\ -

, ,"'"
SNAME Tren ctions, Vol. 88, 1980, pp. 195-223

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge

Performance in Offshore Transportation and Launching
Operations
Rubin Szajnberg,1 Member, William Greiner,1 Associate Member, Henry H. T. Chen," Associate
-
Member, and Philip Rawstron,1 Associate Member

The problems and solution techniques encountered in quantifying the safety factors involved in the
transportation of large offshore structures on deck cargo barges are discussed in this paper. The
primary factors considered are environmental force prediction, stability, motion and strength, and
their interaction, which forms the criteria for selecting an acceptable barge/jacket configuration for
towing and launching operations. The methodologies are presented and compared in light of the
state of the art in naval architecture and structural analysis. and practical implications on the design
of the tiedown system and jacket reinforcement are discussed based on past expe;~nces.

I Senior industrialist specialist, design engineer, project staff engi- Presented at the Annual Meeting. New York, N. Y., November
neer, and senior engineer, respectively, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, 13-15, 1980, of THE SocIETY OF N AVAL ARCHITECT'S AND MARINE
Texas. ENGINEERS.

195
..
.. , ....
 Introduction societ.ies such as Det norske Veritas (DnV), Lloyd's Register,
1
Amencan Bureau of Shipping (ABS), and Bureau Veritas (BV),
I DUSTRY has made increasing demands over the past dec-
as well as from known consultant companies such as 1 oble
ade on the engineering disciplines to develop new technology
Denton (ND) and United States Salvage Inc.
and methods to transport and install deepwater structures in
These various agencies have tended to set different criteria
an e~ficient. a.n? safe manner. As the exploration and pro-
or have chosen to leave the criteria to the contractor's discretion
duction activities of the offshore petroleum industry have
in the area of seakeeping and structural evaluations. These
ventured into deeper and more hostile waters, a number of
vari~tions exis~ particularly in the areas of predicting the
attempts have been made to respond to these demands.
maximum environmental conditions that will be experienced
GEMI I [1]2 and HIDECK [2] are novel approaches applied
to the problem, and Side-launching and self-floating structures ~nroute a~d in certain i?tact stability criteria. Damage to
Jackets dunng transportation and launch has been experienced
have also been proposed for the transporting effort.
as a result of a combination of problems derived from the pre-
Yet transportation experiences in deepwater applications
ceding factors, and the loss of investment, apart from the loss
around the globe indicate that often the most economical
of time, has sometimes run into the hundreds of millions of
method of transporting jackets or structures from fabrication
dollars.
yards to offshore locations remains the flat-deck cargo barge
Besides a lack of agreement about rational methodologies fur
I' approach. Once on site, a derrick barge either lifts off the
barge stability'and structural analysis, there has also been,
structure, or it is launched from the transporting oarge with a
until recently, a lack of data available to carry out the necessary
~l~ctive com~in~~ion of ballasting and winching. A so-called
calculations to satisfy the regulatory bodies or to evaluate the
third generation of barges was first designed and constructed
barge/jacket transportation in terms of risk exposure from an
_ in the early seventies [3] to perform the transportation task for
owner's point of view. Yet the trend continues toward the use
large deepwater structures.
of steel jackets for deepsea oil production, and the safe trans-
Today there exists a fleet of barges which are designed to
portation and launching of these jackets will remain a difficult
transport and launch deepwater- jackets and carry offshore
task for engineers for many years to come.
structure modules. These vessels have large deck spaces, and
enough stability, strength and reserve buoyancy to carry deck This paper addresses some of the critical problems in the area
of offshore transportation and, based on past experience. at-
loads in excess of 25 000 tons [22500 metric tons (t)]. Table
tempts to approach in a unified and systematic manner the
1 is a partial list of the existing fleet, giving the vessels' main
evaluations necessary for adequate barge performances in
design particulars.
carrying out successful transportation operations. The paper
Desig~ featur:s ~or this class of cargo barge generally include
approaches the task from the perspective of a naval architect
hea~y skid and tilting beams for launching the large jackets. A
or structural engineer who must analyze the transportation
typlca~ launch barge arrangement is shown in Fig. 1. Quick
pro?l.em under investigation and make appropriate design
ballasting pumps rated in the region of 2000 metric tons per
decisions based on the critical inputs from practical consider-
hour are also usually installed to trim the barge during
ations.
launch.
The design task is divided into two parts for discussion. The
. Sink~ge and stability considerations determine the principal
first part reviews the various analytical echniques in the area
dimensions of these barges. The stability criteria used consider
of environmental load estimations, stability evaluations, motion
a typical deck cargo which exhibits a high center of gravity
predictions, structure analysis and risk assessment. It is in-
above deck and a large windage area. The forward and aft
tended to provide the reader with a review of the present in-
rake segments of the barge are then designed to minimize re-
dustry standards for offshore transportation analysis, and ex-
sistance and promote good seakeeping and coursekeeping be-
pl~re the areas of uncertainty for future developments. Figure
havior.
2 Illustrates a typical design spiral for applying available
Generally, engineering analysis in the past has assured the
techniques in a transportation analysis.
relative safety of tows by closely following ship practice in
~he seco~d par.t of the paper concentrates on the practical
determining environmental loads, stability and motion factors.
desl.gn considerations which must be made when using the
However, demands for more-specific guidance criteria for
available tools and procedures for transportation studies. Due
cargo barge problems have grown as transportation practices
to the practical constraints such as barge availability, time, data
have become more complicated. At the same time a similar
and resource considerations, various tradeoffs have to be made.
pressure has been felt for design criteria for offshore structures
In actual operations a designer is confronted with decisions
to keep up with the increasing technology required for deep-
concerning motions versus stability and stability versus strength,
w~ter applications. This has resulted in various new guidelines
as well as decisions regarding the level of detail to be performed
being developed for general offshore use which now exist in the
~nthe ana~ysis. These causal effects on the total safety of the
form of rules and recommendations.
Jacket dunng a transportation operation are discussed in light
T~e r~se of .regulations did not automatically bring stan-
of past experiences.
dardization to Industry practice, however, and the burden for
It is hoped that these practical experiences will help designers
produ~ing acceptabl~ designs to ensure safety during trans-
better understand the complex interactions of a transportation
portation and launching rests with naval architects and struc-
and launch operation for an offshore jacket. Ultimately,
tural engineers. Tiedown braces, reinforcing members, towing
how~ver, the goal of the paper is not only to assist designers in
arrangements, and ballast procedures all must be reevaluated
m~klng appropriate-decisions in a transportation analysis, but
because of the new and expanding applications in offshore use.
to Improve overall performance during the actual transporta-
The further responsibility of minimizing jacket structural
tion operation.
damages due to fatigue and jacket slamming also rests with the
designer.
Agencies which to date have issued regulations to guide de- Transportation analysis techniques
signers include the U. S. Coast Guard (USCG), the Department
of Energy U.K. (DOE), and the American Petroleum Institute ~he problems of analyzing the safety of a particular tow are
basically those of defining the interaction of the tow with its
(API). In addition, vessel regulations exist from classification
environment. The tools and techniques available to the de-
2 Numbers in brackets designate References at end of paper. signer must be directed toward the two primary damage or loss
196 Practical Oesign Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
"- Table 1 Typical deck cargo and launch barge characteristics
Tilt
L B 0 Dlsp. DWT LIB BIT BID TID Beam
Tux
BARGE Lenath
NAME
ft ft tt lL
Ft
~LTons "'.T.
LTons
- - - - ft
Intennac 198.12 51.82 12.19 30.48
650 650.0 170.0 40.0 3.82 4.25 100

11.4
z "'leoperl
M44
190.0
623.0
50.0
164 .0 37.4 3.8 4.4
32.00
105

Hl09 183.0 47.2 11.6 9.4 75920 57300

600.0 155.0 38.0 30.8 74700 56398 3.9 5.0 4.6 .81

BAR 376 176.8 4B.8 11.0 8.06 84226 66680 30.48

580.0 160.0 36.0 26.42 82900 65630 3.6 6.06 4.4 .73 100

Hll0 160.0 42.1 10.7 7.5 49570 39550 18.90

525.0 138.0 35.1 24.6 48790 393~0 3.8 5.6 3.9 .70 62

Intennac 152.4 36.58 10.06 7.66 41790 31730 18.29

600 500.0 120.0 33.4 25.13 41130 31230 4.2 4.8 3.6 .75 60

Oceanic 93 137.16 31.70 9.14 18.29

450.0 104.0 30.0 4.32 3.5 60

BAR 398 121. 9 31. 94 7.62 8.87 27605 15281 15.24

400.0 104.8 25.0 29.1 27170 15040 3.8 5.5 4.2 .76 50.

Golia! 10 121. 92 30.48 9.14 7.27 24600 20400

400.0 100.0 30.0 23.85 24212 20079 4.0 4.2 3.3 .80

BAR 267 115.82 30.48 7.62 5.29 17607 12456 15.24

380.0 100.0 25.0 17.36 17330 12260 3.8 5.8 4.0 . 69 50 .

Intennac 500 106.68 24.38 7.62 5.12 12294 9449 . 10.52

350.0 80.0 25.0 16.79 12100 9300 4.4 4.76 3.2 .69 34.5

8AR 319 101.19 27.43 6.10 5.18 13930 11308 15.24

332.0 90.0 20.0 17.01 13711 11130 3.7 5.3 4.5 .85 50.

Golia! 6 100.0 27.0 7.0 5.55 13868 13868

328.0 88.6 13650 3.85 .79

BAR 362 91. 44 27.43

-23.0
6.10
18.25

4.66
13650

11176 8636
3.7 4.85

15.24
300.0 90.0 20.0 15.29 11000 8500 3.3 5.9 4.5 . 77 50 .

Agano 89.92 29.87 7.01 4 ..88

295.0 98.0 23.0 16.0 3.01 6.13 4.26 .70

BAR 396 92.35 27.43 6.70 5.42 12635 10626

303.0 90.0 22.0 17.8 12436 10459 3.4 5.1 4.1 .81

Intennac 400 91.44 27.43 6.55 4.82 10818 8941 11 .89

300.0 90.0 21. 5 15.8 10648 8800 3.33 5.7 4.19 .74 39

Gplia!3 77.42 24.0 6.19 5.0 9754 8230

254 .0 78.8 20.3 16.3 9600 8100 3.22 4.83 3.88 .80

V BAR 271 76.2 21: 95 4.88 3.63 6195 5158

250 .0 72.0 16.0 11. 92 6095 5075 3.5 6.04 4.5 .75

Intennac 250 73.15 21. 95 5.23 4.21 6248 5263 6.25

240.0 72.0 17.16 13.82 6150 5180 3.3 5.2 4.3 .805 20.5

TIL T 8EAM : PUMP :

: ROOM : TK 2 . TK
-.....T--._-- .-~;.., ,!.-"':~ _

13 o

WIRE BRIDLES
FAIRLEAD
TOWING BRACKET
o ollJDo----o;o--- 0:0 0:0 0.0 IIJl' 0
.'
.'

C=====

I -:--r
I

I'
_ !
,
I

:
I

I
: --e_
,

"s..
:::oJ
I
-r - - - - - - - - - ...
-- -, - - - ~- - - - - - - --- - - - _..- - -- - ...J . _ .. _ . ~ _ . L. _ - - --

: : ; : : PUMP :c"OOLIN"G!WINCH:
o e '
~_"""J._,. 0 ~:C'
._ .._,._ ._._ . _ ....._,_ .. _ -. . 0:0
.._._ .-,,-_-1_"- :>'0
_, _.... 0:_, " ROOM I WATER,
l ..
_..
0
..
_._,..
.
o 0: 0
I
0:0
I
0:0
:
0:0
I
0:
I ~
:CCX>LJNG~
WATER WINCH
I I.! ,0 0

[=::::::=~=cr===----- .
. "'" -.---- ---------.--- - -_. _.~- ------ __. '1---". --- ---,..- ..
---,-- -- .-_ .
_ -- --.
0

I I
....o.....- _.J==::
._

I
I

I
-=:::I:= I

I
I :
=-::J
I~

c 0 I 0 0:0 0:0 0:0 0;0 -e~

Fig. 1 Typical launch barge arrangement

Practical DeSign Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 197

 ____________________________________ Nomenclature _

A = projected windage area KG = vertical center of gravity above T R = return period/average interarrival
AI = effective windage area of member baseline time
or surface KGI = maximum allowable KG of barge Tz = zero crossing period
. A = area under righting-arm curve as with respect to sce weather To = wave Period observed visually
defined in Figs. 5 and 6 criteria [TI = transformation tensor from barge
ACR = dynamic stability criterion = 0.08 KG2 = maximum allowable KG of barge coordinate system to jacket
m-rad (15 ft-deg) for offshore with respect to see dynamic coordinate system
service stability criteria TI = total exposure time to a particular
IAIGLOM:' = acceleration matrix in global KGA = maximum allowable barge KG for sea state
coordinate specified stability criteria T2 = 21r{mo/m2)1 2 (1.0 - 0.OSt}2
IAILOCAL = acceleration matrix in local coor- KGLS = light ship center of gravity V = relative", ind velocity
dinate K.W = metacentric height above base- V IhrlO = wind velocity at to m above water
B = barge beam line level averaged over one-hour
B = area under wind heeling and Ku = transverse radius of g} ration period
rightin~ arm curves as defined L = duration
of transportation opera- Vc.w = current velocity due to wind
in Fi~> S and 6 tion in days shear
C = area und r w ind heeling arm L = length of barge vce = vertical center of gravity
curve as defined in Figs. 5 and LT = long ton vcec = vertical center of gravity of cargo
6 above barge deck
CA = added-ma . and viscous damping
[."11 = generalized
mass coefficient ma-
trix
a. = projected area of a structural
coeffi lent member or surface exposed to
'\1'w = wind heeling moment
C. = effective- hape coefficient for wind
open truss M = teady wind heeling moment at
angle <I>
b, = truss block area
CH = height coef licient
Mwc = gust wind heeling moment !(a) = spreading function for multidi-
CHG = height and ~ust coefficient rectional sea state
C, = shape coefficient for windage .IV = number of wind area elements
g = gravitational acceleration
area N = number of sea state observations in h; = vertical distance from center of
Cm = shape coefficient for member of a day wind pressure to center of un-
infinite length , = number of independent observa- derwater resistance
ce = center of ~ra\ity tions
k = constant reflecting best-fit ex-
D = barge depth .(0') = expected number of cycles to
trapolation line on Weibull
IT = translation RAO vector for surge, failure at stress level 0'
distribution plot
swav. and heave P = [SCe wind pressure
D = \eIOCii~ RAO's
m =
number of hazardous events oc-
= 0.053 + (LI 1330)2 l/m2 curring during period L
{) = acceleration RAO's = 0.005 + (L/14 2(0)2 LT/ft2) mo = mean square value of stress, equal
DCG = complex RAO at syst m ce P(nodamage) = probability of no damage to area under stress response
Dz = absolute vertical motion RAO PE(li 1/3) = encounter probability (probability spectrum
D(x,1j,z) = relative vertical motion RAO from of one or more exceedances of m2,m4 = 2nd and 4th spectral moments
specific location
hazardous events) above spectral density axis
D(H 1/3,P.) = cumulative fatigue damage per Pj(O') = probability density function of
unit time for a specific sea state
Po =
probability of stress level exceed-
stress range ing & = p(O' > &)
and heading PI (Ii Id = probability of occurrence of sea q = wind pressure
DVQYAGE = expected fatigue damage during state HI/3
r = position vector from system ce to
transportation P{N = m 1 = probability of hazardous events
FWIND = wind force
a specific location
P(O' > iT) = probability of stress level exceed-
IFI = generalized nodel force vector ing iT
lul,lul = generalized displacement and
IFwl = complex wave forces acting on acceleration with respect to
barge R =
return interval based on number structural coordinate system
IFml = complex motion-induced accel- of voyages between recur- v = velocity
eration forces rence :r = r-coordinate or location
GM,GMT = transverse metacentric height R = vertical relative motion displace- Ij = Ij-coordinate or location
GZo = righting arm for KG = 0 ment RAO's z = z-coordinate or location
H = vertical distance between centers if = RAO vector for roll, pitch, and ::1 = z-coordinate of a member above
of above and underwater yaw stillwater level
areas R. = Reyonlds number
a = spacing ratio of open truss
H 0 = ccnstant reflecting intercept of RAO = response amplitude operator
a = wind direction with respect to
best-fit line on Weibull plot RAO(w,v,p.) = RAO at frequency w, speed v,
member axis
and headings p.
HI '3,H, = igrnficant wave height a,{J = coefficients for CHC to define
if 1/3 = extreme design sea state associated R..\ ..AX = maximum righting arm
wind speed profile
with a return period T R Q(H = probability of exceeding ignifi-
Ho = wave height from visual observa-
I 3)
f3 = aerodynamic solidity ratio
cant wave height 11 = displacement
tion
lu = mass moment of inertia
S(w) = wave spectral density function 111.. = light ship displacement
[K I = generalized stiffness coefficient T = duration or period e = spectral broadness factor
matrix T = natural roll period of barge 1'/ = shielding effect coefficient

