1. Introduction
Oil and gas facilities include offshore structures and onshore structures, onshore oil tanks, as well as both downstream and upstream assets [1,2,3]. Although offshore wind farm facilities are renewable energy facilities, while Very Large Floating Structures (VLFS) could have offshore applications, they are sometimes classified as offshore structures. However, the main categories include fixed and floating offshore structures [4,5,6]. Fixed offshore structures, monopods, and guyed wire caissons are examples of offshore structures. In the same vein, complex deep water assets such as Floating Production and Storage Offloading (FPSO), Mobile Offshore Production Unit (MOPU), Tension Leg Platform (TLP), and semi-submersible structures, are also examples of offshore structures. Advances in ocean engineering are currently being undertaken, with a variety of new offshore structure designs spanning from fixed platforms to floating platforms [6,7,8,9,10]. These offshore platforms can also be used for dynamic positioning, exploratory activities, drilling/production, navigation, ship (un)loading, fluid transport, and bridge support [11,12,13,14,15,16]. Hence, the facilities on the offshore structures require project management, asset/facilities management, and general maintenance. In addition, there are supporting attachments for these offshore installations that are used for a variety of functions and in a variety of water depths and environments globally. These components included drilling/production marine risers [17,18,19,20,21,22,23], composite risers [24,25,26,27,28,29,30], mooring lines [31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39], and marine hoses [40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. Figure 1 depicts some offshore platform installations.
Offshore platforms have been employed in a variety of aquatic situations and could be used as artificial reefs for many years. As a result, designing and maintaining them is incredibly challenging. Hence, careful consideration should be given to the design and maintenance of offshore structures in order to avoid early decommissioning, significant corrosion hazards, oil spillage, and other permanent environmental damage. Different activities for proper equipment selection [50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57], design of platform types [58,59,60,61,62,63,64], engineering management of well bores [65,66,67,68,69,70,71,72,73], and other drilling/production procedures [74,75,76,77,78,79,80] are required for the uses of these off-shore structures. One of the most obvious of these applications is offshore oil production, which presents a substantial challenge to the product designer or offshore engineer [81,82,83]. Environmental loadings [84,85,86,87,88], hydrodynamics [89,90,91,92,93,94,95,96], hydroelasticity [97], corrosion [98], failure analysis [99], ocean wave mechanics [100,101,102,103,104,105,106,107,108], fluid content loadings [109,110,111,112,113,114,115], fatigue limits [116,117,118,119,120], reliability [121,122,123,124,125,126,127,128], and so on are all factors to consider during the design process. As a result, the designer must ensure that the product is safe, stable, has a high fatigue resistance, has a long service life, and is cost-effective for the customer. Secondly, it is important that these offshore structures have high service life to ensure sustainability and durability, so that the oil producers can produce enough oil and gas products to meet the global demand. Figure 2 shows the daily demand for crude oil globally, showing dependence on fossil fuels.
Since offshore structures are exposed to extremely harsh marine environments and changing sea depths, these offshore assets must generally run securely for at least twenty-five (25) years. As a result, the designs are carried out using peak loads generated by hurricane wind and waves during the platform design life [129,130,131,132,133,134,135]. In addition, fatigue loads induced by waves over the platform’s lifetime, as well as platform motion, are all essential design challenges addressed by standards [136,137,138,139,140,141,142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149,150,151,152]. Strong currents can occasionally impact the platforms, putting the integrity of the entire system at a threat, hence the need for designing offshore structures against harsh weather conditions [153,154,155,156,157]. To ensure the integrity of the structure is maintained, monitoring is essential for the design [158,159]. Furthermore, the scale of an offshore structure is considered during the design for its stability and hydrodynamics [159,160,161,162,163]. The material density is also taken into account in the design. The majority of offshore platforms are built in shipyards using enormous steel or in-situ using concrete, as is the case with gravity-based structures. These fixed and floating offshore constructions are mostly utilised for energy generating or oil production, while some are used as breakwater devices and wave-energy converters (WECs) [164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173]. Offshore platforms can be small or massive, depending on the functionality. However, offshore structures are recorded as among the world’s highest man-made structures built. Also, the material grade must have high corrosion resistance to be used in ocean environments, such as high-grade steel [174,175,176,177,178,179]. The oil and gas are separated on the platform and transported to shore via pipelines or tankers [180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187,188,189,190,191,192]. The lifting, transportation, installation, design, fabrication, and commissioning of these offshore platforms must all be carefully planned to meet these goals [193,194,195,196,197,198,199,200,201,202,203]. The foundation of this semi-submersible in deeper waters requires excellent payload integration [204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212] for minimal motion responses across all degrees of freedom (DoF) due to the direction of the superstructure [213,214,215]. Hence the need for more understanding of the offshore structures, with the types of applications reviewed in Part I [5].
