Proceedings of the Seventh (1997) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Honolulu, USA, May 25-30, 1997
Copyright © 1997 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
1SBN 1-880653-28-1 (Set); ISBN 1.880653.31-1 (VoL III)
Wave-in-Deck Forces
Timothy D. Finnigan
Chevron Petroleum Technology Company
San R a m o n , CA, USA
Chuck Petrauskas
Chevron Petroleum Technology Company
La Habra, CA, USA
ABSTRACT
Under the current competitive situation, Chevron needs to make
risk-based decisions with regard to continued use of existing
platform assets. Chevron's Gulf of Mexico fleet is dominated by
aging platforms. About 70% of the platforms (344 platforms,
excluding caissons) are older than 20 years. In addition, a large
percentage of the platforms offshore Nigeria are also old, and
regularly being considered for extended use. Continued use of
existing assets will save millions of dollars in Capital Expenses that
can be redirected to other developments. Platform failure
probabilities and consequences are required input to the risk
analysis. Because many of the older platforms do not meet present
day standards for deck height, failure probability calculations
require accurate estimates of (a) deck-inundation wave/current
forces and (b) statistical characterization of wave crest heights.
KEY WORDS: Offshore, platforms, deck, forces, crest, heights,
waves
INTRODUCTION
In order to develop a hydrodynamic model for deck forces, Chevron
conducted a series of wave tests on a 1:28 scale model of a 141-ft.
water depth steel jacket platform during the winter of 1988-89. The
model included an instrumented deck structure representative of older
Gulf of Mexico platforms which consisted of tubular and wide flange
members. The deck had three levels: a sub-cellar deck without
equipment; a cellar deck with equipment modeled; and a main deck
without equipment. The test program consisted of a series of
unidirectional regular and irregular waves, and multi-directional
irregular waves consistent with Gulf of Mexico hurricanes and winter
storms. There is presently no other comprehensive model wave force
data of this nature available in the literature. To characterize the
statistics of crest heights Chevron has over the years maintained a data
base of measured crest height and wave height data and has continually
evaluated its mathematical models.
Two basic methods for predicting deck loads are considered: a
"'component" approach in which wave loads are computed on
individual structural members and equipment as the wave passes
19
through the structure; and a "silhouette" approach in which the load is
computed on the projected area of the deck. The component approach
can account for varying amounts of deck equipment and structural
members, and member shielding and blockage can be taken into
consideration. However, the method requires a comprehensive
description of the deck and equipment, which is not always available
for older structures. The silhouette approach, which was adopted for
API 20 th edition, can be used with calibration factors that take into
consideration the relative density of the structure based on the amount
of structural members and equipment.
MODEL TEST PROGRAM
Models
A model similar in size, water depth, and framing to a Chevron
platform recently removed from service was built to a scale of 1:28.
The model included both the jacket and the deck, upon which one of
three basic deck equipment configurations were used: a "bare" deck, a
"moderate" deck, and a "full" deck. The density of deck equipment
increased respectively for these three models. The different deck
configurations were installed on removable trays which were made out
of wire mesh carefully chosen to scale the flow properties expected
through standard platform steel grating. Boat landings, piping, stairs,
handrails, and other appurtenances were not modeled to simplify data
analysis.
Conductors were modeled in some of the tests to determine whether or
not they influenced the flow through and hence the loads on the deck.
The deck model was free to "float" on the jacket legs, and did not have
direct contact with the conductors. The loads on the conductors were
transmitted to the jacket structure as they would be on prototype
structures. Early numerical simulations indicated deck grating had a
significant effect on the wave loads. This was because loads on
individual elements were computed without considering the shielding
effect of leading members. However, it was believed that flow
shielding would significantly reduce the loads. Therefore, tests were
conducted with and without the grating at the scaffold level to
determine its influence on the wave loads.
Figure 1 shows a "'typical" older Gulf of Mexico platform which
guided the development of the model used in these tests. Figures 2 and
3 show the full .jacket model with deck, and a close up of the deck
model respectively. The framing seen at the top of the model was used
to support instrumentation, and was not part of the deck structure. The
schematic in Figure 4 shows the deck elevation views from the side
and end-on.

Figure 3: Cli3se-Up of Deck Model

Main Deck _

Figure 1" Prototype "Aging" Platform Used As Basis For Models

t----------30f t . . ~ - m ~ 3 0 ft.- ....... --~ . . . . . . . 30ft. . . . . . -.l

SideElevation
Main[:)eck._
Jl . i--I.'

