i meeting agenda i - home | bureau of safety and ... · meeting agenda . i . ... ship structural...

Marine Technology and Management Group - University of California at Berkeley

Wednesday: 1:30 PM

2:00

3:00

3:15

3:30

4:00

4:30 PM

Thursday: 8:00 AM

8:30

9:30

10:00

11:00 AM

I Meeting Agenda I

Introduction and project review Bob Bea

ULSLEA updates (fatigue, earthquake, additional configurations) Jim Stear

Discussion

Break

Sponsor Presentations

Discussion

Conclude

Review issues from previous day Bob Bea

ULSLEA enhancements, demonstration Jim Stear

Future work plan Bob Bea, Jim Stear

Discussion, sponsor's directions

Adjourn

1997 - 1998

MARINE TECHNOLOGY & MANAGEMENT

GROUP

INDUSTRY & GOVERNMENT AGENCIES

SPONSORED RESEARCH PROJECTS

SUMMARIES

Professor Robert Bea Professor Karlene Roberts College of Engineering Haas School of Business

Tel: (510) 642-0967 Tel: (510) 642-5221

Fax: (510) 643-8919 Fax: (510) 631-0150

e-mail: [email protected] e-mail: [email protected]

215 Mclaughlin Hall UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA

Berkeley, CA 94720-1712

Goal: Develop engineering and management technology that will help im

prove the QUALITY (safety, serviceability, durability, compatibility

economy) of marine systems

RESEARCH AREAS Human & Organization Factors

Ships & Floating Systems

Platforms & Pipelines

1

mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]

Marine Technology & Management Group - University of California at Berkeley

Researcher Goals and ObjectivesHuman and Organization Factors

FLAIM II (with Prof. Williamson, Prof. Roberts, Paragon Engineering Inc.)

Derek Hee Develop a comprehensive system to evaluate the life-cycle reliability characteristics of ships including human factors considerations. Validate system with Estonia accident analysis.

Management of Rapidly Developing Crises: A Multi-Community Study

Bob Bea, Karlene Roberts

Develop a real-time system to assist in arresting rapidly developing sequences of events that can lead to catastrophic accidents.

Human & organization factors in diving operations

Shawn Cullen Promote dive safety through identification, analysis, and management of human and organization factors in diving operations.

Human & organization error risk reduction assessment instrument - SMAS

Brant Pickrell Develop, code, and verify a computer program for use in assessing the risks of human and organization errors in operations of offshore platforms and marine terminals.

Safety Management Assessment System - SMAS (with Profs. Brady Williamson and Karlene Roberts)

Derek Hee Develop a two-level assessment instrument to help qualified assessors evaluate human and organization performance in operations of offshore platforms and marine terminals.

Human & organization factors in quality of offshore platforms (with Atkins, Rambo/I, and MSL Eng.)

Rich Lawson Develop a computer program to facilitate analyses of human and organizational factors in the life-cycle quality performance of offshore platforms

""''"'. .s.., ........ , ... '1.lto-J

Human and Organizational Factors in Emergency Medicine

Karlene Roberts

Develop and implement research in seven medical units, ranging from paramedic units in fire deaprtments to adut and child critical care units. This research tests a model of risk mitigation. Other investigators participating in this research include

Center for Risk Mitigation CRM

- Bob Bea, Karlene Roberts

Organize a research center that will provide a forum for research and information exchange among diverse industries to improve the safety of high technology systems

~l'o\~

MM~

faUJO

"""'

2

Marine Technology & Management Group - University of California at Berkeley

Goals and ObjectivesResearcherShips, Platforms, Pipelines

Ship Structural Integrity Information System - SSllS Ill

Design and construction of long-life marine composite structures

Optimal strategies for the inspections of ships and offshore platforms for fatigue and corrosion damage (with Martec, Inc.}

Reassessment & Requalification system for offshore platforms (Prof. Bill lbbs, Principal Investigator)

Ultimate Limit State Limit Equilibrium Analyses of template-type offshore platforms ULSLEA Phases 3 and 4

Analyses of the nonlinear performance of platforms and caissons subjected to hurricanes

Performance of pile foundations subjected to earthquake excitations (Profs. Seed, Bray, Pestana)

Pipeline Integrity and Maintenance Information Sys-tern- PIMPIS

Platform, pipeline, and floating systems design and requalification criteria for the Bay of Campeche

ISO earthquake guidelines for design and reassessment of offshore platforms

Reliability based earthquake LRFD design guidelines for offshore Indonesia

Decommissioning and re-use of offshore platforms

Henry Reeve

Paul Miller

Tao Xu

Steve Staneff

Jim Stear, Zhaohui-Jin, Pending Assignment

John Kareolis, James Wiseman

Philip Meymand,

Thomas Lok, Chris Hunt

Tarek Elsayed

Tao Xu, Zhaohui-Jin, Pending Assignment

Bob Bea, Pending Assignment

Bob Bea, Pending Assignment

James Wiseman, Brian Collins

Develop and verify one component of a comprehensive ship quality information system that addresses the structural aspects of ships over their life.