198 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

 o = pitch angle or incident angle aN = most probable extreme stress CPd = lesser of downflooding or second
lJ = pitch angular acceleration level intercept angles on righting!
A = rate of arrival of hazardous iJ = arbitrary threshold stress level or heeling arm curves
events yield stress CPm = angle of maximum righting arm
11 = heading angle cP = solidity ratio (i, = roll angular acceleration
p = density of air "'" 1.225 kg!m3 cP = heel angle f = yaw rotation or heading angle
(00765 Ib/ft3) CPJ = first intercept angle on righting! f= yaw angular acceleration
a = stress level heeling arm curve w = frequency = 2. T

modes for the tow, namely, stability losses and structural fail-
ures. First, stability of the barge must be assessed to insure that
the barge will not capsize in the anticipated wind and waves,
and secondly, the action of these waves on the barge and jacket
must be determined to define the slamming and inertia loads
to which the jacket and tiedowns will be designed.
The external forces and moments created by environmental
parameters such as wind and waves must be analyzed, on both
the basis of their probabilistic occurrence and on their inter-
action with the barge/iacket system under tow. The state of
the art of naval architecture and structural engineering provides
a variety of methods applicable to these transportation analysis
tasks, and a discussion of these methods now follows.
Environmental loads
Environmental loads used in the transportation analysis
comprise those oceanographic processes which will ultimately
affect the structural safety and integrity of the tow. Primarily,
these forces include the wind, wave, and current loads as de-
scribed in this subsection. Methods prescribed by several au-
thorities for determining environmental extremes for wind and
wave parameters are briefly outlined in Table 2. An overview
of sources of data and an approach to predicting environmental
conditions during a tow are presented in the following.
Wind. Wind forces and moments are used in stability cal-
culations to determine the magnitude of overturning loads. In
general, wind forces which act on exposed structures may be
expressed as a function of wind speed, direction, projected area
and shape:
(1)
where
p = density of air
V = relative wind velocity
CHGf = wind speed coefficient of member which includes
height and gust effects
= O'(Z/lO)/I as explained in Appendix 1
C, = windage area coefficient of member which in-
cludes shape, shielding, and solidification effects
caused by wind blowing from angle a

SYSTEMS
EVALUATION

<s->: ~

RISK
ASSESSMENTS
/
COST

<, ~
CONSIDERATIONS

DESIGN
BARGE /JACKET

/CONFIGURATION

<, PROB OF
/ MODIFICATION
BALLASTING
NO DAMAGE FINAL TlEDOWN

'-:::,E:,i~"~'" /,"\ !~:::.~'"

( (
CLIENT / CONTRACTOR S6:~~~
SPECIFICAliOHS
TUG SELECTION'-----
AND TOW SPEED

STflUCTURE __ ~:~\iJe:Rc~CAL -- ~~:~~~ PRED 8ARGE ~)

ANALYSIS DA GE
(PR08A8L1STI\l
(DETERMINISTIC)
\ I
SELECTION

x WIND SPEED
TRAJECTORY CURRENT, WAVE
a
SIMULATION

<, /
HEIGHT

INTACT/DAMAGE
PERIOO___..
-
SPECTRAL
ACC.lMOTION _ STA81L1lY WAVE DATA _
PARTICIPATION CRIT ERIA ) ENVIROMENTAL
FACTOIIS \ DATA PREDICTION

MODEL
/
TEST~ FINAL

CHECK

'. LAUNCH / - ~ \
SIMULATION WAVE a MOTION
INOUCED LOADS HYDROSTATIC

I
SLAN PRDICTION STABILITY
CALCULATIONS

MOTION a LOAD
ANALYSIS

Fig. 2 Design spiral

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 199

 Table 2 Summary of wind and wave load requirements

lHeO[ 25~ BV[ 24J DnV RULES [21] OOE [28] DnV GUIDELINES [18J N08LE DENTON USGS[ 23J
A8S 26 [ 19]
DESCRIBE USCGf 27
~
NORMAl. 70 knots Return period equal Return period equal 70 knots for stabi I i- Return period eq. three -Re turn
OPERATING . Return I month three times the ty calculations of times the expected dur- period of
CONDITIONS period eq. 'Wave Probable. of -6 duration of cperat- at i on of the opera ti on 10 years
50 years Occurrence 4 x 10 ion (except operat- 'Return period eq , 50
for struct. 'Lacking weather ional phase of rig) for structure calc.
calc. predict ion: -For operational

Co.
Es tab 11 shed wi nd - phase for ODU, the
on 35 kn. design period eq ,
<> Gust 50 kn. 100 years
z:
DnV does not spec ify
3
SEVERE 100 knots Return period eq. operational and 100 knots in s tab i l t-
e'" STORM
( EXTRE"'E
50 years
Wave probable. of
extreme conditions
separately
ty calculations
Return period of 50
<>
0

s
CONDITIC~S
I occurrence
'Lacking
10-8
prediction:
years for structura 1
ca lc .
Co. Established wind -
z: I 70 kn.
'"
=> I Gust 100 kn.
~ SHELTE=<EJ 50 knots Ha If val ues of the NOT SPEC I F I ED Return period equal NOT SPECIFIED

s'"=>
LOCA !~, S ( except operational condo to the length of the

:: I USCG -
does not
tow, but never
than one week
less
(for
'" I specify) towing within 48
hours from she Iter
t area)

WIND ~OT Sustained - I hr. ONE MINUTE WIND NOT

AVERAGi~G ISPECIFIED
PERIDD Gust - 10 ~ec
-
WAVE ~OT
o'AIW1ETFS IjSPECIFIED
(OR BARSE
/()TION '~~I
ai = projected area of member or surface exposed to
wind
The estimation of total wind load acting on the barge/jacket
combination is calculated based on the summation of forces
acting on each individual member. Three methods of calcu-
lation which can be used to estimate a total wind load are
summarized in Appendix 1.
Current. Estimates of currents are used together with
maximum wind and wave parameters to define the power re-
quirements for the tug employed for a tow in stalling weather
conditions. Towline pull at the indicated current speed must
be sufficient to overcome both the maximum wind forces on
the structure and the drag on the barge due to current and
waves.
The current velocity may be computed by combining global
circulation and tidal currents, if applicable, with wind-induced
currents. In the absence of statistical data on maximum current
velocities, the wind-induced current may be estimated based
on the following relationship:
V c.w = 0.02 V IhrlO
where Vc.w is the current velocity due to wind shear, and
V IhrlO is the wind velocity averaged over one hour at 10-m (33
ft) height.
Barge resistance curves may be calculated by using the barge
form series presented in references [4J and [5J.
Waves. Wave pressure forces produce the oscillatory heave,
sway, surge, pitch, roll, and yaw motions of a vessel. These
first-order motions induce significant inertia loads on the jacket
and tiedown braces, all of which require careful attention in
the analysis. Second-order effects, such as wave drift forces
and add~ resistance to tow, may also require special consid-
eration for particular towages.
The methods of obtaining wave loads on a barge are essen-
tially the same as those for shiplike forms. However, modifi-
cations are necessary in order to evaluate the added-mass and
damping coefficients because of the large B/T ratios of barges,
SPECIFIED
.75 SEE RULES T=IO sec NOT
H 1.68 H Hs Hma/l.i6 Ro 11'20-25" SPEC IFIED
s v
Pitch'
12.5-15"
T . 82 Tv .98 ~IOHs<T< J20Hs Heave 2g
z -
and a more appropriate technique should be applied (for ex-
ample, Frank's close-fit method [61). Furthermore, it is nec-
essary to modify some of the resulting hydrodynamic coeffi-
cients in the equations of motion to account for three-dimen-
sional effects due to the small L/B ratios of barges. Wave load
calculations then proceed in the same manner as for ships
[7J.
Besides the hydrodynamic pressures acting on a barge hull,
wave-induced vibratory loads, such as slamming and springing,
should also be considered. Although the theoretical prediction
of these loads is still unresolved, empirical relationships have
been developed for estimating the slam impact loads on the
barge as well as on overhanging jacket structures [8, 9J.
Environmental data. Environmental data for a transpor-
tation study, unlike environmental criteria for fixed offshore
structures, which usually are provided by the owner, most often
are the responsibility of the towing contractor. A contractor
will normally be required to provide the necessary design in-
formation on wind and wave conditions, subject to approval by
the client and a cognizant regulatory agency or both.
(2) The final choice of environmental conditions will depend
directly on the towing route, time of the year the towing will
take place, ability to get to a sheltered area, and the assumed
recurrence period of environmental extremes. The predicted
or assumed weather conditions used for developing the design
loads for the transportation phase of an offshore construction
project thus playa significant role in evaluating and designing
barge/jacket systems, especially with respect to the barge hy-
drostatic stability, barge and jacket strength, and seafastening
design parameters.
Wind and wave data are presently available from three
sources: direct measurements, hindcasting techniques and ship
observations.
1. Direct measurement at the location of interest will give
a designer the most accurate form of environmental data. The
types of instruments most commonly used to measure waves
in spectral form may include wave staffs, wave buoys, and
shipborne wave recorders.

200 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

 Due to the expense of maintaining an instrument at one lo-
cation for long periods of time, measured data are not usually
available for the site of interest, and when they are, generally
there is not a record of sufficient length. In the case of a
rransportation analysis, data are required at all points along the
route. This makes it extremely unlikely that direct measure-
ment will be available for the entire route and duration.
2. A more readily available source of wind and wave data
is the hindcasting technique. This procedure utilizes the daily
surface pressure charts for an ocean area, and estimates the
surface winds from this information. Finally, the wind fields
are used to estimate the local waves, which are allowed to
propagate from one area to another to build a complete picture
of the sea state at any desired point in space and time.
The earlier hindcasting methods developed by Pierson,
Newman, and James (PNJ) [10] and Sverdrup, Munk, and
Bretschneider (SMB) [Ll ] are presently being superseded by
techniques known as spectral wave models. Spectral models
consider the generation, propagation, and decay properties of
individual frequency components of wave specta [12] and,
therefore, will provide more detail and perhaps more accurate
descriptions of the wave climate. Although no model yet
available has been able to accurately predict daily events, it has
been proven that hind casting techniques do provide true sta-
tistical data when long-term records are utilized [13]. Fortu-
nately, long-term statistics are one of the basic requirements,
for transportation analyses.
When using hindcast data it is valuable when possible to
make comparisons with other representative, independently-
measured data. This procedure assures that the hindcast
techniques used will be suitable for the specific site under in-
vestigation. Such factors as shoaling, local wind variations, grid
spacing, swell, generating areas outside the assumptions of the
model, and the insufficient numbers of weather stations
available to build reliable pressure systems maps, may lead to
erroneous hindcast results in certain locations.
3. Ship observations for most ocean areas based on a com-
- piled massive data source can also be used in a transportation
study. However, these data should be used with caution since
they are derived from data collected by merchant vessels
passing through areas randomly. It must also be recognized
that the observations taken are made visually by untrained
observers, and that it is extremely difficult to observe accurately
wave heights and periods from a moving vessel. Furthermore,
it must be noted that merchant vessels also tend to avoid the
worst storm conditions, and therefore a lack of storm condition
data may bias the sample. These factors of bias are offset by
the availability and inexpensiveness of these data, which have
been compiled into tabular format and published by various
authorities, such as the U. S. National Climatic Center [14] and
the U. K. National Physical Laboratory [15]. Other sources of
summarized ship observations can be found in reference
'1 [16].
Several attempts have been made to correlate visual wave
observations with measured wave data in order to overcome
the shortcomings of the observation technique. These attempts
have resulted if!a diversity of correction formulas for both wave
height and period, but the consensus seems to be that the visual
observer tends to underestimate the small waves and overesti-
mate the larger waves.
Design environmental conditions. Design environmental
conditions which may occur during the passage must be pre-
dicted once the most suitable source or sources of wave data
have been selected for the tow. Normally the data used in
predictions should cover all months during which the tow could
take place plus one month before and one month after the tow
period. This procedure helps to smooth out the anomalies
which are sometimes present in monthly wave statistics. For
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
long ocean tows it has been a practice to carry out a simulation
which routes the tow through actual past weather conditions,
with adjustments of speed as necessary. The accumulated
environmental statistics from many voyage simulations can then
be used to develop predictions of significant and extreme en-
vironmental conditions.
The design sea state for the towing operation can be derived
from a data base which contains the percentage-of-exceedance
statistic for significant wave heights, and the ioint-probabilitv
distribution of both wind speed and wave height and period.
The cumulative probability of each significant value is then
plotted on Weibull probability paper for extrapolation of sea
states at a desired probability level. The joint height and period
probability is used to determine the range of mean spectral
periods for the extrapolated significant wave height in de-
scribing the design sea state. The extreme wind and sea state
in terms of the Weibull distribution can be ascertained by
applying the techniques described later in the Risk Assessment
subsection.
Experience has shown that the two-parameter Weibull dis-
tribution fits most sea state statistics well. A true Weibull dis-
tribution is represented by a straight line on the plot, as shown
in Fig. 3. The best-fit straight line can be drawn through the
data by linear regression or by other methods such as maximum
likelihood estimation. Particular emphasis should be placed
on the higher points, and a weighted square fit may be required
to arrive at a reasonable answer.
Once a designer has derived an empirical model for the
probabilistic occurrence of particular sea states, he must then
select a probability level to determine the extreme design sea
state for the specified towing operations under analysis. The
probability level may be selected according to risk level and
encounter probability, or by the probability of zero damage
outlined in the Risk Assessment subsection. In the past, a simple
and intuitive approach has normally been adopted.
The desired probability level may be presented as a function
of return interval based on the number of voyages between
recurrences and the average tow duration. The probability
of sea state less than the design sea state, H 1/3, is therefore given
by
1
P(H 1/3) = 1 - R X L X N (3)
where
R = return interval based on number of voyages between
recurrences
L = duration of tow in days
N = number of sea state observations in a day
Practical experience indicates that a range between 100 to
200 voyages is normally considered adequate. The significant
wave height corresponding to probability level is then used as
a design sea state description for motion and strength calcula-
tions.
Stability
In general, stability rules for barges are set to establish a factor
of safety against capsizing due to inadequate dynamic stability,
and against sinking or capsizing due to inadequate cornpart-
mentation. The criteria which these rules set up are based on
both the predicted environmental conditions and the statistical
data on the survival of models and real ships in these predicted
conditions [17].
The differences in hull form between offshore construction
barges and ships result in basic differences in st~tical stability
characteristics, as shown in Fig. 4. Compared with most other
ship forms, a barge has a high maximum righting arm and a
large area below the righting-arm curve. On the other hand,
201
 o.99999
o ."n5
,0. "9
f- -- - --
o. "950
e. /
"'
o._0
V
I I
I
I
o.t9000
iI"
I
J I
o.ssoco
J I
\oJ
o
z 1I I
I
::!o.90000 I
/
'"<.)::> I I

