aTe 5555

The Development of Allowable Fatigue Stresses in API RP2A

by W.H. Luyties, Shell Oil Co., and J.F. Geyer, Amoco Production Co.

Copyright 1987 Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 19th Annual OTC in Houston. Texas. April 27-30. 1987. The material is subject to correction by the author. Permission
to copy is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT This method has several other shortcomings. It does

not distinguish between platforms in different water
The results of a calibration study of the new simpli- depths where the relationship between design wave
fied fatigue design procedure adopted in API RP2A are and fatigue wave climate varies, nor between different
presented. Detailed fatigue analyses were performed members within a structure that might be more fatigue
on seven structures with different geometries, natural sensitive. In addition, the method implicitly
periods, and water depths ranging from 58 feet to 314 assumes an S-N curve and fatigue life, and doesn't
feet. The calibration results along with realistic allow the operator to select appropriate values.
descriptions of the long-term wave climate for differ- There is also no guidance given for structures
ent water depths in the Gulf of Mexico were used to located outside the Gulf of Mexico.
develop curves of allowable hot spot stress. These
curves will be included in the 17th Edition of API In 1983, the API Subcommittee on Fixed Structures
RP2A as new recommended design values. organized a task group to study the problem of
fatigue and propose updated gUidelines. This task
group, which was comprised of representatives from
INTRODUCTION major oil companies and design consulting firms,
accomplished several goals. 1) It compared several
The 16th edition of API RP2A (Reference 1) states that different methods currently being used to perform
template type structures in the Gulf of Mexico with detailed fatigue analyses. 2) It proposed several
natural periods less than three seconds may be acceptable methods for performing fatigue analyses
designed for fatigue without a rigorous fatigue and described how they should be performed. 3) It
analysis. The fatigue design method specified limits surveyed potential methods for performing
the peak nominal brace stress due to the "design "simplified" fatigue design and selected the most
environmental loading (wind, wave, etc.)" to 20 ksi versatile and promising to become the basis for the
and the corresponding cyclic punching shear to 10 ksi. new recommended practice. 4) It performed detailed
Alternatively, if stress concentration factors are fatigue analyses on several structures and calibrated
known, the peak hot spot stress should be limited to the simplified method using the results. 5) It
60 ksi. These criteria can be traced back to research developed curves of allowable hot spot stress based
and development carried out in the late 1960's, with upon the calibrated results. These proposals were
the limit on brace nominal stress first appearing as submitted to and accepted by the Subcommittee and
a design guideline in the 3rd Edition of API RP2A subsequently approved for inclusion in the 17th
(1971). Edition of API RP2A. This paper documents the work
performed by the task group in calibrating the
This fatigue design method is an attempt to predict simplified fatigue design method and developing the
fatigue behavior using the design wave event. The allowable hot spot stress curves.
accuracy depends upon how well the particular platform
characteristics and force levels match those of the
structures used to calibrate the method. Given the CALIBRATION PROCEDURE
operator's choice in the selection of wave height,
wind, and current, there could easily be a factor of The procedure for deriVing allowable hot spot stresses
two difference in total force level from that used in from detailed fatigue analysis results is described
the calibration. In fact, the original guidelines in detail in OTC 5331 (Reference 3). This procedure
were developed when the deepwater design wave in the will only be briefly highlighted in this section.
Gulf of Mexico was believed to be 60 feet. Marshall The basic premise is to separate the effects of
and Luyties (Reference 2) showed that a comparable hot environmental loading from those due to structural
spot stress for a 70-foot wave, which is consistent response. The calibration process only involves a
with the current API reference level wave height, parameter (denoted g) defining thg tructural
would be 75 ksi. response.
References and illustrations at end of paper.
47
2 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALLOWABLE FATIGUE STRESSES IN API RP2A OTC 5555
The calibration parameter g is used to relate stress Design Environmental Conditions
range (S) to wave height (H).
In order to eliminate variability in results due to
S = C Hg ........................... (1) different force levels, a specific set of design
storm environmental conditions was selected both for
where C is a constant. A closed form expression for the calibration effort and as the basis for force
fatigue damage can be written assuming the above rela- computations when used with the new fatigue design
tion, a linear log-log S-N curve, and that the long- procedure. Regardless of the conditions used for
term wave height distribution can be represented by a member design, the 17th edition of API RP2A will
sum of Weibull distributions. The allowable hot spot require the API reference level wave in conjunction
stress range can then be derived by relating the hot with the API storm tide values to be used in the