This paper is the second part of the review (Part II), which is conducted on sustainable design approaches for fixed and floating offshore structures. Section 2 provides a general overview of some sustainable drilling/production operations as well as the platform classifications and applications. Section 3 presents design considerations and design parameters for offshore structures, such as environmental conditions and water depth, while Section 4 outlines some design loadings, and lists various software programs used in engineering designs. Section 5 presents some design approaches, while Section 6 presents project management for offshore facilities. The ultimate goal of this paper is to give an overview of the various processes of offshore platform design and construction. Other activities include loading out, transporting, and installation of the platform’s components.
2. Design Considerations
The development and design of floating and fixed platforms are based on some design criteria. All operating considerations and environmental data that potentially affect the platform’s detailed design are included in the design parameters discussed here.
2.1. Operational Factors
2.1.1. Location
Before the design is finished and the work is completed on the engineering design layout, the platform’s position should be determined. Environmental circumstances vary by location; within a particular geographic area, foundation conditions, as well as design wave heights, periods, and tides, will differ. There are different types of offshore floating platforms operating in varying water depths are illustrated in Figure A1, Figure A2 and Figure A3 of Appendix A. Figure 3 shows some floating structures like the drilling barge used during early explorations in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), USA. The details of some platforms are given in Table 1.
2.1.2. Function
Drilling, producing, storing, materials processing, living quarters, or a combination of these are the most common functions for which a platform is created. A study of the layouts of equipment to be located on the decks should be used to decide the platform configuration. Before deciding on final dimensions, the clearances and spacing of equipment should be carefully considered. Function determines the classification of the offshore structure. The function of jack-ups could be for drilling or decommissioning or the installation of wind turbines. Figure 3 shows the floating drilling barge used in early explorations in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), USA.
2.1.3. Orientation
The platform’s orientation refers to its location in the design with respect to a fixed axis, such as true north. The direction of prevailing seas, winds, and currents, as well as operational requirements, are frequently used to determine orientation.
2.1.4. Water Depth, Waves and Current
Following the increased need for energy, fossil fuels have recently gained market share from various energy sources. However, both renewable energy sources and non-renewable energy sources have competed fairly based on the use of onshore and offshore platforms. To choose the right oceanographic design parameters, information on sea depth, ocean waves, current and tides is required. The water depth should be as precise as is feasible so that elevations for fenders, decks, boat landings, and corrosion protection may be set. Floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) are also designed by considering the water depth, waves and current. Some of the newer offshore platforms contain advanced technologies derived from existing offshore platforms employed in oil and gas development. Some wind turbines have foundations designed based on other platforms like semisubmersibles [213,214,215,216,217,218,219,220]. For breakwater and wave energy devices, they require shallower water depths. However, these devices have been able to operate under a diverse range of wave environments as seen in the diverse range of technologies, and devices such as the single column and multi-column wave energy converters (WECs) [164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173].
2.1.5. Deck Elevation
When waves contact a platform’s bottom deck and equipment, they produce large forces and overturning moments. Unless the platform is intended to withstand these forces, the deck’s height should be sufficient to offer appropriate clearance above the design wave’s crest. Additionally, an “air gap” should be considered to allow for the passage of waves greater than the design wave. There are some guidelines for the air gap.
2.2. Environmental Factors
API and other relevant industry standards include general meteorological and oceanic factors such as in API WSD 2000 Cl. No. 1.3.1 and API RP-2MET-INT [153,154,155,156]. When establishing the relevant meteorological and oceanographic parameters impacting a platform location, experienced specialists should be engaged. The sections that follow provide a broad overview of the information that may be necessary. After consulting with both the platform designer and a meteorological oceanography specialist, the information needed at a place should be chosen. Data from measurements and/or models should be statistically examined to provide the necessary descriptions of typical and extreme environmental conditions.
All relevant information on the environmental data used should be meticulously documented. The estimates on the structural reliability, fatigue life prediction and the source for all design data should be noted for validation, verification, trustworthiness, and dependability. Lastly, both the parameters used and the methodology listing all the procedures used to convert existing data into desired environmental values should be recorded. Typical environmental conditions are seen in the North Sea’s weather conditions where the Transocean Enabler semisubmersible drilling rig operates (see Figure 4).
