrostatic pressure

If stiffening rings are required, the section properties should be chosen to satisfy both the following
requirements:
tD j (6.75)
Ac = (σ a,Sd + σ m,Sd )tanα
fy
tD j D c2 (6.76)
Ic = (σ a,Sd + σ m,Sd )tanα
8E
where
σa,Sd = larger of σat,Sd and σac,Sd.
σm,Sd = larger of σmt,Sd and σmc,Sd.
Dc = diameter to centroid of composite ring section. See Note 4 in 6.3.6.2
Ac = cross-sectional area of composite ring section
Ic = moment of inertia of composite ring section
In computing Ac and Ic, the effective width of shell wall acting as a flange for the composite ring section may
be computed from:
b e = 0.55( D j t + D j t c ) (6.77)

Notes:
1. For internal rings, Dj should be used instead of Dc in Equation.(6.76)
2. For external rings , Dj in Equation (6.75) and Equation (6.76)should be taken to the centroid of the
composite ring.
6.5.5.3 Junction rings with external hydrostatic pressure

Circumferential stiffening rings required at the tubular-cone junctions should be designed such that the
moment of inertia of the composite ring section is equal to or greater than the sum of Equation ( 6.76) and
Equation (6.79):
I cT ≥ I c + I ch (6.78)
where
2
Dj  t c L c f hec  (6.79)
I ch = tL1f he + 
16E  cos 2 α 
where
IcT = moment of inertia of composite ring section with external hydrostatic pressure and with
effective width of flange computed from Equation (6.77)
Dj = diameter of tubular at junction. See Note 4 in 6.3.6.2
D e3
Lc = distance to first stiffening ring in cone section along cone axis ≤ 113
.
t
D 3j
L1 = distance to first stiffening ring in tubular section ≤ 113
.
t
fhe = elastic hoop buckling strength for tubular
fhec = fhe for cone section treated as an equivalent tubular
De = larger of equivalent diameters at the junctions
Notes:
3. A junction ring is not required for hydrostatic collapse if Equation (6.15) is satisfied with fhe computed
using Ch equal to 0.44 (cosα)⋅(t/Dj ) in Equation (6.20), where Dj is the tubular diameter at the junction.
4. For external rings, Dj in Equation (6.79) should be taken to the centroid of the composite ring, except in
the calculation of L1.
6.5.5.4 Intermediate stiffening rings

If required, circumferential stiffening rings within cone transitions may be designed using Equation (6.21) with
an equivalent diameter equal to Ds /cosα, where Ds is the cone diameter at the section under consideration, t
is the cone thickness, L is the average distance to adjacent rings along the cone axis and fhe is the average
of the elastic hoop buckling strength values computed for the two adjacent bays.
6.6 Design of plated structures

Design of plated structures such as stiffened panels shall be done according to Part 1 of DNV-RP-C201 /14/.
Design of plates may also be done according to NS-EN-1993-1-5 for cases where these standards give
recommendations e.g. web of plate girders. Capacity checks according to this standard may imply utilisation
of the plate into the post linear range and their capacity against dynamic loads should be considered. See
also sub-clause 6.1

6.7 Design of cylindrical shells

Unstiffened and ring stiffened cylindrical shells subjected to axial force, bending moment and hydrostatic
pressure may be designed according to 6.3. For more refined analysis of cylindrical shells or cylindrical
shells with other stiffening geometry or loading, DNV-RP-C202 /13/ shall be used.
The susceptibility to less favourable post-critical behaviour associated with more slender geometry and more
and /or larger stress components may be expressed through the reduced slenderness parameter, λ , which
is defined in DNV-RP-C202 /13/.
The resulting material factor for design of shell structures is given as
γ M = 1.15 for λ s < 0.5 (6.80)
γ M = 0.85 + 0.60λ s for 0.5 ≤ λ s ≤ 1.0

γ M = 1.45 for λ s > 1.0
λs is defined in DNV-RP-C202 /13/.
6.8 Design against unstable fracture
6.8.1 General
Normally brittle fracture in offshore structures is avoided by selecting materials according to Clause 5 and
with only acceptable defects present in the structure after fabrication.
Unstable fracture may occur under unfavourable combinations of geometry, fracture toughness, welding
defects and stress levels. The risk of unstable fracture is generally greatest with large material thickness
where the state of deformation is plane strain. For normal steel qualities, this typically implies a material
thickness in excess of 40 mm to 50 mm, but this is dependent on geometry, fracture toughness, weld defects
and stress level.
See /8/ for guidance on the use of fracture mechanics. If relevant fracture toughness data is lacking, material
testing should be performed.
6.8.2 Determination of maximum acceptable defect size

In case of evaluation of defects that cannot be assumed covered by normal fabrication requirements
according to NORSOK M-101, the following procedure can be followed.
The design stress shall be determined according to established procedures such as given in /8/. The
maximum applied tensile stress, accounting also for possible stress concentrations, shall be considered
when calculating the tolerable defect size. Relevant residual stresses shall be included in the evaluation.
Normally, a structure is designed based on the principle that plastic hinges may develop without giving rise
to unstable fracture. In such case, the design nominal stress for unstable fracture shall not be less than the
yield stress of the member.
The maximum defect size likely to remain undetected (ai) shall be established, based on an evaluation of the
inspection method, access for inspection during fabrication, fabrication method, and the thickness and
geometry of the structure,. When determining the value of ai consideration shall be given to the capabilities
of the inspection method to detect, localise, and size the defect.
The maximum allowable defect size ( am ), shall be calculated on the basis of the total stress (or
corresponding strains) and the design fracture toughness. It shall be shown that ai < am.
For a structure subjected to fatigue loading, the crack growth may be calculated by fracture mechanics. The
initial defect size shall be taken as ai. The final crack size, au , shall be determined with the fatigue load
applied over the specified design life multiplied with the relevant DFF according to Table 8-1. It shall be
verified that au < am.

7 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATES

General requirements for the serviceability limit states are given in NORSOK N-001.
8 FATIGUE LIMIT STATES

8.1 General
In this NORSOK standard requirements are given in relation to fatigue analyses based on fatigue tests and
fracture mechanics. Reference is made to DNV-RP-C203 /15/for more details with respect to fatigue design.
The aim of fatigue design is to ensure that the structure has an adequate fatigue life. Calculated fatigue lives
can also form the basis for efficient inspection programmes during fabrication and the operational life of the
structure.
The design fatigue life for the structure components should be based on the structure service life specified
by the operator. If no structure service life is specified by the operator, a service life of 15 years shall be
used. A short design fatigue life will imply shorter inspection intervals.
To ensure that the structure will fulfil the intended function, a fatigue assessment, supported where
appropriate by a detailed fatigue analysis should be carried out for each individual member which is
subjected to fatigue loading. It should be noted that any element or member of the structure, every welded
joint and attachment, or other form of stress concentration, is potentially a source of fatigue cracking and
should be individually considered.
The number of load cycles shall be multiplied with the appropriate factor in Table 8-1 before the fatigue
analysis is performed.
Table 8-1 Design fatigue factors
Classification of Not accessible for Accessible for inspection, maintenance and repair,
structural components inspection and repair and where inspections or maintenance is planned
based on damage or in the splash zone
consequence Below splash zone Above splash zone
Substantial 10 3 2
consequences
Without substantial 3 2 1
consequences
“Substantial consequences” in this context means that failure of the joint will entail
a) danger of loss of human life;
b) significant pollution;
c) major financial consequences.
“Without substantial consequences” is understood failure where it can be demonstrated that the structure satisfy the
requirement to damaged condition according to the ALSs with failure in the actual joint as the defined damage.
Welds in joints below 150 m water depth should be assumed inaccessible for in-service inspection.
In project phases where it is possible to increase fatigue life by modification of structural details, grinding of
welds should not be assumed to provide a measurable increase in the fatigue life.
8.2 Methods for fatigue analysis

The fatigue analysis should be based on S-N data, determined by fatigue testing of the considered welded
detail, and the linear damage hypothesis. When appropriate, the fatigue analysis may alternatively be based
on fracture mechanics. If the fatigue life estimate based on fatigue tests is short for a component where a
failure may lead to substantial consequences, a more accurate investigation considering a larger portion of
the structure, or a fracture mechanics analysis, should be performed. For calculations based on fracture
mechanics, it should be documented that the planned in-service inspections accommodate a sufficient time
interval between time of crack detection and the time of unstable fracture. See also 6.8. Reference is made
to /15/ for more details.

All significant stress ranges, which contribute to fatigue damage in the structure, should be considered. The
long term distribution of stress ranges may be found by deterministic or spectral analysis. Dynamic effects
shall be duly accounted for when establishing the stress history.
9 ACCIDENTAL DAMAGE LIMIT STATES

9.1 General
The accidental damage limit states should be checked for accidental loads and abnormal environmental
loads (return period 10 000 year). See NORSOK N-003 for details.
The material factor γΜ is 1.0 for ALSs unless noted otherwise.
The material factors according to Table 6-1 shall be used if NS-EN 1993-1-1 and NS-EN 1993-1-8 is used
for calculation of structural resistance:
Table 9-1 Material factors
Type of calculation Material factor 1) Value
Resistance of Class 1,2 or 3 cross-sections γM0 1.0
Resistance of Class 4 cross-sections γM1 1.0
Resistance of member to buckling γM1 1.0
Resistance of net section at bolt holes γM2 1.1
Resistance of fillet and partial penetration welds γMw 1.1
Resistance of bolted connections γMb 1.1
1) Symbols according to NS-ENV 1993 1-1 NS-EN 1993-1-1 and NS-EN 1993-1-8.
For resistance check where other material factors are used than given in Table 6-1, the recommended
material factor in NS-EN 1993-1-1, NS-EN 1993-1-5 and NS-EN 1993-1-8 should be multiplied by an
additional building code material factor γBC = 0.9.
9.2 Check for accidental actions

The structure shall be checked for all ALSs for the design accidental actions defined in the risk analysis.
The structure shall according to NORSOK N-001 be checked in two steps:
a) Resistance of the structure against design accidental actions
b) Post accident resistance of the structure against environmental actions. Should only be checked if the
resistance is reduced by structural damage caused by the design accidental actions
The overall objective of design against accidental actions is to achieve a system where the main safety
functions are not impaired by the design accidental actions. In general the failure criteria to be considered,
should also be defined in the risk analyses, see Clause 12.
The design against accidental actions may be done by direct calculation of the effects imposed by the
actions on the structure, or indirectly, by design of the structure as tolerable to accidents. Examples of the
latter are compartmentation of floating units which provides sufficient integrity to survive certain collision
scenarios without further calculations.
The inherent uncertainty of the frequency and magnitude of the accidental loads, as well as the approximate
nature of the methods for determination of accidental action effects, shall be recognised. It is therefore
essential to apply sound engineering judgement and pragmatic evaluations in the design.
If non-linear, dynamic finite elements analysis is applied, it shall be verified that all behavioural effects and
local failure modes (e.g. strain rate, local buckling, joint overloading, joint fracture) are accounted for
implicitly by the modelling adopted, or else subjected to explicit evaluation.
Typical accidental actions are
• impact from ship collisions,

• impact from dropped objects,

• fire,
• explosions.
The different types of accidental actions require different methods and analyses to assess the structural
resistance. Design recommendations for the most common types of accidental actions are given in Annex A.
10 REASSESSMENT OF STRUCTURES
10.1 General
Reassessment of existing structures should be made according to Norsok N-006

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY
/1/ API Recommended Practice 2A-WSD Twenty first edition including Errata and supplement 1,2
and 3. October 2007
/2/ Odland, J.: “Improvements in design Methodology for Stiffened and Unstiffened Cylindrical
Structures”. BOSS’88. Proceedings of the International Conference on behaviour of Offshore
Structures. Trondheim, June 1988.
/3/ Frieze, P.A., Hsu, T. M., Loh, J. T. and Lotsberg, I.: “Background to Draft ISO Provisions on
Intact and Damaged Members”. BOSS, Delft, 1997.
/4/ Smith, C. S., Kirkwood, W. and Swan, J. W.: ”Buckling Strength and Post-Collapse Behaviour
nd
of Tubular Bracing Members Including Damage Effects”. Procs. 2 International Conference on
the Behaviour of Offshore Structures, BOSS 1979, London, August 1979.
/5/ Livesley, R. K.: “The Application of an Electronic Digital Computer to Some Problems of
Structural Analysis”. The Structural Engineer, January 1956.
/6/ American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC), Manual of Steel Construction – Load and
Resistance Factor Design, Vol. 1, 2nd ed., 1994
/7/ Boardman, H. C.: “Stresses at Junctions of Two Right Cone Frustums with a Common
Axis”,The Water Tower, Chicage Bridge and Iron Company, March 1948.
/8/ BS 7910:2005 “Guide to methods for assessing the acceptability of flaws in metallic structures”
British Standard
/9/ Faulkner, D.: “Design Against Collapse for Marine Structures”, Advances in Marine
Technology, Trondheim, 1979
/10/ Dow, R.S. and Smith, C.S.: “Effects of Localised Imperfections on Compressive Strength of
Long Rectangular plates”, Journal of Constructional steel Research, vol. 4, pp. 51-76, 1984
/11/ ULTIGUIDE. DNV, SINTEF, BOMEL. Best Practice Guidelines for Use of Non-linear Analysis
Methods in Documentation of Ultimate Limit States for Jacket Type Offshore Structures.
/12/ A. Stacey, J.V. Sharp, N.W. Nichols. "Static Strength Assessment of Cracked Tubular Joints",
OMAE, Florence 1996.
/13/ DNV RP-C202, Buckling of Shells, Det Norske Veritas.
/14/ DNV RP-C201, Buckling Strength of Plated Structures, Det Norske Veritas 2002
/15/ DNV RP-C203, Fatigue Strength Analysis of Offshore Steel Structures

/16/ Dier, A.F, Smedley; P., Solland, G. , Bang, H.: New data on the capacity of x-joints under
tension and implications for codes, OMAE2008-57650 Estoril, Portugal
/17/ Pecknold, D.A.; Ha, C.C.; Mohr,W.C.: Chord stress effects on ultimate strength of DT tubular
joints, OMAE98-0565,
/18/ Pecknold, D.; Marshall, P.; Bucknell, J.: New API RP2A tubular joint strength design provisions,
OTC 17310, 2005 Offshore Technology Conference, Houston Texas.

12 COMMENTARY
This clause provides additional guidance and background to selected clauses of this NORSOK standard.
Comm. 1 Scope
In general the provisions of this NORSOK standard are developed, tested and calibrated for steel with
traditional stress/strain relations. Design of structures made from steel material with higher yield strength
may require additional or different design checks due to, among other the following effects:
9. - usually a higher yield to tensile strength ratio implying less strain hardening;
10. - larger elastic deflection before reaching resistance limit, which is important where second-order effects
play a role, usually reduced weld overmatch leading to increased risk of failure in weld material;
11. - reduced maximum elongation.
Comm. 4 General provisions

The notation Rk and Sk shall be read as indicative for a resulting characteristic resistance and action effect
respectively. In the general case the design resistance, Rd, will be a function of several parameters where
the material parameter fy should be divided by γM, and Sd will be derived as a summation of different
characteristic actions multiplied with different partial coefficients.
The groups of limit states, applied in this NORSOK standard, are defined according to ISO 19900. In
contrast, NS-ENV 1993 1-1 and most national building codes are treating limit states associated with failure
due to accidental loads or fatigue as ultimate limit states. Whilst fatigue and failure from accidental loads are
characteristically similar to ultimate limit states, it is convenient to distinguish between them due to different
load factors for ULS, FLS and ALS. FLS and ALS may therefore be regarded as subgroups of ULS.
Comm. 5.1 Design class

The check for damaged condition according to the ALS imply that the structure with damage is checked for
all characteristic actions, but with all safety factors set to unity. With regard to material selection the
associated damage is brittle failure or lamellar tearing. If the structure subjected to one such failure is still
capable of resisting the characteristic loads, the joint or component should be designated DC 3 or DC 4. As
an example one can consider a system of four cantilever beams linked by a transverse beam at their free
ends. A material failure at the supports in one of the beams will only reduce the resistance with 25 %
(assuming sufficient strength in the transverse beam). Since the structure without damage need to be
checked with partial safety factors according to ULSs, such a system will prove to satisfy ALS, and design
class DC 3 or DC 4 dependent upon complexity will apply. A similar system of only two cantilever beams will
normally not fulfill the ALS criterion to damage condition and DC 1 or DC 2 will apply.
Comm. 5.2 Steel quality level

Steel materials selected in accordance with the tabled SQL and as per MDS in NORSOK M-120 are assured
to be of the same weldability within each SQL group, irrelevant of the actual material thickness or yield
strength chosen. Requirements for SQL I are more severe than those for SQL II.
This is achieved through the different optional requirements stated in each MDS for each SQL. The
achievement of balanced weldability is reached mainly by the following two means:
• requirement to higher energy absorption at toughness testing for yield strength above 400 MPa;
• lowering the test temperature for qualification testing, reflecting the differences between SQL IIand I
and stepwise increases in material thickness.
For high strength material of 420 MPa and above, the MDSs assume the same minimum yield strength
irrelevant of material thickness of plates. This is normally achieved through adjustments in chemical
composition, but without jeopardising the required weldability.
Improved properties in the trough thickness direction (SQL I) should be specified for steel materials where
failure due to lamellar tearing will mean significant loss of resistance. Alternatively the plate can be tested
after welding to check that lamellar tearing has not taken place.

Comm. 6 Ultimate limit states
Comm. 6.1 General

NS-EN-1993-1-1 uses the following definition of ULSs: "ULSs are those associated with collapse, or with
other forms of structural failure which may endanger the safety of people. States prior to structural collapse
which, for simplicity, are considered in place of the collapse itself are also classified and treated as ULSs ".
For structures designed according to this NORSOK standard structural failures which will imply significant
pollution or major financial consequences should be considered in addition to human safety.
All steel structures behave more or less non-linear when loaded to their ultimate limit. The formulae for
design resistance in this NORSOK standard or similar codes and standards are therefore developed on the
basis that permanent deformation may take place.
Traditionally, offshore structures are analysed by linear methods to determine the internal distribution of
forces and moments, and the resistances of the cross-sections are checked according to design resistances
found in design codes. The design formulae often require deformations well into the in-elastic range in order
to mobilise the prescribed resistances. However, no further checks are considered necessary as long as the
internal forces and moments are determined by linear methods.
When non-linear analysis methods are used, additional checks of ductility and repeated yielding, are to be
performed. The check for repeated yielding is only necessary in case of cyclic loading, e.g. wave loads.
The check for ductility requires that all sections subjected to deformation into the in-elastic range should
deform without loss of the assumed load-bearing resistance. Such loss of resistance can be due to fracture,
instability of cross-sectional parts or member buckling. The design codes give little guidance on this issue,
with exception for stability of cross-sectional parts in yield hinges, which will normally be covered by
requirement to cross-sectional class 1, see e.g. NS-EN-1993-1-1.
The check against repeated yielding is often referred to as the check that the structure can achieve a stable
state called shakedown. In the general case it is necessary to define a characteristic cycling load and to use
this load with appropriate partial safety factors. It should be checked that yielding only take place in the first
few loading cycles and that later load repetitions only cause responses in the linear range. Alternatively a low
cycle fatigue check can be performed and substitute the check for shakedown.
If non-linear analyses are applied, it shall be checked that the analysis tool and the modelling adopted
represent the non-linear behaviour of all structural elements that may contribute to the failure mechanism
with sufficient accuracy, see /11/). Stiffness, resistance and post ultimate behaviour (if applicable) should be
represented, including local failure modes such as local buckling, joint overload, joint fracture, etc.
Use of non-linear analysis methods may result in more structural elements being governed by the
requirements to the SLS and additional SLS requirements may be needed compared with design using linear
methods.
The following simplifications are valid for design with respect to the ultimate limit states, provided that ductile
failure modes can be assumed:
12. - built in stresses from fabrication and erection may be neglected when fabrication requirements
according to NORSOK M-101 are met;
13. - stresses from differential temperature under normal conditions (e.g. sun heating) may be neglected;
14. - the analytical static model need not in detail represent the real structure, e.g. secondary (deflection
induced) moments may be neglected for trusses.
If the design is based on other parts of NS-EN-1993 than part 1-1- and 1-8 it is recommended to multiply the
recommended material factor in the code if not given in Table 6-1 by an additional building code modification
factor γBC = 1.05.
Comm. 6.2 Ductility

Steel structures behave generally ductile when loaded to their limits. The established design practise is
based on this behaviour, which is beneficial both with respect to the design and performance of the structure.
For a ductile structure, significant deflections may occur before failure and thus give a collapse warning.
Ductile structures also have larger energy absorption capabilities against impact loads. The possibility for the
structure to redistribute stresses lessens the need for an accurate stress calculation during design as the

structure may redistribute forces and moments to be in accordance with the assumed static model. This is
the basis for use of linear analyses for ULS checks even for structures, which behave significantly non-linear
when approaching their ultimate limit states.
Comm. 6.3.1 General

This subclause has been developed specifically for circular tubular shapes that are typical of offshore
platform construction. The types of tubulars covered include fabricated roll-bent tubulars with a longitudinal
weld seam, hot-finished seamless pipes, and ERW pipes that have undergone some types of post-weld heat
treatment or normalisation to relieve residual stresses. Relief of the residual stresses is necessary to remove
the “rounded” stress-strain characteristic that frequently arises from the ERW form of manufacture.
The limit of D/t applies to tubular members that are part of a frame system. The formulas may be used for
more slender members if the member is not a part of a structural system, e.g. a tubular buoyancy tank.
The recommendations in this subclause are basically in accordance with ISO 19902.
Comm. 6.3.3 Axial compression

Tubular members subjected to axial compression are subject to failure due to either material yielding, overall
column buckling, local buckling, or a combination of these failure modes.
The characteristic equation for column buckling is a function of λ, a normalised form of column slenderness
0.5
parameter given by (fcl/fE) ; where fcl is the local buckling strength of the cross-section and fE is the Euler
buckling strength for a perfect column.
For members with two or more different cross sections, the following steps can be used to determine the
resistance:
15. Determine the elastic buckling load, NE, for the complete member, taking into account the end restraints
and variable cross-section properties. In most cases, the effective length factor of the member needs to
be determined.
16. The design compressive resistance, Ncr,Rd, is given by
N cl  N  (12.1)
N c,Rd = 1 − 0.28 cl 
γM  NE  N cl
for < 1.34
NE
0.9 N E N cl (12.2)
N c,Rd = for ≥ 1.34
γM NE
in which
Ncl = smallest characteristic local axial compressive strength of all the cross sections
= fcl A
fcl = as given by Equation (6.6) or Equation (6.7)
A = cross-sectional area
In design analysis, a member with variable cross sections can be modelled with several prismatic elements.
For each prismatic element, added length and/or input effective length factor are used to ensure that the
design compressive resistance is correctly determined.
The theoretical value of Cx for an ideal tubular is 0.6. However, a reduced value of Cx = 0.3 is recommended
for use in Equation (6.8) to account for the effect of initial geometric imperfections within tolerance limits
given in NORSOK M-101. A reduced value of Cx = 0.3 is also implicit in the limits for fy/fcle given in Equation
(6.6) or Equation (6.7).
Short tubular members subjected to axial compression will fail either by material yielding or local buckling,
depending on the diameter-to-thickness (D/t) ratio. Tubular members with low D/t ratios are generally not
subject to local buckling under axial compression and can be designed on the basis of material yielding, i.e.,
the local buckling stress may be considered equal to the yield strength. However, as the D/t ratio increases,
the elastic local buckling strength decreases, and the tubular should be checked for local buckling.

Un stiffened thin-walled tubular subjected to axial compression and bending are prone to sudden failures at
loads well below the theoretical buckling loads predicted by classical small-deflection shell theory. There is a
sudden drop in load-carrying resistance upon buckling of such members. The post-buckling reserve strength
of tubular members is small, in contrast to the post-buckling behaviour of flat plates in compression, which
usually continue to carry substantial load after local buckling. For this reason, there is a need for more
conservatism in the definition of buckling load for tubulars than for most other structural elements. The large
scatter in test data also necessitates a relatively conservative design procedure. The large scatter in test
data is partly caused by initial imperfections generated by fabrication. Other factors of influence are
boundary conditions and built-in residual stresses, (see /3/ and /4/).
Some experimental evidence indicates that inelastic local buckling may be less sensitive to initial
imperfections and residual stresses than elastic local buckling, see /3/. Therefore, in order to achieve a
robust design, it is recommended to select member geometry such that local buckling due to axial forces is
avoided.
The characteristic equations are developed by screening test data and establishing the curve at 95 %
success at the 50 % confidence level, which satisfies the following conditions:
1) it has a plateau of material characteristic yield strength over the range 0 ≤ fy/fcle ≤ 0.17,
2) it has the general form of Equation (6.7),
3) it converges to the elastic critical buckling curve with increasing member slenderness ratio,
4) the difference between the mean minus 1.645 standard deviations of test data and the developed
equations is minimum.
The local buckling data base contains 38 acceptable tests performed by several different investigators, see
/3/.
A comparison between test data and the characteristic local buckling strength equation, Equation (6.6) to
Equation (6.8) was made. The developed equations have the bias of 1.065, the standard deviation of 0.073,
and the coefficient of variation of 0.068.
The elastic local buckling stress formula recommended in Equation (6.8) represent one-half of the theoretical
local buckling stress computed using classical small-deflection theory. This reduction accounts for the
detrimental effect of geometric imperfections. Based on the test data shown in /3/, this reduction is
considered to be conservative for tubulars with t ≥ 6 mm and D/t < 120. Offshore platform members typically
fall within these dimensional limits. For thinner tubulars and tubulars with higher D/t ratios, larger
imperfection reduction factors may be required, see /13/.
The local buckling database limits the applicability of the nominal strength equations to D/t<120 and t ≥ 6mm.
Reference /13/ provides guidance for the design of tubular members beyond these dimensional limits.
Comm. 6.3.6.1 Hoop buckling

Un-stiffened tubular members under external hydrostatic pressure are subject to elastic or inelastic local
buckling of the shell wall between the restraints. Once initiated, the collapse will tend to flatten the member
from one end to the other. Ring-stiffened members are subject to local buckling of the shell wall between
rings. The shell buckles between the rings, while the rings remain essentially circular. However, the rings
may rotate or warp out of their plane. Ring-stiffened tubular members are also subject to general instability,
which occurs when the rings and shell wall buckle simultaneously at the critical load. It is desirable to provide
rings with sufficient overstrength to prevent general instability. Reference is made to /14/. For tubular
members satisfying the maximum out-of-roundness tolerance of 1 %, the hoop buckling strength is given by
Equation (6.17) to Equation (6.19). For ring-stiffened members, Equation (6.17) to Equation (6.19) gives the
hoop buckling strength of the shell wall between the rings. To account for the possible 1 % out-of roundness,
the elastic hoop buckling stress is taken as 0.8 of the theoretical value calculated using classical small
deflection theory. That is, Ch=0.44t/D, whereas the theoretical Ch=0.55t/D. In addition, the remaining Ch
values are lower bound estimates.
For members with out-of-roundness greater than 1 %, but less than 3 %, a reduced elastic hoop buckling
strength, fhe, should be determined, see /3/. The characteristic hoop buckling strength, fh, is then determined
using the reduced fhe.
f he
Reduced f he = α
0.8

where
α = geometric imperfection factor
D max − D min
= 1 − 0.2
0.01 D nom
D max − D min
= out-of-roundness (%)
0.01 D nom
where Dmax and Dmin are the maximum and minimum of any measured diameter at a cross section and Dnom
the nominal diameter.
Comm. 6.3.6.2 Ring stiffener design

The formula recommended for determining the moment of inertia of stiffening rings, Equation ( 6.21),
provides sufficient strength to resist buckling of the ring and shell even after the shell has buckled between
stiffeners. It is assumed that the shell offers no support after buckling and transfers all its forces to the
effective stiffener section. The stiffener ring is designed as an isolated ring that buckles into two waves (n=2)
at a collapse pressure 20 % higher than the strength of the shell.
The effect of ring stiffeners on increased axial resistance for large diameter/thickness ratios is not accounted
for in this section. Reference is made to /13/ for guidance on this.
Comm. 6.3.8 Tubular members subjected to combined loads without hydrostatic pressure
This subclause describes the background of the design requirements in 6.3.8, which covers un-stiffened and
ring-stiffened cylindrical shell instability mode interactions when subjected to combined axial and bending
loads without hydrostatic pressure
In this subclause and 6.3.9, the designer should include the second order frame moment or P-∆ effect in the
bending stresses, when it is significant. The P-∆ effect may be significant in the design of un-braced deck
legs, piles, and laterally flexible structures.
Comm. 6.3.8.1 Axial tension and bending

This subclause provides a resistance check for components under combined axial tensile load and bending.
The interaction equation is modified compared with ISO/DIS 19902 as the term for axial load is rised in the
power of 1.75.
Comm. 6.3.8.2 Axial compression and bending

This subclause provides an overall beam-column stability check, Equation (6.27), and strength check,
Equation (6.28), for components under combined axial compression force and bending.
Use of φ-functions (see /5/) implies that exact solutions are obtained for the considered buckling problem.
General effective buckling lengths have been derived using the φ-functions incorporating end flexibility of the
members. The results for an X-brace with four equal-length members are shown in Figure 12-1 to
Figure 12-3 as a function of the load distribution in the system Q/P and of the end rotational stiffness. P is
the maximum compression force. The non-dimensional parameter ρ is given as:
CL
ρ=
EI
where C is the local rotational stiffness at a node (accounting for local joint stiffness and stiffness of the other
members going into the joint) and I is the moment of inertia of the tubular member. Normally L refers to
center-line-to-center-line distances between nodes.
The results in Figure 12-2 indicates for realistic end conditions (ρ > 3) for single braces, i.e., when Q/P = 1, a
k-factor less than 0.8 is acceptable provided end joint flexibilities are not lost as the braces become fully
loaded. Experimental results relating to frames seem to confirm that 0.7 is acceptable. For X-braces where
the magnitude of the tension brace load is at least 50 % of the magnitude of the compression brace load,

i.e., when Q/P < -0.5, and the joints remain effective, k = 0.45 times the length L is supported by these
results, whilst 0.4 seems justified based on experimental evidence.
Figure 12-2 and Figure 12-3 provide effective length factors for X-braces when the longer segment is equal
to 0.6 times the brace length and 0.7 times the brace length, respectively.
To estimate the effective length of a un-braced column, such as superstructure legs, the use of the alignment
chart in Figure 12-4 provides a fairly rapid method for determining adequate k-values.
For cantilever tubular members, an independent and rational analysis is required in the determination of
appropriate effective length factors. Such analysis shall take full account of all large deflection (P-∆) effects.
For a cantilever tubular member, Cm=1.0.
The use of the moment reduction factor (Cm) in the combined interaction equations, such as Equation (6.27),
is to obtain an equivalent moment that is less conservative. The Cm values recommended in Table 6-2 are
similar to those recommended in /6/.

Figure 12-1 Effective length factors for a X-brace with equal brace lengths

Figure 12-2 Effective length factors for a X-brace with the shorter segment equal to 0.4 times the
brace length

Figure 12-3 Effective length factors for a X-brace with the shorter segment equal to 0.3 times the
brace length

Figure 12-4 Alignment chart for effective length of columns in continuous frames
Comm. 6.3.9 Tubular members subjected to combined loads with hydrostatic pressure
This subclause provides strength design interaction equations for the cases in which a tubular member is
subjected to axial tension or compression, and/or bending combined with external hydrostatic pressure.
Some guidance on significance of hydrostatic pressure may be found from Figure 12-5 for a given water
depth and diameter/thickness ratio.

Figure 12-5 Reduction in bending resistance of members due to external pressure, (γM⋅γf = 1.5, fy=
350 MPa)
The design equations are categorised into two design approaches, Method A and Method B. The main
purpose of providing two methods is to facilitate tubular member design by the two common analyses used
by designers. Either design method is acceptable. In the limit when the hydrostatic pressure is zero, the
design equations in this section reduce to those given in 6.3.8.
In both methods the hoop compression is not explicitly included in the analysis, but its effect on member
design is considered within the design interaction equations. For both design methods, the hoop collapse
design check stipulated in 6.3.6 shall be satisfied first.
Method A should be used when the capped-end axial compression due to external hydrostatic pressure is
not explicitly included in the analysis, but its effect is accounted for while computing the member utilisation
ratio.
Method B should be used when the capped-end axial compression due to external hydrostatic pressure is
included explicitly in the analysis as nodal loads. The explicit application of the capped-end axial
compression in the analysis allows for a more precise redistribution of the capped-end load based on the
relative stiffness of the braces at a node.
The two methods are not identical. However, since redistribution of the capped-end axial compression in
Method B is minimal because of similar brace sizes at a node, the difference between the two methods
should be small.
Comm. 6.3.9.1 Axial tension, bending, and hydrostatic pressure
Method A (σa,Sd is in tension)

The actual member axial stress, or the net axial stress, is estimated by subtracting the full capped-end axial
compression from the calculated axial tension, σa,Sd. The net axial tensile stress, (σa,Sd-σq,Sd), is then used in
Equation (6.34), which is a linear tension-bending interaction equation. There are mainly three effects due to
the presence of external hydrostatic pressure: 1) a reduction of the axial tension due to the presence of a
capped-end axial compression, 2) a reduction of the axial tensile strength, fth,Rd, caused by the hoop
compression, and 3) a reduction of the bending strength, fmh,Rd, caused by the hoop compression.
As demonstrated in /3/, the axial tension-hydrostatic pressure interaction is similar to the bending-hydrostatic
pressure interaction. The reduced axial tensile and bending strengths, as given by Equation (6.35) and
Equation (6.36), were derived from the following ultimate-strength interaction equations:
Combined axial tension and hydrostatic pressure:

2η
σ a,Sd  σ p,Sd  σ p,Sd  σ a,Sd 
2 (12.3)
  +  + 2ν    = 1.0 fy
 f d   f h,Rd   f h,Rd   f d  fd =
γM
2 2η
σ m,Sd  σ p,Sd  σ p,Sd  σ m,Sd  (12.4)
  +  + 2ν    = 1.0
 f m,Rd   f h,Rd   f h,Rd   f m,Rd  f m,Rd =
fm
γM
To obtain the axial tensile and bending strengths from the above two equations, the σa,Sd and σm,Sd terms are
represented by fth and fmh, respectively, which are given by the positive roots of the quadratic equations.
When the calculated axial tensile stress is greater than or equal to the capped-end axial compression ( i.e.
σa,Sd ≥ σq,Sd) the member is subjected to net axial tension. For this case, the member yield strength, fy, is not
replaced by a local buckling axial strength.
When the calculated axial tensile stress is less than the capped-end axial compression ( i.e. σa,Sd < σq,Sd) the
member is subjected to net axial compression and to a quasi-hydrostatic pressure condition. (A member is
subjected to a pure hydrostatic pressure condition when the net axial compressive stress is equal to the
capped-end axial stress, i.e. σa,Sd = 0.) Under this condition there is no member instability. Hence for this
case, in which σa,Sd ≤ σq,Sd, the cross-sectional yield criterion [Equation (6.39)] and the cross-sectional elastic
buckling criterion [Equation (6.41)] need to be satisfied.
Method B (σac,Sd is in tension)

In this method the member net axial stress is the calculated value, σac,Sd, since the effect of the capped-end
axial compression is explicitly included in the design analysis. Therefore, the calculated axial tensile stress,
σac,Sd, can be used directly in the cross-sectional strength check, as given in Equation (6.42).
Comm. 6.3.9.2 Axial compression, bending, and hydrostatic pressure
Method A (σa,Sd is in compression)

The capped-end axial compression due to hydrostatic pressure does not cause buckling of a member under
combined external compression and hydrostatic pressure. The major contribution of the capped-end axial
compression is earlier yielding of the member in the presence of residual stresses and additional external
axial compression. The earlier yielding in turn results in a lower column buckling strength for the member, as
given in Equation (6.47). When there is no hydrostatic pressure (i.e. σq,Sd = 0) Equation (6.47) reduces to the
in-air case, see Equation (6.3).
It is incorrect to estimate the reduced column buckling strength by subtracting the capped-end axial
compression from the in-air buckling strength calculated by Equation (6.3). This approach assumes that the
capped-end axial compression can cause buckling and actually the reduced strength can be negative for
cases where the capped-end axial compression is greater than the in-air buckling strength.
For the stability check [see Equation (6.43)], the calculated axial compression, σa,Sd, which is the additional
external axial compression, is used. The effect of the capped-end axial compression is captured in the
buckling strength, fch,Rd, which is derived for hydrostatic conditions. For strength or cross-sectional yield
check [see Equation (6.44)], the net axial compression of the member is used. In addition, the cross-section
elastic buckling criterion [see Equation (6.41)] need to be satisfied.
Method B (σac,Sd is in compression)

In this method the calculated axial stress, σac,Sd, is the net axial compressive stress of the member since the
capped-end axial compression is included in the design analysis. For the stability check [see Equation
(6.50)], the axial compression to be used with the equation is the component that is in additional to the pure
hydrostatic pressure condition. Therefore, the capped-end axial compression is subtracted from the net axial

compressive stress in Equation (6.50). For the strength check [see Eq. (6.51)], the net axial compressive
stress is used.
When the calculated axial compressive stress is less than the capped-end axial compression, the member is
under a quasi-hydrostatic pressure condition. That is, the net axial compression is less than the capped-end
axial compression due to pure hydrostatic pressure. Under this loading, the member can not buckle as a
beam-column. Of course, hoop collapse is still a limit state. For this case, in which σac,Sd ≤ σq,Sd, only the yield
criterion of Equation (6.51) needs to be satisfied.
Comm 6.4 Tubular joints

Reasonable alternative methods to the requirements in this standard may be used for the design of joints.
Test data and analytical techniques may be used as a basis for design, provided that it is demonstrated that
the resistance of such joints can be reliably estimated. The recommendations presented here have been
derived from a consideration of the characteristic strength of tubular joints. Characteristic strength is
comparable to lower bound strength. Care should therefore be taken in using the results of limited tests
programs or analytical investigations to provide an estimate of joint resistance. Consideration shall be given
to the imposition of a reduction factor on the calculation of joint resistance to account for a small amount of
data or a poor basis for the calculation. Analytical or numerical techniques should be calibrated and
benchmarked to suitable test data.
The formulas in this subclause are based upon API RP-2A /1/ and paper by Dier et al. /16/.
Comm. 6.4.1 General

Detailing practice
Joint detailing is an essential element of joint design. For simple tubular joints, the recommended detailing
nomenclature and dimensioning are shown in Figure 6-1. This practice indicates that if an increased wall
thickness of chord or special steel, is required, it should extend past the outside edge of incoming bracing a
minimum of one quarter of the chord diameter or 300 mm, whichever is greater. Short chord can lengths can
lead to a downgrading of joint resistance. The designer should consider specifying an increase of such chord
can length to remove the need for resistance downgrading, see 6.4.3.5. An increased wall thickness of brace
or special steel, if required, should extend a minimum of one brace diameter or 600 mm, whichever is
greater. Neither the cited chord can nor brace stub dimension includes the length over which thickness taper
occurs.
The minimum nominal gap between adjacent braces, whether in- or out-of-plane, is normally 50 mm. Care
should be taken to ensure that overlap of welds at the toes of the joint is avoided. When overlapping braces
occur, the amount of overlap should preferably be at least d/4 (where d is diameter of the through brace) or
150 mm, whichever is greater. This dimension is measured along the axis of the through member.
Where overlapping of braces is necessary or preferred, the brace with the larger wall thickness should be the
through brace and fully welded to the chord. Further, where substantial overlap occurs, the larger diameter
brace should be specified as the through member. This brace require an end stub to ensure that the
thickness is at least equal to that of the overlapping brace.
Comm. 6.4.2 Joint classification

Case (h) in Figure 6-2 is a good example of the actions and classification hierarchy that should be adopted in
the classification of joints. Replacement of brace actions by a combination of tension and compression force
to give the same net action is not permitted. For example, replacing the force in the horizontal brace on the
left hand side of the joint by a compression force of 1000 and tension force of 500 is not permitted, as this
may result in an inappropriate X classification for this horizontal brace and a K classification for the diagonal
brace.
Special consideration should be given to establish the proper gap if a portion of the action is related to K-joint
behaviour. The most obvious case in Figure 6-2 is (a), for which the appropriate gap is between adjacent
braces. However, if an intermediate brace exists, as in case (d), the appropriate gap is between the outer
loaded braces. In this case, since the gap is often large, the K-joint resistance could revert to that of a Y-
joint. Case (e) is instructive in that the appropriate gap for the middle brace is gap 1, whereas for the top
brace it is gap 2. Although the bottom brace is treated as 100 % K classification, a weighted average in

resistance is required, depending on how much of the acting axial force in this brace is balanced by the
middle brace (gap 1) and how much is balanced by the top brace (gap 2).
Comm. 6.4.3.3 Strength factor Qu

The Qu term for tension forces is based on limiting the resistance to first crack.
Comm. 6.4.3.4 Chord action factor Qf

The Qf factor is similar as in API RP-2A /1/ for brace in compression for X-joints. For X joints with the brace
in tension modified values for the Qf factor are recommended. The API formulas are based on test and
analyses only with the brace in compression (see /17/ and /18/) and it is judged that the influence of chord
stress on the joint strength will be different when the brace is in tension. As test and analytical results are not
available the recommended Qf factors in the case of X-joints with the brace in tension are established by the
following assumptions: For β = 1.0 the Qf factor is assumed to be mirrored for the case of brace in tension
from the compression case. For β < 0.9 it is assumed that when the brace is in tension the Qf factor to be
similar to the case for the brace in compression with tension chord stress both for chord stress in tension as
well as compression. See Figure 12-6.
Qf- factor
1,2
0,8
0,6
Compression Beta<0.9
0,4 Compression Beta=1.0
Tension Beta<0,9
0,2 Tension Beta= 1.0
0
-1 -0,8 -0,6 -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1
Pc/Py
Figure 12-6 Qf factor as a function of chord load for brace tension and compression for two β
ratios
Comm. 6.4.5 Ringstiffened joints

For ring-stiffened joints, the load effects determined by elastic theory will, in general, include local stress
peaks. In the ULS check, such peaks may be reduced to mean values within limited areas. The extent of
these areas shall be evaluated for the actual geometry. An assumed redistribution of stress should not lead
to significant change in the equilibrium of the different parts of the joint. For example, if an action in a brace
is resisted by a shear force over a ring-stiffener with an associated moment, a removal of local stress peaks
should not imply significant reduction in this moment required for equilibrium.
Ring-stiffened joints may be designed according to plastic theory provided that all parts of the joint belong to
cross section class 1 or 2 (see EN-1993-1-1 for definitions). Load effects may be determined by assuming
relevant plastic collapse mechanisms. The characteristic resistance shall be determined by recognised
methods of plastic theory. The design resistance is determined by dividing the characteristic resistance by γM
= 1.15.
The resistance may also be determined based on non-linear analysis. The computer programme used for
such analysis should be validated as providing reliable results in comparison with other analysis and tests.
Also the type of input to the analysis should be calibrated to provide reliable results. This includes type of
element used, element mesh and material description in terms of stress strain relationship.

Comm. 6.5.3.1 Local buckling under axial compression

Platforms generally have a very small number of cones. Thus, it might be more expeditious to design the
cones with a geometry such that the axial resistance is equal to that of yield, see 6.3.3.
Comm. 6.5.3.2 Junction yielding

The resistance of the junction is checked according to von Mises yield criterion when the hoop stress is
tensile.
Comm. 6.5.4.1 Hoop buckling

Hoop buckling is analysed similarly to that of a tubular subjected to external pressure using equivalent
geometry properties.
Comm. 6.5.4.2 Junction yielding and buckling

The load effect from external pressure is directly added to the existing stress at the junction for utilisation
check with respect to yielding and buckling.
Comm. 6.5.5.2 Junction rings without external hydrostatic pressure

The resistance of stiffeners at a junction is checked as a ring where the effective area of the tubular and the
cone is added to that of the ring section.
Comm. 6.5.5.3 Junction rings with external hydrostatic pressure

The required moment of inertia is derived as the sum of that required for the junction itself and that due to
external pressure.
Comm. 6.5.5.4 Intermediate stiffening rings

Design of intermediate ring stiffeners within a cone is performed along the same principles as used for
design of ring stiffeners in tubulars.
Comm. 6.5 Strength of conical transitions

The formulas are based on ISO 19902, but the influence of local bending stress is changed in revision 3.
Similar to what is assumed in API RP-2A /1/ it assumed that the ultimate strength limit need not be limited to
yield in extreme fibre when the stresses from local bending is included. In reality these stresses are not
necessary for the connection to be in equilibrium with the external loads when ultimate strength is
considered. It is uncertain how important the local bending stresses are for the ultimate capacity of the
connection, but is assumed to be well to the conservative side to include the local bending moment
according to plastic capacity of the shell wall. It is furthermore assumed that the local bending stresses are
not detrimental to the buckling capacity of the tubular or the cone sections.
Comm. 6.7 Design of cylindrical shells

A tubular section in air with diameter/thickness ratio larger than 60 is likely to fail by local buckling at an axial
stress less than the material yield strength. Based on NS-ENV 1993 1-1 the upper limit of section class 3,
where an axial stress equal yield strength can be achieved, is a D/t ratio of 21150/fy where fy is material yield
strength in MPa. The resistance of members failing due to local buckling is more sensitive to geometric
imperfections than members that can sustain yielding over the thickness and allow some redistribution of
local stresses due to yielding. The failure of such members is normally associated with a descending post-
critical behaviour that may be compared more with that of a brittle structure, i. e. the redistribution of load
cannot be expected. Structures with this behaviour are denoted as shells. A definition of a shell structure
should not only include geometry and material resistance, but also loading as the axial resistance is reduced
by e. g. increasing pressure. Design equations have been developed to account for different loading
conditions, see /14/. The background for these design equations is given by /2/.