<.)
0
...o 0 eoooc
/ I

~
::::;
0.7""""
/ I

I
a;
;:;0 .60000 / I
I
Fig. 3 Sample plot of significant
o
'"
Q.

\oJ
0
.eoooo :/ I

I
wave height distribution on Weibull
paper
>
I-
I
~o .40000
::> ,- I
:Ii I
::>
u I
0. :v>nnn

I
!>OOO
I
I
o.2~
I
o 15000. I
I
I
I
o .10000
Z 4 5 6 7 I 9 ,0. 20 30 40 50 60 70 '090' 00
17.0

SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT

due to its high B/D ratio, the barge's range of positive stability
is often low, with corresponding low angles of downflooding
and of maximum righting arm. The regulations selected for
use with deck cargo barges are those which most closely con-
form to barge characteristics.
Tables 3 and 4 represent a summary of intact and damaged
stability rules, regulations and recommendations from a variety
of sources, and are not comprehensive lists. These rules may
be broken into three categories. First, there are rules which
8m-Maximum
80' - Downflooding
8m
HEEL ANGLES (DEG.l
Fig. 4 Comparison of righting-arm curve characteristics for barges
and ships
have been developed specifically for deck cargo barges. These
are the DnV guidelines [18], the ND guidelines [19], and the
USCG deck cargo barge rules [20]. Each of these contains
explicit or implied cautions for using their rules/guidelines for
large overhanging structures and exceptional towages.
The second category includes rules for the design and con-
struction of offshore structures, such as those published by Dn V
[211, DOE (U.K.) [22], the United States Geological Survey
(USGS) [23], and Bureau Veritas [241. Each of these contains
specific requirements for loadout, transportation, launching
and upending of steel jackets. In general, they offer a more
Righting Arm Angle uniform set of guidelines for determining environmental loads
Angle and risk levels.
The third category contains rules developed for offshore
mobile drilling units (OMDU's), and includes those issued by
the Intergovernmental Maritime Consultative Organization
(IMCO) [251, the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS) [261, and
the U. S. Coast Guard. These rules are included because there
are similarities in the stability problems of a barge/jacket tow
and those of an OMDU in that they both exhibit high centers
of gravity and large, often complex, wind heeling areas. In this
respect, the OMDU rules have been predecessors of the other
two categories of rules presented.
All of the stability criteria consider the features of the barge
geometry which have the greatest effect on stability,
namely:
characteristics of righting-arm curves,
wind heeling, and
meta centric height of loaded barge.

202 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

 Table 3 Summary of Intact stability requirements

~y
ITEM
IMeo t 25 ]
A8S (26)
6 ...(Z<4} ONV (24) I 'Ol ,28) I 0
G.rO[ I..IHE S {IS]
NOBLE
GJIOELlN(S
OENiON
(l9]
USGS (23) USCG [20)
USCG [271 ~UlER

WINO fORCE r,'/2,CS:-.V'A .ECOGNIZEO of:1I2fCV:'''S,1\6 I R[COG"" HO I NC,i 5PECTIfiEC 48S OR OTHER F=ll2fCs "':1..5 p\e f: PA
CALCU~A110N -TUNNEL TEST "E MOOS -RECOGNIZ,: S""'I\j;',"~:"S coors
ME 1 HQ:>S
I TUNNEL 1ES" WtND TUNNEL

."~
Z
WINDAGE ARE A . PROFILE PROFlL.E
-ExPERIENCE
WITM SIWILAR PROJECTED A,*' A:L{2VCGL +
P.OJECTED A'EA rc , S"RU-:''' URES ON THE PLANE O-T)

.
W PftOJiC AREA.
~ DE. DECK A.EA ON ~lAN( HORIoW. TO T>t

I~ ::>
cr
<1
DUE
AND
TO TRIM
HEEL
NORfIo!~l
WIN::'
T(
DIRECTION
rORCE
DIRECTION

MINIMUM WINO '360 "'IS 50 YEAR 'NINO, I INurE I hit NLrTE M NU [

I I h4INUTE SUSTAINEO WINO WIN:> PRESSURE
0
W fOR STABILITY NORMAL CONO I HOUR AVER SUSTAINED WINO SUS1A'NE: WINO SUSTAINED WIN0I WITH 10 YEAq RETURN EOUATION
cr EVALVATION 514 MIS FOR SUSTAINED WI1H RE TURN WITM 10 YEAR w'TIi qtTURN PERIO~
p:: 0.53 +
::> SEVE RE STORM WIND PERIOD [QUAL RE u"1H PERIOD P[r.tIOO EQUAl
0 IL1I3301'
2~ 7 MIS 10 SEe~ GUST THREE TI"'4 S TI'1QEE TlholES
W 11/"'1
cr SHEL TER i.oc LACKING THE L[NGTH OF THE LC:NGTooI OJ:
IE'ECPT USCGl OBSERVATIONS OPEQATION OPERATION
~
Z
36.0 "IS (NOT LESS IN';)'!" LESS
NORholAL COND THAN I wH1(1 T..I."" I WEE"')
W
~ 51.4 MIS
SEVE.E STO.",
0
~ HAlf OF TH

~
Z
VALUE FOR
OPERA' !HG CONDo
=:; IN SHELTER AREA
W
W
:r WINO HEELING COSINE NOT SPECIFIED TO BE COSINE NOT SPECIFIED TO 8E
"OWENT FOR SHIP TYPE CALCULATED FOR SHIP l'fPE CALCULATED
0
z VARIATION CONF IGURAT ION FOR SUFfiCIENT CONFIGURATION FOR SUFFICIENT --
NO OF HEEL NO or HEEL
i ANGLE S AHGLES

INITIAL G"T POSITIVE GMT~ 030M NOT SPECIFIEO G"T ~ 0.30 'GWT ~ PAH/6TV8
>-
~ 'USCG
GMT ~ 005 M
-AREA TO RA...
}. 008 M-Rod
~(f)
m~
<tz MINIMUM RANGE SECOND NOT SPECIFIED 0-'5 <0 DEGREE NOT SPECIFIED
~W OF POSITIVE INTERCEPT OF LONG MOVES
v>~
W
STATICAL RIGHTING AND 0-20
~cr STA81LIl Y HEELING ARM fiELD MOVES
0- CURVE (LESS 12 h)
<t::>
rrr ec r I
~O
ZW
_cr
-WINO
St-iOU ..D NO'"
INCLUDED
BE I
AREA RATIO GREATER OR EOUA t, TO 1.40 NOT SPECIFIEO

IHBlI(8+C) HE OOWNfL.OCXlfrffi RANGE OF

CALCULATED AS A.NGLE SHOULD LIB. BID 8 T10
COMMENTS -- RATIO Of RIGHTING -- EXCEED 20 -- SPECIFIE.D
A.EA TO GUSTARA
EXCLUDING ST,tDY
WIND HEEL

Table 4 Comparison of damage stability criteria

IMCO BV DnV RULES USCG ABSII DOE DnV HOBLEDENTON USGS
[25] [24) [21] [27] [26] [2B] [18] [19] [23]
~
One
... Number of Compartments
Flooded at anyone time
One or more. Depends on damage penetrations. See IMCO One
0
0-
...
'"
~ ~ ~ I ~ IBeam Penetration 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1.5m 1 . 'im

B
-c
0 ~ ~ ~
~:!; IVertical
lonQitudinal 3.()n 2.3m
From the bot too shell to the upper deck
2.3m - Not Specified Not Spec ified

General The fi ne l water line tak i ng into account sinkage. trim & heel. should be Deck - Oooe conpar tment
be low the lower edge of the opening through which any progressive flooding Edge damage does not
mi ght occur. Should caps i ze or sink
Not be structure
Sub-
merged

V>
0-
Minimum Wind Speed 25.7m/s One hour sustained wind & 1/2 of predict- 25.7m/s Not 25.7m/s (or -
10 see gust with one month ed sustained Spec i- applied for
...'"~ of return period.
this:
lacking wind for return
period eq. three
fied intact stab.
or 20.6 for
'":; Sustained Wind' 18.()n/s three times the inside. if
~
tx
Gust = 25.7m/s 1.ngth of the less)
tow
>-
0-

--'
'"
0-
Heeling Moment
Variation
Cosine Hot Specified Cosine Hot Specified

...
V>

Initial Metacentri c Not Specified ) 0.3()n Not Specified

..
'"
~ Height w/o wind effect

0
Dynamic Stabil ity
-Area Ratio
- - ) 1.40. calculated with Sufficient Stabil ity
Wind
to Withs tand Suffi-
cent
) 1.40.
area calc.
--
respect to gust &
(A+B)/(B+C) established wind stabi- perfonned
1ity to from the
proceed new origin
safely at angle
to re- of heel
pair
.1
locat-
ion.

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 203

 . PXAXH.
em - Maximum Righting Arm
GM T (required) = tl. (4)
X tan1>
90F - DownfloodinQ The USCG dynamic criterion, which is used in conjunction
(I)
Righting Arms with the weather criterion, requires that the area under the
0:: righting-arm curve up to the maximum righting arm be greater
....
I- 92- Second
.... Intercept
than or equal to 0.08 rn-rad (15 ft-deg). These two criteria are
::f usually used to formulate a curve of maximum cargo VCG
above deck (VCGc) versus draft or cargo deadweight. Char-
acteristically, the weather criterion limits the VCG at shallow
drafts while the dynamic criterion limits it at deeper drafts.
The maximum allowable KG of the barge and cargo can be
determined for each of the criteria as described in the fol-
lowing:
Area ratio criteria:

HEEL ANGLES (OEG.)

KGA =
5o~d
0
(GZo - 1.40
tl.
Mw) d1>
(5)
Fig. 5 Definition of area ratio criteria
1 - cos1>d
BV criteria:
In so doing, each criterion makes two implicit assumptions: (i)
that the righting moments at sea are qualitatively represented
by stillwater righting moments, and (iy that the assumed wind
c
s; ~d ( 140
GZo-~Mwc
) 04
d1>-j;:Mws(1)d-1>tl
speed and heeling moments are representative of the envi-
cos1>l- cos1>d
ronmental overturning moments.
(6)
The principal intact stability criterion used for a majority of
these rules/guidelines is the area ratio criterion. This states that USCG weather and dynamic criteria:
there must be a minimum of 40 percent reserve righting-arm
KGl = KMT - P X A X H/(tl. X tane (7a)
area over wind heeling arm area to the lesser of either the
downflooding or second intercept angle (see Fig. 5). A stan-
dard 51.4-m/s (100 knot) wind speed is generally assumed for
50 <Pm GZO - ACR

worldwide applicability in the absence of values predicted KG2 = (7b)

1 - cos1>m
based on location and time of year.
where
The BV criterion for statical stability differs slightly from the
foregoing. It requires a minimum of 40 percent reserve KGA :! KGl or KG2, whichever is less (7c)
righting-arm area over a gust wind heeling area, excluding the
steady wind heeling arms from both areas (see Fig. 6). Lacking The maximum VCG of cargo above deck may then be cal-
statistical observations, an established wind speed of 36.1 m/s culated by
(70 knots) and a gust wind of 51.4 m/s (100 knots) are to be used. VCG = tl.. KGA - tl.LS KGLS - D (8)
In addition, BV rules require that the area subtended by the c
tl. - tl.LS
righting-arm curve be greater than 0.10 m-rad (18.8 ft-deg),
where tl.LS and KGLS are barge operational light ship proper-
The USCG weather criterion establishes a minimum GMT ties.
based on the wind heeling moment due to barge and deck The three criteria described were applied to a 91.4-m (300
cargo. The wind pressure used is a function of barge ft) deck cargo barge to obtain VCGc-versus-draft curves, as
length: shown in Fig. 7. To calculate these curves, the windage area
was assumed to vary with VCGc, so that
A = L(2 . VCGc + D - T) (9a)
H = VCGc +D - T /2 (9b)
RIQhtinQ Arms em
Note that for the ABS and BV curves shown, the area ratios
eOF
were calculated based on the conservative assumption that
downflooding will occur at a tank vent close to the barge's side.
Gust Wind
(I) Heeling When the ratios were calculated to the second intercept, the
ffiI- Arms allowable VCGc rose between 0 and 7 percent.
.... The area ratio and BV criteria curves are, of course, very
::f
sensitive to the wind velocities used. When an actual wind
.
,
speed prediction is made, the comparison between these criteria
may be somewhat different. Figure 8 was developed based
on a wind speed of 30.9 m/s (60 knots) for the area ratio criteria,
Steady Wind based on a 50-year return period and an averaging period of
HeelinQ Arms one minute. For the same prediction, the BV criteria steady
wind speed is 26.2 ta]; (50.8 knots) or a one-hour wind, and
the gust wind speed becomes 33.6 m/s (65.3 knots), or a ten-
second wind.
HEEL ANGLES (OEG.l It should be noted that the tendencies shown here may not
Fig. 8 Definition of Bureau Veritas area ratio criteria hold for barges which are significantly different from the one