2.3. Loading Factors
In ocean engineering, the term “environmental load conditions” is used in the design of offshore structures and other marine structures to include wind, waves, currents, and tides, depending on the environment under consideration. Operating environmental load conditions are the forces placed on the structure by a minor occurrence that is not severe enough to obstruct normal operations as stipulated by operators. The forces imposed on the structure by minor events that are not harsh enough to hinder any normal operation, as prescribed by the operators, are known as operating environmental load conditions. The forces placed on the platforms by the selected design scenario are known as design environmental load conditions. Design loading conditions are introduced as seen in industry standards, such as API-WSD 2000 Cl. No. 1.3.1 and API 2MET-INT, to design these structures. Maps of environmental data showing rising sea levels and wave energy are respectively represented in Appendix A Figure A4 and Figure A5.
The platform should be built to withstand the loads that will have the most severe consequences for the construction. The following loading conditions should be included in the loading conditions: environmental conditions, as well as appropriate dead and live loads:
Operating environmental parameters, including dead loads and maximum live loads, that are appropriate for the platform’s usual operations;
Operating environmental parameters, including dead loads and minimum live loads that are adequate for the platform’s usual operations;
Establish environmental factors in the design with maximum live loads and dead loads that can be combined with extreme conditions;
Establish environmental conditions in the design with a minimum of dead loads and a maximum of live loads that can be combined with harsh conditions;
Environmental loads should be factored in according to the likelihood of any simultaneous occurrences in the loading scenario under consideration, except seismic loading. Where applicable, a seismic (or earthquake) load should be applied to the platform as a distinct environmental loading condition;
The operating environment should be realistic of the platform’s relatively severe weather conditions. They do not have to be hard and fast rules that cause the platform to shut down if they’re broken. In the Gulf of Mexico, a 5-year winter storm from 1-year weather is typically employed as an operational condition, however recent designs have longer design times as seen in API 2MET-INT;
Both production and drilling platforms should have a maximum live load that takes into account production, drilling, and work over mode loadings, as well as any acceptable combinations of drilling or work over operations with production;
To maximise design stress in the platform members, consider variability in supply weights and the positions of mobile equipment such as a drilling derrick.
2.4. Structural Attachments: Mooring lines and Marine Risers
The design of an offshore structure is usually dependent upon the function of the structure. For offshore structures that are used in drilling and production purposes, there are structural attachments, particularly mooring lines and marine risers. It is important to state that a typical offshore production platform could have up to 35 risers, each with up to 90 large diameter tube segments (riser joints) that run the length of the platform. Production risers made of high-grade steel are currently used in the offshore oil and gas industry, and their weight limits the ability of offshore operations to move into deeper seas. With rising depths of the sub-sea wellhead, the weight of a riser and, as a result, the top tension required to retain it in the desired position increases. At the same time, the offshore platform’s top-tensioning capacity limits the number of risers that may be attached to it. As a result, if the weight of a single riser can be lowered, it will be able to utilize natural resources in deeper waters or incorporate more risers to existing platforms, increasing their production capacity. A tension application is supplied to the top of a top-tension riser (TTR) to remove compressive stresses and maintain the vertical position of the riser, and sometimes strakes are used to suppress vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) on the risers. However, steel risers are heavy and add to the weight called the deck load, as such there is the need to have a weight-optimised riser. Thus, the need for other structures like flexible risers, hybrid composite risers, and steel catenary risers (SCR) [204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212]. A typical hydrodynamic model developed using environmental data for a floating semisubmersible platform in Orcaflex 10.3d is given in Figure 5.
3. Classifying Design Loads
The loads acting on an offshore structure are subjected to different types of loads, mainly classified as: the loads that result from the function on the structure (called Functional loads) and the loads resulting from the environment (called Environmental loads). The first group consists of static or dynamic loads that result from the structure’s operation, the buoyancy, the weight of the structure, etc. The second group includes loads that come from the direct or indirect interaction of the environment with the structure, such as current loads, seismic loads, wave loads, wind loads, etc. [7,8]. The classification of design loads is presented in this section, including dead loads, live loads and other types of loads used in the design of offshore structures.
3.1. Live Loads
Live loads are the loads that are applied to the platform while it is in use, and they can change during an operation mode or from each medium to the next. Live loads should be included with these items:
The weight of drilling and production machinery and related equipment that can be added to the platform or taken away from it is part of the live loads;
The weight of the platform’s heliport, platform’s living quarters, and other life support equipment (LSE), as well as diving, utility, and life-saving equipment that can be added or withdrawn;
The weight in storage tanks of drilling fluids, other liquids and consumable supplies are part of live loads. Operations such as helicopter loadings, drilling, offloading, vessel mooring, and material handling, impose forces on the structure;
The stresses exerted on the structure from the use of a deck crane are all part of external forces. The suspended load, the platform motion, and the dead load are used to calculate these forces.
