Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326 www.elsevier.

com/locate/engstruct

Evaluation of damage to offshore platform structures due to collision of large barge

Wei-liang Jina,, Jian Songa, Shun-feng Gonga, Yong Lub
a Institute of Structural Engineering, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou 310027, PR China b School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore 639798, Singapore

Received 31 March 2004; received in revised form 21 February 2005; accepted 21 February 2005 Available online 19 May 2005

Abstract An offshore jacket platform in the South China Sea was impacted by a large derrick and lay barge during installation. This paper presents a non-linear dynamical analysis procedure for rstly determining the impact action based on the forensic evidence from the damaged components, and then evaluating the overall damage effects on the platform structure. The impact action of the barge is simulated with a triangle impulse load with different collision contact times. The curves relating the indentation deformations of the damaged member with different collision contact times are simulated using an estimated velocity of the impacting ship. On the basis of these curves and the actual detected dent damages, the contact time and the maximum impact load on the platform are determined. Taking into account the forcedeection relationship of the local indentation of the damaged cross-diagonal brace, the transmission of the impact load to the platform structure is simulated by a non-linear spring. The added mass coefcient with hydrodynamic effects and the pilesoil-structure interaction are considered in the computational model of the non-linear dynamic response of the platform structure. Subsequently, the dynamic response of the offshore jacket structure is computed and the critical stress and deformation of the tubular joints are obtained as indicators of the damage effects. The results are useful for choosing a feasible and reasonable repairing and strengthening scheme for the damaged platform. The procedure presented in this paper is generally applicable for the evaluation of typical offshore platform structures in the case of impact or collision. 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Offshore jacket platform; Collision dynamic response; Damage simulation; Ship/barge impact

1. Introduction Offshore jacket platforms have been widely used in offshore oil and gas exploitation with complicated ocean environments. Besides the normal operational loads, the platforms are subjected to other loads, such as wind, wave, current and ice loads [1]. At the same time, they are also exposed to unexpected incidents inducing sudden loads, for example, collision of a vessel with the platform, or impact from a heavy object dropping from the top of the platform. These may result in crooking or buckling of some members, thus reducing their load bearing capacity and potentially affecting the safety and the integrity of the whole platform
Corresponding author.

structure. To effectively repair the damaged members and restore the desired state of the structure requires a good assessment of the condition of the structural system after an accidental event. For this reason, how to analyze and assess the damage to the platform structures due to collision, and the inuences of such damage on the integrity, load bearing capacity and the fatigue lifetime of the platform, have become important topics in offshore platform risk studies. The concerns for ship collision are reected in various design codes [2,3]. For a general assessment of a damaged platform impacted by a ship, it may be possible to turn the dynamic problem of collision into a normal statics problem with equivalent static loads [4]. Such analysis can be useful for understanding the general effects of the collision and determining the residual strength of the affected members.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.engstruct.2005.02.010

1318

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

Fig. 2. Photograph of the platform jacket structure (center) impacted by a large derrick and lay barge (right).

Fig. 1. Flow diagram of platform structure damage analysis.

However, collision is actually a dynamic process, and it involves more complicated dynamic factors which could affect the structural response, e.g. the way that the collision happened between the barge and the platform structure, the contact time of collision, the pilesoil-structure interaction during the dynamic response of the platform structure. In the course of a collision, one important problem is energy absorption and dissipation. Jorben Amadahl [5] analyzed the impacts between supply vessels and offshore structures; in particular two areas were studied, energy dissipation in the ships bow and stern structures and the deformation behavior of tubular bracings. Various mechanisms of energy dissipation in a ship structure subjected to collision loads were identied and described; design curves were proposed for bow and stern impacts with supply vessels. The different modes of energy dissipation were described, for assessing the load carrying capacity in the beam mode of deformation accounting for the detrimental effect of local indentation. This paper reports a comprehensive evaluation of the damage to an offshore platform structure, which was accidentally impacted by a large derrick and lay barge during the installation. In this study, the impact load is determined on the basis of the forensic damage evidence detected after the offshore structure was impacted by the barge. The added mass coefcient for the hydrodynamic effect is considered in the evaluation of the collision effect on the platform structure, while the pilesoil-structure interaction is considered in the development of the computational model for the structural system. The forcedeection relationship of the local indentation for the damaged cross-diagonal brace is simulated by a non-linear spring. The dynamic response of

