Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures: Guide For The
Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures: Guide For The
Fatigue Assessment of Offshore Structures: Guide For The
Copyright © 2003
American Bureau of Shipping
ABS Plaza
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, TX 77060 USA
Updates
The main purpose of this Guide is to supplement the Rules and the other design and analysis criteria
that ABS has issued for the Classification of some types of offshore structures. The specific Rules
and other Classification criteria that are being supplemented by this Guide include the latest versions
of the following documents:
• Rules for Building and Classing Offshore Installations
• Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
• Rules for Building and Classing Single Point Moorings
• Guide for Building and Classing Floating Production Installations (FPI)
(however, the fatigue assessment of Ship-Type Floating Installations should be treated in
accordance with the FPI Guide, and not this Guide)
While some of the criteria contained herein may be applicable to ship structure, it is not intended that
this Guide be used in the Classification of a ship.
ABS welcomes comments and suggestions for improvement of this Guide. Comments or suggestions
can be sent electronically to rdd@eagle.org.
ABS GUIDE FOR THE FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES . 2003 iii
This Page Intentionally Left Blank
GUIDE FOR THE
FATIGUE ASSESSMENT OF OFFSHORE
STRUCTURES
CONTENTS
SECTION 1 Introduction ............................................................................5
1 Terminology and Basic Approaches Used in Fatigue
Assessment ...........................................................................5
1.1 General ............................................................................. 5
1.3 S-N Approach.................................................................... 6
1.5 Fracture Mechanics........................................................... 6
1.7 Structural Detail Types...................................................... 6
3 Damage Accumulation Rule and Fatigue Safety Checks......6
3.1 General ............................................................................. 6
3.3 Definitions ......................................................................... 7
3.5 Fatigue Safety Check........................................................ 7
5 Existing Structures .................................................................8
7 Summary................................................................................8
1.1 General
Fatigue assessment1 denotes a process where the fatigue demand on a structural element (e.g. a
connection detail) is established and compared to the predicted fatigue strength of that element. One
way to categorize a fatigue assessment technique is to say that it is based on a direct calculation of
fatigue damage or expected fatigue life. Three important methods of assessment are called the
Simplified Method, the Spectral Method and the Deterministic Method. Alternatively, an indirect
fatigue assessment may be performed by the Simplified Method, based on limiting a predicted
(probabilistically defined) stress range to be at or below a permissible stress range. There are also
assessment techniques that are based on Time Domain analysis methods that are especially useful for
structural systems that are subjected to non-linear structural response or non-linear loading.
Fatigue Demand is stated in terms of stress ranges that are produced by the variable loads imposed on
the structure. (A stress range is the absolute sum of stress amplitudes on either side of a ‘steady state’
mean stress. The term ‘variable load’ may be used in preference to ‘cyclic load’ since the latter may
be taken to imply a uniform frequency content of the load, which may not be the case.) The fatigue
inducing loads are the results of actions producing variable load effects. Most commonly, for ocean
based structures, the most influential actions producing the higher magnitude variable loadings are
waves and combinations of waves with other variable actions such as ocean current, and equipment
induced variable loads. Since the loads being considered are variable with time, it is possible that
they could excite dynamic response in the structure; this will amplify the acting fatigue inducing
stresses.
The determination of fatigue demand should be accomplished by an appropriate structural analysis.
The level of sophistication required in the analysis in terms of structural modeling and boundary
conditions (i.e. soil-structure interaction or mooring system restraint), and the considered loads and
load combinations are typically specified in the individual Rules and Guides for Classification of
particular types of Mobile Units and offshore structures.
When considering fatigue inducing stress ranges, one also needs to consider the possible influences of
stress concentrations and how these modify the predicted values of the acting stress. The model used
to analyze the structure may not adequately account for local conditions that will modify the stress
range near the location of the structural detail subject to the fatigue assessment. In practice this issue
is dealt with by modifying the results of the stress analysis by the application of a stress concentration
factor (SCF). The selection of an appropriate ‘geometric’ SCF may be obtained from standard
references, or by the performance of Finite Element Analysis that will explicitly compute the
geometric SCF. Two often mentioned examples of geometric SCFs are a circular hole in a flat plate
structure, which nominally has the effect of introducing an SCF of 3.0 at the location on the circle
1
NOTE: ITALICS are used throughout the text to highlight some words and phrases. This is done only to emphasize or define
terminology that is used in the presentation.
where the direction of acting longitudinal membrane stress is tangent to the circular hole. The other
example is the case of a transverse ring stiffener on a tubular member where the SCF to be applied to
the tube’s axial stress can be less than 1.0.
3.1 General
When the Fatigue Demand and Fatigue Strength are established, they are compared and the adequacy
of the structural component with respect to fatigue is assessed using a Damage Accumulation Rule
and a Fatigue Safety Check. Regarding the first of these, it is accepted practice that the fatigue
damage experienced by the structure from each interval of applied stress range can be obtained as the
ratio of the number of cycles (n) of that stress range applied to the structure to the number of cycles
(N) that will cause a fatigue failure at that stress range, as determined from the S-N curve2. The total
2
NOTE: In the S-N Approach, failure is usually defined as the first through-thickness crack.
or cumulative fatigue damage (D) is the linear summation of the individual damage from all the
considered stress range intervals. This approach is referred to as the Palmgren-Miner Rule. It is
expressed mathematically by the equation:
J
n
D= ∑ Nii
i =1
where ni is the number of cycles the structural detail endures at stress range Si, Ni is the number of
cycles to failure at stress range Si, as determined by the appropriate S-N curve, and J is the number of
considered stress range intervals.
3.3 Definitions
Design Life, denoted T (in years), or as NT when expressed as the number of stress cycles expected in
the design life, is the required design life of the overall structure. The minimum required Design Life
(the intended service life) specified in ABS Rules for the structure of a ‘new-build’ Mobile Drilling
Unit or a Floating Production Installation is 20 years; the calculated fatigue life used in design cannot
be less than this value or its equivalent NT.3
Calculated Fatigue Life, Tf, (or Nf) is the computed life, in units of time (or number of cycles) for a
particular structural detail considering its appropriate S-N curve or Fracture Mechanics parameters.
Fatigue Design Factor, FDF, is a factor (≥ 1.0) that is applied to individual structural details which
accounts for: uncertainties in the fatigue assessment process, the consequences of failure (i.e.
criticality), and the relative difficulty of inspection and repair. Section 4 provides specific information
on the values of FDF.
3
NOTE: For a fixed platform where the main source of major variable stress is ocean waves, the wave data can be readily examined
to establish the number of waves (hence equivalent stress cycles) that the structure will experience annually. For a 20 to 25 year
service life it is common that the number of expected waves will be approximately 1.0 × 108. However, because Mobile Units are not
permanently exposed to the ocean environment, the actual number of stress cycles that they will experience over time is reduced.