~' ~175'
ScaffoldD e c k ~ ~ I T 0 '
- 40 It. - ~ ~..

EndElevation

Figure 4. Elevation schematic of deck model

Figures 5 and 6 show the bare deck and full deck trays used in the
wave tests. The moderate deck tray had about half as much equipment
as the full deck. Six conductors were used in some of the tests with the
moderate deck configuration to assess the effect conductors would
have on the flow through the deck. Also, tests were conducted on the
moderate deck setup with the grating removed from the scaffold deck
to assess the impact deck grating has on the loads.

-,..,

Cutouts for Wire Mesh Used to

Conductors Model Deck Grating ~-,-! ~<,i.,-ii!

Figure 2" Jacket + Deck Model

The scaffold deck. comprised mainly of WF4xl3 framing members

and hung from the cellar deck with 12 inch members, was located 29
ft. above MLLW. The cellar deck, which contained the deck
equipment, was comprised of 8, 12, and 14 inch members and was
located 34 ft. above MLLW. The main deck was comprised of 14, 21, Figure 5: Bare Deck Tray Used In Model Tests
24, and 33 inch members and was located 43 ft. above MLLW.

20
 40~ I

Rec~g~_~l~r and C~cu~ar Cy~cd~-}cal (tl.)

-40.0
[l:r r- - ' T " - " r ' m 11~Tq, p+rq),,lll~- ~ r - [ ~ lq-i-TlpAPlr r a . p - - i r T T n ~ q ~ - 1 ~ l l r F p ~ - - ~ - ~ , r - l l w l f ~ r ~

Obje<'ts Represe~t~r~g Bu~Idi~gs. T a ~ s ,

0 360 720 1060 1441) 1800 2160 2529 2880 3240 36~
Process Equ~prt~e~L S~orage Un~1~s~etc, Time(see.)

Typical 3-Minult Snap-Shot of Surlace Elevation Ustld in Model T e s ~ e n d / ~ W ~ I s

40.0

/
41 i °
Ek)vl~on
(~)

OpeR,~r~9~ for
Conducto~ Pipes

40.0
Figure 6: Full Deck Tray Used In Model Tests 2~0
Time(s,c.)
269O 2730

Figure 7: Segment Of Simulated Wave Record And A Wave

Test Program
"Episode"

Wave tests were conducted at NRC-Canada, in Ottawa in the

directional sea basin. The model was tested at three headings: 0- 4~n
degrees or end-on; 45-degree or diagonal; and 90-degrees or broadside.
Regular and irregular uni-directional waves and irregular multi-
30.0
directional wave tests were conducted. Due to the possibility of
reflections from the side walls and beach for long simulations, and the f~
interest in only selecting wave crests which could impact the deck,
wave "'snapshots" were used in the tests. A wave selection process was .,

then established to get a distribution of crest heights that ranged from ~ 0.0

just below the scaffold deck to just above the main deck level.
- tS.O
Snapshot Selection -Multiple wave time histories 3 hours in length
(prototype scale) were numerically simulated from a typical Gulf of
-30.0 .... J I I I
Mexico design wave spectrum. These time histories were screened to D/ SO 0 IIDO.D tSO.O 20tl.0

identifiy wave segments 3 minutes in length (prototype scale) with the TrUE (s|
following criteria: 1) the segments contain 2 to 3 waves with a crest S^MPt.E : |S~LES;I SW--US$2--OOI; SAMI~ E : [SAM=LES| SW--MSS2--~I
height between the bottom of the scaffold and top of the main deck; - - - - - - U N I - D M E G T I O ~ A L WAVE ...... I d U g T I . D I E ~ T I I : ~ I A L WAVE