Fig. 3. Layout of skirt piles.

the structure is then analyzed, and the critical stress and deformation responses of the tubular joints in the offshore jacket structure are obtained to assess the damage effects. Fig. 1 gives an outline of the general analysis procedure. 2. Description of the collision case An offshore platform was impacted by a ship during its installation. Fig. 2 provides a snapshot view of the collision captured at the time when it took place. The platform is a steel jacket deep-water platform with four legs and eight skirt piles. Fig. 3 shows the layout of the skirt piles. The water depth of the seabed is 117.2 m. The penetration depth of the piles is 91 m, and the diameter of the piles is 1829 mm. The large derrick and lay barge was anchored beside the offshore platform. At the time of collision, the barge ran out of control so that it ew onto the platform jacket structure due to sea wind and current and collided with the jacket structure. The damage was reported on the diagonal bracing between leg A2B2 (Fig. 4, location I). The damaged area started at 4 m from the top weld of the node and ended at about 5.40 m from the node connecting to leg A2. Inspection

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

1319

where k is the additional mass coefcient. For collisions along the side direction (lateral), k = 0.4; in the case where the bow or the stern bumps against the platform, k = 0.1. The materials within the collision contact area are perfectly elasto-plastic. According to the law of object momentum conservation, m 1 v1 + m 2 v2 = (m 1 + m 2 )v12 . Hence the common speed after colliding is v12 = (m 1 v1 + m 2 v2 )/(m 1 + m 2 ) (3) (2)

where m 2 is the mass of the platform; v1 is the velocity of ship movement before colliding; v2 is the velocity of the platform movement before colliding; v12 is the common speed of the ship and platform after colliding. The kinetic energy before colliding is partially absorbed by the plastic distortion of the ship and platform structure, so the conservation of energy can be expressed as
Fig. 4. The damage areas due to the collision.

revealed that the diagonal member was squashed for about 150 mm and cut open over an area of about 130 130 110 mm. On the opposite side of the member there was a furrow about 40 mm deep. Removal of paint and some scratching were also evident on this diagonal member. In addition, as shown in Fig. 4, leg B2 was squashed in at the level of the rst riser clamp in the water. The support of the riser clamp was partially cut open along the weld on the reinforcement plate, while the weld between the leg and the reinforcement plate was partially cut open. 3. Mechanics model of colliding system 3.1. Collision mechanics When a platform is collided with by a ship, it may be assumed that the time of collision is far smaller than the motion period of the ship. After collision, the ship would move together with the platform structure. Before setting up the mechanics model of the colliding system, the following considerations [6] are given: The hull of the ship is assumed to be a rigid body with certain speed and mass for the calculation of the collision effect on the platform structure, and the deformation of the hull structure is neglected. The collision effect is evaluated in accordance with the laws of momentum conservation and conservation of energy. The mass of the ship includes its self-mass, m s , and the additional mass due to the hydrodynamic interaction between sea water and the ship. It can be expressed by the following formula: m 1 = m s + km s (1)

1 1 1 2 2 2 m 1 v1 + m 2 v2 = (m 1 + m 2 )v12 + Es + E p (4) 2 2 2 where E s is the energy absorbed by the ship; E p is the energy absorbed by the platform. According to the rigid-body assumption for the ship, E s may be neglected. Consequently, the energy absorbed by the platform can be conservatively written as 1 2 m 1 v1 /(1 + m 1 / m 2 ). (5) 2 Generally, the impact energy absorbed by an offshore jacket structure from a ship involves the following energy absorption processes: Ep = local denting or crushing of the tubular member section; elastic beam bending; plastic bending/hinge formation; global structural deformation (elastic and plastic).