204 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

 DECK CARGO BARGE 91.4mX 27.4m X6.lm DECK CARGO BARGE 91.4", X 27.4 1ft X6.' 1ft

L~OO' X 90' X 20') (300' X90'X 20')

:r 6.0 \ .0
...
c,
'\
- - - - - -- U. S. C.G DYNAMIC CRITERIA ...
X \ -------- U.S.C.G. OYMAIIIIC CRITERIA
- -- U.S. C.G. WEATHER CRITERIA
W
o
\
---
_.-
U.S.C.G.
B.V.
WEATHER
O.lm-Rod
CRITERIA
CRITERIA
Il.
o.J
o
\ --- 8.V. 0.1 -"'4 CRITERIA
" <,
){
u ){ \
~5.0
\ \\ --- - B.V. AREA RATIO CRITERIA :.lo 5. ---- I.V. AREA RATIO CRITERIA
"'I,
w \\' V. = 36.0 "'I, , V,= 51.4 "'I, V, .26.2 mls , "- = 55.6
> \1 --- A.B.S. AREA RATIO CRITERIA w --- AI S AREA ItATIO CRITERIA
o \ 'I > .50.9 "'I,
al \ \\ V = 51.4 m/, o V
<l al
<l4.0
.04.0
C> \ \ o
a::
<l \ '. C>
a::
<l
U \1
u
u,
o
\ '~ ...
C> 5.0
__ \ ,~ \. I. o 10
C>
u u
>
o.J
~
"
~\
\'
>
o.J
..J ..J ,
al
~Z.O
o ~" ~':"<, ~ 2.0
~
o \~
:J ..J
..J
<l <l
\~
~ :f
::>
~ 1.0 i 1.0 \

X
\
,,
~ 4( ,
~ ~

O.OL------'---------;-'----- O.O'L..- ---------------

0.8
0.2 0.4 0.6 O.B 0.2 0.4 0.6

DRAFT/DEPTH DRAFT/DEPTH

Fig. 7 Comparison of stability criteria for worldwide service Fig. 8 Comparison of stability for given wind condition

used. The curves are presented simply to show the range of The velocity and acceleration RAO's are simply calculated
results which can be expected for typical stability calcula- by differentiating displacement RA~'s:_
tions. J? -:: s?t.J)~ W (; e'V J) (7\, C) , 21) ,
D = iwDe1wt (lla)
Motion calculations ./
Wave forces are the single most important environmental j fj = -w2De,wt (llb)
factor causing a vessel's dynamic motions. Consequently, as
.~ was noted in the Introduction, stress on a jacket induced by the In order to facilitate the strength calculations, the absolute
combined jacket/barge system motion should be analyzed early acceleration has to be transformed into the jacket coordinate
on in the design process. system (see Fig. 9). This global-to-local transformation is
Ship motion programs have become the standard tool for achieved by using a transformation tensor based on a roll-
such seakeeping analysis, and barge motion in six degrees of pitch-yaw sequence by
freedom can be readily calculated. BARMOT (barge motions)
128], a computer program especially suited for barge motion ITj = [TjROLL X [TjPITCH X [TjVAw (12)
analysis, is one such program which provides a frequency do- where
main solution that has demonstrated good agreement with
model test results. The program considers motions to be linear,
harmonic, and small amplitude, and the nonlinear effect due
to viscous damping is taken into account in roll motion by an
iterative procedure. The solution Ior regular wave excitation
is in terms of a set of response amplitude operators (RAO's) and ARBITRARY
phase angles at the combined center of gravity (CG) of the NODAL~t1~~k-~~
POINT
jacket/barge system for different encounter frequencies and
headings.
Once the program obtains the motion RAO at the system's
CG, the motions in three orthogonal directions can be calculated
at any discrete location away from the combined center of ~---
~
gravity. The frequency RAO in complex form can be trans-
ferred to any specified location using the following relations:
Y'
D(x,y,z) = Dee + R. X r (10)
.
e-
where D represents the translation RAO vector for surge, sway
z
and heave; R is the rotational RAO vector for roll, pitch and
yaw; and r is the position vector from combined CG to the /
specific location. Fig. 9 Barge/jacket coordinate systems

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 205

 [T) = [cosO, cosy; cosO siny; -sinO ]
sinl/>sinO cosy; - siny; cosr/> cost/! cos + sinr/>sinO cost/! sine sinO
sinl/>siny; + cosl/>sinO cost/! cosr/>sinO siny; - sino sint/! cosr/>cosO

where I/>is the roll rotation, 0 the pitch rotation, and y; the yaw lul,lul = generalized displacement and acceleration with
rotation. respect to a local coordinate system fixed on the
Vessel acceleration in the local coordinate system is then structure
given by the relation IFI = a generalized nodal force vector
IAILOCAL = [TIIAlcLOBAL (13) For complex structures such as a jacket, the matrices [K] and
[M] may be readily generated using a number of existing fi-
Besides the inertia accelerations induced by motion, an ec- nite-element programs, such as the in-house DAMS package
centric gravitational acceleration due to roll and pitch motion (design and analysis of marine structures) [30].
should be accounted for. The component for acceleration due By treating the jacket; barge system as a whole, the gener-
to earth's gravity, which is basically nonharrnonic in nature, can alized inertial acceleration due to barge motion and in terms
be resolved for small roll and pitch angles as follows: of RAO's may be derived for each node as described in the
IAI = IAlLOCAL + (-gk) X if . (14) Motion Calculation subsection. Ideally, a dynamic analysis
should be carried out to account for the contribution from high
The three linear accelerations, including gravity, in the local modes of jacket vibration. Since the high-frequency springing
coordinate system then become is a rare occurrence, however, a static analysis may suffice.
X = Ax - A;Y, + gO (I5a) It is important to note that when barge deflection is signifi-
_ _/ cant due to high wave loadings, it is necessary to include the
Y = Ay + Azr/> + gr/> (I5b) barge in the finite-element model together with the hydrody-
i = Az + Az8 _ Ayr/> ./ (15c) namic loads. The forcing function now becomes

The angular acceleration, , 8, :.;",remains the same as be- "
fore.
Predictions of relative motion between a jacket structure and
the wave are critical in order to gain some insight into barge/
jacket slamming, particularly where the jacket overhangs. The
estimation of slamming loads on overhanging jacket members
is a difficult subject which has attracted many research efforts
(29). Though far from complete, theoretical derivation and
preliminary results indicate that the slamming load is a function
of the relative motion that exists between the jacket member
.. and water surface, and the impact velocity entering into the
water, which is similar to ship slamming. In frequency domain
the RAO for relative vertical motion at any specified location,
x, y, z, is given by,
R( ) D ( ) ['k( . ()
x,y,z = z x,y,z - exp t x cosu. + .Y SInJ-L)] 16
where R is the vertical relative motion displacement RAO's and
D;z; is the absolute vertical motion RAO.
Relative velocity RAO's are readily developed as follows:
'\
o, = iwD:e!wt (17)
The derived information can then be used to simulate the
jacket member submergence and the impact velocity in the
time domain for slam investigations in conjunction with model
tests. Statistics on the probability of slamming can also be
calculated using a theoretical formula [8].
Structure analysis
After determining the motion characteristics of the barge/
jacket system, the designer can then calculate the stresses in-
duced by the motion during transportation.
Classically, the equation of motion of an elastic undamped
system subjected to arbitrary motion-induced loading may be
represented in matrix form as . equation (20).
[M lIiil + [KlIul = IF) (18) sponses expected to occur once in N independent observations
where
[M) = generalized mass coefficient matrix
[K] = generalized
trix
stiffness influences coefficient ma-
IFI = IFml + IFw) (19)
J where IFwi is the complex wave force acting on the barge and
IF m I represents the complex motion-induced forces. An in-
house program, SEALOAD [31], has been developed for this
purpose.
The inertia, gra vitational and wave loads at each frequency,
both in real and imaginary parts, are treated as a static load case
in the structural analysis. The resulting solution for the system
in terms of displacement in the inertial frame is then converted
back to physical coordinates to obtain stress levels.
When the stress distribution around a tubular joint is desired,
a stress concentration factor is applied. The desired stress
RAO's on the circumference of the tubular joint can then be
determined using the stress concentration factors. Once the
desired stress RAO's are obtained, the response statistic can be
readily calculated by applying the well-known principle of
superposition for linear systems.
Given the spectral density function S(w) of the wave, and the
RAO in regular seas, the response statistics in an irregular sea
can then be calculated in terms of its spectral moments
mj = So'" So211' w!RA02(w,v,J-L'S.w)f(a)dadw (20)
where RAO(w,v,J-L) is the RAO at frequency w, speed v, and
heading J-L,and f(a) represents the spreading function.
Generally, the peak value of the stress follows a Rayleigh
distribution for short-term predictions. The probability of the
stress level being greater than a certain threshold value 0- is
given by
Pia > 0-) = exp(o-z/2mo) (21)
where mo is the mean square value of the stress equal to the area
under the stress response spectrum, and can be evaluated by
. n-.
Furthermore, the most probable extreme value of t~ A.J.JV.M
'Cail6e estimated by the following asymptotic expression for
large N [32]:
UN =~ X [on N)I/2 + ~ X 0.5722 (In N)-1/2 ... ) (22)

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Sarge Performance

 For a given response spectrum, N can be estimated by using
the zero-crossing period Tz in seconds, and the duration of
exposure T in hours:
N = 3600 X T /T2
Tz = 27r(mo/mz)l/2(1.0 - 0.05 f)2
where f is the spectral broadness factor
E= (l - mz2/mo/m4)1/2
For long-term prediction, however, there normally exists
uncertainty of the parameter mo due to random variation of
wave spectral shape. Thus, the probability of a exceeding a
threshold level fr, and taking into account the parameter's un-
certainty, is given by a combined Rayleigh-normal distribution.
A detailed explanation of the procedure can be found in
[33].
In fatigue damage assessmen s which consider the entire
range of stress, as well as the total number of stress cycles, the
mean period of the stress cycles has to be determined. Typi-
cally the zero-crossing period T 2 is used, which is defined in
equation (24).
By using the well-known Palmgren-Miner rule, the cumu-
lative fatigue damage per unit time for a particular sea state,
H1/3, and heading, J.I., can be, estimated:
/ (25)
where Pj(u) represents the probability density function of the
stress range, and N; (c) is the expected number of cycles to
failure at stress level a from a fatigue curve.
Hence, the total expected fatigue damage during the trans-
portation can be estimated by
Dvoyage = L T; X D/
/
where T, is the total exposure in Area i encountered, and D, is
the cumulative fatigue damage, taking. into considerationjhe .'
sea state and heading probabilities I~::~. aj S-eA-~
- ,. d -: ~ 1,. t-u-..cP-7
o, = L L Pk(H 1/3)Pj(J.I.)D(H 1/3J.1.) (27) ardous events occurring during L.
k j
A special-purpose program, TPFA TIG (Transportation
Probablistic Fatigue Analysis) [34], has been developed in-house
for the purpose of calculating fatigue damage and maximum
stress during transportation.
Risk assessment
In a transportation study the question the designer must
answer for the jacket owner is, "What will the level of risk be
in transporting the jacket from fabrication yard to production
site?"
One way of defining the risk level is to determine the return
period associated with the design environmental conditions
which the barge/jacket may encounter during a specified pe-
riod and tow route. These possible environmental extremes
then become the design sea state and wind conditions which
the designer can use for stability, motion and structural analysis maximum stress exceeding the yield stress fr can be estimated
to ensure that the barge/jacket system will "survive" during
transportation. Thus, the probability associated with the design
sea state and extreme wind conditions indicates a measure of
risk level during the tow.
In the long-term oceanographic statistics, each sea state is
generally represented by its significant wave height, H1/3, and
a characteristic wave period. Recorded data have shown that
H1/3generally follows a Weibull extreme probability density
function . (21).
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Bar~e Performance
Q(H1/3) = I - P(H1/3) = exp[- (~~3)kl (2&).
for which
(23) H1/3 = Ho[-ln Q(H1/3)P/k (28b)
(24) where Q(H 1/3) is the probability of exceeding the significant
wave height, H1/3, and H0 and k are two parameters indicating
the intercept and slope of the best-fit line on Weibull paper.
Once the design significant wave height has been established,
a range of characteristic periods may be used in order to ensure
an accurate and sufficient determination of the maximum re-
sponse. The period range, usually in terms of mean spectral
period T 1, may be obtained from a theoretical joint probability
density function of H 1/3 and T 1, or, in the absence of data, the
designer may use the value recommended by some classifica-
tion society. For example, Dn V specifies the following range
of wave periods [18]:
VlOH1/3 < T1 < V20H1/3 (29)
where H 1/3 is the design significant wave height in meters.
For fixed offshore structure designs, the probability level is
usually translated into a so-called maximum design wave height
with N-year return period. This notion, however, is less
meaningful for a towing operation which lasts days, or a max-
imum of several weeks. Given a particular return period, it
is not at all clear what risk is being taken for a specified towing
operation. A more meaningful criterion is therefore needed
to convert the return period of hazardous events into mission-
related statistics.
One way of arriving at a meaningful risk level for a specified
towing operation is to use the notion of encounter probability.
Provided that the extreme sea state and wind speeds are rare
events during the transportation, the probability of these haz-
ardous events occurring may be described by a Poisson model
(26)
[35]: .
eLA(L'A)m
P(m) = , (30)
m.
where L represents the duration of transportation, 'A is the rate
of arrival of hazardous events, and m is the number of haz-
The return period, or average interarrival time, TH, is given
by
(31)
The encounter probability, defined as the probability of one
or more exceedances of -tbe hazardous events during L time
units of exposure, is given by
PECH1/3) = 1 - exp( -L/T H) (32)
where H 1/3 is the design sea state associated with a return period
TR. Notice that the encounter probability is a function of
towing time as well as the return period of the hazardous events,
which can be extrapolated from a Weibull probability plot as
shown in Fig. 3. ~
Furthermore, for a given design sea state H1/3,the peak stress
follows a Rayleigh distribution. Thus, the probability of the
by equation (21). The probability of no damage during the
entire voyage is given by
P(no damage) = 1 - PE(H1/31"o)
. = exp (- i:0) (33)
where Po is the probability pto > fr) as shown in equation
207
 PR06ABILITY OF NO OA!!AGE FOR Po ( (T""> tr) is the practical problem that confronts the designer in trans-
portation analysis.
10~~===========-
I '" -O.O!!
In standard ship practice the vessel KG can be altered to some
-0.10 extent in order to decrease stability to a nominal level. while
08 -0.2!!
varying the vessel's natural roll period in order to reduce mo-
tion. and thus keep wear and tear on passengers. crews. cargo
and machinery at a minimum level. Alternatively. bilge keels.
fin stabilizers and antiroll tanks. and other active and passive
-O.!!O
devices may be used to modify a ship's motion characteristics.
-0.632 However, proper ballasting and cargo allocation remain the
most common means available for control of merchant ship
motions.
The position of the vertical center of gravity (KG) of a jacket
is determined by the depth of the barge and the height of the
ENCOUNTER PROBABILITY
"hI beams. Therefore. the KG of the system may only be al-
0.2 tL-r,d through ballasting. which may have little effect on the
barues GM, due to the variation of K,\l with draft. A designer
ab" has available several passive roll-limiting devices which can
alter a barge's natural period. but the most practical solution
00~----~0~Z----~0~4----~0~.6~--~0~.8~----71~0--- is etten the selection of a barge with characteristics that com-
!!ISSION PERIOO / RETURN PERIOO pliment the needs of the mission under study.
Barge selection can be particularly important because off-
Fig. 10 Risk levels as a function of mission period and design sea state
shore tructures are especially sensitive to transportation loads
return period
due to their great size and weight, and because jacket design
configurations are optimized for their in-place loading rather
Figure 10 shows a plot of encounter probability level and than for towing conditions. It is also often true that a decrease
probability of no damage at various Po versus the ratio of mis- in barge motions will result in a direct decrease in steel weight
sion period and return period. \'otice that if the most probable of the tiedown system and jacket and. therefore, in a reduction
extreme value is used for the design criterion. there is a prob- In its acquisition cost. The designer's concern. then. is that of
ability of 0 6.3:2 that the extreme value will be higher than the motion control rather than maximum stability.
most probable \ alue. Such a risk level is generally unacceptable The relationship between motion and stability is demon-
in practice for intermediate and long voyages. This leaves the strated in the following examples. Because the roll motions
designer the choice between increasing the return period of the often cause the most severe loading on the cargo. the examples
,. design sea state and using a design stress level with a lower consider only the effect of the barge's roll motions in sea states
probability of exceeding the yield stress. of varying wave heights.
The natural roll period of the barge. T <p. may be expressed
a
Practical design considerations
T '= C 27rKn (3-t)
The preceding section has described the acceptable criteria '" .-\.V g G LVIT
'"
and the approaches to the essential elements needed to perform
a transportation study. The paper now addresses some of the where
practical aspects a designer faces when analyzing an offshore CA = added mass coefficient of barge
transportation operation. = F{Kn/B. BIT)
Design decisions are affected both by the state of the art of Kxr = roll radius of gyration of barge/jacket system
naval architecture and structural analysis. and by the practical
The only means of changing the natural roll period for a
factors involved. such as time and data available and level of
analysis requested. Thus. each transportation study performed given barge and jacket is by adding or moving ballast. Adding
will vary its use of available methodologies. Consequently, the ballast lowers the KG and increases the draft. while the position
final determination for the level of effort in any transportation of the ballast affects the svsterns inertia.
study is a result of weighing the anticipated gains (monetary) To avoid roll resonance it is necessary to operate the barge
with choices about acceptable methodologies. so that its natural period will not likely be in the range of the
majority of a given sea state's energy. As an illustration of this.
The basic criterion a designer must use to develop a rational, the period range for the maximum spectral energy density of
consistent .1Od practical methodology for transporting a struc- a Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum has been plotted for ignificant
ture is that of safetv: the analvsis should insure that the vstern wave heights up to 9 m (:!9.5 ft) (see Fig. I l ). :\ote that with
will not capsize or' be broke~ up. The practical design con- this spectrum, less than LO percent of the total wave energy is
siderations. therefore. center about the apparent tradeolfs be- at periods greater than the range indicated.
tween motions and stability. and the effect these two factors Assume that Barges [ and II are ballasted so that their natural
have on structural strength. periods are L.5.-t and 13.:2 seconds (s), respectively. It can then
This section now turns to the practical options the de igner be seen that Barge [ will be in resonance in sea states with sig-
can deploy to .eep the H" f'1.lIHI its cargo \\ ithin the pn-dicted nificant wave heights greater than .').9 m (19.:3 ft). while Barge
requirements for a particular mission. II (the larger barge) wil] be in resonance for significant wave
heights greater than -t.-t m (1-t.-t It). Therefore. from a roll
Barge motions and stability motions standpoint, the smaller. less table barge probably
It has long been know n that .l vessel with :.I high dt'~rt'e of would be more acceptable for tows where significant wave
stability wdl have stiff or jerk\ motions, because as the C.\I of heights greater than -t.-t m are expected.
the vessel b raised, the low er its natural period I)t'COIlH:'S. This The idea of variuble-stubility (that is, variable wuterplane)
tradeoff betwe-en d y na mic ,tallilit) and motion accel.-rution burucs has resulted from the need to "tune" barges for partie-