spot stress range at a particular joint to the fatigue simplified fatigue design procedure. No wind and no
design wave height using an expression similar to Eq. current is to be included. The design wave heights
(1) and combining this expression with the closed form and storm tide elevations used for each of the
fatigue damage expression. The resulting expression platforms are also included in Table 1.
for allowable stress is shown in Eq. (9) of OTC 5331.
It should be noted that the allowable stress decreases The long term wave climate for water depths of 100
with decreasing g values. ft. and greater is given in Figure 1 in scatter
diagram form. The scatter diagram is labeled
The wave climate in the examples shown in this paper is "hypothetical"; however, it is very similar to ones
modeled using the exponential distribution, which is a currently being used in the Gulf of Mexico by several
special case of the Weibull distribution (see Fi9ure 2 oil companies. Seastates in this scatter diagram
for example). Wave distributions with plateaus (i.e., vary from a significant height of I' to 43', and the
including many cycles of the maximum wave height, for associated 100-year return period wave height is 75'.
example in Figure 9) are also used. These can be Figure 2 presents this data in the form of a wave
modeled using a shifted exponential distribution. In exceedence curve along with the parameters required
this case, the fatigue damage due to the larger wave to define the curve for computation of g values (see
heights is subtracted out, using a numerical integra- OTC 5331 for notation).
tion technique as described in the Appendix of OTC 5331
In the calibration procedure, g is not assumed to truly Fatigue Analysis Techniques
define the stress range vs. wave height relation, but
is used to approximate the relation such that it yields Detailed fatigue analyses were performed on the seven
the same fatigue damage as calculated by a detailed structures following guidelines presented in the
fatigue analysis. In this sense, g is treated as the Commentary to the 17th Edition of API RP2A for a
calibration parameter, which can be deterined from the spectral fatigue analysis as follows:
calculated hot spot stress range for the design wave
and calculated fatigue life at each joint location. 1) Base shear transfer functions for each
structure were developed.
The calibration procedure requires that the same S-N
curve and wave height distribution be used in the 2) Between 11 and 22 wave frequencies were
detailed fatigue life calculation as used in the closed selected to define the peaks and valleys in
form fatigue expression. The same stress concentration the transfer functions.
factor (SCF) must also be used in the detailed fatigue
calculation as used to calculate the hot spot stress 3) Large waves up to the design wave height
range for the design wave. As long as the wave distri- were included in the scatter diagram.
bution, S-N curve and SCF are used consistently, the
resulting calibrated g values are independent of these 4) Wave steepness was varied from 1/16 for
parameters. This allows one to easily derive allowable small waves to 1/12 for the design wave to
stresses given different wave climates and S-N curves. determine the appropriate wave height for
each frequency.
DETAILED FATIGUE AND DESIGN WAVE ANALYSES 5) Tide levels were varied in conjunction with
wave height.
Platforms Used in Calibration
6) Dynamic analyses were performed in the
A total of seven different structures comprlslng broadside, end-on and two diagonal directions
different combinations of platform geometry and dynamic for each wave selected. Response was allowed
characteristics were used to calculate typical g values to reach steady state.
The structures and their properties are summarized in
Table 1. A broad range of water depths (from 58' to 7) The mode acceleration method was used to add
314'), structural configurations (four leg, six leg, bending moments due to local wave pressures
and eight leg with various bracing patterns), and to the modal response.
natural periods (static only to 2.85 seconds) were
included. Platform D was used in the API LRFD study 8) 2% of critical damping was used in each mode.
(Reference 4), and Platform C is the structure studied
in detail by Marshall and Luyties (Reference 2). All 9) Waves were assumed to have equal probability
of these platforms are real structures that have been of occurrence from all directions and wave
designed, fabricated and installed in the Gulf of spreading was neglected.
Mexico.
10) Blanket SCF's of 3.0 were used for all
locations and members.
48
OTC 5555 LUYTIES AND GEYER 3
11) The two parameter Pierson-Moskowitz wave spectrum me~ber stress ranges due to the design wave, the
was used to represent each seas tate in the scatter calibration procedure described earlier can be used
diagram. to compute g values. Figures 3 to 6 plot these values
by position within each structure. Values for verti-
12) Fatigue damage on a seastate-by-seastate basis cal diagonals are plotted at mid-bay height while
was computed assuming Rayleigh distributed stress values for plan horizontals are plotted at the hori-
peaks, the API-X SN curve and Miner's rule. zontal plan elevation. For platforms A and B, the
diagonal results are further identified by plotting a
As mentioned before, the calibrated g value is "+" for the top end of the brace and a "-" for the
independent of S-N curve and SCF's. bottom end.
Design Wave Analysis Several interesting trends in the data can be seen in