Comm. 9 Accidental damage limit states

Examples of failure criteria are as follows:
- Critical deformation criteria defined by integrity of passive fire protection.
To be considered for walls resisting explosion pressure and shall serve as fire barrier after the
explosion.
- Critical deflection for structures to avoid damage to process equipment (riser, gas pipe, etc). To be
considered for structures or part of structures exposed to impact loads as ship collision, dropped
object etc.
- Critical deformation to avoid leakage of compartments. To be considered in case of impact against
floating structures where the acceptable collision damage is defined by the minimum number of
undamaged compartments to remain stable.
- o0o -

Design of Steel Structures N-004
Annex A Draft 3 to Rev.3 , November 2012
DESIGN OF STEEL STRUCTURES

ANNEX A
DESIGN AGAINST ACCIDENTAL ACTIONS

CONTENTS
A.1 SYMBOLS 63
A.2 GENERAL 66
A.3 SHIP COLLISIONS 67
A.3.1 General 67
A.3.2 Design principles 67
A.3.3 Collision mechanics 68
A.3.3.1 Strain energy dissipation 68
A.3.3.2 Reaction force to deck 69
A.3.4 Dissipation of strain energy 69
A.3.5 Ship collision forces 70
A.3.5.1 Recommended force-deformation relationships 70
A.3.5.2 Force contact area for strength design of large diameter columns. 71
A.3.5.3 Energy dissipation in ship bow 72
A.3.6 Force-deformation relationships for denting of tubular members 73
A.3.7 Force-deformation relationships for beams 74
A.3.7.1 General 74
A.3.7.2 Plastic force-deformation relationships including elastic, axial flexibility 74
A.3.7.3 Bending capacity of dented tubular members 76
A.3.8 Strength of connections 77
A.3.9 Strength of adjacent structure 77
A.3.10 Ductility limits 78
A.3.10.1 General 78
A.3.10.2 Local buckling 78
A.3.10.3 Lateral stability at yield hinges 79
A.3.10.4 Tensile Fracture 79
A.3.10.5 Tensile fracture in yield hinges 80
A.3.11 Resistance of large diameter, stiffened columns 82
A.3.11.1 General 82
A.3.11.2 Longitudinal stiffeners 82
A.3.11.3 Ring stiffeners 82
A.3.11.4 Decks and bulkheads 82
A.3.12 Energy dissipation in floating production vessels 83
A.3.13 Global integrity during impact 83
A.4 DROPPED OBJECTS 84
A.4.1 General 84
A.4.2 Impact velocity 84
A.4.3 Dissipation of strain energy 86
A.4.4 Resistance/energy dissipation 86
A.4.4.1 Stiffened plates subjected to drill collar impact 86
A.4.4.2 Stiffeners/girders 87
A.4.4.3 Dropped object 87
A.4.5 Limits for energy dissipation 87
A.4.5.1 Pipes on plated structures 87
A.4.5.2 Blunt objects 87
A.5 FIRE 88
A.5.1 General 88
A.5.2 General calculation methods 88
A.5.3 Material modelling 88
A.5.4 Equivalent imperfections 89
A.5.5 Empirical correction factor 89
A.5.6 Local cross sectional buckling 89
A.5.7 Ductility limits 89
A.5.7.1 General 89
A.5.7.2 Beams in bending 89
A.5.7.3 Beams in tension 90
A.5.8 Capacity of connections 90

A.6 EXPLOSIONS 91
A.6.1 General 91
A.6.2 Classification of response 91
A.6.3 Failure modes for stiffened panels 92
A.6.4 SDOF system analogy 94
A.6.4.1 General 94
A.6.4.2 Dynamic response charts for SDOF system 97
A.6.5 MDOF analysis 99
A.6.6 Classification of resistance properties 100
A.6.6.1 Cross-sectional behaviour 100
A.6.6.2 Component behaviour 100
A.6.7 Idealisation of resistance curves 101
A.6.8 Resistance curves and transformation factors for plates 101
A.6.8.1 Elastic - rigid plastic relationships 101
A.6.8.2 Axial restraint 103
A.6.8.3 Tensile fracture of yield hinges 103
A.6.9 Resistance curves and transformation factors for beams 103
A.6.9.1 Beams with no- or full axial restraint 104
A.6.9.2 Beams with partial end restraint. 108
A.6.9.3 Effective flange 110
A.6.9.4 Strength of adjacent structure 111
A.6.9.5 Strength of connections 111
A.6.9.6 Ductility limits 111
A.7 RESIDUAL STRENGTH 112
A.7.1 General 112
A.7.2 Modelling of damaged members 112
A.7.2.1 General 112
A.7.2.2 Members with dents, holes, out-of-straightness 112
A.8 REFERENCES 113
A.9 COMMENTARY 114

A.1 SYMBOLS
A Cross-sectional area
Ae Effective area of stiffener and effective plate flange
As Area of stiffener
Ap Projected cross-sectional area
Aw Shear area of stiffener/girder
B Width of contact area
CD Hydrodynamic drag coefficient
D Diameter of circular sections, plate stiffness
5
E Young's Modulus of elasticity, 2.1⋅10
Ep Plastic modulus
Ekin Kinetic energy
Es Strain energy
F Lateral load, total load
Aw Shear area of stiffener/girder
H Non-dimensional plastic stiffness
I Moment of inertia, impuls
J Mass moment of inertia
Kl Load transformation factor
Km Mass transformation factor
Klm Load-mass transformation factor
L Beam length
M Total mass, cross-sectional moment
MP Plastic bending moment resistance
NP Plastic axial resistance
T Fundamental period of vibration
N Axial force
NSd Design axial compressive force
NRd Design axial compressive capacity
NP Axial resistance of cross section
R Resistance
R0 Plastic collapse resistance in bending
V Volume, displacement
WP Plastic section modulus
W Elastic section modulus
a Added mass
as Added mass for ship
ai Added mass for installation

b Width of collision contact zone

bf Flange width
c Factor
cf Axial flexibility factor
clp Plastic zone length factor
cs Shear factor for vibration eigenperiod
cQ Shear stiffness factor
cw Displacement factor for strain calculation
d Smaller diameter of threaded end of drill collar
dc Characteristic dimension for strain calculation
f Generalised load
fy Characteristic yield strength
fu Ultimate material tensile strength
2
g Acceleration of gravity, 9.81 m/s
hw Web height for stiffener/girder
i Radius of gyration
k Generalised stiffness
k Stiffness, equivalent stiffness, plate stiffness
k1 Bending stiffness in linear domain for beam
'
k 1 Stiffness in linear domain including shear deformation
kQ Shear stiffness in linear domain for beam
ky,θ Temperature reduction of effective yield stress for maximum temperature in connection
l Plate length, beam length
m Distributed mass
ms Ship mass
mi Installation mass
meq Equivalent mass
m Generalised mass
p Explosion pressure
r Radius of deformed area
rc Plastic collapse resistance in bending for plate
s Distance, stiffener spacing
sc Characteristic distance
se Effective width of plate
t Thickness, time
td Duration of explosion
tf Flange thickness
tw Web thickness
vs Velocity of ship
vi Velocity of installation
vt Terminal velocity

w Deformation, displacement
wc Characteristic deformation
wd dent depth
w Non-dimensional deformation
x Axial coordinate
y Generalised displacement, displacement amplitude
yel Generalised displacement at elastic limit
z Distance from pivot point to collision point
α Plate aspect parameter

β Cross-sectional slenderness factor
ε Yield strength factor, strain
εcr Critical strain for rupture
εy Yield strain
η Plate eigenperiod parameter
φ Displacement shape function
λ Reduced slenderness ratio
µ Ductility ratio
ν Poisson's ratio, 0.3
θ Angle
ρ
3
Density of steel, 7860 kg/m
ρw
3
Density of sea water, 1025 kg/m
τ Shear stress
τcr Critical shear stress for plate plugging
ξ Interpolation factor
ψ Plate stiffness parameter

A.2 GENERAL
This Annex deals with the design to maintain the load-bearing function of the structures during accidental
events. The overall goal of the design against accidental actions is to achieve a system where the main
safety functions of the installation are not impaired.
Design Accidental Actions and associated performance criteria are determined by Quantified Risk
Assessment (QRA), see NORSOK N-003 /1/.
In conjunction with design against accidental actions, performance criteria may need to be formulated such
that the structure or components or sub-assemblies thereof - during the accident or within a certain time
period after the accident - shall not impair the main safety functions such as:
• usability of escapeways,
• integrity of shelter areas,
• global load bearing capacity.
The performance criteria derived will typically be related to:

• energy dissipation
• local strength
• resistance to deformation (e.g braces in contact with risers/caissons, use of escape ways)
• endurance of fire protection
• ductility (allowable strains) - to avoid cracks in components, fire walls, passive fire protection etc.
The inherent uncertainty of the frequency and magnitude of the accidental loads as well as the approximate
nature of the methods for determination analysis of accidental load effects shall be recognised. It is
therefore essential to apply sound engineering judgement and pragmatic evaluations in the design.
The material factor to be used for checks of accidental limit states is γM = 1.0 unless noted otherwise. If
determination of resistance is made according to NS-EN 1993-1-1, NS-EN 1993-1-5 or NS-EN 1993-1-8, the
material factor should be determined as given in subclause 9.1.

A.3 SHIP COLLISIONS

A.3.1 General
The ship collision action is characterised by a kinetic energy, governed by the mass of the ship, including
hydrodynamic added mass and the speed of the ship at the instant of impact. Depending upon the impact
conditions, a part of the kinetic energy may remain as kinetic energy after the impact. The remainder of the
kinetic energy has to be dissipated as strain energy in the installation and, possibly, in the vessel. Generally
this involves large plastic strains and significant structural damage to either the installation or the ship or
both. The strain energy dissipation is estimated from force-deformation relationships for the installation and
the ship, where the deformations in the installation shall comply with ductility and stability requirements.
The load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact with the damages imposed by the ship
collision action. In addition, the residual strength requirements given in Section A.7 shall be complied with.
The structural effects from ship collision may either be determined by non-linear dynamic finite element
analyses or by energy considerations combined with simple elastic-plastic methods.
If non-linear dynamic finite element analysis is applied all effects described in the following paragraphs shall
either be implicitly covered by the modelling adopted or subjected to special considerations, whenever
relevant.
Often the integrity of the installation can be verified by means of simple calculation models.
If simple calculation models are used the part of the collision energy that needs to be dissipated as strain
energy can be calculated by means of the principles of conservation of momentum and conservation of
energy, refer Section A.3.3.
It is convenient to consider the strain energy dissipation in the installation to take part on three different
levels:
• local cross-section
• component/sub-structure
• total system
Interaction between the three levels of energy dissipation shall be considered.
Plastic modes of energy dissipation shall be considered for cross-sections and component/substructures in
direct contact with the ship. Elastic strain energy can in most cases be disregarded, but elastic axial flexibility
may have a substantial effect on the load-deformation relationships for components/sub-structures. Elastic
energy may contribute significantly on a global level.
A.3.2 Design principles

With respect to the distribution of strain energy dissipation there may be distinguished between, see
Figure A.3-1:
• strength design
• ductility design
• shared-energy design

Ductile Shared-energy Strength

Energy dissipation design design design
ship
installation
Relative strength - installation/ship
Figure A.3-1 Energy dissipation for strength, ductile and shared-energy design
Strength design implies that the installation is strong enough to resist the collision force with minor
deformation, so that the ship is forced to deform and dissipate the major part of the energy.
Ductility design implies that the installation undergoes large, plastic deformations and dissipates the major
part of the collision energy.
Shared energy design implies that both the installation and ship contribute significantly to the energy
dissipation.
From calculation point of view strength design or ductility design is favourable. In this case the response of
the «soft» structure can be calculated on the basis of simple considerations of the geometry of the «rigid»
structure. In shared energy design both the magnitude and distribution of the collision force depends upon
the deformation of both structures. This interaction makes the analysis more complex.
In most cases ductility or shared energy design is used. However, strength design may in some cases be
achievable with little increase in steel weight.
A.3.3 Collision mechanics
A.3.3.1 Strain energy dissipation

The collision energy to be dissipated as strain energy may - depending on the type of installation and the
purpose of the analysis - be taken as:
Compliant installations
2 (A.3.1)
 vi 
1 − 
1 2  vs 
E s = (m s + a s )v s
2 m + as
1+ s
mi + a i
Fixed installations
1 (A.3.2)
E s = (m s + a s )v s
2
2
Articulated columns
2 (A.3.3)
 vi 
1 − 
E s = (m s + a s ) 
1 vs 
2 m z2
1+ s
J
ms = ship mass
as = ship added mass

vs = impact speed
mi = mass of installation
ai = added mass of installation
vi = velocity of installation
J = mass moment of inertia of installation (including added mass) with respect to effective
pivot point
z = distance from pivot point to point of contact
In most cases the velocity of the installation can be disregarded, i.e. vi = 0.
The installation can be assumed compliant if the duration of impact is small compared to the fundamental
period of vibration of the installation. If the duration of impact is comparatively long, the installation can be
assumed fixed.
Jacket structures can normally be considered as fixed. Floating platforms (semi-submersibles, TLP’s,
production vessels) can normally be considered as compliant. Jack-ups may be classified as fixed or
compliant.
A.3.3.2 Reaction force to deck

In the acceleration phase the inertia of the topside structure generates large reaction forces. An upper bound
of the maximum force between the collision zone and the deck for bottom supported installations may be
obtained by considering the platform compliant for the assessment of total strain energy dissipation and
assume the platform fixed at deck level when the collision response is evaluated.
Collision response Model
Figure A.3-2 Model for assessment of reaction force to deck
A.3.4 Dissipation of strain energy

The structural response of the ship and installation can formally be represented as load-deformation
relationships as illustrated in Figure A.3-3. The strain energy dissipated by the ship and installation equals
the total area under the load-deformation curves.
Rs Ri
Es,s Es,i
dws Ship Installation dwi
Figure A.3-3 Dissipation of strain energy in ship and platform

w s, max w i, max (A.3.4)

E s = E s,s + E s,i = ∫ R s dw s + ∫ R i dw i
0 0
As the load level is not known a priori an incremental procedure is generally needed.
The load-deformation relationships for the ship and the installation are often established independently of
each other assuming the other object infinitely rigid. This method may have, however, severe limitations;
both structures will dissipate some energy regardless of the relative strength.
Often the stronger of the ship and platform will experience less damage and the softer more damage than
what is predicted with the approach described above. As the softer structure deforms the impact force is
distributed over a larger contact area. Accordingly, the resistance of the strong structure increases. This may
be interpreted as an "upward" shift of the resistance curve for the stronger structure (refer Figure A.3-3).
Care should be exercised that the load-deformation curves calculated are representative for the true,
interactive nature of the contact between the two structures.
A.3.5 Ship collision forces
A.3.5.1 Recommended force-deformation relationships

Force-deformation relationships for a supply vessels with a displacement of 5000 tons are given in
Figure A.3-4 for broad side -, bow-, stern end and stern corner impact for a vessel with stern roller.
The curves for broad side and stern end impacts are based upon penetration of an infinitely rigid, vertical
cylinder with a given diameter and may be used for impacts against jacket legs (D = 1.5 m) and large
diameter columns (D = 10m).
The curve for stern corner impact is based upon penetration of an infinitely rigid cylinder and may be used
for large diameter column impacts.
In lieu of more accurate calculations the curves in Figure A.3-4 may be used for square-rounded columns.
For supply vessels and merchant vessels in the range of 2-5000 tons displacement, the force deformation
relationships given in Figure A.3-5 may be used for impacts against jacket legs with diameter 1.5 m – 2.5 m.
The force deformation relationships given are for conventional supply ship without e.g. bow reinforcements
for operations in ice.
50
Broad side D
D = 10 m
40
= 1.5 m
Impact force (MN)
30
Stern end D
20 Stern corner
D = 10 m
= 1.5 m
10
Bow
0
0 1 2 3 4
Indentation (m)
Figure A.3-4 Recommended-deformation curve for beam, bow and stern impact

Figure A.3-5 Force -deformation relationship for bow with and without bulb (2-5.000 dwt)
The curve for bow impact is based upon collision with an infinitely rigid, plane wall and may be used for large
diameter column impacts, but should not be used for significantly different collision events, e.g. impact
against tubular braces.
For beam -, stern end – and stern corner impacts against jacket braces all energy shall normally be assumed
dissipated by the brace, refer Comm. A.3.5.2.
70 12 70 18
Bulb force
Contact dimension [m]
16
Contact dimension [m]

60 10 60
14
50 50
a
Force [MN]
Force [MN]
8 12
40
b
40 10
6
30 30 8
a b
4 6
20 b 20 b
4
10 2 Force
10 2
a superstructure a
0 0 0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5
Deformation [m] Deformation [m]
Figure A.3-6 Force -deformation relationship for tanker bow impact (~ 125.000 dwt)
Force-deformation relationships for tanker bow impact is given in Figure A.3-6 for the bulbous part and the
superstructure, respectively. The curves may be used provided that the impacted structure (e.g. stern of
floating production vessels) does not undergo substantial deformation i.e. strength design requirements are
complied with. If this condition is not met interaction between the bow and the impacted structure shall be
taken into consideration. Non-linear finite element methods or simplified plastic analysis techniques of
members subjected to axial crushing shall be employed /3/, /5/.
A.3.5.2 Force contact area for strength design of large diameter columns.
The basis for the curves in Figure A.3-4 is strength design, i.e. limited local deformations of the installation at
the point of contact. In addition to resisting the total collision force, large diameter columns have to resist

local concentrations (subsets) of the collision force, given for stern corner impact in Table A.3-1 and stern
end impact in Table A.3-2.
Table A.3-1 Local concentrated collision force -evenly distributed over a rectangular area. Stern
corner impact
Contact area Force (MN)
a(m) b (m)
0.35 0.65 3.0
b
0.35 1.65 6.4
0.20 1.15 5.4 a
Table A.3-2 Local concentrated collision force -evenly distributed over a rectangular area. Stern end
impact
Contact area Force (MN)
a (m) b(m)
0.6 0.3 5.6
b
0.9 0.5 7.5
2.0 1.1 10 a
If strength design is not aimed for - and in lieu of more accurate assessment (e.g. nonlinear finite element
analysis) - all strain energy has to be assumed dissipated by the column, corresponding to indentation by an
infinitely rigid stern corner.
A.3.5.3 Energy dissipation in ship bow

For typical supply vessels bows and bows of merchant vessels of similar size (i.e. 2-5000 tons
displacement), energy dissipation in the ship bow may be taken into account provided that the collapse
resistance in bending for the brace, R0, see Section A.3.7, is according to the values given in Table A.3-3.
The figures are valid for normal bows without ice strengthening and for brace diameters less than 1.25 m.
The values should be used as step functions, i.e. interpolation for intermediate resistance levels is not
allowed. If contact location is not governed by operation conditions, size of ship and platform etc., the values
for arbitrary contact location shall be used. (see also Comm. A.3.5.3)
Table A.3-3 Energy dissipation in bow versus brace resistance
Energy dissipation in bow if brace
Contact location resistance R0
> 3 MN > 6 MN > 8 MN > 10 MN
Above bulb 1 MJ 4 MJ 7 MJ 11 MJ
First deck 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 17 MJ
First deck - oblique 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 17 MJ
brace
Between f'cstle/first 1 MJ 5 MJ 10 MJ 15 MJ
deck
Arbitrary loaction 0 MJ 2 MJ 4 MJ 11 MJ
In addition , the brace cross-section must satisfy the following compactness requirement
2 (A.3.5)
f y t1.5 D 0.5 ≥ ⋅ factor
3
where factor is the required resistance in [MN] given in Table A.3-3.

See Section A.3.6 for notation.

If the brace is designed to comply with these provisions, special care should be exercised that the joints and
adjacent structure is strong enough to support the reactions from the brace.
A.3.6 Force-deformation relationships for denting of tubular members

The contribution from local denting to energy dissipation is small for brace members in typical jackets and
should be neglected.
The resistance to indentation of unstiffened tubes may be taken from Figure A.3-7. Alternatively, the
resistance may be calculated from Equation (A.3.6):
Figure A.3-7 Resistance curve for local denting
c2 (A.3.6)
R w 
= kc1  d 
Rc  D 
t2 D
Rc = fy
4 t
B
c1 = 22 + 1.2
D
1.925
c2 =
B
3.5 +
D
N Sd
k = 1.0 ≤ 0.2
N Rd
N  NSd
k = 1.0 − 2 Sd − 0.2  0.2 < < 0.6
 N Rd  N Rd
NSd
k=0 0.6 ≤
N Rd

NSd = design axial compressive force

NRd = design axial compressive resistance
B = width of contact area
wd = dent depth
The curves are inaccurate for small indentation, and they should not be used to verify a design where the
wd
dent damage is required to be less than < 0.05
D
A.3.7 Force-deformation relationships for beams
A.3.7.1 General
The response of a beam subjected to a collision load is initially governed by bending, which is affected by
and interacts with local denting under the load. The bending capacity is also reduced if local buckling takes
place on the compression side. As the beam undergoes finite deformations, the load carrying capacity may
increase considerably due to the development of membrane tension forces. This depends upon the ability of
adjacent structure to restrain the connections at the member ends to inward displacements. Provided that
the connections do not fail, the energy dissipation capacity is either limited by tension failure of the member
or rupture of the connection.
Simple plastic methods of analysis are generally applicable. Special considerations shall be given to the
effect of :
• elastic flexibility of member/adjacent structure
• local deformation of cross-section
• local buckling
• strength of connections
• strength of adjacent structure
• fracture
A.3.7.2 Plastic force-deformation relationships including elastic, axial flexibility

Relatively small axial displacements have a significant influence on the development of tensile forces in
members undergoing large lateral deformations. An equivalent elastic, axial stiffness may be defined as
1 1  (A.3.7)
= +
K K node 2EA
Knode = axial stiffness of the node with the considered member removed. This may be determined by
introducing unit loads in member axis direction at the end nodes with the member removed.
Plastic force-deformation relationship for a central collision (midway between nodes) may be obtained from :
• Figure A.3-8 for tubular members
• Figure A.3-9 for stiffened plates in lieu of more accurate analysis.
The following notation applies:
4c1 M P
R0 = plastic collapse resistance in bending for the member, for the case that contact

point is at mid span
w
w= non-dimensional deformation
c1 w c
2
4c1 Kw c
c= non-dimensional spring stiffness
f y A
c1 = 2 for clamped beams
c1 = 1 for pinned beams

D
wc = characteristic deformation for tubular beams
2
1.2 WP
wc = characteristic deformation for stiffened plating
A
WP = plastic section modulus
 = member length
For non-central collisions the force-deformation relationship may be taken as the mean value of the force-
deformation curves for central collision with member half-length equal to the smaller and the larger portion of
the member length, respectively.
For members where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent members is smaller than the moment capacity
of the impacted member the force-deformation relationship may be interpolated from the curves for pinned
ends and clamped ends:
R = ξR clamped + (1 − ξ )R pinned (A.3.8)
where
actual (A.3.9)
R0
0≤ξ= −1 ≤ 1
MP
4

actual
R0 = Plastic resistance by bending action of beam accounting for actual bending resistance of
adjacent members
4M P + 2M P1 + 2M P2 (A.3.10)
=
actual
R0

M Pj = ∑ M Pj,i ≤ M P i = adjacent member no i, j = end number {1,2} (A.3.11)

i
MPj,i = Plastic bending resistance for member no. i.
Elastic, rotational flexibility of the node is normally of moderate significance

6,5
6
5,5
5
4,5 Bending & membrane
0.2 Membrane only
4
0,3 0.1 F (collision load)
3,5
R/R0
0.5
3
1 k k
c =∞
2,5
0.05 w
2
1,5
1
0,5
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation w
Figure A.3-8 Force-deformation relationship for tubular beam with axial flexibility
4,5
Bending & membrane

3,5
Membrane only
3
F (collision load)
0.1
R/R0
2,5
0.2
c =∞
2 0.5 k k
1,5 1 w
1 0
0,5
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation w
Figure A.3-9 Force-deformation relationship for stiffened plate with axial flexibility.
A.3.7.3 Bending capacity of dented tubular members

The reduction in plastic moment capacity due to local denting shall be considered for members in
compression or moderate tension, but can be neglected for members entering the fully plastic membrane
state.
Conservatively, the flat part of the dented section according to the model shown in Figure A.3-10 may be
assumed non-effective. This gives:

M red θ 1 (A.3.12)
= cos − sinθ
MP 2 2
M P = f yD2t
 2w d 
θ = arccos1 − 
 D 
wd = dent depth as defined in Figure A.3-10.
Figure A.3-10 Reduction of moment capacity due to local dent
A.3.8 Strength of connections

Provided that large plastic strains can develop in the impacted member, the strength of the connections that
the member frames into has to be checked.
The resistance of connections should be taken from ULS requirements in this standard for tubular joints and
Eurocode 3 or NS3472 for other joints.
For braces reaching the fully plastic tension state, the connection shall be checked for a load equal to the
axial resistance of the member. The design axial stress shall be assumed equal to the ultimate tensile
strength of the material.
If the axial force in a tension member becomes equal to the axial capacity of the connection, the connection
has to undergo gross deformations. The energy dissipation will be limited and rupture has to be considered
at a given deformation. A safe approach is to assume disconnection of the member once the axial force in
the member reaches the axial capacity of the connection.
If the capacity of the connection is exceeded in compression and bending, this does not necessarily mean
failure of the member. The post-collapse strength of the connection may be taken into account provided that
such information is available.
A.3.9 Strength of adjacent structure

The strength of structural members adjacent to the impacted member/sub-structure must be checked to see
whether they can provide the support required by the assumed collapse mechanism. If the adjacent structure
fails, the collapse mechanism must be modified accordingly. Since, the physical behaviour becomes more
complex with mechanisms consisting of an increasing number of members it is recommended to consider a
design which involves as few members as possible for each collision scenario.

A.3.10 Ductility limits
A.3.10.1 General
The maximum energy that the impacted member can dissipate will – ultimately - be limited by local buckling
on the compressive side or fracture on the tensile side of cross-sections undergoing finite rotation.
If the member is restrained against inward axial displacement, any local buckling must take place before the
tensile strain due to membrane elongation overrides the effect of rotation induced compressive strain.
If local buckling does not take place, fracture is assumed to occur when the tensile strain due to the
combined effect of rotation and membrane elongation exceeds a critical value.
To ensure that members with small axial restraint maintain moment capacity during significant plastic rotation
it is recommended that cross-sections be proportioned to Class 1 requirements, defined in Eurocode 3 (EN-
1993-1-1).
Initiation of local buckling does, however, not necessarily imply that the capacity with respect to energy
dissipation is exhausted, particularly for Class 1 and Class 2 cross-sections. The degradation of the cross-
sectional resistance in the post-buckling range may be taken into account provided that such information is
available, refer Comm. A.3.10.1
For members undergoing membrane stretching a lower bound to the post-buckling load-carrying capacity
may be obtained by using the load-deformation curve for pure membrane action.
A.3.10.2 Local buckling

Circular cross-sections:
Buckling does not need to be considered for a beam with axial restraints if the following condition is fulfilled:
1 (A.3.13)
 14c f f y  κ  2  3
β≤   
 c1  d c  
 
where
Dt (A.3.14)
β=
235 f y
axial flexibility factor

2 (A.3.15)
 c 
c f =  
+ 
 1 c 
dc = characteristic dimension
= D for circular cross-sections
c1 = 2 for clamped ends
= 1 for pinned ends
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness, refer Section A.3.7.2
κ ≤ 0.5  = the smaller distance from location of collision load to adjacent joint
If this condition is not met, buckling may be assumed to occur when the lateral deformation exceeds
 14c f f y  κ  
2 (A.3.16)
w 1 
= 1 − 1 − c β 3  d  
d c 2c f

1  c 
For small axial restraint (c < 0.05) the critical deformation may be taken as

2 (A.3.17)
w 3.5f y  κ 
=  
dc c1β 3  d c 
Stiffened plates/ I/H-profiles:
In lieu of more accurate calculations the expressions given for circular profiles in Eq. (A.3.16) and (A.3.17)
may be used with
dc = characteristic dimension for local buckling, equal to twice the distance from the
plastic neutral axis in bending to the extreme fibre of the cross-section
= h height of cross-section for symmetric I –profiles
= 2hw for stiffened plating (for simplicity)
For flanges subjected to compression;

bf t f (A.3.18)
β = 2.5 class 1 cross-sections
235 f y
bf t f (A.3.19)
β=3 class 2 and class 3 cross-sections
235 f y
For webs subjected to bending

hw tw (A.3.20)
β = 0.7 class 1 cross-sections
235 f y
hw tw (A.3.21)
β = 0.8 class 2 and class 3 cross-sections
235 f y
bf = flange width
tf = flange thickness
hw = web height
tw = web thickness
A.3.10.3 Lateral stability at yield hinges

The compressed part of I/H beams needs to be laterally supported to avoid instability. Unless more accurate
investigations are undertaken, H and I beams may be considered to be stable when a yield hinge is formed if
the length between lateral supports are less than:
EA f (A.3.22)
L ≤ 0,2* b f
(
f y A f + 0.33 Aw )
bf = flange width
Af = flange area
Aw = web area
A.3.10.4 Tensile Fracture

The degree of plastic deformation or critical strain at fracture will show a significant scatter and depends
upon the following factors:

• material toughness
• presence of defects
• strain rate
• presence of strain concentrations
The critical strain for plastic deformations of sections containing defects need to be determined based on
fracture mechanics methods. (See chapter 6.5.) Welds normally contain defects and welded joints are likely
to achieve lower toughness than the parent material. For these reasons structures that need to undergo
large plastic deformations should be designed in such a way that the plastic straining takes place away
outside the weld. In ordinary full penetration welds, the overmatching weld material will ensure that minimal
plastic straining occurs in the welded joints even in cases with yielding of the gross cross section of the
member. In such situations, the critical strain will be in the parent material and will be dependent upon the
following parameters:
• stress gradients
• dimensions of the cross section
• presence of strain concentrations
• material yield to tensile strength ratio
• material ductility
Simple plastic theory does not provide information on strains as such. Therefore, strain levels should be
assessed by means of adequate analytic models of the strain distributions in the plastic zones or by non-
linear finite element analysis with a sufficiently detailed mesh in the plastic zones.
When structures are designed so that yielding take place in the parent material, the following value for the
critical average strain in axially loaded plate material may be used in conjunction with nonlinear finite
element analysis or simple plastic analysis
 t  355 (A.3.23)
ε cr =  0.02 + 0.65 
  fy
where:
t = plate thickness
 = length of plastic zone. Minimum 5t
fy = yield stress in MPa
A.3.10.5 Tensile fracture in yield hinges

When the force deformation relationships for beams given in Section A.3.7.2 are used rupture may be
assumed to occur when the deformation exceeds a value given by
w c  4c c ε  (A.3.24)
= 1  1 + w f cr − 1
d c 2c f  c1 
where the following factors are defined;
Displacement factor
(A.3.25)
1  1   W  ε y   κ 
2
c w =  c lp 1 − c lp  + 41 −   
c1   3   WP  ε cr   d c 
plastic zone length factor

 ε cr  W (A.3.26)
 − 1 H
ε W
c lp =   P
y
 ε cr  W
 − 1 H +1
ε W
 y  P
axial flexibility factor
2 (A.3.27)
 c 
c f =  

1+ c 
non-dimensional plastic stiffness
1  f cr − f y 
(A.3.28)
Ep
H= =
E E  ε cr − ε y 
c1 = 2 for clamped ends
= 1 for pinned ends
c = non-dimensional spring stiffness, refer Section A.3.7.2
κl ≤ 0.5l the smaller distance from location of collision load to adjacent joint
εcr = critical strain for rupture
fy
εy = yield strain
E
fy = yield strength
fcr = strength corresponding to εcr
The characteristic dimension shall be taken as:

dc = D diameter of tubular beams
= 2hw twice the web height for stiffened plates
= h height of cross-section for symmetric I-profiles
For small axial restraint (c < 0.05) the critical deformation may be taken as
w (A.3.29)
= c w ε cr
dc
The critical strain εcr and corresponding strength fcr should be selected so that idealised bi-linear stress-strain
relation gives reasonable results. See Commentary. For typical steel material grades the following values are
proposed:
Table A.3-4 Proposed values for ecr and H for different steel grades
Steel εcr H
grade
S 235 20 % 0.0022
S 355 15 % 0.0034
S 460 10 % 0.0034

A.3.11 Resistance of large diameter, stiffened columns
A.3.11.1 General
Impact on a ring stiffener as well as midway between ring stiffeners shall be considered.
Plastic methods of analysis are generally applicable.
A.3.11.2 Longitudinal stiffeners

For ductile design the resistance of longitudinal stiffeners in the beam mode of deformation can be
calculated using the procedure described for stiffened plating, section A.3.7.
For strength design against stern corner impact, the plastic bending moment capacity of the longitudinal
stiffeners has to comply with the requirement given in Figure A.3-11, on the assumption that the entire load
given in Table A.3-1 is taken by one stiffener.
3
Plastic bending capacity
2
(MNm)
0
1 2 3 4
Distance between ring stiffeners (m)
Figure A.3-11 Required bending capacity of longitudinal stiffeners
A.3.11.3 Ring stiffeners

In lieu of more accurate analysis the plastic collapse load of a ring-stiffener can be estimated from:
(A.3.30)
4 2M P
F0 =
w cD
where
WP
wc = = characteristic deformation of ring stiffener
Ae
D = column radius
MP = plastic bending resistance of ring-stiffener including effective shell flange
WP = plastic section modulus of ring stiffener including effective shell flange
Ae = area of ring stiffener including effective shell flange
Effective flange of shell plating: Use effective flange of stiffened plates, see Chapter 6.
For ductile design it can be assumed that the resistance of the ring stiffener is constant and equal to the
plastic collapse load, provided that requirements for stability of cross-sections are complied with, refer
Section A.3.10.2.
A.3.11.4 Decks and bulkheads

Calculation of energy dissipation in decks and bulkheads has to be based upon recognised methods for
plastic analysis of deep, axial crushing. It shall be documented that the collapse mechanisms assumed yield
a realistic representation of the true deformation field.

A.3.12 Energy dissipation in floating production vessels

For strength design the side or stern shall resist crushing force of the bow of the off-take tanker. In lieu of
more accurate calculations the force-deformation curve given in Section A.3.5.2 may be applied.
For ductile design the resistance of stiffened plating in the beam mode of deformation can be calculated
using the procedure described in section A.3.7.2.
Calculation of energy dissipation in stringers, decks and bulkheads subjected to gross, axial crushing shall
be based upon recognised methods for plastic analysis, eg. /3/ and /5/. It shall be documented that the
folding mechanisms assumed yield a realistic representation of the true deformation field.
A.3.13 Global integrity during impact

Normally, it is unlikely that the installation will turn into a global collapse mechanism under direct collision
load, because the collision load is typically an order of magnitude smaller than the resultant design wave
force.
Linear analysis often suffices to check that global integrity is maintained.
The installation should be checked for the maximum collision force.
For installations responding predominantly statically the maximum collision force occurs at maximum
deformation.
For structures responding predominantly impulsively the maximum collision force occurs at small global
deformation of the platform. An upper bound to the collision force is to assume that the installation is fixed
with respect to global displacement. (e.g. jack-up fixed with respect to deck displacement)

A.4 DROPPED OBJECTS

A.4.1 General
The dropped object action is characterised by a kinetic energy, governed by the mass of the object, including
any hydrodynamic added mass, and the velocity of the object at the instant of impact. In most cases the
major part of the kinetic energy has to be dissipated as strain energy in the impacted component and,
possibly, in the dropped object. Generally, this involves large plastic strains and significant structural damage
to the impacted component. The strain energy dissipation is estimated from force-deformation relationships
for the component and the object, where the deformations in the component shall comply with ductility and
stability requirements.
The load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact with the damages imposed by the dropped
object action. In addition, the residual strength requirements given in Section A.7 shall be complied with.
Dropped objects are rarely critical to the global integrity of the installation and will mostly cause local
damages. The major threat to global integrity is probably puncturing of buoyancy tanks, which could impair
the hydrostatic stability of floating installations. Puncturing of a single tank is normally covered by the general
requirements to compartmentation and watertight integrity given in ISO 19900 and NORSOK N-001.
The structural effects from dropped objects may either be determined by non-linear dynamic finite element
analyses or by energy considerations combined with simple elastic-plastic methods as given in
Sections A.4.2 - A.4.5.
relevant.
A.4.2 Impact velocity

The kinetic energy of a falling object is given by
1 (A.4.1)
E kin = mv 2
2
for objects falling in air and,
E kin =
1
(m + a )v 2 (A.4.2)
2
for objects falling in water.
a = hydrodynamic added mass for considered motion
For impacts in air the velocity is given by
v = 2gs (A.4.3)
s = travelled distance from drop point

v = vo at sea surface
For objects falling rectilinearly in water the velocity depends upon the reduction of speed during impact with
water and the falling distance relative to the characteristic distance for the object.

Figure A.4-1 Velocity profile for objects falling in water
The loss of momentum during impact with water is given by
F(t )dt
td
mΔ v = ∫ (A.4.4)
0
F(t) = force during impact with sea surface

After the impact with water the object proceeds with the speed
v = v 0 − Δv
Assuming that the hydrodynamic resistance during fall in water is of drag type the velocity in water can be
taken from Figure A.4-1 where
2g(m − ρ w V )
vt = = terminal velocity for the object
ρ w Cd A p
2 a
v t 1 + 
m+a  m
sc = = = characteristic distance
ρw Cd A p  ρ V
2g1 − w 
 m 
ρw = density of sea water
Cd = hydrodynamic drag coefficient for the object in the considered motion
m = mass of object
Ap = projected cross-sectional area of the object
V = object displacement
The major uncertainty is associated with calculating the loss of momentum during impact with sea surface,
given by Equation (A.4.4). However, if the travelled distance is such that the velocity is close to the terminal
velocity, the impact with sea surface is of little significance.
Typical terminal velocities for some typical objects are given in Table A.4-1

Table A.4-1 Terminal velocities for objects falling in water.
Item Mass [kN] Terminal velocity [m/s]

Drill collar 28 23-24
Winch, 250
Riser pump 100
BOP annular preventer 50 16
Mud pump 330 7
Rectilinear motion is likely for blunt objects and objects which do not rotate about their longitudinal axis. Bar-
like objects (e.g. pipes) which do not rotate about their longitudinal axis may execute lateral, damped
oscillatory motions as illustrated in Figure A.4-1.
A.4.3 Dissipation of strain energy

The structural response of the dropped object and the impacted component can formally be represented as
load-deformation relationships as illustrated in Figure A.4-2. The part of the impact energy dissipated as
strain energy equals the total area under the load-deformation curves.
w o, max w i, max (A.4.5)
E s = E s,o + E s,i = ∫ R o dw o + ∫ R i dw i
0 0
As the load level is not known a priori an incremental approach is generally required.
Often the object can be assumed to be infinitely rigid (e.g axial impact from pipes and massive objects) so
that all energy is to be dissipated by the impacted component..
Ro Ri
Es,o Es,i
dwo Object Installation dwi
Figure A.4-2 Dissipation of strain energy in dropped object and installation
If the object is assumed to be deformable, the interactive nature of the deformation of the two structures
should be recognised.
A.4.4 Resistance/energy dissipation
A.4.4.1 Stiffened plates subjected to drill collar impact

The energy dissipated in the plating subjected to drill collar impact is given by
2 (A.4.6)
R2  m 
E sp = 1 + 0.48 i 
2K  m 

 2 
 1 + 5 d − 6c 2 + 6.25 d  
1  r  2r  
K = πf y t   : stiffness of plate enclosed by hinge circle
2  (1 + c) 2

 
 
fy = characteristic yield strength
 d 
− 2.5 1− 
c= −e  2r 
R = πdtτ = contact force for τ ≤ τ cr refer Section A.4.5.1 for τcr
m i = ρ p πr t 2
= mass of plate enclosed by hinge circle
m = mass of dropped object
ρp =mass density of steel plate
d =smaller diameter at threaded end of drill collar
r =smaller distance from the point of impact to the plate boundary defined by adjacent
stiffeners/girders, refer Figure A.4-3.
For validity range of design formula see Commentary.
r r
r
Figure A.4-3 Definition of distance to plate boundary
A.4.4.2 Stiffeners/girders
In lieu of more accurate calculations stiffeners and girders subjected to impact with blunt objects may be
analysed with resistance models given in Section A.6.9.
A.4.4.3 Dropped object

Calculation of energy dissipation in deformable dropped objects shall be based upon recognised methods for
plastic analysis. It shall be documented that the collapse mechanisms assumed yield a realistic
representation of the true deformation field.
A.4.5 Limits for energy dissipation
A.4.5.1 Pipes on plated structures

The maximum shear stress for plugging of plates due to drill collar impacts may be taken as
 t (A.4.7)
τ cr = f u  0.42 + 0.41 
 d
fu = ultimate material tensile strength
A.4.5.2 Blunt objects

For stability of cross-sections and tensile fracture, refer Section A.3.10.

A.5 FIRE
A.5.1 General
The characteristic fire structural action is temperature rise in exposed members. The temporal and spatial
variation of temperature depends on the fire intensity, whether or not the structural members are fully or
partly engulfed by the flame and to what extent the members are insulated.
Structural steel expands at elevated temperatures and internal stresses are developed in redundant
structures. These stresses are most often of moderate significance with respect to global integrity. The
heating causes also progressive loss of strength and stiffness and is, in redundant structures, accompanied
by redistribution of forces from members with low strength to members that retain their load bearing capacity.
A substantial loss of load-bearing capacity of individual members and subassemblies may take place, but the
load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact during exposure to the fire action.
In addition, the residual strength requirements given in Section A.7 shall be complied with.
Structural analysis may be performed on either
• individual members
• subassemblies
• entire system
The assessment of fire load effect and mechanical response shall be based on either
• simple calculation methods applied to individual members,
• general calculation methods,
or a combination.
Simple calculation methods may give overly conservative results. General calculation methods are methods
in which engineering principles are applied in a realistic manner to specific applications.
Assessment of individual members by means of simple calculation methods should be based upon the
provisions given in Eurocode 3 Part 1.2. /2/.
Assessment by means of general calculation methods shall satisfy the provisions given in Eurocode 3
Part1.2 , Section 4.3.
In addition, the requirements given in this section for mechanical response analysis with nonlinear finite
element methods shall be complied with.
Assessment of ultimate strength is not needed if the maximum steel temperature is below
o
400 C, but deformation criteria may have to be checked for impairment of main safety functions.
A.5.2 General calculation methods

Structural analysis methods for non-linear, ultimate strength assessment may be classified as
• stress-strain based methods
• stress-resultants based (yield/plastic hinge) methods
Stress-strain based methods are methods where non-linear material behaviour is accounted for on fibre
level.
Stress-resultants based methods are methods where non-linear material behaviour is accounted for on
stress-resultants level based upon closed form solutions/interaction equation for cross-sectional forces and
moments.
A.5.3 Material modelling

In stress-strain based analysis temperature dependent stress-strain relationships given in Eurocode 3, Part
1.2 , Section 3.2 may be used.
For stress resultants based design the temperature reduction of the elastic modulus may be taken as k E,θ
according to Eurocode 3 . The yield stress may be taken equal to the effective yield stress, fy,θ, . The
temperature reduction of the effective yield stress may be taken as ky,θ.
Provided that above the above requirements are complied with creep does need explicit consideration.

A.5.4 Equivalent imperfections

To account for the effect of residual stresses and lateral distortions compressive members shall be modelled
with an initial, sinusoidal imperfection with amplitude given by
Elasto-plastic material models
e* α σY i
=
 π E z0
Elastic-plastic material models:
e* Wp α σ Y i α σ Y WP
= =
 W π E z 0 π E AI
α = 0.5 for fire exposed members according to column curve c, Eurocode 3
i = radius of gyration
z0 = distance from neutral axis to extreme fibre of cross-section
A = cross-sectional area
I = moment of inertia
*
e = amplitude of initial distortion
 = member length
The initial out-of-straightness should be applied on each physical member. If the member is modelled by
several finite elements the initial out-of-straightness should be applied as displaced nodes.
The initial out-of-straightness shall be applied in the same direction as the deformations caused by the
temperature gradients.
A.5.5 Empirical correction factor

The empirical correction factor of 1.2 has to be accounted for in calculating the critical strength in
compression and bending for design according to Eurocode 3, refer Comm. A.5.5.
A.5.6 Local cross sectional buckling

If shell modelling is used, it shall be verified that the software and the modelling is capable of predicting local
buckling with sufficient accuracy. If necessary, local shell imperfections have to be introduced in a similar
manner to the approach adopted for lateral distortion of beams
If beam modelling is used local cross-sectional buckling shall be given explicit consideration.
In lieu of more accurate analysis cross-sections subjected to plastic deformations shall satisfy compactness
requirements given in Eurocode 3 :
• class 1 : Locations with plastic hinges (approximately full plastic utilization)
• class 2 : Locations with yield hinges (partial plastification)
If this criterion is not complied with explicit considerations shall be performed. The load-bearing capacity will
be reduced significantly after the onset of buckling, but may still be significant. A conservative approach is to
remove the member from further analysis.
Compactness requirements for class 1 and class 2 cross-sections may be disregarded provided that the
member is capable of developing significant membrane forces.
A.5.7 Ductility limits
A.5.7.1 General
The ductility of beams and connections increase at elevated temperatures compared to normal conditions.
Little information exists.
A.5.7.2 Beams in bending

In lieu of more accurate analysis requirements given in Section A.3.10 are to be complied with.

A.5.7.3 Beams in tension

In lieu of more accurate analysis an average elongation of 3% of the member length with a reasonably
uniform temperature can be assumed.
Local temperature peaks may localise plastic strains. It is considered to be to the conservative side to use
critical strains for steel under normal temperatures. See A.3.10.4 and A.3.10.5.
A.5.8 Capacity of connections

In lieu of more accurate calculations the capacity of the connection can be taken as:
R θ = k y,θ R 0
where
R0 = capacity of connection at normal temperature
ky,θ = temperature reduction of effective yield stress for maximum temperature in connection

A.6 EXPLOSIONS
A.6.1 General
Explosion loads are characterised by temporal and spatial pressure distribution. The most important
temporal parameters are rise time, maximum pressure and pulse duration.
For components and sub-structures the explosion pressure shall normally be considered uniformly
distributed. On global level the spatial distribution is normally nonuniform both with respect to pressure and
duration.
The response to explosion loads may either be determined by non-linear dynamic finite element analysis or
by simple calculation models based on Single Degree Of Freedom (SDOF) analogies and elastic-plastic
methods of analysis.
relevant
In the simple calculation models the component is transformed to a single spring-mass system exposed to
an equivalent load pulse by means of suitable shape functions for the displacements in the elastic and
elastic-plastic range. The shape functions allow calculation of the characteristic resistance curve and
equivalent mass in the elastic and elastic-plastic range as well as the fundamental period of vibration for the
SDOF system in the elastic range.
Provided that the temporal variation of the pressure can be assumed to be triangular, the maximum
displacement of the component can be calculated from design charts for the SDOF system as a function of
pressure duration versus fundamental period of vibration and equivalent load amplitude versus maximum
resistance in the elastic range. The maximum displacement must comply with ductiliy and stability
requirements for the component.
The load bearing function of the installation shall remain intact with the damages imposed by the explosion
loads. In addition, the residual strength requirements given in Section A.7 shall be complied with.
A.6.2 Classification of response

The response of structural components can conveniently be classified into three categories according to the
duration of the explosion pressure pulse, td, relative to the fundamental period of vibration of the component,
T:
• Impulsive domain - td/T< 0.3
• Dynamic domain - 0.3 < td/T < 3
• Quasi-static domain - 3 < td/T
Impulsive domain:
The response is governed by the impulse defined by
I = ∫ F(t )dt
td (A.6.1)
0
Hence, the structure may resist a very high peak pressure provided that the duration is sufficiently small. The
maximum deformation, wmax, of the component can be calculated iteratively from the equation
(A.6.2)
R (w ) dw
w max
I = 2m eq ∫
0
where
R(w) = force-deformation relationship for the component
meq = equivalent mass for the component

Quasi-static-domain:
The response is governed by the peak pressure and the rise time of the pressure relative to the fundamental
period of vibration. If the rise time is small the maximum deformation of the component can be solved
iteratively from the equation:
(A.6.3)
R (w ) dw
1 w max
w max =
Fmax ∫ 0
If the rise time is large the maximum deformation can be solved from the static condition
Fmax = R(w max ) (A.6.4)
Dynamic domain:
The response has to be solved from numerical integration of the dynamic equations of equilibrium.
A.6.3 Failure modes for stiffened panels

Various failure modes for a stiffened panel are illustrated in Figure A.6-1. Suggested analysis model and
reference to applicable resistance functions are listed in Table A.6-1. Application of a Single Degree of
Freedom (SDOF) model in the analysis of stiffeners/girders with effective flange is implicitly based on the
assumption that dynamic inter action between the plate flange and the profile can be neglected.

