Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 10

Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326


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


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 firstly 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
force–deflection 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 coefficient with hydrodynamic effects and the pile–soil-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 structure. To effectively repair the damaged members and

restore the desired state of the structure requires a good
Offshore jacket platforms have been widely used in assessment of the condition of the structural system after an
offshore oil and gas exploitation with complicated ocean accidental event. For this reason, how to analyze and assess
environments. Besides the normal operational loads, the the damage to the platform structures due to collision, and
platforms are subjected to other loads, such as wind, wave, the influences of such damage on the integrity, load bearing
current and ice loads [1]. At the same time, they are also capacity and the fatigue lifetime of the platform, have
exposed to unexpected incidents inducing sudden loads, for become important topics in offshore platform risk studies.
example, collision of a vessel with the platform, or impact The concerns for ship collision are reflected in various
from a heavy object dropping from the top of the platform. design codes [2,3]. For a general assessment of a damaged
These may result in crooking or buckling of some members,
platform impacted by a ship, it may be possible to turn the
thus reducing their load bearing capacity and potentially
dynamic problem of collision into a normal statics problem
affecting the safety and the integrity of the whole platform
with equivalent static loads [4]. Such analysis can be useful
for understanding the general effects of the collision and
∗ Corresponding author. determining the residual strength of the affected members.

0141-0296/$ - see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
1318 W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326

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 pile–soil-structure interaction
during the dynamic response of the platform structure. In
the course of a collision, one important problem is energy
Fig. 3. Layout of skirt piles.
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 structure is then analyzed, and the critical stress and
the ship’s bow and stern structures and the deformation deformation responses of the tubular joints in the offshore
behavior of tubular bracings. Various mechanisms of energy jacket structure are obtained to assess the damage effects.
dissipation in a ship structure subjected to collision loads Fig. 1 gives an outline of the general analysis procedure.
were identified and described; design curves were proposed
for bow and stern impacts with supply vessels. The different 2. Description of the collision case
modes of energy dissipation were described, for assessing
the load carrying capacity in the beam mode of deformation An offshore platform was impacted by a ship during its
accounting for the detrimental effect of local indentation. installation. Fig. 2 provides a snapshot view of the collision
This paper reports a comprehensive evaluation of the captured at the time when it took place. The platform is a
damage to an offshore platform structure, which was acci- steel jacket deep-water platform with four legs and eight
dentally impacted by a large derrick and lay barge during skirt piles. Fig. 3 shows the layout of the skirt piles. The
the installation. In this study, the impact load is determined water depth of the seabed is 117.2 m. The penetration depth
on the basis of the forensic damage evidence detected after of the piles is 91 m, and the diameter of the piles is 1829 mm.
the offshore structure was impacted by the barge. The added The large derrick and lay barge was anchored beside the
mass coefficient for the hydrodynamic effect is considered offshore platform. At the time of collision, the barge ran out
in the evaluation of the collision effect on the platform of control so that it flew onto the platform jacket structure
structure, while the pile–soil-structure interaction is consid- due to sea wind and current and collided with the jacket
ered in the development of the computational model for the structure. The damage was reported on the diagonal bracing
structural system. The force–deflection relationship of the between leg A2–B2 (Fig. 4, location I). The damaged area
local indentation for the damaged cross-diagonal brace is started at 4 m from the top weld of the node and ended at
simulated by a non-linear spring. The dynamic response of about 5.40 m from the node connecting to leg A2. Inspection
W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326 1319