these figures. The most variable results appear in
A static analysis was performed on each structure using the jacket elevations above the waterline. Both the
a Stokes wave with the wave height given in Table 1 and lowest and highest g values are seen in these loca-
an appropriate wave period. A full wave cycle consist- tions. For example, the lowest value of g at Elev.
ing of 16 equally spaced wave steps was passed through +15' for Platform B is 0.86 while the largest is 2.5
the structure in each of the four directions analyzed (the maximum value computed by the program). The
in the fatigue analysis. The API storm tide was mean is 2.13 with a standard deviation of 0.55. In
included, and wind and current were not included. contrast at Elev. -132', the values range from 1.57
Member stresses were computed at each of the 16 steps. to 1.99 with a mean of 1.77 and a standard deviation
of 0.08.
In order to calibrate g, stress range data from the
design wave analyses is required. This can be handled The g values for waterline diagonals and horizontals
in two ways: in the first level below water are significantly
smaller than those lower in the structure. Using
1) The maximum stress range (over all wave Platform C for example, the mean value for diagonals
directions) at a member end location can be at the waterline is 1.26 while at the next level down
computed by subtracting the minimum from the the mean is 1.56. The mean value for horizontals
maximum stress over the full wave cycle. A g at the first level below water is 1.26 while at the
value can then be computed given this stress next level down it is 1.44.
range and the fatigue life at the same location.
The results for horizontals are in general lower in
2) The peak stress (over all wave steps and wave value and more variable than diagonals. Using Plat-
directions) at a member end location can be form B for example, the mean and standard deviation
found. Given a constant stress cycle ratio, a of values at Elev. -58' are 1.38 and 0.14, respect-
"pseudo" stress range and consequently a pseudo ively, while they are 1.74 and 0.07 for the diagonals
g value can be computed. just below that level. For Platform D there is a dif-
ference of approximately 0.3 in g values between the
The first option is more consistent with the manner in horizontals and diagonals for static response.
which fatigue damage occurs, since damage is a function
of the number of cycles of a given stress range. The diagonals respond more to dynamics than the
However, it would require users of the simplified horizontals. Figures 7 and 8 summarize the results
fatigue design method to compute the stress range for for Platforms C and D by showing the trend in data
each member. The task group elected to keep the method versus depth. Platform C shows that the g values
comparable to the previous approach and only require progressively decrease as period increases. Although
the peak stress to be computed. Therefore, Option 2 the diagonals respond more to dynamics than the
was used to compute pseudo g values. horizontals, within the period ranges studied here
the horizontals still have lower g values.
In order to calibrate g using peak stress, pseudo
stress ranges are calculated based upon a constant Proposed 9 Values
cycle ratio, R, where:
Based upon these results, the following values for g
R = maximum
minimum base shear ( ) are proposed:
base shear .............. 2
waterline members - g = 1.2
Therefore, stress ranges at each joint location are all other members - g = 1.3
assumed to have the same relation with peak stress as
the total base shear as follows: where a waterline member is defined as any member on
the structure down to and including the first
S
range = Speak (1 - R) (3) horizontal plan below the design wave trough.
Table 2 summarizes the base shear cycle ratios for the These values were selected by ignoring the results
four platforms. above water and bounding the rest of the values of g
on the low side. Note that the smaller the value
of g, the lower the allowable stress. Several points
CALIBRATION RESULTS were also ignored that fell outside the mean minus
one standard deviation value. The apparently higher
Computed 9 Values values associated with diagonal braces were not
con~idQrQd, sinc~ Platfo~m~ Cand Dexhibit slightly
Using the calculated member end fatigue lives, the wave different results. More analyses would be required
climate representation given in Figure 2 and the pseudo
49
4 THE DEVELOPMENT OF ALLOWABLE FATIGUE STRESSES IN API RP2A OTC 5555
to refine the procedure to that level. The proposed There is very little measured data for wave distribu-
values are indicated in Figures 3 to 6. tions in shallow water, since fatigue analyses which
would require such data are not usually performed.
It should be noted that the same calibration exercise Measured data of non-hurricane wave heights obtained
was repeated using Option 1 for computing stress ranges at a pier in in the Gulf of Mexico at Galveston,
Although individual g values did change, the mean Texas, in 17 ft. of water was analyzed. The exponen-
values and standard deviations were in general similar, tial distribution, as plotted in Modification A or C
and the final recommended values would have been the in Figure 9(a), provides an approximate fit to this
same. data. Hurricane hindcast data at various sites in
shallow water was used to justify Modification C in
Figure 9(b). The value of 500 cycles approximately
SHALLOW WATER EFFECTS corresponds to 22 hurricanes of 4-hour duration at