5 Existing Structures
For those cases where an existing structure is being reused or converted, the basis of the fatigue
assessment should be modified to reflect past service or previously accumulated fatigue damage. If Dp
denotes the damage from past service, the ‘unused fatigue damage’, ∆R, may be taken as:
∆R = (1 – Dp · α)/FDF
Where α is a factor to reflect the uncertainty with which the past service data are known. When the
data are well documented, α may be taken as 1.0, otherwise a higher value should be used.
7 Summary
As stated previously, the specific information concerning the establishment of the Fatigue Demand,
via structural analysis and modeling, is treated directly in the Rules, Guides and other criteria that
have been issued for particular structural types, therefore these specific issues will not be subject to
much further elaboration. The remainder of this Guide therefore concentrates on:
i) specific fatigue assessment methods such as the Simplified and Spectral approaches,
ii) specific S-N curves which can be employed in the fatigue assessment,
iii) the factors that should be considered in the selection of S-N curves and the adjustments that
should be made to these curves, and
iv) Fatigue Design Factors used to reflect the critical nature of a structural detail or the difficulty
in inspecting such a detail during the operating life of a structure.
A diagram outlining the fatigue assessment process documented in this Guide is given in Section 1,
Figure 1.
FIGURE 1
Schematic of Fatigue Assessment Process
(For each location or structural detail)
CLASSIFY DETAIL,
CONSIDER STRESS
SELECT Fatigue Design CONCENTRATION FACTOR
Factor (FDF) & DECIDE APPLICABILITY OF
NOMINAL OR HOT SPOT
SECTION 4 APPROACH
SECTION 2
INITIAL FATIGUE
SELECT S-N
ASSESSMENT CURVE
SECTION 3
OBTAIN NEEDED FRACTURE
MECHANICS ANALYSIS
PARAMETERS
SECTION 8
FATIGUE
STRENGTH/
SIMPLIFIED DAMAGE DETERMINISTIC
METHOD METHOD
CALCULATION
SECTION 5 BASED ON SECTION 7
SELECTED
METHOD
SPECTRAL-BASED FRACTURE
METHOD MECHANICS METHOD
SECTION 6 SECTION 8
FATIGUE
SAFETY CHECK
SEE 1/3.5
1 Introduction
1.1 General
This Section describes the procedures that can be followed when the fatigue strength of a structural
detail is established using an S-N curve. Section 3 presents the specific data that define the various
S-N curves and the required adjustments.
The S-N method and the S-N curves are typically presented as being related to a Nominal Stress
Approach or a Hot Spot Stress Approach. The basis and application of these approaches are described
below.
components, and while it is most common to encounter SCF values larger than 1.0, thus signifying an
amplification of the nominal stress, there are situations where a value of less than 1.0 can validly
exist.
The nominal S-N curves were derived from fatigue test data obtained mainly from specimens
subjected to axial and bending loads. The reference stresses used in the S-N curves are the nominal
stresses typically calculated based on the applied loading and sectional properties of the specimens.
Therefore, it is important to recognize that when using these design S-N curves in a fatigue
assessment, the applied reference stresses should correspond to the nominal stresses used in creating
these curves. However, in an actual structure, it is rare that a match will be found with the geometry
and loading of the tested specimens. In most cases, the actual details are more complex than the test
specimens, both in geometry and in applied loading, and the required nominal stresses are often not
readily available or are difficult to determine. As general guidance, the following may be applied for
the determination of the appropriate reference stresses required for a fatigue strength assessment:
i) In cases where the nominal stress approach can be used (e.g., in way of cut-outs or access
holes), the reference stresses are the local nominal stresses. The word ‘local’ means that the
nominal stresses are determined by taking into account the gross geometric changes of the
detail (e.g. cutouts, tapers, haunches, presence of brackets, changes of scantlings,
misalignment, etc.).
ii) The effect of stress concentration due to weld profiles should be disregarded. This effect is
embodied in the design S-N curves.
iii) Often the S-N curve selected for the structural detail already reflects the effect of a stress
concentration due to an abrupt geometric change. In this case, the effect of the stress
concentration should be ignored since its effect is implicitly included in the S-N curve.
iv) If the stress field is more complex than a uniaxial field, the principal stress adjacent to
potential crack locations should be used.
v) In making a finite element model for the structure, use smooth transitions to avoid abrupt
changes in mesh sizes. It is also to be noted that it is unnecessary and often undesirable to use
a very fine mesh model to determine the required local nominal stresses.
vi) One exception to the above is with regard to S-N curves that are used in the assessment of
transverse load carrying fillet welds where cracking could occur in the weld throat (Detail
Class ‘W’ of Appendix 1). In this case, the reference stress is the nominal shearing stress
across the minimum weld throat area.
It is to be noted that when the hot spot stress approach is used (see Subsection 2/5 below), an
exception should be made with regard to the above items iii) and v). The specified S-N curve used in
the hot spot approach will not account for local geometric changes; therefore it will be necessary to
perform a structural analysis to determine explicitly the stress concentrations due to such changes.
Also in most cases, a finer-mesh finite element model will be required (i.e. approximate finite element
analysis mesh size of t × t for shell elements immediately adjacent to the hot spot e.g. weld toe where t
is the member thickness).
In addition to the ordinary ‘geometric’ SCF, an additional category of SCF occurs when, at the
location where the fatigue assessment is performed, there is a welded ‘attachment’ present. The
presence of the welded attachment adds uncertainty about the local stress and the applicable S-N
curve at locations in the attachment weld. Many commonly occurring situations of this type are still
covered in the nominal stress Joint Classification guidance, such as shown in Appendix 1 (see also
3/3.1.2). However, in the more complex/uncertain cases recourse is made to the hot spot stress
approach, which is covered in the next subsection.
FIGURE 1
Two-Segment S-N Curve
m
NS =A
Log(S)
1 r
NS = C
m
SQ
1
r
Log (N) NQ
FIGURE 2
Stress Gradients (Actual & Idealized) Near a Weld
Snotch
Shot
Stress Shot_t/2
Shot_3t/2
Snom
5.9 FEA Data Interpretation – Stress Extrapolation Procedure and S-N Curves
stress at the weld toe. The maximum principal stress at the hot spot, determined in this
fashion, should be used in the fatigue assessment.4
A refined linear extrapolation procedure to obtain the hot spot stress, using the mentioned
distances from the hot spot, may be accomplished following the procedure given in the ABS
Steel Vessel Rules, Part 5, Chapter 1, Appendix 1/13.7.
4
NOTE: When the angle between the normal to the weld’s axis and the direction of the maximum principal stress at the hot spot is
greater than 45 degrees, consideration may be given to an appropriate reduction of the maximum principal stress used in the fatigue
assessment.
1 Introduction
This section presents the various S-N curves that can be used in a fatigue assessment. Subsection 3/3
addresses the S-N curves for non-tubular details using the nominal stress method. Subsection 3/5
primarily addresses the S-N curves which can be applied to tubular joints.