In the particular case under investigation, the total mass of the jacket platform is 1.889 106 kg and the mass of the barge is about 4.2 107 kg. The total mass of the jacket platform structure is far less than the mass of the barge. The additional mass factor for the barge is assumed to be 0.4 to take into account the installment equipment in the vessel. 3.2. Local dent of tubular member To study the global structural response due to collision, the local dent of the tubular member under impact load must be discussed rst so that the transmission of the impact load can be established. The shape and area of the local dent depends on the collision modes. Because of the complexity of the impact problem, it is difcult to nd a simple analytical model to establish the relationship between the local denting of the tubular member and the impact

1320

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

Fig. 6. Denition of the impact load. Fig. 5. Non-linear spring forcedeformation relation.

load P . Bai [7] proposed an empirical formula for relating the elastic deformation, E , to the impact load PE : PE = 0.1116( D / t )3 E L C E (6) where E is the Youngs modulus, t is the tube wall thickness, D is the tube diameter, and L C is the axial characteristic length of the contact area. L C depends on the tube diameter D , the tube length, and the shape of the dent. On the basis of a series of denting experiments [8] and linear shell nite element analyses [9], it was proposed that L C = 1.9 D . When the impact force P is greater than a critical value P0 , a permanent dent deformation would be produced on the tube wall. The critical value P0 can be derived from the rigid plastic nite element analysis [9], as P0 = 2 Fy t 2 L C / D (7)

where [ M ] is the mass matrix, [C ] is the damping matrix, [ K ] is the stiffness matrix, {u } is the nodal acceleration vector, {u } is the nodal velocity vector, and {u } is the nodal displacement vector. For the impact problem under consideration, the impact action from the ship, P (t ), may be simplied into an isosceles triangle impulse load, as shown in Fig. 6. It can be expressed as 0 t t0 /2 2 Ft / t0 P (t ) = 2 F (1 t / t0 ) t0 /2 t t0 . (11) 0 t0 t At any arbitrary time, t , the motion equations expressed in Eq. (10) may be considered as a series of static equilibrium equations with inertia force ([ M ]{u }) and damping force ([C ]{u }). There are typically two methods for solving these equations. One is the modal superposition method, and the other is step-by-step integration. The natural mode shapes and frequencies of the structure must be solved rst when the modal superposition method is adopted. Because the impulse type load may excite numerous vibration modes, it is necessary to consider a sufcient number of modes in order to obtain a satisfactory solution. Moreover, the modal superposition method is only applicable for linear structural systems. For the problem under consideration, non-linear responses may take place at some critical regions of the jacket structure, as well as at the impact regions (represented by a non-linear spring) and in the pilesoil interaction. Therefore, direct integration using the Newmark method is adopted in this study for solving the motion equations under the impact load. 4. Impact load identication 4.1. Non-linear numerical simulation analysis Numerical simulation analysis is carried out to inversely identify the impact load characteristics according to the detected damage on the impacted member. In this procedure, forward non-linear nite element analysis is performed to calculate the dent damage for various possible load conditions, so that the relationship between the dent depth and the loading parameters can be established. From there,

where Fy is the yield stress of the material. An empirical formula relating the permanent dent deformation, P , to the impact load, PP , can be obtained according to API RP 2A-WSD [2], as PP = 40 Fy t 2 ( P / D )0.5 . (8) The total dent depth will include the elastic dent depth E and the permanent dent deformation P when the impact force P is greater than the critical value P0 , i.e. = E + P . (9) Using Eqs. (6)(8), the P relationship can be obtained. A non-linear spring, as shown in Fig. 5, having this P relationship is introduced into the computational model to represent the forcedeection relationship of the local indentation for the damaged cross-diagonal brace. The nonlinear spring is effective under unilateral compression, and the nal deformation of the spring represents the dent depth of the tubular member under the impact load. 3.3. Motion equations of collision Transient dynamic analysis can be used to explain the deformation, strain, stress, and force with time under steady load, transient load and simple harmonic load. The basic equation of motion can be written as [ M ]{u } + [C ]{u } + [ K ]{u } = { P (t )} (10)

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

1321

Fig. 7. Finite element of the damaged member.