the maximum storm surge water elevation in 100 years,
Modifications to Wave Distribution which is a reasonable upper bound to hurricane
occurrence at shallow water sites.
The wave height distribution shown in Figure 2 is
appropriate for water depths greater than 100 ft. in Sensitivity of Allowable Stress
the Gulf of Mexico. It can also be used between about
50 ft. and 100 ft., since the non-hurricane component The sensitivity of the allowable stress to the three
does not vary significantly in these water depths, and wave distribution modifications is plotted in Figure
any modification to the hurricane component has only a 10. The trends for Modification B do not appear to
minor effect on the allowable stress results. However, be reasonable. Notice in very shallow water, the
in water depths less than 50 ft., the allowable stress allowable stress remains very low. In water depths
values become very sensitive to possible modifications approaching zero feet, the allowable stress should be
to both the non-hurricane and hurricane wave distribu- relatively high since the hurricane wave height used
tions. Several possible modifications due to water in design is much greater than the maximum non-
depth limitations were investigated by the task group. hurricane wave height. This difference in depth
It was assumed in all cases that the Gulf of Mexico limited maximum wave height is caused by the large
wave climate could be represented by two independent surge associated with the hurricane wave. The
wave populations, one due to hurricanes and another hurricane component in Modification B yields rela-
due to non-hurricane storm conditions. tively large fatigue damage (and thus low allowable
stresses) even in zero feet of water, which does not
Two possible modifications to the non-hurricane seem reasonable. At the other extreme, Modification
distribution are plotted in Figure 9(a). It is assumed A yields very large allowable stresses in zero to 10
here that the maximum wave height, due to depth limita- ft. of water due to the much less conservative
tions, is 78% of the water depth (which includes 2 ft. hurricane distribution.
of tide). The maximum number of non-hurricane wave
cycles has been held constant for all modifications. Modification C appears to give the most reasonable
Modifications A and C are modeled by a simple exponen- trend of allowable stress versus water depth. A
tial distribution to the depth limited maximum wave minimum value of allowable stress is obtained at a
height. In Modification B, the original deepwater water depth of about 50 ft., since this is where the
exponential distribution is truncated at the depth maximum non-hurricane wave is fairly close to the
limited wave height. This truncated distribution is maximum hurricane wave height used in design. For
modeled using the shifted exponential distribution as water depths approaching zero ft. (and also for water
discussed in the Appendix of OTC 5331. depths greater than about 150 ft.as shown in the next
section) the allowable stresses are much higher,
Three possible modifications to the hurricane distri- since the design wave due to hurricanes is much
bution as plotted in Figure 9(b) were investigated. greater than the maximum non-hurricane wave. Due to
The maximum wave height is again assumed to be 78% of the apparently reasonable trend shown in Figure 10,
the water depth; however, now the water depth includes and also due to the supporting measured data,
the storm generated surge and tide as recommended in Modification C was selected by the task group for
RP2A. The maximum number of hurricane wave cycles has calculating the recommended stress levels in very
been held constant for all modifications. Modification shallow water.
A again assumes a simple exponential distribution to
the maximum wave height. Modification B is similar to
that for the non-hurricane distribution, with the ori- ALLOWABLE HOT SPOT STRESS
ginal deepwater hurricane distribution truncated at the
maximum height. Modification C is based on 500 cycles New API Design Curves
of the maximum height if the maximum is less than about
35 ft., and the same as Modification B for maximum Figures 11 and 12 show the new allowable hot spot
heights greater than 35 ft. (Note that the deepwater stress curves as they will appear in the 17th edition
wave height corresponding to 500 cycles is 35 ft.) of API RP2A. All curves have the same basic shape.
This results in a hurricane distribution which is In water depths greater than 50 ft., where the
generally less conservative than Modification B, but fatigue wave climate is nearly independent of water
more conservative than Modification A. depth, the allowable stress decreases as the API
reference level wave height decreases. Below 50 ft.
The distributions plotted in Figure 9 provide upper and the modifications to the wave climate due to shallow
lower bounds to reasonable wave height distributions in water become important, and the allowables increase
shallow water in the Gulf of Mexico. Modification A is with decreasing depth.
probably an unconservative assumption for most sites,
while Modification B is probably too conservative. Figure 11 is for use with the API X S-N curve where
the final weld surface must meet strict profiling
50
OTC 5555 LUYTIES AND GEYER 5
requirements. Figure 12 is for use with the API SUMMARY
X-prime S-N curve where minimal profiling require-
ments are necessary. In developing these curves, a A new procedure for performing a simplified fatigue
constant stress cycle ratio of -0.35 was used. In design of tubular joints has been proposed by the