where k is the additional mass coefficient. 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 . (2)
Hence the common speed after colliding is
v12 = (m 1 v1 + m 2 v2 )/(m 1 + m 2 ) (3)
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
1 1 1
Fig. 4. The damage areas due to the collision. m 1 v12 + m 2 v22 = (m 1 + m 2 )v12
+ Es + E p (4)
2 2 2
revealed that the diagonal member was squashed for about where E s is the energy absorbed by the ship; E p is
150 mm and cut open over an area of about 130 × 130 × the energy absorbed by the platform. According to the
110 mm. On the opposite side of the member there was rigid-body assumption for the ship, E s may be neglected.
a furrow about 40 mm deep. Removal of paint and some Consequently, the energy absorbed by the platform can be
scratching were also evident on this diagonal member. conservatively written as
In addition, as shown in Fig. 4, leg B2 was squashed in at 1
the level of the first riser clamp in the water. The support of Ep = m 1 v12 /(1 + m 1 /m 2 ). (5)
the riser clamp was partially cut open along the weld on the
reinforcement plate, while the weld between the leg and the Generally, the impact energy absorbed by an offshore
reinforcement plate was partially cut open. jacket structure from a ship involves the following energy
absorption processes:
3. Mechanics model of colliding system • local denting or crushing of the tubular member section;
• elastic beam bending;
3.1. Collision mechanics
• plastic bending/hinge formation;
When a platform is collided with by a ship, it may be • global structural deformation (elastic and plastic).
assumed that the time of collision is far smaller than the
In the particular case under investigation, the total mass
motion period of the ship. After collision, the ship would
of the jacket platform is 1.889 × 106 kg and the mass of the
move together with the platform structure. Before setting up
barge is about 4.2 × 107 kg. The total mass of the jacket
the mechanics model of the colliding system, the following
platform structure is far less than the mass of the barge. The
considerations [6] are given:
additional mass factor for the barge is assumed to be 0.4 to
• The hull of the ship is assumed to be a rigid body with take into account the installment equipment in the vessel.
certain speed and mass for the calculation of the collision
effect on the platform structure, and the deformation of 3.2. Local dent of tubular member
the hull structure is neglected.
• The collision effect is evaluated in accordance with the To study the global structural response due to collision,
laws of momentum conservation and conservation of the local dent of the tubular member under impact load
energy. must be discussed first so that the transmission of the
• The mass of the ship includes its self-mass, m s , and
impact load can be established. The shape and area of the
the additional mass due to the hydrodynamic interaction
local dent depends on the collision modes. Because of the
between sea water and the ship. It can be expressed by the
complexity of the impact problem, it is difficult to find a
following formula:
simple analytical model to establish the relationship between
m 1 = m s + km s (1) the local denting of the tubular member δ and the impact
1320 W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326

Fig. 6. Definition of the impact load.

Fig. 5. Non-linear spring force–deformation relation.

load P. Bai [7] proposed an empirical formula for relating where [M] is the mass matrix, [C] is the damping matrix,
the elastic deformation, δ E , to the impact load PE : [K ] is the stiffness matrix, {ü} is the nodal acceleration
vector, {u̇} is the nodal velocity vector, and {u} is the
PE = 0.1116(D/t)3 E L C δ E (6) nodal displacement vector. For the impact problem under
where E is the Young’s modulus, t is the tube wall thickness, consideration, the impact action from the ship, P(t), may be
D is the tube diameter, and L C is the axial characteristic simplified into an isosceles triangle impulse load, as shown
length of the contact area. L C depends on the tube diameter in Fig. 6. It can be expressed as
D, the tube length, and the shape of the dent. On the basis  
 2Ft/t0 0 ≤ t ≤ t0 /2 
of a series of denting experiments [8] and linear shell finite P(t) = 2F(1 − t/t0 ) t0 /2 ≤ t ≤ t0 . (11)
element analyses [9], it was proposed that L C = 1.9D.  
0 t0 ≤ t
When the impact force P is greater than a critical value
P0 , a permanent dent deformation would be produced on the At any arbitrary time, t, the motion equations expressed in
tube wall. The critical value P0 can be derived from the rigid Eq. (10) may be considered as a series of static equilibrium
plastic finite element analysis [9], as equations with inertia force ([M]{ü}) and damping force
([C]{u̇}). There are typically two methods for solving these
P0 = 2Fy t 2 L C /D (7)
equations. One is the modal superposition method, and the
where Fy is the yield stress of the material. other is step-by-step integration. The natural mode shapes
An empirical formula relating the permanent dent and frequencies of the structure must be solved first when
deformation, δ P , to the impact load, PP , can be obtained the modal superposition method is adopted. Because the
according to API RP 2A-WSD [2], as impulse type load may excite numerous vibration modes,
it is necessary to consider a sufficient number of modes in
PP = 40Fy t 2 (δ P /D)0.5 . (8)
order to obtain a satisfactory solution. Moreover, the modal
The total dent depth δ will include the elastic dent depth superposition method is only applicable for linear structural
δ E and the permanent dent deformation δ P when the impact systems. For the problem under consideration, non-linear
force P is greater than the critical value P0 , i.e. responses may take place at some critical regions of the
δ = δE + δ P . (9) jacket structure, as well as at the impact regions (represented
by a non-linear spring) and in the pile–soil interaction.
Using Eqs. (6)–(8), the P–δ relationship can be obtained. Therefore, direct integration using the Newmark method is
A non-linear spring, as shown in Fig. 5, having this P–δ adopted in this study for solving the motion equations under
relationship is introduced into the computational model the impact load.
to represent the force–deflection relationship of the local
indentation for the damaged cross-diagonal brace. The non-
linear spring is effective under unilateral compression, and 4. Impact load identification
the final deformation of the spring represents the dent depth
of the tubular member under the impact load. 4.1. Non-linear numerical simulation analysis

