Norsok n-003 Actions and Action Effects

NORSOK STANDARD N-003
Edition 2, September 2007
Actions and action effects
This NORSOK standard is developed with broad petroleum industry participation by interested parties in the
Norwegian petroleum industry and is owned by the Norwegian petroleum industry represented by The Norwegian
Oil Industry Association (OLF) and The Federation of Norwegian Industry. Please note that whilst every effort has
been made to ensure the accuracy of this NORSOK standard, neither OLF nor The Federation of Norwegian
Industry or any of their members will assume liability for any use thereof. Standards Norway is responsible for the
administration and publication of this NORSOK standard.
Standards Norway Telephone: + 47 67 83 86 00
Strandveien 18, P.O. Box 242 Fax: + 47 67 83 86 01
N-1326 Lysaker Email: [email protected]
NORWAY Website: www.standard.no/petroleum
Copyrights reserved
NORSOK standard N-003 Edition 2, September 2007
Foreword 2
Introduction 2
1 Scope 3
2 Normative and informative references 3
2.1 Normative references 3
2.2 Informative references 3
3 Terms, definitions, abbreviations and symbols 5
3.1 Terms and definitions 5
3.2 Abbreviations 5
3.3 Symbols 6
4 Permanent actions 7
4.1 General 7
4.2 Hydrostatic pressure difference 7
5 Variable actions 7
5.1 General 7
5.2 Crane actions 7
5.3 Deck area actions 8
5.4 Tank pressures and tank weight 9
5.5 Variable actions in temporary phases 10
6 Environmental actions 10
6.1 General 10
6.2 Hydrodynamic actions 11
6.3 Wind actions 23
6.4 Snow and ice actions 25
6.5 Earthquake actions 27
6.6 Other issues relating to environmental actions 29
6.7 Combinations of environmental actions 30
7 Deformation actions 31
7.1 General 31
7.2 Temperature actions 31
7.3 Actions due to fabrication 31
7.4 Actions due to settlement of foundations 32
8 Accidental actions 33
8.1 General 33
8.2 Fires and explosions 34
8.3 Impact actions 36
8.4 Buoyancy loss due to subsea gas blow-out 38
8.5 Loss of heading control 38
8.6 Abnormal variable actions 38
8.7 Actions on a floating structure in damaged condition 38
8.8 Combination of accidental actions 38
9 Action combinations 38
9.1 Normal operation 38
9.2 Temporary conditions 39
10 Action effect analyses 40
10.1 General 40
10.2 Global motion analysis 41
10.3 Action effects in structures and soil/foundation 49
10.4 Extreme action effects for ultimate limit states 54
10.5 Repetitive action effects for fatigue limit states 55
10.6 Accidental damage limit state (ALS) analyses 55
Bibliography 57
NORSOK standard Page 1 of 57

Foreword
The NORSOK standards are developed by the Norwegian petroleum industry to ensure adequate safety,
value adding and cost effectiveness for petroleum industry developments and operations. Furthermore,
NORSOK standards are, as far as possible, intended to replace oil company specifications and serve as
references in the authorities' regulations.
The NORSOK standards are normally based on recognised international standards, adding the provisions
deemed necessary to fill the broad needs of the Norwegian petroleum industry. Where relevant, NORSOK
standards will be used to provide the Norwegian industry input to the international standardisation process.
Subject to development and publication of international standards, the relevant NORSOK standard will be
withdrawn.
The NORSOK standards are developed according to the consensus principle generally applicable for most
standards work and according to established procedures defined in NORSOK A-001.
The NORSOK standards are prepared and published with support by The Norwegian Oil Industry Association
(OLF), The Federation of Norwegian Industry, Norwegian Shipowners' Association and The Petroleum Safety
Authority Norway.
NORSOK standards are administered and published by Standards Norway.
Introduction
The principal standard for offshore structures is NORSOK N-001, Structural design, which especially refers to
ISO 19900, Petroleum and natural gas industries - General requirements for offshore structures.
It is the intention to revise this NORSOK standard as soon as the International Standards covering the scope
of this NORSOK standard have been published.

1 Scope
This NORSOK standard specifies general principles and guidelines for determination of actions and action
effects for the structural design and the design verification of structures.
This NORSOK standard is applicable to all types of offshore structures used in the petroleum activities,
including bottom-founded structures as well as floating structures.
This NORSOK standard is applicable to the design of complete structures including substructures, topside
structures, vessel hulls, foundations, mooring systems, risers and subsea installations.
This NORSOK standard is applicable to the different stages of construction (namely fabrication,
transportation and installation), to the use of the structure during its intended life, and to its abandonment.
Aspects related to verification and quality control are also addressed.
2 Normative and informative references
2.1 Normative references
The following standards include provisions and guidelines which, through reference in this text, constitute
provisions and guidelines of this NORSOK standard. Latest issue of the references shall be used unless
otherwise agreed. Other recognized standards may be used provided it can be shown that they meet the
requirements of the referenced standards.
API RP 2A-LRFD, Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and
Resistance Factor Design, Clause 17
Det Norske Veritas, Classification note No. 30.5 Environmental conditions and Environmental
loads, Oslo 2000
NOTE DNV CN 30.5 will be replaced by DNV RP C205 in 2007
ISO 2103:1986, Loads due to use and occupancy in residential and public buildings
ISO 19901-1, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Specific requirements for offshore
structures – Part 1: Motocean design and operating considerations
ISO/DIS 19902, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Fixed steel offshore structures
NCAA Regulations, Regulations relating to commercial aviation to and from helicopter decks on
fixed and mobile offshore installations, Bestemmelser for sivil luftfart (BSL)
D5-1, Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority
NMD Regulations No. 856, Regulations of 4 September 1987 No. 856 concerning construction of mobile
offshore structures: issued with amendments 1997)
NMD Regulations No. 857, Regulations of 4 September 1987 No. 857 concerning anchoring/positioning
on mobile offshore units (issued with amendments 1997)
NMD Regulations No. 878, Regulations of 20 December 1991 No. 878 concerning stability, watertight
subdivision and water tight/weather tight closing means on mobile offshore
units
NMD Regulations No. 123, Regulations of 10 February 1994 No. 123 for mobile offshore units with
production plants and equipment
NORSOK N-001, Structural design
Sarpkaya T and Isaacson M., Mechanics of wave forces on offshore structures, New York (1981)
2.2 Informative references
Andersen and Løvseth (1992), Andersen, O.J and Løvseth, J. (1992): “The Maritime Turbulent Wind Field.
Measurements and Models” Final Report for Task 4 of the Statoil Joint
Industry project, ALLFORSK, Norwegian University of Science and
Technology
API RP 2N, Planning, Designing and Constructing Structures and Pipelines for Arctic
Conditions (1995)
Barltrop and Adams (1991), Barltrop, N.D.P. and Adams, A.J. 1991: ”Dynamics of Fixed Marine
Structures”, MTD/Butterworth-Heinemann.

Der Kiureghian (1980), Der Kiureghian, A., 1980: “Probabilistic Modal Combination for Earthquake
Loading”, Proc. 7th World Conf. On Earthquake Engng., Istanbul, Turkey
DNV Rules for Classification of Ships DNV-OS-C102, Det Norske Veritas ”Structural Design of Offshore
Ships”, Oslo (2000)
DNV-OS-E301, Det Norske Veritas ”Position mooring”, (2001)
DNV-OS-F201, Det Norske Veritas, “Dynamic Risers”, Oslo (2001)
ENV 1991-2-2, Eurocode 1: Part 2-2: Actions on structures exposed to fire (1995)
ENV 1991-2-4, Eurocode 1: Part 2-4: Wind actions (1995)
Eriksrød and Ålandsvik (1997), Eriksrød, G. and Ådlandsvik, B., 1997: “Bottom Temperature along the Mid-
Norwegian Shelf, Havforskningsinstituttet, Bergen.
Gjevik, Nøst and Straume (1990), Gjevik B, Nøst E. and Straume T., 1990: “Atlas of tides on the shelves of
the Norwegian and the Barents Seas”, Department of mathematics, Oslo
Herfjord and Nielsen (1991), Herfjord, K. and Nielsen, F. G. 1991: “Motion response of floating production
units: results from a comparative study on computer programs”, OMAE,
Stavanger.
Kaplan et al (1995), Kaplan, P., Murray, J.J. and Yu, W.C., 1995: “Theoretical Analysis of Wave
Impact Forces on Platform Deck Structures”, Proc. OMAE Conf., Vol. I-A, pp
189-198
Kleiven and Haver (2003), Kleiven, G. and Haver, S., 2003: “Application of Environmental Contour Lines
for Predicting Design Response”, Report PTT-KU-MA-2002/018, Rev. 2003-
05-05, Statoil, Stavanger.
Krokstad et al. (1996), Krokstad, J.R, Stansberg, C. T, Nestegård, A, and Marthinsen, T, 1996: “A
th
new non-slender load approach verified against experiments”, Proc. 15
OMAE, ASME, New York.
ISO 19901-7, Petroleum and natural gas industries – Specific requirements for offshore
structures – Part 7: Stationkeeping systems for floating offshore structures
and mobile offshore units
NFR/NORSAR (1998), NFR/NORSAR,1998. “Seismic Zonation for Norway”, Norwegian Council for
Building Standardization (NBR), Oslo, 1998
NORSOK N-002, Collection of metocean data
NORSOK J-003, Marine operations
NORSOK N-004, Steel structures
NORSOK S-001, Technical safety
NORSOK U-001, Subsea structures and piping systems
NORSOK Z-013, Risk and Emergency Preparednes Analysis (Rev. 2, 2001)
NS 3491-3, Prosjektering av konstruksjoner – Dimensjonerende laster – Del 3: Snølaster
(innbefatter rettelsesblad AC:2002) (Design of structures – Design actions –
Part 3: Snow loads (Corrigendum AC-2002 incorporated)
OCIMF (1994), “Prediction of Wind and Current Loads on VLCCs” Oil Companies
International Marine Forum, Second Ed.
Oppen (1996), Oppen, A. N., 1996: “Vortex induced vibrations evaluation of design criteria”,
Statoil report 95337, Stavanger
Ridley (1982), Ridley J.A., 1982: “A study of some theoretical aspects of slamming”, NMI
report R 158, OT-R-82113, London
SCI, 1992-1999: “Interim Guidance Notes for the Design and Protection of Topside Structures
against Explosion and Fire”, Steel Construction Institute, Document SCI-P-
112/503
Supplementary Technical Notes:
- TN1: Fire resistance design of offshore topside structures, 1993
- TN2: Explosion Mitigation Systems, 1994
- TN4: Explosion Resistant Design of Offshore Structures, 1996
- TN5: Design Guide for Stainless Steel Blast Walls, 1999
SNAME (2002), “Guideline for site specific assessment of Mobile Jack-up units”, Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (USA)
Stansberg (1992), Stansberg, C.T., 1992: “Model Scale Experiments on Extreme Slow-drift
Motions in Irregular Waves”, Proc. Sixth Boss Conf., BPP Technical Services
Ltd., London
Torsethaugen (2004), Torsethaugen, K., 2004: “ Simplified double peak spectral model for ocean
waves, SINTEF, STF80 A048052, SINTEF Fisheries and Aquaculture,
Trondheim
Vefsnmo et al (1990), Vefsnmo, S. Mathiesen, M., Løvås, S. M. 1990: “IDAP 90 - Statistical
analysis of sea ice data”, Norges Hydrodynamiske Laboratorier, Trondheim
Veritec (1988), Veritec, 1988: “Handbook of Accidental Loads”, Oslo

Winterstein et al. (1993) Winterstein, S.R., Ude, T.C., Cornell, C.A., Bjerager, P. and Haver, S., 1994:
“Environmental parameters for Extreme Response: Inverse FORM with
Omission Factors”, Proc. ICOSSAR-1993, Balkema, Rotterdam, pp. 551-
557.
3 Terms, definitions, abbreviations and symbols
3.1 Terms and definitions
For the purposes of this NORSOK standard, the following terms, definitions, abbreviations and symbols
apply.
3.1.1
can
verbal form used for statements of possibility and capability, whether material, physical or casual.
3.1.2
design premises
set of project specific design data and functional requirements which are not specified or are left open in the
general standard.
3.1.3
may
verbal form used to indicate a course of action permissible within the limits of the standard
3.1.4
petroleum activities
offshore drilling, production, treatment and storage of hydrocarbons.
3.1.5
shall
verbal form used to indicate requirements strictly to be followed in order to conform to the standard and from
which no deviation is permitted, unless accepted by all involved parties
3.1.6
should
verbal form used to indicate that among several possibilities one is recommended as particularly suitable,
without mentioning or excluding others, or that a certain course of action is preferred but not necessarily
required
3.1.7
verification
examination to confirm that an activity, a product or a service is in accordance with specified requirements
3.2 Abbreviations
ALS accidental damage limit state
API American Petroleum Institute
CQC complete quadratic combination
DAF dynamic amplification factor
DIS draft International Standard
DNV Det Norske Veritas
DP dynamic positioning
FE finite element
FLS fatigue limit state
HF high frequency
ISO International Organisation for Standardisation
KC Keulegan-Carpenter number

LF low frequency (lower than wave frequency)

NCAA Norwegian Civil Aviation Authority
NMD Norwegian Maritime Directorate
NFR Norges Forskningsråd (The Research Council of Norway)
NS Norsk Standard (Norwegian Standard)
P-∆ effect second order effect of an axial force (P) due to a lateral displacement, ∆
SLS serviceability limit state
SN stress range (S) versus number of cycles to failure (N)
SRSS square root of sum of squares
TLP tension leg platform
ULS ultimate limit state
VIV vortex induced vibrations
WF wave frequency
3.3 Symbols
A area
C coefficient
C damping matrix
CD drag coefficient
CM mass coefficient
CS shape coefficient for wind action
D diameter of a cylinder
H height of a regular wave
Hd design (regular) wave height
Hs significant wave height
-2
H100 wave height with annual probability of exceedance of 10
In( ) turbulence intensity factor
KC Keulegan-Carpenter number
K stiffness matrix
M mass matrix
Nx number of zero upcrossing of X
Re Reynolds number
S(ω) power spectral density
S action effect
T period of a regular wave
Ti intrinsic wave period
Tp spectral peak period
X displacement of the structure
&
X time derivative of X
XLF displacement induced by low frequency wave actions or dynamic wind
XWF displacement induced by wave frequency actions
U0 reference particle velocity in waves or wind speed
U particle velocity
Um mean particle velocity
UR relative velocity between structure and fluid
URN relative velocity normal to the member
u(z,t) wind speed
f action reduction factor (defined in Table 1)
fX(x) probability density function
hD dynamic pressure head due to flow through pipes
hpc vertical distance from the action point to the max filling point
hs vertical distance from the action point to the top of the tank
po valve opening pressure
pi pressure
p distributed action
P point action
t time
tr reference time
z vertical coordinate (zero at water surface)
zr reference value of z
α angle between the direction of wind and exposed surface
θ wave direction

θm mean wave direction in a short-term sea state

σX standard deviation of X
ρ density
ζ percentage of damping
4 Permanent actions
4.1 General
Permanent actions are actions that will not vary in magnitude, position or direction during the time period
considered. Examples are
a) weight of the structure,

b) weight of permanent ballast and equipment, including mooring and risers,
c) external hydrostatic pressure up to the mean water level,
d) pretension.
4.2 Hydrostatic pressure difference

Structural components subjected to high counteracting hydrostatic pressures, such as external walls with
more than 100 m of differential water pressure height, should be designed taking into account the effect of
possible variation in level and density, dimension tolerances, measuring inaccuracies and other uncertainties
affecting the pressure difference. Unless documented otherwise by detailed analyses of operations, the
minimum pressure difference for ultimate limit state should be at least equal to the smallest of one tenth of
the maximum pressure and 0,1 MPa.
5 Variable actions
5.1 General
Variable actions originate from normal operation of the structure and vary in position magnitude and direction
during the period considered. They include those from
a) persons,
b) helicopters,
c) lifeboats,
d) cranes,
e) tank pressures,
f) stored liquids and goods,
g) modules and structural parts that can be removed,
h) boat impact, fendering and mooring,
i) weight of gas and liquid in process plants,
j) pressure and temperature,
k) variable ballast,
l) installation and drilling operations.
Assumptions regarding variable actions shall be reflected in the operating manual, and complied with in
operation. Possible deviations from the assumed value due to operational errors or mechanical failure or
damage shall be treated as accidental actions, see clause 8.
5.2 Crane actions

Crane actions shall be determined with due account of dynamic effects due to, and, if applicable, the motions
of the installation.
Fatigue calculations shall be carried out based on expected frequency of crane usage, the magnitude of
actions, dynamic effects from wind, loading and discharging of ships and if applicable from motions of the
installation.