Develop and test panels of marine composites subjected to repeated loadings in submerged conditions. Develop and verify an analytical procedure to allow the evaluation of the long-term performance characteristics of marine composite panels.

Develop procedures and strategies to optimize the inspection and repair of ship and offshore platform structures. The inspection strategies will address predictable damage (e.g. fatigue of critical structural details) and unpredictable damage (e.g. due to accidents and errors).

Develop a computer based information and data management system for the reassessment and requalification of fleets of offshore platforms.

Continue development and verification of a simplified procedure to characterize the ultimate limit state loadings and capacities of offshore platforms and their reliabilities for extreme condition storms and earthquakes.

Continue study of the performance characteristics of platform and caisson systems when the storm loadings force the structures to their ultimate limit states.

Develop and verify analytical models to assess the performance characteristics of groups of piles supporting structures subjected to intense earthquake excitations. Perform shaking tests on model pile groups to provide test data to verify the analytical models.

Develop and verify an inspection and maintenance decision support system for submarine pipelines using a knowledge-based approach. PIMPIS will provide a means of embedding expert knowledge to help select options for pipeline inspections and maintenance.

Develop and verify a general platform and pipeline design and reassessment - requalification system tailored to the unique environmental, operational, and economic characteristics of PEMEX operations in the Bay of Campeche.

Continue development of reliability based platform earthquake design and reassessment guidelines for the International Standards Organization.

Develop platform load and resistance factor design guielines for offshore Indonesia

Develop a general process for the assessment and evaluation of alternative procedures for the decommissioning of offshore platforms . Assist in conduct of MMS I CSLC workshoo on decommissioning.

I

~p

, >.

~

lI'"""')

3

Marine Technology and Management Group University of California at Berkeley

Screening Methodologies

for Use in Offshore Platform

Assessments and Requalifications

Project Objective:

Further develop and verify simplified quantitative screening methodologies for Level 2 platform assessments so these methodologies may be used in practice

Phase I: June 1993 to May 1995

Phase II: June 1995 to May 1996

Phase Ill: June 1996 to May 1997

Phase IV: June 1997 to May 1998


I Phase IV Project Sponsors I

ARCO Exploration and Production Technology

Exxon Production Research Company

Mobil Technology Company

Shell Offshore Incorporated

Unocal Corporation

New Sponsors:

US Minerals Management Service

PeMex/IMP

Potential Sponsors:

Chevron Petroleum Technology Company

Phillips Petroleum Company

Saudi Arabian Oil Company

5


I Phase IV Deliverables #1

Documentation of ULSLEA program

enhancements, comparisons, developments,

evaluations, and verifications

#2

Updating of ULSLEA user and modeling guide,

including updated software and coding

#3-Twe meetings

6


I ULSLEA Phase I

Aero and hydrodynamic loadings.._/

Unbraced deck legs capacity V

Jacket capacity (legs, braces, joints)V

Foundation capacity V

Deterministic ULS analysis V

Probabilistic ULS analysis V

Damaged and grout-repaired members V

Verification case studies (5) V


ULSLEA Phase II I

Modeling enhancements V

Code updating and enhancement V

Preliminary design of braces V

Jacket horizontal framing effects V

Additional verifications (2) V

Linear analysis comparisons V

User - modeling guideV

Reporting and documentation../

Meetings (2) V

8


IULSLEA Phase Ill Fatigue analysis algorithms V

Earthquake analysis algorithms V

Verifications of earthquake analysis (3) V

Earthquake deck spectra V

Additional configurationsV

Platform strength and robustness studies../

Code updating.,_/

Reporting and documentation V

Meetings (2) V

9


IFatigue Analysis with ULSLEA I

Long-term

wave heights N -g_,,m ( g m)Y.= I Hg,,,....,m(lnN )-.;;-! r 1+ stress

I T I I ;: spectnJm ~

Correlate wave loads to joint

stresses

Compute fatigue

damage

...... -.... -......... --...... -.... -...