Fig. 8. Distribution of stress and deformation for the element under 2.45 106 N.

the actual load parameters can be determined according to the measured dent information. Both an equivalent static load and a more realistic impact load as expressed in Eq. (11) are determined through this numerical analysis procedure. The equivalent static load can be used to perform a quick static analysis to assess the magnitude of the structural response, while the impact load can be used for a more detailed and more accurate dynamic response analysis of the platform jacket structure. 4.2. Equivalent static load identication based on the damaged member The equivalent static load analysis is rst performed on the damaged cross-diagonal bracing member assuming two xed ends. The nite element model for the damaged member between the two adjacent nodes was created as shown in Fig. 7. The diameter of the member is 914 mm, the thickness is 19 mm and the length is 12 400 mm. Three-node and four-node shell elements are used to mesh the model, with denser mesh arranged in regions near the connections and the loading area. The shell element, which has plasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large deection and

small strain capability, is suitable for the non-linear problem under consideration. The member was meshed with 1984 shell elements and 2016 nodes. The ideal elasticplastic constitutive relationship is adopted for the steel, with elastic modulus E = 2.0 105 MPa, yield strength Fy = 345 MPa and Poissons ratio = 0.3. The loads are distributed in the damaged area of the member in a triangle form, with maximum loading density at the center of the damaged area, as shown in Fig. 7. A series of analyses with different total load values are carried out. Fig. 8 shows a typical local dent damage scenario from the numerical simulation. On the basis of the results, it is found that when the total load value is 2.45 106 N, the maximum radial deection is 150.886 mm, which is close to the actually detected dent depth of 150 mm. 4.3. Equivalent static analysis of cross-diagonal brace To better simulate the boundary conditions of the damaged member, another round of FE analysis are carried out on a substructure containing the damaged cross-diagonal braces. The substructure is depicted in Fig. 9. At the top right tubular joint, all members connecting to the damaged brace

1322

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

between 1.0 and 2.0 m/s. The analysis is performed assuming the two limit speed values. A detailed nite element analysis [10] has been carried out to simulate the dent damage on the damaged member for the above two ship velocities for various combinations of the impact contact time and peak impact load. Table 1 summarizes the numerical simulation results. Figs. 11 and 12 depict the relationship between the calculated dent depth of the damaged member P and the collision contact time t0 for the ship velocity (v1 ) equal to 1 m/s and 2 m/s, respectively. The t curves can be expressed as
3 2 27.64t0 133.08t0 + 246.30 P = 20.15t0

(v1 = 1 m/s) 3 2 + 243.42t0 622.01t0 + 718.45 P = 35.87t0 (v1 = 2 m/s).

Fig. 9. Model of the cross-diagonal brace substructure.

(13) (14)

are included in the model for a length equal to three times of their respective diameters. On the basis of the results from the analysis described in the previous section, three total load values equal to 2.4 106 N, 2.45 106 N and 2.5 106 N are applied. The simulated damage under the 2.45 106 N load is depicted in Fig. 10. The corresponding maximum radial deection is 155.3 mm, which does not differ much from the analysis result for the damaged member alone and is also close to the measured dent depth of 150 mm. It is therefore concluded that the equivalent static load of the collision with respect to the local dent damage is about 2.45 106 N. This static load may be used in an approximate static procedure to assess the general effect of the collision on the overall platform structure. The present study, however, will be based on the dynamic impact load described in what follows. 4.4. Maximum percussive force analysis In order to more realistically reproduce the impact effect, it is necessary to identify the dynamic impact load parameters. To completely dene the impact load according to Eq. (11), it is necessary to determine the maximum impact force, F , and the duration (contact time), t0 . The total impulse is equal to the momentum of the platform after the collision, 1 m 2 v12 = Ft0 (12) 2 where v12 , as shown in Eq. (3), is dependent on the velocity of the impacting ship prior to collision (v1 ). Therefore, once the ship velocity is known, the impulse will be a constant, and the actual values of t0 and F can be identied by numerical trial analysis to reproduce the measured dent damage. According to the documentation of the accident, the platform was laterally impacted by the barge with a velocity