3.1.1 General
The ABS Offshore S-N Curves for non-tubular details (and non-intersection tubular
connections) are defined according to the geometry of the detail and other considerations such
as the direction of loading and expected fabrication/ inspection methods. The S-N curves are
presented in various categories each representing a class of details (most of which are welded
connection details) as discussed in 3/3.1.2 on ‘Joint Classification’. Section 3, Tables 1, 2
and 3 provide the defining parameters for the ABS Offshore S-N Curves applicable to various
classes of non-tubular details. These Tables apply when the long-term environmental
conditions (referred to here as, ‘corrosiveness’), that the structural detail will experience, are
represented as being: ‘In –Air’ (A), ‘Cathodically Protected’ (CP), and ‘Freely Corroding’
(FC).
The three ‘corrosiveness’ situations for the ABS Offshore S-N Curves are denoted as:
ABS- (A) for the ‘In –Air’ condition
ABS- (CP) for the ‘Cathodic Protection’ condition, and
ABS- (FC) for the ‘Free Corrosion’ condition
Section 3, Figures 1, 2 and 3, respectively, show the S-N curves given in Section 3, Tables 1,
2 and 3.
Appendix 1 provides guidance on the classification of structural details in accordance with the
ABS Offshore S-N Curves.
Note: Something that often confuses the classification of a detail is the desire to force the assignment of the
detail into one of the ‘nominal’ classes. It frequently happens that the complex geometry of a detail or
local stress distribution makes the classification to one of the available classes inappropriate or too
doubtful. In this case recourse should be made to the techniques discussed in Subparagraph 2/5.9.1.
5
NOTE: The application of these S-N curves is meant for use with Appendix 3.
TABLE 1
Parameters for ABS-(A) Offshore S-N Curves for Non-Tubular Details In
Air
Curve A m C r NQ SQ
Class For MPa For ksi For MPa For ksi For MPa For ksi
Units Units Units Units Units Units
B 1.01×1015 4.48×1011 4.0 1.02×1019 9.49×1013 6.0 1.0×107 100.2 14.5
13 10 17 12 7
C 4.23×10 4.93×10 3.5 2.59×10 6.35×10 5.5 1.0×10 78.2 11.4
D 1.52×1012 4.65×109 3.0 4.33×1015 2.79×1011 5.0 1.0×107 53.4 7.75
12 9 15 11 7
E 1.04×10 3.18×10 3.0 2.30×10 1.48×10 5.0 1.0×10 47.0 6.83
F 6.30×1011 1.93×109 3.0 9.97×1014 6.42×1010 5.0 1.0×107 39.8 5.78
11 9 14 10 7
F2 4.30×10 1.31×10 3.0 5.28×10 3.40×10 5.0 1.0×10 35.0 5.08
G 2.50×1011 7.64×108 3.0 2.14×1014 1.38×1010 5.0 1.0×107 29.2 4.24
11 8 14 9 7
W 1.60×10 4.89×10 3.0 1.02×10 6.54×10 5.0 1.0×10 25.2 3.66
FIGURE 1
ABS-(A) Offshore S-N Curves for Non-Tubular Details In Air
TABLE 2
Parameters for ABS-(CP) Offshore S-N Curves for Non-Tubular Details in
Seawater with Cathodic Protection
Curve A m C r NQ SQ
Class For MPa For ksi For MPa For ksi For MPa For ksi
Units Units Units Units Units Units
B 4.04×1014 1.79×1011 4.0 1.02×1019 9.49×1013 6.0 6.4×105 158.5 23.0
13 10 17 12 5
C 1.69×10 1.97×10 3.5 2.59×10 6.35×10 5.5 8.1×10 123.7 17.9
D 6.08×1011 1.86×109 3.0 4.33×1015 2.79×1011 5.0 1.01×106 84.4 12.2
E 4.16×1011 1.27×109 3.0 2.30×1015 1.48×1011 5.0 1.01×106 74.4 10.8
11 8 14 10
F 2.52×10 7.70×10 3.0 9.97×10 6.42×10 5.0 1.01×106 62.9 9.13
11 8 14 10 6
F2 1.72×10 5.26×10 3.0 5.28×10 3.40×10 5.0 1.01×10 55.4 8.04
G 1.00×1011 3.06×108 3.0 2.14×1014 1.38×1010 5.0 1.01×106 46.2 6.71
10 8 14 9 6
W 6.40×10 1.96×10 3.0 1.02×10 6.54×10 5.0 1.01×10 39.8 5.78
FIGURE 2
ABS-(CP) Offshore S-N Curves for Non-Tubular Details in Seawater with
Cathodic Protection
TABLE 3
Parameters for ABS-(FC) Offshore S-N Curves for Non-Tubular Details in
Seawater for Free Corrosion
Curve A m
Class For MPa For ksi
Units Units
B 3.37×1014 1.49×1011 4.0
13 10
C 1.41×10 1.64×10 3.5
D 5.07×1011 1.55×109 3.0
11 9
E 3.47×10 1.06×10 3.0
F 2.10×1011 6.42×108 3.0
11 8
F2 1.43×10 4.38×10 3.0
G 8.33×1010 2.55×108 3.0
10 8
W 5.33×10 1.63×10 3.0
FIGURE 3
ABS-(FC) Offshore S-N Curves for Non-Tubular Details in Seawater for
Free Corrosion
5.1.1 General
The ABS S-N Curves for tubular intersection joints are denoted as:
ABS - T(A) for the ‘In-Air’ condition
ABS - T(CP) for the ‘Cathodic Protection’ condition
ABS - T(FC) for the ‘Free Corrosion’ condition
The ABS - T(A) curve is defined by parameters A and m, which are defined for Eq. (2.1), and
the parameters r and C, defined for Eq. (2.2). This ‘T’ curve has a change of slope at 107
cycles.
TABLE 4
Parameters for Class ‘T’ ABS Offshore S-N Curves
S-N A m C r NQ SQ
Curve For MPa For ksi For MPa For ksi For MPa For ksi
Units Units Units Units Units Units
T(A) 1.46×1012 4.46×109 3.0 4.05×1015 2.61×1011 5.0 1.0×107 52.7 7.64
11 9 15 11
T(CP) 7.30×10 2.23×10 3.0 4.05×10 2.61×10 5.0 1.77×106 74.5 10.8
T(FC) 4.87×1011 1.49×109 3.0 -- -- -- -- -- --
Note: For service in seawater with free corrosion (FC), there is no change in the curve slope.
FIGURE 4
ABS Offshore S-N Curves for Tubular Joints (in air, in seawater with
cathodic protection and in seawater for free corrosion)
5.3.1 General
As per API RP-2A (WSD-21st Edition, 12/ 2000) the S-N curves for tubular intersections
(API X and X′) are defined in Section 3, Table 5. The parameters A and m are defined for Eq.
(2.1).
6
NOTE: The application of these S-N curves is meant for use with Appendix 3.
TABLE 6
Parameters for ABS Offshore S-N Curve for Cast Steel Joints (in-air)
Curve A m
Class For MPa For ksi
Units Units
CS 1.48×1015 6.56×1011 4.0
FIGURE 5
ABS Offshore S-N Curve for Cast Steel Joints (in-air)
1 General
The Fatigue Design Factor (FDF) is a parameter with a value of 1.0 or more, which is applied to
increase the required design fatigue life or to decrease the calculated permissible fatigue damage; see
1/3.5. Section 4, Table 1 presents the FDF values for various types of offshore structures, structural
details, detail locations and other considerations. The ‘Notes for Table 1’, listed after the table, must
be observed when using the table.