Beam collapse – plate elastic
Plastic deformation of plate Beam collapse – plate plastic
(ii)
(i)
Girder collapse Girder and beam collapse

– beam elastic- plate elastic or plastic plate elastic (i) or plastic (ii)
Figure A.6-1 Failure modes for two-way stiffened panel

Table A.6-1 Analysis models

Simplified Comment
Failure mode analysis model Resistance models
Elastic-plastic SDOF Section A.6.8
deformation of plate
Stiffener plastic SDOF Stiffener: Elastic, effective flange of
– plate elastic Section A.6.9.1-2. plate
Plate: Section A.6.8.1
Stiffener plastic SDOF Stiffener: Effective width of plate at mid
– plate plastic Section A.6.9.1-2. span. Elastic, effective flange
of plate at ends.
Plate: Section A.6.8
Girder plastic SDOF Girder: Elastic, effective flange of
– stiffener and plating Section .A.6.9.1-2 plate with concentrated loads
elastic Plate: Section A.6.8 (stiffener reactions). Stiffener
mass included.
Girder plastic SDOF Girder: Section A.6.9.1- Effective width of plate at
– stiffener elastic 2 girder mid span and ends.
– plate plastic Plate: Section A.6.8 Stiffener mass included
Girder and stiffener MDOF Girder and stiffener: Dynamic reactions of
plastic Section A.6.9.1-2 stiffeners
– plate elastic Plate: Section A.6.8 → loading for girders
Girder and stiffener MDOF Girder and stiffener: Dynamic reactions of
plastic Section A.6.9.1-2 stiffeners
– plate plastic Plate: Section A.6.8 → loading for girders
By girder/stiffener plastic is understood that the maximum displacement wmax exceeds the elastic limit wel
A.6.4 SDOF system analogy
A.6.4.1 General
Biggs method:
For many practical design problems it is convenient to assume that the structure - exposed to the dynamic
pressure pulse - ultimately attains a deformed configuration comparable to the static deformation pattern.
Using the static deformation pattern as displacement shape function, i.e.
w (x , t ) = φ(x )y(t )
the dynamic equations of equilibrium can be transformed to an equivalent single degree of freedom system:
my + ky = f(t)
φ(x) = displacement shape function
y(t) = displacement amplitude
m = ∫ mφ(x ) dx + ∑ M i φ i
2 2
= generalized mass
i
f (t ) = ∫

q (t )φ (x )dx + ∑Fφ
i
i i = generalized load
k = ∫ EIφ , xx (x ) dx
2
= generalized elastic bending stiffness
k=0 = generalized plastic bending stiffness

(fully developed mechanism)
k = ∫ Nφ , x (x ) dx
2
= generalized membrane stiffness
(fully plastic: N = NP)
m = distributed mass
Mi = concentrated mass
q = explosion load
Fi = concentrated load (e.g. support reactions)

xi = position of concentrated mass/load

φ i = φ (x = x i )
The equilibrium equation can alternatively be expressed as:
(K l m,u M u + K l m,c M c )y + k(y)y = F(t) (A.6.5)
where
K m,u
K l m,u = = load-mass transformation factor for uniform mass
Kl
K m,c
K l m,c = = load-mass transformation factor for concentrated mass
Kl
∫ mϕ (x)
2
dx
K m,u = l
= mass transformation factor for uniform mass
Mu
∑M ϕ i
2
K m,c = i
= mass transformation factor for concentrated mass
Mc
∫ qϕ (x)dx
Kl = l
= load transformation factor for uniformly distributed load
F
∑ Fiϕi
Kl = i
= load transformation factor for concentrated load
F
Mu = ∫ mdx

= total uniformly, distributed mass
Mc = ∑M i
i = total concentrated mass
F = ∫ qdx = total load in case of uniformly distributed load


F = ∑ Fi = total load in case of concentrated load

i
k
ke = = equivalent stiffness
kl
The natural period of vibration for the equivalent system in the linear resistance domain is given by
(A.6.6)
m K l m,u M u + K l m,c M c
T = 2π = 2π
k ke
The response , y(t), is - in addition to the load history - entirely governed by the total mass, load-mass factor
and the equivalent stiffness.
For a linear system, the load mass factor and the equivalent stiffness are constant k1 = ke. The response is
then alternatively governed by the eigenperiod and the equivalent stiffness.
For a non-linear system, the load-mass factor and the equivalent stiffness depend on the response
(deformations). Non-linear systems may often conveniently be approximated by equivalent bi-linear or tri-
linear systems, see Section A.6.7. In such cases the response can be expressed in terms of (see
Figure A.6-10 for definitions):
k1 = equivalent stiffness in the initial, linear resistance domain
yel = displacement at the end of the initial, linear resistance domain

T = eigenperiod in the initial, linear resistance domain

and, if relevant,
k3 = normalised equivalent resistance in the third linear resistance domain.
Equivalent stiffnesses are given explicitly or can be derived from load-deformation relationships given in
Section A.6.9. If the response is governed by different mechanical behaviour relevant equivalent stiffnesses
must be calculated.
For a given explosion load history the maximum displacement, ymax, is found by analytical or numerical
integration of equation (A.6.6).
For standard load histories and standard resistance curves maximum displacements can be presented in
design charts. Figure A.6-2 shows the normalised maximum displacement of a SDOF system with a bi-
(k3=0) or trilinear (k3 > 0) resistance function, exposed to a triangular pressure pulse with zero rise time.
When the duration of the pressure pulse relative to the eigenperiod in the initial, linear resistance range is
known, the maximum displacement can be determined directly from the diagram as illustrated in
Figure A.6-2.
100
Static asymptote, k 3=0.2k 1 k 3=0.1k 1
10 Impulsive asymptote, k 3=0.2k 1

k 3=0.2k 1
ymax /yel
for system
Elastic-perfectly plastic, k 3=0
1
F(t) td/T for system
td
0,1
0,1 1 10
td/T
Figure A.6-2 Maximum response a SDOF system to a triangular pressure pulse with zero rise time.
Fmax/Rel= 2
Design charts for systems with bi- or tri-linear resistance curves subjected to a triangular pressure pulse with
different rise time are given in Figures A.6-4 - A6-7.
Baker's method
The governing equations (A.6.1) and (A.6.2) for the maximum response in the impulsive domain and the
quasi-static domain may also be used along with response charts for maximum displacement for different
Fmax/Rel ratios to produce pressure-impulse (Fmax,I) diagrams - iso-damage curves - provided that the

maximum pressure is known. Figure A.6-3 shows such a relationship obtained for an elastic-perfectly plastic
system when the maximum dynamic response is ymax/yel=10.
Pressure-impulse combinations to the left and below of the iso-damage curve represent admissible events,
to the right and above inadmissible events.
The advantage of using iso-damage diagrams is that "back-ward" calculations are possible:
The diagram is established on the basis of the resistance curve. The information may be used to screen
explosion pressure histories and eliminate those that obviously lie in the admissible domain. This will reduce
the need for large complex simulation of explosion scenaries.
11
10
Impulsive
7
Pressure F/R
3 Iso-damage
2
1
Pressure
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Impulse I/(RT)
Figure A.6-3 Iso-damage curve for ymax/yel = 10. Triangular pressure pulse.
A.6.4.2 Dynamic response charts for SDOF system

Transformation factors for elastic–plastic-membrane deformation of beams and one-way slabs with different
boundary conditions are given in Table A.6-2
Maximum displacement for a SDOF system exposed to different pressure histories are displayed in Figures
A.6-4 - A.6-7.
The response of the system is based upon the resistance in the linear range, k e=k1, where the equivalent
stiffness is determined from the elastic solution to the actual system.
If the displacement shape function changes as a non-linear structure undergoes deformation the
transformation factors change. In lieu of accurate analysis an average value of the combined load-mass
transformation factor can be used:.
+ (μ − 1)K lm (A.6.7)
elastic plastic
K lm
=
average
K lm
μ
µ = ymax/yel ductility ratio
Since µ is not known a priori iterative calculations may be necessary.

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7

100
Rel/Fmax= 0.8
= 0.9
10
= 1.0
ymax/yel
= 1.1
= 1.2
= 1.5
1
F R k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1

k3 = 0
k3 = 0.1k1 Fmax Rel
k3 = 0.2k 1
k1
k3 = 0.5k 1
td yel y
0.1
0.1 1 10
td/T
Figure A.6-4 Dynamic response of a SDOF system to a triangular load (rise time=0)
Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7

100
Rel/Fmax= 0.8
10
= 0.9
ymax/yel
= 1.0
= 1.1
1 = 1.2
= 1.5
F R k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1
k3 = 0
k3 = 0.1k1 Fmax Rel
k3 = 0.2k1
k1
k3 = 0.5k1
0.15td td yel y
0.1
0.1 1 10
td/T
Figure A.6-5 Dynamic response of a SDOF system to a triangular load (rise time=0.15td)

Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6 = 0.7

100
Rel/Fmax= 0.8
10
= 0.9
ymax/yel
= 1.0
1 = 1.1
= 1.2
F R = 1.5
k 3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k1 =0.1k1
k3 = 0
Fmax Rel
k3 = 0.1k1
k3 = 0.2k1 k1
k3 = 0.5k1
0.30td td yel y
0.1
0.1 1 10
td/T
Rel/Fmax=0.05 =0.1 = 0.3 = 0.5 = 0.6

100 = 0.7
Rel/Fmax= 0.8
10
ymax/yel
= 0.9
= 1.0
1 = 1.1
= 1.2
F R k3 = 0.5k1 =0.2k 1 =0.1k1
= 1.5
k3 = 0
Fmax Rel
k3 = 0.1k 1
k3 = 0.2k1 k1
k3 = 0.5k1
0.50td td yel y
0.1
0.1 1 10
td/T
A.6.5 MDOF analysis

SDOF analysis of built-up structures (e.g. stiffeners supported by girders) is admissible if

- the fundamental periods of elastic vibration are sufficiently separated

- the response of the component with the smallest eigenperiod does not enter the elastic-plastic domain
so that the period is drastically increased
If these conditions are not met, then significant interaction between the different vibration modes is
anticipated and a multi degree of freedom analysis is required with simultaneous time integration of the
coupled system.
A.6.6 Classification of resistance properties
A.6.6.1 Cross-sectional behaviour
Moment
elasto-plastic
Curvature
Figure A.6-8 Bending moment-curvature relationships
Elasto-plastic : The effect of partial yielding on bending moment accounted for

Elastic-perfectly plastic: Linear elastic up to fully plastic bending moment
The simple models described herein assume elastic-perfectly plastic material behaviour. Any strain
hardening may be accounted for by equivalent (increased) yield stress.
A.6.6.2 Component behaviour
k2 k2
R R R
R k2
k3
k1 k1 k1 k1
w w w w
Elastic Elastic-plastic Elastic-plastic Elastic-plastic
(determinate) (indeterminate) with membrane
Figure A.6-9 Resistance curves
Elastic: Elastic material, small deformations

Elastic-plastic (determinate): Elastic-perfectly plastic material. Statically determinate system. Bending
mechanism fully developed with occurrence of first plastic hinge(s)/yield lines. No axial restraint
Elastic-plastic (indeterminate): Elastic perfectly plastic material. Statically indeterminate system. Bending
mechanism develops with sequential formation of plastic hinges/yield lines. No axial restraint. For simplified
analysis this system may be modelled as an elastic-plastic (determinate) system with equivalent initial
stiffness. In lieu of more accurate analysis the equivalent stiffness should be determined such that the area
under the resistance curve is preserved.
Elastic-plastic with membrane: Elastic-perfectly plastic material. Statically determinate (or indeterminate).
Ends restrained against axial displacement. Increase in load-carrying capacity caused by development of
membrane forces .

A.6.7 Idealisation of resistance curves

The resistance curves in clause A.6.6 are idealised. For simplified SDOF analysis the resistance
characteristics of a real non-linear system may be approximately modelled. An example with a tri-linear
approximation is illustrated in Figure A.6-10.
R
k3
k 2=0
Rel
k1
wel w
Figure A.6-10 Representation of a non-linear resistance by an equivalent tri-linear system.
In lieu of more accurate analysis the resistance curve of elastic-plastic systems may be composed by an
elastic resistance and a rigid-plastic resistance as illustrated in Figure A.6-11.
+ =
Elastic Rigid-plastic Elastic-plastic with membrane
Figure A.6-11 Construction of elastic-plastic resistance curve
A.6.8 Resistance curves and transformation factors for plates
A.6.8.1 Elastic - rigid plastic relationships

In lieu of more accurate calculations rigid plastic theory combined with elastic theory may be used.
In the elastic range the stiffness and fundamental period of vibration of a clamped plate under uniform lateral
pressure can be expressed as:
r = k1w = resistance-displacement relationship for plate center
D
k1 = ψ 4 = plate stiffness
s
2π ρ ts 4
T= = natural period of vibration
η D

t3
D=E
( )
= plate bending stiffness
12 1 − ν 2
The factors ψ and η are given in Figure A.6-12
800 40
700 35
600 30
500
η 25
ψ 400 20
η
300
ψ 15
200 10
100 5
0 0
1 1.5 2 2.5 3
/s
Figure A.6-12 Coefficients ψ and η.
In the plastic range the resistance of plates subjected to uniform pressure can be taken as:
p  α + (3 − 2α ) 2  (A.6.8)
= 1+ w 2   w ≤1
pc  9 − 3α 
 
p  α(2 − α) 1 
= 2w 1 + ( 2 − 1)  w ≥1
pc  3 − α 3w 
Pinned ends :
w 6f y t 2
w=2 rc =
t  2α 2
Clamped ends :
w 12f y t 2
w= rc =
t  2α 2
s s s
α =  3 + ( ) 2 −  = plate aspect parameter
  
 (> s ) = plate length
s = plate width
t = plate thickness
rc = plastic resistance in bending for plates with no axial restraint

6
l/s = 100
5
5
3
Resistance [r/rc]
4
2
3 1
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
Relative displacement w
Figure A.6-13 Plastic load-carrying capacities of plates as a function of lateral displacement
A.6.8.2 Axial restraint

Unlike stiffeners no simple method with a clear physical interpretation exists to quantify the effect of flexible
boundaries for a continuous plate field under uniform pressure. Full axial restraint may probably be
assumed.
At the panel boundaries assumption of full axial restraint is non-conservative. In lieu of more accurate
calculation the axial restraint may be estimated by removing the plate and apply a uniformly distributed unit
in-plane load normal to the plate edges. The axial stiffness should be taken as the inverse of the maximum
in-plane displacement of the long edge. The relative reduction of the plastic load-carrying capacity can
calculated according to the procedure described in Section A.6.9.2 for a beam with rectangular cross-section
(plate thickness x unit width) and length equal to stiffener spacing, using the diagram for α = 2.
For a plate in the middle of a continuous, uniformly loaded panel a high degree of axial restraint is likely. A
non-dimensional spring factor c= 1.0 is suggested.
If membrane forces are likely to develop it has to be verified that the adjacent structure is strong enough to
anchor fully plastic membrane forces.
A.6.8.3 Tensile fracture of yield hinges

In lieu of more accurate calculations the procedure described in Section A.3.10.5 may be used for a beam
with rectangular cross-section (plate thickness x unit width) and length equal to stiffener spacing.
A.6.9 Resistance curves and transformation factors for beams

Provided that the stiffeners/girders remain stable against local buckling, tripping or lateral torsional buckling
stiffened plates/girders may be treated as beams. Simple elastic-plastic methods of analysis are generally
applicable. Special considerations shall be given to the effect of:
• Elastic flexibility of member/adjacent structure
• Local deformation of cross-section
• Local buckling
• Strength of connections
• Strength of adjacent structure
• Fracture

A.6.9.1 Beams with no- or full axial restraint

Equivalent springs and transformation factors for load and mass for various idealised elasto-plastic systems
are shown in Table A.6-2.For more than two concentrated loads, use values for uniform loading.
Shear deformation may have a significant impact on the elastic flexibility and eigenperiod of beams and
girders with a short span/web height ratio (L/hw), notably for clamped ends. The eigenperiod and stiffeness in
the linear domain including shear deformation may be calculated as:
(A.6.9)
K l m, u M u + K l m,c M c  π rg   E A 
2
m
T = 2π = 2π 1 +  cs  1 + 
k k1'  L   G A w 
and
1 1 1 GA w (A.6.10)
'
= + , k Q = cQ
k1 k1 k Q L
where
cs = 1.0 for both ends simply supported

cs = 1.25 for one end clamped and one end simply supported
cs = 1.5 for both ends clamped
L = length of beam/girder
E = elastic modulus
G = shear modulus
A = total cross-sectional area of beam/girder
Aw = shear area of beam/girder
rg = radius of gyration
kQ = shear stiffness for beam/girder
k1 = bending stiffness in the linear domain according to Table A.6-2
′
k1 = beam stiffness due to bending and shear
ke = equivalent bending in the elasto-plastic domain
Mps = plastic bending capacity of beam at support
Mpm = plastic bending capacity of beam at midspan
and regardless of rotational boundary conditions the following values may be used
cQ = 8 for uniformly distributed loads
cQ = 4 for one concentrated loads
cQ = 6 for two concentrated loads
The dynamic reactions according to Table A.6-2 become increasingly inaccurate for loads with short duration
and/or high magnitudes.

Table A.6-2 Transformation factors for beams with various boundary and load conditions.
Mass factor Load-mass factor

Load case Resistanc Load Km Klm Maximum Linear Dynamic reaction
e Facto Concen Unifor Concen- Uniform resistanc stiffness
domain r -trated m trated mass e V
Kl mass mass mass Rel
k1
8Mp 384 EI
Elastic 0.64 0.50 0.78 0.39 R + 011
. F
F=pL L 5 L3
Plastic 8Mp 0.38 Rel + 012

. F
L bending
0.50 0.33 0.66 0
L
Plastic 4NP 2 N P ymax

membran 0.50 0.33 0.66
e L L
4Mp
48 EI
Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.49 1.0 0.49 L 0.78 R − 0.28 F
F L3
4Mp
L/2 L/2 Plastic 0.75Rel − 0.25F
1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 L 0
bending
Plastic 4NP
2 N P ymax
membran 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 L
e L
6Mp
56.4 EI
F/2 F/2 Elastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 L 0.525R − 0.025F
L3
L/3 L/3 L/3

Plastic 6Mp 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F
1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 0
bending L
Plastic 6N P 3 N P ymax
membran 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56
e L L

Equiva-
Mass factor Load-mass factor lent
stiffnes linear
e Facto Concen Unifor Concen- Uniform resistance stiffnes
domain r -trated m trated mass Rel s V
s
Kl mass mass mass k1
ke
12 M ps 384 EI
F=pL Elastic 0.53 0.41 0.77 0.36R + 0.14 F
L L3
307∙m1
L Elasto-
plastic 0.64 0.50 0.78 (
8 M ps + M Pm ) 384 EI 0.39 Rel + 011
. F
bending L 5 L3
Plastic
0.50 0.33 0.66 (
8 M ps + M Pm ) 0 0.38 Rel + 012
. F
bending L
Plastic 4NP 2 N p ymax

membran 0.50 0.33 0.66
e L L
Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.37 1.0 0.37 (

4 M ps + M Pm ) 192 EI
0.71R − 0.21F
F L L3
48∙m1
L/
2
L/2 Plastic
1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 (
4 M ps + M Pm ) 0 0.75Rel − 0.25F
bending L

membran 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33
e L L
9 M ps 260EI
Elastic 080 0.64 0.41 0.80 0.51 0.48R + 0.02 F
L L3
212∙m1
Elasto-
6 ( M ps + M Pm ) 56.4EI
plastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F
bending L L3
Plastic 6 ( M ps + M Pm )
1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 0 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F
bending L
membran 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56
e L L
q = explosion load per unit length (q = ps for stiffeners, q = p for girders)

EI  1.5M ps 
m1 = 3 
+ 0.25 
l  M ps + 2 M pm 


Equiva-
Mass factor Load-mass factor lent
stiffnes linear
e Facto Concen Unifor Concen- Uniform resistance stiffnes
domain r -trated m trated mass Rel s V
s
Kl mass mass mass k1
k1
8 M ps
185EI V1 = 0.26R + 012
. F
Elastic 0.58 0.45 0.78 L
L3 V2 = 0.43R + 019
. F
F=pL
160∙m2
V1
Elasto-
(
4 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 384EI 0.39 R + 011
. F
L V2 plastic 0.64 0.50 0.78
L 5L3 ± M Ps L
bending
Plastic (
4 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 0.38 R + 012
. F
0.50 0.33 0.66 0
bending L ± M Ps L

membran 0.50 0.33 0.66
e L L
16 M Ps 107 EI V1 = 0.25R + 0.07 F

Elastic 1.0 1.0 0.43 1.0 0.43
F 3L L3 V2 = 0.54 R + 014
. F
106∙m2
V1 V2
Elasto-
(
2 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 48 EI 0.78 R − 0.28 F
L/2 L/2 plastic 1.0 1.0 0.49 1.0 0.49
L L 3 ± M Ps L
bending
Plastic (
2 M ps + 2 M Pm ) 0.75R − 0.25F
1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33 0
bending L ± M Ps L

membran 1.0 1.0 0.33 1.0 0.33
e L L
6 M Ps 132 EI V1 = 017
. R + 017
. F
Elastic 0.81 0.67 0.45 0.83 0.55
L L3 V2 = 0.33R + 0.33F
F/2 F/2
122∙m3
V1 Elasto- 0.525R − 0.025F
V2
plastic 0.87 0.76 0.52 0.87 0.60 (
2 M ps + 3 M Pm ) 56 EI
L L 3 ± M Ps L
L/3 L/3 L/3 bending
Plastic (
2 M ps + 3 M Pm ) 0.52 Rel − 0.02 F
1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56 0
bending L ± M Ps L
membran 1.0 1.0 0.56 1.0 0.56
e L L
EI  1.5M ps  EI  2M ps 
m2 = + 0.5  m3 = + 0.5 
3 
l  M ps + 2M pm  3 
l  M ps + 3M pm 
 

A.6.9.2 Beams with partial end restraint.

Relatively small axial displacements have a significant influence on the development of tensile forces in
members undergoing large lateral deformations. Equivalent elastic, axial stiffness may be defined as
1 1  (A.6.11)
= +
k k node 2EA
knode = axial stiffness of the node with the considered member removed. This may be determined by
introducing unit loads in member axis direction at the end nodes with the member removed.
Plastic force-deformation relationship for a beam under uniform pressure may obtained from Figure A.6-14,
Figure A.6-15 or Figure A.6-16 if the plastic interaction between axial force and bending moment can be
approximated by the following equation:
α (A.6.12)
M  N
+  =1 1< α < 2
MP  NP 
In lieu of more accurate analysis α = 1.2 can be assumed for stiffened plates and H or I beams. For
members with tubular section α = 1.75.
8c1 f y WP
R0 = = plastic collapse resistance in bending for the member.

 = member length
w
w= = non-dimensional deformation
c1w c
αWP
wc = = characteristic beam height for beams described by plastic interaction
A
equation (A.6.12).
2
4c1 kw c
c= = non-dimensional spring stiffness
f y A
c1 = 2 for clamped beams
c1 = 1 for pinned beams
WP = Plastic section modulus for the cross section of the beam
WP = z g A s = plastic section modulus for stiffened plate for set > As
A = A s + st = total area of stiffener and plate flange
Ae = As + se t = effective cross-sectional area of stiffener and plate flange,
zg = distance from plate flange to stiffener centre of gravity.
As = stiffener area
s = stiffener spacing
se = effective width of plate flange see A.6.9.3

4 α = 1.2 Bending & membrane

Membrane only
R/R 0
3
F (explosion load)
0.2 0.1
0.5 k k
2
c=∞ 1 w
1 0
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation w
Figure A.6-14 Plastic load-deformation relationship for beam with axial flexibility (α=1.2)
α = 1.5
5
Bending & membrane
Membrane only
R/R0
4
F (explosion load)
3
0.2 0.1
2
c=∞ 1
0.5 k k
w
0
1
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation w
Figure A.6-15 Plastic load-deformation relationship for beam with axial flexibility (α=1.5)

7
α=2
6
Bending & membrane
Membrane only
R/R 0
5
0.1 F (explosion load)
0.2
4
0.5
c=∞
3 k k
1
2
w
0
1
0
0 0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4
Deformation w
Figure A.6-16 Plastic load-deformation relationship for beam with axial flexibility (α=2)
For members where the plastic moment capacity of adjacent members is smaller than the moment capacity
of the exposed member the force-deformation relationship may be interpolated from the curves for pinned
ends and clamped ends:
R = ξR clamped + (1 − ξ )R pinned (A.6.13)
where
actual (A.6.14)
R0
0≤ξ= −1 ≤ 1
MP
8

actual
R0 = Collapse load in bending for beam accounting for actual bending resistance of adjacent
members
8M P + 4M P1 + 4M P2 (A.6.15)
R actual =

M Pj = ∑ M Pj,i ≤ M P ; i = adjacent member no i, j = end number {1,2} (A.6.16)

i
MPj,i = Plastic bending moment for member no. i.

Elastic, rotational flexibility of the node is normally of moderate significance
A.6.9.3 Effective flange

In order to analyse stiffened plate as a beam the effective width of the plate between stiffener need to be
determined. The effective width needs to be reduced due to buckling and/or shear lag.

Shear lag effects may be neglected if the length is more than 2.5 times the width between stiffeners. For
guidance see Commentary.
Determination of effective flange due to buckling can be made as for buckling of stiffened plates see DNV-
RP-C201.
The effective width for elastic deformations may be used when the plate flange is on the tension side.
In most cases the flange will experience varying stress with parts in compression and parts in tension. It may
be unduly conservative to use the effective width for the section with the largest compression stress to be
valid for the whole member length. For continuous stiffeners it will be reasonable to use the mean value
between effective width at the section with the largest compression stress and the full width. For simple
supported stiffeners with compression in the plate it is judged to be reasonable to use the effective width at
midspan for the total length of the stiffener.
A.6.9.4 Strength of adjacent structure

The adjacent structure must be checked to see whether it can provide the support required by the assumed
collapse mechanism for the member/sub-structure
A.6.9.5 Strength of connections

The capacity of connections can be taken from recognised codes
The connection shall be checked for the dynamic reaction force given in Table A.6-2.
For beams with axial restraint the connection should also be checked for lateral - and axial reaction in the
membrane phase:
If the axial force in a tension member exceeds the axial capacity of the connection the member must be
assumed disconnected.
If the capacity of the connection is exceeded in compression and bending, this does not necessarily mean
failure of the member. The post-collapse strength of the connection may be taken into account provided that
such information is available.
A.6.9.6 Ductility limits

Reference is made to Section A.3.10
The local buckling criterion in Section A.3.10.2 and tensile fracture criterion given in Section A.3.10.4 may be
used with:
dc = characteristic dimension equal to twice the distance from the plastic neutral axis in
bending to the extreme fibre of the cross-section
c = non-dimensional axial spring stiffness calculated in Section A.6.9.2
y max
Alternatively, the ductility ratios µ= in Table A.6-3 may be used.
y el
Table A.6-3 Ductility ratios µ − beams with no axial restraint
Boundary Load Cross-section category
conditions
Class 1 Class 2 Class 3
Cantilevered Concentrated 6 4 2
Distributed 7 5 2
Pinned Concentrated 6 4 2
Distributed 12 8 3
Fixed Concentrated 6 4 2
Distributed 4 3 2

A.7 RESIDUAL STRENGTH

A.7.1 General
The second step in the accidental limit state check is to verify the residual strength of the installation with
damage caused by the accidental load.
The check shall be carried out for functional loads and design environmental loads.
The partial safety factor for loads and material can be taken equal to unity.
After the action of the accidental load an internal, residual stress/force field remains in the structure. The
resultant of this field is zero. In most cases the residual stresses/forces have a minor influence on the
residual capacity and may be neglected. Any detrimental effect of the residual stress on the ultimate capacity
should, however, be subject to explicit consideration. If necessary, the residual stresses should be included
in the analysis.
If non-linear FE analysis is used, the residual stress field can be conveniently included by performing
integrated analysis:
1) Application of design accidental loading
2) Removal of accidental load by unloading
3) Application of design environmental load
A.7.2 Modelling of damaged members
A.7.2.1 General
Compressive members with large lateral deformations will often contribute little to load-carrying and can be
omitted from analysis.
A.7.2.2 Members with dents, holes, out-of-straightness

Tubular members with dents, holes and out-of-straightness, reference is made to Chapter 10.
Stiffened plates/Beams/Girders with deformed plate flange and out-of-straightness, reference is made to
Chapter 10.

A.8 REFERENCES
/1/ NORSOK Standard N-003 Action and Action Effect
/2/ NS-ENV 1993-1 Eurocode 3: Design of Steel structures Part 1-2. General rules - Structural fire
design
/3/ Amdahl, J.: “Energy Absorption in Ship-Platform Impacts”, UR-83-34, Dept. Marine Structures,
Norwegian Institute of Technology, Trondheim, 1983.
/4/ SCI 1993: Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of Topside Structures against
Explosion and Fire
/5/ Amdahl, J.: “Mechanics of Ship-Ship Collisions- Basic Crushing Mechanics”.West Europene
Graduate Shcool of Marine Technology, WEGEMT , Copenhagen, 1995

A.9 COMMENTARY
Comm. A.3.1 General
For typical installations, the contribution to energy dissipation from elastic deformation of
component/substructures in direct contact with the ship is very small and can normally be neglected.
Consequently, plastic methods of analysis apply.
However, elastic elongation of the hit member as well as axial flexibility of the nodes to which the member is
connected, have a significant impact on the development of membrane forces in the member. This effect has
to be taken into account in the analysis, which is otherwise based on plastic methods. The diagrams in
Section A.3.7.2 are based on such an approach.
Depending on the structure size/configuration as well as the location of impact elastic strain energy over the
entire structure may contribute significantly.
Comm. A.3.2 Design principles

The transition from essentially strength behaviour to ductile response can be very abrupt and sensitive to
minor changes in scantlings. E.g. integrated analyses of impact between the stern of a supply vessel and a
large diameter column have shown that with moderate change of (ring - and longitudinal) stiffener size
and/or spacing, the energy dissipation may shift from predominantly platform based to predominantly vessel
based. Due attention should be paid to this sensitivity when the calculation procedure described in
Section A.3.5 is applied.
Comm. A.3.5.1 Recommended force-deformation relationship

The curve for bow impact in Figure A.3-4 has been derived on the assumption of impacts against an infinitely
rigid wall. Sometimes the curve has been used erroneously to assess the energy dissipation in bow-brace
impacts.
Experience from small-scale tests /3/ indicates that the bow undergoes very little deformation until the brace
becomes strong enough to crush the bow. Hence, the brace absorbs most of the energy. When the brace is
strong enough to crush the bow the situation is reversed; the brace remains virtually undamaged.
On the basis of the tests results and simple plastic methods of analysis, force-deformation curves for bows
subjected to (strong) brace impact were established in /3/ as a function of impact location and brace
diameter. These curves are reproduced in Figure A.9-1. In order to fulfil a strength design requirement the
brace should at least resist the load level indicated by the broken line (recommended design curve). For
braces with a diameter to thickness ratio < 40 it should be sufficient to verify that the plastic collapse load in
bending for the brace is larger than the required level. For larger diameter to thickness ratios local denting
must probably be taken into account.
Normally sized jacket braces are not strong enough to resist the likely bow forces given in Figure A.9-1, and
therefore it has to be assumed to absorb the entire strain energy. For the same reasons it has also to be
assumed that the brace has to absorb all energy for stern and beam impact with supply vessels.

Impact force [MN]

Recommended design curve for brace impact
12
Between a stringer (D= 1.0 m)
8 On a stringer (D= 0.75 m)
Between stringers (D= 0.75) m

4
0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0

Indentation [m]
Figure A.9-1 Load-deformation curves for bow-bracing impact /3/
Comm. A.3.5.2 Force contact area for strength design of large diameter columns.
Figure A.9-2 Distribution of contact force for stern corner/large diameter column impact
Figure A.9-2 shows an example of the evolution of contact force intensity during a collision between the stern
corner of a supply vessel and a stiffened column. In the beginning the contact is concentrated at the extreme
end of the corner, but as the corner deforms it undergoes inversion and the contact ceases in the central
part. The contact area is then, roughly speaking, bounded by two concentric circles, but the distribution is
uneven.
The force-deformation curves given in Figure A.3-4 relate to total collision force for stern end - and stern
corner impact, respectively. Table A.3-1 and Table A.3-2 give the anticipated maximum force intensities
(local force and local contact areas, i.e. subsets of the total force and total area) at various stages of
deformation.
The basis for the design curves is integrated, non-linear finite element analysis of stern/column impacts.

The information given in A.3.5.2 may be used to perform strength design. If strength design is not achieved
numerical analyses have shown that the column is likely to undergo severe deformations and absorb a major
part of the strain energy. In lieu of more accurate calculations (e.g. non-linear FEM) it has to be assumed
that the column absorbs all strain energy.
Comm. A.3.5.3 Energy dissipation in ship bow.

The requirements in this paragraph are based upon considerations of the relative resistance of a tubular
brace to local denting and the bow to penetration of a tubular beam. A fundamental requirement for
penetration of the brace into the bow is, first - the brace has sufficient resistance in bending, second - the
cross-section does not undergo substantial local deformation. If the brace is subjected to local denting, i.e.
undergoes flattening, the contact area with the bow increases and the bow inevitably gets increased
resistance to indentation. The provisions ensure that both requirements are complied with.
shows the minimum thickness as a function of brace diameter and resistance level in order to achieve
sufficient resistance to penetrate the ship bow without local denting. It may seem strange that the required
thickness becomes smaller for increasing diameter, but the brace strength, globally as well as locally,
decreases with decreasing diameter.
Local denting in the bending phase can be disregarded provided that the following relationship holds true:
D 1
2
(A.9.1)
≤ 0.14 2  
t c1  D 
Figure A.9-4 shows brace thickness as a function of diameter and length diameter ratio that results from
Equation (A.9.1). The thickness can generally be smaller than the values shown, and still energy dissipation
in the bow may be taken into account, but if Equation (A.9.1) is complied with denting does not need to be
further considered.
The requirements are based upon simulation with LS-DYNA for penetration of a tube with diameter 1.0 m.
Great caution should therefore be exercised in extrapolation to diameters substantially larger than 1.0 m,
because the resistance of the bow will increase. For brace diameters smaller than 1.0 m, the requirement is
conservative.
80
fy = 235 MPa, 6 MN
Thickness [mm]
60 fy = 235 MPa, 3 MN
40 fy = 355 MPa, 6 MN
fy = 355 MPa, 3 MN
20
fy = 420 MPa, 6 MN
0
0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4 fy = 420 MPa, 3 MN
Diameter [m]
Figure A.9-3 Required thickness versus grade and resistance level of brace to penetrate ship bow
without local denting

100
80
Thickness [mm]
L/D =20
60
L/D =25
40 L/D =30
20
0
0,6 0,8 1 1,2 1,4
Diameter [m]
Figure A.9-4 Brace thickness yielding little local deformation in the bending phase
Comm. A.3.10.1 General

If the degradation of bending capacity of the beam cross-section after buckling is known the load-carrying
capacity may be interpolated from the curves with full bending capacity and no bending capacity according to
the expression:
R ( w ) = R M P =1 ( w )ξ + R M P =0 ( w )(1 − ξ) (A.9.2)
R M P =1 ( w ) = Collapse load with full bending contribution

R M P =0 ( w ) = Collapse load with no bending contribution
R M P ,red
ξ=
R M P =1 ( w = 0)
R M P , red = Plastic collapse load in bending with reduced cross-sectional capacities. This has to be updated
along with the degradation of cross-sectional bending capacity.
Comm. A.3.10.5 Tensile fracture in yield hinges

The rupture criterion is calculated using conventional beam theory. A linear strain hardening model is
adopted. For a cantilever beam subjected to a concentrated load at the end, the strain distribution along the
beam can be determined from the bending moment variation. In Figure A.9-5 the strain variation,
ε = ε cr ε Y , is shown for a circular cross-section for a given hardening parameter. The extreme importance
of strain hardening is evident; with no strain hardening the high strains are very localised close to the support
(x = 0), with strain hardening the plastic zone expands dramatically.
On the basis of the strain distribution the rotation in the plastic zone and the corresponding lateral
deformation can be determined.
If the beam response is affected by development of membrane forces it is assumed that the membrane
strain follows the same relative distribution as the bending strain. By introducing the kinematic relationships
for beam elongation, the maximum membrane strain can be calculated for a given displacement.

Figure A.9-5 Axial variation of maximum strain for a cantilever beam with circular cross-section
Adding the bending strain and the membrane strain allows determination of the critical displacement as a
function of the total critical strain.
Figure A.9-6 shows deformation at rupture for a fully clamped beam as a function of the axial flexibility factor
c.
5
4.5
3.5
3 /D = 30 /D = 20
w/D
2.5 c= 0 c= 0
2 = 0.05 = 0.05
= 0.5 = 0.5
1.5
= 1000 = 1000
1
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
εcr/εy
Figure A.9-6 Maximum deformation for a tubular fully clamped beam. (H=0.005)
The plastic stiffness factor H is determined from the stress-strain relationship for the material.. The
equivalent linear stiffness shall be determined such that the total area under the stress-strain curve up to the
critical strain is preserved (The two portions of the shaded area shall be equal), refer Figure A.9-7. It is
unconservative and not allowable to use a reduced effective yield stress and a plastic stiffness factor as
illustrated in Figure A.9-8.

fcr
fcr
HE HE
E E
εcr εcr
Figure A.9-7 Determination of plastic stiffness
f
HE
ε
Figure A.9-8 Erroneous determination of plastic stiffness
Comm. A.4.4.1 Stiffened plates subjected to drill collar impact

The validity for the energy expression A.4.6 is limited to 7 < 2r/d < 41, t/d < 0.22 and mi/m < 0.75.
The formula neglect the local energy dissipation which can be added as Eloc = R∙0.2 t.
In case of hit near the plate edges the energy dissipation will be low and may lead to unreasonable plate
thickness. The failure criterion used for the formula is locking of the plate. In many cases locking may be
acceptable as long as the falling object is stopped. If the design is based on a hit in the central part of a plate
with use of the smaller diameter in the treaded part in the calculations, no penetration of the drill collar will
take place at any other hit location due to the collar of such dropped objects.
Comm. A.5.1 General

0
For redundant structures thermal expansion may cause buckling of members below 400 C. Forces due to
thermal expansion are, however, purely internal and will be released once the member buckles. The net
effect of thermal expansion is therefore often to create lateral distortions in heated members. In most cases
these lateral distortions will have a moderate influence on the ultimate strength of the system.
As thermal expansion is the source of considerable inconvenience in conjunction with numerical analysis it
would tempting to replace its effect by equivalent, initial lateral member distortions. There is however, not
sufficient information to support such a procedure at present.
Comm. A.5.5 Empirical correction factor

In Eurocode 3 an empirical reduction factor of 1.2 is applied in order to obtain better fit between test results
and column curve c for fire exposed compressive members. In the design check this is performed by
multiplying the design axial load by 1.2. In non-linear analysis such a procedure is, impractical. In non-
linear space frame, stress resultants based analysis the correction factor can be included by dividing the
yield compressive load and the Euler buckling load by a factor of 1.2. (The influence of axial force on
members stiffness is accounted for by the so-called Livesly’s stability multipliers, which are functions of the
Euler buckling load.) In this way the reduction factor is applied consistently to both elastic and elasto-plastic
buckling.
The above correction factor comes in addition to the reduction caused by yield stress and elastic modulus
degradation at elevated temperature if the reduced slenderness is’ larger than 0.2.

Comm. A.6.2 Classification of response

Equation (A.6.2) is derived using the principle of conservation of momentum to determine the kinetic energy
of the component at the end of the explosion pulse. The entire kinetic energy is then assumed dissipated as
strain energy.
Equation (A.6.3) is based on the assumption that the explosion pressure has remained at its peak value
during the entire deformation and equates the external work with the total strain energy. In general, the
explosion pressure is not balanced by resistance, giving rise to inertia forces. Eventually, these inertia forces
will be dissipated as strain energy.
Equation (A.6.4) is based on the assumption that the pressure increases slowly so that the static condition
(pressure balanced by resistance) applies during the entire deformation.
Comm. A.6.4 SDOF system analogy

The displacement at the end of the initial, linear resistance domain yel will generally not coincide with the
displacement at first yield. Typically, yel represents the displacement at the initiation of a plastic collapse
mechanism. Hence, yel is larger than the displacement at first yield for two reasons:
i. Change from elastic to plastic stress distribution over beam cross-section
ii. Bending moment redistribution over the beam (redundant beams) as plastic hinges form
Comm. A.6.4.2 Dynamic response charts for SDOF system

Figure A.6-3 is derived from the dynamic response chart for a SDOF system subjected to a triangular load
with zero rise time given in Figure A.6-4.
In the example it is assumed that from ductility considerations for the assumed mode of deformation a
maximum displacement of ten times elastic limit is acceptable. Hence the line
y allow y max
= = 10 represents the upper limit for the displacement of the component. From the diagram it is
y el y el
seen that several combinations of pulses characterised by Fmax and td may produce this displacement limit.
Each intersection with a response curve (e.g. k3 = 0) yields a normalized pressure
F Fmax
=
R R el
and a normalised impulse
1
Fmax t d
I 2 1 t
= = ⋅ d
R
RT R el T 2 el T
Fmax
By plotting corresponding values of normalised impulse and normalised pressure the iso-damage curve
given in Figure A.6-3 is obtained.
Comm. A.6.9.3 Effective flange

For deformations in the elastic range the effective width (shear lag effect) of the plate flange, se, of simply
supported or clamped stiffeners/girders may be taken from Figure A.9-9

Figure A.9-9 Effective flange for stiffeners and girders in the elastic range
Comm. A.6.9.6 Ductility limits

The table is taken from Reference /4/. The values are based upon a limiting strain, elasto.plastic material
and cross-sectional shape factor 1.12 for beams and 1.5 for plates. Strain hardening and any membrane
effect will increase the effective ductility ratio. The values are likely to be conservative.
o0o –

Annex K Draft 3 to Rev. 3 November 2012

ANNEX K
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR JACKETS

CONTENTS
Page
K.1 GENERAL 125
K.1.1 Introduction 125
K.1.2 Definitions 125
K.1.3 Design for non-operational phases 125
K.1.4 Design for operational phases 125
K.2 STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION 126
K.2.1 Structural classification 126
K.3 DESIGN ACTIONS 130
K.3.1 General 130
K.3.2 Permanent action 130
K.3.3 Variable action 130
K.3.4 Deformation action 130
K.3.5 Environmental action 130
K.3.5.1 General 130
K.3.5.2 Wave and current action 131
K.3.5.3 Wind action 131
K.3.5.4 Earthquake action 131
K.3.5.5 Ice 131
K.3.6 Accidental action 131
K.3.7 Fatigue actions 132
K.3.8 Combination of actions 132
K.3.9 Vortex shedding 132
K.3.10 Wave slamming 132
K.4 GLOBAL RESPONSE ANALYSES 133
K.4.1 General 133
K.4.2 Dynamic effects 133
K.4.3 Analysis modelling 133
K.4.4 Design conditions 134
K.4.4.1 General 134
K.4.4.2 In-place ULS analysis 134
K.4.4.3 Fatigue analysis 134
K.4.4.4 Accidental analysis 137
K.4.4.5 Earthquake analysis 138
K.4.4.6 Installation analysis 138
K.5 SPECIAL DESIGNS 139
K.5.1 Member design 139
K.5.2 Tubular connections 139
K.5.3 Grouted connection 139
K.5.3.1 General 139
K.5.3.2 Failure of the grout to pile connection due to interface shear from axial load and
torsional moment (ULS and ALS) 140
K.5.3.3 Check of compressive stresses at the lower end of the grout due to bending
moment and shear in the pile (ULS and ALS) 143
K.5.3.4 Fatigue of the grouted connection for alternating interface shear stress due to
axial load and bending moment in the pile (FLS) 144
K.5.3.5 Fatigue of the grout due compression and shear stresses at the lower end of the
grout due to bending moment and shear in the pile (FLS) 145
K.5.3.6 Fatigue check due to torsion 146
K.5.3.7 Requirements to ribbed steel reinforcement 146
K.5.3.8 Considerations on in-service inspection 146
K.5.4 Cast items 147
K.6 FOUNDATION DESIGN 148
K.6.1 General 148
K.6.1.1 Design principles 148
K.6.1.2 Soil investigation 148

K.6.2 Piled foundation 149

K.6.2.1 Axial pile resistance 149
K.6.2.2 Lateral pile resistance 150
K.6.2.3 Foundation response analysis 150
K.6.2.4 Installation 150
K.6.2.5 Pile fatigue 151
K.6.2.6 Foundation simulation for jacket fatigue analysis 151
K.6.3 Skirted foundation 151
K.6.3.1 General 151
K.6.3.2 Foundation capacity 151
K.6.3.3 Skirt penetration 152
K.6.3.4 Skirted foundation structural design 153
K.6.4 On-bottom stability 154
K.7 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ‘DESIGN BASIS’ & ‘DESIGN BRIEF’ 155
K.7.1 General 155
K.7.2 Design basis 155
K.7.3 Design brief 155
K.8 REFERENCES 157

K.1 GENERAL
K.1.1 Introduction
This Annex to NORSOK N-004 is intended to give guidance on how jacket steel structures should be
designed according to the provisions of relevant NORSOK standards. It is intended to give guidance to how
the various standards should be applied for jacket structures, how important parameters should be selected
and to give additional requirements especially relevant for jacket structures.
K.1.2 Definitions
Jacket: A welded tubular space frame structure consisting of vertical or battered legs
supported by a lateral bracing system. The jacket is designed to support the topside
facilities, provide supports for conductors, risers, and other appurtenances and serve
as a template for the foundation system.
Bottle leg: Leg section with larger diameter to thickness ratio used as buoyancy compartment
during installation and to facilitate effective pile cluster design.
Foundation pile: Steel tubular driven into the soil and fixed to the jacket structure for transfere of
global actions.
Pile cluster: Pile sleeves for foundation piles arranged in groups with shear connections to jacket
legs. Basis for mudmats and skirts.
Bucket foundation: Steel plate construction integrated to bottom of jacket leg penetrating into soil for
fixing platform to ground.
Multilegged jacket: A jacket with more than 4 legs.
K.1.3 Design for non-operational phases

The jacket shall be designed to resist actions associated with conditions that will occur during stages from
fabrication yard to the stage where the platform is ready for operation at final location. Such stages are
transportation at the fabrication yard and load-out, sea transportation, installation, mating and hook-up.
Abandonment of the jacket shall be planned for in design.
K.1.4 Design for operational phases

The jacket shall be designed to resist actions caused by gravity, wind, waves and current, earthquake and
accidental actions that may occur during its service life.
Each mode of operation of the platform, such as drilling, production, work over or combinations thereof
should be considered.
The fatigue requirements as given in Section 8 shall be fulfilled.

K.2 STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION

K.2.1 Structural classification
Selection of steel quality level and requirements for inspection of welds shall be based on a systematic
classification of welded joints according to the structural significance and complexity of joints.
The main criterion for decision of design class (DC) of welded joints is the significance with respect to joint
complexity and the consequences of failure of the joint. In addition the stress predictability (complexity) will
influence the DC selection. Classification of DC for a typical 4-legged jacket is given in Table 2-1 and
Figure 2-1.
A practical limit for water depths for which in-service inspection can be performed by use of diver technology
may be set to 150 m. Consequently, an upgrade of one DC class should be specified for connections below
150 m water depths.

Table 2-1 Typical design classes in jackets

Joint/ Component Design Steel Inspection Comments
Class QualityL Category
evel
DC S.Q.L Note a)
Legs and main bracing system

Leg nodes & cones / Butt welds 2 (I) or II A or B Note c), Note d)
Legs nodes & cones / Longitud. welds B
Leg strakes / Butt welds 2 II A or B Note c), Note d)
Leg strakes / Longitudinal welds B
Lift-nodes / complex 1 I A or B
Lift-nodes / simple 2 (I) or II A or B
Nodes in vertical bracing / Butt welds 4 II B
Nodes in vertical bracing / Longitudinal C
welds
Vertical bracing / Butt welds 4 II B
Vertical bracing / Longitud. welds C
Bottle leg / Butt welds 2 II A or B
Bottle leg / Longitudinal welds B
Horizontal bracing / All welds 4 III B or C
Nodes horizontal bracings / All welds B or C
Watertight diaphragms / All welds 2 II A or B
Ring stiffeners, main nodes / All welds (I) or II A
Ring stiffeners bottle leg / All welds (I) or II A
Other stiffening / All welds 5 III D or E
Foundation system
Mudmat & yoke plate incl. stiffening / All 4 III C Note e)
welds
Skirts & bucket foundation plates incl. 4 III C
stiffening / All welds
Shear plates / All welds 4 III C Note e)
Pile sleeves / All welds 4 III C Note e)
Pile sleeve catcher, cone & spacers 5 IV D or E
Piles, top part / Butt welds 4 III A Note e)
Piles, top part / Longitud. welds
Piles, remaining / All welds
Appurtenances and outfitting steel
Riser guides / All welds 4 III B or C Note b)
J-tubes & supports / All welds 4 III
Conductor support / All welds 4 III
Caissons & support / All welds 5 IV
Outfitting / Butt welds 4 or 5 III or IV D or E Note b)
Outfitting / Part-Pen. & Fillets
Notes:
a) Local areas of welds with high utilisation shall be marked with frames showing areas for mandatory NDT
when partial NDT are selected. Inspection categories depending on access for in-service inspection and
repair.
b) Outfitting structures are normally of minor importance for the structural safety and integrity. However, in
certain cases the operational safety is directly influenced by the outfitting and special assessment is
required in design and fabrication.
A typical example is guides and supports for gas risers.
c) If multilegged jacket with corner legs supporting a foundation systems;
Upper part of corner legs and inner legs: DC 4, III, B or C
Lower part of corner legs: DC 2, II, A or B
d) If multilegged jacket where each leg supporting a foundation system: DC 4, III, B or C
e) If one or two pile(s) per leg: DC2, II.

When the design class is defined the material shall be selected according to Section 5.
The drawings shall indicate the inspection category for all welds according to Section 5.
Figure 2-1 Typical design classes. 4-legged jacket with pileclusters.

Table 2-2 summarises the minimum design class and steel quality level for different parts of a typical seabed
support and protection structure of moderate size. Severe criticality and severe fatigue utilisation may lead to
more stringent assessment and requirements.
Table 2-2 Typical design classes in subsea structures

Joint/ Component Design Class Steel Inspection Category Comments
QualityL
DC evel Note b)
S.Q.L
Note a)
Main structure
Corner legs – Bumper frame DC 4 III C or B

Bottom frame DC 4 III C or B
Padeye and padeye welds DC 4 or 2 III or II A or B
Bracing and brace welds DC 5 IV C or B
Pipes DC 5 IV C or B
Hinge plate, butt welds DC 5 IV B
Stiffeners, part pen & fillets C
Foundation
Mudmat & skirts, butt welds DC 4 III B
Part pen & fillets C
Plate girders incl. stiffeners DC 5 IV
Butt welds C
Part pen & fillets D
Ventilation & reinforcements DC 5 IV D
Hatch
Pipes DC 5 IV D or C
Beams, butt welds DC 5 IV C
Stiffeners,part pen & fillets D
Hinges (plates & bolt) DC 5 III C or B
All other steel (Note c)
Outfitting, butt welds DC 5 IV D or E
Outfitting, part. pen & fillets DC 5 IV E
Notes:
a) In cases with through thickness stress occur Z-quality steel should be evaluated, as an alternative
additional testing may be performed
b) Local areas of welds with high utilisation shall be marked with frames showing areas for mandatory NDT
when partial NDT are selected.
c) Outfitting structures are normally of minor importance for the structural safety and integrity. However, in
certain cases the operational safety is directly influenced by the outfitting and special assessment is
required in design and fabrication.
The actual MDS selection should be in compliance with M-120.

K.3 DESIGN ACTIONS

K.3.1 General
Characteristic actions shall be used as reference actions in the partial coefficient method.
Design actions are in general defined in NORSOK N-003.
Applicable action categories and combinations of actions relevant for jacket design are given in this Section.
K.3.2 Permanent action

Permanent actions are actions that will not vary in magnitude, position or direction during the period
considered. Permanent actions relevant for jacket design are:
• mass of jacket incl. piles above mudline
• mass of appurtenances supported by the jacket and/or topside
• mass of permanently installed topside such as accommodation, drilling and production equipment
• buoyancy and hydrostatic pressure from sea water
• mass of marine growth
For design of a jacket, the characteristic value of permanent actions representing the mass of steel to be
designed shall include contingency factors. The contingency plan shall reflect the uncertainties in the weight
and material estimates as expressed by the stage in the calculations process.
At the detail design stage, the characteristic values of permanent actions are to be verified by accurate
measurements (weight control) or calculated based upon accurate data.
K.3.3 Variable action

Variable actions on deck areas are actions that may vary in magnitude, position and direction during the
period under consideration.
Normally, a jacket design is based upon budget weight of topside and a specified envelope of centre of
gravity to account for variable actions on deck areas.
K.3.4 Deformation action

Deformation actions are actions due to deformations applied to the structure.
Deformation actions relevant for jacket design are:
• pre-stressing
• temperature
• barge deflections
• differential settlements
• uneven seabed
• field subsidence effects
K.3.5 Environmental action
K.3.5.1 General
The characteristic value of an environmental action is the maximum or minimum value (whichever is the
most unfavourable) corresponding to an action effect with a prescribed probability of exceedance.
The environmental conditions should be described using relevant data for the relevant period and areas in
which the jacket is to be fabricated, transported, installed and operated.
The long-term variation of environmental phenomena such as wind, waves and current should be described
by recognised statistical distributions relevant to the environmental parameter considered. Information on the
joint probability of the various environmental actions may be taken into account if such information is
available and can be adequately documented.
Details of environmental actions are found in NORSOK N-003.