5.3 Deck area actions

Variable actions on deck areas of the topside structure shall be based on Table 1 unless specified otherwise
in the design premises. The intensity of the distributed actions depends on local/global aspects of the deck
structure as shown in Table 1. The following notations are used:
Local design: design of deck plates and stiffeners

Primary design: design of deck beams and beam-columns
Global design: design of deck main structure (and substructure)
Table 1 – Variable actions in deck areas
Area Local design Primary design Global design

See NOTE 5
Distribution action, p Point action, P Apply factor given below Apply factor given
2
(kN/m ) (kN) to distributed action, p below to distributed
action, p
Storage areas q 1,5 q 1,0 1,0
Laydown areas q 1,5 q f f
Lifeboat platforms 9,00 9,00 1,0 may be ignored
Area between 5,00 5,00 f may be ignored
equipment
Walkways, 4,00 4,00 f may be ignored
staircases and
platforms
Walkways and 3,00 3,00 f may be ignored
staircases for
inspection and repair
only
Roofs, accessible for 1,00 2,00 1,0 may be ignored
inspection and repair
only
NOTE 1 Wheel actions to be added to distributed actions, where relevant. Wheel actions can normally be considered acting on an area of
300 mm x 300 mm.
NOTE 2 Point actions to be applied on an area 100 mm x 100 mm, and at the most severe position, but not added to wheel actions or
distributed actions.
NOTE 3 q is to be evaluated for each case. Storage areas for cement, wet or dry mud should be the maximum of 13 kN/m2 and ρgH,
where H is the storage height in m. Laydown areas not normally to be designed for less than 15 kN/m2.
NOTE 4 f is the minimum of 1,0 and (0,5 + 3/A0,5), where A is the action area in m2.
NOTE 5 Global action cases should be established based upon “worst case”, representative variable action combinations, complying with
the limiting global criteria to the structure. For buoyant structures these criteria are established by requirements to the floating position in
still water and intact and damage stability requirements, as documented in the operational manual, considering variable actions on the deck
and in tanks.
For actions on floors in accommodation and office sections, see ISO 2103:1986.
Guard rails should be designated for the following actions:
• a horisontal line action of 1,5 kN/m acting on the handrail;

• a point action of 1,0 kN acting in worst location and worst direction (horisontal or vertical). The point action
does not act together with the horisontal line action;
• actions from possible attachments shall be established for each case;
• actions on guard rails in areas with cargo handling should be determined with due account of relevant
operational conditions.

5.4 Tank pressures and tank weight
5.4.1 Hydrostatic pressures

Hydrostatic pressures in tanks should normally be based on a minimum density equal to that of sea water.
For tanks dedicated to fluids with a lower density, the actual density may be used.
Tanks for heavier fluids (e.g. mud) should be based on special consideration.
The density upon which the scantlings of individual tanks are based, shall be given in the operating manual.
Hydrostatic pressure heads shall be based on approved tank filling by e.g. pumping gravitational effect as
well as venting arrangements.
A "load-on-top" system-installed to limit the pressure to hpc can be taken into account.
Pumping pressures can be limited by installing an appropriate alarm and auto-pump cut-off system. In such a
situation the pressure head can be taken to be the cut-off pressure head hpc.
Dynamic pressure heads resulting from filling through pipes by pumping are to be included in the design
pressure head.
The maximum internal pressure in full tanks is to be taken as the largest of p1 and p2 given below:
p1 = ρ g (h pc + hD ) (kN / m 2 ) (1)
where
hpc is the- vertical distance (m) from the action point to the position of max filling height. If no control devices
are used, the pressure height should be considered to be top of the air pipe. For tanks adjacent to the sea
that are situated below the extreme operational draught (TE), hpc is not to be taken to be less than TE
hD is the dynamic pressure head due to flow through pipes
p 2 = ρ g hs + p 0 (kN / m 2 ) (2)
where
hs is the vertical distance (m) from the action point to the top of the tank
2
p0 is 25 kN/m in general or thevalve opening pressure when it exceeds the general value
For in-deck tanks of topside structures, without opening valves, the pressure should be taken to be p1 .
Situations where the planned pressure head is exceeded should be considered as a possible ALS condition.
For external plates facing the sea the relevant condition of external pressure should be considered. For
internal plates the maximum pressure on each side should normally not be assumed to occur simultaneously.
The tank pressures given in this section refer to static pressures only. When hydrostatic pressure is
combined with hydrodynamic pressure caused by the motion of the installation, the pressure p1 shall be used
with the dynamic pressure (hD) due to flow resistance in the pipe neglected.
5.4.2 Ballast
Tanks, pipes, etc. shall be designed to resist local pressures as described in 5.4.1.
The structure should be designed to resist the maximum uneven distribution of fluid consumables and ballast
in tanks that may occur during fabrication, installation and operation.
Pressure actions that may occur during emptying of water or oil filled structural parts for condition monitoring;
maintenance or repair shall be evaluated.

5.5 Variable actions in temporary phases

Lifting actions are imposed on the installation or parts thereof during fabrication and installation phases. Such
actions should be determined with due consideration of weight and weight growth, shift of centre of gravity,
dynamic effects as well as fabrication and sling tolerances.
Guidance on actions and action effects during marine operations may be found in NORSOK J-003.
6 Environmental actions
6.1 General
6.1.1 Environmental conditions

The parameters describing the environmental conditions shall be based on observations from or in the vicinity
of the relevant location and on general knowledge about the environmental conditions in the area. Existing
information does not suggest significant corrections due to long-term climatological changes, such as the
greenhouse effect, which are neglected. Data for the joint occurrence of e.g. wave, wind and current
conditions should be aimed at.
According to the regulations, the environmental actions shall be determined with stipulated probabilities of
exceedance. Characteristic actions for the design of structures in the in-place condition are defined by annual
-2 -4
exceedance probabilities of 10 and 10 . The statistical analysis of measured data or simulated data should
make use of different statistical methods to evaluate the sensitivity of the result. The validation of distributions
with respect to data should be tested by means of recognised methods.
The analysis of the data shall be based on the longest possible time period for the relevant area. In the case
of short time series the statistical uncertainty should be accounted for when determining design values. Hind
casting can be used to extend measured time series, or to interpolate to places where measured data have
not been collected. In this case the hind casting model shall be calibrated against measured data, to ensure
that the hind cast statistics results comply with measured data available.
Response in irregular waves should be estimated with due account of the inherent statistical variation.
Different realizations of the most critical sea states should, therefore, be used in numerical simulations as
well as experimental prediction of the extreme response under such conditions.
6.1.2 Determination of characteristic actions

Actions shall be determined by analysis. When theoretical predictions are subjected to significant
uncertainties, theoretical calculations shall be supported by model tests or observations of existing structures
or by a combination of such tests and observations.
Hydrodynamic model tests should be carried out to
a) confirm that no important hydrodynamic action has been overlooked (for new types of installations,
environmental conditions, adjacent structure),
b) support theoretical calculations when available analytical methods are susceptible to large uncertainties,
c) verify theoretical methods on a general basis.
Wind tunnel tests should be carried out when
a) wind actions are significant for overall stability, motions or structural response,
b) when available theoretical methods are susceptible to large uncertainties (e.g. due to new type of
installations or adjacent installation affects the relevant installation) in order to support or replace
theoretical calculations completely,
c) there is a danger of dynamic instability.
When the wind conditions are determined for helicopter decks and structures with large motion, wind model
tests should, as a rule, be carried out. The Norwegian Maritime Directorate’s regulations of 4 September
1987 concerning construction of mobile installations may be regarded as recognised standard for wind tunnel
tests.
Model tests may also be relevant to investigate combined wave- and wind effects.

Theoretical models for calculation of actions from icebergs or drift ice should be checked against model tests
or full-scale measurements.
Proof tests of the structure may be necessary to confirm assumptions made in the design. Hence, inclining
tests of buoyant structures should be carried out to demonstrate the location of the centre of gravity.
In model tests it is important that the model has sufficient similarity to the actual installation and that the test
set-up and registration system provide a basis for reliable, repeatable interpretation, see 10.2.7.
Full-scale measurements may be used to update the response prediction of the relevant structure and to
validate the response analysis for future analysis. Such measurements may be applied to reduce
uncertainties associated with actions and action effects which are difficult to simulate in model scale.
However, reliable full-scale measurements require sufficient instrumentation and logging of environmental
conditions and responses, see 10.2.8.
6.2 Hydrodynamic actions
6.2.1 Wave data

If wave actions are of major importance for the design, and wave observations at the given or adjacent
locations are limited, further wave data should be recorded according to the requirements of NORSOK N-002
concerning environmental data. If limited measurements have been carried out in the area in question,
appropriately conservative values should be selected, e.g. by using those given in Figure 1, in order to deal
with this uncertainty. Measured data may be replaced by hind cast predictions as indicated in 6.1.
If the directional extremes (sea states or design waves) are to be used for calculating characteristic actions,
i.e. for the design of a directionally optimized structure, it should be verified that the actions correspond to the
target annual exceedance probabilities. This can be done by doing a full long term analysis where
exceedance probabilities are properly considered for the various sea states characterized by Hs, Tp and θm,
where θm is the mean direction of wave propagation.
6.2.2 Wave models
6.2.2.1 General
Waves may be specified by
a) a long-term descripton of the sea state climate together with a short-term description of the individual
waves in each sea state, see 6.2.2.2,
b) a short-term design sea state and a description of the individual waves in the sea state, see 6.2.2.3,
c) a design wave, see 6.2.2.4,
and recognised wave theories.
6.2.2.2 Long-term variation

The variation of waves over a long-term period of several years can be described by a number of stationary
sea states each represented by a wave spectrum and a mean direction θ,m (see 6.2.2.3), together with the
frequency of occurrence of the main spectral parameters (Hs, Tp) and the mean direction, θ,m. A joint
probability density function may be obtained by fitting probabilistic models to a scatter diagram determined by
field observations or hind casting. Since this approach would normally imply extrapolation to extreme sea-
states beyond the range of observations, recognised models shall be used.
The long-term variation may refer to all year wave conditions or seasonal wave conditions.
The long-term variation of waves can be described in a simplified manner by a number of wave height groups
characterised by a wave height, a wave period and the number of waves in the group. This method is not
recommended if dynamic effects are significant.
The long-term distribution of waves may be applied to establish a probability distribution for the extreme or
fatigue action effect in question. For this purpose a smooth joint model (probability density function) should be

used to represent the long-term variability of sea states. Observed scatter diagrams should be used with care
if a limited sample of sea state observations is available, especially in predicting extreme action effects.
Calculation of fatigue action effects would normally require use of a long-term model, in terms of a scatter
diagram or joint probability distribution, to account for the variability in sea states.
Each sea state is described in 6.2.2.3.
The possibility of special wave conditions, due to the effect of e.g. shallow water and strong current on wave,
should be considered.
6.2.2.3 Design sea states

Calculation of characteristic action effects may be based on selected short-term states. This may especially
be necessary for systems significantly influenced by nonlinear behaviour. For such applications the action
effects are obtained from time-domain analyses and/or model tests.
The overall aim of the design storm concept is to estimate actions and action effects corresponding to a
-2 -4
prescribed annual exceedance probability, e.g. 10 or 10 , without having to carry out a full long-term
response analysis. The design storm approach is especially relevant in connection with nonlinear action
effects.
An appropriate formulation of the design storm concept is to use combinations of significant wave height and
spectral peak period located along a contour line in the Hs and TP plane. Such contour lines can be
-2 -2
established in different ways. The simplest way to establish the 10 contour line, is first to estimate the 10
value of Hs together with the conditional mean of Tp. The contour line is then estimated from the joint model
of Hs and Tp as the contour of constant probability density going through the above mentioned parameter
-2
combination. An example of such a contour line is shown in Figure 2. An estimate of the 10 action effect is
then obtained by determining a proper extreme value for all sea states along the contour line and taking the
maximum of these values.
If contour lines are used, the variability of the short term extreme value needs to be artificially accounted for
in order to obtain a proper short term extreme value. This may be achieved in alternative ways, e.g. by
multiplying the expected maximum action effect with a predetermined factor or by calculating the action
effects as a predetermined, high fractile value of the 3 h extreme value distribution. To obtain the action effect
-2
corresponding to an annual exceedance probability of 10 the relevant factor would be 1,1 to 1,3 and the
-2
fractile should be 85 % to 95 %. When predicting linear or nearly linear response that corresponds to 10
-4
probability values, the lowest interval limits apply. For lower annual exceedance probabilities, e.g. 10 and/or
clearly non-linear response problems, the fractile should be 90 % to 95 %, see Kleiven and Haver (2003).
This simplified approach for obtaining long term characteristic actions should as far as possible be verified by
a long-term analysis.
A more consistent method to determine the contour-lines is to apply the inverse FORM approach (see
Winterstein et al. 1993).

15m 14m
18s 17s
19s 16m
17m
17m
19s
18s 16m
17s
15m
16s
15s 14m
13m
Figure 1 - Significant wave height Hs and related maximum peak period TP with annual probability of
-2
exceedance of 10 for sea-states of 3 h duration. ISO-curves for wave heights are indicated with solid
lines while wave period lines are dotted
Wave spectra should represent wind-induced waves and swell, if relevant. Sea-states comprising
unidirectional wind-waves and swell should be represented by recognized double-peaked spectra, e.g. the
spectrum proposed by Torsethaugen (2004). The JONSWAP spectrum may be used to describe wind-
induced extreme sea states. If wind-waves and swell with different mean directions are critical, due account
of such conditions shall be made.
The short-crestedness of wind-induced waves may be described by a spreading function:
π π
D(θ − θ m ) = C cos n (θ − θ m ) for − ≤ θ −θm ≤ (3a)
2 2
where θm is the mean wave direction. In absence of more detailed documentation, the exponent n is taken to
be the most unfavourable value between 2 and 10. Swell should be considered to be long-crested.
Γ(1 + n / 2)
C= (3b)
π Γ(1 / 2 + n / 2)
where Γ is the Gamma function.

18
16
14
12
1 year
10
10 years
Hs
8
100 years
6
4
2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Spectral peak period, Tp
Figure 2 - Example contour line
When calculating the change in the soil’s resistance during cyclic actions, the wave conditions shall be
described by means of the sea state over an extensive period of time, taking into account the build-up as well
as the tail-off phase of the storm. Unless more accurate data are available, the storm development indicated
in Figure 3 may be used.
1,2
1
Hs/Hsmax
0,8
0,6
0,4
0,2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Duration (hours)
Figure 3 - Storm development for evaluation of the degradation of soil's resistance during cyclic
action. The peak level is obtained for a sea-state with duration of 3 h
The random waves in a short-term sea state are normally described as a superposition of regular waves,
using linear wave theory. The linear theory should be modified to describe the kinematics in the splash zone
e.g. for slender structures, or for situations where steep waves are of particular importance e.g. in case of
finite water depth. Commonly used heuristic models are for instance a vertical extrapolation above mean
water level, or Wheeler stretching as described e.g. in ISO/DIS 19902. It is noted that the commonly used
Wheeler stretching is non-conservative and needs to be modified for steep waves. The heuristic models are
limited to symmetric Gaussian waves, and should be appropriately validated for extreme sea states.
Alternatively, a non-Gaussian wave model may be obtained by appropriate transformation of the Gaussian
process or by applying a second or higher order wave theory for irregular waves. Such theories may be
required to model nonlinear high and low frequency actions in irregular waves, see 6.2.6.
In cases where the action effect is influenced by dynamic effects or non-linear drag effects, linear theory shall
be modified to improve the description of the wave kinematics and actions in the splash zone. An appropriate
way to obtain the kinematics for such cases may be to use second order wave theory to determine the
surface elevation and the Wheeler theory to obtain the wave kinematics.
Guidance on the statistical distribution of wave crest elevation may be found in ISO 19901-1.

6.2.2.4 Design wave

A design wave is specified by the wave height, H, the wave period ,T, and direction and may especially be
used to determine structural action effects which are not influenced by system dynamics. Different
-2 -4
combinations of wave periods, wave heights and directions at the same probability level (e.g.10 or 10 )
shall be considered in order to arrive at the most unfavourable values for the different action effects.
Consistent sets of (H, T) for each direction may be obtained as long-term contour curves for (H, T). Such
contour curves for (H, T) may be obtained by using information about the short-term probability density
function of (H, T) and the long-term distribution of sea-state parameters (Hs,TP).
In practice design wave approaches could be used to obtain structural action effects in certain circumstances
as described below, but would not be applicable to motion analysis.
-2
Action effects with e.g. annual exceedance probability of 10 can be determined in a simplified, conservative
manner by the design wave approach for preliminary design of fixed platforms. For fixed platforms which
respond to wave actions with negligible dynamic effects, maximum action effects occur for the highest waves.
-2
The relevant wave height H100 is then taken to be that with the 10 exceedance probability. H100 may be taken
to be 1,9 times the significant wave height Hs, corresponding to an annual exeedance probability of
-2
10 , as obtained from long-term statistics, when the duration of the sea-state is 3 h.
The period T used in conjunction with H100 should be varied in the following range:
6,5 H 100 ≤ T ≤ 11 H 100
In detailed design special studies of the design wave in the relevant area should be carried out.
-4
In absence of more detailed documentation, the wave height, H10000 with annual exceedance probability 10
can be taken to be 1,25 times H100, while the period is increased by 5 %, as compared to the period of H100 .
Maximum action effects are not always caused by waves with extreme heights, but are rather sensitive to
waves of a defined length and extreme steepness. Examples are structural action effects in floating
installations with columns and pontoons. A simplified, conservative approach to determine the action effect
-2
with annual exceedance probability 10 in such situations may be based on a wave with critical period
(length) causing for instance maximum splitting forces in floating framework platforms. The corresponding
design wave height ,Hd, should be taken to be
 0,22 T 2 ; for T ≤ 6 
 2 
Hd =  T  (4)
 4,5 + 0,02 (T 2 − 36) ; for T > 6
 
for deepwater waves. Hd does not need to be taken greater than 1,9 times the significant wave height
-2
corresponding to an annual exceedance probability of 10 , or the wave height with an annual exceedance
-2
probability of 10 according to the long-term distribution.
Design wave approaches used in detailed design need to be calibrated based on stochastic analysis, as
described in clause 10.
nd
The kinematics of the (extreme) design wave may be modelled by Stokes 2 or higher order theory for water
depths (d) to wave length ratios greater than 0,15. Stream function theory is applicable for more shallow
water. Wave asymmetry shall be properly accounted for when applying linear wave theory for extreme regular
waves. Engineering approximations of the kinematics with acceptable accuracy for extreme waves can be
obtained by vertical extrapolation of particle velocities above mean water level, or Wheeler stretching, see
ISO/DIS 19902. Linear theory is relevant for calculating action effects for fatigue analysis.
At very shallow water depths other wave theories shall be used, see Sarpkaya T and Isaacson M.
A set of regular waves may be used to establish a relation between stress (range) and wave height for use in
simplified long-term action effects for fatigue analysis, see 6.2.2.2. A representative set of regular waves with
steepness equal to 1/20 should be used, considering among others waves with a frequency corresponding to
the peaks of the transfer function for relevant action effects.