208 Pracucal Oesiqn Approaches for he A.I arysis of Barge Per ormance
 ular jacket tows. Through thf' use of modular barzr such as BARGES /
Flexifloat 136;, or b~ variable free-flooding arrang. ",'111., it 19 I 914M~27~MX61'"
may be possible to suit a barge to the needs of a particular jacket (300' X 90'X 20')
towage operation This matching of barge and to can be 18
II (158MX30SMX7.6M
accomplished b) reducing the water plane inertia of tilt' vessel,
(380'XI00'X2S')
and thereby approach its minimum intact and damaged sta- 17

bility limit while at the same time minimizing its anticipated II)
a
motion responses. The ability to significantly varv a vessel': Z 16
o
waterplane properties to increase its suitability for particular u
w
voyage requirements is unique to barges, and provides all ef- '" 15
fective means to control barge accelerations. a
00
0-14
AntirolJ tanks, such as those used in ships, also have the ad- _a::
a::w
vantage of being able to be "tuned" to a specific frequency for wn.
a particular tow. However, they are usually only effective over n. '" 13
-'<f
a short range of wave periods, and would have to be quite large -'w
on.
to be of significant value. Thus, antirolJ tanks have seen little a:: 12

application in deck cargo barges. -'<f -'

<fa::
a:: ... 11
Once a barge has been selected for the towage under study, ::>u
...
w
<fn.
the use of bilge keels remains the most common method to Z"'IO
I I
further moderate barge roll motions. It is also usually the least
expensive approach. In general, bilge keels will damp roll
.".
s~
...1- 9 PERIOD RANGE fOOl
motions over a wide range of barge drafts and wave periods by 50% OF WAVE ENERGY
increasing the added mass and viscous damping of the barge. B
(CENTERED ABOU T~[A,)

The effects of bilge keels of varying sizes on a particular towage

can be seen in Fig. 12. It should be noted that the roll RAO's 7L- ~ ~ ~ ~
may begin to increase again for bilge keels beyond a certain 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 10

optimum size. DRAFT / DEPTH

Barge motions may, therefore, be minimized through the use

o 4 6 8
..
10
of a variety of designer-controlled variables. These include
SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT (METERS)
the selection of the barge and ballasting configuration, the use
of variable-stability barges to "tune" for specific towages, and Fig, 11 Variation of natural roll period with operating draft and variation
the use of bilge keels and other motion-damping devices. of spectral peak period with significant wave height

5.0

DECK CARGO BARGE

I01.2mX274mX6.lm
(332' X 90'X 20')

40

BARGE WITHOUT
BILGE KEELS
X
O~
-::I
...J 3.0
...J)(
0
a::N
BARGE WITH-

Q
... 09,. (30') BILGE KEELS
~
a:: 14,. (45') B'_GE KEELS
I 8 (60') B,GE KEELS
w 20
II)
Z
0
CL
II)
w
a::
...J
...J
0
a:: 10

r:

10 15 20

WAVE PERIOD
Fig, 12 Variation of roll RAO's for bilge keels of various lengths

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Sarge Performance 209

 ELEVATIONFRAMING-=----_,
JACKET LE
STBD
TUBULAR
"
LONG'L SHEAR PLATE
Fig. 13 Typical tiedown arrangement
Strength
Several levels of analysis are possible for determining loads
and stress levels in the barge/iacket system. depending most
importantly on the designer's concern over the magnitude of
these loadings. Obviously, for a tow of short duration in rela-
tively protected waters, only a very simple and conservative
analysis will be performed to reduce the overall loadings and
the required tiedown arrangements. It may even be deduced
that it is safe to use a standard tiedown size and an arrangement
based on successful usage in the past. Figure 13 shows a few
examples of typical tiedown arrangements.
For tows of intermediate duration, where more exposure to
hostile weather is anticipated, simple hand calculations are often
performed to size tiedowns. In this analysis certain conserva-
tive assumptions are necessary due to the fact that tiedowns are
normally a redundant structure (that is, the problem is statically
indeterminate). For a common tiedown arrangement, possibly
the most straightforward assumption is to replace the jacket by
a set of lumped weights and lumped inertias at its tiedown
points. This information may be easily available from previous
." computer analysis of the jacket structure, or may be hand-
comp';!ted from drawings or estimated simply by knowing the
jacket s length and center of gravity. This method is similar
to that used for launching calculations [:371.
The next question that often arises is what sort of acceleration
to use with this quasi-static system. The simplest method would
be to apply some standard maximum motions to the barge in
the manner described by one of several authorities [l9, 381.
The problem which arises in using this approach is in de-
termining the interaction nf various. accelerations acting si-
210 Practical Design Approaches for the AnalYSIS of Barge Performance
FWD
TIEDOWN
PLATE TIEDOWN
multaneously on a given member. A common approach is to
assume that the worst loading will come from beam seas when
the roll angle and roll and heave accelerations are at their
maximum. A number of possible worst loading conditions may
then be developed by alternating the directions of these
loads.
This simple approach is suitable for preliminary design and
stress estimation of tiedown bracings. The worst-load condition
is less sensitive with respect to the relative signs of these accel-
erations when the barge/jacket configuration is symmetric. In
some cases, the number of loading conditions may be reduced
by simple inspection, though as the load size and complexity
increases for large structures, the ability to do so decreases.
As the jacket size increases, tiedown and jacket stress esti-
mations become more important. Failure of jacket members
from fatigue damage during transportation is a genuine concern
to the designer.
Normally the structural analysis of the jacket has been fo-
cused about its in-place loads, with a certain amount of bracing
added to accommodate its lying on its side during construction
and transportation. When the transportation analysis is done,
the finite-element model for the jacket is modified by altering
the support points and adding the tiedowns and skid beam to
the structural model. Dynamic transportation loads may then
be applied by transferring the linear and angular accelerations
to lumped masses at each node of the model. The resulting
stress distribution is used then to determine whether the jacket
structure is adequate or whether some modification is required.
The results are also used to size and position the tiedowns.
The question :lgaill arises as to the validity of the maximum
 Table 5 Expected participation factor matrix for 6-deg acceleration and angular motions

LINEAR HCELERATION DUE TO' 4NGUlt..~ t.."~~l[P.ATIO"l DUE TO' ~N4Ut ~~ ",rTION DUE TO'
SURGE SWAY H[AVE YAW ~OLl PIlCH POLL- PIICHM

SU~GE 0.0 Y- o.a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

SWAY 0.0 x 100 .00 x - 34 .89 x 0.0 Y- -64. 95 Y- 0.0 Y- 44 . ) 0 ~ o .0 x

HEAVE 0.0 x -30. 96 Y- 100 .00 Y- 0.0 % 39 .09 x 0.0 -45.24 0.0 Y-

YAW 0.0 x o .0 x 0.0 x 0.0 % 0.0 0.0 Y- 0.0 o .0 x

R!l'lL 0.0 Y. -&8 22 x 40. 30 x 0.0 x 100. 00 % 0.0 x -100 .00 0.0 x
PIlCH 0.0 ~ 0.0 x 0.0 0.0 x 0.0 0.0 Y- o .0 '0 0.0 x
ROLLM 0.0 Y- 88 22 x -40. 30 % 0.0 x -100. 00 x 0.0 x 100.00 ~ 0.0 %

PIlCHM o .0 x 0.0 Y. 0.0 % 0.0 % 0.0 x 0.0 x 0.0 0.0 x

SHORT TERM RESPONSE STATISTICS (SINGLE AMPLITUDE) PER UNIT HI/3 IN FT .

UNIDIRECTIONAL LONG CRESTED SEA IS ASSUMED WITH HEADING ANGLE' 90.0 DEGREES
UNIT ISSC SPECTRAL FORMULATION IS USED' MEAN WAVE PERIOD 10 .0 SECONDS

MEAN SQ. VALUE 0.0 0.45)4E-02 0 .9806[-02 0.0 0 .H23t-02 0.0 0.2353E-OI 0 .0
R.M.S. VALUE 0.0 0.6)63E-Ol 0 .9902[- 0 1 o.0 O. 3199E-OI 0.0 0.1534E 00 0 .0
SIGNIFIC. VALUE 0.0 0.1353E 00 O. I ?8OE 00 0.0 0 097E-OI 0.0 0.306~E 00 o. 0
Tl.PERIOD (SEC) 0.0 0.8596E 01 0 .BI2lE 01 0.0 O. 1242E 02 0.0 0.1364E C2 0.0
BROADt~ESS (EPS) 0.0 0.4262E 00 0 .3809E 00 0.0 0 .3655E 00 0.0 0.2543E 00 0.0
MPMAX. IH .5 HR 0.0 0.2351E 00 0 .3458 E 00 0.0 O. lonE 00 0.0 0.5125E 00 0.0

NOTE MULTIPLY BY THE SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT RMS. SIGNIFICANT AND THE MOST PROBABLE MAXIMUM RESPONSES
FOR THAT SEA STATE.

loads as well as to determine the combination of accelerations After the participation factor of the acceleration and motion
to be used in the jacket stress analysis. It is important to em- for different headings and sea conditions has been determined,
phasize that the maximum loading condition cannot always be the jacket structure can be readily analyzed by transforming
determined by simple inspection as in the case of tiedown de- the responses at the barge/jacket combined center of gravity
signs. Therefore, a more rational method is needed to find the to modal forces and moments in a local coordinate system to
so-called "participation factors" for each of the motion com- solve for member stresses by using an existing finite-element
ponents when one of them reaches its maximum in a given sea package such as DAMS.
state and duration. It should be noted, however, that although this approach
The estimation of the participation factor is achieved by provides a more rational basis for treating the maximum mo-
utilizing the notion of cofactors in random processes [39J. The tion-induced stresses. it still involves rnanv simplified as-
analysis, using basic Six-degree motion RAO's and phase angle, sumptions which may not realistically represent the actual
determines the relative percentage values of its expected conditions under tow. First, the calculated motion-induced
maximum when one of the responses (accelerations or angular stresses are not rigorously derived, using a set of average values
motion) is at its maximum. Table 5 gives an example of the of participation factors for a given seastate and duration.
participation factor from the CARGO (participation factors) Secondly, the effect of the barge's structural response on the
computer program 140J matrix for a typical jacket/barge system jacket is not taken into consideration. Finally. the result cannot
in unidirectional beam sea. The results have been verified with be used for a rigorous fatigue analysis, which could l critical
the time history simulation using the same acceleration and for certain \\ pes of jackets.
motion RAOs. The expected maximum values of the accel- The ultimate approach to the jacket/barge structural analvsis
eration and motion using frequency domain analysis seem to is to model tilt:' system as a whole by the finite-element method.
be in good agreement with the time domain simulation, except Both h\'dro(hna'mic and hydrostatic loads can be applied to the
in the case of roll responses, as shown in Table 6. The "par- barge using the computer program SEALOAD. In this way,
ticipation factors" expressed in terms of percentage of their the effect, of barge/jacket structural interaction call be ac-
respective motions may also be calculated by using the average counted for The results obtained by the TPFATIG post-
values of the time history runs. processor an- ill term, of member stress RAO's, which can be

Table 6 Maximum heave, sway, roll acceleration and roll angle with their respective participation factors for a barge/jacket system
in beam seas from time history (ISse spectrum H 1'3 = 20 It; Tl = 10 sec)

Heave Accelerat ion. Sway Accelerat i,,~ . Roll Acceleration, Holl Anul.
ft/S~ ftlS" deg/S~ dp~

Heave acceleration 6.828 -1.579 o.sso -;1.151

.- Sway acceleration
(lOO'}(j
-2.233
(32.7<;()
(33.4~' )
4.727
(l00"! )
n~.9"')
- 1.19,
(66.7rC)
(39.9%)
4.020
(50.9%)
Roll acceleration 1.78:2 ":'3.291 1.79;, - 7.424

... (26.1Ci) (80.:20, ) (100"; I (91.0%)

Roll angle -2.397 3.143 .-1.,8-1 7.898
(35.1 ';cl (66.5%) (99.:16(", ) (lOOCi, )

NOTES: 1. The values indicated are t.he average values from six time-history simulat ion runs.
2. The negative signs are used to indicat.e the opposite direction to the maximum responses.