Designers and Analysts are advised that a cognizant Regulatory Authority for the Offshore Structure
may have required technical criteria that could be different from those stated herein. ABS will
consider the use of such alternative criteria as a basis of Classification where it is shown that the use
of the alternative criteria produces a level of safety that is not less than that produced by the criteria
given herein. Ordinarily the demonstration of an alternative’s acceptability is done by the designer’s
submission of comparative calculations that appropriately consider the pertinent parameters
(including loads, S-N curve data, FDFs, etc.) and calculation methods specified in the alternative
criteria. However, where satisfactory experience exists with the use of the regulatory mandated
alternative criteria, they may be accepted for classification after consideration of the claimed
experience by ABS and consultation with the structure’s Operator. An example of acceptable
alternative criteria, for a steel Offshore Structure located on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) of the
United States, are the fatigue design requirements cited in the technical criteria issued by Minerals
Management Service (MMS). For the use of U.S. OCS platform clients, an alternative version of
Table 1 is presented in Appendix 3 of this Guide.
TABLE 1
Fatigue Design Factors for Structural Details**
** The minimum Factor to be applied to uninspectable ‘ordinary’ or uninspectable ‘critical’
structural details is 5 or 10, respectively.
STRUCTURAL DETAIL (3) GOVERNING APPLICATION (1)
FATIGUE STRENGTH CATEGORY**
CRITERIA
LOCATION ORDINARY CRITICAL (2)
(4)
Structural Subsystem Type
FIXED & FLOATING INSTALLATION
ABOVE WATER STRUCTURE
Non-Integral Deck (5) Non Tubular (7) ABS-(A) 1 2
Tubular ABS-T(A) 1 2
Intersection (8)
Integral Deck (6) Non Tubular ABS- (A) 2 3
Tubular ABS-T(A) 2 3
Intersection
IN WATER & SUBMERGED STRUCTURE (9)
Fixed Non-Floating Non Tubular ABS- (CP) (16) 2 3
Structure Tubular ABS- T(CP) (16) 2 3
(e.g. fixed jacket, tower and Intersection
template)
(10)
Fixed Floating Structure Non Tubular ABS- (CP) 3 5
(e.g. TLP, Column Tubular ABS-T(CP) 3 5
Stabilized & SPAR; but Intersection
excluding Ship-type &
MODU (14))
FOUNDATION COMPONENTS (12) ABS- (CP) or NA 10
ABS-T(CP) NA 10
MOORING COMPONENTS (13) ABS FPI Guide (11) NA 3
(13)
TLP TENDON See Note 15 NA 10
5 ‘Non-Integral Deck Structure’ means the deck is not essential for the structural integrity of the structural subsystem
supporting the deck.
6 ‘Integral Deck Structure’ means the deck structure is an essential component of the structural integrity of the overall
platform structure [e.g. the deck structure spanning the columns of a TLP or a Column Stabilized type platform.]
7 ‘Non-Tubular’ means both non-tubular details (also called ‘plate details’) and non-intersecting tubular details (e.g. butt joints
of tubular members and attachments to tubular members)
8 ‘Tubular Intersection’ refers to the nodal connections of tubular brace (branch) members with a tubular chord member.
9 This region is defined as being from the top of the air-gap down to the seabed and beneath to the bottom of the foundation
elements (e.g. pile tips). But, for a non-integral deck and for the purposes of the fatigue assessment only, this region can be
defined as being from the ‘deck to jacket (or hull) connection’ down to (and below) the seabed.
10 Internal structural tanks that are used for the (non-permanent) storage of seawater may be designed to the ABS- (A) criteria
provided:
• complete recoating is planned to occur in or before the 10th year of structural life,
• an effective coating system is provided to the entire tank (to be considered effective, there should be appropriate surface
preparation prior to coating, appropriate application and monitoring of a 2 coat epoxy coating, or at least an equally
effective coating),
• the space is accessible for close-up visual inspection to assess coating condition, and
• arrangements are provided to perform local coating renewal at weld detail locations.
11 Refer to API RP 2SK concerning the components and criteria to be assessed.
12 The factor listed is applicable to the in-place condition. Other criteria may be considered when assessing the installation
condition.
13 The appropriate criteria to be used for cast structural components will be specially considered.
14 The fatigue assessment of a MODU (e.g. Column Stabilized and Self Elevating types) typically employs the ABS (A) or
(CP) criteria, as applicable, with a Fatigue Design Factor of 1.0 for the structural details required by the MODU Rules to
undergo a fatigue assessment.
15 Requires special consideration. For guidance use may be made of AWS C1 or API X S-N data for tendon girth welds, but
note AWS criteria may have limitations regarding available geometry, material thickness and corrosiveness. The
acceptability of these AWS and API S-N curves requires very high quality NDT of the welds, and appropriate corrosion
protection via coating, cathodic protection or both.
16 In the ‘splash zone’ (see OI Rules 3/3.5.5b), the use of the ABS (FC) S-N data may be required.
1 Introduction
The so-called ‘simplified’ method is also sometimes referred to as the ‘permissible’ or ‘allowable’
stress range method, which can be categorized as an indirect fatigue assessment method because the
result of the method’s application is not necessarily a value of fatigue damage or a fatigue life value.
Often a ‘pass/fail’ answer results depending on whether the acting stress range is below or above the
permissible value.
This method is often used as the basis of a fatigue screening technique. A screening technique is
typically a rapid, but usually conservatively biased, check of structural adequacy. If the structure’s
strength is adequate when checked with the screening criterion, no further analysis may be required.
If the structural detail fails the screening criterion, the proof of its adequacy may still be pursued by
analysis using more refined techniques. Also, a screening approach is quite useful to identify fatigue
sensitive areas of the structure, thus providing a basis to develop fatigue inspection planning for future
periodic inspections of the structure and Condition Assessment surveys of the structure.
3 Mathematical Development
The shape parameter, γ, can be established from a detailed stress spectral analysis or its value may be
assumed based on experience.
The results of the simplified fatigue assessment method can be very sensitive to the values of the
Weibull shape parameter. Therefore, where there is a need to refine the accuracy of the selected
shape parameters, the performance of even a basic level global response analysis can be very useful in
providing more realistic values. Alternatively, it is suggested that when the basis for the selection of a
shape factor is not well known, then a range of probable shape factor values should be employed so
that a better appreciation of how selected values affect the fatigue assessment will be obtained.
NT δ m m
D= Γ + 1 ........................................................................................................... (5.4)
A γ
where NT is the design life in cycles and Γ(x) is the gamma function, defined as:
∞ x −1 −t
Γ( x ) = ∫0 t e dt ............................................................................................................. (5.5)
NT δ m m N δr r
D= Γ + 1, z + T Γ0 + 1, z ...................................................................... (5.6)
A γ C γ
For symbols refer to Section 2, Figure 1 and Subsection 5/3.5. Γ(a,z) and Γ0(a,z) are incomplete
gamma functions (integrals z to ∞ and 0 to z, respectively). Values of these functions may be obtained
from handbooks.