The design wave method should not be used without careful calibration when determining extreme action
effects that are influenced by dynamic effects.
Also, special considerations are required to assess possible abnormal wave conditions at an annual
-4
exceedance probability of 10 .
6.2.3 Current velocities
6.2.3.1 Macroscopic current velocity

The current velocity at the location of the installation shall be established on the basis of previous
measurements at the actual and adjacent locations, hind cast predictions of wind-induced current, as well as
theoretical models and other information about the tidal and coastal current. If the current velocity is of
significant importance to the design and existing current data are scarce and uncertain, current velocity
measurements should be carried out at the location in question.
Characteristics values of the current velocity should be determined with due account of the inherent
uncertainties.
If sufficient joint data about current and wave conditions are available, the joint distribution of environmental
parameters and the corresponding contour curves (or surfaces) for given exceedance probability levels can
be established in the same way as mentioned for wave conditions in 6.2.2.3. Otherwise, conservative values,
for instance using the combined events indicated in Table 4, should be applied.
In early phases and in exploration drilling where no accurate measured data or documented model studies
are available, the tidal current at still water level may be chosen in accordance with Figure 4.
If no exact measured data are available, the wind induced current velocities at still water level may be
selected equal to 2 % of the 1 h mean wind velocity at a 10 m elevation, see 6.3.
For exploration drilling installations and in early phases of a development where no accurate measured data
or documented model results exist, the current variation with depth may be chosen in accordance with DNV
Class Note 30.5.
In addition, the effects of other currents shall be considered in each separate case, including the effects of
• coast and ocean currents,

• local eddy currents,
• currents over steep slopes,
• currents caused by storm surge,
• internal waves.
When calculating erosion, it shall be taken into consideration that the structure may change the local current
velocity.
6.2.3.2 Current profile at a structure

The current speed in the vicinity of the platform may be reduced from the specified "free stream" value by
blockage. However, reduced actions on risers or conductor arrays due to blockage may cause increased
actions on adjacent structural components, e.g. due to increased particle velocities in those areas.
In absence of a detailed evaluation, a blockage factor of 0,9 and 0,85 can be used for jackets with three legs
and more than three legs, respectively, and static behaviour. Further details are given in ISO/DIS 19902.
Blockage factors for platforms with significant dynamic behaviour can be applied, if the effects are adequately
documented.

0.4
0.4
0.3 0.5 0.3 0.3
0.2
0.4
0.5
0.3
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.3
0.4
Figure 4 - Maximum 100 year tidal surface current in m/s
6.2.4 Hydrodynamic actions for static analysis
6.2.4.1 Wave and current effect

Waves and current should be considered when calculating hydrodynamic actions. In combination with waves,
the current velocity profile should be stretched to the local water surface.
The hydrodynamic action on slender members, i.e. with a wave length to member diameter greater than 5,
can be determined by Morison’s equation using a particle velocity obtained by vector addition of wave and
current induced particle velocities.
For large volume structures the current/wave/body interaction should be considered when deriving resultant
actions.
6.2.4.2 Slender tubular structural elements

For structures with small motions, the wave actions can be calculated as follows:
a) if the KC is less than 2 for a structural element, the actions may be found by means of potential theory:
1) if the ratio between the wave length L and the tubular diameter D is greater than 5, the inertia term in
Morison’s equation can be used with CM = 2,0;
2) if the ratio between L and D is smaller than 5, the diffraction theory should be used.
b) if KC is greater than 2, the wave action can be calculated by means of Morison’s equation, with CD and
CM given as functions of the Reynold's number, the KC and relative roughness;
It should be noted that Morison’s equation ignores lift forces, slam forces and axial Froude-Krylov forces.

c) for surface piercing framed structures consisting of tubular slender members (e.g. conventional jackets)
extreme hydrodynamic actions on unshielded circular cylinders are calculated by Morison’s equation on
the basis of
th
1) Stokes 5 order or Stream function wave kinematics and a kinematics factor on the wave particle
velocity, which is 0,95 for North Sea conditions. This kinematics factor is introduced in the regular wave
approach to account for wave spreading and irregularity in real sea states,
2) drag and inertia coefficients equal to
CD = 0,65 and CM = 1.6 for smooth members
CD = 1,05 and CM = 1,2 for rough members
These values are applicable for umaxTi/D > 30, where umax is the maximum horizontal particle velocity at storm
mean water level under the wave crest ,Ti is the intrinsic wave period and D is the leg diameter at the storm
mean water level.
d) flow conditions with umaxTi/D < 30 in regular waves may arise with slender members in moderate sea-
states which are relevant for fatigue analysis;
Fatigue analysis can normally be conducted with no current. The wave kinematics factor and conductor-
shielding factor should be taken to be 1,0. CD and CM depend on the sea state level, as parameterised
by KC. For small waves with KC referred to the mean water level in the range 1,0 < KC < 6, the
hydrodynamic coefficients can be taken to be
CD = 0,65 and CM = 2,0 (smooth member)

CD = 0,8 and CM = 2,0 (rough members)
Members are considered smooth at the installation stage. During operation members 2 m above mean water
level are considered smooth, see 6.6.1.
For KC in the range of 6 to 30 the CD and CM should be determined by special considerations.
e) the action effects in slender structures which are exposed to significant wave induced dynamics, should
be assessed by means of time domain simulations;
It is recommended that the surface elevation process is modelled as a second order process with its
corresponding second order kinematics. No kinematic reduction factor is to be used. The kinematics may
as an alternative be estimated by approximating the second order surface process by Fourier series and
calculate the kinematics for each component utilizing Wheeler stretching. In both these models, the
hydrodynamic coefficients in item c) should be applied. If the actions, their effects and responses from
the time domain simulations are to be used in an absolute sense, the adequacy of the applied kinematics
and hydrodynamic coefficients should be verified.
If the sea surface is modeled as a Gaussian process, the hydrodynamic coefficients should be calibrated
to give a reasonable quasistatic load level in view of the purpose of the simulation. If extremes are under
consideration, a reasonable load level should be obtained for the largest waves of the most severe sea
state, while for fatigue a reasonable level for the most important fatigue accumulating waves, should be
ensured. As a first approach one may for a drag dominated structure use CD equal to 1,15 and CM
according to item c).
For fatigue assessment a Gaussian sea surface would normally be sufficiently accurate. Regarding
extreme value considerations, the adequacy of applying a Gaussian surface for estimation of dynamic
amplification should be assessed on a case by case basis.
f) wave actions on conductors/risers may contribute to the global actions on structures. If conductors/risers
are closely spaced the actions on them may be modified as compared to actions on individual
components, due to hydrodynamic shielding. Guidance on the shielding factor for drag actions when the
fluid flows in parallel with the main axes of a rectangular array of cylinders may be found in ISO/DIS
19902. When the angle between the wave or current direction and the direction of the rows of cylinders is
o o
between 22,5 and 67,5 , the shielding factor in ISO/DIS 19902 can be used when the spacing is
determined as the average for the two directions. A possible increase in the added mass (and inertia
actions) for closely spaced cylinders should be accounted for.

Shielding reduction factors should not be applied for platforms without documentation.
6.2.4.3 Large volume structures

Actions on fixed large volume structures should be calculated on the basis of diffraction theory. The potential
is expressed as the linear superposition of
• the incident wave system,

• the scattered wave system.
For simple geometrical shapes analytical solutions of the linear diffraction problem may be used. For slender
structures, strip theory may be applied.
For general structures consisting of several large volume components, boundary-element or finite fluid
elements should be used.
The results from boundary element methods should be carefully checked for surface-piercing bodies to
ensure that irregular frequencies are avoided. Convergence of the solution should be demonstrated.
Estimates of actions for novel structural shapes need to be checked by model tests.
6.2.4.4 Hybrid structures

Wave diffraction solutions do not include viscous actions. When body members are relatively slender or have
sharp edges, viscous effects may be important and viscous effects should be added to the diffraction forces
determined.
Wave actions on structures composed of large volume parts and slender members may be computed by a
combination of wave diffraction theory and Morison’s equation. Parts of the structure may be modelled both
by boundary elements to represent the potential hydrodynamic actions and beams to represent the viscous
drag actions. The modifications of velocities and accelerations as well as surface elevation due to the large
volume parts should, however, be accounted for when using Morison’s equation.
If properly calibrated or validated, simplified conservative methods may be used to calculate actions.
6.2.4.5 Effect of adjacent structure

If a structure is located adjacent another structure and one or both of them are large volume structures, there
may be an interaction between the actions on the two structures.
A diffraction analysis is then required for the total problem. Model tests need to be considered if the analysis
involves uncertainties, e.g. associated with extreme actions situations.
6.2.5 Hydrodynamic actions for dynamic analysis
6.2.5.1 General
Actions on structures with significant motions involve excitation actions as well as inertia, damping and
restoring actions as formulated by the dynamic equation of motion.
6.2.5.2 Slender structures

When the motion amplitude is greater than the diameter, the relative motion between the structure and water
should be taken into consideration when calculating wave and current actions by means of Morison’s
equation. The dynamic equilibrium equation for a structure may then formally be expressed as
&& + C X
(M + M A ) X & +KX =F (5a)
where M, MA, C and K are structural mass, added mass, structural damping and structural stiffness,
respectively.
NOTE It is noted that Eq.(5a) needs to be modified if stochastic time domain analysis is carried out for systems with frequency
dependent dynamic properties.

The external action vector F is obtained by integrating the following action per unit length over each member
of the structure
1 D2 & (5b)
dFN = C D ρ D | U RN | U RN + C M ρ π UN
2 4
and decomposing the action in its Cartesian components. URN and &N
U are the relative velocity, and
acceleration normal to the member, respectively.
Caution should be exercised when using this approach to determine wave excitation, added mass and
damping actions at intersections between large diameter members.
CD and CM are the same hydrodynamic coefficients, as used for fixed structures.
& and X
X, X && are the displacements, velocity and acceleration of the structure.
The formulation of actions in terms of relative velocity is uncertain for installations with small motion. The
method may in such cases give too high damping. Hydrodynamic damping should therefore be taken into
consideration through an equivalent viscous damping, and the particle velocity should be used instead of
relative motion.
When using the relative velocity formulation for structures with large motion, actions should be obtained for
zero as well as maximum current velocity, and with a low and high value of CD, depending upon whether the
drag actions primarily induce damping or excitation.
The action coefficients may be introduced for the action effect, and not on the actions, in such calculations.
6.2.5.3 Large volume structures

For large volume structures with significant motion a radiation wave system generated by the moving
structure should be added to the incident and scattered wave system.
The radiation wave system is determined by diffraction analysis (see 6.2.4.3) and gives rise to added mass
and wave damping actions.
In addition, viscous actions on the hull, a possible mooring system or thrusters and risers should be
considered.
Viscous actions due to wave- and low-frequency motions may be calculated separately by a relative velocity
formulation and superimposed or calculated simultaneously, using appropriate phase for the actions, as well
as hydrodynamic coefficients, as explained in clause 10.
6.2.6 Higher order, nonlinear wave actions

Higher order terms in the potential theory or finite wave height kinematics used in conjunction with Morison’s
equation, cause mean and time-variant sum and difference frequency action in irregular waves which may
cause significant response if resonance occurs. Similar effects may be present for (large volume) structures
that require a more elaborate method for determining actions.
The higher order actions should be determined by a consistent theory and validated against model tests.
Difference (low) frequency actions associated with wave-body nonlinear interaction, may be important for
global motions and positioning systems when the action synchronise with fundamental periods of vibration of
the system or it parts. Due to the uncertainty associated with calculations of slowly varying drift motions
(Herfjord and Nielsen, 1991), model tests would be required to reduce the uncertainty, when the response is
significant.
Sum (high) frequency actions (causing springing) may be important for the response of restrained modes of
tension-leg platforms, ships and jack-ups, of importance especially for the fatigue limit state.
Steep, high waves encountering structural components extending above the still water level may cause
nonlinear transient actions. Structural responses to these actions may be dynamically amplified and cause

increased extreme response (ringing). Such transient nonlinear actions may be important for structures
consisting of large diameter shafts and having a natural period under 8 s. However, the physical mechanisms
causing ringing are not known, although it is generally accepted that they can be described by potential
theory. One method that seems to predict ringing actions reasonably well is presented by Krokstad et al.
(1996). Currently available analysis methods are generally only amenable to screening analysis of the ringing
problem. The phenomenon is today best quantified by model tests. It is then generally difficult to distinguish
impact/slamming from higher order inertia (ringing) effects.
With regard to structures that have been optimised with respect to minimal linear wave actions, experience
has shown that non-linear effects may be dominant. Motion analyses for new types of structures where the
results cannot be checked against previous experience, should be checked against model tests.
6.2.7 Wave slamming and run-up effect

Slamming of horizontal or near horizontal surfaces that enter the water or are hit by a wave should be
assessed. The corresponding action should be investigated by momentum considerations of potential actions
together with account of viscous and buoyancy effects. The effect of elasticity of the structure should be
considered.
Horizontal members in the splash zone are susceptible to actions caused by wave slamming when the
member is being submerged. The slamming action may be estimated by the "dragterm" of Morison’s
equations based on the relative velocity of the member to the water particle and with an appropriate drag
(slamming) coefficient. For smooth cylindrical members the coefficient shall not be taken less than 3,0. For a
flat plate a coefficient of 6,0 may be used to estimate the average pressure over the plate. An even larger
coefficient is applicable for more local pressures. When the slamming force is determined by a "dragterm"
due consideration of a consistent choice of coefficient and area of contact should be made.
The method established by Ridley (1982) can be used to estimate splash-zone wave actions on inclined
slender tubular members.
Since slamming is an impulse action, a dynamic amplification factor of at least 2,0 should be used, unless an
analysis, which considers the duration of the impulse action and natural frequency of the structure,
demonstrates that a lesser value is appropriate.
Breaking waves causing shock pressure in vertical surfaces, should be considered. Such actions are
determined by the procedure given by DNV Classification Note 30.5.
Wave actions on decks consisting of plated and tubular structural components comprise inertia, slamming,
drag and buoyancy actions.
A simplified approach for determining horizontal wave actions on decks of fixed platforms is given by API RP
2A-LRFD, clause 17 (ISO/DIS 19902). An alternative method that also includes vertical actions on the deck is
outlined and compared with model test results by Kaplan et al (1995).
Appropriate consideration shall be given to the possibility of slamming events occurring to underwater
structural arrangements as a result of lack of depth of submersion.
If dynamic effects are of importance to the action effects, both the water entry and exit phase should be duely
modelled.
The possible effect of the up-welling (run-up) caused by a large, steep wave passing a large diameter vertical
cylinder or columns with flat areas should be considered in designing the lower deck structure.
While the principal effect of slamming and up-welling is local, possible global effects should also be
assessed.
Slamming on a ship may occur in the forward bottom, bow flare, accommodation structure in the fore ship as
well as exposed parts of the aft structure and turret. Slamming effects depend upon the following features of
the vessel:
• draught;
• hull geometry;
• superstructure arrangement;
• vessel speed;

• heading.
Slamming actions may contribute local effects as well as enhancement of hull girder bending moment and
shear force.
In lack of more accurate information bottom and bow flare slamming may be determined according to the
DNV Rules for Classification of Ships, appropriately modified to account for the relevant operational pattern of
production ships.
6.2.8 Green water effect

Green water is the overtopping by water of the part of a structure facing the seas in severe wave condition.
For a ship the phenomenon depends on bow shape, design free board, flare, breakwaters and other
protective structures, as well as drainage arrangements, and weather vaning procedures. Green water may
enter a ship in the bow as well as mid-ship and aft. Significant amounts of green water will have influence on
the design of the vessel deck, accommodation superstructure, equipment and layout.
Only rough estimates of green water can be made by analytical methods and model tests should be carried
out to estimate the green water level and (dynamic) pressures, if more accurate estimates are required.
In lack of more accurate information deck structural members could be designed based on the actions given
in DNV–OS–C102, appropriately increased to account for the relevant operational pattern of the ship.
Model tests should be carried out to determine pressure levels in the deck area in wave conditions with a
peak period in the range of 70 % to 100 % of the vessel pitch period.
The effect of wave slamming, run-up or green water actions should be appropriately combined with the other
wave action effects.
6.2.9 Wave enhancement

The wave enhancement and modification of the kinematics caused by the structure may be estimated by
linear radiation and diffraction theory. The fact that the wave crest is higher than given by linear theory shall
be accounted for.
Model tests should be performed if the theoretical methods cannot predict the effect of substructure with
sufficient confidence due to nonlinearities related to steep waves, and wave-current interaction. This situation
may arise in connection with caissons of gravity structures and shallow pontoons of floating platforms, strong
interaction between large columns, non-vertical sides near the water plane, and other features.
Wave motion in moon-pool or centre well of ship and caisson vessels (spar buoys) should be particularly
accounted for.
6.2.10 Sloshing actions in tanks

Motion induced dynamic pressure effects in partially filled tanks, especially with large horizontal dimensions,
should be considered. Sloshing represents a dynamic magnification of internal pressure effects beyond the
static pressure. Sloshing occurs if the natural periods of the fluid in tanks and of the vessel motions are close
to each other. Possible impact effects should be accounted for in this connection.
Sloshing effects depend upon tank dimensions and filling levels, structural arrangement inside the tank and
vessel motion characteristics.
Simplified formulas given in DNV–OS–C102 or direct calculation methods may be applied to determine
sloshing actions.
6.2.11 Flow-induced vibrations

Current induced vibrations shall be taken into account, e.g. in terms of
a) vortex-induced vibration,
b) instability caused by varying orientation of the structure in relation to the wave and current direction
(galloping),
c) back wash effects from units in the vicinity.