3.3. Motion equations of collision Numerical simulation analysis is carried out to inversely
identify the impact load characteristics according to the
Transient dynamic analysis can be used to explain the
detected damage on the impacted member. In this procedure,
deformation, strain, stress, and force with time under steady
forward non-linear finite element analysis is performed
load, transient load and simple harmonic load. The basic
to calculate the dent damage for various possible load
equation of motion can be written as
conditions, so that the relationship between the dent depth
[M]{ü} + [C]{u̇} + [K ]{u} = {P(t)} (10) and the loading parameters can be established. From there,
W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326 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 small strain capability, is suitable for the non-linear problem
the measured dent information. under consideration. The member was meshed with 1984
Both an equivalent static load and a more realistic impact shell elements and 2016 nodes. The ideal elastic–plastic
load as expressed in Eq. (11) are determined through this constitutive relationship is adopted for the steel, with elastic
numerical analysis procedure. The equivalent static load can modulus E = 2.0 × 105 MPa, yield strength Fy = 345 MPa
be used to perform a quick static analysis to assess the and Poisson’s ratio = 0.3.
magnitude of the structural response, while the impact load The loads are distributed in the damaged area of the
can be used for a more detailed and more accurate dynamic member in a triangle form, with maximum loading density
response analysis of the platform jacket structure. at the center of the damaged area, as shown in Fig. 7. A
series of analyses with different total load values are carried
4.2. Equivalent static load identification based on the out. Fig. 8 shows a typical local dent damage scenario from
damaged member the numerical simulation. On the basis of the results, it is
found that when the total load value is 2.45 × 106 N, the
The equivalent static load analysis is first performed maximum radial deflection is 150.886 mm, which is close to
on the damaged cross-diagonal bracing member assuming the actually detected dent depth of 150 mm.
two fixed ends. The finite element model for the damaged
member between the two adjacent nodes was created as 4.3. Equivalent static analysis of cross-diagonal brace
shown in Fig. 7. The diameter of the member is 914 mm,
the thickness is 19 mm and the length is 12 400 mm. To better simulate the boundary conditions of the
Three-node and four-node shell elements are used to mesh damaged member, another round of FE analysis are carried
the model, with denser mesh arranged in regions near the out on a substructure containing the damaged cross-diagonal
connections and the loading area. The shell element, which braces. The substructure is depicted in Fig. 9. At the top right
has plasticity, creep, stress stiffening, large deflection and tubular joint, all members connecting to the damaged brace
1322 W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326