water depths greater than 50 ft., the distribution in API Task Group on Fatigue Criteria. In this paper,
Figure 2 was used, while in shallower water Modifi- the results of a calibration study on the procedure
cation C as shown in Figure 9 was used. have been presented. Detailed fatigue analyses were
performed on seven structures with different geome-
Two choices of fatigue life are given in each curve, tries, natural periods, and water depths, leading to
40 year and 100 year. The 40-year curve would be proposed values for the calibration parameter g.
applicable for a 20-year platform service life with a Given these values and realistic descriptions of the
safety factor of 2.0. The 100-year fatigue life would long term wave climate for different water depths,
be applicable for a 20-year service life with a safety curves of allowable hot spot stress vs. water depth
factor of 5.0, or any other combination of service lifE were developed. These curves have been included in
and safety factor giving a 100-year fatigue life. the 17th edition of API RP2A as new recommended
Values for other fatigue lives can be extrapolated frorr design values for platforms in the Gulf of Mexico in
these two curves based upon the ratio of the lives to water depths under 400 ft. and with natural periods
the inverse power of the S-N curve slope, i.e. less than three seconds.
1
Although the results presented here are based upon
HSS allow = HSS 40 year x (L~~e ) m ... (4)
what is probably the largest existing set of consis-
tently derived fatigue analyses of shallow water
platforms, a larger data base is desirable. It is
where m = 4.38 for the X curve and m = 3.74 for the hoped that other structures will be examined in a
X-prime curve. similar manner to refine the procedure, increase
confidence in its use, and extend its application to
Comparison with Previous API Allowables other locations and wave climates. During the next
few years, designers will have the opportunity to use
It is difficult to directly compare this new method the new guidelines and assess the overall effect on
with the previous API recommendation because several platform design. Since this is a departure from
major items have been modified. If we assume that the previous requirements, there are bound to be some
API reference level wave height is used to generate areas that will require further study. The task
forces in both methods, the effect of wind is then the group actively encourages feedback from designers and
major variable. Recall that the wind force is includec welcomes comments and suggestions concerning both the
in the previous API allowables, but is not to be allowable stress values and the procedure itself.
included in the new method. Figure 13 shows the effect
of wind on the total force level for 78 platforms com-
prising a combination of well protectors, production ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
platforms, and drilling platforms, all designed by the
same design consultant. The values plotted correspond The writers wish to thank the other members of the
to the basic API allowable hot spot stress of 60 ksi API Task Group on Fatigue Criteria for their
times the ratio of wave force to total applied force. encouragement and contributions to this paper. These
The curved lines superimposed on the data were chosen members are Rudy Hall - Petro Marine (Chairman),
to bound the values. Yildirim Bayazitogeu - Brown and Root, Michael Callan
- Earl &Wright, Brad Campbell - Exxon, Michael Dwyer
Figure 14 compares the new allowables (shown in Figure~ - McDermott, Shaddy Hanna - Conoco, David Hayes -
11 and 12) to the corresponding bounds plotted in Standard, David Kan - Chevron, Wen-Jeng Wang -
Figure 13, where the cross-hatched area represents Conoco, and David Wisch - Texaco.
effective allowable stresses considering wave force
only for the previous method. It can be seen that in
shallow water the new values are consistent with pre- REFERENCES
vious design values, except that the large variability
due to wind load is eliminated. In deeper water the 1. American Petroleum Institute, "Recommended Practice
new proposal will allow considerably higher allowable for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
hot spot stresses if weld profiling is used. Where Offshore Platforms", RP2A, Sixteenth Edition,
profiling is not used, values are again consistent or April 1, 1986.
slightly higher than previous values.
2. Marshall, P. W. and Luyties, W. H., "Allowable
Extrapolation to Other Climates Stresses for Fatigue Design", Proceedings of the
Third International Conference on Behavior of
One of the powerful features of this procedure is that Offshore Structures (BOSS 1982), Cambridge,
the wave climate is explicitly included in the formula Massachusetts, August 1982, pp. 3-25.
tion. It should therefore be possible to develop
similar curves of allowable hot spot stress for other 3. Geyer, J. F. and Stahl, B., "Simplified Fatigue
oceanographic climates using the g values derived in Design for Offshore Structures", Offshore
this calibration study with the specific oceanographic Technology Conference, Paper No. 5331, May 1986.
parameters. However, the task group proposes that thi c
only be used for preliminary design at this stage. It 4. Moses, F., "Utilizing a Reliability-Based API RP2A
would be desirable to perform similar calibration Format", API-PRAC Project 82-22, Final Report,
studies for wave climates other than the Gulf of Mexicc November 1983.
in order to develop similar confidence levels with the
procedure.