Actions by vortex shedding may be of significant importance in the design of slender structures that may
respond in resonance modes to this cyclic action, especially when the damping is small. Critical flow
velocities for vortex shedding for current and wave excitation are given in DNV Class Note 30.5.
The excitation may be characterised by the motion amplitude and/or the forces on the member. Vortex
shedding of larger parts of the structure due to current or wave excitation should also be considered.
VIV will increase the mean in-line drag coefficient. Unless more accurate data are available, the drag
coefficient valid for a stationary cylinder should be multiplied with a factor which depends upon the ratio of the
transverse motion and the member diameter, in order to include the VIV induced drag amplification.
Vortex shedding may especially contribute to fatigue. The cumulative effects of resonant actions during
construction, transportation and operation shall be included in the calculations.
Vortex shedding may be reduced by introducing devices to prevent or reduce the vortex intensity, or by
changing the vibration properties, e.g. natural period and damping of the structure.
Further guidance of vortex-induced vibration may be found in DNV Classification Note 30.5.
6.3 Wind actions
6.3.1 Wind data

The wind velocity at the location of the installation shall be established on the basis of previous
measurements at the actual and adjacent locations, hind cast predictions as well as theoretical models and
other meteorological information. If the wind velocity is of significant importance to the design and existing
wind data are scarce and uncertain, wind velocity measurements should be carried out at the location in
question.
Characteristic values of the wind velocity should be determined with due account of the inherent
uncertainties.
6.3.2 Description of wind

For a short term condition the wind may be described by means of an average wind velocity and a
superimposed fluctuating wind gust with a mean value equal to zero, as well as a mean direction.
Unless a more detailed assessment is made, the average wind velocity at 10 m above sea level the
-2
characteristic value with an annual probability of exceedance of 10 can be chosen as 41 m/s (10 min
average) or 38 m/s (1 h average) for the whole continental shelf. The characteristic value with an annual
-4
probability of exceedance of 10 can be chosen as 48 m/s (10 min average) or 44 m/s (1 h average).
-1
The characteristic wind velocity u(z,t)(ms ) at a height z(m) above sea level and corresponding averaging
time period t less than or equal to t0 = 3600 s may be calculated as
u(z,t) = U(z) (1 - 0,41Iu (z) ln (t/t0 )) (6)

-1
where the 1 h mean wind speed U(z)(ms ) is given by V10min = V 1hour x 1.05
41(10min)=38(1hour)x1.05
 z 
U ( z ) = U 0 1 + C ln( )
 10 
V3sec = V 1hour x 1.5 (7)
-2 0,5
C = 5,73 * 10 (1 + 0,15 U0)
and where the turbulence intensity factor Iu (z) is given by
z
I u ( z ) = 0,06 [1 + 0,043U 0 ] ( ) −0, 22 (8)
10
-1
where U o (ms ) is the 1 h mean wind speed at 10 m
For structures and structural components with significant dynamic response under wind fluctuations a wind
spectrum shall be used to describe the longitudinal wind speed fluctuations.

For situations where the low-frequency excitation is of importance, the following one sided energy density
spectrum of the longitudinal velocity fluctuations at a particular point in space is recommended, see Andersen
and Løvseth (1992):
U 0 2 z 0, 45
(
) ( )
S ( f ) = 320 10 10 (9)
5
~
(1 + f n ) 3n
where n = 0,468
~ z U
f = 172 f ( ) 2 / 3 ( 0 ) − 0, 75 (10)
10 10
where
2 -2
S(f) (m s /Hz) is the spectral density at frequency f (Hz)
z (m) is the height above sea level
-1
Uo (ms ) is the 1 h mean wind speed at 10 m above sea level.
The Harris wind spectrum may be considered when action effects in structures such as flare towers, which
are sensitive to the high frequency excitation are to be calculated.
Wind gusts have three-dimensional spatial scales related to their duration, e.g. 3 s gusts are coherent over
shorter distances and therefore affect smaller structural elements than 15 s gust. Wind actions on different
substructures are normally specified by a given averaging time for the wind speed and assuming full
coherence over the entire substructure. Specific information about averaging time is given in 6.3.3 for static
and in 6.3.4 for dynamic analysis.
For dynamic analysis of some structures, it may be advantageous to account for the less-than-full coherence
at higher frequencies. In this connection coherence spectra given by Andersen and Løvseth (1992) can be
used.
6.3.3 Mean wind actions

Structures or structural components that are not sensitive to wind gusts may be calculated by considering the
wind action as static.
In the case of structures or structural parts where the maximum dimension is less than approximately 50 m,
3 s wind gusts may be used when calculating static wind actions.
In the case of structures or structural parts where the maximum length is greater than 50 m, the mean period
for wind may be increased to 15 s.
When design actions due to wind need to be combined with extreme actions due to waves and current, the
mean wind speed over a 1 min period can be used. A longer averaging period may be used if properly
documented.
The mean wind action,F, on a structural member or surface, acting normal to the member axes or surface,
should be calculated by:
1
F= ρ C S A U m 2 sin α (11)
2
where
ρ is the mass density of air
CS is the shape coefficient
A is the area of the member or surface area normal to the direction of the force
Um is the wind speed
α is the angle between the direction of the wind and the axis of the exposed member or surface
For smooth circular tubular structures, the following shape coefficients may be used:

5
CS = 0,65 for Reynold's number > 5 x 10
5
CS = 1,2 for Reynold's number < 5 x 10
In the case of tubular structures covered with ice, CS = 1,2 should be used for all Reynold's numbers.
Further information about shape coefficients, CS may be found in ENV 1991-2-4 and DNV Classification Note
30.5.
A simplified method for determining wind forces on ships are given by OCIMF (1994).
Wind pressures and resultant actions shall be determined from wind tunnel tests on representative model
when wind actions are crucial.
6.3.4 Fluctuating wind actions

Structures that are sensitive to wind gusts shall be calculated by considering the wind action as a dynamic
action. Examples of such structures are high towers, flare booms, tension-leg installations, compliant
installations and catenary anchored installations.
The mean wind velocity is based on a 1 h period.
The total wind speed is the sum of a mean velocity and a fluctuating component u(t). The wind force on a
structure with a velocity which is negligible compared to the wind velocity, can be calculated by:
1 1
F= ρ C S A [U m + u (t ))]2 ≈ ρ C S A [U m2 + 2 U m u (t )] (12)
2 2
This means that the fluctuating wind force is linear in the fluctuating velocity.
Low-frequency wind forces are normally determined from the wind energy spectrum, see Eq.(9) and Eq.(10).
For structures of large size, the spatial variation of the fluctuating wind could be incorporated in the analysis
by accounting for the coherence.
6.3.5 Wind-induced vibrations

Consideration of actions from vortex shedding on individual elements due to wind may be based on ENV
1991-2-4. Guidelines on how these standards may be conservatively applied offshore, are provided by Oppen
(1996). Alternative, well documented methods can be applied. Vortex induced vibrations of frames should
also be considered. The material-and structural damping of individual elements in welded steel structures
should not be set higher than 0,15 % of critical damping when vortex induced vibrations are considered.
6.4 Snow and ice actions
6.4.1 Snow actions

The snow actions given in NS 3491-3 for the relevant coastal municipality may be used as extreme snow
action close to the shore. For other areas where more accurate meteorological observations have not been
performed, characteristic snow action may be set equal to 0,5 kPa for the entire Norwegian continental shelf.
The shape factors given in NS 3491-3 may be used.
6.4.2 Ice actions
6.4.2.1 Accumulated ice

In absence of a more detailed assessment values for thickness of accumulated ice caused by sea spray or
precipitation may be selected as indicated in Table 2. These may be regarded as two independent action
cases.
When calculating wave, current and wind actions, increases in dimensions and changes in the shape and
surface roughness of the structure as a result of accumulated
a) ice from sea spray which covers the whole circumference of the element,

b) ice from rain covers all surfaces facing upwards or against the wind. For tubular structures it may be
assumed that ice covers half the circumference.
Uneven distribution of ice shall be considered for buoyancy stabilised structures.

-2
Table 2 – Ice actions with annual probability of exceedance 10
ACTION CASE 1 ACTION CASE 2

Height above Ice caused by sea-spray Ice caused by rain / snow
Sea level 56° N to North of Density Thickness Density
68° N 68° N
3 3
mm mm mm kg/m mm kg/m
5 to 10 80 150 850 10 900
Linear Linear Linear
10 to 25 reduction from reduction from reduction from 10 900
80 to 0 150 to 0 850 to 500
Above 25 0 0 - 10 900
6.4.2.2 Frost burst

The effects of ballast water, firewater etc. which may freeze shall be taken into account.
6.4.2.3 Sea ice and icebergs

Actions from sea ice and icebergs shall be taken into account when structures are located in areas near
shore, in Skagerak, in the northern and western parts of the Norwegian Sea and in parts of the Barents Sea.
Before activities are commenced in such areas, the following information concerning ice conditions shall be
collected:
a) the possibility of icebergs and sea ice;

b) type of sea ice (first year ice; ice several years old) and characteristic features (ridges, large
interconnected floes and individual floes, distribution, etc.);
c) sea ice thickness;
d) size and shape of icebergs;
e) velocity and direction of drifting sea ice and icebergs;
f) mechanical properties of the ice.
There shall then be an emergency preparedness system established which will ensure safety in the event of
ice. Solutions based on relocation of the installation in the event that effects of sea ice or icebergs may
become unacceptable, may be chosen. In such cases the emergency preparedness shall be reliable, and
shall be planned in relation to the time required to relocate the installation.
-2
The occurrence of first year ice with annual probability of exceedance of 10 in the Barents Sea is shown in
Figure 5. For planning of operations, the monthly extreme ice limit with annual probability of exceedance of
-2
10 may be used. As the charts showing ice occurrence are made on the basis of satellite data, and as the
concentration must be 10 % to 20 % in order to be detected, the fact that ice with lower concentrations may
occur outside the defined limits shall be taken into account. Monthly values for the extreme ice limit with an
-2
annual probability of exceedance of 10 may be found in Vefsnmo et al (1990). These values may be used
in evaluations during an early phase.
To calculate the actions caused by ice, values for thickness and size of ice floes that are representative to the
area shall be selected. To describe the mechanical properties, the same properties for the sea ice as for ice
in other arctic areas may be assumed. API RP 2N may then be used.
Regions where collision between icebergs and an installation can occur with an annual probability of
-2 -4
exceedance of 10 and 10 in the Barents Sea are shown in Figure 6. Icebergs in considerable numbers
have been observed on the coast off East Finmark in 1881 and in 1929.
When designing against icebergs the same principles as stipulated in 8.3.2 of the guidelines may be used.

Figure 5 - Limits of sea ice in the Barents Sea Figure 6 - Limit for collision with icebergs with a
-2 -2
with annual probability of exceedance of 10 probability of exceedance of 10 (solid line) and
-4 -4
(solid line) and 10 (dotted line) 10 (dotted line)
6.5 Earthquake actions
6.5.1 Basis for seismic assessment

Earthquake actions should be determined on the basis of the relevant tectonic conditions, and the historical
seismological data. Measured time histories of earthquakes in the relevant area, or other areas with similar
tectonic conditions may be adopted.
Earthquake motions at the location may be described by means of response spectra or standardised time
histories with the peak ground acceleration to characterise the maximum motion.
The earthquake motion can be described by two orthogonally horizontal oscillatory motions and one vertical
motion acting simultaneously. These motion components are assumed to be statistically independent. One of
the horizontal excitations should be parallel to a main structural axis, with the major component directed to
obtain the maximum value for the response quantity considered. Unless more accurate calculations are
performed, the orthogonal horizontal component may be set equal to 2/3 of the major component and the
vertical component equal to 2/3 of the major component, referred to bedrock. The earthquake may be scaled
with the given factors.
In absence of more detailed, site specific assessments, the peak ground acceleration at annual exceedance
-2 -4
probabilities of 10 and 10 given in seismic zonation maps in NFR/NORSAR (1998) can be applied.
When determining earthquake actions on the structure, interaction between the soil, the structure and the
surrounding water should be taken into consideration.

When time histories are used, the load effect should be calculated for at least three sets of time histories.
The mean value of the maximum values of the calculated action effects from the time history analyses may
be taken as basis for design. The time series shall be selected in such a way that they are representative of
earthquakes on the Norwegian continental shelf at the given probability of exceedance.
6.5.2 Seismic design of structure and foundation

Earthquake design includes ULS (strength) check of components based on earthquakes with an annual
-2
probability of occurrence of 10 and appropriate action and material factors; as well as an ALS check of the
-4
overall structure to prevent its collapse during earthquakes with an annual probability of exceedance of 10
with appropriate action and material factors, given in NORSOK N-001..
Normally the ALS requirement will be governing, implying that earthquakes with an annual probability of
-2
exceedance of 10 can be disregarded.
The assessment of earthquake effects should be carried out with a refinement of analysis methodology that
is consistent with the importance of such effects. The assessment of soil-structure integrity could therefore be
undertaken in the following steps:
1) Determine appropriate peak ground acceleration given in seismic zonation maps, see e.g. NFR/NORSAR
(1998).
2) Determine whether further checks will be necessary, by e.g. the procedure given in 6.5.3.
For most parts of most structures on the Norwegian Continental Shelf no further check will be necessary. If
necessary, more detailed checks, proceed as follows:
-2 -4
• strength check of soil-structure system under 10 and 10 events based on linear elastic response using
modal superposition, see 10.3.7.1;
• if strength check is not fulfilled, a ductility check may be carried out, see 10.3.7.2;
• if the ductility check is not fulfilled, a more accurate analysis of the site specific seismic hazards than
those given in 6.5.3 may be carried out and used to demonstrate compliance with the requirements;
• if the ductility check is still not fulfilled, modification of the design is necessary.
6.5.3 Response spectra for a single degree of freedom system

Unless more accurate assessments are performed, response spectra in Figure 7 may be used for structural
2
action effects. Spectral displacement, velocity and acceleration (normalised to 10 m/s acceleration at 40 Hz
for the horizontal main component) are given as a function of the natural period of the structure including its
interaction with the soil for various soil conditions. The spectra may be used together with the accelerations
2
given in seismic zonation maps. If for instance the acceleration is 2,5 m/s , the spectrum with an annual
-4
probability of exceedance of 10 is obtained by multiplying the normalised spectrum in Figure 7 with 0,25.
The spectrum is based on the total structural and soil damping of 5 % of critical damping. The spectrum shall
be adjusted if the damping differs from this value. The spectrum can be scaled with regard to expected
acceleration level at 40 Hz or with regard to expected velocity level at 1 Hz. The scaling factor for the
spectrum due to variation of the (percentage) damping between 2 % and 10 %, the following formula may be
used:
K = ln(100 / ς ) / ln(20) (13)
where ς is the percentage of damping.
Before detailed assessment of earthquake actions is undertaken, a conservative estimate of the global (e.g.
base shear) force based on a single dynamic mode of response and the response spectrum (see Figure 7)
may be used to judge the need for such an analysis.
-4
It should be noted that the amplification factor given for soft soils for the 10 per year event may be
conservative for periods greater than 4 s. On the other hand a site specific soil response study is
recommended for very soft soils, since they may be outside the range of data used to establish Figure 7, b),
see e.g. NFR/NORSAR (1998).

a) Bedrock spectra b) Ratio between spectral value for soil and bedrock
2
Figure 7 - Response spectra (normalised to 10 m/s acceleration at 40 Hz) with 5% damping.
Maximum acceleration, velocity and displacement (Bungum and Selnes, 1988)
6.6 Other issues relating to environmental actions
6.6.1 Marine growth

Marine growth is a common designation for a surface coat on marine structures, caused by plants, animals
and bacteria. Marine growth may cause increased hydrodynamic actions, increased weight, increased
hydrodynamic additional mass and may influence hydrodynamic instability as a result of vortex shedding and
possible corrosion effects.
In the calculation of structural actions, unless more accurate data are available, or if regular cleaning is not
planned, thickness referring marine growth to mean water level as indicated in Table 3 may be assumed.
a
Table 3 – Thickness of marine growth
Water depth 56° to 59° N 59° to 72° N

m mm mm
Above + 2 0 0
+2 to - 40 100 60
Under - 40 50 30
a
The water depth refers to mean water level
The thickness of marine growth may be assumed to increase linearly to the given values over a period of 2
years after the structure has been placed in the sea.
Unless more accurate data are available, the roughness height may be taken as 20 mm below
+ 2 m. The roughness should be taken into consideration when determining the coefficients in Morison’s
equation.