between 1.0 and 2.0 m/s. The analysis is performed

assuming the two limit speed values. A detailed finite
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 δ P and the collision contact time t0 for
the ship velocity (v1 ) equal to 1 m/s and 2 m/s, respectively.
The fit curves can be expressed as
δ P = 20.15t03 − 27.64t02 − 133.08t0 + 246.30
(v1 = 1 m/s) (13)
δ P = −35.87t03 + 243.42t02 − 622.01t0 + 718.45
(v1 = 2 m/s). (14)
According to the above expressions, for the actual detected
Fig. 9. Model of the cross-diagonal brace substructure. 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
are included in the model for a length equal to three times of it is 2.15 s if the impact velocity of the barge is 2.0 m/s.
their respective diameters. On the basis of the results from Correspondingly, the maximum percussive force was F =
the analysis described in the previous section, three total load 5.367 × 106 N and F = 3.405 × 106 N, respectively.
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 Table 1
is depicted in Fig. 10. The corresponding maximum radial Dent depth of damaged member for different collision contact times
deflection is 155.3 mm, which does not differ much from Contact time Maximum Dent depth
the analysis result for the damaged member alone and is also t (s) percussive force δ (mm)
close to the measured dent depth of 150 mm. F (MN)
It is therefore concluded that the equivalent static load (a) Ship impact velocity = 1.0 m/s
of the collision with respect to the local dent damage is 0.2 18.6722 220.291
about 2.45 × 106 N. This static load may be used in an 0.4 9.3361 184.441
approximate static procedure to assess the general effect of 0.6 6.2241 167.343
the collision on the overall platform structure. The present 0.8 4.6681 130.481
study, however, will be based on the dynamic impact load 1.0 3.7344 104.469
1.2 3.1121 82.321
described in what follows.
(b) Ship impact velocity = 2.0 m/s
4.4. Maximum percussive force analysis 0.4 18.6755 512.556
0.8 9.3377 335.927
1.2 6.2252 287.345
In order to more realistically reproduce the impact 1.6 4.6689 190.609
effect, it is necessary to identify the dynamic impact load 2.0 3.6155 156.628
parameters. To completely define the impact load according 2.4 3.1126 134.563
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 The above two combinations of the impact load will be
collision, considered in the subsequent dynamic response analysis of
1 the platform jacket structure.
m 2 v12 = Ft0 (12)
where v12 , as shown in Eq. (3), is dependent on the velocity 5. Dynamic response analysis
of the impacting ship prior to collision (v1 ). Therefore,
once the ship velocity is known, the impulse will be a With the determination of the impact load as described
constant, and the actual values of t0 and F can be identified in the preceding section and the derivation of the non-linear
by numerical trial analysis to reproduce the measured dent spring representing the transmission of the impact load to
damage. the platform structure (Section 3.2), the dynamic response
According to the documentation of the accident, the analysis of the platform jacket structure can be performed.
platform was laterally impacted by the barge with a velocity To take into account the interaction between the piles and
W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326 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-pile–soil interaction,

the bearing capacity of a single pile needs to be analyzed
first. The diameter of the piles is uniformly 1829 mm, and
the length is 91 m. In the finite 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
Fig. 11. Fit curve of the dent depth of the damaged tubular member versus
is divided into an integer number of elements. This allows
collision contact time, for barge velocity = 1.0 m/s.
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 simplified 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 pile–soil 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
Fig. 12. Fit curve of the dent depth of the damaged tubular member versus site investigation and pile testing data [11]. A typical
collision contact time, for barge velocity = 2.0 m/s.
Q–Z (vertical force–displacement) datasheet is shown in
1324 W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326

Table 2
Q–Z (vertical load–vertical displacement) datasheet for a single pile for a steel-pipe pile of diameter 1829 mm

Penetration Q(1) Z (1) Q(2) Z (2) Q(3) Z (3) Q(4) Z (4) Q(5) Z (5) Q(6) Z (6) Q(7) Z (7) Q(8) Z (8)
depth (m)