51
 TABLE 1 - SUMMARY OF STRUCTURES USED IN
CALIBRATION STUDY

WATER NATURAL DESIGN STORM

PLATFORI1 DEPTH CONFIGURATION # HELLS PERIOD WAVE HEIGHT TIDE
A 58' 4 1eg 8 Static 48' 8.5'
(1 bay, X-brace)
B 133' 6 leg 15 Static 65' 5.0'
(2 bay, dia.brace)
C 197' 8 leg 9 Static 69' 3.5'
(4 bay, dia.brace)
C 197' 9 2.15 sec.* 69' 3.5'

C 197' " 9 2.45 sec.* 69' 3.5'

D 314' 4 leg 9 Static 71' 2.5'

(5 bay, K-brace)
D 314' " 9 2.85 sec. 71' 2.5'

*Natural period varied by adjusting deck mass.

TABLE 2 - SUMMARY OF BASE SHEAR CYCLE RATIOS

HAVE MAXIMUM MINIMUM

PLATFORr~ APPROACH (DEG. ) BASE SHEAR (K) BASE SHEAR (K) R
A 0 1426 -507 -.356
45 1328 -471 -.355
90 1278 -443 -.347
135 1329 -472 -.355
Value used = -.356*
B 0 2448 -978 -.400
45 2541 -989 -.389
90 2756 -1024 -.390
135 2629 -1029 -.391
Value used = -.390*
C 0 3224 -1530 -.474
45 3368 -1507 -.447
90 3626 -1512 -.417
135 3348 -1496 -.447
Value used = -.417*
D 0 1941 -769 -.396
45 1887 -766 -.406
90 2062 -779 -.378
135 1832 -752 -.411
Value used = -.378*

*Note: Value used is that associated with the maxi~um base shear range.

52
 GULF OF MEXICO, HYPOTIIETICAL WAVE CONDITIONS FOR MEAN LOW WATER OF 100 FT OR GREATER
ANNUAL AVERAGE FREQUENCY OF OCURRENCE, SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT VS. MEAN PERIOD

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MEAN PERIOD ( SEr.) WEIGHTED
1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 LINE MEAN
SIGNIFICANT TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TO TOTAL PERIOD
WAVE HEIGIIT 2.0 3.0 /j.0 5.0 6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 (%1 ( SEC)
( FT)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
41.0 - 43.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .00004 .00004 ***** .00008 10.06
39.0 - In.o ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .00005 .00005 ***** .00010 10.03
37.0 - 39.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .00006 .00005 ***** .00011 9.95
35.0 - 37.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .00013 .00008 ***** .00021 9.88
33.0 - 35.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .00022 .00010 ***** .00032 9.81
31.0 - 33.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .00035 .00011 ***** .000 116 9.75
29.0 - 31.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** **1+** ***** ***** .00066 .00007 ***** .00073 9.60
01 27.0 - 29.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .0001 .0011 ***** ***** .00120 9.42
c.u 25.0 - 27.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .0006 .0015 ***** ***** .00210 9.25
23.0 - 25.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .0017 .0019 ***** ***** .00360 9.03
21.0 - 23.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ** ..** .005/1 .0019 ***** ***** .00710 6.77
19.0 - 21.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .0003 .01'10 ***** ***** ***** .01 1130 8,117
17.0 - 19.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .0110 .0200 ***** ***** ***** .03100 8.111
15.0 - 17.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .0060 .0620 ***** ***** *It*** ***** .07000 7.39
13.0 - 15.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .2950 .0650 ***** ***** ***** ***** .36000 6.66
11. 0 - 13.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** .3500 .0100 ***** ***** ***** ***** .36000 6.53
9.0 - 11.0 ***** ***** ***** ***** 1. 32 .6900 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 2.01000 5.84
7.0 - 9.0 ***** ***** 0.09 1.47 2.88 .5100 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 4.95000 5.27
5.0 - 7.0 *****" 0.02 2.05 8.82 2.37 .1700 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 13.43000 4.55
3.0 - 5.0 ***** 1. 119 18.5 11 11.06 0.60 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 31.71000 3.84
1.0 - 3.0 0.170 23.35 21.110 1. 99 0.11 .0300 ***** ***** ***** ***** ***** 47.05000 3.04
----_._----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fig. 1-Gulf of Mexico scatter diagram.
 EL..,2'