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 211

 STAGE 0 - WINCHING

STAGE I - SLIDING

STAGE 2 - ROTATING

STAGE ~ - SLIDING e.

/
STAGE 4 - CLEARING BARGE

SKID BEA~

BARGE

Fig. 14( a) Launch stages for an offshore jacket

combined for maximum stress prediction and fatigue damage
from an estimation using stress concentration factors. As
outlined previously in the Structure Analysis subsection. this
approach represents a more coherent methodology for a
jacket/barge analv is. nfortunateiy, the volume of compu-
tation may be prohibitive and justified in only a limited number
of ca es.
A barge structure, however, may be checked for adequacy
with an alternative and simpler approach. First, the primary
hull bending tress is obtained by the traditional method of
calculating the limiting stillwater and wave-induced bending
moments, using the barge section modulus and the design wave
height. Bending stresses should be obtained for both tow and
launch conditions based on the actual jacket and ballast con-
figuration.
Second, for some barges the carrying capacity of the deck
may be in question due to the high local loads transferred frorn
the cargo through the kid beam. These loads tend to peak
sharply at the major framing elevations where loads are dis-
tributed in from other parts of the jacket. Such loads may be
in the region of l/~ to 1/6 of the jacket's total weight. This load
is distributed by the skid beams to the deck frames and even-
tually to the transverse bulkheads and side shell.
The third consideration is the barge's local strength in way
of the tiedown structure. Experience shows that this is where
much of the member failure occurs, especially fatigue failure
for members periodically in tension. The design must consider
the local strength of the deck relative to the maximum (com-
pressive) load expected, and also consider the periodic tensile
loads that will be present.
Jacket launch considerations
Barge requirements determined by launch considerations
will often have a significant effect on barge selection for
transportation. Barge SUitability for launch is defined by
various parameters, starting with the overall strength of the
barge as defined by its maximum tilt pin reactions, the length
and flexibility of the tilt beams, and the hull girder section
modulus. Other barge parameters include stahilitv L haruc-
teristics at high trims, and compartmentation and hallast-
ability.
The objective of the launch analysis is to define a method to
transfer the jacket from the barge to the water in the srnoothcst
and safest manner possible. This process involves minimizins;
jacket and barge stresses and maximizing both barge and jac .et
stability. A primary consideration is to minimize the launch's

212 Practical Desrqn Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

 sensinvity to small variations In the establi: hed configura-
non
Launch dqnanncs The main concern in am launch analvsis
Ct'nters,about predicting the dynamic lx-havior of th Jacket and
barge. Therefore. design prediction must con ider tilt' d)-
namic of the svslem, w hich are norrnallv derived from model
test or from computer simulations which produce a time his-
tory of the launch or from both 14J I. A typical stern launch can
be divided into S stages for evaluauon, a shown in FI~ J .1\a ).
Figure 14(v) shows the launching of a large offshore jacket
The most critical stage for both jacket and barge is usually
rotation of the jacket on the tilt beams ( tage 2) Stresses in the
barge are at a maximum due to both the unfavorable longitu-
dinal distribution of weight, and the concentrated local loadings
at the tilt beam supports. Typically, launch barges are highly
reinforced at the launch end, and together with the tilt beams
are rated with a maximum reaction capacity. On the other
hand, the barge section modulus is normally dose to the nom-
inal value required for all ocean service barges, and the hull
bending stress must therefore be closely monitored.
Both the tilt beam and hull girder loadings may be moder-
ated to some extent by the prudent positioning of ballast prior
to launch (see Figs. ISa and ISb). Increasing the barge trim
has the effect of immersing more of the jacket early in the
launch, which results in an increased buoyant force that reduces
the load on the barge. While a high trim tends to add to hull
bending stress, placing the ballast near midship reduces the
inherent hogging moment on the barge.
Jacket rotation is also a critical stage in the launch process due
to the fact that the jacket is supported only by a short span of
tilt beam. In general, the more of the jacket that is immersed,
the lower the jacket stress will be due to the buoyancy of the
submerged section of the structure.
The barge's transverse and longitudinal stability will decrease
rapidly if the barge is allowed to trim to such angles that either
the bow emerges or the stern submerge in the water. As an
example of the trim effect. d) namic stability has been calcu-
lated for a range of trims for barges of various depths (Fig.
16).
The use of a high trim angle produces another hazard, that
of jacket stalling. High trim increases the probability that the
jacket will slow down on entering the water, and thi slowing
effect may cause the structure to stall, or "hang up," on the
barge. In this case, both the drag and buoy ant forces on the
jacket act to prevent rotation and separation. When high trim
angles are inevitabl in a particular launch, a light draft is often
used to minimize jacket submergence prior to Stage 2.
~ hile the launch operation is of short duration and generally
performed under good weather conditions, the possibility exists
that the jacket may hang up during launch and remain on the
tilt beams for some period of time. A major concern is that the
jacket may skew on the launch rails or launch in an unpre-
dictable fashion. Either of these situations can lead to damage
of the jacket or barge. The authors feel that an adequate cri-
terion would be to require that the barge heel no more than the
angle at which the jacket would begin to skew (2 to 5 deg) in
a nominal beam wind. The value for wind speed used could
be determined based on the maximum one-minute average

-
wind to develop in 24 hours from an initially calm sea state.
Two other items of importance addressed by a launch sim-
ulation concern the maximum ubmergence of the jacket as it
clears the barge ( tage 4), and the final attitude of the structure -
in the water. The trajectory of the jacket is normally governed
by the initial draft and trim of thebarge, along with the type
of lubrication used on the jacket runners.
A designer can control additional items, such as extent of Fig. 14(b) Launching of the 700-ft-long. 10 OOO-tonChevron "Garden
added weight (skirt piles, boat landings, etc.) and added Banks" jacket. The structure is being launched in the Gulf of Mexico
buoyancy (flotation tanks) affixed to the jacket at launch. The from the 66 OOO-dwt Brown & Root launch barge BAR 376

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 213

 L=914" (~OO')
~0.4 B=27.4" (90')
a:: 6=9150 T. (9000LT)
I

2 DEPTH= 7.6
a::
0.3
C)
Z
;:
:r
C)
C;:0.2
2
:J
2
X

2 DEPTH = 5 I
00.1
~

L.J
a::
--'-F.:.:.WD=---_ It AI'T . , ..

IlL X 100'1.
2 o I 2 %L
BALLAST LOCATION TRIM

Fig. 15(a) Variation of barge stresses with longitudinal position of Fig. 16 Variation of dynamic stability with trim for various barge
ballast depths

models during launching and upending can be easily inter-

oJ f
/
preted visually for comparison against analytically predicted
'"> results. This method of verification is particularly useful for
'"
oJ
TI
more sensitive analysis when' computation is lacking.
II)

'"'" A few modeling problem will usually exist due to the com-
or
... T2
plexity of a jacket structure. It is important that the model
'":2 should represent closely the full-scale structure in ,weight. inertia
-e and shape. While the barge i usually simple to construct, the
~ off-the-shelf range of miniature tubing sizes may determine
~
oJ
;:
the scale factor between the model and full-size structure.
Buoyancy calculations normally are performed to ensure that
FWD lit AFT. the buoyancy of each level and frame of the jacket is correct,
--~~----~~----~O------~;----~2~--"
BALLAST LOCATION
%L so that even though some members are not exactly scaled, the
final hydrostatics of the model and prototype will agree closely.
Fig, 15(b) Variation of tilt beam stresses with longitudinal position Finally, both barge and jacket models must be accurately bal-
of ballast- anced and ballasted to the correct CG position and inertia.
By using the similitude relationships between the model and
the prototype based on Froude number scaling, the motion,
designer will be evaluating all options in terms of their ability force and time measurements can be transferred quantitatively
to reduce jacket and barge stress as well as their potential to from the model to the prototype. It should be noted that
impede the progress of the launch, so that the launch analysis drag-induced forces, which arise from the viscosity of the water,
minimizes the risks involved in the launch process. cannot be scaled to the same ratios as acceleration-induced
forces. The viscous drag will be slightly higher on the model
Model tests than on the prototype.
For practical consideration in a transportation study, scale- The motions of a jacket on the barge in waves are one of the
model tests are often necessary, in addition to the analytical. most important aspects of the model test. Regular wave results,
methods, in order to confirm and verify barge selection. A in terms of amplitude and phases at different frequencies of
model test offers an analog representation of the true physical interest, are recorded for deriving motion RAO's, which can
circumstances while analytical methods provide a quantitative then be readily compared with theoretical results. Particular
assessment of s stem d namics. A designer often must exhibit attention should be directed to getting the roll motion RAO's
a fair knowle ge 0 ,an experience in, practical operations in in beam seas, where the nonlinear viscous damping and
order to combine the two results, given the experimental errors, added-mass effects are important. Several tests using different
or scale effects, in modeling and the simplifying assumptions wave slopes should be used to check linearity as umptions.
made in theoretical models. Other motions and accelerations are often measured at the
A model test program could consist of the two following jacket CG and at those extreme locations where the highest local
components in order to meet the requirements of a towing inertia loads tend to act.
transportation study. For launching and upending tests it is extremely important.
l. Towing testL to closely simulate the actual properties of the barge's skid and
~ resistance tests in calm water and waves tilt beams. Often. small variations in properties such as the
seakeeping stability tests in severe sea states sliding coefficient of friction between skid beam and launch
2. Launch tests: runner will have a strong influence on the launch procedure.
sea eeping tests during launch Therefore, the sensitivity of launch and upending to initial
launch and upending simulation barge trim, friction coefficients. and variations in the centers
These test programs would enable the designer to confirm of gravity and buoyancy of the jacket is often tested. Standard
the transportation design analysis by determining the barge/ procedures have now been developed by most of the reputable
jacket stability, motion and acceleration. The behavior of scale tank facilities for these types of te ts.
214 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
 Summary and conclusions
Thi paper has attempted to present, in a unified and sys-
tematic manner various analysis techniques involved in the
design a~d eval~ation of an offshore jacket transport~tion op-
eration. Appropriate discussions of rules and regulations have
been included in view of the lack of industry-wide standards
for the area.
The methodology outlined in the paper is not intended to
detail the unique problems of a particular barge /jacket under
tow. Rather, the procedures have been given as a general
overview of the steps in the process, to be used as a guide for
individual planning in carrying out a transportation study. In
this respect, examples based on past experiences have been
included to illustrate various tradeoffs between static stability
versus dynamic loading, level of detail of analysis versus re-
source availability, and so on.
The state-of-th~-art development of naval architecture and
structural analysis continues to provide more tools for design
and investigation of the complex interaction between stability,
motion, strength and risk levels in a transportation study, and
various options are now available to designers to ensure the
safety of a jacket under tow. Based on past experiences in
carrying out these studies, a summary of the conclusions and
recommendations for continued development efforts fol-
lows.
1. Although the standard methods for wind force and
moment calculations differ somewhat in their detailed proce-
dures, they are generally in agreement between various clas-
sification societies. A more uncertain area, however, is de-
termining the maximum design wind condition and sea state
for the tow. Various classification societies have specified 50-
or lOO-year return periods similar to fixed offshore structure
designs. It is felt that a more appropriate design criterion
should be established based on the risk levels, such as encounter
probability, which takes into consideration the voyage dura-
tion.
2. Stability criteria for deck cargo barges have been largely
derived from ship and offshore mobile drilling units. Further
research into the actual mechanism of barge capsizing, in-
eluding factors such as water on deck and restoring force from
jacket member immersion, is necessary to determine an ade-
dd bI
quate level of barge/jacket intact an amage sta i ity.
3. Tradeoffs between static stability and dynamic loadings
induced by barge motion are possible for certain types of
barge/jacket combinations. The designer is advised to inves-
tigate various alternatives within the constraints of stability,
taking into consideration the predominant wave excitation
periods Other design options, such as possible ro I1- d am ping
devices. should also be considered.
4. Local damage on overhanging jacket members due to
slamming is often a concern in a tow, and the exact impact force
on the jacket is still an area under researc h . Computer simu-
lations and model tests should be performed to investigate the
degree of seriousness of such impact, and to gain insight into
the source of the dynamic effects of slamming.
5. Several levels of structural analysis for both the jacket
and barge have been outlined and their re Iative merits d is-
cussed The choice of technique may largely depend on ex-
periences with the type of barge/jacket for a similar tow route,
and on available resources for the study. Generally, for a long
voyage where barge as well as jacket structur.al damage i.s~f
critical concern, it is recommended that a detailed probablistic
analysis of maximum stress level, fatigue and loca I d amage be
carried out. For relatively short towing operations a less-de-
tailed, standard type of calculation may be adequate to back
up past experiences.
6. In the area of risk assessment for a towing study, a pro-
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
cedure has been proposed to assess the level of risk based on the
encounter probability of the predicted maximum sea state,
probability of no damage, and other mission-related statistics.
It is hoped that further developments in this area will provide
a rational approach for evaluating on a common basis safety
factors for a transportation operation.
Finally it should be stressed that a successful jacket deploy-
ment operation involves many phases of careful planning from
load out, tow, and launching to jacket upending. The paper
has addressed some important aspects of the transportation and
launching phases of the operation. As practical experience and
research efforts continue to accumulate, the engineering dis-
ciplines in the marine field can better respond to industry's
demand for effective, safe offshore transportation and instal-
lation procedures.
Acknowledgments
The authors are indebted to Brown & Root, Inc., whose
sponsorship made this paper possible, and they appreciate
deeply the encouragement and support given by Mr. J. C.
Lochridge, vice president, the late Mr. W. A. Morgan, the late
senior department manager, and especially by Mr. David
Kummer, senior engineer.
This paper includes a large amount of information from
regulatory and consultive organizations. The authors would
particularly like to thank those at the U. S. Coast Guard, Det
norske Veritas, the National Maritime Institute (D.O.l., u. K.),
and Noble Denton and Associates, Ltd. for their help in pro-
viding the information.
Special thanks are also due Mrs. K. Fonda for her dedication
in typing the manuscript, and to Ms. M. E. Archer for her great
assistance as our technical writer and editor.
The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors
and do not necessarily reflect those of Brown & Root, Inc.
References
1 Blight,G. J. and Tuturea, D. P.. "The GEMINI Method of In-
stalling Deepwater Platforms," SNAME,Gulf Section, March 1978:
2 Blight, G. J., "HIDECK," SNAME,Gulf Section West, Apnl
1978.
3 Martin,M.R.,"What to Expectin the Way of MarinePlatforms
to Corne" Offshore, Nov. 1972.
4 Moss,J. L. and Townsend, G J., III, "Desig~,Considerations
and Resistance of Large Towed Sea-GoingBarges, SNAMET&R
Bulletin 1-29, 1969.
5 Blight, G. J. and Dai.B. Y.T., "Resistanceof Offshore Barges
and Required Tug Horsepower," Offshore Technology Conference,
OTC Paper 3320, Houston,Texas, May 1978.
6 Frank, W., "The Frank Close-Fit Ship Motion Computer
Program," aval Ship Research and Development Center, Report
3289,1970.
7 Kim,G H. and Chou, F., "Wave-ExcitingForcesand Moments
on an Ocean Platform in Oblique Seas,"Offshore Technology Con-
ference, OTC Paper 1180, Houston,Texas, April 1970.
8 Ochi, M. K. and Motter, L. E., "Prediction of Slamming
Characteristicsand Hull Responsesfor ShipDesign," TRANS. SNAME,
Vol. 81, 1973.
9 Miller, B. L., "Wave Slamming Loads on Horizontal Circular
Elements of Offshore Structures," Trans. RINA, 1977.
10 Pierson,W. J., Neuman G.:and James,R. W., Practical Method
for Observing and Forecasting Ocean Waves by Means of Wave
Spectra and Statistics, Publication No. 603, United States avy Hy-
drodynamics Office, Washington, D. G, 1955.
11 Bretschneider,G L., "Revisionand Waves Forecasting, Deep
and ShallowWater," Proceedings, SixthConference on Coastal En-
gineering, American Society of Civil Engineers Council on Wave
Research, 1958.
12 Cardone, V.J., Pierson, W. J., and Ward, E. G., "~indcasting,
the Directional Spectra of Hurricane-Generated Waves, Journal oJ
Petroleum Technology, Vol. 25, 1976, pp. 385-394.
13 Chen, H. T., Hoffman, D., and Chen, H. H., "The lmple-
215
r
 70