24.00 0. 0 .71 3.7 1.42 23.8 2.13 76.8 2.55 133.5 2.84 182.9 2.84 274.4 2.84 365.8
26.70 0. 0. .33 3.7 .65 23.8 .98 76.8 1.17 133.5 1.30 182.9 1.30 274.4 1.30 365.8
28.20 0. 0. .33 3.7 .65 23.8 .98 76.8 1.17 133.5 1.30 182.9 1.30 274.4 1.30 365.8
33.70 0. 0. 2.34 3.7 4.68 23.8 7.02 76.8 8.42 133.5 9.35 182.9 9.35 274.4 9.35 365.8
37.90 0. 0. .35 3.7 .71 23.8 1.06 76.8 1.28 133.5 1.42 182.9 1.42 274.4 1.42 365.8
40.80 0. 0. .35 3.7 .71 23.8 1.06 76.8 1.28 133.5 1.42 182.9 1.42 274.4 1.42 365.8
41.40 0. 0. .75 3.7 1.50 23.8 2.25 76.8 2.70 133.5 3.00 182.9 3.00 274.4 3.00 365.8
42.70 0. 0. .27 3.7 .54 23.8 .81 76.8 .97 133.5 1.08 182.9 1.08 182.9 1.08 365.8
48.50 0. 0. .35 3.7 .71 23.8 1.06 76.8 1.28 133.5 1.42 182.9 1.42 274.4 1.42 365.8
67.80 0. 0. .44 3.7 .89 23.8 1.33 76.8 1.60 133.5 1.77 182.9 1.77 274.4 1.77 365.8
87.20 0. 0. .53 3.7 1.06 23.8 1.60 76.8 1.92 133.5 2.13 182.9 2.13 274.4 2.13 365.8
91.90 0. 0. 2.76 3.7 5.52 23.8 8.28 76.8 9.93 133.5 11.03 182.9 11
.03 274.4 11.03 365.8
96.00 0. 0. 1.89 3.7 3.77 23.8 5.66 76.8 6.79 133.5 7.54 182.9 7.54 274.4 7.54 365.8
102.40 0. 0. 1.89 3.7 3.77 23.8 5.66 76.8 6.79 133.5 7.54 182.9 7.54 274.4 7.54 365.8
107.90 0. 0. .89 3.7 1.77 23.8 2.66 76.8 3.19 133.5 3.55 182.9 3.55 274.4 3.55 365.8
120.80 0. 0. .89 3.7 1.77 23.8 2.66 76.8 3.19 133.5 3.55 182.9 3.55 274.4 3.55 365.8
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. (b) Cap torsion versus angle of twist.
Fig. 14(a) shows the relationship between the axial load and
axial displacement of a single pile, while the relationship Fig. 14. Load versus displacement relationship of a single pile.
between the pile cap torsion and the angle of twist is depicted
in Fig. 14(b).
model. The pile–soil interaction is simulated by non-linear
5.2. Structural model for the platform jacket springs.
The damaged diagonal bracing is φ914 × 19 mm, and its
Fig. 15 shows the structural model for the platform jacket. yield stress is 345 MPa. The superstructure of the platform
The model is constructed according to the design drawings. itself is not included in the structural model because the
Pipe elements are used to mesh the platform structure. The collision happened during the installation.
damaged member is meshed with pipe elements 0.4 m long. The force–deformation curve of the non-linear spring,
The other members are meshed with 2 m long pipe elements. which is used to simulate the collision of the platform and
There are in total 2082 elements and 1907 nodes in the FE the barge and located at the point of the dent damage on the
W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326 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 Fig. 17. Response time histories of stresses at critical regions of the
as described in Section 2. It is assumed that no second damaged member, for barge velocity = 1 m/s (collision time = 0.682 s,
peak load F = 5.367 × 106 N).
collision between the barge and the platform happened,
and the impact action of the barge is transformed into an
isosceles triangle impulse load. tubular member, namely at its connection to leg A2 (denoted
as S12), at the impact location (S1837), and near the crossing
5.3. Dynamic response analysis for stress and displacement point between the two cross-diagonal brace members
of the jacket structure (S1765). The von Mises strength criteria are adopted.
It can be observed from these plots that the maximum
The dynamic response of the platform jacket structure stresses of the damaged diagonal brace have reached the
is calculated to examine the magnitude of the stresses and yield strength at the impact location and at its connection
displacements at critical regions and the nodal points. The to leg A2. The element stress at the crossing point between
analysis is carried out for two impact loading scenarios, the two cross-diagonal members remains within the elastic
namely, (a) impact with the barge velocity equal to 1.0 m/s; range. The element stresses in the remaining part of the
as described in Section 4.4, the corresponding contact time jacket structure are rather small and they are not presented
is t0 = 0.682 s and the peak impact force is F = 5.367 × in detail here.
106 N; and (b) impact at barge velocity equal to 2.0 m/s, for The computed results also show that the total displace-
which t0 = 2.15 s and F = 3.405 × 106 N. ment of the overall jacket structure under the impact loading
Fig. 16 shows the computed displacements at the impact is small. It is expected that they would be able restore to
loading point (the loading side of the non-linear collision their original positions, and no specific rehabilitation mea-
spring, denoted as UX1852) and at the damage location of sures are required concerning the displacement of the plat-
the diagonal brace (denoted as UX1837), for the impact form structure.
loading scenario (a). Fig. 17 shows the corresponding stress The computed responses for the impact loading scenario
time histories at several critical locations on the diagonal (b), as shown in Figs. 18 and 19, are generally similar to
1326 W.-l. Jin et al. / Engineering Structures 27 (2005) 1317–1326