and 2) at least 2 to 3 waves separated these large crests for statistical t l l • 54.12 II 1'12 " $1.93 i t t i l • bq.t4 f! 1"2 - 60.6S f!
C a :12JIg It Ct !14.t$ i t C t -. S:l 1'9 i t g:l - :Ilk0,2 #t
independence. Due to wave nonlinearities and other idiosyncrasies of
I I - 1336 s4c It2 o 15.25 sac • I - 13.41 sic 1'2: • II11) l i t
Wave making, it was not possible to exactly recreate the numerically
simulated wave traces. Therefore, a calibration phase was conducted in Figure 8: Measured Unidirectional Vs. Multidirectional Wave
which the selected waves were fed into the drive signal of the wave Segment
maker, and waves were created in the wave basin. Only those wave
segments which satisfied the above criteria and were not breaking were DECK FORCE PROCEDURES
used in the model tests.
Two deck force procedures are evaluated in this paper. One is a
Conditional Simulations In order to make a direct comparison of
- detailed component approach which relies upon the quantification of
wave forces in unidirectional and multidirectional irregular waves, the the various structural members and deck equipment impacted by the
wave record at the centerline of the model in unidirectional waves was wave. The other is a "'silhouette" approach which requires only the
required to match the wave record in multidirectional waves. This was gross dimensions of the deck. The first procedure is more accurate,
accomplished in the wave basin by first creating a multidirectional and is appropriate when a numerical deck model has already been built
irregular wave from the simulated wave traces. After waves with the for structural analysis purposes. The second procedure is specified in
desired characteristics were identified, a unidirectional wave trace was Supplement 1 of the 20 th Edition of the API RP2A (1996). It is
generated given or "'conditioned upon" the multidirectional wave appropriate when details about the deck structure are lacking, or to
measured at the center of the test section. create general guidelines for wave in deck loads for risk assessments.

Figure 7 shows a segment of a long simulated wave record and a wave
episode selected for testing with two crests high enough to impact the
deck. Figure 8 shows a comparison of a measured unidirectional wave
segment and its corresponding measured multidirectional wave
segment.
Component Model
A space frame computer model is built, including deck legs; vertical,
horizontal, and diagonal support tubulars, plate girders, truss beams,
deck beams, deck grating, and deck equipment. Forces are computed
for a range of wave heights for a specific period (peak spectral period)
whose crest heights range from just below the lowest deck (scaffold

21
deck for these tests) to just above the highest deck (main deck). This 3. Compute the maximum horizontal water particle velocity, u, at the
method is chosen in lieu of computing the deck forces for a specific lower of the crest or top of the main deck level. Use equation
wave height and period. The steps used in this method are outlined 2.3.1 b.2 of the Supplement;
below: 4. Compute the wave force according to the formula below:
1. Create a computer model of the deck including all wide flange and Fdeck = ½ p CD A (otWKF*U + otCBF*U)2 ; (1)
tubular members,
where p is the water density, CD is the drag coefficient which accounts
2. Model deck equipment as rectangular or circular cylinders, for the heading and "solidity" of the structure, A is the wetted area,
3. Model deck grating as lumped areas throughout the deck, using only otWKF is the wave kinematics factor (0.88 for hurricanes, 1.0 for
35% of the actual projected area in the lateral direction, winter storms), u is the wave kinematic velocity, o~CBF is the current
4. Choose a drag coefficient according to the table below: blockage factor, and U is the current velocity. The recommended drag
coefficients for three deck types: "heavy, or very dense equipment;
Heading with equipment without equipment "moderate" with half the density as heavy; and "bare" are noted
without with without with below. The "Full" deck in the present model tests is considered only a
conductors conductors conductors conductors "Moderate" deck in terms of solidity in the API guidelines. This is
end-on 0.6 0.55 0.67
,
0.6 because modem offshore platforms have much denser decks than that
diagonal l.O 1.10 l.O l.lO modeled in the test program. The selection of the density is subjective,
broadside 0.85 0.80 0.85 0.80 and left to the judgment of the engineer. The guidelines contained in
., ,,,

APt RP2A are based on a "Bare" deck similar to the Bare deck used in
5. Use Regular Stream Function Wave Theory for wave kinematics, these tests, a "Moderate" deck similar to the Full deck used in these
6. Use a wave spreading factor of 0.88 (multiply the fluid velocities) tests, and a "Full" deck which is essentially a solid block.
for hurricanes and 0.95 for winter storms to account for directional
spreading effects. Drag Coefficients used in Silhouette Approach
Type - end,on or broadside diagonal
The values of 0.88 and 0.95 are derived from the wave loads measured .
"heav'~, '
. .
'
.
2.5 ' . . . . 1.9
on the jacket alone from an earlier part of the same model test program, moderate 2.0 1.5
. . . . .

and is supported by numerical computations with cosine squared bare 1.6 1.2
. . . . . . . . . .

spreading. The drag coefficients used in the computations are based on

a rudimentary blockage procedure (Finnigan, 1992; Lambrokos, 1989;
Taylor, 1991), in which the flow is assumed to be steady relative to the
duration of wave impact.
7. The wave forces are computed using Morison's formulation. An
inertia coefficient of 1.5 is used, but deck forces are found to be
relatively insensitive to inertia forces due to dominance by the
horizontal crest velocities (horizontal crest accelerations are near
zero when crests are high enough to impact the deck).
These drag coefficient values are based on a combination of results
from these model tests, theoretical considerations of momentum flux
(Mercier), and experience from platform damage during hurricane
Andrew. A coefficient of variation of 35% is applied to the loads
predicted with this method when used to develop extreme load
distributions for risk assessment purposes.
o.- . . . . . . .