! Find Sfor H1 : ---

10



IO

~--.uwuCMC COWOfCMT



rxpost.ll! Period --,i . : Td 130 I

;-S-N D.rve---

; m 1174 i : K j1 790000000 ':__------ __.. __________J

r-Stress-- --------; ' ' j , ~ 112 l

I

~-~-l~o-5______,j

RUN rl:;oI Et.Ol...1____

I NO j1 000000

rEltrerne----- .-Spectrum T---1 'l H1 175 : T J100 j

______J

! Eta1 -11---I1

N1 11 000000000

FATIGUE ASSESSMENT Fatigue Damage Ratings for End-On Tubular Joints

jacket bay# 1 brace# joint i joint j Ts (years)

1 0.0317 0.0317 30 2 0.0317 0.0317 30 3 0.0317 0.0317 30 4 0.0317 0.0317 30


1 3.5171 3.5171 9 2 3.5171 3.5171 9 3 3.5171 3.5171 9 4 3.5171 3.5171 9


1 3.1499 3.1499 10 2 3.1499 3.1499 10 3 3.1499 3.1499 10 4 3.1499 3.1499 10

12

http:rxpost.ll


Earthquake Analysis with ULSLEA I

I~

ii I\ 11"" /\ II I

V\I 1

V

v

Modal analysis to Consult response get vibration ....._.... spectrum to get

properties ' modal accelerations

Find demands

Combine modal associated with

responses each mode

Compare to ULSLEA lower

bound

13

Marine Technology and Management Group University of California at Ber1


IEarthquake Analysis with ULSLEAI

Pile head stiffnesses:

xEA (1- u 2 ) kx =18.2Gr (2 - v)2L

3.00 -------------------

2.50

2.00 I - G:().5 ksi ! \- G1 ksi l -G=21c9i I! - - G=5 ksi

: 1.50 ~ G=10klli Il 1. _ ...._ G"20 k9I II ' G"50 ksi ! G=1001

Marine Technology and Management Group University of California at Bert


Verification 1:

Southern California Test Structure

I 100 ft

l".,.,.___......

Hypothetical 4-leg platform

Structure is A36 steel

Main diagonals are 24" and 30" diameter

Legs are grouted

72" diameter piles designed for 150' penetration in medium to stiff clay

Analyzed by Gates, et al., using both time-history and RSA

Verification uses API spectrum, 5% damping, soil B, ZPA = 0.25 g

17


Verification 1: Results I

1

, ~ 1 I,

1-

g

I

140

120

100

80

I 80 f

0

---------r __j__.___-+--4--+-''------f----+------1 I . I \ ' I I f I--1---1--1, .. i i I

--.----f-------11----+1---_._-+--_.----f----'-------I

20

.2Q

I

800 1000 1200 1400 1800 1800 2000 2200 2400

Sheu Demand (tl:lpl)

Comparison of Shear Demands

180

, 40

120

100

!: l 60'S

I :a

I 80

40

20

0

-20

-40 800 , 200

I -.

I,

I ' _._,._____ i ,

I

' j

..\ ...... "'r"

i ' !' i \~i______ I- ------t-III~ I,-----+ I 1 I ! -

!

I

I

I

1000

i ! I I '-'----- . I - - - -, I I I

-t- I i IL I I I I I-r-----: ,..._.,j. -. I

~iI j . I

i I. 1400 1800 1800 2000 2200

&hotr Dt.,ands (kips)

Modal Contributions

18

1T1 SRSA = 1 48--..-C---I T1 Gate= 1 53 ec !

1-"'-SRSA, All Modes, SRSS [

-Gte1, et a!. RSA

__J

SRSA,AllModeo,NRL I

1

Gates. et ol . TH I

Mod1f1ed USC i L__

i 1atModeOn!y I 1--"-"2 Modes. SRSS

- 3 Mod.. SRSS

-2 Modee, NRL

3 Mode, NRL

3 Mode1, ABS

2400


I Verification 2: Platform Ellen

r 265 ft

8-leg drilling platform

Majority of structure is 36 ksi, with 50 ksi piles

Main diagonals range 20" to 30" diameter

Legs are ungrouted

48" and 66" diameter piles driven to 232' and 264' in medium to stiff clays and silts

Verification uses API spectrum, 5% damping, soil C, ZPA = 0.25 g

19


Verification 2: Broadside Response

100 T

1

:-50~

:

! I I I I -> -100 - ' ----+--~ ; ' ! 1--~,

I I ; +t -150 r------t--~---~-->L--,,:::....:::---_--+11---_~J1- i - 200 r- I 1 : : ~

i I : I t

-260 L----t--+------~--11-_,,___,,_______+----+-----:_:--::-____

1 1I i j .. I

I II i I : -300 ' ' '

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

She1r Demand (kips)