The weight of marine growth is classified as a variable functional action. Unless more accurate data are
3
available, the specific weight of the marine growth in air may be set equal to 13 kN/m .
If marine growth exceeds the values for which the installation is documented, cleaning may be omitted if a
new analysis shows that the structure has sufficient strength.
6.6.2 Water level, settlements, subsidence and erosion

When determining water level in the calculation of actions, the tidal water and storm surge shall be taken into
account according to Table 4. Uncertainty of measurements, subsidence in the reservoir or settlement of the
structure and possible erosion shall be considered. Calculation methods that take into account the effects
that the structure and adjacent structures have on the water level shall be used.
The possibility of, and the consequences of, subsidence of the seabed as a result of changes in the subsoil
and in the production reservoir during the service life of the installation, shall be considered. Reservoir
settlements and subsequent subsidence of the seabed should be calculated as a conservatively estimated
mean value.
The tidal data may be taken from Gjevik, Nøst and Straume (1990).
6.6.3 Appurtenances and equipment

Hydrodynamic actions on appurtenances (e.g. anodes, fenders) shall be taken into account, when relevant.
6.7 Combinations of environmental actions

Characteristic values of individual environmental actions are defined by annual exceedance probabilities of
-2 -4
10 (for ULS) and 10 (for ALS). The long-term variability of multiple actions is described by a scatter
diagram or joint density function including information about direction. Contour curves or surfaces for more
than two environmental parameters, can then be derived which give combination of environmental
parameters which approximately describe the various actions corresponding to the given exceedance
probability.
Alternatively, the exceedance probabilities can be referred to the action effects. This is particularly relevant
when the direction of the action is an important parameter.
For fixed installations colinear environmental actions are normally most critical, and the action intensities for
various types of actions can be selected to correspond to the exceedance probabilities given in Table 4.
For other installations action combinations which involve a large difference in action direction needs to be
addressed.
In a short-term period with a combination of waves and fluctuating wind, the individual variations of the two
action processes can be taken to be uncorrelated.
Table 4 – Combination of environmental actions with expected mean values and annual probability of
-2 -4
exceedance 10 and 10
a
Limit state Wind Waves Current Ice Snow Earthquake Sea level
-2 –2 -1 -2
10 10 10 - - - 10
-1 –1 -2 -2
Ultimate 10 10 10 - - - 10
-1 –1 -1 -2
Limit 10 10 10 10 - - m
-2
State - - - - 10 - m
-2
- - - - - 10 m
-4 –2 -1
Accidental 10 10 10 - - - m*
-2 –4 -1
Limit 10 10 10 - - - m*
-1 –1 -4
State 10 10 10 - - - m*
-4
- - - 10 - - m
-4
- - - - - 10 m
a
m - mean water level
m* - mean water level, including the effect of possible storm surge
Seismic response analysis should be carried out for the most critical water level.

7 Deformation actions
7.1 General
Deformation actions are actions caused by deformations, imposed on the structure. They may be caused by
the structure’s function or the surrounding environmental conditions, or by construction processes.
7.2 Temperature actions

Structures shall be designed for the most extreme temperature differences they may be exposed to. This for
instance applies to
a) storage tanks,
b) structural parts that are exposed to radiation from the top of a flare boom. One hour mean wind with a
return period of 1 year may be used to calculate the spatial flame extent and the air cooling in the
assessment of heat radiation from the flare boom,
c) structural parts that are in contact with pipelines, risers or process equipment.
-2
The ambient sea or air temperature is calculated as an extreme value with an annual probability of 10 .
Unless more accurate measurements or calculations are carried out, air and sea temperatures may be taken
from Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10. Sea temperature also varies with depth. The local air temperature may
be higher as a result of sun radiation. During fabrication of the structure, all dimensions should be related to a
reference temperature.
Eriksrød and Ådlandsvik (1997) give data for sea temperatures at the sea floor that can be used in an early
design phase.
7.3 Actions due to fabrication

During design, reasonable tolerances shall be assumed, and account shall be taken for possible actions that
may arise from forces introduced to compensate geometrical mismatch, shrinkage forces of concrete or
welding. The effects of errors (e.g. geometric deviations or defects exceeding the tolerance limits) should be
considered by the person responsible for the design.

15
-30
20
-20
25
-30
15
-20
-15
20
-10
-5
25
-5
-10 -15
-2
Figure 8 - Highest and lowest air temperature with an annual probability of exceedance of 10 (the
°
temperatures are given in C)
7.4 Actions due to settlement of foundations

Effects of uneven settlements of the foundation shall be considered. Actions on the structure from risers and
drill-string as a result of foundation settlements should be considered. Local reaction actions on the structure
during installation due to uneven seabed or boulders shall be considered.

+2.5 -2
-2
+5
+7.5
+10 0
+2
+10
+12.5
+6
0
+2
+15
+4
+6
+17.5
+4
+20
+2 0
Figure 9 - Highest surface temperature in the sea Figure 10 - Lowest surface temperature in the sea
-2 -2
with an annual probability of exceedance of 10 ( with an annual probability of exceedance of 10
° °
the temperatures are given in C) (the temperatures are given in C)
8 Accidental actions
8.1 General
Accidental actions are actions caused by abnormal operation or technical failure. They include for instance
fires and explosions, impacts from ships, dropped objects, helicopter crash and change of intended pressure
difference.
Accidental actions should be determined by risk assessment with due account of the factors of influence, see
NORSOK Z-013 and NORSOK S-001. Such factors may be personnel qualifications, operational procedures,
the arrangement of the installation, equipment, safety systems and control procedures.
In the design phase particular attention should be given to layout and arrangement of the structure and
equipment in order to minimise the adverse effects of accidental events.
The ALS design check should be carried out with a characteristic value of each accidental action which
-4
corresponds to an annual exceedance probability of 10 per installation.
If the accidental action is described by a single variable, the characteristic accidental action may be
determined from an action exceedance diagram for the structure.
The characteristic accidental action on different components of a given installation, could be

determined as follows:
• establish exceedance diagram for the action on each component;

-4
• allocate a certain portion of the reference exceedance probability (10 ) to each component;
• determine the characteristic action for each component from the relevant action exceedance diagram and
reference probability.

Alternatively, the following, more refined consideration of risk may be used to determine the accidental action:
• component (i) is assumed to be designed for an accidental action with an exceedance probability of pi for
that component;
• estimate the probability of total loss due to failure of component (i), implied by the residual risk associated
with the accidental action;
• estimate the total probability of failure (pf) associated with the given accidental action on all components
• compare pf with the target level;
• re-allocate pi’s in order to get a more optimal design, while complying with the target level.
If the accidental action is described by several parameters (e.g. heat flux and duration for a fire, pressure
peak and duration for an explosion) design values may be obtained from the joint probability distribution by
contour curves, see 6.2.2.3. However, in view of the uncertainties associated with the probabilistic analysis,
more pragmatic approach would normally suffice.
Relevant accidental actions and their magnitude should be determined on the basis of risk analyses and
relevant accumulated experiences. With regard to the planning, implementation, use and updating of such
analyses, reference is made to the PSA's Management Regulations.
Since a large amount of scenarios associated with each type of accidental action can be envisaged, a focus
on those that may have impact on design is necessary.
Model tests or in-service observations may be necessary to study the accidental actions.
8.2 Fires and explosions
8.2.1 General
The principle fire and explosion events are associated with hydrocarbon leakage from flanges, valves,
equipment seals, nozzles, etc.
The following types of fire scenarios should, among others be considered:
a) burning blowouts in wellhead area;

b) fire related to releases from leaks in risers; manifolds, loading/unloading or process equipment, or
storage tanks (including jet fire and fire ball scenarios);
c) burning oil on the sea;
d) fire in equipment or electrical installations;
e) fire on helicopter deck;
f) fire in living quarters;
g) pool fires on deck or sea.
The following types of explosions should be considered:
a) ignited gas clouds;

b) explosions in enclosed spaces, including machinery spaces and other equipment rooms as well as
oil/gas storage tanks.
Structural layout should be selected so as to limit the effect of fire and explosion, e.g. by using appropriately
located and sized fire and blast walls.
8.2.2 Fires
The fire action intensity may be described in terms of thermal flux as a function of time and space or, simply,
a standardised temperature-time curve for different locations.
The fire thermal flux may be calculated on the basis of the type of hydrocarbons, release rate, combustion,
time and location of ignition, ventilation and structural geometry, using simplified conservative semi-empirical
formulae or analytical/numerical models of the combustion process.
The first step in determining heat flux actions is to establish the geometry of the flame to check whether the
object is engulfed by the flame or not. Prediction of heat flux for engulfed structures is difficult.

The heat flux may be determined by empirical, phenomenological or numerical method, see SCI, 1992 -
1999.
Empirical models with reasonable accuracy exist for pool fires, cloud fires and fireballs. For some types of
fires in topside areas and on sea, direct data for heat fluxes on relevant target surfaces are available, e.g.
SCI, 1992-1999. Their shortcomings outside the validation range should be observed.
In principle the numerical methods provide a rigorous description of the relevant turbulence and combustion
processes as well as flame radiation. Limitations in current models, however, make it necessary carefully
validate them against experimental data.
The effect of each fire scenario should be determined on the basis of
• heat balance (incident radiant and convective heat flux is balanced by heat radiated, convected and
conducted away from the surface),
• heat flow characteristics of the structure,
• mechanical and thermal properties at elevated temperatures,
• properties of active and passive fire protection systems, where applicable.
For objects engulfed by the flame the heat convected away can be neglected. For non-engulfed objects the
incident convection is usually negligible.
The temperature in the structure may be calculated by finite difference method or analytical methods. The
latter is limited to one-dimensional passage of the heat into the structure.
More detailed information about emissivity constants and thermal parameters may be found in ENV 1991-2-2
and associated specific standards for different materials.
Fire mitigation should be considered by detection, warning and shut-down system as well as fire protection
systems. Fire protection may be obtained by passive fire protection materials and a fire protection such as
water deluge, foam or, in some instances, fire suppressing gas.
Extinguishing fires may lead to use of large quantities of water. The consequences of the corresponding
increase of weight should be taken into account.
Further details about determination of action effect (damage) may be found in NORSOK design standards for
the relevant type of material.
8.2.3 Explosions
Explosions can cause two types of action, namely overpressure and drag.
The overpressure action due to expanding combustion products may be described by the pressure variation
in time and space. It is important to ensure that the rate of rise, peak overpressure and area under the curve
are adequately represented. The spatial correlation over the relevant area that affects the action effect should
also be accounted for. Equivalent constant pressure distributions over panels could be established based on
more accurate methods.
Drag action is caused by blast generated wind, and is a function of gas velocity squared, gas density,
coefficient of drag, and the exposed area of the object. Drag action may affect piping, equipment and other
items.
2
Main fire walls in enclosed spaces should at least resist an explosion pressure of 70 kN/m with a duration of
0,2 s and an overpressure rise time of 0,1s.
The explosions pressure and wind drag depend upon the type of gas, ratio of gas in mixture, degree of
mixing, location and time of ignition, the size and geometry of the room or confinement as well as size and
location of vent and relief area. The latter two features can be influenced by design and provide means of
mitigation.
Overpressure may be determined by semi-empirical methods established by experiments or theoretical

models of the combustion and venting process (see SCI, 1992-1999) with supplementary technical notes.

Caution should be exercised in applying empirical methods outside the parameter range of underlying
experimental data.
Numerical models solve the underlying equations describing gas flow, turbulence and combustion processes.
The complexity of the explosion phenomenon requires the numerical methods to be validated by
experimental results and used with caution.
The damage due to explosion should be determined with due account of the dynamic character of the action
effects. Simple, conservative single degree of freedom models may be applied. When necessary, nonlinear
time domain analyses based on numerical methods like the FE method should be applied.
8.2.4 Combined fire and explosion effects

Accidental actions, which are combinations of fire and explosion events, should be considered with an annual
-4
probability of 10 for the joint event.
Fire and explosion events that result from the same scenario of released combustibles and ignition should be
assumed to occur at the same time, i.e. to be fully dependent. The fire and blast analyses should be
performed by taking into account the effects of one on the other.
The damage done to the fire protection by an explosion preceding the fire, should be considered.
8.3 Impact actions
8.3.1 General
Impact actions are characterised by kinetic energy, impact geometry and the relationship between action and
indentation. Impact actions may for instance be caused by
a) vessels in service to and from the installation (including supply vessels),

b) tankers loading at the field,
c) ships and fishing vessels passing the installation,
d) floating installations, e.g. flotels,
e) aircraft on service to and from the field,
f) falling or sliding objects,
g) fishing gear,
h) ice-bergs or ice.
Structural layout should be selected so as to limit the effect of impacts. Particular attention should be paid to
protecting critical component such as risers.
-4
ALS design checks should be made with impact events corresponding to exceedance probabilities of 10 .
8.3.2 Vessel collisions

The collision energy can be determined on the basis of relevant masses, velocities and directions of ships or
aircraft that may collide with the installation. When considering the installation, all traffic in the relevant area
should be mapped and possible future changes in vessel operational pattern should be accounted for. Design
values for collisions are determined based on an overall evaluation of possible events.
Experience has shown that the design should take into account collisions by vessels intended for regular
service inside the safety zone. The velocity can be determined based on the assumption of a drifting ship, or
on the assumption of erroneous operation of the ship.
In the early phases of platform design, the mass of supply ships should normally not be selected less than
5 000 tons and the speed not less than 0,5 m/s and 2 m/s for ULS and ALS design checks, respectively.
A hydrodynamic (added) mass of 40 % for sideways and 10 % for bow and stern impact can be assumed.
Further information about collision analysis may be found in NORSOK N-004 and Veritec (1988).
The most probable impact locations and impact geometry should be established based on the dimensions
and geometry of the structure and vessel and should account for tidal changes, operational sea-state and
motions of the vessel and structure which has free modes of behaviour. Unless more detailed investigations

are done for the relevant vessel and platform, the impact zone for supply vessels should be considered to
between 10 m below low astronomical tide and 13 m above high astronomical tide.
Impact scenarios should be established representing bow, stern and side impacts on the structure as
appropriate. If a central impact (impact action through the vessel's centre of gravity) is physically possible,
this impact situation should be analysed.
The possibility of a second, less intensive impact on the damaged structure should be assessed. In this
connection the possible change of floating position caused by the initial damage, should be assessed.
If a flotel or other installation is to be positioned close to the structure, special evaluations shall be carried out
as to whether these installations may inflict collision actions on the other installation.
When the duration of the collision is short compared with the periods governing the motion and the rate of
loading is relatively small, the damage caused in the collision in structures with free modes (see 10.1) may be
determined in two steps, as described below.
First the distribution of impact energy between kinetic rotation and translation energy and deformation energy,
can be determined by momentum and energy considerations. Then local damage to vessel and installation
can be determined so that the energy absorbed by the two structures corresponds to the energy that is to be
absorbed as deformation energy.
If the impact duration is long compared with the relevant local or global periods of structural vibration,
structural analysis to determine the energy absorption and damage can be done by a quasi-static method of
analysis. Otherwise, a dynamic structural analysis should be carried out. This analysis can be based on
action - indentation curves obtained by laboratory tests and analysis, as outlined in NORSOK N-004.
8.3.3 Dropped objects

Actions due to dropped objects should for instance include following types of incidents:
a) dropped cargo from lifting gear;

b) falling lifting gear;
c) unintentionally swinging objects;
d) loss of valves designed to prevent blow-out or loss of other drilling equipment.
The impact energy from the lifting gear can be determined based on lifting capacity and lifting height, and on
the expected weight distribution in the objects being lifted.
Unless more accurate calculations are carried out, the action from falling objects on to the deck may be
based on the safe working action for the lifting equipment. This action should be assumed to be falling from
the lifting gear from the highest specified lifting height and at the most unfavourable place. Sideways
movements of the dropped object due to possible motion of the structure and the crane hook should be
considered.
The trajectories and velocity of objects dropped in water should be determined on the basis of the initial
velocity, impact angle with the water, effect of water impact, possible current velocity and the hydrodynamic
resistance. It is non-conservative for impacts in shallow water depths to neglect the effect of water impact. A
typical trajectory for slender objects (pipes) is straight motion until it has reached the maximum horizontal
excursion. Then it starts to fall, exhibiting horizontal oscillations. The possibility of a straight trajectory for
pipes with a rotation about the longitudinal axis should be considered.
The impact effect of long objects such as pipes should be subject to special consideration.
Relevant impact situations can be determined by the operating area of the lifting equipment and the relevant
lifting arrangement.
Whether the equipment on deck may fall down should be considered. Damage caused by subsequent
actions should also be considered.
Similarly it should be considered what damage possible fender systems would cause if they should fall down.

NORSOK U-001 provides values for accidental actions on subsea installations. These values may be used in
evaluations during an early design phase.
8.3.4 Helicopter impacts

If specific information about the weight distribution of the undercarriage of a helicopter is not available, the
helicopter deck should be designed on the presumption that any point on the deck may be subjected to a
single action equal to 75 % of the total weight of the heaviest helicopter used. The single action can be
2
assumed evenly distributed over an area of 0,09 m . Reference is made to NCAA Regulations
The main structure below the helicopter deck should be designed for an action equal to 3 times the total
weight of the heaviest helicopter used. The normal weight distribution of the helicopter on the undercarriage
may be used. It should be assumed that the helicopter is placed in the most unfavourable position.
8.4 Buoyancy loss due to subsea gas blow-out

For floating structures it should be considered whether a subsea gas blow-out can cause loss of buoyancy or
a displacement of significance to the stability, or motions of significance to the anchoring system or to
possible contact with other installations.
8.5 Loss of heading control

For units normally operated with heading control, either by weather vaning or thruster assistance, the effect of
loss of the heading control shall be evaluated.
8.6 Abnormal variable actions

Changes in intended pressure differences or buoyancy caused for instance by defects in or wrong use of
separation walls, valves, pumps or pipes connecting separate departments as well as safety equipment to
control or monitor tank pressure, shall be considered.
Unintended distribution of ballast due to operational or technical faults should also be considered.
8.7 Actions on a floating structure in damaged condition

Floating structures which experience buoyancy loss will have an abnormal floating position. The
corresponding abnormal variable and environmental actions should be considered.
Adequate global structural strength (according to the second step of the ALS check) should be documented
for abnormal floating conditions considered in the damage stability check.
8.8 Combination of accidental actions

-4
When accidental actions occur simultaneously, the probability level (10 ) applies to the combination of these
actions. Unless the accidental actions are caused by the same phenomenon (like hydrocarbon gas fires and
explosions), the occurrence of different accidental actions can be assumed to be statistical independent.
-2
While in principle, the combination of two different accidental actions with exceedance probability of 10 or
-3 -1 -4
one at 10 and the other at a 10 level, correspond to a 10 event, individual accidental actions at a
-4
probability level of 10 , commonly will be most critical.
9 Action combinations
9.1 Normal operation
9.1.1 General
Table 5 shows which actions that should be combined in different limit states.
Combinations of environmental actions are given in 6.7, and combination of accidental actions is given in 8.8.