8. Compute a wave crest height equal to 1.07 times that computed with
Stream Function Theory for the given wave height and period. The
7% increase is based on Chevron in-house studies from calibrations
of Stream Function Wave Theory with measured crest heights.
9. Choose the wave force vs. crest height distribution for a given wave
heading; and
10.Find the wave tbrce from the table or plot that corresponds to the Figure 9. Shaded Area Used In Computing Loads For Silhouette
computed crest height. Method.

Silhouette Model ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

The Silhouette Method presented below was developed by a sub-group Analysis

of Work Group 3, 'Environmental Loading', of the API Task Group on
Assessment of Existing Platforms (Petrauskas, 1996). Participants were
Tim Finnigan (Chevron), Rick Mercier (Shell), John Heideman
(Exxon), and Gene Berek (Mobil). Guidelines are described in
Supplement 1 of the Wave Force Commentary of the 20 th Edition of
the API RP2A. The steps for this method are summarized below:
1. Compute the crest height using an appropriate non-linear wave
theory (no 7% correction);
2. Compute the gross wetted area, A, normal to the wave heading as in
Figure 9. In this computation, the legs and bracing above the cellar
deck are considered part of the wetted area, while the legs and
bracing below the cellar deck are not;
Only multidirectional wave snapshots are used to evaluate the deck
force procedures. There are several reasons for this. 1) The
multidirectional waves more accurately depict the design wave
properties in the Gulf of Mexico; 2) Due to the steepness of the waves
representing the design wave heights for the Gulf of Mexico location
studied in this paper (141 ft. water depths), the unidirectional waves
were relatively unstable, and had a much higher incidence of breaking
which cannot be adequately modeled in the wave basin; 3) The
repetitive nature of the regular waves in which the turbulent trough of a
preceding wave influenced the crest kinematics of the following wave,
led to unsteady wave force statistics (the deck forces steadily decreased
in value for each passing wave).

22
Due to the variability of crest height vs. wave height, and the Another way to assess the importance of basing deck force calculations
sensitivity of the deck forces to how much of the deck is wetted by the on crest height is shown in Figure 12.
wave, the measured wave forces are compared to the predicted wave
forces as a function of the crest height rather than the wave height.
1500
Component M e t h o d R e s u l t s

The deck forces predicted using the "component" procedure are o

compared to the measured deck forces for the various deck ~. 1000
configurations in the figures below; however, it is not possible in the ,a¢ o.,
6
present paper to show results for all headings and deck configurations.
Theretbre, Comparison of predicted and measured forces are shown for oo 0 U 0
a few cases.
, % o • Meesur~

In Figure I 0, the predicted forces are shown by the dotted line, and the
measured forces as open circles. The scaffold deck is first impacted
when the crest height reaches 29 ft. There is a jump in wave forces at
the 34 ft. crest height, reflecting when waves first impact the cellar 0
,1'I; " ,V
10 40 50
deck. There's another jump at 43 ft. when the main deck is impacted. Ha0ht4t

Measured vs ~ i c t e d BDNC Forces

3DSeas,45 DegreesHeading
2000

¢fJ
._q.

i~~
1500

1000 / :,41 /
1 ......o ~a~ m
M
~,
18oo

1o0o o
o

6 o~
cb o ,,/ o O
b
O"
tL
oo o 0
5O0 II Id~ltll~
o 9.,.d" - o ,1¢ ,, a 8
e I1~,
o -'~ oo D

0 . . . . . .

21 32 36 40 44 48
Crest Height-fl o

Figure 10. Measured And Predicted Bare Deck Forces, Diagonal 5o 55

Heading. Component Approach

2500 Figure 12. a (top) - Measured And Predicted Forces For Bare Deck,
End-On, Based On Crest Heights; b (bottom) Measured And
20O0 Predicted Forces Based On Measured Wave Heights.
ut