Broadside Shear Demands

100

50

0

g

I -50

JI ~ -100

i E"' -150r

-300 __________________.,... ____..,___________

i!1 SR s,t:; 2 25 UC IT 1 Dea1gn a 2~ aec

_,__.., ..,..SRSA, 3 Modea, SRSS

/- ~ SRSA, 3 Modes, NRL

-oe1ign Sheara - - Modified UBC

loea.ign Perioda: 'j1 at Mode: 2 4 sec ,2nd Mode 0.89 aec

SR SA Perioda: 1at Mode. 2 25 sec 2nd Mode: 0.42 1ec 3rd Mode: 0.25 sec

11t Mode Only ,..,._ ......... 2 Modes. SRSS I "" ..,. 3 Modes, SRSS

-2 Modea, NRL

- - 3Modes.NRL / 3 Modes, ABS I

_ 3000 4000 ~ODO 6000 7000 8000 900-0 10000 11000 12000

Sheu Demand (ti.Ip}

Modal Contributions to Broadside Demands

20


I Verification 2: End-On Response I

IT1 SRSA 2.69 sec l!._1 Detlgn. 2.86 UC

1-........,.,,.,_SRSA, 3 Model, SRSS

..,_ '~ SRSA, 3 Model, NRL

-oe11gn Shar1 - - Mod1r1ed USC ~

Shear Demand (kips)

End-On Shear Demands

50 --Y-'-+------++-----+--------+--~---t-,----+-----------< ' )'

i t:.. .... ' i-1-r--+-1--+-,--E--+-1_ __,__----r-~ig

I -50 -1-'"""'}-,----r 1--r-1--+-----+----+----t

s ~ -100 ----+----- \' _.,, 1+ ',1 - ---i-----t--I : I i I I' i i'"'

-150 +------+-----t---~-+---1--'.~:---+------+----i------l---4t I -1---

-200

-25Q

-300 ....____...,.______.,_____-+ ____,______.....,....____~------

3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000 10000 11000 12000

Sheu Dem1nd1 (klp1)

______......~ ___...,.,__

Design Period 11t Mode 2.86 1ec 2nd Mode 0 90 sec

SR SA Period1 1st Mode. 2 89 sec 2nd Mode: O 46 sec 3rd Mode. O 27 sec

1st Mode Only .,.._...,__..,..... 2 Mod es, SR SS

[" - 3 Mod ... SRSS -2 Modes. NRL

3 Modes, NR l

3 Modes, ABS

Modal Contributions to End-On Demands

21


Verification 3: Platform Elly I

l 257 ft

12-leg drilling platform

Majority of structure is 36 ksi, with 42 ksi piles

Main diagonals range 24" to 36" diameter

Legs are ungrouted

42" and 48" diameter piles driven to 200' to 252' in medium to stiff clays and silts

Verification uses API spectrum, 5% damping, soil C, ZPA =0.25 g

22

~:


Verification 3: Broadside Response

,:: r---+-:~, :1--:i+-----+--T-------+--1____ --_.__i--___,__r~, 0 H--~r-~--..,...___'___,.___I'---+----->-


I Verification 3: End-On Response I

100 I 00

r---t-H---~--, .I" --+

I

I

Marine Technology and Management Group - University of Callfomla at Berkeley

I Reliability and Earthquakes IO ,---.---,--,.,.-r..-rr--i--r-r-,...,....,.-rTr-.,.......-...--r'"T""'T'"""ln-TT"--,---~

2

.; ;:;: 0.5

0.2

~ "' ~"' II "' 0.1 ~ h' s II II ~ E-."

,

Uncertainty in Response Spectrum Ordinates

Safety index formulation:

/3= M

(JM

a~= ln(1+ Vi)+ ln(1+ Vf )-2ln(l+ pRSVRVs)

If spectrum is deterministic:

2( iJ[' )2 (J'T = (]'M ( iJ['M + (J'Kx 8/(x +(]'Ka IJK.8

2 2 iJ[' ) 2

2( iJ[' )2

25 1


Accelerations for Equipment I

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2

Te/Ts

Amplification Ratio

Te/Ts;>1.25

.... "= ( Ae1)sAulj A . J SI

" (r..Ji .u .. ")2 2 ~ " 1'f'r1 1J .. L , ( Ulj 1) 2

+ i over all iiu.= J

j over all ii L (r; {bx;) i overall all structure modes

26

http:Te/Ts;>1.25


Ductility-Level Analysis I

160

1 4 0

1 2 0

I

100

j 1

80

60

Ji

f 40

20

0. 5 1 5 2

Du ctlllty Dern 1 n d

5

Northrldge Sylmar

160

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

0 0.5 3 3.5 41.5 2 2.5

Du ctlllty Dem and

' Hanshin M lyagl Ken-Oki

160 ----------------------

140

I

I g 120

1 00 ---TH: f

- . - - - - - Newmark

i 80 CD I 60 Blume 40I t

I 200 ..____________________________....