3.2. Dead Loads
The platform’s weight when suspended in the air, in addition to the weight of riser pipes, the weight of piles, the ballast, and grout are needed as part of the design loads. The second part is the weight of the machinery, all the equipment and ancillary structures that are mounted permanently on the platform, as they hold a lot of weight. The third part involves external pressure and buoyancy, which are both part of the hydrostatic forces that act upon the structure underneath the waterline.
3.3. Gravitational Loads
The gravitational loads are part of those loads used during the design process. It includes fabrication, load out, transportation, and installation loads which are all included in the design process and are further described.
3.3.1. Removal and Reinstallation Loads
Loads emanating from removal, offloading, loading, transportation, upgrading, and reinstalling offshore structures are part of the gravitational loads. In addition to the above construction loads, there are other loads for platforms for transportation to foreign locations. The loads arising from reinstallation, upgrading, removal, transportation, and (un)loading, should be considered.
3.3.2. Dynamic Loads
The loads exerted on the platform are known as dynamic loads. These are a result of a cyclic stimulation or reactions to an impact. Waves, wind, earthquakes, and equipment can all induce platform excitation. Fatigue loads are also some important loads that are exerted on the platform in a cyclic manner due to the dynamic response.
3.3.3. Impact Loads
Drilling activities may lead to impact as well as the motion of a and mobile drilling unit, a tugboat, a support boat or a barge that berths against the platform can both lead to impact loads.
3.4. Environmental Loads
Natural phenomena such as snow, ice, earthquake, wind, current, waves or tides, as well as ground movement, exert loads on the offshore platform. Some variations in hydrostatic pressure and buoyancy on the offshore structure which resulted from some changes in water level as a result of waves and tides are seen as environmental stresses. Ocean engineering designs should consider defined environmental conditions, which are available from data books or live weather-measuring sources. However, the environmental loads should be expected from any direction, unless special factors make a different assumption that presents more logical justifications. There are available environmental ocean specifications developed for metocean conditions like the Gulf of Mexico [153,154,155,156]. These industry specifications are useful in the design of offshore structures.
The design of these structures is usually conducted under different environmental conditions—normal, extreme and survival conditions. The operating environmental load scenarios are the forces exerted on the structure during normal operation while the extreme scenario are the forces that could be considered ‘worse’ conditions. The survival conditions are greater than the extreme conditions, but it does not impede normal operations as stated by the operators. Figure A4 in Appendix A shows the global map of extreme weather conditions with sea level rising conditions, showing zonal risk levels.
3.5. Wave Load
The procedures involved in the study, design, and construction of offshore constructions are incredibly challenging for engineers to undertake. In addition to the typical challenges faced by offshore structures, onshore (or land-based) structures, and other related facilities are situated in hostile environments where significant wave loads, and wind loads become crucial design factors [2]. Wave loads could be defined as those loads having random nature that results in dynamic behaviour. The wave loads on a platform are constantly changing since they have a dynamic nature. The wave loads can be utilised to effectively approximate the behaviour of offshore structures. However, in some designs, tides are considered especially in shallow water depths. The wave loads may not accurately capture the true dynamic stresses created on the platform in deeper waters or where platforms are more flexible. Hence, a load analysis considering the structure’s dynamic activity is required for proper analysis of such platforms. Wave loads are also used in designing breakwater devices and wave energy converters (WECs) [164,165,166,167,168,169,170,171,172,173]. Figure A5 in Appendix A shows the global annual wave energy distribution.
3.6. Wind Load
The derrick, the deck house and other sections of the platform that is above water, as well as any equipment on the offshore platform, are subjected to wind forces. The classification for wind speeds is as follows:
The average length of stay for a guest is averagely less than 1 min or longer timeframe. Wind data should be normalized to a standard elevation, (for example 8 m) above the mean water level, then averaged for one hour. Using standard profile and guest variables, wind data can be changed to any desired averaging time or elevation;
In some cases, the speed around the average wind spectrum and its changes should be supplied. Complaint structures in deep water, such as tension leg platforms and guyed towers, may have a natural sway time of one minute or more, during which significant energy is lost due to wind speed fluctuations;
For each month or season, the frequency with which specific sustained wind speed occur from distinct directions;
The persistent occurrence of sustained wind speeds exceeding prescribed levels from season after season or month after month.
4. Sustainable Design Approaches
This section presents some sustainable approaches for the design construction and installation of offshore structures. It covers the methodology and the design approach considered in the design investigation of offshore structures.
4.1. Designing with Environmental Conditions
An important aspect of the offshore designer’s task is identifying the environmental Conditions where the offshore structure will be operating. Some standards, including API-2INT-MET, outline global loads and hurricane weather conditions for use in constructing offshore structures. Additionally, several API recommended practices, such as API-RP-2AWSD, API-RP-2A-WSD, and API RP-2L, can be utilized to design and analyze fixed and floating offshore platforms. The API establishes minimal design standards for a 100-year design storm. Helipads, often known as helicopter landing pads or decks, on offshore platforms must adhere to API RP-2L.