K.3.5.2 Wave and current action

Wave actions may be described either by deterministic or statistical methods. Normally, a deterministic
analysis method is used for jacket design.
In deterministic design analysis based on regular wave formulation, the wave is described by wave period,
th
wave height and water depth. Stokes 5 order wave kinematic theory shall be used.
In stochastic wave description, the short-term irregular sea states are described by means of wave energy
spectra which are normally characterised by significant wave height (Hs), and average zero-up-crossing
period (Tz), or spectral peak period (Tp).
Wave and current actions on the jacket structure are normally calculated by use of Morison's equation.
Member drag (CD) and inertia (CM) coeffisients shall be established according to NORSOK N-003.
Shielding effects may be taken into account where the presence of such effects can be adequately
documented, (NORSOK N-003).
Where elements are closely grouped (e.g. conductors), solidification effects shall be considered.
The design current velocity and profile is to be selected using site specific statistics. The current applied in
design shall include both tidal and wind induced effects. The current profile is normally defined up to still
water level. In combination with waves, the profile shall be adjusted such that the flux of the current is kept
constant.
K.3.5.3 Wind action

Extreme values of wind speeds are to be expressed in terms of most probable largest values with their
corresponding recurrence periods.
Design of jacket and foundation shall be based upon the 1 hour extreme mean wind defined at a reference
height of 10m above still water level. The 1 minute wind gust parameter shall be used when wind action is
applied in combination with the wave, and the wave action being the dominating action.
Relevant scaling methods to obtain averaged wind speeds and wind height profiles are given in NORSOK N-
003.
K.3.5.4 Earthquake action

For earthquake analyses, ground motions may be defined either as response spectra or time histories.
The selection of method depends on the actual problem being considered.
For deep-water jacket structures with long fundamental periods and significant soil-structure interaction
effects, time-history analysis is normally recommended.
If inelastic material behaviour is considered, time-history methods are normally necessary.
When performing time-history earthquake analysis, the response of the structure/foundation system shall be
analysed for a representative set of time histories.
In areas with small or moderate earthquake activity, the ULS check may be omitted and the earthquake
analysis may be limited to the ALS check only.
K.3.5.5 Ice
If the structure is to be located in an area where snow or icing may accumulate, icebergs, or sea-ice may
develop or drift, actions from such phenomena shall be taken into account where relevant, ref. NORSOK N-
003.
K.3.6 Accidental action

Accidental actions are actions related to abnormal operation or technical failure.
Details of accidental actions are found in NORSOK N-003.
Accidental actions relevant for jacket design are:
• impact from vessel
• dropped object from crane handling
• pool fire at sea
• extreme environmental actions
The determination of accidental actions is normally to be based on a risk analysis.

K.3.7 Fatigue actions

Repetitive actions, which may lead to possible significant fatigue damage, shall be evaluated. The following
listed sources of fatigue actions shall, where relevant, be considered:
• waves (including those actions caused by slamming and variable (dynamic) pressures).
• wind (especially when vortex induced vibrations may occur ), e.g. during fabrication, installation and
operation.
• currents (especially when vortex induced vibrations may occur ).
The effects of both local and global dynamic response shall be properly accounted for when determining
response distributions related to fatigue actions.
K.3.8 Combination of actions

Action coefficients and combinations of actions for the different limit states are in general given in NORSOK
N-003.
The Serviceability Limit State (SLS) need not normally to be considered in jacket design if not special
functional requirements are specified. Such functional requirements could be distance to other facilities
(bridge connections, drilling rig) etc.
K.3.9 Vortex shedding

Vortex-induced action and vibrations with regard to wind, current and waves shall be investigated and taken
into account where relevant.
Any contribution to fatigue damage from vortex shedding shall be added to damage from drag and inertia
actions from the wave, (NORSOK N-003). Relevant hot-spot locations may be considered.
K.3.10 Wave slamming

Horizontal or near-horizontal members that may be subjected to wave slamming shall be designed to resist
impact forces caused by such effects.
Any contribution to fatigue damage from wave slamming shall be added to damage from drag and inertia
actions from the wave, (NORSOK N-003). Relevant hot-spot locations may be considered.

K.4 GLOBAL RESPONSE ANALYSES

K.4.1 General
The selected method of response analysis is dependent on the design condition; ULS, FLS or ALS. Due
attention shall be paid to the dynamic behaviour of the structure including possible non-linearities in action
and response.
K.4.2 Dynamic effects

Dynamic effects are present in all jacket structures. However, the significance of the dynamic effects is
dependent upon stiffness, soil-structure interaction, mass and mass distribution and the structural
configuration. E.g. a complex or wide configured space frame structure will experience different inertia
actions than a narrow or column type structure due to influence on the natural period.
For traditional jacket platforms with natural periods less than 3 seconds, the inertial actions may be
neglected and a quasi-static analysis will suffice provided that the provisions in K4.4 are adhered to.
The inertial action is established by a global dynamic analysis. The magnitude of the inertial action can be a
direct result of the global dynamic analysis, or can be derived from the quasi-static analysis and the Dynamic
Amplification Factor (DAF) from the global dynamic analysis.
Wave and other time varying actions should be given realistic representations of the frequency content of the
action. Time history methods using random waves are preferred. Frequency domain methods may be used
for the global dynamic analysis both for ULS and FLS, provided the linearization of the drag force can be
justified.
The random waves should originate from one or more wave spectra that are plausible conditions for
producing the design wave defined shape.
K.4.3 Analysis modelling

Internal forces in members should be determined by three-dimensional structural analysis.
Analytical models utilised in the global analyses of a platform should adequately describe the properties of
the actual structure including the foundation.
The non-linear behaviour of axial and lateral soil-foundation system should be modelled explicitly to ensure
action-deflection compatibility between the structure and the soil-foundation system.
The structural members of the framework may be modelled using one or more beam elements for each span
between nodes. The number of beam elements depends on the element formulation, distribution of actions
and potential for local dynamic response. Major eccentricities of action carrying members should be
assessed and incorporated in the model. Face-to-face length may be modelled by stiff-end formulation of the
chord.
For analyses of the operational design phases (static strength), any corrosion allowance on members should
be subtracted in the stiffness and stress calculations, but included in the wave action calculations. For
fatigue analysis, half the corrosion allowance thickness should be included both for action, stiffness and
stress calculations.
Determination of fatigue lives in pile cluster connections should be determined based on stresses derived
from a local finite element analysis.
Appurtenances such as conductors, J-tubes and risers, caisson, ladders and stairs, launch box, boat
landing, guides and anodes should be considered for inclusion in the hydrodynamic model of the structure.
Depending upon the type and number, appurtenances can significantly increase the global wave forces. In
addition, forces on some appurtenances may be important for local member design. Appurtenances not
welded to main structure are generally modelled by non-structural members that only contribute as
equivalent wave forces.
The increase in hydrodynamic- and gravity actions caused by marine growth shall be accounted for.

K.4.4 Design conditions
K.4.4.1 General
The platform shall be designed to resist gravity actions, wave, current and wind actions, earthquake and
accidental actions that may occur during its service life.
K.4.4.2 In-place ULS analysis

Requirements concerning in-place ULS capacity checks are given in Section 6.
Each mode of operation of the platform, such as drilling, production, work-over or combination thereof shall
be considered. The stiffness of the deck structure shall be modelled in sufficient detail to ensure compatibility
between the deck design and the jacket design.
Studies should be performed to establish maximum base shear of wave and current actions for dimensioning
of jacket bracings. Maximum overturning moments shall be established for dimensioning of jacket legs and
foundation system. Diagonal approach directions normal to an axis through adjacent legs should also be
considered in search for maximum leg and foundation reactions. The studies shall be undertaken by varying
wave approach directions, wave periods and water depths. Detail design analysis should be based on
minimum eight wave approach directions. A reduced number of approach directions may be considered for
early stage design analysis for jackets which are symmetric about the two vertical axes.
Maximum local member actions may occur for wave positions other than that causing the maximum global
force. Horizontal members close to still water level shall be checked both for maximum vertical and
horizontal wave particle velocities. The effect of varying buoyancy shall also be included.
The choice of an appropriate design wave theory is to be based on particular considerations for the problem
th
in question. Stokes’ 5 order wave theory is normally used for jacket design. However, for low water depth
jacket locations, shallow water effects shall be assessed.
DAF’s should be established by use of time history analyses for structures where the dynamic effects are
important.
Wave approach direction for

ULS and FLS analysis
Additional wave approach direction for

pile/ leg design
Figure 4-1 Recommended wave approach directions for ULS and FLS analysis
K.4.4.3 Fatigue analysis

General requirements concerning fatigue analysis of steel structures are given in Section 8. Special
considerations and details of fatigue strength analysis are given in Annex C.
Fatigue analyses should include all relevant actions contributing to the fatigue damage both in non-
operational and operational design conditions. Local action effects due to wave slamming, vortex shedding
are to be included when calculating fatigue damage if relevant.
Whilst jackets in low to moderate water depths are not normally sensitive to dynamic effects, non-linearities
associated with wave theory and free-surface effects may be important. A deterministic analysis is normally
recommended for such jackets. In the detail design phase, the deterministic analysis should include eight
wave approach directions and at least four wave heights from each direction. Wave forces should be

calculated for at least ten positions in each wave. In performing a deterministic wave analysis, due attention
should be paid to the choice of wave periods if such data are not explicitly specified, or can be determined
based upon wave scatter diagrams relevant for the location.
In lack of site specific data, the wave periods shall be determined based on a wave steepness of 1/20
(NORSOK N-003).
For deep water jackets and jackets where the dynamic effects are important, a fatigue analysis in the
frequency domain (dynamic stochastic analysis) is recommended.
Frequency domain action calculations are carried out in order to determine hydrodynamic transfer functions
for member force intensities. The transfer functions are expressed as complex numbers in order to describe
the phase lags between the action variable and the incoming wave
Studies are to be performed to investigate wave actions for a range of periods in order to ensure a sufficient
accuracy of the response. For a stochastic fatigue analysis, it is important to select periods such that
response amplifications and cancellations are included. Also selection of wave periods in relation to the
platform fundamental period of vibration is important. The number of periods included in the analysis should
not be less than 30, and be in the range from T = 2 sec. to at least T = 20 sec.
H0
H1
H2
H3 Calculation in each wave act
H0
H1
H2
H3
LOGN
Wave exceedance diagr
100
ni
D= Ni
i=1
H S
1
2
1 2 3
8
7 3
4 i
6 5
n1 ni N1N2N3 Ni
n2 LOGN N
n3
Long-term distribution of hot-spot stresse S-N Curve
Member end hot-spot
Figure 4-2 Deterministic fatigue analysis procedure
Short crested waves (angular distribution of wave energy) may be taken into account if such effects are
present at the location. When applying short crested waves, an increased number of wave approach
directions should be used, normally not less than 12.
The dynamic analysis can be carried out by a modal superposition analysis, direct frequency response
analysis or by mode syntehesis techniques.
Traditional jackets are drag dominated structures. For drag dominated structures stochastic analysis based
upon linear extrapolation techniques may significantly underestimate action effects. When the effect of drag
forces on the expected fatigue damage and the expected extreme responses are to be assessed, Morison-
type wave actions are to be based on relevant non-linear models.

If practical, horizontal plan elevations (or complex systems) should be designed to be located away from the
still water level or splash zone.
Structure-to-ground connections in the analysis shall be selected to adequately represent the response of
the foundations. Structure-to-ground connections may normally be simulated by linear stiffness matrices. To
linearize the actually non-linear soil response, these matrices should be developed based on a wave height
which contributes significantly to the fatigue damage. The matrices shall account for the correlation between
the rotational and translation degrees of freedom, which may be important for proper calculation of fatigue
lives in the lower part of the structure.
Structural components in the jacket shall be classified according to consequences of failure and accessibility
for inspection and repair as outlined in Section 8.
Structures or structural parts located in water depths below 150 m shall be considered as being not
accessible for inspection and repair.
Fatigue design factors for typical components in jackets are given in
Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3.
Table 4-1 Fatigue design factors in jackets

Classification of structural components Not Accessible for inspection,
based on damage consequence accessible maintenance and repair, and where
for inspections or maintenance is planned
inspection Below splash Above splash
and repair zone zone
or in the
splash zone
• Brace/stub to chord welds in main

loadtransferring joints in vertical plans,
• Chord/cone to leg welds, between leg
sections, 10 3 2
• Brace to stub and brace to brace welds in
main loadtransferring members in vertical
plans,
• Shear plates and yoke plates incl.
stiffening
• Piles and bucket foundation plates incl.
stiffening
• Brace/stub to chord welds in joints in
horisontal plans,
• Chord/cone to brace welds and welds
between sections in horisontal plans, 3 2 1
• Appurtenance supports,
• Anodes, doubler plates,
• Outfitting steel

Figure 4-3 Typical fatigue design factors in jackets
K.4.4.4 Accidental analysis

General requirements concerning the Accidental Limit State (ALS) of steel structures are given in Section 9.
The jacket is to be designed to be damage tolerant, i.e. credible accidental damages or events should not
cause loss of global structural integrity.

A credible collision or dropped object against a bracing member or a nodal brace joint will reduce the action
carrying ability of the member or the joint. Such members or joints are thus to be assumed non-effective
when the global strength of the platform (residual strength) is to be assessed for combinations of design
actions in the ALS condition. A credible collision or dropped object against a leg member will normally cause
limited damages, and the residual strength of the platform is to be assessed taking due account of the
residual strength of the damaged member for combination of design actions in the ALS condition. Details
may be found in Annex A.
Pool fire analyses are normally performed to establish requirements to the platform passive and active fire
protection system.
-4
For consideration of the 10 wave action and requirement to air gap see Norsok N-003.
K.4.4.5 Earthquake analysis

General requirements concerning earthquake analyses are given in NORSOK N-003.
Deck facilities that may respond dynamically to earthquake excitation (flare boom, derrick) are to be included
in the structural model where relevant, in order to account for interaction effects due to correlation between
closely spaced modes of vibration.
Earthquake analysis may be performed using response spectrum analysis or time history analysis. When the
response spectrum method is used, the design spectrum shall be applied in one of the orthogonal directions
parallel to a main structural axis. 2/3 of the design spectrum shall be applied in the other orthogonal direction
and 2/3 in the vertical direction. The complete quadratic combination (CQC) method should be used for
combining modal responses. The square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) method should be used for
combining directional responses.
The model used for earthquake analysis should satisfactorily simulate the behaviour of the actual structure.
The number of vibration modes in the analysis should represent at least 90% of the total response energy of
all modes. The number of modes to be included in the analysis is normally to be determined by a parametric
study. Normally, 15-20 modes are sufficient to ensure an adequate representation of all response quantities.
The number of modes may be larger if topside structures such as flare booms and derricks are incorporated
in the global model and if their dynamic behaviour is required
Topside structures may normally be included in a simplified manner provided that such modelling will
properly simulate the global stiffness and mass distributions.
Structure-to-ground connections are normally simulated by linear stiffness matrices. For jackets located in
shallow to moderate water depths, conservative response values are usually achieved by a stiff soil
assumption. However, for deep water jackets this may not be conservative.
Damping properties should be adequately assessed and included in the analysis as appropriate. In the
absence of more accurate information, a modal damping ratio of 5 % of critical may be used. This value
covers material damping and hydrodynamic damping, as well as radiation and hysteretic soil damping. Other
damping ratios may be used where substantiated data exists.
K.4.4.6 Installation analysis

Transport and installation design and operation shall comply with the requirements given in DNV-OS-H101
Marine Operations, General.
The recurrence periods to be considered for determination of environmental actions shall comply with the
requirements given in NORSOK N-001.

K.5 SPECIAL DESIGNS

K.5.1 Member design
Reference is made to Section 6 for static strength requirements to tubular members.
Buckling factors for X-bracing’s may be determined according to procedures which take into account the
degree of lateral support furnished to the primary compression member by the cross member (tension
member) and member end restraints.
Thickness transitions should be made by flushing inside of tubular to achieve good fatigue capabilities.
Reference is made to DNV-RP-C203 for fatigue requirements to butt welds.
K.5.2 Tubular connections

Reference is made to Section 6 and 8 for static strength – and fatigue requirements to tubular member
connections and conical transitions.
K.5.3 Grouted connection
K.5.3.1 General
Grouted pile connections shall be designed to satisfactorily transfer the design loads from the pile sleeve to
the pile as shown in Figure 5-1. The grout packer may be placed above or below the lower yoke plate as
indicated in Figure 5-2. The connection may be analysed by using a load model as shown in Figure 5-3. The
following failure modes of grouted pile to sleeve connections need to be considered:
• Failure of grout to pile interface shear due to axial load and torsional moment (ULS and ALS).
• Failure of the grout due to compressive stresses at the lower end of the grout due to bending
moment and shear force in the pile (ULS and ALS).
• Fatigue of the grouted connection for alternating interface shear stress due to axial load and bending
moment in the pile (FLS).
• Fatigue of the grout due to contact pressure and friction forces creating shear stresses at the lower
end caused by bending moment and shear force in the pile (FLS).
Pile
Jacket Leg Upper Yoke plate
Pile sleeve
Shear Plate
Lower Yoke plate

(Mudmat)
Mudline
Figure 5-1 Terms for typical pile-sleeve connections

Pile sleeve
Pile sleeve
Grout
Grout
Lower Yoke plate
Lower Yoke plate
Pile Packer Pile

Packer
Figure 5-2 The left figure shows grout termination above Lower Yoke plate and the right figure
shows grout termination below Lower Yoke plate
The recommendations for check of the above failure modes for pile sleeve connections with circular hoop or
helix curved strings of weld beads or bars denoted shear keys are described in Section K.5.3.2 to K.5.3.5
F2,Sd
Upper Yoke plate
F1,Sd
Lower Yoke plate
VSd
Mb,Sd
Pt,sd
Mt,Sd
Figure 5-3 Model for calculation of forces in grouted pile-sleeve connections
K.5.3.2 Failure of the grout to pile connection due to interface shear from axial load and
torsional moment (ULS and ALS)
When a grouted connection is subjected to combined axial force and torsional moment, the interface stress
shall be taken as the result of the component stresses caused by axial force and torsional moment
calculated at the outer surface of the inner member.
The design interface stress due to axial force, τba,Sd, is defined by:
NSd (5.1)
τ ba,Sd =
π ⋅ Dp ⋅ Le
where

NSd = design axial force [N]

Dp = outside diameter of pile [mm]
Le = effective grouted connection length [mm]
In calculating the effective grouted connection length, Le, the following non-structural lengths shall be
subtracted from the connection’s nominal gross grouted length:
1. Where setting of a grout plug is the primary means of sealing, or is the contingency sealing method in
the event of packer failure, the grout plug length shall be considered as non-structural.
2. To allow for potential weak interface zones, grout slump, etc. at each end of the connection, the greater
of the following grouted lengths shall be considered as non-structural:
- two thickness of the grout annulus, 2tg
- one shear key spacing, s, if shear keys are used.
3. Any grouted length that is not certain to contribute effectively to the connection capacity, shall be
considered as non-structural (e.g. when shear keys are used, the implications of possible over and under
driving of piles shall be considered in relation to the number of shear keys present in the grouted length).
4. For pile-sleeve connections carrying significant bending moments a distance of D p ⋅ t p above and
below the lower yoke plate should be without shear keys.
The design interface transfer stress due to torsional moment, τbt,Sd, is defined by:
2 M t, Sd (5.2)
τ bt,Sd =
π ⋅ D ⋅ Le
2
p
where
Mt,Sd = design torsional moment on the connection.
The combined axial and torsional design interface shear is calculated as:
(5.3)
τ b,Sd = τ ba,Sd + τ bt,Sd
2 2
The characteristic interface strength for grout to steel interface with shear keys, is given by:
 800 h 
0.8 (5.4)
f bks = + 140 ⋅    ⋅ C s 0.6 ⋅ f ck
0.3
 D p  s  
The characteristic interface transfer strength for grout steel interface in the connection without shear keys, is
given by:
 800  (5.5)
f bkf =   ⋅ C s ⋅ f ck
0.6 0.3
 p 
D
The characteristic interface transfer strength for grout matrix shear failure is given by:
  h  (5.6)
f bkg = 0.75 − 1.4 ⋅   ⋅ f ck0.5
  s 

where
s = shear key spacing (mm)
h = shear key height (mm)
Cs = radial stiffness factor
[(Dp / tp) + (Ds / ts)] + (1 /m)⋅(Dg / tg)
-1 -1
=
fck = characteristic cube strength (MPa)
Dp = outside diameter of pile (mm)
tp = wall thickness of pile (mm)
Ds = outside diameter of pile sleeve (mm)
ts = wall thickness of pile sleeve (mm)
Dg = outside diameter of grout annulus (mm)
tg = thickness of grout annulus (mm)
E = Young’s modulus of elasticity for steel (MPa)
m = steel-grout elastic modular ratio (to be taken as 18 in lieu of actual data)
The inherent variability in the test data should be considered when calculating the characteristic strength if
the capacity is based on test results.
Figure 5-4 Grouted connection with recommended shear key details
Equation (5.4), (5.5) and (5.6)are valid for uncoated tubulars with normal fabrication tolerances, where mill
scale has been fully removed. The recommendations are valid for the following range:
80 MPa ≥ fck ≥ 20 MPa

0.10 ≥ h/s ≥ 0.0
40 ≥ Dp/tp ≥ 20
140 ≥ Ds/ts ≥ 30
45 ≥ Dg/tg ≥ 10
0.012 ≥ h/Dp
16 ≥ Dp/s
10 ≥ Le/Dp ≥ 1
Connection with circular hoop shear keys should be checked as follows:
f bks (5.7)
τ ba,Sd ≤
γM
f bkf (5.8)
τ bt,Sd ≤
γM

f bkg (5.9)
τ b,Sd ≤
γM
where
γM = material factor for interface transfer strength equal to 2.0 for ULS and 1.5 for ALS
If the check of torsion stresses according to (5.8) is not fulfilled the ULS checks can be made assuming
redistribution of the pile torsion moment. This can be done by releasing the corresponding degree of freedom
for the pile in the model. In addition a FLS check according to K.5.3.6 needs to be satisfied.
A shear key shall be a continuous hoop or a continuous helix. Where hoop shear keys are used, they shall
be uniformly spaced, oriented perpendicular to the axis of the tube, and be of the same form, height and
spacing on both the inner and outer tubes.
Where helical shear keys are used, the following additional limitation shall be applied:
s ≤ Dp/2.5
and the characteristic interface transfer strength given by equations (5.4) and (5.6) shall be reduced by a
factor of 0.75.
The possible movements between the inner and the outer steel tubular member during the 24 hour period
after grouting shall be determined for the maximum expected sea states during that time, assuming that the
grouted connection does not contribute to the stiffness of the system. For foundation pile-to-sleeve
connections, this analysis shall be an on-bottom analysis of the structure with ungrouted piles.
If the expected relative axial movement at the grout steel interface exceeds 0.035%Dp during this period, the
movements should be limited by e.g. installation of pile grippers.
K.5.3.3 Check of compressive stresses at the lower end of the grout due to bending
moment and shear in the pile (ULS and ALS)
The compressive capacity of the grout shall be checked for forces in the Ultimate Limit States (ULS) and the
Accidental limit States (ALS).
The compressive contact stress between the steel and the grout will create tensile stresses in the grout due
to the shear stresses resulting from the friction forces at the grout to steel surfaces. It is considered
acceptable that the grout cracks for tensile stresses during these limit states; however, the grout needs to
transfer the forces from the sleeve to the pile throughout the storm that includes the dimensioning
environmental load.
The following procedure assumes that the specified mechanical properties of the grout are met at all
positions within the area assumed for carrying loads. If there is doubt about the grout quality that can be
achieved at these locations, the calculations should be adjusted accordingly or the connection should be
fitted with reinforcement bars according to K.5.3.7 in order to improve the robustness and ductility of the
connection.
The design contact pressure between steel and grout can be obtained from
F1, Sd (5.10)
σ p, Sd = C A
D 3p t
p
Where:
F1,Sd = V Sd + M b , Sd / H (See Figure 5-3 )
CA = 2 for grout ending above lower yoke plate and without reinforcement steel (See Figure 5-2)
= 1 for grout ending a minimum distance = D p ⋅ t p below lower yoke plate and without
reinforcement steel
= 1 for grout ending above lower yoke plate and with longitudinal reinforcement steel
= 0.5 for grout ending a minimum distance = D p ⋅ t p below lower yoke plate and with
reinforcement steel.

VSd = Pile resultant shear force with ULS or ALS load factors as appropriate
Mb,Sd = Pile resultant bending moment with ULS or ALS load factors appropriate
The largest principal design stress can be calculated as
σ p, Sd  (5.11)
σ I , Sd = 1 + 1 + 4 µ 
2
2  
where a friction coefficient between pile and grout should be taken as: μ =0.7
It should be checked that:
f cN (5.12)
σ I , Sd ≤
γM
where
 f ⋅ 0.85  (5.13)
f cN = 0.85⋅ f ck 1 − ck 
 600 
fck = characteristic cube strength of grout in MPa

γM = 1.5 for ULS and 1.25 for ALS
When steel reinforcements are prescribed, the reinforcements should meet requirement given in K.5.3.7.
K.5.3.4 Fatigue of the grouted connection for alternating interface shear stress due to axial
load and bending moment in the pile (FLS)
General
The maximum axial loads in piles of jacket platforms will normally be in compression for the case where
permanent and variable loads add to the loads from environmental actions. However, as the capacity of
grouted connections exposed to cyclic loads where the axial load changes from compression to tension
during the load cycle are known to be significantly less than the static capacity it is necessary to check the
conditions where the axial load in the pile is in tension.
As research data on the long-term capacity of grouted connections is scarce especially on effects from
moment, there are no established methods for capacity assessment for pile-sleeve connections exposed for
cyclic loads. Until adequate test data is available the following simplified fatigue check is proposed:
Calculate the maximum pile axial tension load (Pt, Sd) for 100 year loading with load factor γf = 1.0.
Calculate the axial tension capacity as:
0.3 f bks AOP (5.14)
P f , Rd = C PMred
γM
γM = material factor = 2.0 for pile clusters with one or two piles and 1.5 for pile clusters with 3 or more
piles if the integrity of the connection can be confirmed by inspection after severe storms.
CPMred = Reduction factor for alternating moment.
𝐷𝑃 ∙ 𝑀𝑃𝐸𝑛𝑣,𝑆𝑑 (5.15)
CPMred = 1-
𝐻∙𝑀𝑟𝑒𝑓
MP Env,Sd, = bending moment from 100 year environmental loads with load factor γf = 1.0
Mref = W* 0.001*E
E = Youngs modulus of the steel in the pile
The stiffness representation of the soil should represent the best estimate for cyclic loading.
Check if

Pt ,Sd ≤ Pf , Rd (5.16)
If equation (5.16) is not fulfilled, the capacity from friction created by the forces from the minimum
corresponding bending moment and shear force in the pile according to the calculation model shown in
Figure 5-3 can be added to obtain larger capacity. The reaction forces can be calculated as:
F1, Sd = VSd + M b , Sd / H (5.17)
F2 , Sd = M b , Sd / H
F3 , Sd = 2 M t , Sd / D p
Then the net friction force can be derived as
Fµ , Rd = (F1, Sd + F2 , Sd − F3 , Sd )µ (5.18)
where
μ = coefficient of friction between pile and grout for the contact area at the upper and lower yoke plates =
0.4 for this assessment
Check if
Pt ,Sd ≤ Fµ , Rd + Pf , Rd (5.19)
K.5.3.5 Fatigue of the grout due compression and shear stresses at the lower end of the
grout due to bending moment and shear in the pile (FLS)
The stress variations in the grout at the lower end is caused by cyclic bending moment and shear force in the
pile giving compression stress in the grout and shear stress due to the friction caused by the sliding between
the pile and the grout. For a grouted connection without steel reinforcement, one should limit these friction
stresses such that they will not exceed the tensile capacity more than once during the life of the platform.
This is considered to be achieved if the following requirements are met based on calculation of 100 year
return period environmental loads.
For fatigue the action effects are derived with a load factor γf = 1.0.
The tensile stress in the grout can be calculated as
σ p, Sd  (5.20)
σ II , Sd = 1 − 1 + 4 µ 
2
2  
where a friction coefficient between pile and grout should be taken as μ =0.7.
The design criterion reads:
f tk (5.21)
σ II , Sd ≤
γM
where
ftk = the characteristic tensile strength according to DNV-OS-C502 determined from splitting tensile testing of
the actual grout.
γM = 1.25 = material factor used in fatigue assessment for the grout.
If equation (5.21) is not fulfilled, the capacity can be increased by introduction of longitudinal and
circumferential reinforcements. The fatigue capacity of the reinforced grouted section is for ordinary jacket
pile-sleeve connections judged to be acceptable if the requirements stated in K.5.3.7 are met.

K.5.3.6 Fatigue check due to torsion

In cases where the ULS check according to K.5.3.2 fails in the check for interface shear stresses due to
torsional moments and redistribution of the moment is assumed, the following check need to be carried out.
This check is valid for connections with hoop shear keys.
The return period for the load should be taken as 100 year and the load factor γf = 1.0.
τ btEnv100,Sd ≤ f bkf (5.22)
where
2 M t Env100, Sd (5.23)
τ btEnv100,Sd =
π ⋅ D 2p ⋅ L e
If this check is not satisfied it is recommended to increase the capacity against torsional moments e.g. by
introduction of shear keys transverse to the direction of the interfaces shear stresses.
K.5.3.7 Requirements to ribbed steel reinforcement

If the grout strength and durability is increased by introduction of ribbed steel reinforcement bars, the
following requirements to the steel reinforcement are assumed for the formulas given in this Annex:
• The steel reinforcements should be arranged in the longitudinal direction of the sleeve starting from
the lower end of the grout over a length of 2.5 D p ⋅ t p in case for grout ending above lower yoke
plate and 5.0 D p ⋅ t p for the case when the grout extend below the lower yoke plate.
• The longitudinal reinforcements should be placed as close as possible to the pile wall.
• Each reinforcement bar should be bent and welded to the sleeve at the top and bottom for the full
yield capacity of the bar.
• Longitudinal bar spacing should be in the range of 0.5 to 2.0 times the grout thickness.
• Ring bars to be arranged to secure the position of the longitudinal bars throughout all phases and
should as a minimum meet ordinary code requirements to reinforcements for shrinkage (e.g. DNV-
OS-C502).
• The required area of the reinforcement can be calculated as
σ p, Sd (5.24)
As = 0.5 µ tg b
f sd
Where
σp,Sd =
tg = thickness of grout
b = distance between longitudinal reinforcement bars
fsd = fsy / γM = design strength of the reinforcement bars
fsy = characteristic yield stress of the reinforcement bars
γM = 1.0 = material factor for reinforcement bars
As = area of reinforcement bar
μ = friction coefficient = 0.6
K.5.3.8 Considerations on in-service inspection

Generally the experience with grouted pile-sleeve connections is good and regular in-service inspections
have not been considered to be necessary. However, it should be kept in mind that the long term
performance of grouted sleeve connections is uncertain. An effective in-service inspection of these

connections is usually difficult to execute as there is limited access. Especially if the requirements of this
standard are not met it should be considered to implement measures at the design and construction phases
that enable easy inspections to check that the connection is functioning as intended.
Presently, there are few adequate inspection methods for grouted pile-sleeve connections available, but it is
expected that more suited inspection methods will be developed in the time to come.
K.5.4 Cast items

Cast joints are defined as joints formed using a casting process. They can be of any geometry and of
variable wall thickness.
The design of a cast joint is normally done by use of FE analyses. An acceptable design approach for
strength is to limit stresses in the joint due to factored actions to below yielding of the material using
appropriate yield criteria. Additionally, the FE analyses should provide SCF’s for fatigue life calculations.
Often, this design process is carried out in conjunction with the manufacturer of the cast joints.
Fatigue requirements to cast nodes are given in DNV-RP-C203.

K.6 FOUNDATION DESIGN

K.6.1 General
K.6.1.1 Design principles

The principles of limit state design and the partial coefficient format shall be used. A general description of
the method and the definition of the limit state categories are given in the ISO Standard 19900 /1/.
Material factors are to be applied to the soil shear strength as follows:
• for effective stress analysis, the tangent to the characteristic friction angle is to be divided by the material
factor, γM
• for total shear stress analysis, the characteristic undrained shear strength is to be divided by the material
factor, γM
For soil resistance to axial and lateral loading of piles, material factors are to be applied to the characteristic
resistance as described in K.6.2.1. Material factors to be used are specified in subsection K.6.2.1
and K.6.2.2 and K.6.3.2.
K.6.1.2 Soil investigation

Generally, the extent of site investigations and the choice of investigation methods are to take into account
the type, size and importance of the structure, uniformity of soil, seabed conditions and the actual type of soil
deposits. The area to be covered by site investigations is to account for positioning and installation
tolerances. The soil investigation should give basis for a complete foundation design, comprising
evaluations for piled foundation of
• On-bottom stability of unpiled structure
• Lateral pile resistance
• Axial pile resistance
• Pile/soil/structure interaction
• Pile driveability predictions
For skirted foundations, the soil investigation should give basis for evaluations of
• Foundation stability
• Soil/structure interaction
• Skirt penetration
• Settlements
Site investigations are to provide relevant information about the soil to a depth below which possible
existence of weak formations will not influence the safety or performance of the structure.
Site investigations are normally to comprise of the following type of investigations:

• site geology survey including assessment of shallow gas.
• topography survey of the seabed
• geophysical investigations for correlation with borings and in-situ testing
• soil sampling with subsequent laboratory testing
• in-situ tests, e.g. cone penetration tests
The soil investigation should provide the following type of geotechnical data:
• data for soil classification and description
• shear strength data and deformation properties, as required for the type of analysis to be carried out
• in-situ stress conditions
Further details and requirements related to the soil investigation are given in Norsk Standard NS3481 /2/ and
NORSOK G-001.

K.6.2 Piled foundation
K.6.2.1 Axial pile resistance
General
Soil resistance against axial pile loads is to be determined by one, or a combination of, the following
methods:
• load testing of piles
• semi-empirical pile resistance formulae based on pile load test data.
The soil resistance in compression is to be taken as the sum of accumulated skin friction on the outer pile
surface and resistance against pile tip. In case of open-ended pipe piles, the resistance of an internal soil
plug is to be taken into account in the calculation of resistance against pile tip. The equivalent tip resistance
is to be taken as the lower value of the plugged (gross) tip resistance or the sum of skin resistance of internal
soil plug and the resistance against pile tip area. The soil plug may be replaced or reinforced by a grout plug
or equivalent in order to achieve fully plugged tip resistance.
The submerged weight of the pile below mudline should be taken into account.
For piles in tension, no resistance from the soil below pile tip is to be accounted for when the tip is located in
cohesionless soils.
Examples of detailed calculation procedures may be found in /3/, /4/,/5/ and /9/. The relevance of alternative
methods should be evaluated related to actual design conditions. The chosen method should as far as
possible have support in a data base which fits the actual design conditions related to soil conditions, type
and dimensions of piles, method of installation, type of loading etc. When such an ideal fit is not available, a
careful evaluation of important deviations between data base and design conditions should be performed
and conservative modifications to selected methods should be made.
Effect of cyclic loading

Effects of repeated loading are to be included as far as possible. In evaluation of the degradation, the
influence of flexibility of the piles and the anticipated load history is to be included.
Cohesive soils
For piles in mainly cohesive soils, the skin friction is to be taken equal to or smaller than the undrained shear
strength of undisturbed clay within the actual layer. The degree of reduction depends on the nature and
strength of clay, method of installation (e.g. driven or drilled/grouted), time effects, geometry and dimensions
of pile, load history and other factors. Especially, the time required to achieve full consolidation after
installation of driven piles should be considered. Design conditions that may occur prior to full consolidation
should be checked for reduced resistances.
The unit tip resistance of piles in mainly cohesive soils may be taken as 9 times the undrained shear strength
of the soil near the pile tip.
Cohesionless soil
For piles in mainly cohesionless soils the skin friction may be related to the effective normal stresses against
the pile surface by an effective coefficient of friction between the soil and the pile element. Examples of
recommended calculation methods and limiting skin friction values may be found in /3/. The calculation
procedures given in /9/ for cohesionless soils should not be used before considerably more extensive
documentation is available or without a careful evaluation of limiting values.
The unit tip resistance of piles in mainly cohesionless soils may be calculated by means of conventional
bearing capacity theory, taking into account a limiting value which may be governing for long piles /3/.
Material factors
For determination of design soil resistance against axial pile loads in ULS design, a material factor, γM=1.3 is
to be applied to all characteristic values of soil resistance, e.g. to skin friction and tip resistance.

For individual piles in a group lower material factors may be accepted, provided that the pile group as a
whole is designed with the required material factor. A pile group in this context is not to include more piles
than those supporting one specific leg.
Group effects should be accounted for when relevant, as further detailed in K.6.2.2.
K.6.2.2 Lateral pile resistance

When lateral soil resistance governs pile penetrations, the design resistance is to be checked within the limit
state categories ULS and ALS, using following material factors applied to characteristic resistance:
γM = 1.3 for ULS condition
γM = 1.0 for ALS condition
For calculation of pile stresses and lateral pile displacements, the lateral soil reaction is to be modelled using
characteristic soil strength parameters, with the soil material factor γM=1.0
The non-linear mobilisation of soil resistance is to be accounted for.
The effect of cyclic loading should be accounted for in the lateral load-deflection (p-y) curves.
Recommended procedures for calculation of p-y curves may be found in /3/, /4/.
Scour
The effect of local and global scour on the lateral resistance should be accounted for. The scour potential
may be estimated by sediment transport studies, given the soil particle sizes, current velocity etc. However,
experience from nearby similar structures, where available, may be the most important guide in defining the
scour criteria.
Group effects
When piles are closely spaced in a group, the effect of overlapping stress zones on the total resistance of
the soil is to be considered for axial as well as lateral loading of the piles. The increased displacements of
the soil volume surrounding the piles due to pile-soil-pile interaction and the effects of these displacements
on interaction between structure and pile foundation is to be considered.
In evaluation of pile group effects, due considerations should be given to factors as:
• pile spacing
• pile type
• soil strength and deformation properties
• soil density
• pile installation method.
K.6.2.3 Foundation response analysis

The pile responses should preferably be determined from an integrated pile/soil/structure analysis,
accounting for the soils’ non-linear response and ensuring load-deflection compatibility between the
structure and the pile/soil system. Such an analysis is normally carried out with characteristic soil strength
parameters.
K.6.2.4 Installation
General
The structure shall be documented to have adequate foundation stability after touchdown, as well as before
and after piling, when subjected to the environmental and accidental actions relevant during this period.
Pile stress check prior to driving

The pile should be checked with respect to yield and buckling (ULS) in the maximum possible inclined
position for a design condition of maximum relevant equipment weight (e.g. hammer weight), plus pile
self-weight. Current loads and possible dynamic effects should be accounted for.

Pile driving
It should be demonstrated by calculations that the indented driving equipment is capable of driving the pile to
target penetration within the pile refusal criteria specified and without damaging the piles.
The soil resistance during driving used in the driveability analysis may account for the gradual reduction in
the skin friction caused by driving. The set-up effects leading to increased skin friction after stop of driving
should be taken into account for realistic duration of halts that may occur during driving.
Dynamic stresses caused by pile driving are to be assessed based upon recognised criteria or by using
wave equation analysis. The sum of the dynamic driving stresses and the static stresses during the driving
process is not to exceed the specified minimum yield strength.
Allowance for under- or over-drive to account for uncertainties in pile-driving predictions should be
considered.
K.6.2.5 Pile fatigue

The pile fatigue damage should be evaluated and demonstrated to be within the requirements. Considering
the pile as a structural component with no inspection access and a substantial consequence of damage, a
fatigue design factor of 10 should be applied, as further outlined in Section K.4.4.3
It should be noted that the pile fatigue damage from the pile driving operation normally contributes
substantially to the total fatigue damage, which is the sum of the partial damages from the pile driving and
the environmental action during the design service life.
Appropriate S-N-data for double-sided butt welds in piles is the D-curve.
The D-curve for air may be applied for the pile driving sequence.
The D-curve for seawater shall be used for the long term wave actions expected during the service life of the
platform.
Provisions for use of the D-curve is that the weld be made in the shop and that all weld runs are made up
with the pile in the horizontal position by use of submerged arc welding technology, and that 100% MPI is
performed.
The fatigue design factor should be applied both to the pile driving damage and to the environmental
damage.
K.6.2.6 Foundation simulation for jacket fatigue analysis

For a jacket fatigue analysis, the pile/soil system may be simulated by pile stiffness matrices generated from
independent pile/soil analysis. To account for the soil non-linearity, the pile analysis for derivation of pile
fatigue stiffness matrices should be performed at a representative fatigue load level.
K.6.3 Skirted foundation
K.6.3.1 General
Skirted foundations are an alternative to pile foundations for jacket structures. The base area can be of any
shape and the skirts can be corrugated or plane. The skirts are penetrating the soil and contribute to
increase the foundation capacity with respect to horizontal as well as vertical forces. Also, uplift may be
resisted by the skirted foundation to a variable degree depending on the soil and loading conditions.
The skirted foundation may be used in both cohesive and cohesionless soils. The design for the main
dimensions of the foundation should consider both the soil and the structural behaviour during operation as
well as during installation. Possibility of inhomogenity of the soil over the area and local seabed variations
should be accounted for.
K.6.3.2 Foundation capacity

In calculation of the foundation capacity one should consider the simultaneously acting vertical and
horizontal forces and overturning moment acting on the skirted foundation. The acting forces should be
determined from a soil structure interaction analysis. The stiffnesses used to simulate the foundation should
account for the non-linearity of the soil and be compatible with the load level of the soil reactions obtained
from the analysis. This may require iterative analyses unless an adequate fully integrated analysis tool is
used.

The determination of the foundation capacity should account for the fact that most soils, even sandy soils,
behave undrained for the short duration of a wave action, and that the cyclic loading effects may have
significant effect on the undrained strength. The determination of foundation capacity should preferably be
based on cyclic strengths derived by combining relevant storm load histories for the loads on the skirted
foundations with the load dependent cyclic strengths determined from undrained cyclic soil tests. Depending
on the reliability of determining cyclic strengths for the soil in question the use of large-scale field tests
should be evaluated.
Special concerns for clay

In clay the soil can normally be considered fully undrained for all the accumulated effects of a design storm,
and cyclic strengths can be determined based on recognised principles, as e.g. given in /4/, and described in
more detail in /7/. It is important that the cyclic strength is determined for a realistic relation between average
and cyclic shear stresses, representative for the storm load history on the skirted foundation.
Special concerns for sand

Even in sand, the transient type of loading from one wave will result in an undrained or partly undrained
response in the soil. If the sand is dense dilatancy effects would lead to high shear resistance for a single
transient loading, resulting in high capacity for any type of loading, including uplift. However, when the soil is
exposed to repeated loading in an undrained state, accumulated pore pressures will result. Such pore
pressures can ultimately lead to a ’true failure’ for less dense sands, or a state of ‘initial liquefaction’ or ‘cyclic
mobility’ for dense sands. In the latter case, large cyclic soil strains and corresponding displacements of the
foundation may occur before the soil dilates and higher resistance is obtained. It is recommended that the
definition of failure is based on an evaluation of tolerable cyclic or total strains in the soil.
Even though the sandy soils will be undrained or partly undrained from the transient loads from each wave,
there may be a considerable dissipation of excess pore pressures through the duration of a storm. The
combined effects of pore pressure build up from cyclic loading and dissipation may be accounted for. It
should be aimed at defining an equivalent load history with a limited duration (as compared to the duration of
the storm) for which the soil can be assumed to be basically undrained. An example of a calculation
procedure is described in /10/. This load history may be used in defining cyclic shear strengths of the soil for
calculation of cyclic capacities, or scaled directly as loads onto large-scale tests if such tests are performed.
The general failure mechanisms for skirted foundations in sand are described in more detail in part 2 of /6/,
together with description of the design approach used for a jacket on dense sand.
Material factors
The minimum values of the material factors should be those specified by NORSOK N-001, i.e. γM=1.25 for
ULS design and γM=1.0 for ALS design.
There are elements in the design process for foundation stability design of a skirted foundation that may
contribute to greater uncertainties than for other type of foundations. This especially relates to defining the
cyclic strengths in sandy soils. Depending on the conservatism used in the design it may be necessary to
increase the material factors generally recommended by NORSOK N-001. It is recommended that the
sensitivity of the main assumptions made in the design process is investigated before such a decision is
made.
K.6.3.3 Skirt penetration

For installation of the skirted foundations the following design aspects should be considered
• A sufficient penetrating force to overcome the soil resistance against penetration should be provided by
a combination of weight and suction.
• The suction should be applied in a controlled manner to prevent excessive soil heave inside the skirted
foundation
• The skirted foundation should be designed to prevent buckling due to the applied suction
• Channelling

Penetration resistance
In calculation of penetration resistance, there are several uncertainties related to
• spatial variations in soil conditions; may be different at different corners
• general uncertainties in determination of basic soil parameters
• uncertainties in calculation of penetration resistance from basic soil parameters
The total range of expected resistances should be documented. The upper bound resistance will be
governing for design of ballast and/or suction system and for structural design of the foundation. Depending
of the conservatism applied in choice of parameters and method of calculation to cover up for the
uncertainties listed above, safety factors may have to be applied to the calculated resistances.
In clayey soils it can be considered that the resistance is unaffected by the applied suction, and the
resistance can be calculated as for skirts penetrated by weight only. Skirt penetration resistances may be
determined through correlations with cone penetration resistances as given in /4/, relevant basically for
overconsolidated clays. Alternatively the skin friction may be related to the remoulded shear strength of the
clay, and tip resistance may be related to the intact shear strength through conventional bearing capacity
factors.
In sand the penetration resistance will be effectively reduced by applied suction. The reduction is caused by
• general decrease of effective stresses inside the skirted foundation reducing the skin friction
• large gradients in effective stresses combined with large inwards gradients in the flow below the skirt tip
level, which triggers an inward bearing failure beneath the skirt tip and thus significantly reduces the
otherwise in sand dominating tip resistance.
The general governing mechanisms are described in /7/ and /8/. The reduction effect of suction on
penetration resistance is dependent both on the geometry of the skirted foundations and on the soil
stratification. When penetrating sand layers that are overlain by a clay layer, significantly higher suction will
be required than in homogeneous sand. Reliable universal calculation methods for calculation of penetration
resistance in sand when suction is applied are not generally available. The estimation penetration resistance
should thus to a high extent be based on empirical evidence from relevant conditions, taking account for the
effects described above.
Control of soil heave

The control of soil heave should be based on a detailed monitoring of penetration, tilt, heave of soil plug,
suction pressures, etc. As long as there is a net weight from the jacket acting on the skirted foundation, the
amount of soil heave inside the skirted foundation is normally controlled by controlling the discharge of water
through the pumps. The restraining effects on a jacket with 4 or more legs should be taken into account. By
applying suction to one skirted foundation only, the weight from the jacket on that skirted foundation will
decrease. If the weight from the jacket is reduced to zero, significant soil heave may occur. This should be
avoided. A penetration procedure should normally be aimed at, where the jacket as far as possible is
penetrated in a level position.
K.6.3.4 Skirted foundation structural design

Reference is made to Section 6 and 8 for general static strength and fatigue requirements. The skirted
foundation should be designed for all relevant design conditions including
• transportation forces
• forces when lowering the skirted foundations into the water and through the water line
• forces due to the motions of the jacket when the skirts start penetrating the seabed
• the suction applied during skirt penetration
• operational forces
The buckling resistance during penetration of the skirts should be checked for various stages of the
penetration using calculation models that account for the boundary conditions both at the skirt top as well as
within the soil.
The design for operational loading conditions should be based on soil reaction distributions that are derived
from realistic soil/structure interaction analyses. Alternatively more simple approaches with obviously
conservative soil reaction distributions can be used.

K.6.4 On-bottom stability

The foundation system for the jacket temporary on-bottom condition prior to installation of the permanent
foundation system shall be documented to have the required foundation stability for the governing
environmental conditions as specified, and for all relevant limit states.