∞ a −1 −t
Γ( a, z ) = ∫z t e dt = Γ(a ) − Γ0 ( a, z ) ............................................................................... (5.7)
z a −1 −t
Γ0 (a, z ) = ∫0 t e dt .......................................................................................................... (5.8)
γ
SQ
z = ........................................................................................................................... (5.9)
δ
where SQ is the stress range at which the slope of the S-N curve changes.
Or if the allowable stress range is modified to reflect a different number of cycles, NS, the safety check
is:
SS ≤ S S′ .............................................................................................................................. (5.13)
In practice, it is likely that NR will be based on the Design Life so that the acting reference stress range
and maximum allowable stress range (SR and S R′ ) will refer to NT.
1 General
A spectral-based fatigue assessment produces results in terms of fatigue induced damage or fatigue
life, and it is therefore referred to as a direct method. With ocean waves considered the main source
of fatigue demand, the fundamental task of a spectral fatigue analysis is the determination of the stress
range transfer function, Hσ(ω|θ), which expresses the relationship between the stress, σ, at a particular
structural location per ‘unit wave height,’ and wave of frequency (ω) and heading (θ).
Spectral-based Fatigue Analysis is a complex and numerically intensive technique. As such there is
more than one variant of the method that can be validly applied in a particular case. The method is
most appropriate when there exists a linear relationship between wave height and the wave-induced
loads, and the structural response to these loads is linear. Adaptations to the basic method have been
developed to account for various non-linearities, but where there is doubt about the use of such
methods, recourse can be made to Time-Domain Analysis Methods as mentioned in Subsection 6/9.
7.1 General
As mentioned previously, for Column-stabilized, and similar structural types with large (effective)
diameter elements, a direct linear fatigue assessment procedure can be established. This will be
described below, and this presentation closely follows information on this topic that was issued by
ABS in its publication, ABS Guide for Spectral-Based Fatigue Analysis for Floating Production,
Storage and Offloading (FPSO) Installations.
As for the main assumptions underlying the Spectral-Based Fatigue Analysis method, these are listed
below.
i) Ocean waves are the source of the fatigue inducing stress range acting on the structural
system being analyzed.
ii) In order for the frequency domain formulation and the associated probabilistically based
analysis to be valid, load analysis and the associated structural analysis are assumed to be
linear. Hence scaling and superposition of stress range transfer functions from unit amplitude
waves are considered valid.
iii) Non-linearities, brought about by non-linear roll motions and intermittent application of loads
such as wetting of the side shell in the splash zone, are treated by correction factors.
iv) Structural dynamic amplification, transient loads and effects such as springing are
insignificant.
Also, for the particular method presented below, it is assumed that the short-term stress variation in a
given sea-state is a random narrow banded stationary process. Therefore, the short-term distribution of
stress range can be represented by a Rayleigh distribution.
As a further example, if there were three base loading conditions L1, L2, L3 with exposure time factors of 40, 40 and 20
percent, respectively; then the combined fatigue life, LC is:
LC = 1/[0.4(1/L1) + 0.4(1/L2) + 0.2(1/L3)].
7.5.1 General
In the ‘short-term closed form’ approach, described below, the stress range is normally
expressed in terms of probability density functions for different short-term intervals
corresponding to the individual cells (or bins) of the wave scatter diagram. These short-term
probability density functions are derived by a spectral approach based on the Rayleigh
distribution method whereby it is assumed that the variation of stress is a narrow banded
random Gaussian process. When a narrow banded assumption is not valid for the stress
process, a correction factor, e.g. Wirsching’s “rainflow correction” factor, is applied in the
calculation of short-term fatigue damage. Having calculated the short-term damage, the total
fatigue damage is calculated through their weighted linear summation (using Miner’s rule).
Mathematical representations of the steps of the Spectral-based Fatigue Analysis approach
just described are given below.
7.5.2(c) Calculate the spectral moments. The nth spectral moment, mn, is calculated as
follows:
∞
∫
mn = ωn Sσ(ω|Hs, Tz, θ) dω .................................................................................. (6.2)
0
Most fatigue damage is associated with low or moderate seas, hence confused short-crested
sea conditions must be allowed. Confused short-crested seas result in a kinetic energy spread,
which is modeled using the cosine-squared approach, (2/π) cos2θ. Generally, cosine-squared
spreading is assumed from +90 to –90 degrees on either side of the selected wave heading.
Applying the wave spreading function modifies the spectral moment as follows:
∞ θ + 90
2
mn = ∫ θ∑ cos2θ ωn Sσ(ω|Hs, Tz, θ) dω .......................................................... (6.3)
π
−90
0
7.5.2(d) Using the spectral moments, the Rayleigh probability density function (pdf)
describing the short term stress-range distribution, the zero up-crossing frequency of the stress
response and the bandwith parameter used in calculating Wirsching’s “rainflow correction”
are calculated as follows:
Rayleigh pdf:
s s
2
g (s) = exp − ............................................................................... (6.4)
4σ 2 2 2σ
Bandwidth Parameter:
m22
ε = 1− ....................................................................................................... (6.6)
m0m4
where
s = stress range (twice the stress amplitude)
σ = m0
where
ni = number of stress cycles of a particular stress range
Ni = average number of loading cycles to failure under constant amplitude
loading at that stress range according to the relevant S-N curve
J = number of considered stress range intervals
Failure is predicted to occur when the cumulative damage (D) over J exceeds a critical value
equal to unity.
The short term damage incurred in the i-th sea-state assuming a S-N curve of the form
N = AS-m is given by:
∞
T
∫
Di = s m f 0i p i g i ds ........................................................................................ (6.8)
A 0
where
Di = damage incurred in the i-th sea-state
m, A = physical parameters describing the S-N curve
T = design life, in seconds
f0i = zero-up-crossing frequency of the stress response, Hz
pi = joint probability of Hs and Tz
gi = probability density function governing s in the i-th sea state
s = specific value of stress range
Summing Di over all the sea-states in the wave scatter diagram leads to the total cumulative
damage, D. Therefore:
∞
f 0T m M
D= s
A 0 i =1
∫ ∑
f 0i p i g i / f 0 ds ..................................................................... (6.9)
where
D = total cumulative damage
f0 = “average” frequency of s over the lifetime
= Σi pif0i (where the summation is done from i = 1 to M, the number of
considered sea-states)
Introducing, long-term probability density function, g(s) of the stress range as:
∑ f 0i p i g i
g (s) = i ............................................................................................... (6.10)
∑ f 0i p i
i
and
NT = total number of cycles in design life = f0T
the expression for total cumulative damage, D can be re-written as:
∞
N
∫s
m
D= T g ( s )ds ............................................................................................. (6.11)
A
0
7.5.2(f) If the total number of cycles NT corresponds to the required minimum Design Life of
20 years, the Calculated Fatigue Life would then be equal to 20/D. Increasing the design life
to higher values can be done accordingly. The fatigue safety check is to be done in
accordance with 1/3.5.