Typical environmental characteristics for offshore platform analysis include wave heights of up to 21 m (depending on sea depth) and wind velocities of 170 km/hr for the Gulf of Mexico, as well as tides of up to 4 m in shallow areas. According to Sadeghi [14,83], the design of platforms takes into account wave heights of up to 12.2 m and wind speeds of up to 130 km/h in the Persian Gulf, as well as tides of up to 3 m, depending on the design. For a 100-year return time, the design wave height in the Southern Caspian Sea can be over 19 m, while in the North Sea, it can be over 32 m, depending on the region. Other specifications include the lowest deck must have a minimum 1.5 m air gap between the bottom of the deck beams and the wave crest during the maximum expected level of water, taking into account wave height and tides, as specified in API RP-2A. Also, the platform must be able to withstand the loads imposed by the environment, as well as loadout, transit, and installation loads, as well as other loads imposed by onboard equipment. See some environmental data in Figure A4 in Appendix A and Table 2.
In that case, different environmental conditions (such as sea and weather conditions) can be investigated using the wave spectra considered to obtain the global characteristics of a floating structure. For global design, the weather conditions are used based on weather reports and real-time data. As seen in Table 2 and Figure A4 in Appendix A, there are different variations of environmental conditions for both the including oceans, waves, currents, and weather conditions around the world. This data is necessary to ensure that the offshore structure is safely designed and that the design can operate in deep water environments. As given in Table 1, it can be observed that Australia and the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) have a massive effect on the motion response. However, the level of the effect from GoM are among the highest in global oceans. This data in Table 2 is applicable in different areas, as it enables an understanding of different components. For instance, the effect of riser integration on the supporting structure, the effect of mooring lines, and the level of motion response from the marine riser system across various regional seas.
4.2. Designing with Water Depth
Another important aspect of the platform design is the water depth which is used to determine the type of offshore platform. Each platform/rig type is chosen primarily based on water depth and the deck equipment required to fulfil its duty. For instance, the jackup platforms can be employed in sea depths as shallow as 150 m (about 500 feet). Fixed template (jacket) platforms come in a variety of sizes and heights and can be used at water depths of up to 300 m, while they are most usually employed in water depths of less than 150 m. In sea depths more than 300 m, Tension Leg Platforms are used. In sea depths up to 1800 m, semi-submersible platforms/rigs are used. The SPAR platforms are used to explore very deep water which have currently been deployed as seen in the tallest SPAR platform, called Shell’s Perdido SPAR in the GoM, USA at water depths of about 2450 m. Despite the stretch of any water depth, each offshore platform is different and unique, as such the designs should be well computed. Generally, oceans are classified into three (3) groups, with relation to the relative depth h/L; as deep water (h/L > 0.5), intermediate depth (0.05 < h/L < 0.5), and shallow depth (h/L < 0.5), respectively, where where h is the water depth, and L is wave length (which is the distance between two adjecent wave crests). Table 3 shows the three categories of water depths.
With an ever-increasing demand for crude oil and energy, the offshore industry is moving towards deep and ultra-deep environments for new oil reserves to exploit as shown by the statistics given in Figure 6. However, at such depths pressure and hydrodynamic forces are significantly greater causing increased fatigue and structural damage to subsea operations put in place, subsequently affecting long term operation of the wells being used. At such depths, weight becomes a more pressing issue as the increase in weight causes increased stress and strain, at these intense pressures increase the risk of critical shear and longitudinal load allowances being exceeded resulting in structural failure of the asset and subsequent extensive marine environment damage.
4.3. Software for Designing with Geotechnical Information
Soil investigation is also an important aspect of the design of offshore buildings. Since the soil ultimately resists the tremendous stresses and motions present in the piling, at the bottom of the ocean, caused by the presence of the platform in storm conditions, soil study is critical to the design of offshore buildings. There are different materials that can make up the under-seabed soil and the importance of a site-specific soil report. An important issue is the seabed scour due to cyclic wave loads on different under-seabed soil. Clay, sand, silt, or a combination of these can make up the under-seabed soil (which differs from the subsoil).