K.7 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ‘DESIGN BASIS’ &

‘DESIGN BRIEF’
K.7.1 General
Adequate planning shall be undertaken in the initial stages of the design process in order to obtain a
workable and economic structural solution to perform the desired function. As an integral part of this planing,
documentation shall be produced identifying design criteria and describing procedures to be adopted in the
structural design of the platform.
Applicable codes, standards and regulations shall be identified at the commencement of the design.
When the design has been finalised, a summary document containing all relevant data from the design and
fabrication and installation phase (DFI) shall be produced.
Design documentation (see below) shall, as far as practicable, be concise, non-voluminous, and, should
include all relevant information for all relevant phases of the lifetime of the unit.
General requirements to documentation relevant for structural design are given in NORSOK, N-001, Section
5.
K.7.2 Design basis

A Design Basis Document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process to document the basis
criteria to be applied in the structural design of the unit.
A summary of those items normally to be included in the Design Basis document is included below.
• Platform location and main functionalities,
• general description, main dimensions and water depth,
• applicable Regulations, Codes and Standards (including revisions and dates),
• service life of platform,
• topside interface requirements (including leg spacing, topside weight and c.o.g, appurtenance
dimensions and routing),
• materials,
• coating and corrosion protection system,
• environmental and soil data,
• in-service inspection philosophy
• installation method,
• foundation system,
• system of units
K.7.3 Design brief

A Design Brief (DB) shall be created in the initial stages of the design process. The purpose of the Design
Brief shall be to document the criteria and procedures to be adopted in the design of the jacket structure.
The Design Brief shall, as far as practicable, be concise, non-voluminous, and, should include all relevant
limiting design criteria for the relevant design phase.
Design Briefs shall as a minimum cover the following main design phases and designs:
• Load-out
• Transportation
• Installation
• Inplace
• Fatigue
• Earthquake and accidental
• Foundation, on-bottom stability and pile driving
A summary of those items normally to be included in the Design Brief is included below.

Environmental design criteria

Limiting environmental design criteria (including all relevant parameters) for relevant conditions, including :
• wind, wave, current, earthquake, snow and ice description for relevant annual probability events.
Temporary phases
Design criteria for all relevant temporary phase conditions including, as relevant :
• limiting permanent, variable, environmental and deformation action criteria,
• essential design parameters and analytical procedures associated with temporary phases e.g. for load-
out, transportation, lifting, installation, on-bottom stability and pile installation and driving,
• platform abandonment.
Operational design criteria

Design criteria for relevant operational phase conditions including :
• deck load description (maximum and mimimum) including variation in gravity,
• designing accidental event criteria (e.g. collision criteria, earthquake, explosion and fire),
• soil parameters.
Global structural analyses

A general description of models to be utilised in the global analysis including :
• description of global analysis model(s) including modelling for wave and current loading,
• foundation system,
• description of analytical procedures (including methodology, factors, dynamic representation and
relevant parameters).
Structural evaluation
A general description of the structural evaluation process including :
• description of local analytical models,
• description of procedures to be utilised for combining global and local responses,
• criteria for member and joint code checking,
• description of fatigue analytical procedures and criteria (including design fatigue factors, S-N-curves,
basis for stress concentration factors (SCF’s), etc.).
Miscellaneous
A general description of other essential design information, including :
• description of corrosion allowances, where applicable,
• in-service inspection criteria (as relevant for evaluating fatigue allowable cumulative damage ratios).

K.8 REFERENCES
/1/ International Standard ISO 19900: ‘Petroleum and natural gas industries – Offshore structures,
General requirements’
/2/ Norges Standardiseringsforbund, NS3481: ‘Soil investigation and geotechnical design for
marine structures’, 1989
/3/ American Petroleum Institute, API RP2A – LRFD: ‘Planning, designing and constructing fixed
offshore platforms – Load and Resistance Factor Design’, 1993
/4/ DNV Class Note 30.4: ‘Foundations’, 1992
/5/ Nowacki,F., Karlsrud,K., Sparrevik,P.: "Comparison of Recent Tests on OC Clay and

Implications for Design". Conference on Recent Large Scale Fully Instrumented Pile Tests in
Clay, The Institute of Civil Engineers, London, June 1992. Also published in NGI Publication
No. 188.
/6/ Jardine, R. J and F. C. Chow: ‘New design methods for offshore piles”, The Marine Tecnology
Directorate Ltd, Publication 96/103
/7/ Andersen, K.H. and Lauritzen, R. ‘Bearing Capacity of Foundations with Cyclic Loads’, Journal
of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 114, No.5, May 1988
/8/ Bye,A., Erbrich,C., Rognlien,B., Tjelta,T.I.: ‘Geotechnical Design of Bucket Foundations’, OTC
th
paper 7793, 27 annual OTC in Houston, May 1995.
/9/ Tjelta,T.I. :’Geotechnical Experience from the Installation of the Europipe Jacket with Bucket
th
Foundations’, OTC paper 7795, 27 annual OTC in Houston, May 1995.
/10/ Sparrevik,P. :’Suction in Sand – New Foundation Technique for Offshore Structures’,
th
Proceedings of the 8 European Young Geotechnical Engineers Conference, Stara Lesna,
Slovakia, 1995. Also published in NGI Publication No. 196.
/11/ Andersen, K.H., Allard, M.A. and Hermstad,J. “Centrifuge model tests of a gravity platform on
very dense sand; II Interpretation” BOSS’94, Seventh International Conference on the
Behaviour of Offshore Structures at MIT July 1994, Volume I Geotechnics. Also published in
NGI Publ. No. 191.
- o0o -

Annex L Draft 3 to Rev. 3, November 2012

ANNEX L
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR SHIP SHAPED UNITS

CONTENTS
L.1 INTRODUCTION 161

L.1.1 General 161
L.1.2 Definitions 161
L.2 BASIS OF DESIGN 163
L.2.1 Safety format 163
L.2.2 Design criteria 163
L.2.2.1 Non-operational phases 163
L.2.2.2 Operational phases 164
L.3 STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND MATERIAL SELECTION 165
L.3.1 Structural classification 165
L.3.2 Material selection 165
L.3.3 Inspection categories 166
L.3.4 Guidance to minimum requirements 166
L.4 DESIGN ACTIONS 171
L.4.1 General 171
L.4.2 Permanent actions (G) 171
L.4.3 Variable actions (Q) 171
L.4.4 Deformation actions (D) 171
L.4.5 Environmental actions (EA) 172
L.4.5.1 Mooring actions 172
L.4.5.2 Sloshing actions in tanks 172
L.4.5.3 Green water effect 173
L.4.5.4 Slamming in the fore and aft ship 173
L.4.6 Accidental actions (A) 174
L.4.7 Fatigue actions (F) 174
L.4.8 Combination of actions 175
L.5 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE 176
L.5.1 General 176
L.5.2 Analysis models 177
L.5.2.1 General 177
L.5.2.2 Global structural model (Model level 1) 177
L.5.2.3 Cargo tank model (Model level 2) 177
L.5.2.4 Turret analysis (Model level 2) 178
L.5.2.5 Local structural analysis (Model level 3) 178
L.5.2.6 Stress concentration models (Model level 4) 178
L.5.3 Calculation of wave induced actions 179
L.5.3.1 General 179
L.5.3.2 Transfer functions 179
L.5.3.3 Viscous damping 179
L.5.3.4 Extreme wave induced responses 179
L.5.3.5 Non-linear effects 180
L.6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS) 181
L.6.1 Global strength 181
L.6.1.1 General 181
L.6.1.2 Calculation of global stresses 182
L.6.1.3 Calculation of local transverse and longitudinal stresses 182
L.6.1.4 Calculation of local pressures 184
L.6.1.5 Combination of stresses 184
L.6.1.6 Transverse structural strength 185
L.6.1.7 Capacity check 185
L.6.2 Local structural strength 185
L.6.3 Turret and turret area / moonpool 186
L.6.3.1 General 186
L.6.3.2 Structure in way of moonpool opening in the unit hull 186
L.6.3.3 Turret structure 186

L.6.4 Topside facilities structural support 187

L.6.5 Transit conditions 187
L.7 FATIGUE LIMIT STATES (FLS) 188
L.7.1 General 188
L.7.2 Design fatigue factors 188
L.7.3 Splash zone 189
L.7.4 Structural details and stress concentration factors 190
L.7.5 Design actions and calculation of stress ranges 190
L.7.5.1 Fatigue actions 190
L.7.5.2 Topside structures 190
L.7.5.3 Turret structure 191
L.7.5.4 Calculation of global dynamic stress ranges 191
L.7.5.5 Calculation of local dynamic stress ranges 191
L.7.5.6 Combination of stress components 191
L.7.6 Calculation of fatigue damage 191
L.7.6.1 General 191
L.7.6.2 Simplified fatigue analysis 192
L.7.6.3 Stochastic fatigue analysis 192
L.8 ACCIDENTAL LIMIT STATES (ALS) 193
L.8.1 Dropped objects 193
L.8.2 Fire 193
L.8.3 Explosion 193
L.8.4 Collision 193
L.8.5 Unintended flooding 193
L.8.6 Loss of heading control 193
L.9 COMPARTMENTATION & STABILITY 194
L.9.1 General 194
L.9.2 Compartmentation and watertight integrity 194
L.9.3 Stability 194
L.10 SPECIAL CONSIDERATION 195
L.10.1 Structural details 195
L.10.2 Positioning of superstructure 195
L.10.3 Structure in way of a fixed mooring system 195
L.10.4 Inspection and maintenance 195
L.10.5 Facilities for inspection on location 195
L.10.6 Action monitoring 195
L.10.7 Corrosion protection 196
L.11 DOCUMENTATION 197
L.11.1 General 197
L.11.2 Design basis 197
L.11.3 Design brief 198
L.11.4 Documentation for operation (DFO) 199
L.12 REFERENCES 200
L.13 COMMENTARY 201

L.1 INTRODUCTION
L.1.1 General
This Annex is intended to provide requirements and guidance to the structural design of ship shaped units
constructed in steel, according to the provisions of relevant NORSOK standards. The Annex is intended as
the rest of the standard to fulfill NPD regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc in the
petroleum activities /4/ and NORSOK N-001. In addition it is intended that the unit shall fulfill technical
requirements to standard ship hull design. Therefore references to the technical requirements in maritime
standards such as NMD, IMO and DNV classification rules for guidance and requirements to design is also
given.
The Annex is intended as being generally applicable to all types of conventional ship shaped structures,
including the following variants:
• Floating Production Units (FPU)
• Floating Storage and Offloading Units (FSU)
• Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Units (FPSO)
• Floating Production, Drilling, Storage and Offloading Units (FPDSO).
In this Annex the above will collectively be referred to as “units”.
This Annex is intended to cover several variations with respect to conceptual solutions as listed below:
• Units intended for production which may be equipped with topside structures, supporting the production
facilities.
• Units intended for storage with storage tanks together with facilities for offloading to shuttle tankers.
• Units intended for production will normally have a turret installed, while units intended for storage only,
may have a buoy installed, replacing the turret.
• Units that can either be permanently moored on site or have a disconnectable mooring system. In the
latter case, the unit may disconnect from its moorings and leave the site under its own power or assisted
by tugs, to avoid certain exceptional events such as extreme storms, icebergs, hurricanes etc. Normally
the mooring lines are connected to the turret or buoy, positioned forward of the midship area.
Requirements concerning mooring and riser systems other than the interfaces with the structure of the units
are not explicitly considered in this Annex.
The intention of this Annex is to cover units weather vaning by rotating around a turret or a buoy. Fixed
spread mooring arrangements (and similar) should be specially considered.
L.1.2 Definitions
Ship Shaped Floating Production Units:
A floating unit can be relocated, but is generally located on the same location for a prolonged period of time.
Inspections and maintenance can be carried out on location. The Ship Shaped Floating Productions unit may
consist of a ship shaped hull, with turret, and production equipment on the deck.
Ship Shape Floating Storage and Offloading Units:

Inspections and maintenance can be carried out on location. The Ship Shaped Floating Storage and
Offloading units normally consist of a ship shaped hull equipped for crude oil storage. The crude oil may be
transported to shore by shuttle tankers via an offloading arrangement.
Ship Shaped Floating Production, Storage and Offloading Units:

Inspections and maintenance are carried out on location. The Ship Shaped Floating Production, Storage and
Offloading unit normally consists of a ship shaped hull, with turret, and production equipment on the deck.
The unit is equipped for crude oil storage. The crude may be transported to shore by shuttle tankers via an
offloading arrangement.
Ship Shaped Floating Production, Drilling, Storage and Offloading Units:

Inspections and maintenance are carried out on location. The Ship Shaped Floating Production, Drilling,
Storage and Offloading unit normally consists of a ship shaped hull, with turret, and production and drilling
equipment on the deck. The unit is equipped for crude oil storage. The crude may be transported to shore by
shuttle tankers via an offloading arrangement.
Turret:
A device providing a connection point between the unit and the combined riser- and mooring- systems,
allowing the unit to rotate around the turret (weather vane) without twisting the risers and mooring lines.
RCS:
Recognised Classification Society

L.2 BASIS OF DESIGN

L.2.1 Safety format
Generally, the design of units shall be based upon the partial factor design methodology as described in
NORSOK N-001, based on direct calculated actions as described in L.5.
To ensure that experiences with traditional ships are taken into account in the design, units shall as a
minimum, fulfil the relevant technical requirements given in the DNV Rules for Ship, Pt.3 Ch.1, /3/. Due
consideration should be made with respect to the relevance of actions specified, taking into account possible
increase in action level due to the differences in operation of the unit compared to normal trading ships.
L.2.2 Design criteria

The design of units should as a minimum, comply with the technical requirements given in the DNV Rules for
Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1, /3/.
In cases where the unit is registered in a specific country (as though it was a merchant ship), the relevant
requirements of the flag state authority shall additionally be complied with.
A unit may be designed to function in a number of operational modes, e.g. transit, operation and survival.
Limiting design criteria for going from one mode to another shall be clearly established and documented
when relevant. In these operational modes, the design criteria normally relate to consideration of the
following items:
• Intact strength covering transit, temporary conditions (e.g. installation), extreme operating conditions and
survival conditions (relevant only if normal operation of the unit is terminated when limiting weather
conditions for the extreme operating condition are exceeded).
• Structural strength in damaged condition
• Compartmentation and stability
If it is intended to dry-dock the unit, the bottom structure shall be suitable strengthened to withstand such
actions.
L.2.2.1 Non-operational phases

The structure shall be designed to resist relevant actions associated with conditions that may occur during all
relevant stages of the life cycle of the unit. Such stages may include:
• fabrication,
• site moves,
• sea transportation,
• installation, and,
• decommissioning.
Structural design covering marine operation construction sequences shall be undertaken in accordance with
NORSOK, N-001.
Marine operations should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements stated in NORSOK, J-003.
Sea Transportation
A detailed transportation assessment shall be undertaken which includes determination of the limiting
environmental criteria, evaluation of intact and damage stability characteristics, motion response of the
global system and the resulting, induced actions. The occurrence of slamming actions on the structure and
the effects of fatigue during transport phases shall be evaluated when relevant.
Satisfactory compartmentation and stability during all floating operations shall be ensured.
Technical requirements to structural strength and stability as stated in relevant parts of the DNV Rules for
Ships, /3/, e.g. Pt.3 Ch.1 and Ch. 4 should be complied with for transit conditions where such rules are found
to be applicable.
Installation
Installation procedures of foundations (e.g. drag embedded anchors, piles, suction anchor or dead weights
etc.) shall consider relevant static and dynamic actions, including consideration of the maximum
environmental conditions expected for the operations.

Installation operations shall consider compartmentation and stability, and, dynamic actions on the mooring
system(s). The actions induced by the marine environment involved in the operations and the forces exerted
by the positioning equipment, such as fairleads and padeyes, shall be considered for local strength checks.
Decommissioning
Abandonment of the unit shall be planned for at the design stage. However, decommissioning phases for
ship shaped units are normally not considered to provide design action conditions for the unit and may
normally be disregarded at the design phase.
L.2.2.2 Operational phases

The unit shall be designed to resist all relevant actions associated with the operational phases of the unit.
Such actions include ;
• Permanent actions (see L.4.2)
• Variable actions (see L.4.3)
• Deformation actions (see L.4.4)
• Environmental actions (see L.4.5)
• Accidental action (see L.4.6)
• Fatigue actions (see L.4.7)
Each mode of operation, such as production, work over, or, combinations thereof, shall be considered.
The unit may be designed to function in a number of operational modes, e.g. operational and survival.
Limiting design criteria for going from one mode of operation to another mode of operation shall be clearly
established and documented.

L.3 STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND MATERIAL SELECTION

L.3.1 Structural classification
Selection of steel quality, and requirements for inspection of welds, shall be based on a systematic
classification of welded joints according to the structural significance and the complexity of the
joints/connections as documented in Chapter 5.
In addition to in-service operational phases, consideration shall be given to structural members and details
utilised for temporary conditions, e.g. fabrication, lifting arrangements, towing arrangements, etc.
Basic Considerations
Structural connections in ship shaped units designed in accordance with this Annex will normally not fall
within the categorisation criteria relevant for Design Class DC1 or DC2. In particular, relevant failure of a
single weld, or element, should not lead to a situation where the accidental limit state damaged condition is
not satisfied. Structural connections will therefore be categorised within classification groups DC3, DC4 or
DC5.
Consideration shall be given to address areas where through thickness tensile properties may be required.
Special consideration shall be given to ensure the appropriate inspection category for welds with high
utilisation in fatigue if the coverage with standard local area allocation is insufficient.
Examples of typical design classes applicable to ship shaped units are stated below. These examples
provide minimum requirements and are not intended to restrict the designer in applying more stringent
requirements should such requirements be desirable.
Typical locations - Design class : DC3

• Structure in way of moonpool
• Structure in way of turret, fairlead and winches supporting structure
• Highly stressed areas in way of main supporting structures of heavy substructures and equipment e.g.
anchor line fairleads, cranes substructure, gantry, topside support stools, flare boom, helicopter deck,
davits, hawser brackets for shuttle tanker, towing brackets etc.
DC3 areas may be limited to local, highly stresses areas if the stress gradient at such connections is large.

In general all main loadbearing structural elements not described as DC3, such as:
• Longitudinal structure
• Transverse bulkheads
• Transverse frames an stringers
• Turret structure
• Accommodation

Non main loadbearing structural elements, such as:
• Non-watertight bulkheads,
• Tween decks
• Internal outfitting structure in general
• other non-loadbearing components
L.3.2 Material selection

Material specifications shall be established for all structural materials utilised in a ship shaped unit. Such
materials shall be suitable for their intended purpose and have adequate properties in all relevant design
conditions. Material selection shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles given in NORSOK M-
001.
When considering criteria appropriate to material grade selection, adequate consideration shall be given to
all relevant phases in the life cycle of the unit. In this connection there may be conditions and criteria, other
than those from the in-service, operational phase, that provide the design requirements in respect to the

selection of material. (Such criteria may, for example, be design temperature and/or stress levels during
marine operations.)
Selection of steel quality for structural components shall normally be based on the most stringent Design
Class of the joints involving the component.
Requirements to through-thickness strength shall be assessed.
The evaluation of structural resistance shall include relevant account of variations in material properties for
the selected material grade. (e.g. Variation in yield stress as a function of thickness of the base material).
L.3.3 Inspection categories

Welding, and the extent of non-destructive examination during fabrication, shall be in accordance with the
requirements stipulated for the appropriate 'inspection category' as defined in NORSOK, M-101.
The lower the extent of NDT selected, the more important is the representativeness of the NDT selected and
performed. The designer should therefore exercise good engineering judgement in indicating priorities of
locations for NDT, where variation of utility along welds is significant.
L.3.4 Guidance to minimum requirements

The following figures illustrate minimum requirements to selection of Design Class and Inspection Category
for typical structural configurations of ship shaped units. The indicated Design Class and Inspection
Categories should be regarded as guidance of how to apply the recommendations in chapter 5.
Transverse buttweld
DC4, B - External above min. inspection draught, and internal.
A - External below min. inspection draught.
Longitudinal buttweld
1)
DC4, C - External below min. inspection draught.
D - External above min. inspection draught,
and internal.
Figure L.3-1 Example of typical design classes and inspection categories for butt welds in the
midship area
Key:
1. [DCn, ..] Design Class, n
2. [….., N] Inspection Category, N
Notes:
1. Inspection draught see L.7.3

2. The selection of the inspection categories is made on the following assumptions with reference to Table
5.3 and 5.4:
Transverse buttwelds, external above min. insp. draught and internal High fatigue, (ref. Table 5.4),
dominating dynamic principal
stress transverse to the weld.
Transverse buttwelds, below min. insp. draught High fatigue, (ref. Table 5.4),
dominating dynamic principal
stress transverse to the weld. No access
for in-service inspection and repair.
Longitudinal buttwelds, external above min insp. draught and internal Low fatigue, low tensile stress
transverse to the weld.
Longitudinal buttwelds, below min. insp. draught Low fatigue, low tensile stress,
transverse to the weld. No access
for in-service inspection and repair.

C
L DC4, B
Welds between DC4, B

transverse frames,
stringer/girder and
internal structure
in general DC4, D.
DC4, B
DC4, B DC4, C - External below min. inspection draught

D - External above min. inspection draught and internal
(typ. longitudinal weld)
Typ. transverse
frame bracket
DC4, B
Similar for stringers

on transverse bulkheads
MPI Mandatory in way of toe

Figure L.3-2 Example of typical design classes and inspection categories for the transverse frames
in the midship area
Key:
Notes:
1. Inspection draft see L.7.3
2. The Design Classes and Inspection Categories should be applied along the whole length of the welds
3. For welds of longitudinal girders and stringers MPI should be mandatory in way of transverse frame
intersection.

MPI. Mandatory
MPI Mandatory
1)
DC4, C
MPI Mandatory
2)
DC4 D
Figure L.3-3 Example of typical design classes and inspection categories longitudinal stiffeners
connection to transverse frames / bulkheads
Key:
Notes:
1. The selected inspection class is relevant for a high fatigue loading with principal stresses parallel to the
weld and assuming in-service access (see table 5.4)
2. The selected inspection class is relevant for a low fatigue joint with low tensile stresses perpendicular to
the weld

MPI Mandatory 2)
DC4 C - External below min. inspection draught 1), 3)

Longitudinal
D - External above min. inspection draught
and internal
MPI Mandatory in way of toe (typical)

2)
DC4, D
DC4, C
2)
Transverse frame/
Bulkhead
Figure L.3-4 Example of design classes and inspection categories longitudinal stiffeners connection
to transverse frames / bulkheads
Key:
Notes:
1. Inspection draft see L.7.3
2. The proposed inspection categories are relevant for high fatigue loading, for longitudinal stiffener in the
sideshell.
3. The proposed inspection categories are relevant for low fatigue loading with low tensile stresses
transverse to the weld, and no access for repair below min. inspection draught.

L.4 DESIGN ACTIONS

L.4.1 General
Characteristic actions shall be used as reference actions in the partial coefficient method.
Design actions relevant for ship shaped units are in general defined in NORSOK N-003. Guidance
concerning action categories relevant for ship shaped unit designs are given in the following.
Design action criteria dictated by operational requirements shall be fully considered. Examples of such
requirements may be:
• drilling (if applicable), production, workover and combination thereof,
• consumable re-supply procedures and frequency,
• maintenance procedures and frequency,
• possible action changes in extreme conditions.
L.4.2 Permanent actions (G)

Permanent actions are actions that will not vary in magnitude, position or direction during the period
considered. Permanent actions relevant for ship shaped unit designs are:
• 'lightmass' of the unit including mass of permanently installed modules and equipment, such as
accommodation, helideck, cranes, drilling (if applicable) and production equipment,
• hydrostatic pressures resulting from buoyancy,
• pretension in respect to mooring, drilling (if applicable) and production systems (e.g. mooring lines, risers
etc.).
L.4.3 Variable actions (Q)

Variable actions are actions that may vary in magnitude, position and direction during the period under
consideration.
Except where analytical procedures or design specifications otherwise require, the value of the variable
actions utilised in structural design should normally be taken as either the lower or upper design value,
whichever gives the more unfavourable effect. Variable actions on deck areas for local, primary and global
design are stated in NORSOK, N-003. For global design the factor to be applied to primary design actions
(as stated NORSOK, N-001) is not, however, intended to limit the variable load carrying capacity of the unit
in respect to non-relevant, variable load combinations. Global load cases should be established based upon
'worst case', representative variable load combinations, where the limiting global criteria is established by
compliance with the requirements to intact and damage hydrostatic and hydrodynamic stability.
Global design action conditions, and associated limiting criteria, shall be documented in the stability manual
for the unit, see L.9.
Variations in operational mass distributions (including variations in tank filling conditions) shall be adequately
accounted for in the structural design.
Local design actions for all decks shall be documented on a ‘load-plan’. This plan shall clearly show the
design uniform and concentrated actions for all deck areas for each relevant mode of operation.
Dynamic actions resulting from flow through air pipes during filling operations shall be adequately considered
in the design of tank structures.
L.4.4 Deformation actions (D)

Deformation actions resulting from construction procedures and sequences (e.g. as a result of welding
sequences, forced alignments of structure etc.) shall be accounted for when relevant.
Other relevant deformation action effects may include those resulting from temperature gradients, as for
example:
• when hot-oil is stored in the cargo tanks,
• radiation from flaring operations.
Deflection imparted to topside structure due to G, Q or EA actions acting on the ship hull, shall not be
considered as deformation actions.

L.4.5 Environmental actions (EA)

Environmental actions are actions caused by environmental phenomena. The characteristic value of an
environmental action is the maximum or minimum value (whichever is the most unfavourable) corresponding
to an action effect with a prescribed probability of exceedance.
Environmental conditions shall be described using relevant data for the relevant period and areas in which
the ship shaped unit is to be fabricated, transported, installed and operated.
The long-term variation of environmental phenomena such as wind, waves and current shall be described by
recognised statistical distributions relevant to the environmental parameter considered, (NORSOK N-003).
Information on the joint probability of the various environmental actions may be taken into account if such
information is available and can be adequately documented.
Consideration shall be given to responses resulting from the following listed environmental induced action
effects that may be relevant for the design of a ship shaped unit:
• wave actions acting on the hull, (including variable sea pressure)
• wind actions,
• current actions,
• temperature actions,
• snow and ice actions.
• dynamic stresses for all limit states (e.g. with respect to fatigue see L.4.7)
• rigid body motion (e.g. in respect to air gap and maximum angles of inclination),
• sloshing,
• slamming (e.g. on bow and bottom in fore and aft ship)
• green water on the deck
• vortex induced vibrations (e.g. resulting from wind actions on structural elements in a flare tower),
• wear resulting from environmental actions at mooring and riser system interfaces with hull structures,
For ship shaped units with traditional, catenary mooring systems, earthquake actions may normally be
ignored.
Further considerations in respect to environmental actions are given in NORSOK, N-003.
Analytical considerations with regard to evaluation of global response resulting from environmental action
components are stated in L.5.
L.4.5.1 Mooring actions

A unit may be kept on station by various methods, depending on specific site criteria and operational goals.
These methods may include several different types of station-keeping systems such as internal and
submerged turret systems, external turret, CALM buoy, fixed spread mooring and dynamic positioning. Each
mooring system configuration will impose actions into the hull structure which are characteristic to that
system. These actions shall be addressed in the structural design of the unit, and combined with other
relevant action components. Only mooring arrangements, which allows weather vaning of the unit, are
covered by this annex.
L.4.5.2 Sloshing actions in tanks

Merchant ships are normally operated so that cargo tanks are typically either nearly full or nearly empty. For
a floating production unit, in general, no restrictions should be imposed on partly filling of cargo tanks, and
some cargo tanks may be partially filled most of the time. For partially filled tanks, the phenomenon of
resonant liquid motion (sloshing) inside the tank should be considered.
Sloshing is defined as a dynamic magnification of internal pressures acting on the boundaries of cargo tanks
and on internal structure within the tank, to a level greater than that obtained from static considerations
alone. Sloshing occurs if the natural periods of the fluid and the vessel motions are close to each other.
Major factors governing the occurrence of sloshing are:
• tank dimensions
• tank filling levels
• structural arrangements inside the tank (wash bulkheads, web frames etc.)
• transverse and longitudinal metacentric height (GM)
• vessel draught
• natural periods of ship and cargo in roll (transverse) and pitch (longitudinal) modes.

The pressure fields created by sloshing of the cargo/ballast may be considered, according to the
requirements given in DNV-OS-C102 /12/. The DNV Rules differentiate between ordinary sloshing loads
-8
(non-impact) and sloshing impact actions. To arrive at 100 year return period impact pressures, the 10
values should be multiplied by a factor 1.15.
For units to be operated in severe environments, direct calculation of sloshing pressures using site-specific
criteria, should be considered.
L.4.5.3 Green water effect

The green water effect is the overtopping by water in severe wave conditions. Significant amounts of green
water will influence the deck structural design, accommodation superstructure, equipment design and layout,
and may induce vibrations in the hull. Normally the forward part of the deck and areas aft of midship will be
most severe exposed to green water. Short wave periods are normally most critical.
Appropriate measures should be considered to avoid or minimize green water effects on the ship structure
and topside equipment. These measures include bow shape design, bow flare, breakwaters and other
protective structure. Adequate drainage arrangements shall be provided.
Exposed structural members or topside equipment on the weather deck shall be designed to withstand the
loads induced by green water. For (horizontal) weather deck structural members this load will mainly be the
hydrostatic load from the green water. For horizontal or vertical topside members this load will mainly be the
dynamic action from the green water rushing over the deck.
In lack of more exact information, for example from model testing, relevant technical requirements of the
DNV-OS-C102 /12/ may be applied.
L.4.5.4 Slamming in the fore and aft ship

Slamming is impact from waves which give rise to an impulsive pressure from the water, resulting in a
dynamic transient action (whipping) of the hull. The most important locations to be considered with respect to
slamming are the forward bottom structure, the bow flare and accommodation structure in the fore ship.
Slamming forces should be taken into account in the turret design when relevant. Other locations on the hull
e.g. exposed parts of the aft ship, which may be subject to wave impacts should be considered in each
separate case.
The frequency of occurrence and severity of slamming are significantly influenced by the following:
• vessel draught,
• hull geometrical form,
• site environment,
• heading,
• forward speed (including current)
• position of superstructure.
The effects of slamming on the structure shall be considered in design particularly with regard to
enhancement of global hull girder bending moments and shear forces induced by slamming, local strength
aspects and limitations to ballast draft conditions.
In lack of more exact information, for example from model testing, relevant requirements of the DNV Rules
for Classification of Ships, /3/, may be applied:
• for bottom slamming in the ship fore body, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 6, Bottom Structures, H200,
Strengthening against slamming
• for bow flare slamming in the ship fore body, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 7, Side Structures, E100,
Strengthening against bow impact.
• for bottom slamming in the ship aft body, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 7, Side Structures, E200, Stern
slamming
For bottom slamming in the ship fore body, in order to account for:
• 100 year return period
• Main wave direction head waves
• Long crested waves

the expression for coefficient c2 in Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 6, Bottom Structures, H200, Strengthening
against slamming, should be changed to:
 12TBF 
c 2 = 16751 − 
 L 
For bow flare slamming, in order to account for:
the expression for bow flare slamming pressures in the ship fore body, Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 7, Side
Structures, E103, are to be multiplied by a factor:
2
 25 
fac = 1 + 
 L
The applicable speed V is not to be taken less than 8 knots.
For bottom slamming in the ship aft body, in order to account for:
the expression for stern slamming pressure in Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 7, Side Structures, E203, are to be
multiplied by a factor:
2
 25 
fac = 1 + 
 L
The resulting slamming impact pressures or bow impact pressures shall be multiplied by a factor 0.375 if
they are to be applied as a mean pressure over a larger area (applicable for global structural evaluation).
L.4.6 Accidental actions (A)

In the design phase particular attention should be given to layout and arrangements of facilities and
equipment in order to minimise the adverse effects of accidental events.
Risk analyses shall be undertaken to identify and assess accidental events that may occur and the
consequences of such events. Structural design criteria for the ALS condition are identified from the risk
analyses. Generally, the following ALS events are those required to be considered in respect to the structural
design of a ship shaped unit :
• dropped objects (e.g. from crane handling),
• fire,
• explosion,
• collision,
• unintended flooding and counterflooding situations, and,
• abnormal wave events.
The counterflooding situations shall consider the possible loading conditions after an unintended flooding
has occurred, to compensate for the heeling resulting from such flooding.
Further considerations in respect to accidental actions are given in Chapters 9 and Annex A.
L.4.7 Fatigue actions (F)

Repetitive actions, which may lead to possible significant fatigue damage, shall be evaluated. In respect to a
ship shaped unit, the following listed sources of cyclic response shall, where relevant, be considered:
• waves (including those actions caused by dynamic pressure, sloshing / slamming and variable
buoyancy),
• wind (especially when vortex induced vibration may occur),
• mechanical vibration (e.g. caused by operation of machinery),

• crane actions,
• full / empty variation of filling level in cargo tanks (low cycle).
The effects of both local and global dynamic response shall be properly accounted for when determining
response distributions of repetitive action effects.
L.4.8 Combination of actions

Action coefficients and action combinations for the design limit states are, in general, given in NORSOK, N-
003.
Structural strength shall be evaluated considering all relevant, realistic action conditions and combinations.
Scantlings shall be determined on the basis of criteria that combine, in a rational manner, the effects of
relevant global and local responses for each individual structural element.
A sufficient number of load conditions shall be evaluated to ensure that the most probable largest (or
smallest) response, for the appropriate return period, has been established. (For example, maximum global,
characteristic responses for a ship shaped unit may occur in environmental conditions that are not
associated with the characteristic, largest, wave height. In such cases, wave period and associated wave
steepness parameters are more likely to be governing factors in the determination of maximum/minimum
responses.)

L.5 STRUCTURAL RESPONSE

L.5.1 General
The structure shall as a minimum comply with the technical requirements of the DNV Rules for Ship, /3/, Pt.3
Ch.1, see L.2.1, as applicable to a normally trading ship. In addition, the dynamic actions to which the hull
may be subjected will vary from those associated with seagoing trading ships, and will require assessment.
This assessment may be based on results of model testing and/or by suitable direct calculation methods of
the actual wave actions on the hull at the service location, taking into account relevant service related
factors. When the design is based on direct calculations, the software used should have been verified by
model testing.
Sufficient action conditions for all anticipated pre-service and in-service conditions shall be determined and
analysed to evaluate the most unfavourable design cases for the hull girder global and local strength
analysis.
For units intended for multi field developments the most onerous still water and site specific environmental
actions shall be considered for the design. The action conditions shall be stated in the Operating Manual,
see L.10.6.
The units shall comply with requirements taking into account site specific service. Factors which may
influence the hull actions and shall be accounted for, include the following:
• Site specific environmental conditions
• Effect of mooring system
• Long term service at a fixed location
• Seas approaching predominantly from a narrow sector ahead
• Zero ship speed
• Range of operating action conditions
• Tank inspection requirements
• Different return period requirements compared with normal trading tankers
Site specific environment; for ship shaped units of normal form, strength standards set by RCS are based on
criteria relating to a world-wide trading pattern.
Effect of mooring system; static and dynamic mooring and riser actions can be substantial. Their effects on
the hull girder longitudinal bending moments and shear forces shall be accounted for in the design
calculations.
Long term service at a fixed location; seagoing ships would generally spend a proportion of their time in
sheltered water conditions. Permanently moored units would normally remain on station all the time and
disconnectable units would only move off station in certain conditions and would generally remain in the local
area. In addition the expectation of the field life may be in excess of 20 years. This shall be accounted for
e.g. in the design of corrosion protection systems.
Seas approaching from a narrow sector ahead; for seagoing ships in severe weather, steps would generally
be taken to minimise the effects of such conditions such as altering course or alternative routing. Moored
production/storage units cannot take avoiding action and will weathervane due to the combined effects of
waves, wind and current, resulting in a greater proportion of waves approaching from bow sector directions.
Zero ship speed; the effect of forward ship speed would enhance static predictions of hull bending moments
and shear forces and other factors such as slamming. Due to zero forward speed this enhancement would
not apply to moored production/storage units.
Range of operating action conditions; ocean going tankers traditionally have a fairly limited range of
operational action conditions and would typically be “fully” loaded or in ballast. Due to their oil storage
capability moored units however potentially have an almost unlimited range of action conditions. These
effectively cover a full spectrum of cases from ballast through intermediate conditions to fully loaded
returning to ballast via offloading.
Tank inspection requirements; ocean-going ships would generally be taken to dry dock for periodic survey
and repair. Moored units can be inspected on station. Thus a full range of conditions covering each tank
empty in turn, and tank sections empty should be addressed as appropriate for necessary access for
inspection and maintenance. These conditions should be combined with appropriate site-specific
environmental actions.

Different return period requirements compared with normal trading tankers; normal ship class rule
requirements are based on providing adequate safety margins based on a 20 years return period. This
standard specifies that the design shall be based on data having a return period of 100 years for the site
specific action conditions.
Taking into consideration the conditions listed above, calculations shall be carried out to address all design
action conditions including fully loaded, intermediate operating conditions, minimum loaded condition,
inspection conditions with each tank empty in turn, etc. Still water bending moment and shear force
distributions shall be calculated for each case and stated in the Operating Manual, see L.10.6.
L.5.2 Analysis models
L.5.2.1 General
Analysis models relevant for in-place ULS and FLS are described in this chapter.
The finite element modelling of the hull structure should be carried out according with principles given in the
following. Four typical modelling levels are described below. Other equivalent modelling procedures may
also be applied.
L.5.2.2 Global structural model (Model level 1)

In this model a relatively coarse mesh extending over the entire hull should be used. The overall stiffness of
the primary members of the hull shall be reflected in the model. The mesh should be fine enough to
satisfactorily take account of the following:
• Vertical hull girder bending including shear lag effects
• Vertical shear distribution between ship side and bulkheads
• Stress distribution around large penetrations such as the moonpool
• Horizontal hull girder bending including shear lag effects
• Termination of longitudinal members
The models should be used for analysing global wave response and still water response where found
relevant.
L.5.2.3 Cargo tank model (Model level 2)

The cargo tank analysis shall be used to analyse local response of the primary hull structural members in the
cargo area, due to relevant internal and external action combinations. The extent of the structural model
shall be decided considering structural arrangements and action conditions.
The mesh fineness shall be decided based on the method of action application in the model. The model
should normally include plating, stiffeners, girders, stringers, web-frames and major brackets. For units with
topside the stiffness should be considered in the tank modelling. In some cases the topside structure should
be included in the model.
The cargo tank model may be included in the global structural model, see L.5.2.2.
The finite element model should normally cover the considered tank, and one half tank outside each end of
the considered tank. The effect of non-structural elements in the topside may introduce additional stiffness
and should be considered.
Conditions of symmetry should as far as possible, be applied at each end of the finite element model. The
model should be supported vertically by distributed springs at the intersections of the transverse bulkheads
with ship sides and longitudinal bulkheads. The spring constants shall be calculated for each longitudinal
bulkhead and ship sides based on actual bending and shear stiffness and for a model length of three tanks.
If horizontal unbalanced loads are applied to the model in transverse direction e.g. heeling conditions,
horizontal spring supports should be applied at the intersections of all continuous horizontal structural
members.
The following basic actions are normally to be considered for the ULS condition:
• Cargo and ballast loading, static and dynamic
• External sea pressure, static and dynamic
• Topside loading, vertical static and dynamic and also horizontal acceleration actions
These ULS responses are to be combined with global stresses, see L.5.2.2.
The following basic actions are normally to be analysed in this model for the FLS condition:
• Dynamic cargo and ballast actions

• External sea pressure range

• Topside loading, vertical dynamic and also horizontal acceleration actions
These FLS responses are to be combined with global stresses, see L.5.2.2.
L.5.2.4 Turret analysis (Model level 2)

A finite element model should be made of the turret structure. The model should reflect the geometry and
stiffness of the structure. A model with relatively coarse mesh may be used.
In cases where the stress distribution in the moonpool is dependent of the relative stiffness between unit hull
and turret a model comprising both the unit hull and the turret should be made.
Modelling of interface areas may require finer mesh and use of gap elements etc. to describe the actual
stress flow.
Following actions should normally be considered:
• Static and dynamic actions from the turret itself
• Mooring actions
• Riser actions
The analysis should cover both the ULS and the FLS condition.
L.5.2.5 Local structural analysis (Model level 3)

The purpose of the local structural analysis is to analyse laterally loaded local stiffeners (including brackets)
subject to large relative deformations between girders.
The following typical areas should be given particular attention:
• Longitudinal stiffeners between transverse bulkhead and the first frame at each side of the bulkhead
• Vertical stiffeners at transverse bulkheads with horizontal stringers in way of inner bottom and deck
connection
• Horizontal stiffeners at transverse bulkheads with vertical stringers in way of inner side and longitudinal
bulkhead connection
• Corrugated bulkhead connections
Local structural models may be included in the cargo tank analysis or run separately with prescribed
boundary deformations or boundary forces from the tank model.
L.5.2.6 Stress concentration models (Model level 4)

For fatigue assessment, fine element mesh models shall be made for critical stress concentration details, for
details not sufficiently covered by stress concentration factors given in recognised standards, see Annex C.
In some cases detailed element mesh models may be necessary for ultimate limit state assessment in order
to check maximum peak stresses and the possibility of repeated yielding.
The following typical areas may have to be considered:
• Hopper knuckles in way of web frames
• Topside support stools
• Details in way of the moonpool
• Other large penetrations in longitudinal loadbearing elements
• Longitudinal bulkhead terminations
• Stiffener terminations
• Other transition areas when large change in stiffness occur
The size of the model should be of such extent that the calculated stresses in the hot spots are not
significantly affected by the assumptions made for the boundary conditions.
Element size for stress concentration analyses is to be in the order of the plate thickness. Normally, shell
elements may be used for the analysis. The correlation between different actions such as global bending,
external and internal fluid pressure and acceleration of the topside should be considered in the fatigue
assessment. For further details reference is made to DNV Classification Note 30.7, /11/.
The correlation between different actions such as global bending, external and internal fluid pressure and
acceleration of the topside should be considered in the fatigue assessment.

L.5.3 Calculation of wave induced actions

According to Recognised Classification Society Rules, normal trading ships are designed according to the
following environmental criteria:
• North Atlantic wave condition, 20 year return period
• Short crested sea
• Same probability for all wave directions relative to the ship
Specific requirements for weather vaning units covered by this Annex are given below.
L.5.3.1 General
Global linear wave induced actions such as bending moments and shear forces should be calculated by
using either strip theory or three dimensional sink source (diffraction) formulation. Strip theory is a slender
body theory and is not recommend when the length over beam ratio is less than 3.
Generally, the most importance global responses are midship vertical bending moments and vertical shear
forces in the fore and aft body of the unit and the associated vertical bending moments. These responses
should be calculated for head sea conditions. Horizontal and torsional moments may be of interest
depending on the structural design, alone and in combination with other action components.
The calculation of wave induced actions may follow the following steps:
• Calculation of the relevant transfer functions (RAOs)
• Calculation of the 100 year linear response
• Evaluation of non-linear effects
When a 3-D diffraction program is used, the hydrodynamic model shall consist of sufficient number of facets.
In general, the facets should be sufficiently modelled to describe the unit in a propitiate way. The size of the
facets shall be determined with due consideration to the shortest wave length included in the hydrodynamic
analysis. Smaller facets should be used in way of the water surface.
The mass model shall be made sufficiently detailed to give centre of gravity, roll radius of inertia and mass
distribution as correct as practically possible.
L.5.3.2 Transfer functions

The following wave induced linear responses should be calculated:
• Motions in six degrees of freedom.
• Vertical bending moment at a sufficient number of positions along the hull. The positions have to include
the areas where the maximum vertical bending moment and shear force occur and at the turret position.
The vertical wave induced bending moment shall be calculated with respect to the section’s neutral axis.
• Horizontal and torsional moment if applicable.
The linear transfer functions shall be calculated by either strip or 3D sink –source (diffraction) theory. The
responses shall be calculated for a sufficient number of wave periods in the range from 4 – 35 seconds. For
short crested sea at least seven directions in a sector ± 90º relative to head sea, with maximum 30º interval,
should be considered.
L.5.3.3 Viscous damping

If roll resonance occurs within the range of wave periods likely to be encountered, the effect of non-linear
viscous roll damping should be taken into account. The damping coefficients that are derived within linear
potential theory reflect the energy loss in the system due to generation of surface waves from the ship
motions. However, in the case of roll motion some special treatment is necessary.
Viscous effects, such as the production of eddies around the hull, will mainly act as a damping mechanism,
especially at large roll angles, and these effects should be included. Furthermore, the effects from roll
damping devices, like bilge keels, should be evaluated. The roll damping shall be evaluated for the return
period in question. The sea state in question may be considered when the damping is calculated.
L.5.3.4 Extreme wave induced responses

Extreme wave induced responses shall be long term responses. The standard method for calculation of the
100-year wave induced long term responses (e.g. vertical moment and shear force) shall use a scatter
diagram in combination with a wave spectrum (e.g. Jonswap) and RAOs.Short term predictions of the
responses are to be calculated for all significant wave heights (Hs) and peak (Tp) or zero up-crossing (Tz)
periods combinations within the scatter diagram. A Weibull distribution is fitted to the resulting range of the

responses against probability of occurrence. This Weibull distribution is used to determine the response with
a probability of occurrence corresponding to once every 100 years (100 year return period).
The short crested nature of the sea may be taken into account as a wave spreading function as given in
NORSOK N-003.
The method described above is considered most accurate for estimating the 100-year value for the response
in question. A short-term analysis based on the predicted 100-year wave height with corresponding Tz, will
give comparable values if the following criteria are satisfied:
• The scatter diagram should be well developed with wave steepness approaching a constant value for the
most extreme sea states
• The maximum wave induced response shall occur in a short term sea sate which is retraceable from the
scatter diagram with a 100 year wave height steepness
• The Weibull fit to predict the response shall be good fit with low residual sum (deviations from the
regressed line)
It should be noted that the method of calculating the 100-year wave induced response for a short-term sea
state based upon the predicted 100 year wave height with corresponding single value Tz or Tp does not
recognise that there are a range of possible Tz.(Tp). Therefore the range of possible Tz (Tp) within the 100-
year return period should be investigated. The range of sea states with a 100 year return period should be
found by developing a 100 year contour line from the scatter diagram. The wave bending moment should be
calculated for several sea states on this contour line in order to find the maximum value.
L.5.3.5 Non-linear effects

Linear calculations as described above do not differentiate between sagging and hogging responses. The
non-linearities shall be taken into account for the vertical bending moments and shear forces. The non-linear
effects come from integration of the wave pressure over the instantaneous position of the hull relative to the
waves, with the inclusion of bottom slamming, bow flare forces and deck wetness. These effects generally
result in a reduction in hogging response and an increase in the sagging response (midship moment and
shear fore in the fore body) compared with the linear response.

L.6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES (ULS)

L.6.1 Global strength
L.6.1.1 General
Ultimate strength capacity check shall be performed for all structure contributing directly to the longitudinal
and transverse strength of the ship. Structure to be checked is all plates and continuous stiffeners including
the following structure:
• Main deck, bottom and inner bottom
• Ship side, inner ship side and longitudinal bulkheads
• Stringers and longitudinal girders
• Foundations of turret and topside structure
• Transverse bulkheads
• Transverse web frames
Global actions on the hull girder shall be calculated by direct wave analyses, see L.5.3. Longitudinal wave
bending moments, shear forces and dynamic external sea pressures should be calculated by a wave load
analysis. Design accelerations should also be based on a wave load analysis. For unconventional designs
torsional effects may also be of importance. The design moments, forces, pressures and accelerations shall
be calculated for a representative number of sections.
Stillwater shear forces and bending moments should be calculated by direct analyses, taking in account all
relevant loading conditions.
Internal static and dynamic pressures can be calculated by simplified formulas, see L.6.1.4.
Local stresses should be calculated by FE-analyses of relevant parts of the ship, see L.5.2. All relevant load
conditions should be taken in account.
The hull girder strength shall be evaluated for relevant combinations of still water bending moment and shear
force, and wave induced bending moment and shear force. The wave-induced bending moments and shear
forces shall be calculated by means of an analysis carried out utilising the appropriate statistical site specific
environmental data. Relevant non-linear action effects shall be accounted for, see L.5.3.
The following design format shall be applied:
γSMS + γwMw < MG/γM (L.6.1)
γSQS + γwQw < QG/γM (L.6.2)
where:
MG = Characteristic bending moment resistance of the hull girder calculated as an elastic beam
MS = Characteristic design still water bending moment based on actual cargo and ballast
conditions
-2
MW = Characteristic wave bending moment. Annual probability of exceedance of 10 .
QG = Characteristic shear resistance of the hull girder calculated as an elastic beam
QS = Characteristic design still water shear force based on actual cargo and ballast conditions
-2
QW = Characteristic wave shear force. Annual probability of exceedance of 10 .
γM = Material factor
γS = Permanent and variable action factor
γW = Environmental action factor
The action factors shall be in accordance with NORSOK N-001, see also Table L.6-1:

Table L.6-1
Action γS γW
combinations
a 1.3 0.7
b 1.0 1.3
For combination of actions an action coefficient of 1.0 shall be applied for permanent actions where this
gives the most unfavourable response.
The action coefficient for environmental actions may be reduced to 1.15 in action combination b, when the
maximum stillwater bending moment represents between 20 and 50 % of the total bending moment. This
reduction is applicable for the entire hull, both for shear forces and bending moments.
The action coefficient for permanent actions in action combination a, may be reduced to 1.2, if actions and
responses are determined with great accuracy e.g. limited by the air-pipe height, and external static pressure
to well defined draught.
Gross scantlings may be utilised in the calculation of hull structural resistance, provided a corrosion
protection system in accordance with NORSOK N-001, is maintained.
The buckling resistance of the different plate panels shall be considered according to Section 8.
The global and local longitudinal stress components shall be combined in an appropriate manner with
transverse stress and shear stress as relevant, see L.6.1.5.
L.6.1.2 Calculation of global stresses

Global longitudinal stresses should be calculated by FE-analysis, see L.5.2. For parallel parts of the midship,
a simplified calculation of the hull girder section modulus can be performed. For units with moonpool / turret,
a FE-analysis shall be carried out to describe the stress distribution in way of the openings, in particular in
way of deck and bottom, and at termination of longitudinal strength elements. Global shear stresses shall be
calculated considering the shear flow distribution in the hull.
L.6.1.3 Calculation of local transverse and longitudinal stresses

Local transverse and longitudinal stresses shall be superimposed with the global longitudinal stresses. Local
stresses should be taken from a FEM analysis of a typical cargo area, see L.5.2. Phase information should
be taken into account when available.
The FEM analysis shall include extreme hogging and sagging conditions as described in
Figure L.6-1. All relevant variations in tank filling should be considered in the analysis and reflected in the
Operation Manual. The following stress components can be found from the FEM analysis, and should be
combined with other stress components as described in L.6.1.5:
• Transverse stresses in webframes
• Double shell and double bottom stresses
• Local shear stresses in panels

TYPICAL LOADS AT MIDSHIPS

SAGGING CONDITION
TYPICAL LOADS AT MIDSHIPS

HOGGING CONDITION
Figure L.6-1 Typical extreme sagging and hogging conditions

L.6.1.4 Calculation of local pressures
Sea pressure :
The dynamic sea pressure should be taken from a 3D hydrodynamic wave analysis. Action coefficients
according to L.6.1.1 shall be considered.
Tank pressure:
The internal tank pressure shall be calculated in accordance with NORSOK N-003.
L.6.1.5 Combination of stresses

Total longitudinal design stress in the structure can be calculated as:
σx, Total = σx,Global + σx, Local (L.6.3)
Total transverse design stress in the structure is found directly from the FE-analysis:
σy, Total = σy, Local + σy, Global (L.6.4)
σy, Global is normally relevant for the moonpool / turret area, and may be neglected in parallel parts of the
midship.
Total design shear stress in the structure can be calculated as:
τx, Total = τGlobal + τ Local (L.6.5)
The combination of stresses should take into account actual stress directions and phase. However, if phase
information is limited or uncertain, the maximum design value for each component may be combined as a
‘worst-case’ scenario.
Combination of typical stress components is shown in Figure L.6-2.