where
σi = m0 for the i-th considered sea state
For bi-linear S-N curves (see Section 2, Figure 1) where the negative slope changes at point
Q = (NQ, SQ) from m to r = m + ∆m (∆m > 0) and the constant A changes to C, the expression
for damage as given in equation 6.12 is as follows:
M
T
D=
A
(2 2 ) m Γ(m/2 + 1) ∑ λ(m, ε i )µ i f 0i pi (σ i ) m ....................................... (6.14)
i =1
where
µi = endurance factor having its value between 0 and 1 and measuring the
contribution of the lower branch to the damage. It is defined as:
SQ SQ
A
∫ ∫
s g i ds − s m + ∆m g i ds
m
0
C 0
µi = 1 − ∞
........................................... (6.15)
∫s
m
g i ds
0
Γ0 (m / 2 + 1, vi ) − (1 / vi ) ∆m / 2 Γ0 ( r / 2 + 1, vi )
µi = 1 − .......................... (6.16)
Γ(m / 2 + 1)
where
2
SQ
vi =
2 2σ
i
Γ0 = incomplete gamma function and is
x
∫
Γ0 (a, x) = u a −1 exp(−u )du
0
See 6/7.5.2(f) regarding the fatigue safety check and related fatigue terminology.
1 General
This method may be considered as a ‘simplified’ version of the spectral method. The main
simplification involves how wave-induced load effects are characterized. In the spectral method a
relationship to characterize the expected energy in individual sea states is employed (such the Pierson-
Moskowitz or JONSWOP spectral formulations), with a ‘scatter diagram’ that describes the expected
long-term probability of occurrence information for sea-states at a platform’s installation site. In the
deterministic method, a sea state is simply characterized using a deterministic wave height and period.
Since a deterministic approach does not represent the energy content of the sea state, it cannot be used
directly to calculate dynamic response. Also, there is a significant element of judgment, guided by
experience, that is needed to properly select the collection of discrete deterministic waves that will be
sufficient to establish the fatigue demand that the structure will experience. For these reasons, when
an explicit fatigue assessment is to be pursued for both fixed and floating Offshore Installations that
are designed on a site-specific basis, preference is given to spectral based fatigue assessments over a
deterministic approach.
However, the classification of a Mobile Unit is not based on site-specific sea state data; and in the
case of self-elevating units there can be significant variations in water depth. Hence, there can be large
variations of the structural response to waves. Even the most important locations on the legs for
fatigue assessment will most likely change. In this case the fatigue assessment will be, of necessity,
‘notional’ in nature; meaning that a set of notional sea states and structural configurations is
employed. This essentially is a deterministic approach.
1 Introduction
While fatigue strength characterizations based on the S-N approach are recommended for fatigue
assessment and design, fracture mechanics (FM) methods may be used to assess remaining life after a
crack is discovered. FM is especially useful for evaluating crack growth and to develop and refine
inspection programs.
The objective of this Section is to provide basic information on the fracture mechanics based fatigue
strength model. Use of this information for life prediction is described in Subsection 8/5.
Fracture mechanics may be used in those cases where the S-N based fatigue assessment method is
inappropriate, or needs to be refined or validated; e.g.:
i) When assessing the fitness for purpose of a detail/joint for which a crack is discovered and
measured. The crack is difficult and/or expensive to repair and a ‘repair/no-repair’ decision
must be made.
ii) In a design context when the detail/joint is unusual and is not adequately represented by the
standard S-N classification or when a detail/joint is subjected to the influence of multiple,
complex stress concentrations. For these special cases, ABS may require additional FM
based studies to be conducted
iii) When developing and updating in-service inspection planning programs
iv) When assessing the remaining fatigue life of an aging structure
The assumptions made for the fracture mechanics analysis model may be based on, or calibrated
through, comparisons with the S-N approach.
5 Life Prediction
When a = ac, the critical crack depth, failure is assumed, and N would be the cycles to failure.
Note that this form is identical to the S-N model of Section 2, NSm = A. The fatigue strength
coefficient, A, will be equal to the right hand side of Eq. (8.3). This can be useful for the simplified
fatigue method of Section 5.
*
The contents of Appendix 1 have been adapted from publications of the U.K. Health and Safety Executive. Permission from the Health and Safety
Executive to use the source material is gratefully acknowledged.
Type number, description and notes on Class Explanatory comments Examples, including failure modes
mode of failure
(a) Full penetration butt welds with the weld B The significance of defects should be
overfill dressed flush with the surface and determined with the aid of specialist
finish-machined in the direction of stress, advice and/or by the use of fracture
and with the weld proved free from mechanics analysis. The NDT technique
significant defects by nondestructive must be selected with a view to ensuring
examination. the detection of such significant defects.
(b) Butt or fillet welds with the welds made C If an accidental stop-start occurs in a
by an automatic submerged or open arc region where Class C is required remedial
process and with no stop-start positions action should be taken so that the finished
within the length. weld has a similar surface and root profile Edge distance from
weld toe to edge of
to that intended. flange > 10 mm
(c) As (b) but with the weld containing stop- D For situation at the ends of flange cover
start positions within the length. plates see joint Type 6.4.
TYPE 3 TRANSVERSE BUTT WELDS IN PLATES (i.e. essentially perpendicular to the direction of applied stress)
Notes on potential modes of failure
With the weld ends machined flush with the plate edges, fatigue cracks in the as-welded condition normally initiate at the weld toe, so that the
fatigue strength depends largely upon the shape of the weld overfill. If this is dressed flush the stress concentration caused by it is removed and
failure is then associated with weld defects. In welds made on a permanent backing strip, fatigue cracks initiate at the weld metal/strip junction,
and in partial penetration welds (which should not be used under fatigue conditions), at the weld root
Welds made entirely from one side, without a permanent backing, require care to be taken in the making of the root bead in order to ensure a
satisfactory profile.
Design stresses
In the design of butt welds of Types 3.1 or 3.2 which are not aligned the stresses must include the effect of any eccentricity. An approximate
method of allowing for eccentricity in the thickness direction is to multiply the normal stress by (1 + 3 e/t), where e is the distance between centers
of thickness of the two abutting members; if one of the members is tapered, the center of the untapered thickness must be used, and t is the
thickness of the thinner member.
With connections which are supported laterally, e.g. flanges of a beam which are supported by the web, eccentricity may be neglected.
3.1 Parent metal adjacent to, or weld metal Note that this includes butt welds which
in, full penetration butt joints welded do not completely traverse the member,
from both sides between plates of equal such as welds used for inserting infilling
width and thickness or where differences plates into temporary holes.
in width and thickness are machined to a
smooth transition not steeper than 1 in 4.
(a) With the weld overfill dressed flush with C The significance of defects should be
the surface and with the weld proved free determine with the aid of specialist
from significant defects by non- advice and/or by the use of fracture
destructive examination. mechanics analysis. The NDT technique
must be selected with a view to ensuring
the detection of such significant defects.