Table 5 – Characteristic actions and action combinations
TEMPORARY CONDITIONS NORMAL OPERATIONS

Serviceability Fatigue Ultimate Accidental limit state Serviceability Fatigue Ultimate limit Accidental limit state
limit state limit limit state Abnormal Damaged limit state limit state Abnormal Damaged
state effect conditions state effect condition
Permanent
actions EXPECTED VALUE
Variable
functional SPECIFIED VALUE
actions
Annual
Environ- Dependant Expect- Dependent Expect- Annual Annual probability of
mental on ed Value dependent on measures taken on ed action probability of probability of exceedance
actions operational action operational history exceedance exceedance = 10-2
-2 -4
requirements history requirements = 10 = 10
Deformation
actions EXPECTED EXTREME VALUE
Annual
Accidental Not applicable Dependent Not applicable probability of Not
actions on exceedance applicable
-4
measures = 10
taken
9.1.2 Static and dynamic pressures in tanks

When combining static and hydrodynamic tank pressures, appropriate account of relevant tank filling and
acceleration levels for different tanks should be accounted for.
The pressure height ,hD, and pressure ,p0, associated with pumping operations (see 5.4.1) could be
neglected if such operations are documented not to occur at the same time as extreme sea actions.
9.1.3 Variable and environmental actions in combination with accidental actions

Account shall be taken of the permanent and variable actions that might reasonably be present at the time of
the accidental event.
When environmental and accidental actions occur simultaneously, the given probability level applies to the
combination of these actions. Unless environmental actions contribute to the occurrence of accidental actions
these two actions can be assumed to be statistically independent. The expected environmental action
-4
occurring together with the 10 accidental can be neglected unless the accidental action is initiated by the
environmental action.
The damaged structure, resulting form an accidental action event, shall be able to resist relevant permanent
-2
and variable actions in an environmental condition corresponding to annual exceedance probability of 10 .
9.2 Temporary conditions

Temporary conditions may refer to conditions during fabrication, installation or use.
Environmental and accidental actions in temporary phases depend upon the measures taken.
Precautions may be taken to ensure that maximum tank pressures, associated with pressure testing, do not
occur during maximum environmental conditions.
Precautions may be taken in connection with environmental actions, by carrying out the operation during a
period when the environmental conditions is ensured to be acceptable.
If no precautions can be taken with respect to environmental conditions the characteristic action should be
defined by the "Normal operation" in Table 5. For operations performed in a particular season, the
exceedance probability could be taken to refer to the particular season. However, the period should not be
considered to be less than 3 months.
For operations lasting more than the time (3 days) for reliable weather forecast, and there is no danger of
injury or damage to people or to the environment or of major economic consequences, an environment
condition corresponding to a one year return period may be used.
For operations lasting more than 3 days, but where it is possible, within 24 h to bring the structure into a
condition which will resist actions specified according to the procedure given above, the structure may be

designed for a smaller environmental action. The operation shall be discontinued if the weather forecasts for
the next 3 days indicate values in excess of the planned environmental condition.
For operations with duration up to 3 days can be planned with a smaller environmental action than given
above. The operation may then be commenced when forecasts provide adequate certainty that the planned
condition is not exceeded.
Accidental actions and possible abnormal operational conditions in temporary phases are to be determined
by risk analysis.
In temporary phases of short duration, controls may be normally implemented to ensure that accidental
actions are of negligible magnitude.
10 Action effect analyses
10.1 General
Action effects, in terms of motions, displacements, or internal forces and stresses of the structure, should be
determined with due regard for
• the spatial and temporal nature including,

• possible non-linearities of the action,
• dynamic character of the response,
• the relevant limit states for design check,
• the desired accuracy in the relevant design phase.
While permanent - , functional - , deformation - and fire actions generally can be treated by static methods of
analysis, environmental (wave and earthquake) actions and certain accidental actions (e.g. impacts,
explosions) may require dynamic analysis. Inertia and damping forces are important when the frequency of
steady-state actions are close to natural frequencies or when transient actions occur.
The global behaviour of offshore structures may be characterised by the motion characteristics for each rigid
body mode under wave frequency actions. Restrained modes of behaviour typically have an natural
frequency above the wave frequency, and free modes have an natural frequency in or below the wave
frequency range.
Table 6 characterises some concepts.
Table 6 – Characterisation of global behaviour
Type of structure Translation Rotation

Vertical Horizontal Horizontal Vertical Vertical Horizontal
plane plane plane
(Heave) (Surge) (Sway) (Pitch) (Roll) ( Yaw )
Fixed steel (jacket, jack- R R R R R R
up, subsea, template)
Fixed concrete (framed) R R R R R R
Tension-leg, with three R F F R R F
legs or more
a
Semi-submersible F F F F F F
a
Ship F F F F F F
a
Spar buoy F F F F F F
Articulated tower R (F) (F) F F (R)
a
With catenary mooring or dynamic positioning system.
F: free
R: restrained mode of motion

A global wave motion analysis is necessary for structures with at least one free mode. For fully restrained
structures a static or dynamic wave-structure-foundation analysis is required.
Uncertainties in the analysis model are expected to be taken care of by the partial safety factors. If
uncertainties are particularly high, conservative models shall be selected.
Simplified methods may be applied if they are properly documented and they provide conservative results.
If analytical models are particularly uncertain, the sensitivity of the models and the parameters utilised in the
models shall be examined. If geometric deviations/imperfections have a significant effect on safety,
conservative geometric parameters shall be used in the calculation.
In the final design stage theoretical methods for prediction of important responses of any novel system should
normally be verified by appropriate model tests, see 10.2.6.
Earthquake actions need only be considered for restrained modes of behaviour.
10.2 Global motion analysis
10.2.1 Purpose
The purpose of a motion analysis of structures with at least one free mode according to Table 6, is to
determine displacements, accelerations, velocities and hydrodynamic pressure relevant for the action on the
hull, superstructure, riser and mooring system, as well as relative motions (in free modes) needed to assess
airgap and green water requirements. Excitation by waves, current and wind should be considered.
10.2.2 Environmental and operational conditions

The response analysis shall be carried out with due regard for combined environmental conditions, e.g. wave,
current and wind intensity and direction. Attention should be paid to the fact that current actions may
dominate the hydrodynamic actions for some concepts. If joint statistical data for the site or area is not
available, conservative assumptions shall be made, including consideration of unidirectional versus
multidirectional environment.
Design actions and action effects may depend on operational practice. The assumptions made in the analysis
regarding operations shall be consistent with relevant instructions and limitations for safe operation. This
involves the magnitude and distribution of deck action. For buoyant structures the ballast condition, the
floating position (e.g. draught, tilt) and mooring tension, are of concern. For ships, heading direction is also an
important issue. The margin to cover the variability of ship heading with respect to the direction of wind,
current, wind–waves and swell, should depend on the directional control (active and passive) used.
Possible lack of directional stability of ships or barges that may cause excessive yaw motions ("fish-tail"
behaviour) and, hence, roll and heave motions should be noted in connection operational control.
When calculating the action effects due to waves, floating platforms may be assumed to be ballasted to an
even keel in a 100 years mean wind condition.
This is conditional upon availability of necessary equipment, adequate procedures and sufficient time for
correcting the floating condition during change of the environmental condition, i.e. direction and speed of
wind.
Design analyses shall not be based on operational precautions of the mooring lines during operation.
10.2.3 Static and mean response analysis

Static analyses are carried out to determine
• the static equilibrium position of the platform under gravity and buoyancy actions in still water. A static
analysis should be performed for each action condition to be analysed, considering the total platform
weight, ballast, buoyancy (displacement), riser and mooring tensions, and hook actions,
• the position of the platform under mean wind force, current force and steady wave drift force, based on the
static equilibrium condition,
• overturning moment acting on (floating) platforms with six free modes subject to sustained wind actions in
connection with stability check.

The determination of a mean or equilibrium position due to steady environmental actions is the basis for
proceeding with a dynamic analysis. The mean position should be determined with appropriate values of the
sustained actions, in view of their correlation with the fluctuating actions in the dynamic analysis.
10.2.4 Dynamic analysis
10.2.4.1 Dynamic model

The dynamic equation of equilibrium is formulated in terms of
• excitation actions,
• inertia actions,
• damping actions,
• restoring actions.
relating to the hull, positioning system and risers.
Possible excitation, inertia, damping and restoring actions by the riser and mooring system could be
introduced in a simplified fashion for 6 degrees of freedom system models (uncoupled analysis) or more
exactly in a coupled platform/mooring/riser analyses with more degrees of freedom, see 10.2.5.
In connection with dynamic response analyses excitation actions may conveniently be categorised as
• WF actions (affecting all 6 degrees of freedom),

• HF wave actions (affecting restrained modes of motion),
• LF (or slow drift) actions (affecting primarily horizontal motions but sometimes also vertical modes),
• wind gust actions (affecting roll, pitch as well as horizontal motions),
• transient wave slamming, run-up and ringing actions.
HF or LF wave actions are normally an order of magnitude smaller than wave frequency actions. Their effect
may be significant if wave frequency actions are minimised by design, or when they are close to fundamental
frequencies of vibrations of the system.
Example of resonance of (lightly damped) modes of motion may for instance include
• roll of a barge/ship or a spar with a low metacenter height, (free mode),

• heave of a Spar buoy (free mode),
• vortex induced motions for deep draught platforms,
• surge, sway and yaw motion of a catenary moored floating production system (free mode),
• internal U-tube resonances (local dynamic mode),
• ballast or cargo tank sloshing modes (local dynamic mode),
• heave/pitch/roll resonance of TLPs (restrained mode),
• moon pool motion.
The transient response caused by slamming actions would generally be associated with structural dynamic
effects.
Inertia actions are related to the hull, mooring and riser mass, variable mass (e.g. ballast), and added mass
due to of the surrounding water.
Damping has linear contributions from wave radiation and wave drift damping. Viscous damping actions are
associated with the hull, risers, and mooring systems.
Assessment of damping is uncertain and shall be conservatively estimated.
The effect of possible thrusters in terms of restoring actions and possible damping should be included. Also,
the damping effect of free surface in tanks shall be included in this connection.
Viscous drag actions on slender bodies can be estimated by Morison’s equation, and should be estimated
separately or combined (by using relative velocity) for wave - and low frequency motions by using a proper
drag coefficient.

The current gives rise to damping as well as excitation actions. For resonant motion behaviour it is
recommended that analyses are carried out with different values of current velocity, spanning from zero up to
design values and that the most conservative results are designed for.
Restoring forces are contributed by the buoyancy effect on the vessel, and by the catenary or taut mooring
system as well as by the riser systems. Long-term change of restoring properties of synthetic ropes should be
accounted for. The effect of catenary mooring on heave restoring actions is normally negligible. Tether elastic
deformations can also normally be neglected in determining the behaviour of free modes of TLPs.
10.2.4.2 Frequency domain analysis for a short term period

A frequency domain analysis for a short term period may be carried out to determine wave frequency motions
and mooring actions as a function of wave frequency at a suitable mean condition. The response spectrum
obtained together with the assumption of Gaussian process may be used to estimate the response statistics
valid for the actual condition.
The commonly used frequency domain solution techniques require linear equations of motion. This is
inconvenient when modelling velocity squared drag actions, time varying geometry, horizontal restoring
actions and variable water surface elevation, since these effects are nonlinear. In many cases, these
nonlinearities can be satisfactorily linearized about some operating point or by using an equivalent
linearization technique.
When determining extreme values for cases where nonlinear actions or action effects could be important,
linearized solutions should be used with care.
10.2.4.3 Time domain analysis for a short-term period

Time domain analysis means numerical integration of the equations of motion allowing the inclusion of all
system nonlinearities, using direct step-by-step integration techniques.
Time domain solution methods should generally be used in case of significant nonlinear effects. Time domain
analysis is also normally required to determine the transient response after slamming, ringing events, as well
as mooring component failure. Such analysis allows handling for instance of drag actions which are nonlinear
functions of the fluid velocity, finite amplitude and finite wave amplitude effects, and nonlinear geometrical
and material effects associated with the station keeping system.
Time domain methods are usually used for extreme condition analysis, but are normally not required for
fatigue analysis or analysis of more moderate conditions where the more efficient linearized analysis provide
sufficient accuracy. However, time domain analysis of fatigue action effects may be required in connection
with local splash zone actions.
Time domain analysis may be carried out for some sea-states and generalised to other conditions, e.g. by
using an equivalent sea state dependent transfer function.
Periodic analysis must be carried far enough to achieve steady state. Irregular analysis shall be carried far
enough to achieve stationary statistics.
When the analysis is performed in a random sea consideration should be given to the frequency dependency
of the added mass and damping coefficients.
A wave spectrum is used to generate random time series when simulating irregular wave kinematics. The
linear and nonlinear wave exciting actions are both represented in the form of time histories derived from the
wave time history. If time-domain simulations are carried out to determine air gap or green water or other
action effects which are sensitive to the non-Gaussian character of real extreme seas, this feature should be
accounted for.
The time series resulting from the time domain analysis of nonlinear systems will generally be non-Gaussian.
To limit the statistical uncertainty, sufficiently long time series should be generated, and statistical fitting
techniques should be used to determine the expected maximum response.
A strategy to improve the computational efficiency in time domain simulation of a complex model exposed to
irregular excitation is to simulate critical events (i.e. slam, ringing events) with the refined model for a time

duration identified by a simplified approach. A fundamental requirement is that the relevant events shall be
captured by the identification procedure. This technique should therefore be applied with care.
Guidelines for implementation of time series analyses can be found in SNAME 2002.
The short term time domain analysis may be used in conjunction with a smooth joint probability distribution
for Hs and Tp as well as other possible parameters.
10.2.4.4 Low-frequency analysis
A low-frequency dynamic analysis is to be carried out to determine the actions and motions due to combined
actions such as
• second-order wave actions,

• current viscous actions,
• vortex induced motions of deep draught floating platforms,
• fluctuating and sustained wind actions,
• non-linear mooring restoring actions.
Appropriate methods of analysis are to be used.
All relevant sustained horizontal actions including current, as well as the effect of wave frequency motions are
to be included in the analysis.
Frequency range is to include all low-frequency cyclic actions that may excite platform resonant motions.
Appropriate methods for estimation of damping of the low frequency motion analysis are to be used. If
important, coupled wave-and low frequency motions must be considered.
The extreme LF wave- and wind-response should therefore be determined with due consideration of WF
response as well as the mean environmental actions. This may be conveniently achieved by a time-domain
approach with a sufficiently long time period. Alternatively, especially in an early design stage, the WF- and
LF-responses may be determined separately in the frequency domain, and combined, as for instance
described in 10.2.4.5.
The low-frequency wind-induced forces can be modelled as a Gaussian process when the sustained wind
dominates over gust wind. If the wind-induced motion response is approximated by a Gaussian process, the
characteristic largest motion amplitude for this process may be calculated as X LF 1c = σ X − LF 1 2 ln N LF 1
where σX-LF1 is the standard deviation and NLF1 is the mean value of zero up-crossings in the period
considered (NLF1 number of motion cycles in the period).
Low-frequency wave-induced motions are generally non-Gaussian due to the inherent non-linearities, and
dependent upon the wave-frequency motions. This analysis should be carried out using restoring
characteristics of the mooring lines that correspond to the mean environmental actions. Low-frequency
damping is a critical parameter and should be estimated with caution. The largest LF-motion amplitude
should be estimated based on a suitable method. The motions follow a Rayleigh or an exponential distribution
for the case of low and high system damping, respectively. Normally the actual distribution is between the two
special cases. The characteristic maximum may be conservatively estimated by assuming an exponential
distribution XLF2c = σX-LF2 . ln NLF2. A more realistic estimate can be obtained by Stansberg’s method, see
Stansberg (1992).
Motion-induced tension in mooring lines will in general be non-Gaussian due to nonlinear load-displacement
relationship of mooring lines.
The ratio between the maximum value and standard deviation of motions or mooring line tension used in final
design should be documented by time series analysis, model tests or field measurements, or by calibrated,
simplified methods.

Low-frequency wind- and wave-induced motions in the same direction can be assumed to be independent
and combined by a square root of sum of square approach.
2 2
X LF = X LF 1 + X LF 2 (14)
10.2.4.5 Combined extreme wave- and lowfrequency action effects

The characteristic value ,Xc, of the combined wave frequency ,XWFc, and total low frequency motions in the
same direction depends upon the relative magnitude of low frequency wind- and wave-induced actions, and
system characteristics. The wave frequency response ,XWF, is determined by using restoring characteristics
at a platform location determined by the mean and maximum LF environmental actions. While the WF
motions can be well described by a linear model, the dynamic line tension is nonlinear. However, it can be
conservatively linearized. For a linear response with Rayleigh distribution: X WFc = σ X −WF ln NWF . If the
mean action effect X mean is included, the total action effect may be expressed as:
2
X c = X WFc 2
+ X LFc + 2 ρ X WFc X LFc + X mean (15a)
where ρ is a correlation coefficient. For horizontal motions of semi-submersibles, ρ will typically be between
0,2 and 0,4.
An alternative way of combining WF and LF action effects to obtain the total effect is:
X c = max[( X WF ( max ) + X LF ( sig ) ); ( X LF (max) + X WF ( sig ) )] + X mean (15b)
where the indices "max" and "sig" refer to expected maximum and significant value, respectively. Eq. (15b)
may be used for motion and mooring tension effects in catenary moored floating platforms. Significant values
are then taken as X LF ( sig ) = 2σ X − LF
The mooring tension is calculated by account of dynamic mooring line effects by considering two equivalent
conditions of excursions, namely X mean + X LF ( sig ) and X mean + X LF (max) and calculating the resulting
maximum and significant mooring forces due to wave frequency excitation. The characteristic value is the
maximum of the two.
If the mooring line has a quasi-static behaviour, the tension is directly calculated based on the maximum total
excursion X given by Eq. (15a) or Eq. (15b).
10.2.4.6 Slamming, wave breaking and green water

If slamming or green water is likely to occur, calculation or model tests should determine the corresponding
pressure actions. Slamming effects should be calculated by applying an appropriate dynamic structural
model.
Slamming effects are of significance in combination with extreme first order wave frequency effects and
should be evaluated in the time domain with due consideration of first order wave action effects.
Slamming actions may especially be of significance for ultimate and accidental limit states.
10.2.4.7 Fluid sloshing in tanks

Translational and angular motions, especially of ships, and floating platforms will generate motions within
tanks. Depending upon the size of the tanks, the amount of water or oil and the motions of the structure at
the resonant oscillation period of the fluid in the tank, a dynamic amplification of static pressure occurs,
possibly combined with local impact actions. These sloshing actions may be significant from an ultimate
strength and a fatigue standpoint.
A sloshing analysis shall be carried out in accordance with recognised calculation procedures, possibly
combined with model tests. For ships the simplified methods given in the rules of recognised classification
societies may be applied.