According to the above expressions, for the actual detected dent depth equal to 150 mm, the contact time is found to be 0.682 s when the impact velocity of barge is 1.0 m/s, and it is 2.15 s if the impact velocity of the barge is 2.0 m/s. Correspondingly, the maximum percussive force was F = 5.367 106 N and F = 3.405 106 N, respectively.
Table 1 Dent depth of damaged member for different collision contact times Contact time t (s) Maximum percussive force F (MN) Dent depth (mm)

(a) Ship impact velocity = 1.0 m/s 0.2 18.6722 0.4 9.3361 0.6 6.2241 0.8 4.6681 1.0 3.7344 1.2 3.1121 (b) Ship impact velocity = 2.0 m/s 0.4 18.6755 0.8 9.3377 1.2 6.2252 1.6 4.6689 2.0 3.6155 2.4 3.1126

220.291 184.441 167.343 130.481 104.469 82.321 512.556 335.927 287.345 190.609 156.628 134.563

The above two combinations of the impact load will be considered in the subsequent dynamic response analysis of the platform jacket structure. 5. Dynamic response analysis With the determination of the impact load as described in the preceding section and the derivation of the non-linear spring representing the transmission of the impact load to the platform structure (Section 3.2), the dynamic response analysis of the platform jacket structure can be performed. To take into account the interaction between the piles and

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

1323

Fig. 10. Z -directional displacement distribution of the node of the cross-diagonal brace under 2.45 106 N impact load.

the soil, the computational model of the platform structure will consist of an appropriate pile model and the FE model for the jacket structure supported by the piles. 5.1. Pile model In order to simulate the structure-pilesoil interaction, the bearing capacity of a single pile needs to be analyzed rst. The diameter of the piles is uniformly 1829 mm, and the length is 91 m. In the nite element (FE) model, a 3-D beam element is used to simulate the pile. Because the pile penetrates through several layers of different soils, the discretization of the piles along the vertical direction is made such that within each layer of the soils the portion of the pile is divided into an integer number of elements. This allows an easier calculation of the parameters of the non-linear springs representing the soil reaction. Each pile is divided into approximately 1.5 m long elements along the length. The effects of the soil reactions on each pile element can be simplied into three kinds of non-linear springs, namely, a lateral spring representing the lateral bearing capacity of the soil, a vertical spring representing the vertical friction force on the pile surface, and a torsion spring representing the circumferential friction force on the pile surface. The acting points of the lateral and torsional springs are located at the mid-height of the element, while the acting point of the vertical spring is located towards the bottom of the element to simulate the vertical pilesoil friction force. For each pile as a whole, there is also an end support spring which represents the end-bearing capacity of the pile. Fig. 13 depicts the arrangement of soil springs. The spring parameters are calculated according to the site investigation and pile testing data [11]. A typical Q Z (vertical forcedisplacement) datasheet is shown in

Fig. 11. Fit curve of the dent depth of the damaged tubular member versus collision contact time, for barge velocity = 1.0 m/s.

Fig. 12. Fit curve of the dent depth of the damaged tubular member versus collision contact time, for barge velocity = 2.0 m/s.

1324

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

Table 2 Q Z (vertical loadvertical displacement) datasheet for a single pile for a steel-pipe pile of diameter 1829 mm Penetration depth (m) 24.00 26.70 28.20 33.70 37.90 40.80 41.40 42.70 48.50 67.80 87.20 91.90 96.00 102.40 107.90 120.80 Q (1) 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Z (1) 0 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. 0. Q (2) .71 .33 .33 2.34 .35 .35 .75 .27 .35 .44 .53 2.76 1.89 1.89 .89 .89 Z (2) 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 Q (3) 1.42 .65 .65 4.68 .71 .71 1.50 .54 .71 .89 1.06 5.52 3.77 3.77 1.77 1.77 Z (3) 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 23.8 Q (4) 2.13 .98 .98 7.02 1.06 1.06 2.25 .81 1.06 1.33 1.60 8.28 5.66 5.66 2.66 2.66 Z (4) 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 76.8 Q (5) 2.55 1.17 1.17 8.42 1.28 1.28 2.70 .97 1.28 1.60 1.92 9.93 6.79 6.79 3.19 3.19 Z (5) 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 133.5 Q (6) 2.84 1.30 1.30 9.35 1.42 1.42 3.00 1.08 1.42 1.77 2.13 11 .03 7.54 7.54 3.55 3.55 Z (6) 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 182.9 Q (7) 2.84 1.30 1.30 9.35 1.42 1.42 3.00 1.08 1.42 1.77 2.13 11 .03 7.54 7.54 3.55 3.55 Z (7) 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 182.9 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 274.4 Q (8) 2.84 1.30 1.30 9.35 1.42 1.42 3.00 1.08 1.42 1.77 2.13 11 .03 7.54 7.54 3.55 3.55 Z (8) 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8 365.8