(b) With the welds made, either manually or D In general welds made by the submerged
by an automatic process other than arc process, or in positions other than
submerged arc, provided all runs are downhand, tend to have a poor
made in the downhand position. reinforcement shape, from the point of
view of fatigue strength. Hence such
welds are downgraded from D to E.
(c) Welds made other than in (a) or (b). E In both (b) and (c) of the corners of the
cross-section of the stressed element at
the weld toes should be dressed to a
smooth profile.
Note that step changes in thickness are in
general, not permitted under fatigue t
conditions, but that where the thickness
of the thicker member is not greater than
1.15 × the thickness of the thinner e = eccentricity of
member, the change can be centerlines
accommodated in the weld profile
without any machining. Step changes in
width lead to large reductions in strength
(see joint Type 3.3).
Type number, description and notes on Class Explanatory comments Examples, including failure modes
mode of failure
3.2 Parent metal adjacent to, or weld metal F Note that if the backing strip is fillet
in, full penetration butt joints made on a welded or tack welded to the member the
permanent backing strip between plates joint could be reduced to Class G (joint
of equal width and thickness or with Type 4.2).
differences in width and thickness
machined to a smooth transition not No tack welds
steeper than 1 in 4.
3.3 Parent metal adjacent to, or weld metal in, F2 Step changes in width can often be avoided
full penetration butt welded joints made from by the use of shaped transition plates,
both sides between plates of unequal width, arranged so as to enable butt welds to be
with the weld ends ground to a radius not less made between plates of equal width.
than 1.25 times the thickness t. Note that for this detail the stress r ≥ 1.25t
concentration has been taken into account in t
the joint classification.
4.3 Parent metal (of the stressed member) at the Note that this classification does not apply to
toe of a butt weld connecting the stressed fillet welded joints (see joint Type 5.1b).
member to another member slotted through However it does apply to loading in either
it. direction (L or T in the sketch).
T
(a) With the length of the slotted-through F
member, parallel to the direction of the
applied stress, ≤ 150 mm and edge distance L
≥ 10 mm. L
Type number, description and notes on Class Explanatory comments Examples, including failure modes
mode of failure
TYPE 5 LOAD-CARRYING FILLET AND T BUTT WELDS
Notes on potential modes of failure
Failure in cruciform or T joints with full penetration welds will normally initiate at the weld toe, but in joints made with load-carrying fillet or partial penetration
butt welds cracking may initiate either at the weld toe and propagate into the plate or at the weld root and propagate through the weld. In welds parallel to the
direction of the applied stress, however, weld failure is uncommon; cracks normally initiate at the weld end and propagate into the plate perpendicular to the
direction of applied stress. The stress concentration is increased, and the fatigue strength is therefore reduced, if the weld end is located on or adjacent to the edge
of a stressed member rather than on its surface.
5.1 Joint description
Parent metal adjacent to cruciform Member Y can be regarded as one with X
joints or T joints (member marked X in a non-load-carrying weld (see joint Y
sketches Type 4.1). Note that in this instance the
edge distance limitation applies.
X
(a) Joint made with full penetration welds F
and with any undercutting at the corners
of the member dressed out by local X
grinding. Y
X
Y
(b) Joint made with partial penetration or F2 In this type of joint, failure is likely to X
fillet welds with any undercutting at the occur in the weld throat unless the weld is
comers of the member dressed out by made sufficiently large (see joint Type
local grinding. 5.4).
X
Y
5.2 Parent metal adjacent to the toe of load- The relevant stress in member X should
carrying fillet welds which are be calculated on the assumption that its Edge
essentially transverse to the direction of effective width is the same as the width distance
applied stress (member X in sketch). of member Y. Y
Type number, description and notes on Class Explanatory comments Examples, including failure modes
mode of failure
6.1 Parent metal at the toe of a weld Edge distance refers to distance from a
connecting a stiffener, diaphragm, etc. free, i.e. unwelded, edge. In this
to a girder flange. example, therefore, it is not relevant as
far as the (welded) edge of the
(a) Edge distance ≥ 10mm (see joint Type F Web plate is concerned. For reason for
4.2). edge distance see note on joint Edge
distance
(b) Edge Distance < 10 mm. G Type 2.
6.2 Parent metal at the end of a weld E This classification includes all
connecting a stiffener, diaphragm, etc. attachments to girder webs.
to a girder web in a region of combined
bending and shear.
Type number, description and notes on Class Explanatory comments Examples, including failure modes
mode of failure
7.3 Gusseted connections made with full F Note that the design stress must include
penetration or fillet welds. (But note that any local bending stress adjacent to the
full penetration welds are normally weld end.
required).
7.4 Parent material at the toe of a weld F Stress should include the stress
attaching a diaphragm or stiffener to a concentration factor due to overall shape
tubular member. of adjoining structure.
7.5 Parent material adjacent to the toes of In this type of joint the stress should
circumferential butt welds between tubes. include the stress concentration factor to
allow for any thickness change and for
fabrication tolerances.
(a) Weld made from both sides with the weld C The significance of defects should be
overfill dressed flush with the surface and determined with the aid of specialist
with the weld proved free from significant advice and/or by the use of fracture
defects by non-destructive examination. mechanics analysis. The NDT technique
should be selected with a view to ensuring
the detection of such significant defects.
(b) Weld made from both sides. E
(c) Weld made from one side on a permanent F
backing strip.
(d) Weld made from one side without a F2 Note that step changes in thickness are in
backing strip provided that full penetration general, not permitted under fatigue
is achieved. conditions, but that where the thickness of
the thicker member is not greater than
1.15 × the thickness of the thinner
member, the change can be
accommodated in the weld profile without
any machining.
7.6 Parent material at the toes of C Class and stress should be those
circumferential butt welds between E corresponding to the joint type as
tubular and conical sections. F indicated in 7.5, but the stress must also
F2 include the stress concentration factor due
to overall form of the joint.
7.7 Parent material (of the stressed member) F Class depends on attachment length
adjacent to the toes of bevel butt or fillet or (see Type 4.1) but stress should include
welded attachments in a region of stress F2 the stress concentration factor due to the
concentration overall shape of adjoining structure.
Type number, description and notes on Class Explanatory comments Examples, including failure modes
mode of failure
7.8 Parent metal adjacent to, or weld metal in, D In this situation the relevant stress should
welds around a penetration through the include the stress concentration factor due
wall of a member (on a plane essentially to the overall geometry of the detail.
perpendicular to the direction of stress).
Note that full penetration welds are stress
normally required in this situation.
7.9 Weld metal in partial penetration or fillet W The stress in the weld should include an section x x
welded joints around a penetration appropriate stress concentration factor to
through the wall of a member (on a plane allow for the overall joint geometry.
essentially parallel to the direction of
stress).
stress
Several parametric formulae have been produced for the prediction of SCFs for tubular joints, based
on data from both physical and FE models.
Simple Joints
A2/Table 1 indicates acceptable formulae for the prediction of SCFs for simple joints. These have
been validated against data from large scale steel models and also checked against data from acrylic
models and have been shown to provide acceptable predictions.