10.2.5 Dynamic system analysis for a short term period
10.2.5.1 General
Hull, risers and station-keeping system is an integrated dynamic system responding to environmental actions
from wind, waves and current. This system may be analysed as a decoupled or coupled system.
10.2.5.2 Decoupled analysis

A decoupled analysis is carried out in two steps.
In the first step rigid body floater motions are computed considering static-, LF- and WF environmental
actions. Some of the six degrees of freedom in this analysis may, however, be coupled between themselves.
Risers and mooring system are represented by the static restoring force characteristics and a constant LF
viscous damping. Assessment of the LF damping is crucial for the floater motion analysis. Contribution from
current action on mooring lines and risers may be represented by a constant external action.
In the second step the floater motions and forces in case of TLP tension, computed in first step are applied
as forced boundary displacements and forces, respectively on the slender structures. Wave and current
actions on the slender structure can also be included. Forced WF floater motions are considered as dynamic
excitation while LF and WF floater motions can alternatively be applied as forced dynamic excitation if
considered to be of importance to the slender structure dynamics. A typical example is catenary mooring
lines where WF line dynamics can be significantly influenced by the quasi-static LF tension variation. In
addition, dynamic effects associated with LF as such should be considered for deepwater system.
The second step is the time consuming part of the decoupled analysis and is normally carried out for critical
mooring lines and risers one by one. The computational flexibility contributes to efficient analyses and is the
major advantage of the decoupled analysis.
10.2.5.3 Coupled analysis

Coupling effects between floater motions and slender structure response can be accounted for by including
the floater force model in the slender structure model of the complete system including all mooring lines and
risers.
The coupled approach requires significant computational efforts. As a compromise it can be proposed to
apply a rather crude slender structure model in the coupled analysis still catching the main coupling effects,
e.g. restoring, damping, mass. Detailed slender structure analysis can then be performed as in step two in
the decoupled analysis based on the floater motions predicted in the coupled analysis. It can also be
suggested to use a rather short coupled simulation for estimation of LF damping form mooring lines and
risers. Damping estimate can then be used in a decoupled analysis.
Further guidance on coupled analysis may be found e.g. in DNV-OS-F201.
10.2.5.4 Mooring and riser analysis

Mooring lines and risers are commonly termed slender marine structures to emphasise similarities in system
topology and global static- and dynamic behaviour. The main difference in mechanical properties affecting
the global analysis is that risers are influenced by bending stiffness while mooring lines are not. It is therefore
convenient to apply the same methodology for global analysis of risers and mooring lines. A FE approach is
normally applied using beam and bar elements for efficient modelling and analysis of mooring lines and
risers. For increased computational efficiency bar elements may also be used e.g. for flexible risers.
More detailed analyses of bending response close to the support is then calculated with the response
obtained in the first analysis appropriately used as boundary condition.
An important feature of the analysis of slender structures is the treatment of nonlinearities due to
hydrodynamic (drag) action and wave elevation variation effects, geometric stiffness, possible material
nonlinearities and contact problems in terms of contact between slender structure and seafloor as well as
hull.
The relative importance of these non-linearities are strongly system and excitation dependent, the first two
non-linearities will, at least to some extent, always be present whilst the latter ones are more system specific
non-linear effects. Material non-linearities will for example normally not be relevant for metallic tensioned
risers while it is most important for non-bonded flexible pipes and synthetic mooring lines.

It should be noted that external and internal pressures in tubular members are not considered to be non-
linear effect, as hydrostatic pressure will be handled by the effective tension concept in the analyses.
The response may be calculated by a (completely) linearized frequency or time domain approach.
An attractive approach when hydrodynamic action is the major nonlinear contributor, would be to linearize
inertia, damping and stiffness at the static position while including the non-linear hydrodynamic action
according to the Morison equation.
Analysis of catenary mooring systems can be carried out according to the technical requirements in the ISO
19901-7 or DNV-OS-E301. In any case the characteristic values of actions and the safety factors applied
shall be in accordance with NORSOK N-001 and NMD regulations concerning anchoring and positioning on
mobile offshore units (issued in 1987 with amendments issued in 1997).
10.2.5.5 Air gap analysis

Wave impact may, be permitted to occur on any part of a structure provided that it can be demonstrated that
such actions are properly accounted for in the design and that the water does not threaten personnel's life, or
damage pipes and other equipment which may lead to environmental damage. This means for instance that
-2 -4
ULS and ALS strength requirements should be fulfilled for events with annual probabilities of 10 and 10 ,
respectively. The characteristic actions for such design checks then need to be determined. There is
currently no air gap requirement as such.
However, due to the complexity and uncertainty associated with determining actions associated with waves
hitting the platforms decks (e.g. in semi-submersibles, from below, and the non-linear relation between wave
-2
height and action effect) an air gap margin of 1,5 m on the 10 wave event, is recommended for fulfilling ULS
criteria. The ALS criterion may be fulfilled by a positive air gap or by demonstrating survival of the platform
-4
subject to a 10 event. The deck structure adjacent to platform columns, however, needs to be designed to
resist the possible pressure actions due to run-up along columns.
Air-gap considerations are also relevant for small water-plane area twin hull and catamaran ships as well as
topside structures, located on platforms above the hull of a ship-shaped structure. For mono hull ships
freeboard requirements relating to the hull, should be adhered to.
When assessing air gap the following effects shall, when relevant, be considered:
• water-level (including storm surges, astronomical tides, settlement, subsidence; and set-down for TLP);
• maximum/minimum operating draughts;
• static mean offset and heel angles;
• first order sea surface elevation including wave/structure interaction effects, i.e. wave enhancement;
• wave crest elevation including wave asymmetry (crest to through ratio);
• wave frequency motions (in all 6 degrees of freedom);
• low frequency motion in heave, pitch and roll;
• effects of interacting systems (e.g. mooring and riser systems) (for buoyant structures).
Wave asymmetry may be accounted for by using a factor on first order wave response based on Gaussian
sea states (or a higher order wave theory which is documented to yield reliable predictions). In absence of a
detailed analysis, the crest height in deep water may be taken to be 0,6 times the wave height. For more
detailed account reference is made to ISO 19901-1. The analysis of wave/structure interaction effects should
be made according to 6.2.
Combination of different wave action effect can be carried out according to 10.2.4.4.
Analysis of interaction between hull and e.g. mooring and riser system is described in 10.2.5.2 to 10.2.5.4.
If the airgap analysis is subjected to significant uncertainties, it should be verified by model tests.
10.2.6 Long-term response analysis

The long-term distribution of action effect ,x:fx(x), can be combining the short-term action effects ,fx|E(x|e), (in
which E is the spectral parameters describing a sea-state) according to their probability of occurrence, as
given by a scatter diagram ,fE(e), as follows

f X ( x) = ∫ w(e) f X |E ( x | e) f E (e)d e (16)

E
where w(e) is a weight function defined as the average period in the long-term divided by average period of
the given short-term sea-state.
10.2.7 Model testing
10.2.7.1 Purpose
In the conceptual design phase the primary objective of model tests in e.g. wave basin or wind tunnel, would
be to confirm that no important feature (e.g. ringing, slamming or cork-screw motion of spar buoys with
strakes) has been overlooked for temporary and in-place conditions.
In the final design phase the purpose would be to determine the responses (e.g. motions, mooring line
tension, run-up, slamming) of a particular design. In this case it is important to predict the full-scale response
of the actual system.
In general model tests may be used to verify methods for predicting systems response.
An important value of model tests is that the results are obtained without requiring many assumptions about
the nature of the responses. This is generally not true of numerical models. However, model testing has its
limitations too. There are numerous sources that can cause errors in model test results. Numerical
predictions and model experiment results should be considered as being complimentary to one another.
Through careful interpretation, each of these results may be used to partially circumvent the limitations of the
other.
10.2.7.2 Implementation of model test results

When implementing experimental test results into design, all relevant deviations between the model test and
reality shall be considered. Such deviations may include
• scaling effects,
• model simplifications,
• limitations in testing facilities (e.g. finite dimensions; quality of waves, current and wind; wave absorption),
• simplifications and uncertainties regarding the data acquisition and processing,
• uncertainties with regard to long-term effects,
• the failure mode.
Statistical uncertainties with respect to limited sample maxima of test results are to be included in the
determination of model responses.
Extreme values of action effects due to stochastic actions should be determined with due consideration of all
information contained in the sample, with particular emphasis on the largest values of the sample.
Extrapolation based on fitted distribution should be used.
The model test shall be planned, executed and documented in such a manner that they are repeatable.
NMD guidelines for wind tunnel tests shall be applied.
10.2.8 Full-scale measurements

Full-scale measurements may be used to update the response prediction of the relevant structure and to
validate the methods for analysis of action effects for future design or redesign.
The updated analysis of the actual structure may have implications on operational requirements.
Such measurements tests should especially be devoted to actions and action effects which are difficult to
simulate in model scale, i.e. associated with soil conditions and structures subjected to hydrodynamic actions
involving both potential and viscous effects, as well as nonlinear effects such as ringing and air gap.

It is crucial to ensure adequate instrumentation to monitor environmental conditions during full-scale

measurements.
10.3 Action effects in structures and soil/foundation
10.3.1 General
Displacements, forces or stresses in the structure and foundation, shall be determined for relevant
combinations of actions by means of recognised methods, which take adequate account of the variation of
actions in time and space, the motions of the structure and the limit state which is to be verified.
Characteristic values of the action effects are to be determined.
Non-linear and dynamic effects associated with actions and structural response shall be accounted for,
whenever relevant.
The stochastic nature of environmental actions should be adequately accounted for.
10.3.2 Action processes
10.3.2.1 Waves
Wave-frequency action effects may be determined by
• stochastic long-term set of sea-states,

• a set of stochastic short-term sea states,
• a design wave approach, specified by a regular long-crested wave with given height and length.
For structural design purpose, a combination of these approaches may be necessary to determine
characteristic action effects for ULS design checks. In such a case, e.g. the stochastic approach may be
used to determine the design wave parameters such that the design wave approach gives the same extreme
response for representative response variables as the stochastic approach, with due consideration of wave
steepness, as indicated in 6.2.
Maximum action effects for fully restrained structures are obtained by considering design waves with different
headings and with extreme wave height and appropriate wave period which is varied within an appropriate
interval. If structural dynamic effects are significant, this approach should be used with caution.
Actions on mono-hull ships and their effects can be appropriately calculated by a hierarchical set of models.
The overall behaviour may be investigated by a relatively coarse FE mesh. This model may be used together
with stochastic wave models to determine relevant action conditions for more detailed structural analyses.
More detailed 3-D models may have to be used for particular hull sections like the turret area.
For floating space frame structures the analysis should include conditions with split forces (in transverse and
longitudinal direction), torsion, horizontal shear and vertical shear due to acceleration of deck masses as well
as vertical acceleration of deck masses. By using the design wave approach the simultaneity of global and
local action effects may most easily be accounted for. The design wave approach for floating space frame
structures may be calibrated by a stochastic approach by means of the sectional forces, e.g. heave, split,
transverse shear.
However, for platforms with restrained modes that are affected by ringing, springing, whipping (slamming) a
stochastic analysis of action effects would normally be necessary, see 10.2.4.2 and 10.2.4.3.
Wave actions due to low frequency excitation can normally be neglected for the hull, except for the fairlead,
turret or other areas with mooring attachment.
Stress ranges for fatigue design should be determined for a representative set of sea-states using the long-
term stochastic approach. A linear frequency domain approach is normally applicable to determine the
response in each sea-state. Particular attention to nonlinear wave effects (e.g. a wave attenuation variation,
and slamming) in the splash zone as well as possible sloshing in tanks, is, however, necessary.
Simplified approaches to determine fatigue action may be used if properly validated.

10.3.2.2 Wind
The fluctuating component of wind velocity is specified by a wind spectrum.
Stochastic wind analysis is described in 10.3.6.
10.3.2.3 Earthquake
Seismic actions may be described by ground response spectrum or time domain motion histories.
10.3.2.4 Accidental actions

Accidental actions are described in clause 8.
10.3.3 Modelling of structure or foundation
10.3.3.1 General
The model, or models, of the structure and soil/foundation shall be selected to adequately represent the
simultaneous global and local action and provide the action effects needed for different limit states. For
instance, the simultaneous effect of hydrostatic pressures or dynamic local pressures and the integrated
(global) effect of stillwater and wave actions, need to be accommodated.
The effects of secondary and/or non-structural components are to be considered in an appropriate manner.
As a minimum such components need to be modelled to account for the hydrodynamic forces and inertia
forces due to motions.
Adequate structure/foundation interaction is to be included in global analyses. Catenary mooring may be

represented by horizontal and vertical springs (or actions).
Tether forces may be determined in the motion analysis. A nonlinear skirt/or pile/soil interaction should
normally be adopted for ULS analysis.
Risers may be represented by forces, as determined by motion analysis for free modes of behaviour or by
static considerations for constrained modes of behaviour.
Ultimate strength criteria typically require calculation of the average stress level over an area, while fatigue
criteria depend upon the local stress levels, e.g. in welded joints.
Linear elastic structural models are normally applicable for determination of response for ultimate and fatigue
design checks. Non-linear structural effects may be accounted for in ALS checks as outlined in 10.6.
For space frame structures consisting of slender members a three-dimensional frame model may be used to
calculate internal member forces and moments. The effect of joint eccentricity and flexibility, where
significant, should be accounted for joint flexibility. Also, possible shear-lag and shear deformations should be
accounted for. For space frames integrated with plated structures (e.g. deck) care should be exercised in
modelling their interaction with beam elements.
For large volume thin-walled structures, three-dimensional FE membrane, plate or shell models should be
used, possibly in combination with frame models.
Solid FEs may be required to be applied to represent stresses where three-dimensional stress conditions
occur.
The structural response may often be considered as being divided into two broad categories as follows:
• global structural response, which requires global structural models that simulate, with sufficient accuracy,
the effects of global actions on the structure;
• local structural response, which normally requires local structural models that simulate with sufficient
accuracy the effect of local actions on the structure. Such local actions may be e.g. hydrostatic pressures,
tank pressures, point forces, etc.
Hence, a hierarchical set of models may be used in analysis. First, a global model based on a relatively
coarse FE shell model or a frame model may be used. Critical substructures may then be analysed by a
three-dimensional FE model using appropriate boundary conditions and local actions. The effect of

secondary structural components (if not included in the space frame model) and local actions should be
included in detailed local analyses.
Considerations of global action effects in local models may be undertaken using one of the methods listed as
follows:
• mapping of actions (or responses) from global model to local model (sub-modelling), by e.g. using
displacement or force boundary conditions obtained form the global analysis;
• integration of local model into global model;
• superimposing responses from the global model on the local model responses.
The extent of detail in a structural model is normally a balance between the need for accurate results with
limited resources. Model extent, FE type, element size, and level of detail shall be consistent with the
intended purpose of the structural model. The model extent should, however, be defined such that boundary
conditions and actions can be imposed at well-defined, or well-understood, interfaces.
Boundary conditions should be defined which do not significantly affect the results of the analysis, e.g.
artificially constrain support, or stiffen the structural model. Model boundaries should be located sufficiently
far from the area of interest so that imposed boundary conditions do not significantly alter results in the area
of interest.
Supplementary manual calculations for members subjected to local actions may be adequate in some cases,
based on empirical formulas or basic engineering principles. The actions used for these calculations should
come from the global FE analysis and from local actions acting on the structure.
Finite element analyses should be carried out with verified computer codes and FE models should be chosen
with appropriate consideration of type of element, mesh size, and mesh shapes. Transition between different
types of elements or sharp transitions in element size may distort the stress flow through a structural
component, hence transitions should be placed away from the area of interest in structural analysis models.
Mesh quality shall be reviewed to verify that distorted (and/or elongated) elements are not in areas of high
stress concentration. Stresses should be interpreted with due consideration of the variation in discretization
error (i.e. points with minimum uncertainty in stresses), stress extrapolation to boundaries and use of stress
averaging techniques. The specific FE model (geometry, material properties, actions and boundary
conditions) and the results should be verified.
10.3.3.2 Structural dynamic effects

Structural analysis may be performed quasistatically when dynamic effects (inertia and damping) due to
structural vibrations are small.
The rigid body motions of a floating structure induced by waves are to be adequately accounted for by
procedures specified in 10.2.
Relevant dynamic effects shall be considered in evaluation of the structural design. Dynamic response shall
be considered when the period of steady-state action is close to some natural period of the structure or when
the structure (or part thereof) is exposed to transient type of action. Dynamic effects may be important for
example in connection with
• wave frequency actions if the natural (structural) period exceeds 2 s to 3 s,

• sum frequency effect of wave actions (e.g. springing, ringing),
• wave slamming, sloshing in tanks and other transient wave actions,
• wind action,
• earthquake action,
• mechanical impacts due to ships, icebergs or dropped objects,
• explosion action.
The dynamic model involves mass, damping and stiffness. Modelling of damping would normally have to be
based on in-service experiences with similar types of dynamic structural systems. Some guidance is provided
by Barltrop and Adams (1991). Caution needs to be exercised to avoid overestimation of damping when
combining measured damping with damping implicit in theoretical models.