Notes: Q = Load in meganewtons, Z = displacement in millimeters; the penetration depth is in meters.

(a) Axial load versus axial displacement.

Fig. 13. Schematic illustration of the pile model.

Table 2. The spring parameters were input into pile model to determine the overall bearing capacity of the single pile and the load (at the top of pile) versus displacement relationship. Fig. 14(a) shows the relationship between the axial load and axial displacement of a single pile, while the relationship between the pile cap torsion and the angle of twist is depicted in Fig. 14(b). 5.2. Structural model for the platform jacket Fig. 15 shows the structural model for the platform jacket. The model is constructed according to the design drawings. Pipe elements are used to mesh the platform structure. The damaged member is meshed with pipe elements 0.4 m long. The other members are meshed with 2 m long pipe elements. There are in total 2082 elements and 1907 nodes in the FE

(b) Cap torsion versus angle of twist. Fig. 14. Load versus displacement relationship of a single pile.

model. The pilesoil interaction is simulated by non-linear springs. The damaged diagonal bracing is 914 19 mm, and its yield stress is 345 MPa. The superstructure of the platform itself is not included in the structural model because the collision happened during the installation. The forcedeformation curve of the non-linear spring, which is used to simulate the collision of the platform and the barge and located at the point of the dent damage on the

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

1325

Fig. 16. Response time histories of displacements at the joints of the damaged member, for barge velocity = 1 m/s (collision time = 0.682 s, peak load F = 5.367 106 N).

Fig. 15. The platform jacket structure model.

tubular member, is obtained using Eqs. (6)(8). The common velocity v12 of the platform and barge after collision can be determined according to the law of momentum conservation as described in Section 2. It is assumed that no second collision between the barge and the platform happened, and the impact action of the barge is transformed into an isosceles triangle impulse load. 5.3. Dynamic response analysis for stress and displacement of the jacket structure The dynamic response of the platform jacket structure is calculated to examine the magnitude of the stresses and displacements at critical regions and the nodal points. The analysis is carried out for two impact loading scenarios, namely, (a) impact with the barge velocity equal to 1.0 m/s; as described in Section 4.4, the corresponding contact time is t0 = 0.682 s and the peak impact force is F = 5.367 106 N; and (b) impact at barge velocity equal to 2.0 m/s, for which t0 = 2.15 s and F = 3.405 106 N. Fig. 16 shows the computed displacements at the impact loading point (the loading side of the non-linear collision spring, denoted as UX1852) and at the damage location of the diagonal brace (denoted as UX1837), for the impact loading scenario (a). Fig. 17 shows the corresponding stress time histories at several critical locations on the diagonal

Fig. 17. Response time histories of stresses at critical regions of the damaged member, for barge velocity = 1 m/s (collision time = 0.682 s, peak load F = 5.367 106 N).

tubular member, namely at its connection to leg A2 (denoted as S12), at the impact location (S1837), and near the crossing point between the two cross-diagonal brace members (S1765). The von Mises strength criteria are adopted. It can be observed from these plots that the maximum stresses of the damaged diagonal brace have reached the yield strength at the impact location and at its connection to leg A2. The element stress at the crossing point between the two cross-diagonal members remains within the elastic range. The element stresses in the remaining part of the jacket structure are rather small and they are not presented in detail here. The computed results also show that the total displacement of the overall jacket structure under the impact loading is small. It is expected that they would be able restore to their original positions, and no specic rehabilitation measures are required concerning the displacement of the platform structure. The computed responses for the impact loading scenario (b), as shown in Figs. 18 and 19, are generally similar to