FOR NOMENCLATURE. SEE DTC 5331

EL.-4' .... e-----e
III
.. .. e
BO e VALUE AT BOTTOM END OF
HURRICANE COMPONENT PROPOSED VALUE DIAGONAL
{HI<75'. N,'1.0 x 10.6 . &, < 1.01 9 < 1.2
70 e VALUE AT TOP END OF
{~~TJ:E~~L_- DIAGONAL
_60
:;: EL.-23'
' VALUE AT END OF HORIZONTAL
- 50
....
:r
~4()
'"
:r PROPOSE 0 VALUE
SUM OF HURRICANE +
'" 9 '1.3
> 30 NON-HURRICANE COMPONENTS
(OTHER MEMBERSI-

- ...
<t
;0 20
NON-HURRICANE COMPONENT a
i {Ho< 40'. NO< 1.0 x 10 9 E O< 1.0 I a ~ a..
10

0
I 10 100 10 3 104 105 10 6 10 7 10 9
N, NUMBER OF WAVES EXCEEDING H (CYCLES PER 100 YRS.)

Fig. 2-Qulf of Mexico wave height distribution.

EL.-5B' ..
.6 .a 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 I.B 2.0 2.2
PSEUDO

Fig. 3-Platform A calibration results.

. .. .
~

G[}-
AT
9<2.5
EL+ 12' .. , "&,I..l. .... ~
<2.5
EL.1'IS' PROPOSED VALUE-
9' 1.2
{WATERLINE MEM~.ERSI
e VALUE AT BOTTOM END It ~I.. =. .
PROPOSED VALUE OF DIAGONAL
9 '1.2
(WATERLlNE-
MEMBERSJ $ e----<Il
'ilVALUE AT TOP END OF
DIAGONAL EL.-3a' ~D.'
a.:-e
' VALUE AT END OF HDRIZ ON TAL
ii'e-e
.":'2. b _-t.. . .
EL.-9D' i : ',.i... J...n~_
PROPOSED VALUE-
EL.-Sa' I
--
PROPOSED VALUE
9 < 1.3
(OTHER MEMBERS) ....;
I.
!~.
9 < 1.3

LlJi:~M
(OTHER MEMBERSJ-
~
e e
e--e
6S
t==:e"
EL.-146 '
. :
:i..J_tM.
t

- STATIC

.
EL.-132' : ..I.. EL.-197'
4- T=2.15SEC .
- T,2,45 SEC.

. ..
: .1 :. Jt
.6 .a 1.0 1.2 1.4 16 La 2.0 2.2

PSEUDO PSEUDO 9

FIg. 4-P1atfom1 B calbration feaults. FIg. 5-Piatform C caMbraUon reautts.

 ..
L3}
60
AT
EL.+15' 9"2.5 EL.f 12'

PROPOSED. VALUEI
9"1.2
(WATERLlN)~,
EL.-35' MEMBERS) 0 o~ "0 0
---STATIC
.t I EL.-3B' \, JL - 2.IS SEC. DYNAMIC

EL.-90 oS. -'--2.45 SEC. DYNAMIC

PROPOSED VALUE
9'1.3 ..t
!OTHER MEMBERSl-- MEAN VALUES
EL.-90'
EL.-160' .tt..t.