60

50
en
II:

r-

:J!
40
z
..J

~
(f)

.... 30
>
0
CD

r-
:I:
<!)
20

:I:

10

OL- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~
1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6

HEIGHT COEFFICIEN T CHG OR "rr;.;

Fig. 17 CHG, height and gust coefficient, DnV; CH, height coefficient, IMea

mentation of 20- Year Hindcast Wave Data in the Design and Opera-
tion of Marine Structures," Offshore Technology Conference, OTC
Paper 3644, Houston, Texas, 1978.
14 Summary of Synoptic Meteorological Observations, U. S.
Naval Weather Service Command, National Climatic Center, Ashe-
ville, N. G, 1978.
15 Hogben, . and Lumb, F. E., Ocean Wave Statistics, National
Physical Laboratory, United Kingdom, 1967.
16 Hoffman, D. and Miles, M., ..Analysis of a Stratified Sample - Horizonta Members in the Splash Zone," Offshore Technology Con-
of Ocean Wave Records at Station ZANDIA," SNAME, Panel H-7,
1976.
17 Snyder, Eric D., "Capsizing of Deck-Loaded Barges in Irregular
Beam Seas," Research Report 48104, Department of aval Architec-
ture and Marine Engineering, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor,
Michigan, July 1974.
18 Towing Operations Guidelines and Recommendations for
Barge Transportation, Det norske Veritas Report No. 78-404, Oslo,
1978.
19 General Guidelines for Transport of Modules on Barges in \
Northern European Waters, oble Denton & Associates, Ltd., London,
June 1978.
20 Stability Criteria for Barges, U. S. Coast Guard, Technical Note
No. 3-69, 1969.
21 Rules for Construction, Designing and Inspection of Offshore
Structures. Det norske Veritas, Oslo, 1977.
22 Guidance on the Design and Construction of Offshore In-
stallations, Department of Energy, Her \\ajestys Stationery Office,
London, 197-t.
23 Requirements for Verifying the Structural lntegritu of OCS
Platforms, Prefared by American Bureau of Shipping, ew York,
U. S. Geologica Survey, 1978.
24 Rules and Regulations for the Construction and Classification
of Offshore Platforms, Bureau Veritas, Paris, 1975.
25 "Safety Measures for Special Purpose Ships," Code for the
Construction and Equipment of Mobil Offshore Drilling Units, DE
XIX/6, I~ICO, 23 March 1978.
216 Practical Desiqn Approaches for the Analysis of. Barge Performance
26 Rules for Building and Classijicatton=Ojjshore Mobile
Drilling Units, American Bureau of Shipping, 1973.
27 Requirements for Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, Department
of Transportation, U. S. Coast Guard, 1978.
28 "BARMOT User's Manual: Barge Motion Computer Pro-
gram," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root, Inc.,
Houston, Texas, 1979.
. '"29 Karlan, P. and Gilbert, M. ., "Impact Forces on Platform
ference, OTC Paper 2438, Houston, Texas, 1976.
30 "DAMS User's Manual Level I: Design and Analysis of Marine
Structures," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston, Texas, 1978.
31 "SEA LOAD User's Manual," Marine Engineering Division
Publication, Brown & Root, Inc., Houston, Texas, 1979.
32 Longuet-Higgtns, M. S., "On the Statistical Distribution of the
Heights of Sea Waves," Journal of Marine Research, Vol. 2, No.3,
952.
33 Chen, H. T., "Long Term Prediction of Offshore Vessel Re-
-sponses for Design and Operability Evaluations," Offshore Technology
Conference, OTC Paper 3800, Houston, Texas, 1980.
34 "TPFATIG User's Manual, Transportation Probabilistic Fatigue
Analysis," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston, Texas, 1980.
35 Borgman, L. E., "Risk Criteria," Journal of Waterways and
Harbor Division, Proceedin.s, ASCE, Aug. 1963.
36 Robishaw, Paul A., . Flexifloat Construction Systems," Rob-
ishaw Engineering, Inc., personal correspondence, Houston, Texas,
Oct. 1978.
37 Andrews, Harrison B., "Launching," Principles of Naval Ar-
chitecture, J. P. Comstock, Ed., 51 AME, 1967, pp. 752-781.
:38 "Notes on Transverse Stability on Floating Vessels, Freeboard,
Bulwarks and Freeing Ports. Hatches and Access Openings," Dynamics
ASSociated u.it]: Rolling, United States Salvage Association. Inc., New
York. N. Y., 1968.
39 Hutchison, B. L. and Bringloe, J. T., "Application of Seakeeping
~
Analysis," Marine Technology, 'Vol. 15, o. 4, Oct. 1978, pp. 416-
431
40 "CARGO User's Manual," Marine Engineering Division
Publication, Brown & Root, lnc., Houston, Texas, 1980.
41 "FLAPS User's Manual. Flotation and Launching Analysis
Program," Marine Engineering Division Publication, Brown & Root,
Inc., Houston, Texas, December 1977.

WInd Pressure
111 ~ (a (ZI )6 V1hr10)2 sin e
Appendix 1 TO
a and 6 from Table A.1
Wind moment assessment methods
Three levels of sophistication in wind moment assessment No Spacing Ratio
Q & d/B
are presented here. The simplest and usually the most con- Area Solidity
servative is the USCG deck cargo barge method [20J, which is S ~ a
dependent only on barge particulars. It is most often used in Shielding Factor
determining the maximum allowable VCGc for each draft. " 1.0
&

TableB.1
The second method is used by most OMDU rules and entails
breaking down the windage area into component parts and
applying height and shape coefficients. The most sophisticated
method is found in design and construction (D&C) rules for Is Item - 1 Open Truss 2
offshore structures, and entails a detailed member-by-member or 2 Single Member or Surface
calculation using height, shape and shielding effects.
In each case the computation may be broken into two parts,
the effects and the area, shape and shielding effects. Note that Shape Coefficient
only USCG [27J, IMCO [25J, and DnV [21J formulas are pre- Cs 0:: Coo
Tables B.2. 8.3.
sented; other approaches are similar in most respects. B.4. and 8.5

Wind pressure
In the USCG rules [27J a constant wind pressure is assumed
over the entire windage area, and is dependent on barge length,
as noted in Table 2 of the paper.
In OMDU rules a wind speed may either be a predicted value
or an appropriate assumed value prescribed by the rules, The
wind speed varies with height according to a tabular height
coefficient based on the one-seventh power law:
Yes
(35)

where
q = wind pressure in kg/m2 (Ib/ft2) for member
k = constant = 0.623 (0.00338)
CH = height coefficient (from IMCO [25], Table 2) Fig. 18 Wind moment calculation by DnV method (tables mentioned
V = wind speed in m/s (knots) refer to reference [21))

The wind speed used in D&C rules is also either predicted

or prescribed based on severe storm conditions. This wind
speed is then modified to account for height, gust and angle of
incidence for each member or section of a projected area (Dn V
[21 J), where
(36)
where
V1hrlO = wind speed, I-hour (h) averaging period, 10 m
above SWL
p = air density ~ 1.225 kg/m3 (0.0765 Ib/ft3)
CHS = height and gust coefficient
= O'(Z;/1O),8, Z in meters
= 0'(Zd32.8)B, Z in feet
(j = incident angle
Zi = height of member above water surface
{3= height coefficient dependent on wind averaging
period (from DnV [21J, Table A.l)
0' = gust coefficient based on wind averaging period
(from DnV [21J Table A.l)
Figure 17 compares C HG with the square root of IMCO
values of CH for heights from 0 to 70 m (230 ft). From Fig. 17
it appears that the averaging period to be used for OMDU rules
is greater than 1 h.
Area, shape and shielding
The USCG rules [27] are generally used with the block
windage area assumptions as given by equations (9a) and (9b).
These assumptions are best used when the solidity ratio of the
deck cargo approaches 1.
The OMDU rules commonly present a table of shape coef-
ficients to be used in the area calculations. Component areas
may be calculated by thefollowing rule:
(37)
where
Aj = effective area of member or members
Gj = projected area of member
Cs = shape coefficient (from IMCO [25J, Table 1)
In OMDU rules, shielding may be accounted for in truss-type

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 217

 structures by applying a shape coefficient of 0.3 to the block
(or outline) area of each truss face.
The windage area calculations for D&C rules may be quite
complex, due to the fact that this method normally applies to
defining wind forces for structural loading and in situ over-
turning moments. The basic equation for elemental area is
either (DnV [21]):
or
where
1/ = shieldingfactor from [21] (Table B.l) based on ex, {3
= 1.0 for windward faces
Cs = shape coefficient from [21] (Tables B.2, B.3, B.4, and
B.5)
= kCa>
aj = projected area of member in direction of wind
Ce = effective shape coefficient from. 21] (Table B.6) based
on 8 and He
1> = solidity ratio = projected area of truss members divided
by block area of truss normal to wind
hi = block area of truss
ex = spacing ratio--distance between member centers di-
vided by least dimension of b,
Re = Reynolds number
{3 = aerodynamic solidity ratio = 1>a from [25] (Table
.
"- B.1)
A flow chart of these calculations is given in Fig. 18. The Dn V
windage area calculations would normally be used only in the
transportation analysis when areas determined by either of the
other methods appear overly conservative for stability pur-
poses.
Wind moments
The wind moment used in the USCG rules [27] is given by
the P X A X H defined in equation (4).
The wind moments for both OMDU and D&C rules are
calculated by
Discussion
. .;:
Robert Latorre, Member, Frederick Ashcroft. Membe~nd'
Stuart Cohen, Member 'J- -
The authors are to be commended on their compr he~s.ive
discussion of the factors in selecting an acceptable ba~ge/jacket
configuration for towing and launching offshore ttructures.
Our questions concern another aspect which is brieHv men-
tioned, the coursekeeping behavior of the towe((barge.
Typically when towing such large structures as shown in the
front-is-piece photo two or more towing tugs may be employed.
However, for the smaller launch barges in Table l, the barge
may be towed by a bridle and towing hawser attached to a
single t~g. With the large deck cargo the lorigtrudinal shift in
the tow s center of gravity could affect the yawing and swaying
of the towed barge. Have the authors any experience in how
this has affected the course keeping ~rformance of the towed
barge? e ,
At the University of Michigan, re istance tests as well as the
towed barge coursekeeping performance model tests are rou-
2 8 Practical Desiqn Approaches
where
ql,AI = as defined in equations (35-38a,b)
hi = vertical distance from center of pressure to center
of resistance
N = number of area elements
The moment should be calculated at a sufficient number of
(38a) heel angles to define a heeling moment (arm) curve. For
vessels with ship-shape hulls the moment is assumed to vary
with the cosine of the heel angle.
(38b)
Appendix 2
Typical towing approval procedures
The following is a list of typical calculations, drawings, and
procedures required for a towing approval.
Loadout plan
Barge arrangement, capacity plan and ballast system
drawing
Main and emergency towing arrangement
Barge and jacket structural drawings, including seafas-
tening
Tug specification
Tug bollard pull calculation, including barge resistance
prediction
Ballasting and stability study (intact and damage for transit
and launch operation)
Weather and route trip prediction, including points of
shelter
Barge/iacket motion response
Study of loads and stresses in barge, jacket and seafas-
tening
Logistics procedure (command and communication sys-
tem, emergency procedure, methods of handling and
securing jacket after launch and upending proce-
dure)
Crane barge specifications
(39) ' Study of jacket behavior during launching, flotation and
upending
,
tinely made. It is our experience that the coursekeeping per-
formance can improve with properly designed skegs. How-
ever, since the skegs add resistance to the barge hull there is
some trade-off between the course stability and the added skeg
drag [42,43,44] (additional references follow some discussions).
The authors mention using bilge keels to reduce the barge
rolling. We would like t? know what is the effect of the bilge
keels on the towed barge s coursekeeping performance?
We concur with the authors' statement that the designer's
concern is that of motion control. It appears that while ex-
cessive trim is undesirable, some trim by the stern may improve
the towed barge coursekeeping performance. To illustrate our
point, Fig. 19 shows the barge lines and detail of the skeg with
a movable flap. This barge is a notched stern barge used
in a previous study [44]. Its particulars are summarized in
Table 7. The trajectory of a light mounted at station 1 of the
barge was recorded by means of an optical tracker during the
coursekeeping test. Several skeg flap angles were used and the
corresponding trajectories are compared in Fig. 20. Starting
for the Analysis of Barge Performance
 --------- -------
LOwER TANGENT

------------------------~~---L--~~--~CL

20 19 18 17 16 15 14 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 o

15 14

I
17

~ OF RUOO,q 5700<

I,

;3.CO

r
I
/
,
,
,
F:=:I
H ~.c--+-
/
I
! :C~!