Each project requires a site-specific soil report that details the stratification of the soil and its properties for load bearing in tension and compression, shear resistance, and load-deflection characteristics of axially and laterally loaded piles. This sort of report is created by drilling holes in the ground at the desired site and then conducting in-situ and laboratory testing to generate data that can be used by the platform design engineer [14,83]. Information on the soil bearing capacity, behaviour of the soil to the piles, pile tip-end bearing values, soil reports and platform design pile diagrams should all be made available. With the recent use of computational techniques, geotechnical engineers can provide these design values and related reports to the engineer. These are then used in modelling and designing the geotechnical model and then the structural analysis model is developed. This can be conducted using various in-house or commercial tools such as ANSYS Structural, ABAQUS, COMSOL, StruCad, FASTRUDL, or SACS software. Table 4 gives some structural software, and computer-aided design (CAD) software with developer details. However, more discussions on software are conducted in Section 4.4.
4.4. Software for Platform Designs and Rendering
There is a diverse range of specialised software used in designing offshore platforms, as given in Table 4. The software for conducting structural analysis, includes Autodesk’s AutoCAD, ANSYS Structural, ABAQUS, COMSOL, SACS, FASTRUDL, OSCAR, MARCS, SESAM or StruCAD. Currently, rendering, and other visualisation tools are used in producing 3-D CAD animations and renderings of the offshore platform. With the increasing need for more sustainable offshore platforms, there is a wider range of software for Platform Designs. These include software for structural analysis, hydrodynamic computations and for hydrodynamic analysis. Examples of software for rendering are: Lumion, Blender, 3D Max, Rhino, Mental Ray, Thea Render, Cinema 4D, Viz Renderer, Unity, Houdini and Maya. Table 5 gives some CAD rendering software.
There are a variety of analysis tools which are used for the design and analysis of lines like marine risers. Riser analysis tools are special purpose programs used to analyse top tensioned risers, steel catenary risers, flexible risers, and other slender structures, such as subsea pipelines and mooring lines. These are classified according to the analysis type, such as:
General purpose finite element programs: ANSYS, ABAQUS, COMSOL, etc;
Riser Analysis Tools: Orcaflex, Riflex, Flexcom, etc;
Riser VIV Analysis Tools: VIVANA, VIVA, DeepVIV, Shear7, etc.;
Coupled motion analysis programs: HARP, etc;
Riser Installation Analysis Tools: Pipelay, Orcaflex, OFFPIPE, etc.
Riser, pile and motion interaction using CFD based programs: ANSYS Fluent, ANSYS CFX, OpenFOAM, Simscale, STAR-CCM+, FAST, etc.
There are other numerical models like the FAST model (Fatigue, Aerodynamics, Structures, and Turbulence), which is a tool to predict the complex behavior of floating platforms coupled with towers (e.g., wind turbines). Additionally, the software for hydrodynamics computations, includes ANSYS AQWA, ABAQUS AQUA, Orcaflex, MooDy, Moses, Seamoor Maxsurf, or Hydromax [12,13,14,15]. Figure 7 shows the geometry model of a boat developed in ANSYS while Figure 8 shows a 3D view of the hydrodynamic model of a semisubmersible platform in OrcaFlex. Table 6 gives some ocean engineering software.
Both the structural Analysis and the developed structural model of the platform are generally conducted using one of these related standard offshore engineering software packages. They are also used to perform the structural study of the platform, all key parts of the platform, as well as appurtenances and major equipment, which should be included in the model. A typical pile-supported offshore construction will have a deck structure with the Main Deck, Cellar Deck, Sub-Cellar Deck, and Helideck.
For jacket platforms, the deck legs are connected to the tops of the piles and support the deck construction. The piles run from the surface of the water to the mudline and into the soil. For the underwater aspects, the piles are encased within the legs of a “jacket” structure that acts as lateral bracing for the piles. The jacket may also be used as a template for driving through leg piles for the first time (the piles may be driven through the inside of the jacket structure’s legs). When skirt piles are used, the piles can be driven from the outside of the jacket structure’s legs. Hence detail, precision and speed are important in these designs.
Computer programs also help the designers in making decisions, results and developing these models, and optimizing them. Hence, some optimization schemes, design schemes, monitoring schemes and general analyses, have seen more advancements. However, further studies on these schemes and approaches will help to improve awareness of these offshore structures’ design approaches. These other methods include response surface optimisation, multi-objective optimization, genetic algorithm (GA), and artificial neural networks (ANN). There are also different assessments which include dynamic response assessment, robust fault-tolerant control, reliability studies, optimal probabilistic seismic demand model and failure mode analysis (FMA). These optimisations are conducted with customized/specialised codes, mathematical software and programming codes for these engineering designs, such as the ones listed in Table 7.
4.5. Construction and Fabrication
The construction and fabrication of the offshore platform is a key aspect of the design. Most times, a smaller model of the actual platform is first produced for visualisation, or some renderings are produced.