i

0 0.5 1.f 2 2 .5 3 3.5

Ducti.ity Dem and

i

L____

27


I Additional Configurations Multi 4-leg jackets:

Platform Deck Plan - - . - - - .. - .. - -


I Additional Configurations I

Tripod Jackets:

Broadside Load End-On Load

.. )

;

B ~ c

B

~---L-----<

Broadside Jacket Capacity:

A-. 1' "' '1' t ':'I I ; l I :L___: . ____L.. _J~-- ,__J

End-On Jacket Capacity:

(} uHMLTFFrwnu 2,3 k (}P =P ~n + p J sm U Hbay U HMLTFFrame.s 2,3 k HFrames 2,3L (

HMLTFFrrmuu 2,3

29


I Additional Configurations I Braced Monopods (Caissons):

Deck

Main Pile

BracingPiles ______

Capacity of unsupported section:

(Mu -Q~) ~H= H

d

Capacity of brace:

P 3Mp = p + uHbrace k uH uHbrace k Hma;np1Je 2H

Hbrace U

30


I Additional Configurations I Guyed Monopods (Caissons):

Deck

Main Pile -

Anchor /Pile

/

Capacity of guy wire system:

= p + puHguywire k 3M F ()Pu H u H H - - pretension COS guy wire k main pile 2H Hguywire u

31


IULSLEA Program DevelopmentI

Coding finished for Phase Ill commitments

v3.0 runs with MS Excel 5.0 in MS Windows environment (Win95 and Office97 recommended)

Machine requirements are 32 MB RAM and Pentium/90 processor or better

32


Basic Program Enhancements I

11


Drag Coefficient Scaling: SP 62 A

[ 0

z -50

~ -100 - -150 w :E -200 ~ ~ -250

~ -300

50

0 ~

-50z 0 i:: -100 ~ w -150-' w :E -200a: 0 ~ -250.... :5 Cl. -300

-350

BROADSIDE LOADING

0 5000 10000 15000 20000

STORM SHEAR I PLATFORM SHEAR CAPACITY (KIPS)

Cd SCALING

BROADSIDE LOADING

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000

STORM SHEAR I PLATFORM SHEAR CAPACITY (KIPS)

NO SCALING

34

____ JOINT CAPACITY , -+-L-BOUNO CAPACITY I I.--11-U-BOUNO CAPACITY 1--+-STORMSHEAR 1-swL ~MUDUNE __J

! ----JOINT CAPACITY i 1 -+-L-BOUNO CAPACITY 1 -+-U-BOUNO CAPACITY

-+-STORM SHEAR '

-swL ~MUDUNE I


I Phase IV Project Goals Parameter studies (3 platforms) Development of ductility-level earthquake

analysis routines Diagonal loading formulations and capacity

formulations for elements sensitive to diagonal loads

Adaptation of the program to allow for the analysis of 4-leg structures with one vertical face, and tripod structures with one vertical leg

Developing and documenting updated biases and uncertainties for joints, braces, and piles

Adapting the program interface to allow for the input of separate yield strengths for individual components of the structure (joint cans, braces)

Improved graphical and printed output Foundation elements allowing for layered soils,

and contributions to stiffness and capacity from mud mats, mudline braces, and conductors

Algorithms allowing a user to calculate reliability sensitivity factors

Spatial variation of wave forces for platforms with large dimensions

Shallow water wave kinematics Vertical loads and loading capacities for deck

structures

35

---------

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

-------------------

----------------


I Phase IV Project Plan I Task/Description/G 1997 1998

SR 1 5 1 - Damage studies

6 12

New ------------------x 2 - Dynamics

Stear ------------------)(3 - Diagonal loads

Stear, Jin -------x 4 - Configurations

Stear ----------------x 5 - Uncertainties

Jin, Xu -------------x 6 - Joints

Stear ---------x 7 - Improved output

Stear, Jin -------x 8 - Foundations

Stear, Jin ------------------x 9 - Reliability

Jin ------x 10 - Wave spatial

New -x 11 - Kinematics

Jin -x 12 - Deck elements

New ------------------x x xxMeetinas

36

Meeting Agenda; Marine Technology andf Management Group

i meeting agenda i - home | bureau of safety and ... · meeting agenda . i . ... ship structural...

Documents