Figure L.6-2 Typical stress components acting on the hull beam.
L.6.1.6 Transverse structural strength

Transverse strength refers to the ability of the hull to resist lateral pressure and racking actions in
combination with longitudinal action effects. This resistance is provided by means of transverse bulkheads,
web frames, girders and stringers. Transverse strength should be evaluated using a finite element model of
a specific portion of the hull, and the effects of process equipment deck actions should be included. The
transverse strength shall meet the requirements given in L.6.1. The lateral pressure due to waves should be
predicted using the hydrodynamic motion analysis approach, see L.5.3.
L.6.1.7 Capacity check

Capacity checks shall be performed in accordance with Chapter 6.
L.6.2 Local structural strength

Local structure not taking part of the overall strength of the unit may be designed in accordance with
technical requirements given in the DNV Rules for Ships, Pt.3 Ch.1, /3/. Such structure may be in the
following areas:
• Fore Ship.
• Aft Ship.
• Superstructure e.g. Process Deck and Accommodation.
For evaluation of slamming, sloshing and green sea effects, see L.4.5.2, L.4.5.3 and L.4.5.4.

L.6.3 Turret and turret area / moonpool
L.6.3.1 General
The following areas shall be considered as relevant, with respect to structural response from the mooring
actions, combined with other relevant actions:
• Structure in way of moonpool opening in the ship hull.
• Turret structure including support, towards the unit hull.
• Structure in way of loading buoy support.
• Gantry structure including support.
L.6.3.2 Structure in way of moonpool opening in the unit hull

The structural strength shall be evaluated considering all relevant, realistic action conditions and
combinations, see L.4. In particular action combinations due to the following shall be accounted for in the
design:
• Turret bearing reactions.
• Overall hull bending moments and shear forces.
• Internal and external pressure actions, covering the intended range of draughts and action conditions,
including non-symmetric cases as applicable.
Finite element analyses shall be carried out. Particular attention shall be given to critical interfaces.
Functional limitations (bearing function) and structural strength shall be evaluated.
Continuity of primary longitudinal structural elements should be maintained as far as practicable in way of the
turret opening. Reductions in hull section modulus shall be kept at a minimum and compensation shall be
made where necessary.
L.6.3.3 Turret structure

A FEM analysis of the turret structure shall be performed, see L.5.2.4, demonstrating that the structural
strength of the turret is acceptable. The structural strength shall be evaluated considering all relevant,
realistic action conditions and combinations, see L.4. In particular, action combinations due to the following
actions (as applicable) shall be accounted for in the design:
• Unit motion induced accelerations
• Mooring actions
• Riser actions
• Turret bearing reactions (calculated based on all the relevant actions on the turret)
• Moonpool deformations (based on hull bending moments and shear forces)
• Internal and external pressure actions, covering the intended range of draughts and load conditions
including non-symmetric cases as applicable. Filling of void spaces to be accounted for (if relevant).
• Local actions from equipment and piping system (weight, thermal expansion, mechanical actions)
• Green seas
• Wave slamming
Boundary conditions for the model shall reflect the true configuration of the interface towards the unit.
Local analyses, (model level 3 & 4, see L.5.2.5 and L.5.2.6) shall be performed for structural areas, which
are critical for the structural integrity of the turret. The following list contains typical areas which should be
considered:
• Structure in vicinity of riser connection(s)
• Riser hang-off structure
• Structure in way of fairleads
• Hang-off structure for anchor line
• Local structure transferring bearing reactions
• Chain lockers
• Pipe supports (single supports and complex structures)
• Equipment supports
• Foundation for transfer system (especially for swivel solutions)
• Lifting appliances and pad-eyes including structure in way of these

L.6.4 Topside facilities structural support

The structural strength of topside facilities structural support shall be evaluated considering all relevant
action conditions and combinations of actions. Scantlings shall be determined on the basis of criteria, which
combine, in a rational manner, the effects of global and local responses for each structural element.
The following actions shall be considered:
• Permanent actions (weight of structures, process and drilling equipment, piping etc.)
• Live actions (equipment functional actions related to liquid, machinery, piping reaction forces, helicopter,
cranes etc.)
• Wave actions
• Wave accelerations (inertia actions)
• Hull deflections due to tank filling, wave, temperature differences etc.
• Wind
• Snow and ice
• Green sea
L.6.5 Transit conditions

For self-propelled units, requirements given by the RCS (and the flag state) for seagoing ships cover the
transit condition. Due consideration should be made with respect to dynamic actions, in particular due to roll
motion, on the topside equipment.

L.7 FATIGUE LIMIT STATES (FLS)

L.7.1 General
General requirements and guidance concerning fatigue criteria are given in Chapter 8, and Annex C.
Evaluation of the fatigue limit states shall include consideration of all significant actions contributing to fatigue
damage both in non-operational and operational design conditions.
The minimum fatigue life of the unit (before the design fatigue factor is considered) should be based upon a
period of time not being less than the planned life of the structure.
Local effects, for example due to :
• slamming,
• sloshing,
• vortex shedding,
• dynamic pressures, and,
• mooring and riser systems,
shall be included in the fatigue damage assessment when relevant.
Calculations carried out in connection with the fatigue limit state may be undertaken without deducting the
corrosion additions, provided a corrosion protection system in accordance with NORSOK, N-001 is
maintained.
In the assessment of fatigue resistance, relevant consideration shall be given to the effects of stress raisers
(concentrations) including those occurring as a result of :
• fabrication tolerances, (including due regard to tolerances in way of connections of large structural
sections),
• cut-outs,
• details at connections of structural sections (e.g. cut-outs to facilitate construction welding).
L.7.2 Design fatigue factors

Criteria related to Design Fatigue Factors, are given in the Chapter 8. When determining the appropriate
Design Fatigue Factor for a specific fatigue sensitive location, consideration shall be given to the following :
• Consideration of economic consequence of failure may indicate the use of larger design factors than
those provided for as minimum factors.
• The categorisation : ‘Accessible / Above splash zone’ is, intended to refer to fatigue sensitive locations
where the possibility for close-up, detailed inspection in a dry and clean condition exists. When all of
these requirements are not fulfilled, the relevant design fatigue factor should be considered as being that
appropriate for ‘Accessible / Below splash zone’, or, ‘No access or in the splash zone’ as relevant to the
location being considered.
• Evaluation of likely crack propagation paths (including direction and growth rate related to the inspection
interval), may indicate the use of a different Design Fatigue Factor than that which would be selected
when the detail is considered in isolation, such that :
• Where the likely crack propagation indicates that a fatigue failure, from a location satisfying the
requirements for a 'Non-substantial' consequence of failure, may result in a 'Substantial'
consequence of failure, such fatigue sensitive location is itself to be deemed to have a 'Substantial'
consequence of failure.
• Where the likely crack propagation is from a location satisfying the requirement for a given ‘Access
for inspection and repair’ category to a structural element having another access categorisation,
such location is itself to be deemed to have the same categorisation as the most demanding
category when considering the most likely crack path. For example, a weld detail on the inside (dry
space) of a submerged shell plate should be allocated the same Fatigue Design Factor as that
relevant for a similar weld located externally on the plate –see Figure L.7-1.

Figure L.7-1 Example illustrating considerations relevant for selection of design fatigue factors
(DFF’s) in locations considered to have ‘Non-substantial’ consequence of failure.
Notes:
1. Due to economic considerations (e.g. cost of repair to an external underwater structural element) the
DFF’s assigned a value of 2 in Figure L.7-1 may be considered as being more appropriately assigned a
value of 3.)
2. The unit may be considered as “accessible and above the splash zone” (DFF = 1.0), see Annex C, if the
survey extent e.g. given for main class (see DNV Ship Rules Pt.7 Ch.2) is followed i.e. drydocking for
inspection and maintenance every 5 years.
L.7.3 Splash zone

The definition of ‘splash zone’ as given in NORSOK N-003, relates to a highest and lowest tidal reference.
For ship shaped units, for the evaluation of the fatigue limit state, reference to the tidal datum should be
substituted by reference to the draught that is intended to be utilised when condition monitoring is to be
undertaken. The requirement that the extent of the splash zone is to extend 5 m above and 4 m below this
draught may then be applied. (For application of requirements to corrosion addition, however, the normal
operating draught should generally be considered as the reference datum).
If significant adjustment in draught of the unit is possible in order to provide for satisfactory accessibility in
respect to inspection, maintenance and repair, account may be taken of this possibility in the determination
of the Design Fatigue Factors. In such cases however, a margin of minimum 1 meter in respect to the
minimum inspection draught should be considered when deciding upon the appropriate Design Fatigue
Factor in relation to the criteria for ‘Below splash zone’ as opposed to ‘Above splash zone’. Where draft
adjustment possibilities exist, a reduced extent of splash zone may be applicable. Consideration should be
given to operational requirements that may limit the possibility for ballasting / deballasting operations.
When considering utilisation of Remotely Operated Vehicle ( ROV) inspection consideration should be given
to the limitations imposed on such inspection by the action of water particle motion (e.g. waves). The
practicality of such a consideration may be that effective underwater inspection by ROV, in normal sea
conditions, may not be achievable unless the inspection depth is at least 10 metres below the sea surface.

L.7.4 Structural details and stress concentration factors

Fatigue sensitive details in the FPSO should be documented to have sufficient fatigue strength. Particular
attention should be given to connection details of the following:
• Integration of the mooring system with hull structure
• Main hull bottom, side and decks
• Main hull longitudinal stiffener connections to transverse frames and bulkheads
• Main hull attachments; seats, supports etc.
• Openings in main hull
• Transverse frames
• Flare tower
• Riser interfaces
• Major process equipment seats
Selections of local details and calculations of stress concentration factors may be undertaken in accordance
with DNV Classification Note 30.7, /11/. For details not covered in this document, stress concentration
factors should be otherwise documented. Detailed finite element analysis may be utilized for determination of
SCF’s, according to procedure given in DNV Classification Note 30.7, /11/.
L.7.5 Design actions and calculation of stress ranges
L.7.5.1 Fatigue actions

An overview of fatigue actions is given in L.4.7. Site specific environmental data shall be used for calculation
of long term stress range distribution. For units intended for multi field developments the site specific
environmental actions for each field should be utilised considering the expected duration for each field. The
most onerous environmental actions may be applied for the complete lifetime of the unit, as a conservative
approach.
A representative range of action conditions shall be considered. It is generally acceptable to consider two
action conditions, typically: ballast condition and the fully loaded condition, with appropriate amount of time
at each condition, normally 50 % for each condition unless otherwise documented.
An appropriate range of wave directions and wave energy spreading shall be considered. For weather
waning units, and in absence of more detailed documentation, the head sea direction shall be considered
2 10
with the spreading taken as the most unfavourable between cos – cos , see NORSOK, N-003. Maximum
spacing should be 30 degrees. Smaller spacing should be considered around the head-on heading, e.g. 15
degrees.
2
Typically, most unfavourable spreading will be cos for responses dominated by beam sea e.g. external side
10
pressure, and cos for responses dominated by head sea e.g. global wave bending moment.
The following dynamic actions shall be included in a FLS analysis as relevant:
• Global wave bending moments
• External dynamic pressure due to wave and ship motion
• Internal dynamic pressure due to ship motion
• Sloshing pressures due to fluid motion in tanks for ships with long or wide tanks
• Loads from equipment and topside due to ship motion and acceleration
L.7.5.2 Topside structures

The following actions shall be considered for the topside structure:
• Hull deformations due to wave bending moment acting on the hull
• Wave induced accelerations (inertia actions)
• Vortex induced vibrations from wind
• Vibrations caused by operation of topside equipment
Additionally, the following low cycle actions should be considered where relevant for the topside structure:
• Hull deformations due to temperature differences
• Hull deformations due to change in filling condition e.g. ballasting / deballasting
The relevance of combining action components is dependent on the structural arrangement of the topside
structure. Relevant stress components, both high cycle and low cycle, shall be combined, including phase

information, when available. If limited phase information is available, the design may be based on ‘worst-
case’ action conditions, by combination of maximum stress for each component.
L.7.5.3 Turret structure

The turret structure will normally be exposed to high dynamic action level. The choice of fatigue design factor
for the turret should reflect the level of criticality and the access for inspection at the different locations, L.7.2.
The following actions shall be considered for the fatigue design of turret structures:
• Dynamic fluctuations of mooring line tension.
• Dynamic actions (tension and bending moment) from risers
• Varying hydrodynamic pressure due to wave action
• Varying hydrodynamic pressure due to unit accelerations (including added mass effects)
• Reactions in the bearing structure due to the other effects
• Inertia actions due to unit accelerations
• Fluctuating reactions in pipe supports due to thermal and pressure induced pipe deflections
Typical critical areas for fatigue evaluation listed in L.6.3.3.
L.7.5.4 Calculation of global dynamic stress ranges

Global stress ranges shall be determined from the global hull bending moments. If applicable, both vertical
and horizontal bending moments shall be included. Shear lag effects and stress concentrations shall be
considered.
L.7.5.5 Calculation of local dynamic stress ranges

Local stress ranges are determined from dynamic pressures acting on panels, accelerations acting on
equipment and topside and other environmental actions resulting in local stresses to part of the structure.
Dynamic pressures shall be calculated from a 3D sink-source wave load analysis. The transfer function for
the dynamic pressure could either be used directly to calculate local stress transfer functions and combined
with the global stress transfer function, or a long-term pressure distribution could be calculated. As a
minimum, the following dynamic pressures components shall be considered:
• Double hull stresses due to bending of double hull sections between bulkheads
• Panel stresses due to bending of stiffened plate panels
• Plate bending stresses due to local plate bending
For a description of calculation of local stress components, reference is made to DNV Classification Note
30.7, /11/.
L.7.5.6 Combination of stress components

Global and local stresses should be combined to give the total stress range for the detail in question. In
general, the global and the local stress components differ in amplitude, phase and location. The method of
combining these stresses for the fatigue damage calculation will depend on the location of the structural
detail. A method for combination of actions is given in DNV Classification Note 30.7, /11/.
L.7.6 Calculation of fatigue damage
L.7.6.1 General
The basis for determining the acceptability of fatigue resistance, with respect to wave actions, shall be
appropriate stochastic fatigue analyses. The analyses shall be undertaken utilising relevant site specific
environmental data and take appropriate consideration of both global and local (e.g. pressure fluctuation)
dynamic responses. (These responses do not necessarily have to be evaluated in the same model but the
cumulative damage from all relevant effects should be considered when evaluating the total fatigue
damage.)
Simplified fatigue analyses may form the basis of a ‘screening’ process to identify locations for which a
detailed, stochastic fatigue analysis should be undertaken. Such simplified fatigue analysis shall be
calibrated, see L.7.6.2.
Local, detailed FE-analysis (e.g. unconventional details with insufficient knowledge about typical stress
distribution) should be undertaken in order to identify local stress distributions, appropriate SCF’s, and/or

extrapolated stresses to be utilised in the fatigue evaluation, see Annex C for further details. Dynamic stress
variations through the plate thickness shall be documented and considered in such evaluations.
Explicit account shall be taken of any local structural details that invalidate the general criteria utilised in the
assessment of the fatigue strength. Such local details may, for example be access openings, cut-outs,
penetrations etc. in structural elements.
Principal stresses (see Annex C) should be utilised in the evaluation of fatigue responses.
L.7.6.2 Simplified fatigue analysis

Provided that the provisions stated in L.7.6.1, are satisfied, simplified fatigue analysis may be undertaken in
order to establish the general acceptability of fatigue resistance. In all cases when a simplified fatigue
analysis is utilized a control of the results of the simplified fatigue evaluation, compared to the stochastic
results, shall be documented to ensure that the simplified analysis provides for a conservative assessment
for all parts of the structure being considered.
The fatigue damage may be calculated based on a cumulative damage utilizing Miner-Palmgren summation,
applying a Weibull distribution to describe the long-term stress range. The stress range shape parameter
and the average zero-crossing frequency may be taken from the long-term stress distribution, utilizing the
stress transfer function and environmental data for the operating area. A simplified method of fatigue
analysis is described in DNV Classification Note 30.7, /11/.
L.7.6.3 Stochastic fatigue analysis

Stochastic fatigue analyses shall be based upon recognised procedures and principles utilising relevant site
specific data.
Providing that it can be satisfactorily documented, scatter diagram data may be considered as being
directionally specific. In such cases, the analyses shall include consideration of the directional probability of
the environmental data. Relevant wave spectra shall be utilised. Wave energy spreading may be taken into
account if relevant.
Structural response shall be determined based upon analyses of an adequate number of wave directions.
Generally a maximum spacing of 30 degrees should be considered. Transfer functions should be established
based upon consideration of a sufficient number of periods, such that the number, and values of the periods
analysed :
• adequately cover the site specific wave data,
• satisfactorily describe transfer functions at, and around, the wave ‘cancellation’ and ‘amplifying’ periods.
(Consideration should be given to take account that such ‘cancellation’ and ‘amplifying’ periods may be
different for different elements within the structure), and,
• satisfactorily describe transfer functions at, and around, the relevant excitation periods of the structure.
The method is described in DNV Classification Note 30.7, /11/.

L.8 ACCIDENTAL LIMIT STATES (ALS)

Minimum impact energy levels, action combinations and allowable utilisation levels shall comply with the
requirements given in NORSOK, N-003. Relevant actions shall be determined based on a Risk Analysis.
L.8.1 Dropped objects

The possibility of dropped objects impacting on the structural components of the unit shall be considered in
design. Resistance to dropped objects may be accounted for by indirect means, such as, using redundant
framing configurations, and, materials with sufficient toughness in affected areas.
The masses of the dropped objects from crane operation to be considered for design of units are normally
taken based upon operational hook actions of the platform crane. Critical areas of dropped objects are to be
determined based on crane operation sectors, crane reach and actual movement of actions assuming a drop
o o
direction within an angle to the vertical direction of 5 in air and 15 in water.
L.8.2 Fire
General guidance and requirements concerning accidental limit state events involving fire are given in
Chapter 9 and Annex A.
L.8.3 Explosion
In respect to design considering actions resulting from explosions one, or a combination of the following
main design philosophies are relevant ;
• Ensure that the probability of explosion is reduced to a level where it is not required to be considered as
a relevant design action.
• Ensure that hazardous locations are located in unconfined (open) locations and that sufficient shielding
mechanisms (e.g. blast walls) are installed.
• Locate hazardous areas in partially confined locations and design utilising the resulting relatively small
overpressures.
• Locate hazardous areas in enclosed locations and install pressure relief mechanisms (e.g. blast panels)
and design for the resulting overpressure.
Structural design accounting for large plate field rupture resulting from explosion actions should normally be
avoided due to the uncertainties of the actions and the consequences of the rupture itself.
Structural support of the blast walls and the transmission of the blast action into main structural members
shall be evaluated. Effectiveness of connections and the possible outcome from blast, such as flying debris,
shall be considered.
L.8.4 Collision
Resistance to unit collisions may be accounted for by indirect means, such as, using redundant framing
configurations, and, materials with sufficient toughness in affected areas.
Collision impact shall be considered for all elements of the unit, which may be impacted by sideways, bow or
stern collision. The vertical extent of the collision zone shall be based on the depth and draught of attending
units and the relative motion between the attending units and the unit.
To avoid possible penetration of a cargo tank, the side structure of the unit shall be capable of absorbing the
-4
energy of a vessel collision with an annual probability of 10 .
L.8.5 Unintended flooding

A procedure describing actions to be taken after relevant unintended flooding shall be prepared. Structural
aspects related to counterflooding (if relevant) shall be investigated.
The unintended flooding conditions shall be considered in the turret and topside structure design.
L.8.6 Loss of heading control

For units normally operated with heading control, either by weather vaning or by thruster assistance, the
effect of loss of the heading control shall be evaluated.
The loss of heading control condition shall be considered in the topside and turret structure design.

L.9 COMPARTMENTATION & STABILITY

L.9.1 General
In the assessment of compartmentation and stability of a ship shaped unit, consideration shall be given to all
relevant detrimental effects, including those resulting from:
• environmental actions,
• relevant damage scenarios,
• rigid body motions,
• the effects of free-surface, and,
• boundary interactions (e.g. mooring and riser systems).
An inclining test should be conducted when construction is as near to completion as practical in order to
accurately determine the unit’s mass and position of the centre of gravity. Changes in mass conditions after
the inclining test should be carefully accounted for. The unit’s mass and position of the centre of gravity shall
be reflected in the unit’s Operating Manual.
L.9.2 Compartmentation and watertight integrity

General requirements relating to compartmentation of ship shaped units are given in ISO 19900, /6/.
Detailed provisions given in the IMO MODU Code relating to subdivision and freeboard should be complied
with. Special provisions relating to the Norwegian petroleum activities are given in NORSOK N-001.
Additionally, the design criteria for watertight and weathertight integrity as stated in the relevant rules of
Recognised Classification Societies should normally be satisfied.
The number of openings in watertight structural elements shall be kept to a minimum. Where penetrations
are necessary for access, piping, venting, cables etc., arrangements shall be made to ensure that the
watertight integrity of the structure is maintained.
Where individual lines, ducts or piping systems serve more than one watertight compartment, or are within
the extent of damage resulting from a relevant accidental event, arrangements shall be provided to ensure
that progressive flooding will not occur.
L.9.3 Stability
Stability of a ship shaped unit shall satisfy the requirements as stated in the IMO MODU Code. Special
provisions relating to the Norwegian petroleum activities are given in NORSOK N-001.
Adequacy of stability shall be established for all relevant in-service and temporary phase conditions. The
assessment of stability shall include consideration of both the intact and damaged conditions.

L.10 SPECIAL CONSIDERATION

L.10.1 Structural details
For the design of structural details consideration should be given to the following:
• The thickness of internal structure in locations susceptible to excessive corrosion.
• The design of structural details, such as those noted below, against the detrimental effects of stress
concentrations and notches:
- Details of the ends and intersections of members and associated brackets.
- Shape and location of air, drainage, and lightening holes.
- Shape and reinforcement of slots and cut-outs for internals.
- Elimination or closing of weld scallops in way of butts, “softening” bracket toes, reducing
abrupt changes of section or structural discontinuities.
• Proportions and thickness of structural members to reduce fatigue damage due to engine, propeller or
wave-induced cyclic stresses, particularly for higher strength steel members.
L.10.2 Positioning of superstructure

Living quarters, lifeboats and other means of evacuation shall be located in non-hazardous areas and be
protected and separated from production, storage, riser and flare areas.
Superstructure shall be located such that a satisfactory level of separation and protection is provided for.
L.10.3 Structure in way of a fixed mooring system

Local structure in way of fairleads, winches, etc. forming part of the position mooring system is, as a
minimum, to be capable of withstanding forces equivalent to 1.25 times the breaking strength of the
individual mooring line. The strength evaluation should be undertaken utilising the most unfavourable
operational direction of the anchor line. In the evaluation of the most unfavourable direction, account shall be
taken of relative angular motion of the unit in addition to possible line lead directions.
L.10.4 Inspection and maintenance

The structural inspection and maintenance programmes shall be consistent with NORSOK N-001.
L.10.5 Facilities for inspection on location

Inspections may be carried out on location based on approved procedures outlined in a maintenance system
and inspection arrangement, without interrupting the function of the unit. The following matters should be
taken into consideration to be able to carry out condition monitoring on location:
• Arrangement for underwater inspection of hull, propellers, thrusters, rudder and openings affecting the
units seaworthiness.
• Means of blanking of all openings including side thrusters.
• Use of corrosion resistant materials for shafts, and glands for propeller and rudder.
• Accessibility of all tanks and spaces for inspection.
• Corrosion protection of hull.
• Maintenance and inspection of thrusters.
• Ability to gas free and ventilate tanks
• Provisions to ensure that all tank inlets are secured during inspection
• Measurement of wear in the propulsion shaft and rudder bearings.
• Testing facilities of all important machinery.
L.10.6 Action monitoring

An on-board loading instrument complying with the requirements of the DNV Ship Rules, /3/ shall be
installed in order to be able to monitor still water bending moments and shear forces, and the stability of the
unit.
The limitations for still water bending moments and shear forces shall be in accordance with maximum
allowable stillwater bending moments and shear forces specified in the Operating Manual.

L.10.7 Corrosion protection

The corrosion protection arrangement shall be consistent with the references listed in NORSOK N-001.

L.11 DOCUMENTATION
L.11.1 General
workable and economic structural solution to perform the desired function. As an integral part of this
planning, documentation shall be produced identifying design criteria and describing procedures to be
adopted in the structural design of the unit.
Applicable codes, standards and regulations should be identified at the commencement of the design.
When the design has been finalised, a summary document containing all relevant data from the design and
fabrication phase shall be produced.
Design documentation (see below) shall, as far as practicable, be concise, non-voluminous, and, should
include all relevant information for all relevant phases of the lifetime of the unit.
General requirements to documentation relevant for structural design are given in NORSOK, N-001, Section
5.
L.11.2 Design basis

A Design Basis Document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process to document the basis
criteria to be applied in the structural design of the unit.
Unit description and main dimensions

A summary description of the unit, including :
• general description of the unit (including main dimensions and draughts),
• main drawings including :
• main structure drawings (This information may not be available in the initial stage of the design),
• general arrangement drawings,
• plan of structural categorisation,
• load plan(s), showing description of deck uniform (laydown) actions,
• capacity (tank) plan,
• service life of unit,
• position keeping system description.
Rules, regulations and codes

A list of all relevant, applicable, Rules, Regulations and codes (including revisions and dates), to be utilised
in the design process.

Environmental design criteria (including all relevant parameters) for all relevant conditions, including :
•
-1 -2 -4
wind, wave, current, snow and ice description for 10 ,10 and 10 annual probability events,
• design temperatures.
Stability and compartmentation

Stability and compartmentation design criteria for all relevant conditions including :
• external and internal watertight integrity plan,
• lightweight breakdown report,
• design loadcase(s) including global mass distribution,
• damage condition waterlines.(This information may not be available in the initial stage of the design.)
Temporary phases
Design criteria for all relevant temporary phase conditions including, as relevant :
• procedures associated with construction, (including major lifting operations),

• relevant ALS criteria.

Design criteria for all relevant operational phase conditions including :
• designing accidental event criteria (e.g. collision criteria),
• tank loading criteria (all tanks) including a description of system, with :
• loading arrangements
• height of air pipes,
• loading dynamics,
• densities,
• mooring actions.
In-service inspection criteria

A description of the in-service inspection criteria and general philosophy (as relevant for evaluating fatigue
allowable cumulative damage ratios).
Miscellaneous
• description of corrosion allowances, where applicable.
L.11.3 Design brief

A Design Brief Document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process. The purpose of the
Design Brief shall be to document the intended procedures to be adopted in the structural design of the unit.
All applicable limit states for all relevant temporary and operational design conditions shall be considered in
the Design Brief.
A summary of those items normally to be included in the Design Brief Document is included below.
Analysis models
A general description of models to be utilised, including description of :
• global analysis model(s),
• local analysis model(s),
• loadcases to be analysed.
Analysis procedures
A general description of analytical procedures to be utilised including description of procedures to be
adopted in respect to :
• the evaluation of temporary conditions,
• the consideration of accidental events,
• the evaluation of fatigue actions,
• the establishment of dynamic responses (including methodology, factors, and relevant parameters),
• the inclusion of ‘built-in’ stresses (if relevant),
• the consideration of local responses (e.g. those resulting from mooring and riser actions, ballast
distribution in tanks as given in the operating manual etc.)
A general description of the evaluation process, including :
• description of procedures to be utilised for considering global and local responses,
• description of fatigue evaluation procedures (including use of design fatigue factors, SN-curves, basis for
stress concentration factors (SCF’s), etc.).
• description of procedures to be utilised for code checking.

L.11.4 Documentation for operation (DFO)

Documentation requirements covering structural design, as applicable in the operational phase of the unit
(e.g. the DFI resume), are given in NORSOK Z-001.

L.12 REFERENCES
/1/ ‘Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction and certification’, U.K., Health &
Safety Executive, Fourth Edition, HMSO
/2/ DNV-OS-C101 Offshore Standard. Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General. DNV October
2000.
/3/ Rules for Classification of Ship, latest valid edition, DNV
/4/ Regulations relating to design and outfitting of facilities etc. in the petroleum activities. Issued
by the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate.
/5/ Regulations of 20 Dec. 1991, No.878, concerning stability, watertight subdivision and watertight
/ weathertight closing means on mobile offshore units, Norwegian Maritime Directorate.
/6/ ISO 19900 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries – Offshore Structures, General
Requirements.
/7/ Salvesen, N., Tuck, E. O. and Faltinsen, O., "Ship Motions and Sea Loads".Trans. SNAME, Vol
78, 1970.
/8/ Tanaka, N., "A Study of the Bilge Keels, Part 4, on the Eddy-Making Resistance to the Rolling
of a Ship Hull". Japan Society of Naval Architects, Vol. 109, 1960.
/9/ Torsethaugen, Knut, “Model for a Doubly Peaked Spectrum”. Sintef Report No. SFT22 96204
dated 1996-02-20.
/10/ NORSOK Z-001 Documentation for Operation (DFO)
/11/ DNV Classification Note 30.7: Fatigue Assessment of Ship Structures
/12/ DNV-OS-C102 Offshore Standard. Structural Design of Offshore Ships. DNV October 2011.

L.13 COMMENTARY
Comm. L.4.5.2 Sloshing actions in tanks
-4
The non-impact sloshing loads in the DNV Rules are given at annual probability level 10 and represent the
sloshing loads generally applicable for a FLS structural evaluation. These loads are governed by the inertia
forces induced by the liquid in the tank. This means that the Weibull slope parameter applicable for a FLS
structural evaluation, will be approximately equal to the Weibull slope parameter of the liquid acceleration in
the longitudinal direction for the longitudinal sloshing mode and in the transverse direction for the transverse
sloshing mode. Based on analysis of several offshore vessels ranging in length from 100-260m, a Weibull
slope parameter h=1.0 has been determined as being appropriate for an FLS structural evaluation of ship
shaped offshore units, both in the longitudinal sloshing mode and in the transverse sloshing mode. The non-
impact sloshing loads should be applied on strength members as indicated in DNV Ship Rules Pt.3, Ch.1,
Sec.4 C300 Liquid in tanks.
-8
The sloshing impact loads in the DNV Rules are given at annual probability level 10 (20 year return period)
and represent the sloshing impact loads generally applicable for an ULS structural evaluation. In the period
1990-1994, DNV performed a significant amount of sloshing model tests, using irregular excitation, with the
main focus on sloshing impact loads. The duration of the tests was typically 2-4 hours in model scale. Based
on statistical analysis of these model tests, a Weibull slope parameter h≈1.0 has been determined as being
-8
representative for sloshing impact loading. To arrive at 100 year return period impact pressures, the 10
values should be multiplied by a factor 1.15. The impact sloshing loads should be applied on strength
members as indicated in DNV Ship Rules Pt.3, Ch.1, Sec.4 C300 Liquid in tanks.
A wave which will impose the maximum wave bending moment on the vessel will have a wavelength of the
order ships length. Provided that separation between the period of encounter for this wave Te and the natural
period T of the fluid in the tank is sufficient (T≤0.75Te), use of a reduced wave bending moment in calculating
the allowable stress used in connection with sloshing loads for deck longitudinals is acceptable. The strength
calculation for deck longitudinals may then be based on a wave bending moment reduced by 25% relative to
the design wave bending moment.
The applicable number of cycles in a fatigue evaluation will in principle depend on the vessel pitch response
period for the longitudinal sloshing mode and on the vessel roll response period for the transverse sloshing
mode. A simplified expression for the applicable response period, both for the longitudinal and transverse
sloshing mode, may be found in DNV Class Note 30.7, Section 2.1.2, Tresp=4·log10(L), where L is the rule
ship length.
Comm. L.4.5.3 Green water effect

It is recommended that provisions are made during model testing for suitable measurements to determine
design pressures for local structural design. This implies that model tests should be performed at design
draught, for sea states with a spectrum peak period approximately 70-100% of the pitch resonance period of
the vessel. The vessel model should be equipped with load cells on the weather deck at positions of critical
structural members or critical topside equipment.
- o0o -

NORSOK standard N-004

ANNEX M
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR COLUMN STABILIZED UNITS

Contents
M.1 Introduction 205

M.1.1 General 205
M.1.2 Definitions 205
M.1.3 Non-operational phases 205
M.2 Structural classification and material selection 206
M.2.1 Structural classification 207
M.2.2 Material selection 207
M.2.3 Inspection categories 208
M.2.4 Guidance to minimum requirements 208
M.3 Actions 212
M.3.1 General 212
M.3.2 Permanent actions 212
M.3.3 Variable actions 212
M.3.4 Deformation actions 213
M.3.5 Environmental actions 213
M.3.6 Accidental actions 213
M.3.7 Repetitive actions 214
M.3.8 Combination of actions 214
M.4 Ultimate limit states (ULS) 215
M.4.1 General 215
M.4.2 Global models 215
M.4.2.1 Sea loading model 216
M.4.2.2 Structural model 217
M.4.2.3 Mass modelling 217
M.4.2.4 Global analysis 218
M.4.3 Local structural models 219
M.4.4 Superimposing responses 220
M.5 Fatigue limit states (FLS) 223
M.5.1 General 223
M.5.2 Design fatigue factors (DFFs) 223
M.5.3 Splash zone 224
M.5.4 Fatigue analysis 225
M.5.4.1 General 225
M.5.4.2 Simplified fatigue analysis 225
M.5.4.3 Stochastic fatigue analysis 227
M.6 Accidental limit states (ALS) 228
M.6.1 General 228
M.6.2 Dropped objects 228
M.6.3 Fire 229
M.6.4 Explosion 229
M.6.5 Collision 229
M.6.6 Unintended flooding 232
M.6.7 Abnormal wave events 232
M.6.8 Reserve buoyancy 232

M.7 Air gap 232

M.7.1 General 232
M.8 Compartmentation and stability 233
M.8.1 General 233
M.8.2 Compartmentation and watertight integrity 233
M.8.3 Stability 233
M.8.4 Damaged condition 234
M.9 Special considerations 234
M.9.1 Structural redundancy 234
M.9.2 Brace arrangements 234
M.9.3 Structure in way of a fixed mooring system 234
M.9.4 Structural detailing 234
M.10 Documentation requirements for the "design basis" and "design brief" 235
M.10.1 General 235
M.10.2 Design basis 235
M.10.3 Design brief 236
M.11 References 237
M.12 Commentary 237

M.1 Introduction
M.1.1 General
This annex provides requirements and guidance to the structural design of column stabilised units,
constructed in steel, in accordance with the provisions of this NORSOK standard.
The requirements and guidance documented in this annex are generally applicable to all
configurations of column stabilised units, including those with
• ring (continuous) pontoons,
• twin pontoons or,
• multi-footing arrangements.
Such units may be kept on station by either a passive mooring system (e.g. anchor lines), or an
active mooring system (e.g. thrusters), or a combination of these methods.
Requirements concerning mooring and riser systems are not considered in this annex.
A column stabilised unit may be designed to function in a number of modes, e.g. transit, operational
and survival. Limiting design criteria for going from one mode of operation to another mode of
operation shall be clearly established and documented. Such limiting design criteria shall include
relevant consideration of the following items:
• intact condition, structural strength;
• damaged condition, structural strength;
• air gap;
• compartmentation and stability.
For novel designs, or unproved applications of designs where limited or no direct experience exists,
relevant analyses and model testing, shall be performed which clearly demonstrate that an
acceptable level of safety is obtained.
M.1.2 Definitions
Column stabilised unit: A floating unit that can be relocated. A column stabilised unit normally
consists of a deck structure with a number of widely spaced, large diameter, supporting columns
that are attached to submerged pontoons.
Notes:
1. In the context of this annex the term "column stabilised unit" is often abbreviated to the term "unit".
2. The definition for a column stabilised unit is in accordance with ISO 19900 definition for a "semi-submersible"
unit.
M.1.3 Non-operational phases

The structure shall be designed to resist relevant actions associated with conditions that may occur
during all stages of the life-cycle of the unit. Such stages may include
• fabrication,
• site moves,
• mating,
• installation,

Structural design covering marine operation, construction sequences shall be undertaken in

accordance with NORSOK N-001.
Marine operations should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements stated in NORSOK J-
003.
All marine operations shall, as far as practicable, be based upon well proven principles, techniques,
systems and equipment and shall be undertaken by qualified, competent personnel possessing
relevant experience.
Structural responses resulting from one temporary phase condition (e.g. a construction or
transportation operation) that may affect design criteria in another phase shall be clearly
documented and considered in all relevant design workings.
If it is intended to dry-dock the unit the bottom structure shall be suitably strengthened to withstand
such actions.
Fabrication
Planning of construction sequences and of the methods of construction shall be performed. Actions
occurring in fabrication phases shall be assessed and, when necessary the structure and the
structural support arrangement shall be evaluated for structural adequacy.
Major lifting operations shall be evaluated to ensure that deformations are within acceptable levels
and that relevant strength criteria are satisfied.
Mating
All relevant action effects incurred during mating operations shall be considered in the design
process. Particular attention should be given to hydrostatic actions imposed during mating
sequences.
Sea transportation
A detailed transportation assessment shall be undertaken which includes determination of the
limiting environmental criteria, evaluation of intact and damage stability characteristics, motion
response of the global system and the resulting, induced actions. The occurrence of slamming
actions on the structure and the effects of fatigue during transport phases shall be evaluated when
relevant.
All aspects of the transportation, including planning and procedures, preparations, sea-fastenings
and marine operations should comply with the requirements of the warranty authority.
Installation
Installation procedures of foundations (e.g. drag embedded anchors, piles, suction anchor or dead
weights etc.) shall consider relevant static and dynamic actions, including consideration of the
maximum environmental conditions expected for the operations.
The actions induced by the marine spread involved in the operations and the forces exerted on the
structures utilised in positioning the unit, such as fairleads and pad-eyes, shall be considered for
local strength checks.
Decommissioning
Abandonment of the unit shall be planned for in the design stage. Decommissioning phases for
column stabilised units are however not normally considered to provide design load conditions for
the structure of a unit and may therefore normally be disregarded in the design phase.
M.2 Structural classification and material selection

M.2.1 Structural classification

joints/connections as documented in Clause 5.
In addition to in-service operational phases, consideration shall be given to structural members and
details utilised for temporary conditions, e.g. fabrication, lifting arrangements, towing
arrangements, etc.
Basic considerations
Structural connections in column stabilised units designed in accordance with this annex should
normally not fall within the categorisation criteria relevant for design class DC1 or DC2. In
particular, relevant failure of a single weld, or element, should not lead to a situation where the
accidental limit state condition is not satisfied. Structural connections will therefore be categorised
within classification groups DC3, DC4 or DC5.
Consideration shall be given to address areas where through thickness tensile properties may be
required.
Special consideration shall be given to ensure the appropriate inspection category for welds with
high utilisation in fatigue if the coverage with standard local area allocation is insufficient.
Examples of typical design classes applicable to column stabilised units are stated below. These
examples provide minimum requirements and are not intended to restrict the designer in applying
more stringent requirements should such requirements be desirable.
Typical locations - Design class: DC3
Locations in way of connections at major structural interfaces (e.g. pontoon/pontoon,
pontoon/column, column/deck, and, major brace connections) should generally be classified as DC3
due to the complexity of the connections and the general difficulty with respect to inspection and
repair.
Local areas in way of highly stressed complex structural connections (e.g. in way of fairleads, riser
supports, topside structures, or other similar locations with high complexity) should also be
classified as DC3.
DC3 areas may be limited to local, highly stressed areas if the stress gradient at such connections is
large.
Except as provided for in the description for DC3 and DC5 structural categorisation, connections
appropriate to general stiffened plate fields, including connections of structural elements supporting
the plate fields, e.g. girders and stiffeners, should normally be classified in Design Class DC4.
General brace structural connections, (e.g. butt welds in brace plate fields) should be designated
DC4, as should connections of the main supporting structure for topside components and
equipment.
All welds for non-main load bearing structural elements, including non-watertight bulkheads,
mezzanine (tween) decks, and, deck superstructures, may be classified as DC5.
The same applies for welds for internal outfitting structures in general.
M.2.2 Material selection

Material specifications shall be established for all structural materials utilised in a column stabilised
unit. Such materials shall be suitable for their intended purpose and have adequate properties in all

relevant design conditions. Material selection shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles
given in Clause 5.
When considering criteria appropriate to material grade selection, adequate consideration shall be
given to all relevant phases in the life cycle of the unit. In this connection there may be conditions
and criteria, other than those from the in-service, operational phase, that provide the design
requirements in respect to the selection of material. Such criteria may, for example, be design
temperature and/or stress levels during marine operations.
In the selection of material grades adequate consideration shall be given to the appropriateness of
the design temperature including the definition of such. When considering design temperature
related to material selection the applicability that standard NORSOK requirements to fabrication of
steel structures (see NORSOK M-101) are based upon a minimum design temperature of -14 °C,
shall be evaluated.
Selection of steel quality for structural components shall normally be based on the most stringent
DC of the joints involving the component.
Consideration shall be given to the presence of tensile stress in the direction of the thickness of the
plate when determining the appropriate steel quality.
M.2.3 Inspection categories

Welding, and the extent of non-destructive examination during fabrication, shall be in accordance
with the requirements stipulated for the appropriate "inspection category" as defined in NORSOK
M-101. Determination of inspection category should be in accordance with the criteria given in
Table 5.3 and Table 5.4.
Inspection categories determined in accordance with this NORSOK stanard provide requirements to
the minimum extent of required inspection. When considering the economic consequence that
repair may entail, for example, in way of complex connections with limited or difficult access, it
may be considered prudent engineering practice to require more demanding requirements to
inspection than the required minimum.
When determining the extent of inspection, and the locations of required NDT, in additional to
evaluating design parameters (for example fatigue utilisation) consideration should be given to
relevant fabrication parameters including; positioning of block (section) connections, the possibility
that manual welded connections may not achieve the quality that automatic weld locations achieve,
etc.
The lower the extent of NDT selected, the more important is the representativeness of the NDT
selected and performed. The designer should therefore exercise good engineering judgement in
indicating mandatory locations for NDT, where variation of utility along welds is significant.
M.2.4 Guidance to minimum requirements

Figure M.2-1 to Figure M.2-3 illustrate minimum requirements to selection of DC, and inspection
category for typical column stabilised unit, structural configurations.

Figure M.2-1 Typical "ring" pontoon DCs and inspection categories

Key:
1. [DCn, ..] Design Class n, N
Notes:
1. In way of the pontoon/column connection (except in way of brackets), the pontoon deck plate fields will normally
be the continuous material. These plate fields should normally be material with documented through-thickness
properties (i.e. Steel Quality Level I material).
2. Shaded areas indicated in the figures are intended to be three-dimensional in extent. This implies that, in way of
these locations, the shaded area logic is not only to apply to the outer surface of the connection but is also to extend
into the structure.
3. "Major brackets" are considered, within the context of this figure, to be primary, load-bearing brackets supporting
primary girders. "Minor brackets" are all other brackets.
4. The inspection categories for general pontoon, plate butt welds and girder welds to the pontoon shell are
determined based upon, amongst others: accessibility, fatigue utilisation, and dominating stress direction see
NORSOK N-004, Table 5.3 and Table 5.4). E.g. Variations in dynamic stress levels across the section of the
pontoon and also along the length of the pontoon may alter a general inspection category designation.
5. Major bracket toes will normally be designated as locations with a mandatory requirement to MPI.

Figure M.2-2 Typical brace/column design classes and inspection categories

Key:
Notes:
1. In way of the column/brace connection the brace, and brace bracket plate fields, will normally be the continuous
material. These plate fields should normally be material with documented through-thickness properties, i.e. Steel
Quality Level I material.
2. Figure M.2-2 illustrates a relatively small brace connected to a column. For large brace connections the extent of
the DC3 area may be limited somewhat to that illustrated.

Figure M.2-3 Typical column/upper hull (deck box) design classes and inspection
categories
Key:
Notes:
1. In way of the column/upper hull connection (except in way of brackets) the upper hull deck plate fields will
normally be the continuous material. These plate fields should normally be material with documented through-
thickness properties, i.e. Steel Quality Level I material.
2. Shaded areas indicated in the figures are intended to be three-dimensional in extent. This implies that, in way of
these locations, the shaded area logic is not only to apply to the outer surface of the connection but is also to extend
into the structure.
3. "Major brackets" are considered, within the context of this figure, to be primary, load-bearing brackets supporting
primary girders. "Minor brackets" are all other brackets.
4. The inspection categories stated for general upper hull are determined based upon, the assumption that the fatigue
utilisation may be categorised as being "low", i.e. that Table 5.3 is relevant. This assumption shall be verified.