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 transmis-
sion of the impact load to the offshore platform structure dur-
ing 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 pile–soil interaction using three types
of non-linear springs; and (d) the finite element modeling of
the platform jacket structure. Subsequently, the dynamic re-
sponse 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 as-
sessment of the integrity of the structural system. For the
Fig. 18. Response time histories of displacements at the joints of the particular case under investigation, it is found that yield-
damaged member for ship velocity = 2 m/s (collision time = 2.15 s, peak ing occurred only for the diagonal brace member around
load F = 3.405 × 106 N). 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 diago-
nal 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.


The support of China Offshore Oil Research Center is

gratefully acknowledged.

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 [1] Jin W-l et al. Reliability based design of jacket platform under extreme
load F = 3.405 × 106 N). loads. China Ocean Engineering 1996;10(2):145–60.
[2] API. Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD). 21st ed.
American Petroleum Institute; 2000.
those for scenario (a). However, due to an increase of the [3] DnV. Recommended Practice RP-C203, DET NORSKE VERITAS
impact duration, the primary response duration is longer, and (DnV); May 2000.
[4] Li R-p, Chen W-g, Gu Y-n. Static analysis of collision strength of
the overall response amplitudes also appear to be higher than
offshore platform. Ocean Engineering 1995;13(2):14–21 [in Chinese].
for scenario (a). [5] Jorgen A. Energy absorption in ship–platform impacts. Report of the
On the basis of the above results, it is suggested that Norwegian Institute of Technology, The University of Trondheim;
further examination of the butt weld of the damaged September 1983.
diagonal brace and the attachment weld of this diagonal [6] Petersen MJ, Pedersen PT. Collision between ships and offshore
platform. In: Proceedings of 13th annual offshore technology
brace to leg A2 be conducted by appropriate non-destructive conference. 1981, p. 163–71.
testing. A proper repairing and strengthening scheme for the [7] Bai Y, Pedersen PT. Elastic–plastic behavior of offshore steel
jacket platform structure around the damaged regions should structures under impact loads. International Journal of Impact
be determined accordingly. Engineering 1993;13(1):99–115.
[8] Smith CS. Assessment of damage in offshore steel platforms. In:
Proceedings of international conference on marine safety. 1983,
6. Conclusions p. 279–305 [Paper 15].
[9] Ueda Y, Murakawa H, Xiang D. Classification of dynamics response
of a tubular beam under collision. In: Proceedings of 8th international
A comprehensive evaluation procedure is presented for conference on offshore mechanics and arctic engineering. 1989,
assessing the damage effects to an offshore platform struc- p. 645–52.
ture due to collision by a large barge. The computational [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,
model involves the following aspects: (a) the determination
Zhejiang University, 2001. p. 12.
of the maximum impact load and the impact duration; this is [11] Ocean Engineering Geologic Research Report of Platform Site.
done on the basis of the observed damage state, particularly Engineering Survey Company, COGC, 1999. p. 4.