Computational Models for Offshore Structural Load Analysis in Collisions

  • Jeom Kee PaikEmail author
Part of the Topics in Safety, Risk, Reliability and Quality book series (TSRQ, volume 37)


Jacket type offshore platforms are used to produce offshore oil in shallow waters. Recently, fixed type wind turbines have been used to harvest offshore wind energy. To transport supplies such as food, equipment, and chemicals, offshore supply vessels (OSVs) regularly visit offshore platforms. Depending on environmental conditions and operational errors, collisions between OSVs and offshore platforms can occur. Such collisions result in the structural damage of local members, such as columns and braces, which can reduce the safety and integrity of the entire structural system. Various causes of collisions are considered relevant, such as human error, engine and equipment failure, and harsh environmental conditions. The dynamic and unpredictable nature of weather conditions must also be considered in association with volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous environments. This chapter describes an advanced methodology for determining the design loads of collisions between OSVs and fixed (jacket) type offshore platforms.


  1. 1.
    Aas B, Gribkovskaia I, Halskauo Shlopak A (2007) Routing of supply vessels to petroleum installations. Int J Phys Distrib Logistics Manage 37:164–179CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    ABS (2013) Guidance notes on accidental load analysis and design for offshore structures. American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX, USAGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    API (2007) Interim guidance on hurricane conditions in the Gulf of Mexico. API 2INT-MET, American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Deeb H, Mehdi RA, Hahn A (2017) A review of damage assessment models in the maritime domain. Ships Offshore Struct 12(Sup1):S31–S54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    DNV GL (2017a) Recommended practice: design against accidental loads. DNVGL-RP-C204, Høvik, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    DNV GL (2017b) Recommended practice: environmental conditions and environmental loads. DNVGL-RP-C205, Høvik, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    DNV GL (2018) WOAD—world offshore accident database. Accessed 31 Jan 2017
  8. 8.
    gCaptain (2015) Tidewater supply vessel heavily damaged after hitting production platform. Accessed 15 Oct 2018
  9. 9.
    Haugen S (1998) An overview over ship-platform collision risk modelling. In: Guedes Soares C (ed) Risk and reliability in marine technology. A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    HSE (2000) Effective collision risk management for offshore installations. Offshore technology report, OTO 1999 052, Health and Safety Executive, Merseyside, UKGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    IMCA (2009) International guidelines for the safe operation of dynamically positioned offshore supply vessels. International Marine Contractors Association, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    ISO 19902 (2007) Petroleum and natural gas industries—fixed steel offshore structures. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva, SwitzerlandGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kenny JP (1988) Protection of offshore installations against impacts. Background report, Offshore Technology Information, OTI 88 535, Department of Energy, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kvitrud A (2011) Collisions between platforms and ships in Norway in the period 2001–2010. In: Proceedings of the 30th international conference on ocean, offshore and arctic engineering, OMAE2011-49897, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, 19–24 JuneGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Mujeeb Ahmed MP, Paik JK (2019) A probabilistic approach to determine design loads for collision between an offshore supply vessel and offshore installations. Ocean Eng 173:358–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    NORSOK (2007) Actions and action effects: N-003, 2nd edn. Standards Norway, Lysaker, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pedersen PT, Zhang S (1999) On impact mechanics in ship collisions. Mar Struct 11(10):429–449CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Robson JK (2003) Ship/platform collision incident database. Health and Safety Executive (HSE), Research report 053, Oxfordshire, UKGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Spouge J (1999) A guide to quantitative risk assessment for offshore installations. The Centre for Marine and Petroleum Technology (CMPT), Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Step Change in Safety (2017) Marine operations: 500-m safety zone. Aberdeen, UKGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stephens MA (1974) EDF statistics for goodness of fit and some comparisons. J Am Stat Assoc 69(347):730–737CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Vinnem JE (2014) Offshore risk assessment vol. 1: principles, modelling and applications of QRA studies, 3rd edn. Springer, London, UKGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang G, Tamura K, Jiang D, Zhou QJ (2006) Design against contact damage for offshore supply vessels. ABS Technical Papers, American Bureau of Shipping, Houston, TX, USA, pp 57–66Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zhang S, Pedersen PT, Ocakli H (2015) Collisions damage assessment of ships and jack-up rigs. Ships Offshore Struct 10(5):470–478Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.The Korea Ship and Offshore Research Institute (Lloyd’s Register Foundation Research Centre of Excellence)Pusan National UniversityBusanKorea (Republic of)

Personalised recommendations