M.3 Actions
M.3.1 General
Characteristic actions are to be used as reference actions. Design actions are, in general, defined in
NORSOK N-003. Guidance concerning action categories relevant for column stabilised unit designs
are given in the following.
M.3.2 Permanent actions

Permanent actions are actions that will not vary in magnitude, position, or direction during the
period considered, and include
• "light mass" of the unit, including mass of permanently installed modules and equipment, such
as accommodation, helideck, drilling and production equipment,
• hydrostatic pressures resulting from buoyancy,
• pretension in respect to mooring, drilling and production systems, e.g. mooring lines, risers etc..
M.3.3 Variable actions

Variable actions are actions that may vary in magnitude, position and direction during the period
under consideration.
Except where analytical procedures or design specifications otherwise require, the value of the
variable actions utilised in structural design should normally be taken as either the lower or upper
design value, whichever gives the more unfavourable effect. Variable actions on deck areas for
local, primary and global design are stated in NORSOK N-003, Table 5.1. The factor to be applied
to "global design" actions (as stated in Table 5.1) is, however, not intended to limit the variable load
carrying capacity of the unit in respect to non-relevant, variable load combinations. Global load
cases should be established based upon "worst case", representative variable load combinations,
where the limiting global design criteria is established by compliance with the requirements to
intact and damage hydrostatic and hydrodynamic stability. See M.12 for a further discussion on this
issue.
Global, design load conditions, and associated limiting criteria shall be documented in the stability
manual for the unit /1/.
Variations in operational mass distributions (including variations in tank load conditions in
pontoons) shall be adequately accounted for in the structural design.
Design criteria resulting from operational requirements should be fully considered. Examples of
such operations may be
• drilling, production, workover, and combinations thereof,
• consumable re-supply procedures,
• maintenance procedures,
• possible mass re-distributions in extreme conditions.
Local, design deck actions shall be documented on a "load-plan". This plan shall clearly show the
design uniform and concentrated actions for all deck areas, for each relevant mode of operation.
Dynamic actions resulting from flow through air pipes during filling operations shall be adequately
considered in the design of tank structures.
Operational actions imposed by supply boats while approaching, mooring, or, lying alongside the
unit should be considered in the design. If fendering is fitted, the combined fender/structural system
is to be capable of absorbing the energy of such actions. The resulting response in the structural

system is to satisfy the requirements of the considered limit state. A typical design impact action
would, for example, be a SLS design consideration of a 5000 tonne displacement vessel with a
contact speed of 0.5 m/s.
M.3.4 Deformation actions

Deformation actions resulting from construction procedures and sequences (e.g. as a result of
mating operations, welding sequences, forced alignments of structure etc.) shall be adequately
accounted for.
Other relevant deformation action effects may include those resulting from temperature gradients,
as for example:
• when hot-oil is stored in a compartment adjacent to the sea;
• radiation from flaring operations.
M.3.5 Environmental actions

Environmental actions are actions caused by environmental phenomena.
Environmental conditions shall be described using relevant data, for the relevant period and areas in
which the unit is to be fabricated, transported, installed and operated. All relevant environmental
actions shall be considered.
Amongst those environmental actions to be considered, in the structural design of a column
stabilised unit, are
• wave actions (including variable pressure, inertia, wave 'run-up', and slamming actions),
• wind actions,
• current actions,
• temperature actions,
• snow and ice actions.
Amongst those environmental action induced responses to be considered, in the structural design of
a column stabilised unit, are
• dynamic stresses for all limit states (e.g. with respect to fatigue, see M.3.7),
• rigid body motion (e.g. in respect to air gap and maximum angles of inclination),
• sloshing,
• slamming induced vibrations,
• vortex induced vibrations (e.g. resulting from wind actions on structural elements in a flare
tower),
• wear resulting from environmental actions at mooring and riser system interfaces with hull
structures.
For column stabilised units with traditional, catenary mooring systems, earthquake actions may
normally be ignored.
Further considerations with respect to environmental actions are given in NORSOK N-003.
M.3.6 Accidental actions

Risk analyses shall be undertaken to identify and assess accidental events that may occur and the
consequences of such events, see Clause 11. Relevant, structural design events for the ALS
condition are identified from the risk analyses. The following ALS events are amongst those
required to be considered in respect to the structural design of a column stabilised unit:

• dropped objects (e.g. from crane handling);

• fire;
• explosion;
• collision;
• unintended flooding;
• abnormal wave events.
Further considerations in respect to accidental actions are given in Clause 11.
M.3.7 Repetitive actions

Repetitive actions, which may lead to possible significant fatigue damage, shall be evaluated. The
following listed sources of fatigue actions shall, where relevant, be considered:
• waves (including those actions caused by slamming and variable (dynamic) pressures);
• wind (especially when vortex induced vibrations may occur);
• currents (especially when vortex induced vibrations may occur);
• mechanical vibration (e.g. caused by operation of machinery);
• mechanical loading/unloading (e.g. crane actions).
The effects of both local and global dynamic response shall be properly accounted for when
determining response distributions related to fatigue actions.
M.3.8 Combination of actions

Load coefficients and load combinations for the design limit states are, in general, given in
NORSOK N-001.
Structural strength shall be evaluated considering all relevant, realistic loading conditions and
combinations. Scantlings shall be determined on the basis of criteria that combine, in a rational
manner, the effects of relevant global and local responses for each individual structural element.
A sufficient number of load conditions shall be evaluated to ensure that the characteristic largest (or
smallest) response, for the appropriate return period, has been established. For example, maximum
global, characteristic responses for a column stabilised unit may occur in environmental conditions
that are not associated with the characteristic, largest, wave height. In such cases, wave period and
associated wave steepness parameters are more likely to be governing factors in the determination
of maximum/minimum responses.

M.4 Ultimate limit states (ULS)

M.4.1 General
General considerations in respect to methods of analysis are given in NORSOK N-003, Clause 9.
Analytical models shall adequately describe the relevant properties of actions, stiffness, and
displacement, and shall satisfactorily account for the local and system effects of time dependency,
damping, and inertia.
It is normally not practical, in design analysis of column stabilised units, to include all relevant
actions (both global and local) in a single model. Generally, a single model would not contain
sufficient detail to establish local responses to the required accuracy, or to include consideration of
all relevant actions and combinations of actions (see M.12 for a more detailed discussion of this
item). It is often the case that it is more practical, and efficient, to analyse different action effects
utilising a number of appropriate models and superimpose the responses from one model with the
responses from another model in order to assess the total utilisation of the structure. The modelling
guidance given in the following therefore considers a proposed division of models in accordance
with an acceptable analytical procedure. The procedures described are not however intended to
restrict a designer to a designated methodology when an alternative methodology provides for an
acceptable degree of accuracy, and includes all relevant action effects. Further, the modelling
procedures and guidance provided are intended for establishing responses to an acceptable level of
accuracy for final design purposes. For preliminary design, simplified models are recommended to
be utilised in order to more efficiently establish design responses and to achieve a simple overview
of how the structure responds to the designing actions.
M.4.2 Global models

The intention of the global analysis model(s) should be to enable the assessment of responses
resulting from global actions.
An example of a global analysis model is shown in Figure M.4-1.

Figure M.4-1 Example of a global analysis model
M.4.2.1 Sea loading model

Global action effects
The environmental action model (e.g. simulating the appropriate wave conditions) shall be based
upon site specific data in accordance with NORSOK N-003, Clause 6. The stochastic nature of
wave actions shall be adequately accounted for.
For extreme response analysis, the short-crested nature of the sea may be accounted for according to
the requirements given in NORSOK N-003, 6.2.2.3. Appropriate wave spectra criteria (as given in
NORSOK N-003, 6.2.2.3) based upon site specific environmental data shall be considered when
simulating sea actions.
A simple, Morrison element model may normally be utilised in order to ascertain global actions in
preliminary design stages. It may be prudent to apply a contingency factor to the global actions
resulting from such a model. A contingency factor of 1.2 to 1.3 would generally be considered as
being appropriate.
For final design a diffraction model should be created in order to more accurately establish the
design actions.
Global viscous damping effects may be included in the model either by the inclusion of Morrison
elements, or by the inclusion of relevant terms in a global damping matrix. Viscous effects are non-
linear and should therefore be carefully considered in frequency domain analyses when such effects
may be considered as significantly affecting the response, e.g. in the evaluation of motion response
(in connection with establishing air gap and acceleration parameters).

Where hydrostatic actions are modelled explicitly (as opposed to an implicit inclusion from a
diffraction model) it shall be ensured that adequate account is given to the inclusion of end-pressure
action effects, e.g. in respect to axial actions acting on pontoon structures.
Local viscous (drag) action effects
For relatively slender members, viscous (drag) local action effects should be accounted for. In such
cases, the inclusion of local drag action effects may be undertaken in a number of ways, for
example
• by use of hybrid (diffraction and Morrison) models of the structural elements,
• by only having a Morrison model of selected individual elements,
• by the inclusion of drag action effects by hand calculations.
M.4.2.2 Structural model

For large volume, thin-walled structures, three-dimensional finite element structural models created
in shell (or membrane) finite elements, are normally required. For space frame structures consisting
of slender members a three-dimensional, space frame representation of the structure may be
considered adequate.
The stiffness of major structural connections (e.g. pontoon/column, column/deck) shall be modelled
in sufficient detail to adequately represent the stiffness of the connection, such that the resulting
responses are appropriate to the model being analysed.
It is preferable that actions resulting from the sea-loading model are mapped directly onto a
structural model.
M.4.2.3 Mass modelling

A representative number of global design load conditions, simulating the static load distribution for
each draught, should be evaluated in the global model. This may be achieved by the inclusion of a
"mass model". The mass model may be an independent model or may be implicitly included in the
structural (or sea action) model(s).
Usually, only a limited number of global load conditions are considered in the global analysis. The
global model may not therefore adequately cover all "worst case" global load distributions for each
individual structural element. Procedures shall be established to ensure that the most unfavourable
load combinations have been accounted for in the design.
Pontoon tank loading conditions
In respect to global pontoon tank loading arrangements the maximum range of responses resulting
from the most onerous, relevant, static load conditions shall be established. In order to assess the
maximum range of stresses resulting from variations in pontoon tank loading conditions a
simplified model of the structure may be created. This simplified model may typically be a space
frame model of the unit.
Responses for relevant load combinations with full pontoon tank loading conditions (maximum
"sagging" condition) and empty tank loading conditions (maximum "hogging" condition) shall be
considered. For column stabilised units with non-box type, upper hull arrangements it may also be
necessary to investigate conditions with non-symmetric, diagonally distributed tank loading
conditions. Response resulting from variations in pontoon tank load conditions may normally be
considered as providing a significant contribution to the designing stress components in the areas of
the upper and lower flanges of the pontoon deck and bottom plate fields. Such variations in stresses
due to full/empty load combinations of pontoon tanks shall therefore be explicitly accounted for
when considering logical combinations of global and local responses in the structural design.

M.4.2.4 Global analysis

Model testing shall be undertaken when non-linear effects cannot be adequately determined by
direct calculations. In such cases, time domain analysis may also be considered as being necessary.
Where non-linear actions may be considered as being insignificant, or where such actions may be
satisfactorily accounted for in a linear analysis, a frequency domain analysis can be undertaken.
Transfer functions for structural response shall be established by analysis of an adequate number of
wave directions, with an appropriate radial spacing. A sufficient number of periods shall be
analysed to
• adequately cover the site specific wave conditions,
• satisfactorily describe transfer functions at, and around, the wave "cancellation" and
"amplifying" periods,
• satisfactorily describe transfer functions at, and around, the heave resonance period of the unit.
Global, wave-frequency, structural responses shall be established by an appropriate methodology,
for example:
• a regular wave analysis;
• a "design wave" analysis;
• a stochastic analysis.
These analytical methods are described in NORSOK N-003, 9.3.3.
Regular wave analysis:
A sufficient number of wave periods and wave directions shall be investigated to clearly
demonstrate that maximum responses have been determined by the undertaken analysis. A wave
directional radial spacing of maximum 15 degrees, should be utilised in a regular wave design
analysis. However, it may be considered advisable to investigate with a spacing less than 15 degrees
for structure with a substantial consequence of failure. Appropriate consideration shall be given to
the modelling and inclusion of wave steepness characteristics.
Design wave analysis:
Design waves, utilised to simulate characteristic, global hydrodynamic responses shall be
established based upon recognised analytical practices for column stabilised units. Appropriate
consideration shall be given to the modelling and inclusion of wave steepness and spectral
characteristics. A sufficient number of wave periods and wave directions shall be investigated to
clearly demonstrate that maximum responses have been determined by the undertaken analysis. In
design wave analysis a wave directional radial spacing of maximum 15 degrees or less, should
normally be utilised.
The following characteristic responses will normally be governing for the global strength of a
column stabilised unit:
• split ("squeeze and pry") force between pontoons;
• torsion ("pitch connecting") moment about a transverse horizontal axis;
• longitudinal shear force between the pontoons;
• combined longitudinal shear/split force between pontoons;
• longitudinal acceleration of deck mass;
• transverse acceleration of deck mass;
• vertical acceleration of deck mass.
Particular attention shall be given to the combined action effects of the characteristic responses of
split and longitudinal shear force. Generally, it will be found that maximum longitudinal shear

forces occur on a different wave heading than that heading providing maximum response when
simultaneous split forces are taken into account.
Stochastic analysis:
Stochastic methods of analysis are, in principle recognised as providing the most accurate methods
for simulating the irregular nature of wave actions. Long term, stress distributions shall be
established based upon the relevant site specific, scatter diagram wave data.
In a stochastic design analysis, a wave directional radial spacing of 15 degrees or less, should be
utilised.
Responses resulting from stochastic analytical procedures may however, not be particularly well
suited to structural design as information concerning the simultaneity of internal force distribution
is generally not available.
M.4.3 Local structural models

An adequate number of local structural models should be created in order to evaluate response of
the structure to variations in local actions, e.g. in order to evaluate pressure acting across a
structural section, lay-down loads acting on deck plate field, or, support point loads of heavy items
of equipment.
The model(s) should be sufficiently detailed such that resulting responses are obtained to the
required degree of accuracy. A number of local models may be required in order to fully evaluate
local response at all relevant sections.
Example of local pressure acting on a pontoon section:
An example of considerations that should be evaluated in connection with the load case of local
pressures acting on a pontoon section of a column stabilised unit are given below.
Typical parameters contributing to variations in internal and external local pressure distributions
acting on the pontoon tanks of a cross-section of a column stabilised unit are illustrated in Figure
M.4-2. For details concerning tank pressure actions reference should be made to NORSOK N-003,
5.4.
A local structural model should be created with the intention of simulating local structural response
for the most unfavourable combination of relevant actions.
When evaluating local response from the local model the following considerations may apply:
• The intention of the local model is to simulate the local structural response for the most
unfavourable combination of relevant actions. Relevant combinations of internal and external
pressures for tanks should be considered (for both the intact and damage load conditions).
Maximum (and minimum) design pressures (both internal and external) should be investigated.
• If cross-section arrangements change along the length of the structure, a number of local models
may be required in order to fully evaluate local response at all relevant sections.
• When internal structural arrangements are such that the structure is divided across its section
(e.g. there may be a watertight centreline bulkhead or access/pipe tunnel in the pontoon)
relevant combinations of tank loadings across the section shall be considered.
• In most cases, for external plate fields, relevant combinations of external and internal pressure
load cases will result in load conditions where the external and internal pressures are not
considered to be acting simultaneously. For internal structures the simultaneous action of
external and internal pressures load cases may provide for the governing design load case. For
internal structures the internal pressure should normally not be considered to act simultaneously
on both sides of the structure.

• Actions are usually applied in the analysis model at the girder level and not at the individual
stiffener level in order to ensure that local stiffener bending is not included in the model
response as the stiffener bending response is explicitly included in the buckling code check, see
6.5.
• For transversely stiffened structures (i.e. girders orientated in the transverse direction) the local
responses extracted from the local model are normally responses in the structural transverse
direction (σy in Figure M.4-3). For structural arrangements with continuous, longitudinal girder
arrangements however a longitudinal response will also be of interest.
• For structural cross-sections without continuous longitudinal girder elements, two-dimensional
structural models may be considered as being adequate.
• For space frame, beam models relevant consideration shall be given to shear lag effects.
Whilst this example considers the load case of local pressure acting on a pontoon section of a
column stabilised unit, similar types of considerations are applicable in the evaluation of other local
responses resulting from local actions on the column stabilised unit, e.g. lay-down actions.
Figure M.4-2 Design action parameters acting as pressure on the pontoon tanks of a
column stabilised unit
M.4.4 Superimposing responses

The simultaneity of the responses resulting from the analysis models described in M.4.2 and M.4.3
may normally be accounted for by linear superposition of the responses for logical load
combinations.
Structural utilisation shall be evaluated in accordance with the requirements of Clause 6.

When evaluating responses by superimposing stresses resulting from a number of different models,
consideration shall be given to the following:
• It should be ensured that responses from design actions are not included more than once. For
example, when evaluating responses resulting from tank loading conditions (see M.4.2.3), it
may be necessary to model a load condition, in the simplified model proposed in M.4.2.3, with a
load case simulating that load case adopted in the global analysis model. In this way, stress
variations resulting from relevant load conditions, when compared that load condition included
in the global model may be established. Relevant peak responses may then be included in the
capacity evaluation of the combined responses.
• Continuous, longitudinal structural elements (e.g. stiffened plate fields in the pontoon deck,
bottom, sides, bulkheads, tunnels etc.) located outside areas of global stress concentrations, may
be evaluated utilising linear superposition of the individual responses as illustrated in Figure
M.4-3 for a pontoon section. The summation of such responses should then be evaluated against
the relevant structural capacity criteria. In locations in way of column connections with pontoon
and upper hull structures, global stress components become more dominant and should not be
ignored.
• When transverse stress components are taken directly from the local structural model an
evaluation, that it is relevant to ignore transverse responses from the global model, shall be
carried out. This may normally be undertaken by considering the transverse stresses in the
global model along the length of the structural element and ensuring that no additional
transverse stress components have been set-up as a result of global stress concentrations, "skew"
load conditions, or other interacting structural arrangements.
• Stiffener induced buckling failure normally tends to occur with lateral pressure on the stiffener
side of the plate field. Plate induced buckling failure normally tends to occur with lateral
pressure on the plate side. Relevant combinations of buckling code checking should therefore
include evaluation of the capacity with relevant lateral pressure applied independently to both
sides of the plate field.
• In order to ensure that local bending stress components resulting from action acting directly on
the stiffeners ( σ bs , σ bp ,-see Clause 6) are included in the buckling code check, the lateral
pressure should be explicitly included in the capacity check. Unless, for the case in question,
there is always a pressure acting over the stiffened plate field being evaluated, the capacity
checking should include a buckling check with no lateral pressure in addition to the case with
lateral pressure.

Figure M.4-3 Combination of stress components for buckling assessment of an individual

stiffened plate field in a "typical" pontoon section.

M.5 Fatigue limit states (FLS)

M.5.1 General
General requirements and guidance concerning fatigue criteria are given in Clause 8, and DNV-RP-
C203.
Evaluation of the fatigue limit states shall include consideration of all significant actions
contributing to fatigue damage both in non-operational and operational design conditions.
The minimum fatigue life of the unit (before the DFF is considered) should be based upon a period
of time not being less than the planned life of the structure.
Assumptions related to the resistance parameters adopted in the fatigue design (e.g. with respect to
corrosion protection) (see DNV-RP-C203) shall be consistent with the in-service structure.
Local effects, for example due to
• slamming,
• sloshing,
• vortex shedding,
• dynamic pressures,
• mooring and riser systems.
shall be included in the fatigue damage assessment, when relevant.
In the assessment of fatigue resistance, relevant consideration shall be given to the effects of stress
raisers (concentrations) including those occurring as a result of
• fabrication tolerances (including due regard to tolerances in way of connections of large
structural sections, e.g. as involved in mating sequences or section joints),
• cut-outs,
• details at connections of structural sections, e.g. cut-outs to facilitate construction welding.
M.5.2 Design fatigue factors (DFFs)

Criteria related to DFFs, are given in Clause 8.
Structural components and connections designed in accordance with this annex should normally
satisfy the requirement to damage condition according to the ALS with failure in the actual joint
defined as the damage. As such DFFs selected in accordance with Table 8-1 should normally fall
within the classification: "Without substantial consequences".
When determining the appropriate DFF for a specific fatigue sensitive location, consideration shall
be given to the following:
• Consideration that economic consequence of failure may indicate the use of larger design
factors than those provided for as minimum factors.
• The categorisation: "Accessible/Above splash zone" is, intended to refer to fatigue sensitive
locations where the possibility for close-up, detailed inspection in a dry and clean condition
exists. If any of these requirements are not fulfilled, the relevant DFF should be considered as
being that appropriate for "Accessible/Below splash zone", or, "No access or in the splash zone"
as relevant to the location being considered.
• Evaluation of likely crack propagation paths (including direction and growth rate related to the
inspection interval), may indicate the use of a different DFF than that which would be selected
when the detail is considered in isolation, such that:
• Where the likely crack propagation indicates that a fatigue failure, from a location satisfying
the requirements for a "Non-substantial" consequence of failure, may result in a

"Substantial" consequence of failure, such fatigue sensitive location is itself to be deemed to

have a "Substantial" consequence of failure.
• Where the likely crack propagation is from a location satisfying the requirement for a given
"Access for inspection and repair" category to a structural element having another access
categorisation, such location is itself to be deemed to have the same categorisation as the
most demanding category when considering the most likely crack path. For example, a weld
detail on the inside (dry space) of a submerged shell plate should be allocated the same DFF
as that relevant for a similar weld located externally on the plate, see Figure M.5-1.
Implications of the above are that for internal structures, below or above splash zone, the DFF shall
normally be 1 where access for inspection and repair is possible. Non-accessible areas, like welds
covered with fire proofing and other areas inaccessible for inspection, shall be designed with
DFF=3.
The hull shell below splash zone shall normally be assigned a DFF=2. This applies also to any
attachment, internal or external, from where a fatigue crack can grow into the shell.
Figure M.5-1 Example illustrating considerations relevant for selection of DFFs in

locations considered to have "non-substantial" consequence of failure
M.5.3 Splash zone

The definition of "splash zone" as given in NORSOK N-003, 6.6.3, relates to a highest and lowest
tidal reference. For column stabilised units, for the evaluation of the fatigue limit state, reference to
the tidal datum should be substituted by reference to the draught that is intended to be utilised when
condition monitoring is to be undertaken. The requirement that the extent of the splash zone is to
extend 5 m above and 4 m below this draught may then be applied. For application of requirements

to corrosion addition, however, the normal operating draught should generally be considered as the
reference datum.
If significant adjustment in draught of the unit is possible in order to provide for satisfactory
accessibility in respect to inspection, maintenance and repair, account may be taken of this
possibility in the determination of the DFFs. In such cases, however, a sufficient margin in respect
to the minimum inspection draught should be considered when deciding upon the appropriate DFF
in relation to the criteria for "Below splash zone" as opposed to "Above splash zone". Where draft
adjustment possibilities exist, a reduced extent of splash zone may be applicable. See M.12 for
further details.
The entire unit may be regarded as being above the splash zone if the unit is to be regularly dry-
docked every 4 years to 5 years.
M.5.4 Fatigue analysis
M.5.4.1 General
The basis for determining the acceptability of fatigue resistance, with respect to wave actions, shall
be appropriate stochastic fatigue analyses. The analyses shall be undertaken utilising relevant site
specific environmental data and take appropriate consideration of both global and local (e.g.
pressure fluctuation) dynamic responses. These responses do not necessarily have to be evaluated in
the same model but the cumulative damage from all relevant effects should be considered when
evaluating the total fatigue damage.
Simplified fatigue analyses may form the basis of a "screening" process to identify locations for
which a detailed, stochastic fatigue analysis should be undertaken, e.g. at critical intersections. Such
simplified fatigue analysis shall be calibrated, see M.5.4.2.
Local, detailed FE analysis of critical connections (e.g. pontoon/pontoon, pontoon/column,
column/deck and brace connections) should be undertaken in order to identify local stress
distributions, appropriate SCFs, and/or extrapolated stresses to be utilised in the fatigue evaluation,
see DNV-RP-C203 for further details. Dynamic stress variations through the plate thickness shall be
documented and considered in such evaluations.
Explicit account shall be taken of any local structural details that invalidate the general criteria
utilised in the assessment of the fatigue strength. Such local details may, for example be access
openings, cut-outs, penetrations etc. in structural elements.
Principal stresses (see DNV-RP-C203) should be utilised in the evaluation of fatigue responses.
M.5.4.2 Simplified fatigue analysis

Provided that the provisions stated in M.5.4.1, are satisfied, simplified fatigue analysis may be
undertaken in order to establish the general acceptability of fatigue resistance. In all cases when a
simplified fatigue analysis is utilised a control of the results of the simplified fatigue evaluation,
compared to the stochastic results, shall be documented to ensure that the simplified analysis
provides for a conservative assessment for all parts of the structure being considered.
Simplified fatigue analysis is particularly well suited for preliminary design evaluation studies. In
such cases, a space frame model of the structure may be considered as being adequate. For final
design however the basis model for the "screening" evaluation should be a model of similar (or
better) detail to that described in M.4.2.2.
Simplified fatigue analyses should be undertaken utilising appropriate design parameters that
provide for conservative results. Normally a two-parameter, Weibull distribution (see DNV-RP-

C203) may be utilised to describe the long-term stress range distribution. In such cases the Weibull
shape parameter (‘h’, see Equation (M.5.1)) should normally have a value between 1.0 and 1.1.
1 (M.5.1)
(lnn 0 )  m
1
h a 
Δσ n 0 = 1
n Γ 1+ m
(DFF) m  0 h
( ) 

where
n0 is the total number of stress variations during the lifetime of the structure
∆σn0 is the extreme stress range that is exceeded once out of n0 stress variations. The
 Δσ n 0 
 2  .
extreme stress amplitude Δσ ampl_n 0 is thus given by 
h is the shape parameter of the Weibull stress range distribution
a is the intercept of the design S-N curve with the log N axis (see, for example,
DNV-RP-C203)
(
Γ 1+ m )
is the complete gamma function (see DNV-RP-C203)
h
m is the inverse slope of the S-N curve (see DNV-RP-C203)
DFF is the DFF
Generally, the simplified global fatigue analysis should consider the "F3", S-N class curve (see
DNV-RP-C203), adjusted to include any thickness effect, as the minimum basis requirement. Areas
not satisfying this requirement are normally to be excluded from the simplified fatigue evaluation
"screening" procedure. This implies that connections with a more demanding S-N fatigue class than
F3, are not to be applied in the structure, e.g. if overlap connections are applied then the fatigue S-N
class is to be suitably adjusted. The cumulative fatigue damage may then be obtained by
considering the dynamic stress variation, ∆σ Actual ( n0 ) , which is exceeded once out of ‘ n0 ’ cycles
[see Equation (M.5.2) with the allowable equivalent stress variation, ∆σ n0 , calculated from
Equation (M.5.1). The fatigue life thus obtained is found from Equation (M.5.1)].
 Δσ n 0 
m (M.5.2)
N Actual = N Design  
 Δσ Actual(n0 ) 
where
N Actual is the actual (calculated) fatigue life
N Design is the target fatigue life
Δσ n 0 is described in Equation (M.5.1)
Δσ Actual(n 0 ) is the actual design, dynamic stress variation which is exceeded once out of "n0"
cycles.
When the simplified fatigue evaluation involves utilisation of the dynamic stress responses resulting
from the global analysis (as described in M.4.2), the response should be suitably scaled to the return
period of the basis, minimum fatigue life of the unit. In such cases, scaling may normally be
undertaken utilising the appropriate factor found from Equaion (M.5.3).

1 (M.5.3)
 log n0  h
∆σ n0 = ∆σ n100  
 log n100 
where
n100 is the number of stress variations (e.g. 100 years) appropriate to the global analysis
∆σ n100 is the extreme stress range that is exceeded once out of n100 stress variations
[Other parameters are as for Equation (M.5.1) and Equation (M.5.2)].
M.5.4.3 Stochastic fatigue analysis

Stochastic fatigue analyses shall be based upon recognised procedures and principles utilising
relevant site specific data.
Analyses shall include consideration of the directional probability of the environmental data.
Providing that it can be satisfactorily documented, scatter diagram data may be considered as being
directionally specific. Relevant wave spectra shall be utilised. Wave energy spreading may be taken
into account if relevant.
Structural response shall be determined based upon analyses of an adequate number of wave
directions. Generally a maximum radial spacing of 15 degrees should be considered. Transfer
functions should be established based upon consideration of a sufficient number of periods, such
that the number, and values of the periods analysed
• adequately cover the site specific wave data,
• satisfactorily describe transfer functions at, and around, the wave "cancellation" and
"amplifying" periods. Consideration should be given to take account that such "cancellation"
and "amplifying" periods may be different for different elements within the structure),
• satisfactorily describe transfer functions at, and around, the relevant excitation periods of the
structure.
Stochastic fatigue analyses utilising simplified structural model representations of the unit (e.g. a
space frame model) may form the basis of a "screening" process to identify locations for which a,
stochastic fatigue analysis, utilising a detailed model of the structure, should be undertaken (e.g. at
critical intersections). When space frame, beam models are utilised in the assessment of the fatigue
strength of large volume structures, (other than for preliminary design studies) the responses
resulting from the beam models should be calibrated against a more detailed model to ensure that
global stress concentrations are included in the evaluation process.

M.6 Accidental limit states (ALS)

M.6.1 General
General guidance and requirements concerning accidental events are given in Clause 9, and Annex
A.
Units shall be designed to be damage tolerant (i.e. credible accidental damages, or events, are not to
cause loss of global structural integrity) see M.9.1. The capability of the structure to redistribute
actions should be considered when designing the structure.
In the design phase, attention shall be given to layout and arrangements of facilities and equipment
in order to minimise the adverse effects of accidental events.
Satisfactory protection against accidental damage may be obtained by a combination of the
following principles:
• reduction of the probability of damage to an acceptable level;
• reduction of the consequences of damage to an acceptable level.
Structural design in respect to the ALS shall involve a two-stage procedure considering
• resistance of the structure to a relevant accidental event,
• capacity of the structure after an accidental event.
Global structural integrity shall be maintained both during and after an accidental event. Actions
occurring at the time of a design accidental event and thereafter shall not cause complete structural
collapse, or loss of hydrostatic (or hydrodynamic) stability, see M.8.
Requirements to compartmentation and stability in the damage condition are given in M.8.4. When
the upper hull (deckbox) structure becomes buoyant in satisfying requirements to damage stability
/1/, consideration shall be given to the structural response resulting from such actions.
M.6.2 Dropped objects

Critical areas for dropped objects shall be determined on the basis of the actual movement of
potential dropped objects (e.g. crane actions) relative to the structure of the unit itself. Where a
dropped object is a relevant accidental event, the impact energy shall be established and the
structural consequences of the impact assessed.
The impact energy at sea level is normally not to be taken less than 5 MJ for cranes with maximum
lifting capacity of more than 30 tonnes, however, reduced impact energy may be acceptable for
smaller cranes and special purpose cranes.
The impact energy below sea level is assumed to be equal to the energy at sea level, unless
otherwise documented.
Generally, dropped object assessment will involve the following considerations:
• assessment of the risk and consequences of dropped objects impacting topside, wellhead (e.g. on
the seafloor), and safety systems and equipment. The assessment shall identify the necessity of
any local structural reinforcement or protection to such arrangements;
• assessment of the risk and consequences of dropped objects impacting externally on the hull
structure. However, the structural consequences are normally fully accounted for by the
requirements for watertight compartmentation and damage stability (see M.8) and the
requirement for structural redundancy of slender structural members, see M.9.1.

M.6.3 Fire
General guidance and requirements concerning accidental limit state events involving fire are given
in Clause 9 and Annex A.
M.6.4 Explosion
In respect to design considering actions resulting from explosions one, or a combination of the
following main design philosophies are relevant:
• ensure that the probability of explosion is reduced to a level where it is not required to be
considered as a relevant design load case;
• ensure that hazardous locations are located in unconfined (open) locations and that sufficient
shielding mechanisms (e.g. blast walls) are installed;
• locate hazardous areas in partially confined locations and design utilising the resulting,
relatively small overpressures;
• locate hazardous areas in enclosed locations and install pressure relief mechanisms (e.g. blast
panels) and design for the resulting overpressure.
As far as practicable, structural design accounting for large plate field rupture resulting from
explosion actions should normally be avoided due to the uncertainties of the actions and the
consequences of the rupture itself.
Structural support of blast walls, and the transmission of the blast action into main structural
members shall be evaluated when relevant. Effectiveness of connections and the possible outcome
from blast, such as flying debris, shall be considered.
M.6.5 Collision
Collision shall be considered as a relevant ALS load case for all structural elements of the unit that
may be impacted in the event of a collision. The vertical zone of impact shall be based on the depth
and draught of the colliding vessel and the relative motion of the vessel and the unit.
In the assessment of the collision condition, the following general considerations with respect to
structural strength will normally apply:
• An evaluation shall be undertaken in order to assess the extent of structural damage occurring to
the unit at the time of impact.
• The extent of the local damage resulting from the collision should be compared to that damage
extent implicit in the NMD regulations covering damage stability of the unit /1/. Provided that
the extent of local damage does not exceed that damage criteria stated in the NMD regulations,
the unit shall satisfy the relevant damage stability requirements of the NMD, see also M.8.4. If
the extent of the damage exceeds that damage criteria stated in the NMD regulations /1/, an
equivalent level of safety to that implicit in the NMD stability regulations should be
documented.
• NMD damaged condition requirements /1/, in respect to structural strength of watertight
boundaries (including boundaries required for reserve buoyancy) shall be satisfied, see M.6.8.
• Global structural integrity of the unit after the collision shall be evaluated.
• Topside structural arrangements should be designed for the damaged (inclined) condition.
Considerations concerning structural evaluation at, and after, the time of the collision are given
below.
Damage occurring at the time of collision
A structural evaluation shall be performed in order to document the extent of the local damage
occurring to the unit at the time of impact.

If a risk analysis shows that the greatest relevant accidental event with regard to collision is a
drifting vessel at 2 m/s, with a displacement which does not exceed 5000 tonnes, the following
kinetic energy occurring at the time of collision may be considered for the structural design:
• 14 MJ for sideways collision;
• 11 MJ for bow or stern collision.
Local damage assessment may be undertaken utilising sophisticated non-linear analytical tools,
however, simplified analytical procedures will normally be considered as being sufficient to
evaluate the extent of damage occurring under the action of the collision.
Simplified local damage assessment of the collision event normally involves the following
considerations
• the typical geometry of the supply vessel, together with relevant force-deformation curves for
side, bow and stern impact, documented in Annex A, may normally be utilised;
• in the local structural strength assessment the side, bow and stern profiles of the supply vessel
are progressively "stepped" into the collision zone of the column stabilised unit, see example
shown in Figure M.6-1;
Figure M.6-1 Illustration of the bow profile of a supply vessel being "stepped" into the
structure of a column stabilised unit
• by considering the local geometry of the supply vessel and the impacted structure, relevant
force-deformation curves for the column stabilised unit may be produced;
• For a given action level the area under the force-deformation curves represents the absorption of
energy. The distribution and extent of the damage results from the condition of equal collision
force acting on the structures, and that the sum of the absorbed energies equals the portion of the
impact energy dissipated as strain energy, i.e.

Δs Δu (M.6.1)
E s + E u = ∫ Ps (δ s )dδ s + ∫ Pu (δ u )dδ u
0 0
where
Ps , Pu are the force in the impacting vessel and the impacted unit respectively,
δs , δu are the deformations in the impacting vessel and the impacted unit respectively.
This procedure is illustrated in Figure M.6-2.
Figure M.6-2 Dissipation of strain energy global structural integrity after collision
Having evaluated the extent of local damage incurred by the relevant collision event (as described
above) an assessment of the resulting, global structural capacity (considering environmental
actions) shall be undertaken. In such an evaluation the following listed items are relevant:
• In cases where the impact damage is limited to local damage to the column particular
consideration should be given to column/deckbox interfaces, and the damaged (impacted)
section. For typical column structures a simplified approach to assess the reduced capacity of
the structure in way of the damaged location would be to assume that all the impacted
(deformed) area is ineffective.
• When counter-flooding is utilised as a means of righting the unit in an accidental event the
actions resulting from such counter flooding shall be evaluated.
• In cases where the impact damage is limited to local damage to a single brace, redundancy
requirements given in M.9.1 should adequately cover the required structural evaluation.

• NMD requirements to watertight boundary, structural strength in the damaged condition (see
M.6.8) (including inclined angles resulting from requirements to reserve buoyancy) should be
satisfied.
• In order to avoid risk assessment considerations in respect to implications of structural failure of
topside structures in the inclined condition (e.g. in respect to the possibility of progressive
collapse in the event of structural failure), it is normal practice to consider the structural
capacity of topside structural arrangements in the damaged condition.
Capacity exceedances may be accepted for local areas provided that adequate account is given to
the redistribution of forces.
Due to the large heel angles in the damaged condition, the in-plane force component of the deck
box mass may be considerable. Normally part of the deck will be submerged and counteract this
force. The most critical condition is therefore generally the heel angle corresponding to a water
plane just below the deck box corner.
M.6.6 Unintended flooding

Considerations in respect to unintended flooding are generally system and stability design
considerations rather than structural design. Requirements with respect to intact and reserve
buoyancy conditions are normally considered to adequately cover any structural strength
requirements (see M.6.8) in respect to unintended flooding.
M.6.7 Abnormal wave events

Air gap considerations with respect to evaluation of the abnormal wave events are given in M.7.
Should any part of the structure receive wave impact actions in the abnormal wave condition the
consequences of such wave impacts shall be evaluated.
M.6.8 Reserve buoyancy

Structural strength of watertight boundaries (both internal and external watertight boundaries,
including all stiffeners and girders supporting the plate fields) shall comply with the requirements
stated in NMD regulations /1/.
M.7 Air gap

M.7.1 General
Requirements and guidance to air gap analyses for a column stabilised unit are given in NORSOK
N-003, 9.2.5.4. Both ULS (10-2) and ALS (10-4) conditions shall be evaluated.
In the ULS condition, positive air gap should be ensured. However, wave impact may be permitted
to occur provided that it can be demonstrated that such actions are adequately accounted for in the
design and that safety to personnel is not significantly impaired. See M.12 for more details.
Analysis undertaken to document air gap should be calibrated against relevant model test results.
Such analysis shall include relevant account of
• wave/structure interaction effects,
• wave asymmetry effects,
• global rigid body motions (including dynamic effects),
• effects of interacting systems (e.g. mooring and riser systems),
• maximum/minimum draughts.

Column "run-up" action effects shall be accounted for in the design of the structural arrangement in
way of the column/deck box connection. These "run-up" actions are to be treated as an
environmental load component. However, they need not normally be considered as occurring
simultaneously with other environmental responses. For further considerations in respect to run-up
effects, reference should be made to NORSOK N-003.
Evaluation of air gap adequacy shall include consideration of all affected structural items including
lifeboat platforms, riser balconies, overhanging deck modulus etc..
M.8 Compartmentation and stability

M.8.1 General
In the assessment of compartmentation and stability of a column stabilised unit, consideration shall
be given to all relevant detrimental effects, including those resulting from
• environmental actions,
• relevant damage scenarios,
• rigid body motions,
• the effects of free-surface,
• boundary interactions (e.g. mooring and riser systems).
The mass distribution of a column stabilised unit, including all associated permanent and variable
actions, shall be determined to an appropriate accuracy by a relevant procedure. An inclining test
should be conducted when construction is as near to completion as practical in order to accurately
determine the unit’s mass and position of the centre of gravity. Changes in load conditions after the
inclining test should be carefully accounted for.
Monitoring of the mass and centre of gravity shall be performed during the entire life cycle of the
unit. A procedure for control of the mass and position of the centre of gravity of the unit shall be
incorporated into the design.
Note: Special provisions relating to the Norwegian activities
1. Special provisions relating to subdivision, stability and freeboard for units engaged in Norwegian petroleum
activities are given in NORSOK N-001, 7.10.
M.8.2 Compartmentation and watertight integrity

Compartmentation, and watertight and weather tight integrity of a column stabilised unit shall
satisfy the general requirements as stated in ISO 19900. Detailed provisions stated in IMO MODU
Code /2/, should also be satisfied.
The number of openings in watertight structural boundaries shall be kept to a minimum. Where
penetrations are necessary for access, piping, venting, cables etc., arrangements shall be made to
ensure that the watertight integrity of the structure is maintained.
Where individual lines, ducts or piping systems serve more than one watertight compartment, or are
within the extent of damage resulting from a relevant accidental event, arrangements shall be
provided to ensure that progressive flooding will not occur.
M.8.3 Stability
Stability of a column stabilised unit in the operational phase, shall satisfy the requirements of the
relevant provisions stated in the IMO MODU Code /2/.
Adequacy of stability shall be established for all relevant operational and temporary phase
conditions. The assessment of stability shall include consideration of both the intact and damaged

conditions. It shall be ensured that the assumed basis for the damage stability design criteria is
compatible with accidental events identified as being relevant for the structure, see M.6 and M.8.4.
M.8.4 Damaged condition

The dimensioning extent of damage and loss of buoyancy shall be based on a risk analysis, see
M.6.1. If such risk analysis shows that the greatest relevant accidental event with regard to collision
is a drifting vessel with a displacement that does not exceed 5000 tonnes, the extent of damage
indicated in the Norwegian Maritime Directorates, Regs. for Mobile Offshore Units, 1991, /1/, may
be utilised.
In order to ensure adequacy of ballast systems, both with respect to unintentional flooding, (see
M.6.6) and capacity in the damage condition (see M.6.5), the requirements to ballast systems, stated
in the Norwegian Maritime Directorate, Regs. for Mobile Offshore Units, 1991, /1/, concerning
ballast systems on mobile offshore units, /3/, Section 11 and Section 12 should be satisfied.
M.9 Special considerations

M.9.1 Structural redundancy
Structural robustness shall, when considered necessary, be demonstrated by appropriate analysis.
Slender, main load bearing, structural elements shall normally be demonstrated to be redundant in
the accidental limit state condition.
Considerations with respect to redundancy of bracing systems are given in M.9.2.
M.9.2 Brace arrangements

For bracing systems (see M.12, Comm. M.9.1) the following listed considerations shall apply:
• brace structural arrangements shall be investigated for relevant combinations of global and local
actions;
• structural redundancy of slender bracing systems (see M.9.1) shall normally include brace node
redundancy (i.e. all bracings entering the node), in addition to individual brace element
redundancy;
• brace end connections (e.g. brace/column connections) shall normally be designed such that the
brace element itself will fail before the end connection;
• underwater braces should be watertight and have a leakage detection system to make it possible
to detect cracking at an early stage;
• when relevant (e.g. in the self-floating, transit condition) the effect of slamming on braces shall
be considered.
M.9.3 Structure in way of a fixed mooring system

Local structure in way of fairleads, winches, etc. forming part of the position mooring system is, as
a minimum, to be capable of withstanding forces equivalent to 1.25 times the breaking strength of
the individual mooring line. The strength evaluation should be undertaken utilising the most
unfavourable operational direction of the anchor line. In the evaluation of the most unfavourable
direction, account shall be taken of relative angular motion of the unit in addition to possible line
lead directions.
M.9.4 Structural detailing

In the design phase particular attention should be given to structural detailing, and requirements to
reinforcement in areas that may be subjected to high local stresses, for example:

• design class 3 (DC3) connections (see M.2.1);

• locations that may be subjected to wave impact (including column run-up actions);
• locations in way of mooring arrangements;
• locations that may be subjected to accidental, or operational, damage.
In way of DC3 connections, continuity of strength is normally to be maintained through joints with
the axial stiffening members and shear web plates being made continuous. Particular attention
should be given to weld detailing and geometric form at the point of the intersections of the
continuous plate fields with the intersecting structure.
M.10 Documentation requirements for the "design basis" and "design brief"
M.10.1 General
workable and economic structural solution to perform the desired function. As an integral part of
this planning, documentation shall be produced identifying design criteria and describing
procedures to be adopted in the structural design of the unit.
Applicable codes, standards and regulations should be identified at the commencement of the
design.
A summary document containing all relevant data from the design and fabrication phase shall be
produced.
Design documentation (see below) shall, as far as practicable, be concise, non-voluminous, and,
should include all relevant information for all relevant phases of the lifetime of the unit.
General requirements to documentation relevant for structural design are given in NORSOK N-001,
Clause 5.
M.10.2 Design basis

A design basis document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process to document the
basis criteria to be applied in the structural design of the unit.
A summary of those items normally to be included in the design basis document is included below.
A summary description of the unit, including
• main drawings including:
• main structure drawings (this information may not be available in the initial stage of the
design),
• general arrangement drawings,
• plan of structural categorisation,
• load plan(s), showing description of deck uniform (laydown) actions,
• capacity (tank) plan.
• position keeping system description.
A list of all relevant, and applicable, rules, regulations and codes (including revisions and dates), to
be utilised in the design process.

Environmental design criteria (including all relevant parameters) for all relevant conditions,
including
• wind, wave, current, snow and ice description for 10-1 ,10-2 and 10-4 annual probability events,
• design temperatures.
Stability and compartmentation design criteria for all relevant conditions including
• external and internal watertight integrity plan,
• lightweight breakdown report,
• design loadcase(s) including global mass distribution,
• damage condition waterlines (this information may not be available in the initial stage of the
design).
Temporary phases
Design criteria for all relevant temporary phase conditions including, as relevant:
• limiting permanent, variable, environmental and deformation action criteria;
• procedures associated with construction (including major lifting operations);
• essential design parameters associated with temporary phases (e.g. for mating load cases,
mating weld-up sequences, crushing tube stiffness, for transit phases, transit speed etc.),
• relevant ALS criteria.
Design criteria for all relevant operational phase conditions including
• designing accidental event criteria (e.g. collision criteria),
• tank loading criteria (all tanks) including a description of system, with
• loading arrangements,
• height of air pipes,
• loading dynamics,
• densities.
• mooring actions.
Air gap
Relevant basis information necessary for the assessment of air gap sufficiency, including
• a description of the requirements to be applied in the ULS and ALS conditions,
• basis model test report (this information may not be available in the initial stage of the design).
A description of the in-service inspection criteria and general philosophy (as relevant for evaluating
fatigue allowable cumulative damage ratios).
Miscellaneous
A general description of other essential design information, including
• description of corrosion allowances, where applicable.
M.10.3 Design brief

A design brief document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process. The purpose of
the design brief shall be to document the intended procedures to be adopted in the structural design
of the unit. All applicable limit states for all relevant temporary and operational design conditions
shall be considered in the design brief.

A summary of those items normally to be included in the design brief document is included below.
Analysis models
A general description of models to be utilised, including description of
• global analysis model(s),
• local analysis model(s),
• load cases to be analysed.
Analysis procedures
A general description of analytical procedures to be utilised including description of procedures to
be adopted in respect to
• the evaluation of temporary conditions,
• the consideration of accidental events,
• the evaluation of fatigue actions,
• air gap evaluation (including locations to be considered, damping, inclusion of asymmetry
factors, disturbed (radiated) wave considerations, combined motion response),
• the establishment of dynamic responses (including methodology, factors, and relevant
parameters),
• the inclusion of "built-in" stresses,
• the consideration of local responses (e.g. those resulting from mooring and riser actions, ballast
distribution in pontoon tanks etc.),
• the consideration of structural redundancy.
A general description of the evaluation process, including
• description of procedures to be utilised for considering global and local responses,
• description of fatigue evaluation procedures (including use of DFFs, SN-curves, basis for stress
concentration factors (SCFs), etc.),
• description of procedures to be utilised for code checking.
Air gap evaluation
A general description of the air gap evaluation procedure, including
• description of procedures to be utilised for considering air gap sufficiency.
M.11 References
/1/ Regulations of 20 Dec. 1991, No.878, concerning stability, watertight subdivision and
watertight/weathertight closing means on mobile offshore units, Norwegian Maritime
Directorate.
/2/ Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 1989,
(1989 MODU CODE), International Maritime Organisation, London 1990.
/3/ Regulations of 20 Dec. 1991, No.879, concerning ballast systems on mobile offshore
units, Norwegian Maritime Directorate.
/4/ ‘Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction and certification’, U.K.,
Health & Safety Executive, Fourth Edition, HMSO.
M.12 Commentary

Comm. M.1.1 General

The content of this annex is applicable to column stabilised units located at a single site over a
prolonged period of time. Normally such units will be engaged in production activities. There may
therefore be certain requirements and guidance given within this annex that are not considered as
being fully appropriate for "mobile", column stabilised units, e.g. engaged in exploration drilling
activities at a location for only a limited period of time.
Comm. M.3.3 Variable actions

Applicable variable actions acting on deck areas are stated in NORSOK N-003, Table 5.1. This
table provides appropriate action factors for local, primary and global design. For floating units, full
application of the global design action factors will lead to a load condition that, in practice, would
not be possible to achieve as the total static mass is always required to be in balance with the
buoyancy actions. Additionally requirements to stability and compartmentation will further restrict
the practical distribution of variable actions.
In the assessment of global structural response the variable action design factors stated in Table 5.1
are not intended to limit the variable load carrying capacity of the unit in respect to non-relevant,
variable load combinations. Full application of the global design factors, stated in Table 5.1, to all
variable actions would normally imply such a restriction. Global design load conditions should
therefore be established based upon "worst case", representative variable load combinations, where
the limiting global mass distribution criteria is established taking into account compliance with the
requirements to intact and damage hydrostatic and hydrodynamic stability.
These limit global load conditions shall be fully documented in the design basis, see M.10.2.
Comm. M.4.2 Global models

It is normally not practical to consider all relevant actions (both global and local) in a single model,
due to, for example the following listed reasons:
• Single model solutions do not normally contain sufficient structural detailing (for ULS
structural assessment, response down to the level of the stress in plate fields between stiffeners
is normally required). Examples of insufficient structural detailing may be:
- internal structure is not modelled in sufficient detail to establish internal structural response
to the degree of accuracy required,
- element type, shape or fineness (e.g. mesh size) is insufficient.
• Single model solutions do not normally account for the full range of internal and external
pressure combinations. Examples of effects that may typically not be fully accounted for
include:
- internal tank pressure up to the maximum design pressure,
- maximum external pressures (e.g. if a "design wave" analytical approach has been adopted,
the maximum external pressure height is that height resulting from the design wave, which
is not normally the maximum external pressure that the section may be subjected to),
- the full extent of internal and external pressure combinations,
- variations in tank loadings across the section of the pontoon (e.g. if the pontoon is sub-
divided into a number of watertight compartments across its section),
- load conditions that may not be covered by the global analysis (e.g. damage, inclined
conditions).