Dynamic response is obtained in the frequency or time domain. The linear response to a steady state action
may conveniently be determined in the frequency domain. Transient response is most easily determined in
the time domain.
If appropriately calibrated, the structural dynamic effects due to continuous wave action may be accounted for
by a dynamic amplification factor in conjunction with the design wave approach, see 10.3.4.
Dynamic effects of impulse-type action may similarly be accounted for by using recognised charts or formulas
for the dynamic amplification.
10.3.3.3 Stochastic effects

Wave, wind and seismic actions are stochastic of nature. In general procedures outlined in 10.2.4.2 and
10.2.4.3 can be used to determine action effects in the structure, foundation or mooring systems under
stochastic actions.
10.3.3.4 Structural non-linear effects

Relevant considerations shall be given to non-linear action and response in the evaluation of the structural
design.
Amplification of bending response (P-∆ effects) resulting from axial forces caused by rigid body motions or
elastic deformations, should be accounted for.
Non-linear analyses may be based on engineering theories such as yield hinge or other theories of plastic
mechanism, or FE models.
Non-linear FE analyses may be applied to determine the ultimate capacity of structural components,
substructure or the total structure.
The method should include an appropriate model of all significant non-linear effects, including complete
elasto-plastic behaviour, large strains and criteria for rupture. Geometrical imperfections and residual
stresses should also be modelled, when they have a significant effect on the response. When using non-
linear calculation models, adequate consideration shall be given to the fact that results depend on the action
history. It shall be demonstrated that the least favourable action history is utilised. Generally it will be
necessary to undertake parametric studies to evaluate different action histories in order to cover all modes of
failure and structural elements.
The FE methods/computer codes applied to carry out nonlinear analyses, should be verified against test
results or observed behaviour of full-scale structures, as well as known analytical solutions or other well-
documented FE solutions.
The structure shall have sufficient ductility to develop the relevant failure mechanisms.
For structural parts that are subjected to cyclic actions, it shall be demonstrated that the structure can shake
down, that repeated yielding does not lead to low cycle fatigue, incremental collapse or other failure modes. If
linear elastic global analyses are carried out to check that the component strength is not exceeded, a
demonstration that repetitive action does not cause failure, can be omitted.
Appropriate considerations shall be exercised in choosing FE type and mesh and ensuring that fabrication
tolerances have been adequately accounted for in the analyses.
When applying nonlinear analyses as design basis it is important to take into account the engineering
experience inherent in traditional design approaches. This implies that the ultimate capacity of components
obtained by non-linear FE analyses should be consistent with that given in the relevant design code. This
would normally require that the computer method to calculate ultimate strength of components subjected to
compressive action be calibrated by adequate choice of theoretical model and geometrical imperfections.
10.3.4 Structural dynamic wave action analysis of bottom supported platforms

For fully constrained (bottom supported) platforms dynamic effects shall be accounted for when the natural
period is above 3,0 and 2,0 s for determining steady wave action effects for ULS and FLS, respectively.

Such action effects may be determined by a static analysis if an adequate DAF is applied. This DAF is
obtained by stochastic wave analysis as the ratio between the dynamic and quasistatic extreme action effect
for ULS. For FLS the DAF is calculated as the ratio of the standard deviation of the dynamic and quasi-static
action effects of axial force and moments in braces.
The dynamic amplification will vary over the structure. Horizontal accelerations of the topside and structural
masses may be introduced to calibrate the quasi-static method of analysis. This simplified method could be
used for a DAF up to 1,5. For larger DAFs a direct dynamic analysis should be applied.
10.3.5 Extreme high frequency response including, springing, ringing and whipping
Various types of higher order, interrelated high frequency wave actions may occur and cause extreme or
repetitive action effects if the action frequencies coincide with natural frequencies of the structure, i.e.
restrained modes of behaviour. Since the theoretical knowledge of these phenomena is limited, it is important
to assess them jointly.
More specifically higher order actions that cause a transient action effect (ringing) may occur when steep,
high waves encounter vertical components of structures with natural periods in the range from about 2 s up to
8 s.
Ringing effects is of significance only in combination with extreme first order wave frequency effects and
ringing should be evaluated in the time domain with due consideration of first order wave action effects. The
magnitude of the first response cycles is governed by the magnitude of force and its duration relative to the
magnitude of the resonance period. The first ringing response cycles is not sensitive to the damping.
The ringing response is primarily of importance for ultimate and accidental limit state (in some cases for FLS)
and SLS. Particular care is needed to establish the steep, unsymmetrical sea states that cause ringing.
Ringing action effects may be combined with low-frequency effects, by methods used for combining wave-
and low frequency action effects.
Whipping is induced by bottom slamming or bow flare actions in ships and should be combined with the
continuous wave action by properly accounting for the phase.
The significant uncertainties in current theoretical methods for predicting high frequency wave actions make it
necessary to combine theoretical and experimental methods in order to determine characteristic action
effects for design.
10.3.6 Stochastic dynamic wind action analysis

The effects of dynamic wind actions may be determined by a frequency domain analysis. One alternative is to
use a modal formulation in this connection. The modal action effects may be combined with the SRSS
method if the modes are not too close to each other. In case of modes having periods close to each other,
the CQC method can be applied.
The extreme action effect due to wind can be determined by
S = SS + α σ S (17)
where
Ss is the static response due to the mean wind

σs is the standard deviation of the dynamic structural action effect
α is wind response peak factor
10.3.7 Seismic action effects
10.3.7.1 Action effects by response spectrum approach

The effect of earthquake actions for strength check of a soil-structure system may be obtained by a linear
elastic model and use of modal superposition. An appropriate number of relevant modes to represent the
action effect in question shall be included. Particular care is required to model local effects, i.e.
subassemblies. The maximum of a given action effect in each mode can be obtained using the modal
amplitude of the action effect and response spectrum in Figure 7, corresponding to the relevant modal period

,T, and damping value ,ς. The damping in modes which do not involve soil deformation, or hysteric losses
due to cracking or plasticity in the structure, should be carefully estimated because it may be less than the
reference value of 5 %.
Deck, appurtenances, derricks, flare booms, critical piping and equipment need special consideration of
global platform dynamics as well as possible local dynamic amplification.
An appropriate method should be used for combining modal responses for different directions. The CQC
method may be used for combining modal responses in a given direction and the SRSS may be used for
combining the directional responses. See e.g. Der Kiureghian (1980).
10.3.7.2 Global nonlinear strength analysis

If strength criteria are not fulfilled by action effects determined according to10.3.7.1, it is to be demonstrated
-4
that the global structure-foundation system remains stable, without excessive deformations during the 10
earthquake, by taking into account system redundancy and force redistribution by inelastic deformations. A
simplified approach based on a static nonlinear, or a dynamic nonlinear analysis may be used for this
purpose.
In the simplified approach the action factor (of 1,3) for strength check is reduced depending on ductility and
residual strength capability of the structure-foundation system demonstrated by a static nonlinear pushover
analysis.
Direct nonlinear dynamic analysis should be carried out in the time domain, considering three standardised
time histories, and using adequate models of the structure, foundation and soil as well as the surrounding
water.
10.3.7.3 Other effects of earthquakes

Consideration should be given to the question whether earthquakes in the relevant area could have other
effects, such as
a) landslide,
b) critical pore pressure build-up in soil,
c) major soil deformations with subsequent deformations of foundation slabs, piles, skirts and pipes,
d) low frequency waves in water,
e) acoustic wave effects on submerged, non-flooded structural parts,
f) tsunamis.
10.4 Extreme action effects for ultimate limit states

Most ultimate limit states occur when the structure has reached a state of nonlinear behaviour. However, the
ULS check is normally performed by carrying out a linear elastic response analysis of the structure to
determine forces or stresses in the individual components and by checking that the ultimate capacity is
adequate component by component, using structural resistance formulations that incorporate non-linear
effects occurring at component collapse.
Ultimate strength control typically considers average stress levels over an area which causes buckling. For
the evaluation of buckling strength, mid-plate (membrane) element stress data should be used. For panels
with large stress gradients, the variation of stress shall be considered in the buckling evaluation.
Component resistance is normally based upon experimental methods and generalised by parametric or by
non-linear structural analyses, see 10.3.3.4. When multiple stress/force components affect the component
strength, the strength may be expressed by interaction equations. The characteristic environmental action
effect for ULS checks refers to a maximum, and in special cases, a minimum action effect corresponding to
-2
an annual exceedance probability of 10 . Various sets of combined response variables should be checked to
ensure that the most critical set of characteristic response values is applied in the evaluation of the structure.
In non-linear structural analyses for ULS care should be exercised in application of partial resistance factors
to cover uncertainties in the model as well as material and geometrical parameters.
Commonly used design methods are based upon the assumption that design values for action effect and
resistance can be defined separately by introducing partial safety factors on the characteristic action effect

and resistance. In cases where integrated, non-linear analyses are used, care should be taken to ensure that
equivalent levels of safety to those implicit in this NORSOK standard are obtained.
10.5 Repetitive action effects for fatigue limit states

Dynamic, principal stress ranges (or amplitudes) shall be used in the evaluation fatigue strength. The stress
ranges should consider the variation and orientation of the principal stress vector components throughout the
particular cycle being evaluated, e.g. wave. Extreme fiber stress (e.g. top/bottom surfaces in shell elements)
shall be used based on the location of the material or weld being evaluated for fatigue performance.
The repetitive action for fatigue limit states is described by the distribution of stress ranges for welded
structures. For basic (i.e. rolled and cast) material the joint distribution of mean stress and stress range is
required. The stress may be expressed by a nominal hot spot or hot spot notch value. The latter stress
includes the notch effect of weld geometry. It is crucial that the SN-curves applied are based on stresses
defined in a consistent manner.
Stress concentration factors for fatigue analysis should be determined by appropriate detailed FE analysis, by
physical models, by other rational methods of analysis, or by published formulas. If the relevant hot spot
(notch) stress is obtained by FE analysis using solid or shell elements it may be necessary to determine the
relevant stress by extrapolation procedure.
The main contribution to fatigue actions is normally from the local and global effect of waves and comes from
moderate stress ranges. Fatigue design requires a description of the long-term variation of local stresses due
to wave as well as possible sum-frequency wave actions, variable buoyancy, slamming, wave- or current-
induced vortex shedding, or, mechanical vibration. The effect of local (e.g. pressure) and global actions shall
be properly accounted for.
Account should be made of repetitive actions during fabrication, tow-out, installation as well as temporary and
permanent, in-place conditions. For structures with oil storage, the repetitive effects of loading and unloading
should be considered.
A linear elastic model of the structure is generally adequate. When significant, dynamic effects associated
with structural vibration, shall be taken into account.
Miscellaneous hull appurtenances associated with risers, riser guides, anodes, mooring equipment should be
evaluated for fatigue resistance, using local analyses. The calculation of actions on such components should
be generated using water particle velocities and accelerations from diffraction analyses of the system that
may possibly affect the mentioned components.
Stress ranges due to wide-band Gaussian or non-Gaussian response processes should be determined by an
appropriate method of cycle counting, e.g. the rain-flow method. Simple conservative methods for combining
(e.g. wave and high or low frequency responses) may be applied.
Screening in order to identify joints with high dynamic stresses and stress concentration, which require more
detailed fatigue analyses, may be undertaken using the nominal member stress for the extreme event, an
appropriate stress concentration factor and preliminary estimates of the Weibull stress range parameters
describing the long-term stress distribution.
Detailed fatigue analyses should be performed using conservative deterministic analyses, spectral
techniques, and in particular situations, by time domain analysis. Accurate analyses of local responses in the
splash zone would require time domain analyses. Frequency or time domain stochastic approaches should
be applied for dynamic sensitive structures.
10.6 Accidental damage limit state (ALS) analyses

The ALS design check requires evaluation of
• the structural damage caused by accidental actions,

• the ultimate capacity of structures with damage.
The large uncertainties associated with determining the accidental actions, normally justify the utilisation of
simplified nonlinear analyses methods both to calculate the damage and the global ultimate strength of the

damaged structure. Such methods may be based on plastic mechanisms (yield hinge or line methods) with
due recognition of possible premature rupture.
Non-linear FE analyses may also be applied on similar conditions as mentioned in 10.3.3.4.
Further details about such analyses may be found in the design standards for each type of material, e.g.
steel, concrete, aluminium.

Bibliography
[1] API RP 2T: Planning, Designing and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms
[2] Bungum, H and Selnes, P B, 1988: “Earthquake loading on the Norwegian Continental Shelf.” Summary
report, NORSAR/ NGI, Oslo.
[3] Det Norske Veritas, 1981: Recommended practice RP D205 “Impact from boats” TN A202, Oslo
[4] Det Norske Veritas, 1996: “Rules for Planning and Execution of Marine Operations”, Oslo
[5] Det Norske Veritas, 2000: “Design of Offshore Steel Structures, General (LRFD method)” Offshore
Standards DNV-OS-C101, Oslo
[6] Det Norske Veritas, 2000: “Structural Design of Column Stabilised Units (LRFD method)”, Offshore
Standard DNV-OS-C103, Oslo
[7] Det Norske Veritas, 2001: “Structural Design of Self-elevating Units” (LRFD method), Offshore Standard,
DNV-OS-C104, Oslo
[8] Det Norske Veritas, 2001: “Structural Design of TLPs”, Offshore Standard DNV-OS-C105, Oslo
[9] Det Norske Veritas, 2001: “Structural Design of Deep Draught Floating Units (LRFD method)”, Offshore
Standard, DNV-OS-C106
[10] ENV 1991-2-1: 1995 Eurocode 1: Part 2-1: Densities, self-weight and imposed actions
[11] ENV 1991-2-3: 1995 Eurocode 1: Part 2-3: Snow actions
[12] ENV 1991-2-5 Eurocode 1: Part 2-5: Thermal actions
[13] ENV 1991-2-6 Eurocode 1: Part 2-6: Actions and deformations imposed during execution
[14] ENV 1991-2-7 Eurocode 1: Part 2-7: Accidental actions
[15] ENV 1991-5 Eurocode 1: Part 5: Actions induced by cranes and machinery
[16] Forristall, G.Z., 2000: Wave Crest Distributions: Observations and Second-Order Theory”, Journal of
Physical Oceanography, Volume 30, pp. 1931-1943
[17] Forristall, G.Z., Barstow, S.F., Krogstad, H.E., Prevosto, M., Taylor, P.H. and Tromans, P., 2002: “Wave
st
Crest Sensor Intercomparison Study: An Overview of WACSIS”, Proc. 21 International Conf. on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Oslo
[18] ISO 3010:1988, Basis for design of structures - Seismic actions on structures
[19] NS 3420: Specification texts for building, construction, installations – (all parts)
[20] ENV 1991-1:1994, Basis of design and actions on structures – Part 1: Basis of design

Norsok n-003 Actions and Action Effects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norsok n-003 Actions and Action Effects

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norsok n-003 Actions and Action Effects

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

NORSOK STANDARD N-003

Edition 2, September 2007

Actions and action effects

NORSOK standard Page 1 of 57

NORSOK standards are administered and published by Standards Norway.

NORSOK standard Page 2 of 57

2 Normative and informative references

2.1 Normative references

2.2 Informative references

NORSOK standard Page 3 of 57

NORSOK standard Page 4 of 57

3 Terms, definitions, abbreviations and symbols

3.1 Terms and definitions

NORSOK standard Page 5 of 57

LF low frequency (lower than wave frequency)

NORSOK standard Page 6 of 57

θm mean wave direction in a short-term sea state

a) weight of the structure,

4.2 Hydrostatic pressure difference

5.2 Crane actions

NORSOK standard Page 7 of 57

5.3 Deck area actions

Local design: design of deck plates and stiffeners

Table 1 – Variable actions in deck areas

Area Local design Primary design Global design

Guard rails should be designated for the following actions:

• a horisontal line action of 1,5 kN/m acting on the handrail;

NORSOK standard Page 8 of 57

5.4 Tank pressures and tank weight

5.4.1 Hydrostatic pressures

hD is the dynamic pressure head due to flow through pipes

NORSOK standard Page 9 of 57

5.5 Variable actions in temporary phases

6.1.1 Environmental conditions

6.1.2 Determination of characteristic actions

Hydrodynamic model tests should be carried out to

Wind tunnel tests should be carried out when

NORSOK standard Page 10 of 57

6.2 Hydrodynamic actions

6.2.1 Wave data

6.2.2 Wave models

and recognised wave theories.

6.2.2.2 Long-term variation

NORSOK standard Page 11 of 57

Each sea state is described in 6.2.2.3.

6.2.2.3 Design sea states

NORSOK standard Page 12 of 57

The short-crestedness of wind-induced waves may be described by a spreading function:

where Γ is the Gamma function.

NORSOK standard Page 13 of 57

Figure 2 - Example contour line

NORSOK standard Page 14 of 57

6.2.2.4 Design wave

6,5 H 100 ≤ T ≤ 11 H 100

NORSOK standard Page 15 of 57

6.2.3 Current velocities

6.2.3.1 Macroscopic current velocity

• coast and ocean currents,

6.2.3.2 Current profile at a structure