During fabrication, the cutting of the sheet metal and welding are conducted using the working drawings for the platform. Hence, there must be high level of quality assurance from the materials and man labour. All the materials, welds, and welders should all be thoroughly inspected. Different material standards are also applied. Engineering drawings are required for cutting, fitting, welding, and assembly for each part down to the smallest screw, nut, or bolt. A suitable fabrication yard along the water’s edge should be chosen. This fabrication yard must be well-equipped and large enough to accommodate platform fabrication and loading. To ensure the materials are formed and delivered on time, newer technologies are applied in the laser cutter, water jet cutters, metal sheet former/rollers, and computerised lathe machines. Safety is very important on the site. Also, details, precisions and accuracy are necessary elements as the material measurement tolerances must be complied with.
4.6. Loadout and Transportation
The loadout and transportation are other important aspects of the project delivery. For an economical construction procedure, offshore constructions are typically built onshore in “fabrication yards.” These structures must be loaded and transported offshore to the final assembly site on board a vessel once they are completed, as seen in Figure 9. As a result, a loadout and transportation analysis must be included in an offshore design and analysis of a structure. All stages of the structure’s loadout should be considered, and the stresses should be verified.
4.7. Sea Fastening Operations
A sea fastening analysis is performed before the platform is transported, and the platform parts (jacket, decks, and appurtenances) are connected to the barge. Where necessary, platform motion analysis is conducted to determine the accelerations and loads acting on the platform to examine its strength to support dynamic loads. The sea fasteners, grillages and load-spreading components are necessary to distribute the stresses. They are designed depending on the type of structure and adopted sea fastening techniques [213,214,215,216,217]. Figure 10 shows some sea fasteners for offshore platforms.
4.8. Lifting, Launching and Upending
The motions of roll, pitch, heave, and yaw should be addressed in the transportation analysis. To perform a load out and transportation analysis, the engineer will need an environmental report detailing the worst sea-state conditions at that time of year along the desired route. It is reasonable to assume a scenario using a 20 degrees angle of roll with a 10 s roll period and a 12.5 degrees angle of pitch with a 10 s period, as well as a heave acceleration of 0.2 g, based on industry standards for transportation. Lifting/launching, upending, uprighting, and other installation stresses must all be considered while designing an offshore platform’s structural parts. The launching and upending sequences of a platform are illustrated in Figure 11.
4.9. Floatover Installation and Platform Integration
Design engineers enhance the design and construction of offshore structures by providing solutions that ensure that the structures are more durable, reliable, and sustainable. One of such approaches is the floatover installation. This approach is extremely weather-dependent, with severe constraints on the highest current, wave, and wind speed that it can withstand. Depending on the design, sometimes the existing floating crane vessels may be unable to raise the structures as topsides get larger and heavier. This problem gave way to a more cost-effective solution: the floatover approach.
For platform integration, the topsides modules are transported by a vessel, which then manoeuvres into the substructure slot, positions the vessel, and lowers the topsides onto the substructure while maintaining the vessel’s position and increasing the draught. Through the jacket slot, the floatover vessel is employed for logistics and installation. The most difficult aspect of a floatover operation is the weather. Figure 12 shows the transportation of the topsides for platform integration.
5. Project Management of Offshore Facilities
This section covers project management of offshore structures.
5.1. Planning Offshore Projects
Planning and pre-planning offshore projects is an important part of delivering offshore platform projects. However, there are various stages of offshore construction which are necessary for the sustainable delivery of an offshore platform, from design and construction to completion. According to Sadeghi [14,83,209,210,211], the phases of an offshore platform construction project are as follows:
Survey of the construction site;
Site visits and dive inspections on the installation site;
Investment feasibility studies, and;
Procurement;
Design approval by governing authorities;
Preparation of platform elements for transportation;
Fabrication of steel structures;
Transportation, and installation procedures;
Loadout;
Sorting offshore installation processes;
Commissioning.
5.2. Pricing Offshore Projects
The cost of an offshore project is highly determined by oil price, cost of materials, cost of other similar projects, location of the offshore project and the magnitude of the project. Hence, the quotation must be well prepared to cover the cost of manpower (or labour), equipment cost, construction, transportation, materials and all the stages of the project. In studies by Sadeghi [12,13,14,15], the price of the contract for detail design is between 3 to 5% of the overall price while the pricing of the procurement portion is around 55% of overall price. These parameters and design data including the water depth, are factored into the pricing of the oil projects.
Hence, the costing must be well considered to reduce variations in the project. Most times, bids are invited from the public or selected contractors by the oil corporations. Hence the contractor must get adequate information about the platform’s details—dimensions, weights, prices of materials, and cost of labour. The knowledge of experienced Project Engineers and Project Managers is very crucial, which helps to achieve different developed facilities, ranging from semisubmersibles [218,219,220,221,222,223,224,225,226,227,228] to FPSOs [229,230,231,232,233,234] and offshore wind turbines [235,236,237,238,239,240].