• Single model solutions do not normally account for the full range of "global" tank loading
conditions. Examples of global tank loading conditions that may typically not be fully
accounted for include
- tank loading distributions along the length of the pontoon,
- asymmetric tank loadings from one pontoon as compared to another.
• Single model solutions may not fully account for all action effects. Examples of load effects that
may typically not be fully accounted for include
- viscous effects (drag loading) on slender members,
- riser interface actions,
- thruster actions.
Generally, single model solutions that do contain sufficient detail to include consideration of all
relevant actions and load combinations are normally extremely large models, with a very large
number of load cases. It is therefore often the case that it is more practical, and efficient, to analyse
different action effects utilising a number of appropriate models and superimposing the responses
from one model with the responses from another model in order to assess the total utilisation of the
structure.
Comm. M.5.2 Design fatigue factors (DFFs)

If significant adjustment in draught is possible in order to provide for satisfactory accessibility in
respect to inspection, maintenance and repair, a sufficient margin in respect to the minimum
inspection draught should be considered when deciding upon the appropriate DFFs. As a minimum
this margin is to be at least 1 m. However, it is recommended that a larger value be considered
especially in the early design stages where sufficient reserve should be allowed for to account for
design changes in the mass and the centre of mass of the unit. Consideration should further be given
to operational requirements that may limit the possibility for ballasting/deballasting operations.
When considering utilisation of ROV inspection consideration should be given to the limitations
imposed on such inspection by the action of water particle motion, e.g. waves. The practicality of
such a consideration may be that effective underwater inspection by ROV, in normal sea conditions,
may not be achievable unless the inspection depth is at least 10 m below the sea surface.
Comm. M.6.5 Collision

In the damaged, inclined condition (i.e. after the collision event) the structure shall continue to resist
the defined environmental conditions, i.e. 10-2 annual probability of exceedance criteria. In practice,
it is not normally considered practicable to analyse this damaged, inclined condition as the deck box
structure becomes buoyant (due both to the static angle of inclination in the damaged condition and
also due to rigid body motion of the unit itself). The global system of loading and response becomes
extremely non-linear. Even with exhaustive model testing it would be difficult to ensure that all
relevant responses are measured, for all designing sea-state conditions, and directions, for all
relevant damage waterlines.
Further, it is considered to be extremely unlikely that a 10-2 environmental load event would occur
before corrective action had taken place, e.g. righting of the unit to an even keel. NMD
requirements to ballast systems for column stabilised units, /3/, (and required in M.8.4) include
requirements that the ballast system shall be capable of restoring the unit to an upright position, and
an acceptable draught as regards strength, within 3 h after the collision damage event. On the
assumption that the 5000 tonne, 2 m/s, collision criteria is based upon a free drifting supply vessel
with a drift velocity equal to Hs/2 (where Hs = significant wave height), within a 3 h period, a 4 m
significant wave height may be expected to increase to max. 6.5 m significant wave height. Hence,

disregarding the damaged structural element itself, the ULS load case b. may generally be
considered as providing more demanding design criteria than the ALS condition with 100-year load
event. Additionally, in respect to global response, as soon as the deck box starts to become buoyant
the global actions resulting from the inclined deck box mass rapidly become reduced.
With background in the above logic simplified "engineering" solutions to structural design for the
collision event, that do not explicitly require analyses involving 100-year environmental actions in
the inclined (heeled) condition, are normally considered as being acceptable.
Comm. M.7.1 General

In the ULS condition positive clearance between the upper hull (deck box) structure and the wave
crest, including relative motion and interaction effects, should normally to be ensured. Localised,
negative air gap, may however be considered as being acceptable for overhanging structures and
appendages to the upper hull. In such cases full account of the wave impact forces is to be taken
into account in the design. The consequence of wave impact shall not result in failure of a safety
related system, e.g. lifeboat arrangements.
It is recommended in the design phase to consider operational aspects, including requirements to
inspection and maintenance, which may impose criteria to air gap that exceed minimum
requirements.
In the context of M.7, column run-up actions are not considered as resulting in negative air-gap
responses.
Comm. M.9.1 Structural redundancy

The requirement concerning structural redundancy of a slender structural element is included within
this annex for the following listed reasons:
• in order to maintain compatibility with the requirements to column stabilised stated by the
International Association of Classification Societies;
• in order to ensure that the structure exhibits ductility after first failure;
• in order to ensure that a single failure does not lead to a critical condition. A critical condition
may for example be a fatigue failure that has not been accounted for in design calculations due
to the fact that, in the process of fabrication, details built into the structure do not exactly reflect
those details that considered in the assessment of the design.
−
Typically a member is to be considered as being slender if the reduced (relative) slenderness, λ , is
greater than 0.2, see 5.4.

- o0o -

Annex N Draft 3 to Rev.3 , November 2012

ANNEX N
SPECIAL DESIGN PROVISIONS FOR TENSION LEG PLATFORMS

CONTENTS
N.1 INTRODUCTION 245

N.1.1 General 245
N.1.2 Definitions 245
N.1.3 Description of tendon system 247
N.1.4 Non-operational phases 248
N.2 STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND MATERIAL SELECTION 250
N.2.1 General 250
N.2.2 Structural classification 250
N.2.3 Material selection 251
N.2.4 Inspection categories 251
N.2.5 Guidance to minimum requirements 251
N.3 DESIGN CRITERIA 254
N.3.1 General 254
N.3.2 Design principles, tendons 254
N.4 ACTIONS 256
N.4.1 General 256
N.4.2 Different actions 256
N.5 GLOBAL PERFORMANCE 258
N.5.1 General 258
N.5.2 Frequency domain analysis 258
N.5.2.1 High frequency analyses 259
N.5.2.2 Wave-frequency analyses 259
N.5.2.3 Low-frequency analyses 259
N.5.3 Time domain analyses 259
N.5.4 Model testing 260
N.5.5 Action effects in the tendons 260
N.6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE (ULS) 262
N.6.1 General 262
N.6.2 Hull 262
N.6.2.1 Structural analysis 263
N.6.2.2 Structural design 263
N.6.3 Deck 263
N.6.3.1 General 263
N.6.3.2 Air gap 263
N.6.4 Tendons 264
N.6.4.1 Extreme tendon tensions 264
N.6.4.2 Structural design 265
N.6.5 Foundations 265
N.7 FATIGUE LIMIT STATE (FLS) 266
N.7.1 General 266
N.7.2 Hull 266
N.7.3 Deck 266
N.7.4 Tendons 266
N.7.5 Foundation 266

N.8 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE (SLS) 267

N.8.1 General 267
N.9 ACCIDENTIAL LIMIT STATE (ALS) 268
N.9.1 General 268
N.9.2 Hull and deck 268
N.9.3 Tendons 268
N.9.4 Foundations 269
N.10 COMPARTMENTATION & STABILITY 270
N.10.1 General 270
N.10.2 Compartmentation and watertight integrity 270
N.11 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ‘DESIGN BASIS’ &
‘DESIGN BRIEF’ 272
N.11.1 General 272
N.11.2 Design basis 272
N.11.3 Design brief 274
N.12 REFERENCES 275

N.1 INTRODUCTION
N.1.1 General
This Annex provides requirements and guidance to the structural design of tension leg platforms,
constructed in steel, in accordance with the provisions of this NORSOK standard.
The requirements and guidance documented in this Annex are generally applicable to all
configurations of tension leg platforms.
For novel designs, or unproved applications of designs where limited or no direct experience exists,
relevant analyses and model testing, shall be performed which clearly demonstrate that an
acceptable level of safety is obtained which is not inferior to the safety level set forth by this Annex
when applied to traditional designs.
N.1.2 Definitions
Terms
A Tension Leg Platform (TLP) is defined as a buoyant installation connected to a fixed foundation
by pretensioned tendons. The tendons are normally parallel, near vertical elements, acting in
tension, which restrain the motions of the platform in heavy, pitch and roll. The platform is
compliant in surge, sway and yaw.
The TLP tendon system comprises all components associated with the mooring system between, and
including the top connection(s) to the hull and the bottom connection(s) to the foundation(s).
Guidelines, control lines, umbilicals etc. for tendon service and/or installation are considered to be
included as part of the tendon system.
The TLP foundation is defined as those installations at, or in, the seafloor which serve as anchoring
of the tendons and provides transfer of tendon actions to the foundation soil.
The TLP hull consists of buoyant columns, pontoons and intermediate structural bracings, as
applicable.
The TLP deck structure is the structural arrangement provided for supporting the topside equipment.
Normally, the deck serves the purpose of being the major structural components to ensure pontoons,
columns and deck acting as one structural unit to resist environmental and gravity actions.
Ringing is defined as the high frequency resonant response induced by transient loads from high,
steep waves.
Springing is defined as the high frequency resonant response induced by cyclic (steady state) in
low to moderate seastates.
High Frequency (HF) responses are defined as TLP rigid body motions at, or near heave, roll and
pitch eigenperiods.
Low Frequency (LF) responses is defined as TLP rigid body motions at, or near surge, sway and
yaw eigenperiods.

DECK/TOPSIDE
HULL
COLUMN
PONTOON
RIGID
RISERS FLEXIBLE
RISERS
TENDONS
WELL
TEMPLATE
FOUNDATION
Figure N.1-1 Typical tension leg platform

N.1.3 Description of tendon system

Individual tendons are considered within this Annex as being composed of three major parts:
• Interface at the platform
• Interface at the foundation (seafloor)
• Link between platform and foundation
Tendon components at the platform interface shall adequately perform the following main
functions:
• Apply, monitor and adjust a prescribed level of tension to the tendon
• Connect the tensioned tendon to the platform
• Transfer side actions and absorb bending moments or rotations of the tendon
Tendon components providing the link between the platform and the foundation consist of tendon
elements (tubulars, solid rods etc.), termination at the platform interface and at the foundation
interface, and intermediate connections of couplings along the length as required. The intermediate
connections may take the form of mechanical couplings (threads, clamps, bolted flanges etc.),
welded joints or other types of connections.
Tendon components at the foundation interface shall adequately perform the following main
functions:
• Provide the structural connection between the tendon and the foundation
• Transfer side actions and absorb bending moments or rotations of the tendon
The tendon design may incorporate specialized components, such as:

• corrosion-protection system components,
• buoyancy devices,
• sensors and other types of instrumentation for monitoring the performance and condition of the
tendons,
• auxiliary lines, umbilicals etc. for tendon service requirements and/or for functions not related
to the tendons,
• provisions for tendons to be used as guidance structure for running other tendons or various
types of equipment, and
• elastomeric elements.

Protection
TLP hull
Top connector
Flex element (side entry)
Transition piece
Tendon body
Bottom connector
(vertical stab-in)
Flex element
Foundation
Figure N.1-2 Typical TLP tendon system
N.1.4 Non-operational phases

The structure shall be designed to resist relevant actions associated with conditions that may occur
during all stages of the life-cycle of the unit. Such stages may include :
• fabrication,
• site moves,
• mating,
• installation, and,
Structural design covering marine operation, construction sequences shall be undertaken in
accordance with NORSOK N-001.
Marine operations should be undertaken in accordance with the requirements stated in
NORSOK J-003.
All marine operations shall, as far as practicable, be based upon well proven principles, techniques,
systems and equipment and shall be undertaken by qualified, competent personnel possessing
relevant experience.
Structural responses resulting from one temporary phase condition (e.g. a construction or
transportation operation) that may effect design criteria in another phase shall be clearly
documented and considered in all relevant design workings.

Fabrication
Planning of construction sequences and of the methods of construction shall be performed. Actions
occurring in fabrication phases shall be assessed and, when necessary the structure and the
structural support arrangement shall be evaluated for structural adequacy.
Major lifting operations shall be evaluated to ensure that deformations are within acceptable levels,
and that relevant strength criteria are satisfied.
Mating
All relevant action effects incurred during mating operations shall be considered in the design
process. Particular attention should be given to hydrostatic actions imposed during mating
sequences.
Sea transportation
A detailed transportation assessment shall be undertaken which includes determination of the
limiting environmental criteria, evaluation of intact and damage stability characteristics, motion
response of the global system and the resulting, induced actions. The occurrence of slamming
actions on the structure and the effects of fatigue during transport phases shall be evaluated when
relevant.
In case of transportation (surface/sub surface) of tendons, this operation shall be carefully planned
and analysed. Model testing shall be considered.
All aspects of the transportation, including planning and procedures, preparations, seafastenings and
marine operations should comply with the requirements of the Warranty Authority.
Installation
Installation procedures of foundations (e.g. piles, suction anchor or gravity based structures) shall
consider relevant static and dynamic actions, including consideration of the maximum
environmental conditions expected for the operations.
For novel installation activities (foundations and tendons), relevant model testing should be
considered.
Tendon stand-off (pending TLP installation) phases shall be considered with respect to actions and
responses.
The actions induced by the marine spread mooring involved in the operations and the forces exerted
on the structures utilised in positioning the unit, such as fairleads and padeyes, shall be considered
for local strength checks.
Decommissioning
Abandonment of the unit shall be planned for in the design stage.

N.2 STRUCTURAL CLASSIFICATION AND MATERIAL SELECTION

N.2.1 General
joints/connections as documented in Chapter 5.
In addition to in-service operational phases, consideration shall be given to structural members and
details utilised for temporary conditions, e.g. fabrication, lifting arrangements, towing and
installation arrangements, etc.
N.2.2 Structural classification

The structural classification guidance given below assumes that the tendon system is demonstrated
to have residual strength and that the TLP structural system satisfies the requirements of the ALS
condition with failure of the tendon (or a connection in the tendon) as the defined damage. (See also
NORSOK N-004, Table 5-1). If this is not the case then design classes, DC3 and DC4 stated below
should be substituted by design classes DC1 and DC2 and the inspection categories respectively
upgraded in accordance with the requirements of NORSOK N-004, Tables 5-3 and 5-4 as
applicable.
Examples of typical design classes applicable to the hull and deck structures of a TLP are given in
Annex M.
Examples of typical design classes applicable to the pile foundation structures are given in Annex
K.
Examples of considerations with respect to structural classification of tendons, tendon interfaces are
given below. These examples provide minimum requirements and are not intended to restrict the
designer in applying more stringent requirements should such requirements be desirable.

Locations in way of complex structural connections should be classified as DC3, such connections
may occur at :
• tendon interfaces with the foundation and the TLP hull, and,
• complex tendon / tendon connections.
DC3 areas may be limited to local, highly stressed areas if the stress gradient at such connections is
large.

Except as provided for in the description for DC3 structural categorisation, the following listed
connections may appropriately be classified as being DC4 :
• simple tendon / tendon connections,
• interface arrangements outside locations of complex connections including general stiffened
plate fields (e.g. at hull interface)
Consideration of the economic consequence of failure may however indicate the utilisation of a
higher design class than the minimum class as given above.

DC5 locations are not normally relevant for tendons or tendon interfaces.

N.2.3 Material selection

Material specifications shall be established for all structural materials utilised in a TLP. Such
materials shall be suitable for their intended purpose and have adequate properties in all relevant
design conditions. Material selection shall be undertaken in accordance with the principles given in
NORSOK M-DP-001.
When considering criteria appropriate to material grade selection, adequate consideration shall be
given to all relevant phases in the life cycle of the unit. In this connection there may be conditions
and criteria, other than those from the in-service, operational phase, that provide the design
requirements in respect to the selection of material. (Such criteria may, for example, be design
temperature and/or stress levels during marine operations.)
Selection of steel quality for structural components shall normally be based on the most stringent
Design Class of the joints involving the component.
Through-thickness stresses and low temperature toughness requirements shall be assessed.
The evaluation of structural resistance shall include relevant account of variations in material
properties for the selected material grade (e.g. Variation in yield stress as a function of thickness of
the base material)
N.2.4 Inspection categories

Welding, and the extent of non-destructive examination during fabrication, shall be in accordance
with the requirements stipulated for the appropriate 'inspection category' as defined in NORSOK,
M-101. Determination of inspection category should be in accordance with the criteria given in
Table 5-5.
The lower the extent of NDT selected, the more important is the representativeness of the NDT
selected and performed. The designer should therefore exercise good engineering judgement in
indicating mandatory locations for NDT, where variation of utility along welds is significant.
N.2.5 Guidance to minimum requirements

Figures N.2-1 and N.2-2 illustrate minimum requirements to selection of Design Class, and
Inspection Category for typical TLP unit, structural configurations.

Segment of Column
1)
DC2 A
2)
DC2 B
Figue N.2-1 Examples of typical hull porch design classes and inspection categories
1. Inspection Category A is selected in accordance with Table 5.4 assuming high fatigue utilisation and principal
stresses in the transverse direction.
2. Inspection Category B is selected in accordance with Table 5.4 assuming high fatigue and principal stresses
longitudinal to the weld.

Longitud. weld
1)
DC2 B
Welded Girth weld

DC2 A 2)
Threaded
Figure N.2-2 Examples of design classes and inspection categories for typical tendon
connections
1. Inspection Category B is selected in accordance with Table 5.4 assuming high fatigue utilisation and principal
stresses in the longitudinal direction.
2. Inspection Category A is selected in accordance with Table 5.4 assuming high fatigue and principal stresses
transverse to the weld. Stricter acceptance criteria as per footnote 2 in Table 5.4 will apply.

N.3 DESIGN CRITERIA

N.3.1 General
The following basic design criteria shall be complied with for the TLP design:
• The TLP is to be able to sustain all actions liable to occur during all relevant temporary and
operating design conditions for all applicable limit states.
• Direct wave actions on the deck structure should not occur in the ultimate limit-state (ULS).
Direct wave actions on the deck structure may be accepted in the ALS condition provided that
such actions are adequately included in the design.
Operating tolerances shall be specified and shall be achievable in practice. Normally, the most
unfavourable operating tolerances shall be included in the design. Active operation shall not to be
dependent on high reliability of operating personnel in an emergency situation.
Note: Active operation of the following may be considered in an emergency situation, as applicable:
• Ballast distribution
• Weight distribution
• Tendon tension
• Riser tension
N.3.2 Design principles, tendons

Essential components of the tendon system shall be designed by the principle that, as far as
practicable, they are to be capable of being inspected, maintained, repaired and/or replaced.
Tendon mechanical components shall, as far as practicable, be designed “fail to safe”.
Consideration is to be given in the design to possible early detection of failure for essential
components which cannot be designed according to this principle.
Certain vital tendon components may, due to their specialised and unproven function, require
extensive engineering and prototype testing to determine:
• Confirmation of anticipated design performance
• Fatigue characteristics
• Fracture characteristics
• Corrosion characteristics
• Mechanical characteristics
The tendon system and the securing/supporting arrangements shall be designed in such a manner
that a possible failure of one tendon is not to cause progressive tendon failure or excessive damage
to the securing/supporting arrangement at the platform or at the foundation.
A fracture control strategy should be adopted to ensure consistency of design, fabrication and in
service monitoring assumptions. The object of such a strategy is to ensure that the largest
undetected flaw from fabrication of the tendons will not grow to a size that could induce failure
within the design life of the tendon, or within the planned in-service inspection interval, within a
reasonable level of reliability. Elements of this strategy include:
• Design fatigue life
• Fracture toughness
• Reliability of inspection during fabrication
• In-service inspection intervals and methods

Fracture mechanics should be used to define allowable flaw sizes, estimate crack growth rates and
thus help define inspection intervals and monitoring strategies.
All materials liable to corrode shall be protected against corrosion. Special attention should be
given to:
• Local complex geometries
• Areas that are difficult to inspect/repair
• Consequences of corrosion damage
• Possibilities for electrolytic corrosion
All sliding surfaces shall be designed with sufficient additional thickness against wear. Special
attention should be given to the following:
• Cross-load bearings
• Seals
• Balljoints
Satisfactory considerations shall be given to settlement/subsidence which may be a significant

factor in determining tendon-tension adjustment requirements.

N.4 ACTIONS
N.4.1 General
Characteristic actions are to be used as reference actions. Design actions are, in general, defined in
NORSOK N-003. Guidance concerning action categories relevant for TLP designs are given in the
following.
N.4.2 Different actions

All relevant actions that may influence the safety of the structure or its parts from commencement
of construction to permanent decommissioning should be considered in design. The different
actions are defined in NORSOK N-003. For the deck and hull of the TLP, the actions are similar to
those also described in Annex M. Additional actions on the hull are those from ringing and
springing.
The wave actions on the tendons can be described as recommended in NORSOK N-003 for slender
structures with significant motions.
If of importance, the disturbance from hull and risers on the wave kinematics at the tendon locations
should be accounted for.
The earthquake actions at the foundation of the tendons are described according to
NORSOK N-003.
The following actions should be considered:
• Permanent Actions
• Variable Actions
• Deformation Actions
• Accidental Actions
• Environmental Actions
The environmental actions are to be summarized as:

• Wind Actions
- Mean wind
- Dynamic wind
- Local wind
• Wave and current Actions

- Actions on slender members
- Actions induced by TLP motions
- Slamming and shock pressure
- Wave diffraction and radiation
- Mean drift forces
- Higher order non-linear wave actions (slowly varying, ringing and springing)
- Wave enhancement
- Vortex shedding effects
• Marine growth
• Snow and ice accumulation
• Direct ice action (icebergs and icefloes)

• Earthquake
• Temperature
• Tidal effects

N.5 GLOBAL PERFORMANCE

N.5.1 General
The selected methods of response analysis are dependent on the design conditions, dynamic
characteristics, non-linearities in action and response and the required accuracy in the actual design
phase. For a detailed discussion of the different applicable methods for global analysis of tension
leg platforms, reference is made to API RP 2T, /5/.
The selected methods of analysis and models employed in the analysis shall include relevant non-
linearities and motion-coupling effects. The approximations, simplifications and/or assumptions
made in the analysis shall be justified, and their possible effects shall be quantified e.g. by means of
simplified parametric studies.
During the design process, the methods for analytical or numerical prediction of important system
response shall be verified (calibrated) by appropriate model tests.
Model tests may also be used to determine specific responses for which numerical or analytical
procedures are not yet developed and recognized.
Relevant motions shall be determined, by relevant analysis techniques, for those applicable design
conditions specified in NORSOK N-003. The basic assumptions and limitations associated with the
different methods of analysis of global performance shall be duly considered prior to the selection
of the methods.
The TLP should be analysed by methods as applicable to column-stabilised units (ref. Annex M)
when the unit is free floating.
The method of platform-motion analysis as outlined in this Annex is one approximate method
which may be applied. The designer is encouraged also to consider and apply other methods in
order to discover the effects of possible inaccuracies etc. in the different methods.
N.5.2 Frequency domain analysis

Frequency domain HF, WF and LF analyses techniques may be applied for a TLP. Regarding action
effects due to mean wind, current and mean wave drift, see NORSOK N-003.
For typical TLP geometries and tendon arrangements, the analysis of the total dynamic action
effects may be carried out as:
• A high-frequency (HF) analysis of springing
• A wave-frequency (WF) analysis in all six degrees of freedom
• A low-frequency (LF) analysis in surge, sway and yaw
The following assumptions are inherent in adopting such on independent analysis approach:
• The natural frequencies in heave, pitch and roll are included in the wave-frequency analysis
• The natural frequencies in surge, sway and yaw are included in the low-frequency analysis
• The high and low natural frequencies are sufficient separate to allow independent dynamic
analysis to be carried out
• The low-frequency excitation forces have negligible effect on the wave-frequency motions
• The low-frequency excitation forces have a negligible dynamic effect in heave, pitch and roll
• Tendon lateral dynamics are unimportant for platform surge/sway motions
Typical parameters to be considered for global performance analyses are different platform draft,
tidal effects, storm surges, set down, settlement, subsidence, mispositioning and tolerances. Possible

variations in vertical centre of gravity shall also be analysed (especially if ringing responses are
important).
N.5.2.1 High frequency analyses

Frequency domain springing analyses shall be performed to evaluate tendon and TLP suspectability
to springing responses.
Recognised analytical methods exist for determination of springing responses in tendons. These
methods include calculation of Quadratic Transfer Functions for axial tendon (due to sum frequency
actions on the hull) stresses which is the basis for determination of tendon fatigue due to springing.
Damping level applied in the springing response analyses shall be duly considered and documented.
N.5.2.2 Wave-frequency analyses

A wave-frequency dynamic analysis may normally be carried out by using linear wave theory in
order to determine first-order platform motions and tendon response.
First order wave action analyses shall also serve as basis for structural response analyses. Finite
wave action effects shall be evaluated and taken into acccount.
In linear theory, the response in regular waves (transfer functions) is combined with a wave
spectrum to predict the response in irregular seas.
The effect of low-frequency set-down variations on the WF analysis is to be investigated by
analysing at least two representative mean offset positions determined from the low-frequency
analysis.
Wave approach headings shall be selected with basis in global configuration (e.g. number of
columns).
N.5.2.3 Low-frequency analyses

A low-frequency dynamic analysis could be performed to determine the slow drift effects at early
design stage due to fluctuating wind and second order wave actions.
Appropriate methods of analysis shall be used with selection of realistic damping levels. Damping
coefficients for low-frequency motion analyses are important as the low-frequency motion may be
dominated by resonant response.
N.5.3 Time domain analyses

For global motion response analyses, a time domain approach will be beneficial. In this type of
analyses it is possible to include all environmental action effects and typical non-linear effects such
as:
• Hull drag forces (including relative velocities)
• Finite wave amplitude effects
• Non-linear restoring (tendons, risers)
Highly non-linear effects such as ringing may also require a time domain analysis approach.
Analytical methods exist for estimation of ringing responses. These methods can be used for the
early design stage, but shall be correlated against model tests for the final design. Ringing and
springing responses of hull and deck may however be analysed within the frequency domain with
basis in model test results, or equivalent analytical results.
For deep waters a fully coupled time domain analysis of tendons, risers and platform may be
required.

A relevant wave spectrum shall be used to generate random time series when simulating irregular
wave elevations and kinematics.
Simulation length shall be long enough to obtain sufficient number of LF maxima (surge, sway,
yaw).
Statistical convergence shall be checked by performing sensitivity analyses where parameters as
input seed, simulation length, time step, solution technique etc. are varied.
Determination of extreme responses from time domain analyses shall be performed according to
recognised principles.
Depending on selected TLP installation method, time domain analyses will probably be required to
simulate the situation when the TLP is transferred from a free floating mode to the vertical
restrained mode. Model testing shall also be considered in this context.
N.5.4 Model testing

Model testing will usually be required for final check of TLP designs. The main reason for model
testing is to check that analytical results correlate with model tests.
The most important parameters to evaluate are:
• Air-gap
• First order motions
• Total offset
• Set-down
• WF motions versus LF motions
• Accelerations
• Ringing
• Springing
The model scale applied in testing shall be appropriate such that reliable results can be expected. A
sufficient number of seastates need to be calibrated covering all limit states.
Wave headings and other variable parameters (water levels, vertical centre of gravity, etc.) need to
be varied and tested as required.
If HF responses (ringing and springing) shows to be governing for tendon extreme and fatigue
design respectively, the amount of testing may have to be increased to obtain confidence in results.
N.5.5 Action effects in the tendons

Action effects in the tendons comprise of steady-state and dynamic components.
The steady-state actions may be determined from the equilibrium condition of the platform, tendon
and risers.
Tendon action effects arise from platform motions, any ground motions and direct hydrodynamic
actions on the tendon.
Dynamic analysis of tendon response shall take into account the possibility of platform pitch, roll
and heave excitation (springing and ringing effects).
Linearized dynamic analysis does not include some of the secondary wave effects, and may not
model accurately extreme wave responses. A check of linear-analysis results using non-linear
methods may be necessary. Model testing may also be used to confirm analytical results. Care shall
be exercised in interpreting model-test results for resonant responses, particularly for actions due to
platform roll, pitch and heave, since damping may not be accurately modelled.

Lift and overturning moment generated on the TLP hull by wind actions shall be included in the
tendon response calculations.
Susceptibility to vortex induced vibrations shall be evaluated in operational and non-operational
phases.
Interference (tendon/riser, tendon/tendon, tendon/hull, tendon/foundation) shall be evaluated for
non-operational as well as the operational phase.

N.6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATE (ULS)

N.6.1 General
General considerations in respect to methods of analysis are given in NORSOK N-003.
The TLP hull shall be designed for the loading conditions that will produce the most severe effects
on the structure. A dynamic analysis shall be performed to derive at characteristic largest stresses in
the structure.
Analytical models shall adequately describe the relevant properties of actions, stiffness and
displacement, and shall account for the local and system effects of, time dependency, damping and
inertia.
It is normally not practical, in design analysis of TLP’s, to include all relevant actions (both global
and local) in a single model. Generally, a single model would not contain sufficient detail to
establish local responses to the required accuracy, or to include consideration of all relevant actions
and combinations of actions. It is often the case that it is more practical, and efficient, to analyse
different action effects utilising a number of appropriate models and superimpose the response from
one model with the responses from another model in order to assess the total utilisation of the
structure. For preliminary design, simplified models are recommended to be utilised in order to
more efficiently establish design responses and to achieve a simple overview of how the structure
responds to the designing actions. For final design, a complete three dimensional model of the
platform is required.
N.6.2 Hull
The following analysis procedure to obtain characteristic platform-hull response shall be applied:
a) Steady-state analysis of the initial position.
In this analysis, all vertical actions are applied (weights, live loads, buoyancy etc.) and
equilibrium is achieved taking into account pretension in tendons and risers.
b) Steady-state offset
In this analysis the lateral steady-state wind, wave-drift and current actions are applied to the
TLP resulting in a static offset position with a given set-down.
c) Design wave analysis
To satisfy the need for simultaneity of the responses, a design wave approach, see NORSOK N-
003, may normally be used for maximum stress analysis.
The merits of the stochastic approach are retained by using the extreme stochastic values of
some characteristic parameters in the selection of the design wave and is applied to the platform
in its offset position. The results are superimposed on the steady-state solution to obtain
maximum stresses.
d) Spectral analysis
Assuming the same offset position as described in b) and with a relevant storm spectrum, an
analysis is carried out using ‘n’ wave frequencies from ‘m’ directions. Traditional spectral
analysis methods should be used to compute the relevant response spectra and their statistics.
For a TLP hull, the following characteristic global sectional actions due to wave forces shall be
considered as a minimum, see also Annex M:
• Split forces (transverse, longitudinal or oblique sea for odd columned TLP’s)
• Torsional moment about a transverse and longitudinal, horizontal axis (in diagonal or near-
diagonal)

• Longitudinal opposed forces between parallel pontoons (in diagonal or near-diagonal seas)
• Longitudinal, transverse and vertical accelerations of deck masses
It is recommended that a full stochastic wave action analysis is used as basis for the final design.
Local load effects (e.g. maximum direct environmental action of an individual member, wave
slamming loads, external hydrostatic pressure, ballast distribution, internal tank pressures etc.) shall
be considered. Additional actions from e.g high-frequency ringing accelerations shall be taken into
account.
N.6.2.1 Structural analysis

For global structural analysis, a complete three-dimensional structural model of the platform is
required.
Note: Linear elastic space-frame analysis may be utilised if the torsional moments, for example as resulting from
diagonal seas, are transferred mainly through a stiff bracing arrangement. Otherwise, finite-element analysis is
required, see also Annex M..
Additional detailed finite-element analyses may be required for complex joints and other
complicated structural parts to determine the local stress distribution more accurately and/or to
verify the results of a space-frame analysis, see also Annex M.
Where relevant local stress concentrations shall be determined by detailed finite-element analysis or
by physical models. For standard details, however, recognised formulas will be accepted.
Supplementary manual calculations for members subjected to local actions may be required where
appropriate.
If both static and dynamic action contributions are included in one analysis, the results shall be such
that the contributions from both shall be individually identifiable.
Local environmental action effects, such as wave slamming and possible wave- or wind-induced
vortex shedding, are to be considered as appropriate.
N.6.2.2 Structural design

Special attention shall be given to the structural design of the tendon supporting structures to ensure
a smooth transfer and redistribution of the tendon concentrated actions through the hull structure
without causing undue stress concentrations.
The internal structure in columns in way of bracings should to be designed stronger than the axial
strength of the bracing itself.
Special consideration shall be given to the pontoon strength in way of intersections with columns,
accounting for possible reduction in strength due to cut-outs and stress concentrations.
N.6.3 Deck
N.6.3.1 General
Structural analysis design of deck structure shall follow the principles as outlined in NORSOK N-
004, Annex M. Additional actions (e.g. global accelerations) from high-frequency ringing and
springing shall be taken into account when relevant.
N.6.3.2 Air gap

Requirements and guidance to air gap analyses for a TLP unit are given in NORSOK N-003.

In the ULS condition, positive air gap should be ensured. However, wave impact may be permitted
to occur on any part of the structure provided that it can be demonstrated that such actions are
adequately accounted for in the design and that safety to personnel is not significantly impaired.
Analysis undertaken to document air gap should be calibrated against relevant model test results.
Such analysis shall include relevant account of:
• wave/structure interaction effects,
• wave asymmetry effects,
• global rigid body motions (including dynamic effects),
• effects of interacting systems (e.g. riser systems), and,
• maximum/minimum draughts (setdown, tidal surge, subsidence, settlement effects).
Column ‘run-up’ action effects shall be accounted for in the design of the structural arrangement in
way of the column/deckbox connection. These 'run-up' actions should be treated as an
environmental action component, however, they need not normally be considered as occurring
simultaneously with other environmental responses.
Evaluation of air gap adequacy shall include consideration of all affected structural items including
lifeboat platforms, riser balconies, overhanging deck modulus etc.
N.6.4 Tendons
N.6.4.1 Extreme tendon tensions

As a minimum the following tension components shall be taken into account:
• Pretension (static tension at MSL)
• Tide (tidal effects)
• Storm surge (positive and negative values)
• Tendon weight (submerged weight)
• Overturning (due to current, mean wind/drift load)
• Setdown (due to current, mean wind/drift load)
• WF tension (wave frequency component)
• LF tension (wind gust and slowly varying drift)
• Ringing (HF response)
Additional components to be considered are:

• Margins for fabrication, installation and tension reading tolerances.
• Operational requirements (e.g. operational flexibility of ballasting operations)
• Allowance for foundation mispositioning
• Field subsidence
• Foundation settlement and uplift
Bending stresses along the tendon shall be analysed and taken into account in design. For the
constraint mode the bending stresses in tendon will usually be low. In case of surface, or subsurface
tow (non-operational phase) the bending stresses shall be carefully analysed and taken into account
in design. For nearly buoyant tendons the combination of environmental action (axial & bending)
and high hydrostatic water pressure may be a governing combination.
Limiting combinations of tendon tension and rotations (flex elements) need to be established.

For specific tendon components such as couplings, flex elements, top and bottom connections etc.
the stress distribution shall be determined by appropriate finite-element analysis.
If tendon tension loss is permitted, tendon dynamic analyses shall be conducted to evaluate its effect
on the complete tendon system. Alternatively model tests may be performed. The reasoning behind
this is that loss of tension could result in detrimental effects from tendon buckling and/or damage to
flex elements.
N.6.4.2 Structural design

The structural design of tendons shall be carried out according to NORSOK N-001 and N-003 with
the additional considerations given in this subsection.
When deriving maximum stresses in the tendons relevant stress components shall be superimposed
on the stresses due to maximum tendon tension, minimum tendon tension or maximum tendon
angle, as relevant.
Such additional stress components may be:
• Tendon-bending stresses due to lateral actions and motions of tendon
• Tendon-bending stresses due to flexelement rotational stiffness
• Thermal stresses in the tendon due to temperature differences over the cross sections
• Hoop stresses due to hydrostatic pressure
N.6.5 Foundations
Geotechnical field investigations and careful data interpretation shall form the basis for
geotechnical design parameters.
Relevant combinations of tendon tensions and angles shall be analysed for the foundation design.
For gravity foundations the pretension shall be compensated by submerged weight of the
foundation, whereas the varying actions may be resisted by for example suction and friction.

N.7 FATIGUE LIMIT STATE (FLS)

N.7.1 General
Structural parts where fatigue may be a critical mode of failure shall be investigated with respect to
fatigue. All significant actions contributing to fatigue damage (non-operational and operational)
design conditions shall be taken into account. For a TLP, the effects of springing and ringing
resonant responses shall be considered for the fatigue limit state.
Fatigue design may be carried out by methods based on fatigue tests and cumulative damage
analysis, methods based on fracture mechanics, or a combination of these.
General requirements to fatigue design are given in Chapter 8 and Annex C.
Careful design of details as well as stringent quality requirements to fabrication are essential in
achieving acceptable fatigue strength. It is to be ensured that the design assumptions made
concerning these parameters are achievable in practice.
The results of fatigue analyses shall be fully considered when the in-service inspection plans are
developed for the platform.
N.7.2 Hull
Fatigue design of hull structure shall be performed in accordance to principles given in Annex M.
N.7.3 Deck
Fatigue design of deckstructure shall be performed in accordance to principles given in Annex M.
N.7.4 Tendons
All parts of the tendon system shall be evaluated for fatigue.
First order wave actions (direct/indirect) will usually be governing, however also fatigue due to
springing shall be carefully considered. HF and WF tendon responses shall be combined
realistically.
In case of wet transportation (surface/subsurface) to field these fatigue contributions shall be
accounted for in design.
Vortex Shedding shall be considered and taken into account. This applies to operation and non-
operational (e.g. tendon stand-off) phases.
Series effects (welds, couplings) shall be evaluated.
When fracture-mechanics methods are employed, realistic estimates of strains combined with
maximum defect sizes likely to be missed with the applicable NDE methods shall be used
N.7.5 Foundation
Tendon responses (tension and angle) will be the main contributors for fatigue design of
foundations. Local stresses shall be determined by use of finite element analyses.

N.8 SERVICEABILITY LIMIT STATE (SLS)

N.8.1 General
Considerations shall be given to the effect of deflections where relevant.
The stiffness of the structure and structural components shall be sufficient to prevent serious
vibrations and to ensure safe operation of the platform.
Allowance for wear shall be considered in areas exposed to abrasion (e.g where cross load bearings
may move relative to the TLP column).

N.9 ACCIDENTIAL LIMIT STATE (ALS)

N.9.1 General
General guidance and requirements concerning accidental events are given in Chapter 9 and Annex
A.
Units shall be designed to be damage tolerant, i.e. credible accidental damages, or events, should
not cause loss of global structural integrity. The capability of the structure to redistribute actions
should be considered when designing the structure.
In the design phase, attention shall be given to layout and arrangements of facilities and equipment
in order to minimise the adverse effects of accidental events.
Satisfactory protection against accidental damage may be obtained by a combination of the
following principles :
• reduction of the probability of damage to an acceptable level, and,
• reduction of the consequences of damage to an acceptable level.
Structural design in respect to the Accidental damage Limit State (ALS) shall involve a two-stage
procedure considering :
• resistance of the structure to a relevant accidental event, and,
• capacity of the structure after an accidental event.
Global structural integrity shall be maintained both during and after an accidental event. Actions
occurring at the time of a design accidental event and thereafter shall not cause complete structural
collapse.
Requirements to compartmentation and stability in the damage condition are given in N10. When
the upper hull (deckbox) structure becomes buoyant in satisfying requirements to damage stability,
/2/, consideration shall be given to the structural response resulting from such actions.
N.9.2 Hull and deck

The most relevant accidental events for hull and deck design are:
• dropped objects
• fire
• explosion
• collision
• unintended flooding
Compartmentation is a key issue for TLP’s due to the fine balance between weight, buoyancy and
pretensions. See N10.2.
N.9.3 Tendons
The most relevant accidental events for the tendons are:
• missing tendon
• tendon flooding
• dropped objects
• hull compartment(s) flooding
Missing tendon requires analysis with 100 year environment to satisfy the ALS. The same applies
to tendon flooding, if relevant.

For accidental events leading to tendon failure the possible detrimental effect of the release of the
elastic energy stored in the tendon may have on the surrounding structure shall be considered.
Dropped object may cause damage to the tendons and in particular the top and bottom connectors
may be exposed. Shielding may be required installed.
Flooding hull compartments and the effects on design shall be analysed thoroughly.
N.9.4 Foundations
Accidental events to be considered for the foundations shall as a minimum be those listed for
tendons.

N.10 COMPARTMENTATION & STABILITY

N.10.1 General
The TLP shall have draught marks pertinent to all phases of operation. The draught marks shall be
located forward and aft on the platform and at starboard and port sides. The draught marks shall be
clearly visible for operating personnel, unless instruments for continuous draught sensing and
reading are provided.
When the construction of the platform is as close to completion as practical, an inclining test shall
be undertaken in order to establish the position of the centre of gravity and the light weight.
The information obtained from the inclining test is to be continuously updated and adjustments
shall be made to account for any items taken on or off the TLP after such tests.
Loading conditions during operating or temporary phases of the TLP shall have loads and centre-of-
gravity location within the envelope of maximum/minimum allowable values. Information
concerning these requirements is to be specified in the Operating Manual of the TLP.
Detailed provisions as stated in IMO MODU code, /4/ shall be satisfied.
N.10.2 Compartmentation and watertight integrity
Temporary conditions
For temporary phases where the tendons are not installed, the platform may be considered as a
column-stabilised unit for which procedures and criteria concerning hydrostatic stability should be
taken according to Annex M.
For temporary phases where tendons are partly engaged, adequate stability shall be documented.
The stability in this condition may be provided by hydrostatic stability, by the tensioned tendons or
by a combination.
Operating conditions
The tension in the tendons is to be sufficient to ensure the stability of the platform in the operating
phase, both for the intact and damaged conditions.
Monitoring of weight, ballast and pretension shall be performed.
The following minimum accidental flooding criteria is normally to be assumed for the ALS
condition:
a) Any one compartment adjacent to the sea is to be assumed flooded, regardless of cause.
b) Any one compartment containing sea water piping systems of other sources containing liquids,
due to failure of such arrangements, is to be assumed flooded unless it can be adequately
documented that such requirement is unwarranted.
Watertight integrity
Watertight closing appliances are required for those external openings up to the water levels defined
by:
• The water level for an angle of heel equal to the first intercept in the intact or damage condition,
whichever is greater (free-floating conditions)
• The water level corresponding to the required air-gap for deck clearance in the ULS condition
Where pipe-runs may lead to critical flooding scenarios, full account is to be taken of this
possibility in the design of these pipe-runs and the size of the internal spaces they run to or from.

The number of openings in watertight bulkheads and decks are to be kept to a minimum compatible
with the design and proper operation of the TLP. Where penetration of watertight decks and
bulkheads are necessary for access, piping, ventilation, electrical cables etc., arrangements are to be
made to maintain the watertight integrity.
Where valves are provided at watertight boundaries to provide watertight integrity, these valves are
to be capable of being operated from a normally manned space. Valve position indicators are to be
provided at a remote-control situation.
Watertight doors and hatches are to be remotely controlled from a central safe position and are also
to be operable locally from each side of the bulkhead or deck. Indicators are to be provided at the
remote-control position to indicate whether the doors are open or closed.
Where the tendon elements and the tendon-column annulus are designed as non-flooded members
in service, such compartments are to be considered as TLP buoyancy compartments with respect to
watertight integrity. Special consideration of closing devices (seals) for the tendon/column duct
annulus is necessary to fulfil requirements as to “watertight closure”.

N.11 DOCUMENTATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THE ‘DESIGN BASIS’ &

‘DESIGN BRIEF’
N.11.1 General
workable and economic structural solution to perform the desired function. As an integral part of
this planning, documentation shall be produced identifying design criteria and describing
procedures to be adopted in the structural design of the unit.
Applicable codes, standards and regulations shall be identified at the commencement of the design.
When the design has been finalised, a summary document containing all relevant data from the
design and fabrication phase shall be produced.
Design documentation (see below) shall, as far as practicable, be concise, non-voluminous, and,
should include all relevant information for all relevant phases of the lifetime of the unit.
General requirements to documentation relevant for structural design are given in NORSOK, N-
001, Section 5.
N.11.2 Design basis

A Design Basis Document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process to document
the basis criteria to be applied in the structural design of the TLP.

A summary description of the unit, including :
• main drawings including :
- main structure drawings (This information may not be available in the initial stage of the
design),
- general arrangement drawings,
- plan of structural categorisation,
- load plan(s), showing description of deck uniform (laydown) actions,
- capacity (tank) plan,
• tendon system description.
• foundation system.

A list of all relevant, applicable, Rules, Regulations and codes (including revisions and dates), to be
utilised in the design process.

Environmental design criteria (including all relevant parameters) for all relevant conditions,
including :
• wind, wave, current, snow and ice description for 10-1 ,10-2 and 10-4 annual probability events
• water levels (tides, surges, subsidence)
• design temperatures


Stability and compartmentation design criteria for all relevant conditions including :
• external and internal watertight integrity plan
• lightweight breakdown report
• design loadcase(s) including global mass distribution
• damage condition waterlines.(This information may not be available in the initial stage of the
design.)
Temporary phases
Design criteria for all relevant temporary phase conditions including, as relevant:
• limiting permanent, variable, environmental and deformation action criteria
• procedures associated with construction, (including major lifting operations)
• essential design parameters associated with temporary phases ( e.g. for mating loadcases,
mating weld-up sequences, crushing tube stiffness’, for transit phases, transit speed etc.)
• relevant ALS criteria
• tendon installation/replacement
• foundation installation

Design criteria for all relevant operational phase conditions including :
• limiting permanent, variable, environmental and deformation action criteria
• designing accidental event criteria (e.g. collision criteria)
• tank loading criteria (all tanks) including a description of system, with :
- loading arrangements
- height of air pipes
- loading dynamics
- densities
• tendon criteria
• tendon monitoring philosophy
• foundation criteria
• tendon interface criteria (functionality, stiffness etc.)
Air gap
Relevant basis information necessary for the assessment of air gap sufficiency, including:
• a description of the requirements to be applied in the ULS and ALS conditions
• basis model test report (This information may not be available in the initial stage of the design)

A description of the in-service inspection criteria and general philosophy (as relevant for evaluating
fatigue allowable cumulative damage ratios).
Miscellaneous
• description of corrosion allowances, where applicable

N.11.3 Design brief

A Design Brief Document shall be created in the initial stages of the design process. The purpose of
the Design Brief shall be to document the intended procedures to be adopted in the structural design
of the TLP. All applicable limit states for all relevant temporary and operational design conditions
shall be considered in the Design Brief.
A summary of those items normally to be included in the Design Brief Document is included
below.
Analysis models
A general description of models to be utilised, including description of :
• global analysis model(s)
• local analysis model(s)
• loadcases to be analysed
Analysis procedures
A general description of analytical procedures to be utilised including description of procedures to
be adopted in respect to :
• the evaluation of temporary conditions
• the consideration of accidental events
• the evaluation of fatigue actions
• air gap evaluation, (including locations to be considered, damping, inclusion of asymmetry
factors, disturbed (radiated) wave considerations, combined motion response)
• the establishment of dynamic responses (including methodology, factors, and relevant
parameters)
• the inclusion of ‘built-in’ stresses
• the consideration of local responses (e.g. those resulting from tendon and riser actions, ballast
distribution etc.)
• the consideration of structural redundancy
A general description of the evaluation process, including :
• description of procedures to be utilised for considering global and local responses
• description of fatigue evaluation procedures (including use of design fatigue factors, SN-curves,
basis for stress concentration factors (SCF’s), etc.)
• description of procedures to be utilised for code checking
Air gap evaluation

A general description of the air gap evaluation procedure, including :
• description of procedures to be utilised for considering air gap sufficiency

N.12 REFERENCES
/1/ Regulations of 20 Dec. 1991, No.878, concerning stability, watertight subdivision and
watertight/weathertight closing means on mobile offshore units, Norwegian Maritime
Directorate.
/2/ ISO 19900, Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries-Offshore Structures: General
Requirements, International Standard,.
/3/ Code for the Construction and Equipment of Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, 1989,
(1989 MODU CODE), International Maritime Organisation, London 1990.
/4/ API RP 2T Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing, and Constructing Tension
Leg Platforms, 3. edition August 2012.
- o0o -

Norsok N 004

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norsok N 004

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norsok N 004

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORSOK STANDARD N-004

Draft 3 to Rev. 3, November 2012

Design of steel structures

NORSOK standard Page 1 of 275

6.5.3.2 Junction yielding 35

Annex A (Normative) Design against accidental actions 60

NORSOK standard Page 2 of 275

NORSOK standards are administered and published by Standards Norway.

Annex A, K, L, M and N are normative parts of this NORSOK standard.

The design principles follow the requirements in ISO 19900.

NORSOK standard Page 3 of 275

2 NORMATIVE AND INFORMATIVE REFERENCES

2.1 Normative references

2.2 Informative references

3 TERMS, DEFINITIONS, ABBREVIATIONS AND SYMBOLS

3.1 Terms and definitions

NORSOK standard Page 4 of 275

NORSOK standard Page 5 of 275

SQL steel quality level

NORSOK standard Page 6 of 275

NSd design axial force

NORSOK standard Page 7 of 275

NORSOK standard Page 8 of 275

Sd = Sk γ f Design action effect

Determination of actions and action effects shall be according to NORSOK N-003.

NORSOK standard Page 9 of 275

5 STEEL MATERIAL SELECTION AND REQUIREMENTS FOR

Applicable for joints and members where failure will be without

5.2 Steel quality level

NORSOK standard Page 10 of 275

5.3 Welding and non-destructive testing (NDT)

DC1 and Welds with moderate tensile stresses transverse to the 3)

Welds with low tensile stresses transverse to the weld 4)

NORSOK standard Page 11 of 275

Welds with the direction of the dominating dynamic

NORSOK standard Page 12 of 275

6 ULTIMATE LIMIT STATES

NORSOK standard Page 13 of 275

- a design resulting in high local stresses;

6.3 Tubular members

6.3.2 Axial tension

NORSOK standard Page 14 of 275

NSd = design axial force (tension positive)

6.3.3 Axial compression

f c = [1.0 − 0.28λ 2 ] f cl for λ ≤ 1.34 (6.3)

NORSOK standard Page 15 of 275

NORSOK standard Page 16 of 275

6.3.6.1 Hoop buckling

fh = fy , for f he > 2.44f y (6.17)

f h = f he , for f he ≤ 0.55f y (6.19)

NORSOK standard Page 17 of 275

= 0.80 for µ < 1.5

6.3.6.2 Ring stiffener design

6.3.7 Material factor

NORSOK standard Page 18 of 275

γ M = 1.15 for λ s < 0.5 (6.22)

γ M = 0.85 + 0.60λ s for 0.5 ≤ λ s ≤ 1.0