..
EL.-235' .tt. 0 0 EL.- 146'

-STATIC
...
6-O'fNAMIC
EL.-314' . U .. EL.-197'

.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 I.B 2.0 2.2 .6 .B 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 I.B 2.0 2.1

PSE UDO 9 PSEUOO 9

Fig. 6-pt8tform 0 calibration result. Fig. 7-Platform C-effect of dynamics.

g:

--- ---
EL.+IS'
---.:...;:-

--.
...... ~
EL. - 3S'
~
-- STATIC

OYNAMIC
EL.-90

MEAN VALUES
MINIMUM VALUES
EL.- 160'

MEAN VALUES"'-- / / ..... ~/

MINIMUM VALUES _ _ ....
EL.- 23S'

EL.- 314'

.6 .8 1.0 1.2 1,4 1.6 18 2.0 2.2

PSEUDO 9

Fig. 8-Platform D-effect of dynamics.

 Hmoxo II .78 (WO +2 1
)

W D WATER DEPTH f. 50 ft,

li: HO "'~O')
C) ..... .......-::OEEPWATER

W - .....
:I: H maxof..::::----...;.;::......~

NO
,
',rMODIFICATION A
10 100 10 10 6 40 YR. FATIGUE LIFE

,
100 \ SN CURVE X
NUMBER OF CYCLES EXCEEDING \ g'L3
(a) NONHURRICANE
<J) ,
<J) \

il! 80 "-
t; "-
.....
~ MODIFiCATiON c ..... ,
: 60+'--__ ' .....
(75') Hmoxl II .78 (W 0 + Smox) o ~-_
x --_
"", Smax MAXIMUM STORM nDE
"""
:I: ' v DEEPWATER W
0- 40
~
!;! (35')
,, w
..J

------'1, '"
~
w i '
~:1 20
~ H max I 1<::------1,..-....>...
~ , ""
I
O+-----.----,...----r-----,,---y-
o 10 20 30 40 50

WATER DEPTH (ft.)

10 100 10 3 104 lOS 106 107 10 8 109
NUMBER OF CYCLES EXCEEDING H IN 100 YEARS Fig. 10-Sensltlvity to shallow water modlflcattons.
(b) HURRICANE

Fig. V-5hallow water modifications to wave-height distributions.

90 70

i 80 ;60
<J) OTHER MEMBERS
<J)

~
OTHER MEMBERS

...'"
<J)
~ WATERLINE
MEMBERS
WATERLINE
... 70 b 50
:r MEMBERS 0-

.,. ".. . -- - -- '=~~ ~E~BERS

<J)
<J)
...
~ ~
/
"
" "60 "i:J 40 /
~
w
0-
W
..J I
/ .,./
. . ---------'W~~~;_ MEMBERS
..J

'" '"~ I /
l:j 50 o..J
..J3O
\\ I
I
/
/

"" "" \ '-'/

\j
40 20
- - 40 YR DESIGN FATIGUE LIFE - - - 40 YR DESIGN FATIGUE LIFE

---100 YR DESIGN FATIGUE LIFE - - - 100YR DESIGN FATIGUE LIFE

301+----...,.----...,.----...,.------.- 10+----,.-----.,-----.-----.-
o 100 200 300 400 o 100 200 300 400
WATER DEPTH (ft.) WATER DEPTH (ft.)

Fig. 11-Allowable peak hot-spot stress-SoN Curve X. Fig. 12-Allowable peak hot-apot stress-SoN Curve X-prim.

56
 60

UPPER BOUND
ctl 0

.
'"
50 0
cP IlIJ
0
l!P 0
0
(J) 0 0
(J)
W
0::
....
(J) 40
....
0
Q.
(J)

....
0 o RATIO OF WAVE FORCE TO TOTAL
30 WAVE PLUS WIND FORCE. TIMES
:I:
60 KSI ALLOWABLE
:.:
<t
w
Q.

W 20
.J
m
<t
~
0
.J
.J 10

0-!----r----r---..,---.,.---.,.---..-----..------1
o 100 200 300 400

WATER DEPTH (Ft)

Fig. 13-Effect of wind on allowable peak hot-spot ItreSI.

90

~ 80

1Il
1Il OTHER MEMBERS
W

~
r
b
O

WATERLINE
:I: MEMBERS

"~ 60
W
..J

i::1 50

" /'
/
/
I
40 I
/ I - - - API X SN CURVE l40 YR.)
J /
- - - API xl SoN CURVE 140 YR.)

30
'J
/
o PRESENT DESIGN RANGE

o 100 200 300 400

WATER DEPTH lft.l

Fig. 14-Comparlson of new allowable hotspot stre51 with previous API allowables.

57