~'r======='f== ====,==:::::::/
cT-.------------
-
14 SO'

17 CO' ~

skeg details showing movable skeg flap

Fig. 19 Barge lines

from offset of 9 ft the barge's yaw and sway motions were coursekeeping performance of towed barges and congratulate
minimum at the lO-deg setting. In Fig. 21 it is clear that the the authors again on their fine paper.
trim by the stern reduces the sway and yawing of the barge and
improves the coursekeeping performance. Have the authors Additional references
. considered using the ballast tanks to obtain a suitable trim for
42 Latorre. R. and Ashcroft. F., "Recent Developments in Barge
both seakeeping and coursekeeping? Design, Towing, and Pushing," Marine Technology. Vol. 17. No.1.
We are grateful to have this opportunity of discussing the Jan 1981, pp. 10-21.

TOWED BARGE MODEL TRAJECTORY TOWE D BARGE MODEL TRAJECTORY

-I I
EFFECT OF SKEG FLAP ANGLE EFF ECT OF BARGE TRIM
KEY A-TESTS KEY A-TESTS
1 0 DEG 1 NO TRIM
en a,
2 10 DEG 2 TRIM BY STERN ~
~I 3 15 DEG
~I lO,nches Full scal~
K /2 I~ -
~(
I FULL LOAD
en V
V ~
:;:/

FULL LOAD
en

- l~----'--'----'---'--~-'----'---'
START 48 96
DISTANCE,
144
feet
EVEN
Vs

192
KEEL
6 kts

240
I V
START ~ % ~
15 DEG FLAP ANGLE
V!,
I
6 kts

1~
I I
2~
DISTANCE, feet
Fig. 20 Effect of skeg flap angle on towed barge model trajectory Fig. 21 Effect of stern trim on towed barge model trajectory

Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance 219

 Table 7 Principal particulars of barge model
Name Symbol Model (X = 40) Barge
Length LWL 3.788 ft 351.50 ft
Beam B l.500 ft 60.00 ft
Full load Taft 0.:349 ft 13.96 ft
Draft Tfwd 0.349 ft 13.96 ft
Wetted surface S 13.531 ft2 21 649.00 ft2
Displacement 'V 3.752 ft3
6 233.70 lb (68F) 6861 LTSW (59)
Block Coefficient CB 0.816 0.816
. otch length I" 1.5 ft 60.00 ft
:"JOTES: 1. Towing bridle with legs equal to one beam was con-
nected at corner of barge head log.
2. Tracker light mounted at station 1 in Fig. 19.
3. Monofilament line used for towing hawser material.
4. Initial offset at 9 ft or six model beams.
-t.'3 Latorre, R., "Improvement of Barge Towin~; Translations of
Selected Japanese and Russian Technical Articles, ' Department of
'.Hal Architecture and Marine Engineering Report, niversity of
\lichigan .. Ann Arbor, Michigan, Report No. 226, May 1980.
l-t Latorre, R., Ashcroft, R., and Cohen, S., "Investigation of Barge
Towing Performance, Phase I Experiments," Proceedings, 19th
American Towing Tank Conference, Ann Arbor, Michigan, July
1':1. O.
W. P. Stewart, Member
This comprehensive paper emphasizes that barge roll motion
is relatively lightly damped and tends to exhibit large-ampli-
tude resonant response. At large amplitudes, however, linear
theory breaks down, added mass and inertia terms vary and the
buoyancy force becomes highly nonlinear. Hence, the response
amplitude is not necessarily a function only of damping at
resonance. This problem is compounded when the vessel has
large overhanging cargo which partly immerses during a roll
cycle.
: Depending upon the wave height and frequency, and cargo
geometry, the cargo may pick up hydrostatic and hydrody-
namic forces which are in phase with the diffraction roll mo-
ment and consequently increase roll response amplitudes.
Alternatively the phasing of the forces may be such that they
oppose the diffraction roll moment and roll response will be
reduced. In a recent study using a 3-D time-history program,
the nonlinear buoyancy forces acting on the cargo acted in
phase with the primary forcing terms and resulted in a roll
motion amplitude of 30 deg. Reducing the cargo overhang
changed the phasing of the cargo-induced buoyancy forces and
resulted in a roll amplitude of only 13 deg in the same waves
with the same mass distribution.
The paper rightly emphasizes the importance of model tests
which must be used to calibrate computer programs. It is
common practice to adjust the roll damping in otherwise linear
programs so that peak resonant response predicted matches that
found in the model test, assuming other parameters to be cor-
rect. This may be highly erroneous especially where cargo
immersion takes place.
One of the primary reasons for marine deck cargo loss or
damage is towline failure. The prediction of towline tensions
is generally restricted to the calculation of the mean static
component. and a safety factor of typically two times the tug
bollard pull is used to take account of the dynamic compo-
nent.
Recent research with a North Sea barge tow shows that even
in moderate weather (-t-m significant wave height) the dynamic
tension component in the line can result in peak tensions of
t\\ ice the mean value and that the ratio of dynamic to mean
force increases with increasing wave height.
More offshore tow monitoring is required to give greater
insight into barge hydrodynamics and the problems of towline
failure. Monitoring enables response to multidirectional sea
states to be measured and enables greater control of the towing
operation.
Bruce L. Hutchison, Member
The authors have presented an interesting and useful paper
covering many different aspects of barge performance analysis.
The presentation in Tables 3 and 4 of summarized barge intact
and damaged stability requirements is a particularly useful
contribution.
I would like to concentrate my remarks on the topics of
motion calculations and strength as presented in this paper. It
should be noted that equations (12), (lSa), (l5b), (l5c) and (16)
in the preprint contain several printer errors. These errors have
been noted in my correspondence with the authors and will
presumably be corrected in the TRANSACTIONS:
Some further comments are appropriate to the transforma-
tion from earth to vessel coordinates. Equation (12) and the
associated transformation tensor imply sequential rotations
about the z-axis (yaw), the y-axis (pitch) and the x-axis (roll).
For rotations in reverse sequence the order of multiplication
of the individual transformation tensors would have to be re-
versed and a different final transformation tensor would re-
sult.
This points up the fact that the transformation tensor depends
upon the sequence of rotations. The transformation matrices
are not cumulative and in general finite angles of rotation
cannot be represented by vectors. Infinitesimal rotations can
however be represented by vectors and this result can be viewed
as acceptable since it falls within the assumptions underlying
most ship motion analysis.
The assumption of small angles of rotation can be used to
simplify the transformation tensor by replacing trigonometric
terms with their small angle approximations. Under this
scheme cosines are replaces by + 1.0, sines are replaced by the
argument angle, and products of sines are ignored. If this is
done the following skew-symmetric transformation tensor is
obtained:
ITI = [-~
()
~
-cJ>
-!]
1
This result would be obtained for small angles of rotation
regardless of the sequence of rotation and therefore forms a very
useful invariant basis for coordinate transformations.
Concerning equation (16) for the relative vertical motion,
it should be observed that (following correction of the errors
in the preprint) care must be taken before applying this ex-
pression to determine the precise expression for the incident
wave and the exact definition of the response phase angle.
These factors may necessitate some modifications to equation
(16) depending on the specific definitions.
The authors in their section on strength make the observation
that their utilization of the participation factors involves many
Simplified assumptions and may not realistically represent the
actual conditions under tow. In this assessment they are correct
and I would like to offer the following observations on how the
ituation can be improved.
First I would observe that it is not necessary to restrict the
analysis to unidirectional seas, as we [391 also derived the co-
factors in a directional sea spectrum. Second, and most im-
portant, the determination of the cofactors need not be re-
stricted to the motions at the combined center of gravity. The
cofactors can be derived at whatever point is of interest (for

.::20 Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance

 example, at the location of a mass or structural element). In-
deed, failure to do so may lead to serious errors. For example,
Table 8 with this discussion, taken from program CARGO 139],
shows the variation with location in the cofactor C:y for a 400-ft
barge in beam seas with TJ = 11.5 sec. The advantage to
combined load analysis of evaluating the cofactors at the point
of interest should be apparent.
Finally, the development of the cofactor concept does not
lead to the maximum of a process consisting of a linear com-
bination of correlated vector processes. To obtain the maxi-
mum of such a process the cross cospectral moment matrix is
required. This matrix is an invariant for a given load condition,
speed, heading and spectral shape. Once this matrix is derived,
the spectral moments and thereby the response statistics for any
process expressible as a linear combination of the base vector
processes can be easily determined. A short technical note on
this topic has been submitted to the Journal of Ship Re-
search.
Dennis C, Perryman,3 Visitor
From a meteorologist's point of view, it is refreshing to see
the amount of effort injected into the collection and utilization
of environmental data as outlined in this paper. In an attempt
to further the engineering science, the authors have shown a
realization that related technology must also keep pace. This
is evident from their statement that spectral wave models are
superseding PNJ, 5MB manual hind cast techniques. Exception
might be taken, however, of the statement that "no model yet
available has been able to accurately predict daily events .... "
The discusser's firm, as well as the u.s. Navy, uses an opera-
tional version of a spectral wave model to predict directional
wave spectra at various grid points over a given geographic
region. We have used one such model in the North Sea daily
since 1976. These models are highly accurate in 24-hr forecasts
and are able to provide useful forecasts for up to 72 hours. A
given model may contain limitations in its ability to make
predictions for some regions as a result of man's inability to
r.
provide accurate wind data as input, but, on the whole, the
I. models perform very satisfactorily and with consistently ac-
curate results.
Very often, ship reports constitute the only available data
, ,!
base with which to simulate a towing operation. As the authors
have pointed out, ship reports must be used cautiously. An
alternative to ship reports is the Spectral Ocean Wave Model
(SOWM) data generated by the u.S. Navy. These data are
output twice daily and are already gridded. The fair-weather
bias of ship reports is omitted in the SO\\'M data, and grid
spacing is sufficient to yield representative profiles of wind and
wave statistics. Using SOWM data contributes directly to the
main advantage of a tow simulation-repeating the voyage
through past weather conditions for a number of years. The
authors have noted this technique as being useful in deriving
design criteria and exceedance statistics.
The practical design criteria and related references as tab-
ulated by the authors are highly commendable. If more in-
vestigations of this type were to be carried out so that a sum-
mary table would not be necessary, a real benefit to the offshore
industry would be realized. Convincing marine surveyors to
agree on the design criteria would be a monumental achieve-
ment, second only to getting naval architects to agree on any-
thing!
A reliable method of determining design criteria for the
towing operation is of utmost importance when considering the
fact that many structures today are towed in much worse con-
ditions than will ever occur at the launch site for the entire life
of the structure. The authors have made a good case for put-
3 Oceanroutes, Inc., Palo Alto, California.
Practical Design Approaches for the Analysis of Barge Performance
1 ~ __ =- ~ __~
Table 8 Acceleration cotactors, Cry
Heig ht
Above Y = -46.7 )" = 0.0 ). = 46.7
Deck, ft ft It ft
0 -0.H6;; -O.I;,!! -U.2:l:l
1;. -O.HIlI -0.684 -0.061
:lO -0.844 -0.;;96 0.04,
ting as much time and effort in the tow design as was expended
in the structure's design.
Kaare Lindemann,4 Visitor
Barge transportation is a matter of concern to regulatory
bodies classification societies and marine survevors. The
principles and methods used by such bodies to e~aluate the
safety of barge transportation are well described in the paper.
The authors have also noted the important difference in limits
between ship and offshore design and barge transportation.
In ship and offshore design, the design philosophy is that the
structure should have a good chance to survive a lifetime op-
eration. This means that the structure should survive all pos-
sible loads which, it has a fair chance to be exposed to during
its lifetime. In popular terms this is often expressed as the
20-year wave for ships and the 50 to 100-year wave for offshore
structures.
For barge transportation the philosophy is parallel. but in
practice the extreme condition used for barge transportation
is different from that of ships and offshore structures. The time
spent on the tow is an important parameter, often resulting in
less strict criteria. In fact, barge transports may be permitted
with strict limits on permissible environmental conditions
provided possible points of shelter can be reached before a storm
rises.
The methods available, however, are not always complete
in their description of the problem, and some uncertainties are
associated with the results obtained. Among others I can
mention barge roll motion, relative motion, slamming phe-
nomena, fatigue analysis and barge vibratory responses
(springing). In addition the operational limitations are not
always well defined. When tows are to be approved based
upon such analyses the limiting sea state is even more uncertain,
resulting in large safety factors.
Much is to be gained in barge transport efficiency, economy
and safety by concentrating efforts in obtaining more knowl-
edge on limiting conditions and the phenomena which cause
them and methods used to assess them. The state of the art in
barge transportation analysis techniques and hence the pro-
cedures used to evaluate the safety of a transport is not satis-
factory and further development is required.
A new dimension should also be added to the design and
operational evaluation, namely, the capabilities of the operator
or towmaster. A careful transport evaluation based on a sound
technical analysis may be jeopardized by an operator who does
not fully understand or who is not capable of assessing the
limiting conditions. Hence rules and regulations should be
developed further to take into account certain minimum re-
quirements for operator education and training. Requirements
should also be made for instrumental aids, putting the operator
in a position to better evaluate the conditions.
This is an area where marine research has been neglected,
and more emphasis should be placed on such studies in the years
to come.
4 Det norske Veritas, Oslo, Norway.
221
-, ~--~~~ /