Figure 12a shows the scatter in predicted (open Circles) and measured
, 1500 Pred. Moderate
------- Pred. Full (filled squares) deck forces for the bare deck, end-on condition when
O • Meas.Moderate basing forces on measured crest heights. Figure 12b shows the scatter
O Meas.Full
.~
f.)
1000 when forces are based on the measured wave heights.
~Q
50O II These results demonstrate how important it is to have an accurate
g
estimate of crest height to predict the deck forces. Often waves with
the same trough to crest "wave height" will have significantly different
crest heights. Figure il indicates that a variation in crest height of
2a 32 36 40 44 48
C r e s t Height, Ft.
only 4 feet (from 42 to 46 feet) could result in up to a 300% difference
in deck forces (from 700 kips to 2000 kips). This 1000 kip +
Figure ! 1. Measured And Predicted Moderate Deck Forces, Broadside, difference in jacket base shear would also result in significant
Component Approach differences in overturning moment of the jacket due to the high force
center.
Figure 11 shows predicted moderate deck and full deck forces vs.
measured moderate deck and full deck forces for the broadside wave A plot of all measured vs. predicted deck forces based on the
heading. This figure more dramatically shows the large increases in component procedure is shown in Figure 13, which indicates a bias of
deck force as the crest impacts successive deck levels. 0.5% and a coefficient of variation of 33%.

23
 Moderate Deck, 90 Degree Heading

~[10.1 --, -,--, " .... 8 "~

2500.0

--~ Predicted
2000.0
° Measured
am ~m .....
(h
._~ 1500.0
.~ a
uL._
o 1000.0
M. O O

o ~o o-
500.0
~q ~ .......... • ~ / ~ = J O O O O O
~__ 1000.
,I ~U~ = 0.0
0 O0 I~) ,

PREDICTED (kips)
Figure 13. Measured Vs. Predicted Deck Force Data Based On
Measured Crest Height, (all 2D & 3D tests, 532 impacts).
Silhouette Method Results
The deck forces predicted with the Silhouette method as outlined in
API-RP2A are compared to measured forces for two conditions: Bare
Deck, 45 degree heading, and Full Deck, 90 degree heading. Recall
that the "Full" deck in the model tests represents only a "Moderate"
deck in the API guidelines.
Bare Deck, 45 Degree Heading
30 35 40 45
Crest Height, ft.
Figure 15. Comparison Of Measured And Predicted (API Guidelines)
Moderate Deck Forces, 90 Degree Heading
CONCLUSIONS
Model tests were conducted in 1988-89 to assess the hydrodynamic
loads on decks of aging platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The test
results formed the basis of a "component-based" deck force calculation
procedure, which is shown to accurately predict the wave-in-deck
forces for typical older Gulf of Mexico platforms. The data also
formed the basis for a more generic "silhouette" approach for wave-in-
deck force calculations that has been incorporated into in Supplement I
of the 20 th Edition of the API RP2A. Wave-in-Deck force
calculations are shown to be highly sensitive to crest heights. More
research is required to develop a crest height distribution which can be
used in conjunction with wave-in-deck force calculation procedures to
more accurately assess offshore platform failure probabilities.

2000.0
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
---. Predicted
1600.0 The authors would like to thank the following organizations and
= Measured
individuals for support in the research that led to the publication of
these results. Chevron Petroleum Technology Company, for
=-
..,,,., 1200.0
supporting our efforts to evaluate this problem; the National Research
L Council, Canada Wave Facility for conducting a thorough and
o 800.0 comprehensive wave test program; Jim Allender (Chevron), for his
14.

support during the model tests; and John Heideman (Exxon), Rick
400.0 Mercier (Shell), and Gene Berek (Mobil) for their involvement in the
~ ~ ~ ° °
Deck Force sub-group; and Majid Atef (Chevron) for his help with the
data analysis.
0.0
30 35 40 45 REFERENCES
Crest Height, ft
Finnigan, TD (1992). "Current Blockage Effects On Model-Scale
Figure 14. Comparison Of Measured And Predicted (API Guidelines) Offshore Platform," Civil Engineering In The Oceans V.
Bare Deck Forces, 45 Degree Heading
Lambrokos, KF et al (1989). "Wake And Shielding Effects On
Figure 14 shows the predicted force (line) for the Bare Deck, 45 degree Hydrodynamic Loading," E & P Forum Workshop On Wave And
heading case plotted against the measured (open squares) forces. The Current Kinematics And Loading.
API guidelines more or less defines an envelope to the measured
forces. The same is observed for the Moderate Deck, 90 degree Petrauskas, C et al (1996). "Supplement 1 to RP 2A-WSD, 20th Ed."
heading in Figure 15
Taylor, PH (1991). "Current Blockage: Reduced Forces on Offshore
space-frame structures," OTC 6519.

24