Overlapped Joints
Parametric formulae for the prediction of SCFs in overlapped joints have been published (Efthymiou
1988). They have not been validated because of the limited database available.
Stiffened Joints
Parametric SCF formulae for ring-stiffened joints have been developed from acrylic model test data
(Smedley and Fisher 1990), which give the brace/chord intersection SCFs in terms of the equivalent,
unstiffened joint SCFS. Equations to predict the SCF at the ring inner edge have also been given
(Smedley and Fisher 1990).
*
The contents of Appendix 2 have been adapted from publications of the U.K. Health and Safety Executive. Permission from the Health and Safety
Executive to use the source material is gratefully acknowledged.
TABLE 1
SCF Matrix Tables for X, K and T/Y Joints
X Joints
Chordside Y Y
Balanced O.P.B
Braceside Y Y
Chordside Y Y
Balanced I.P.B
Braceside Y Y
K Joints
Chordside Y Y
Unbalanced O.P.B
Braceside Y Y
Chordside Y Y
Balanced I.P.B
Braceside YC Y
T/Y Joints
Chordside Y Y
O.P.B
Braceside Y Y
Chordside Y Y
I.P.B
Braceside Y X
Key to A2/Table 1
Y Recommend the equation
YC Recommend the equation – but note that the equation is generally conservative
X Not recommend the equation, since it fails to meet the acceptance criteria
X* The equation cannot be recommended since there are less than 15 steel and
acrylic joints in the SCF database.
Efthy Efthymiou Equations (Efthymiou 1988)
S&F Smedley and Fisher Equations (Smedley and Fisher 1991)
NB For X Joints For the chord crown under axial load, the database is too small to recommend any
equation. It is recommended that the chord saddle SCF be applied at all
periphery locations unless another appropriate method is established.
References
P. Smedley and P. Fisher (1990), ‘A Review of Stress Concentration Factors for Complex Tubular
Joints’, Integrity of Offshore Structures Conference, Glasgow
P. Smedley and P. Fisher (1991), ‘Stress Concentration Factors for Simple Tubular Joints’, ISOPE
M. Efthymiou (1988), ‘Development of SCF Formulae and Generalized Influence Functions for Use
in Fatigue Analyses’, Proceedings of Offshore Tubular Joints Conference, Surrey [with corrections]
1 General
This Appendix is referred to in Sections 3 and 4. It is provided for the use of clients who are required
to apply the fatigue criteria cited by the U.S. Minerals Management Service (MMS) for a steel
Offshore Structure. The MMS regulations indicate compliance is required with cited U.S. based
practices and codes. For steel Offshore Structures, the main criteria referred to for fatigue are those
provided in various Recommended Practice documents issued by the American Petroleum Institute
(API); i.e. RP 2A, RP 2T, and RP 2FPS. The API RPs in turn make reference to other U.S. based
standards, such as those issued by the American Welding Society (AWS).
Appendix 3, Table 1 presents the FDF values and the applicable S-N curves for various types of:
offshore structures, structural details, detail locations and other considerations. The ‘Notes for Table
1’, listed after the table, must be observed when using the table.
TABLE 1
Fatigue Design Factors for Structural Details**
** The minimum Factor to be applied to uninspectable ‘ordinary’ or uninspectable ‘critical’
structural details is 5 or 10, respectively.
STRUCTURAL DETAIL (3) GOVERNING APPLICATION (1)
FATIGUE STRENGTH CATEGORY**
CRITERIA
LOCATION ORDINARY CRITICAL (2)
(4)
Structural Subsystem Type
FIXED & FLOATING INSTALLATION
ABOVE WATER STRUCTURE
Non-Integral Deck (5) Non Tubular (7) AWS (13) 2 3
Tubular API 2 3
Intersection (8)
Integral Deck (6) Non Tubular AWS (13) 3 5
Tubular API 3 5
Intersection
IN WATER & SUBMERGED STRUCTURE (9)
Fixed Non-Floating Non Tubular ABS- (CP) (17) 2 3
Structure Tubular API 2 3
(e.g. fixed jacket, tower and Intersection
template)
(10)
Fixed Floating Structure Non Tubular ABS- (CP) 3 5
(e.g. TLP, Column Tubular API 3 5
Stabilized & SPAR; but Intersection
excluding Ship-type &
MODU (15))
Foundation Components (12) ABS- (CP) or NA 10
API (for Tubular NA 10
Intersection Details)
MOORING COMPONENTS (14) ABS FPI Guide (11) NA 3
(14)
TLP TENDON See Note 16 NA 10
4 At an interface connection between structural subsystems, the higher (more demanding) of the two applicable requirements
shall apply on both sides of the interface connection.
5 ‘Non-Integral Deck Structure’ means the deck is not essential for the structural integrity of the structural subsystem
supporting the deck.
6 ‘Integral Deck Structure’ means the deck structure is an essential component of the structural integrity of the overall
platform structure [e.g. the deck structure spanning the columns of a TLP or a Column Stabilized type platform.]
7 ‘Non-Tubular’ means both non-tubular details (also called ‘plate details’) and non-intersecting tubular details (e.g. butt joints
of tubular members and attachments to tubular members)
8 ‘Tubular Intersection’ refers to the nodal connections of tubular brace (branch) members with a tubular chord member.
9 This region is defined as being from the top of the air-gap down to the seabed and beneath to the bottom of the foundation
elements (e.g. pile tips). But, for a non-integral deck and for the purposes of the fatigue assessment only, this region can be
defined as being from the ‘deck to jacket (or hull) connection’ down to (and below) the seabed.
10 Internal structural tanks that are used for the (non-permanent) storage of seawater may be designed to the ABS- (A) criteria
provided:
• complete recoating is planned to occur in or before the 10th year of structural life,
• an effective coating system is provided to the entire tank (to be considered effective, there should be appropriate surface
preparation prior to coating, appropriate application and monitoring of a 2 coat epoxy coating, or at least an equally
effective coating),
• the space is accessible for close-up visual inspection to assess coating condition, and
• arrangements are provided to perform local coating renewal at weld detail locations.
11 Refer to API RP 2SK concerning the components and criteria to be assessed.
12 The factor listed is applicable to the in-place condition. Other criteria may be considered when assessing the installation
condition.
13 AWS Criteria may have limitations regarding available geometry, material thickness and corrosiveness.
14 The appropriate criteria to be used for cast structural components will be specially considered.
15 The fatigue assessment of a MODU (e.g. Column Stabilized and Self Elevating types) typically employs the ABS (A) or
(CP) criteria, as applicable, with a Fatigue Design Factor of 1.0 for the structural details required by the MODU Rules to
undergo a fatigue assessment.
16 Requires special consideration. For guidance, use may be made of AWS C1 or API X curve for tendon girth welds, but see
also note 13 regarding AWS criteria. The acceptability of these AWS and API S-N curves requires very high quality NDT of
the welds, and appropriate corrosion protection via coating, cathodic protection or both.
17 In the ‘splash zone’ (see OI Rules 3/3.5.5b), the use of the ABS (FC) S-N curves may be required.