1326

W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 13171326

Fig. 18. Response time histories of displacements at the joints of the damaged member for ship velocity = 2 m/s (collision time = 2.15 s, peak load F = 3.405 106 N).

the damage dent deformation, in conjunction with non-linear FE analysis for the damage in the bracing member; (b) the incorporation of a non-linear spring to model the transmission of the impact load to the offshore platform structure during the collision, and the derivation of the non-linear spring properties from the analysis of the elastic and plastic dent deformation of the tubular member subjected to the impact; (c) the modeling of the pilesoil interaction using three types of non-linear springs; and (d) the nite element modeling of the platform jacket structure. Subsequently, the dynamic response of the platform structure subject to the impact load is obtained. The response histories in terms of stress at critical regions and the nodal displacements are obtained for the assessment of the integrity of the structural system. For the particular case under investigation, it is found that yielding occurred only for the diagonal brace member around its connections to the two legs, while the remaining part of the structure exhibited no inelastic response. Repairing and strengthening appears to be necessary only for the diagonal member which was directly hit during the collision. The general procedure presented in this paper is applicable for the damage assessment of other offshore platform structures in the case of accidental collisions. Acknowledgment The support of China Offshore Oil Research Center is gratefully acknowledged. References

Fig. 19. Response time histories of stresses at critical regions of the damaged member for ship velocity = 2 m/s (collision time = 2.15 s, peak load F = 3.405 106 N).

those for scenario (a). However, due to an increase of the impact duration, the primary response duration is longer, and the overall response amplitudes also appear to be higher than for scenario (a). On the basis of the above results, it is suggested that further examination of the butt weld of the damaged diagonal brace and the attachment weld of this diagonal brace to leg A2 be conducted by appropriate non-destructive testing. A proper repairing and strengthening scheme for the jacket platform structure around the damaged regions should be determined accordingly. 6. Conclusions A comprehensive evaluation procedure is presented for assessing the damage effects to an offshore platform structure due to collision by a large barge. The computational model involves the following aspects: (a) the determination of the maximum impact load and the impact duration; this is done on the basis of the observed damage state, particularly

[1] Jin W-l et al. Reliability based design of jacket platform under extreme loads. China Ocean Engineering 1996;10(2):14560. [2] API. Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD). 21st ed. American Petroleum Institute; 2000. [3] DnV. Recommended Practice RP-C203, DET NORSKE VERITAS (DnV); May 2000. [4] Li R-p, Chen W-g, Gu Y-n. Static analysis of collision strength of offshore platform. Ocean Engineering 1995;13(2):1421 [in Chinese]. [5] Jorgen A. Energy absorption in shipplatform impacts. Report of the Norwegian Institute of Technology, The University of Trondheim; September 1983. [6] Petersen MJ, Pedersen PT. Collision between ships and offshore platform. In: Proceedings of 13th annual offshore technology conference. 1981, p. 16371. [7] Bai Y, Pedersen PT. Elasticplastic behavior of offshore steel structures under impact loads. International Journal of Impact Engineering 1993;13(1):99115. [8] Smith CS. Assessment of damage in offshore steel platforms. In: Proceedings of international conference on marine safety. 1983, p. 279305 [Paper 15]. [9] Ueda Y, Murakawa H, Xiang D. Classication of dynamics response of a tubular beam under collision. In: Proceedings of 8th international conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering. 1989, p. 64552. [10] Jin W-l, Gong S-f, Song J. Final report of damage assessment analysis for WEN 13-1 jacket platform. Institute of Structural Engineering, Zhejiang University, 2001. p. 12. [11] Ocean Engineering Geologic Research Report of Platform Site. Engineering Survey Company, COGC, 1999. p. 4.