By rough estimates, an offshore platform that weight around 30,000 t could cost around 350–500 million dollars, plus another 60–120 million dollars for three tugboats. However, there are various studies that cover the accounting and costing of oil facilities and the financial aspect of project management [240,241,242,243,244,245,246,247,248,249,250,251].
5.3. Conducting Material Checks
The design of the offshore structure depends on the material used and the magnitude of the offshore structure. The larger the size of the offshore structure, the greater the material utilization. However, recent advances have considered the deployment of composites and additive manufactured materials on offshore platforms. Successfully, composites have been applied in developing marine risers, which is a smaller offshore structural component which serves as a conduit for drilling/production purposes. One important material utilized on various offshore structures is steel [172,173,174,175,176,177,178,179], as seen in Table 8. An example of the industry specification is the API RP-2A, which specifies the material qualities that should be used in the fabrication of structural steel plates, steel forms, and structural steel pipes. Depending on then steel grade, the selected steel plates and structural forms must meet the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) grade A36 (yield strength, 250 MPa) minimum requirements (which is the AISC). The pipe must meet API 5L, grade X52, for higher strength applications. An application of heavy offshore steel grades is seen in the use of steel plates S355G10+M and S355G8+M for the offshore crane OSA Goliath in Figure 13. The classification of offshore steel grades has found to be a function of the yield strength and process route used, as given in Figure 14 and Table 8.
5.4. Conducting Design Checks
An important aspect of any design contract is checking, signing, and verification checks. These activities are to ensure that the client is satisfied with the service of the design team and that the offshore platform was properly designed and double-checked. A typical design of a marine hose structure by an industry manufacturer—Trelleborg, is presented in Figure 15. It shows the design definition, configuration, material properties, global environment, and design parameters.
However, it is important to state that the design of offshore structures also depends on the use, unit, size and materials. In most cases, these checks are conducted by senior engineers who are experts in the field and have practicing licenses to sign off on the job in that engineering firm. Sometimes, consultants are hired to oversee such project tasks. Also, the client must approve the complete design, installation, and functioning.
Basically, there are many elements that must be considered while designing and analysing offshore platforms. These elements include the following crucial parameters:
Initial transportation needs;
Environmental (weather, and in-place 100-year storm conditions);
Soil characteristics;
Code requirements;
Intensity degree of failure consequences.
5.5. Conducting Document Checks
Another important aspect of the design is to conduct the necessary document checks. These checks are conducted based on the requirement of the industry standards, the client’s needs and the scope of work agreed upon for the project. For offshore structures, numerical models are developed and analysed before the structure is fully designed, coupled, constructed, installed and commissioned.
Considering a jacket/template platform, various analyses are required. These assessments are broadly classified as theoretical, experimental and numerical assessments. These are used to prepare various reports put together on the design’s final report that will be given to the client or other contractors, like the ship-yard that will construct the platform. These reports also include the draughtman’s blueprint for the offshore platform and the component design plans.
For the construction of an offshore platform that is massive like a Truss SPAR or a jacket platform, the following are the primary analyses necessary for the development of the offshore platform:
❖ In-place analysis or On-the-spot analysis;
❖ Seismic Analysis;
❖ Fatigue Analysis;
❖ Extreme loads analysis;
❖ Temporary assessment;
❖ Loadout assessment;
❖ Transportation assessment;
❖ Appurtenance assessment;
❖ Lift/Launch assessment;
❖ Upending assessment;
❖ Uprighting assessment;
❖ Unpiled stability assessment;
❖ Drivability study of piles and conductor pipes;
❖ Cathodic protection analysis;
❖ Transportation analysis;
❖ Installation analysis.
5.6. Obtaining Client Permits and Approval Process
An important aspect of the project is obtaining the relevant client permits and going through different processes for approvals required. Some of these processes require payments to the licensing bodies, regulatory bodies, or city councils in charge of the area. It also depends on the location—if an onshore site or an offshore site. Sometimes, there will be the need to hire equipment to use in developing the platform, which must also be included in the plan for the construction and installation.
The client must approve all offshore platform designs (structural and facilities). The results of the analysis must show that the platforms were developed using standard accepted procedures and that the structures would function sufficiently within the design parameters specified by the API RP-2A and the American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC) codes, or other related codes. The analysis report (and, if required, an explanation of the adjustments) must be included in the permit application package, as well as the maximum foundation design loads and unity checks. Copies of the soil report and verified structural construction drawings must be attached. The drawings, detailed analyses, and the entire model designs must be signed. They must also be checked, reviewed and submitted to the client by the consultant lead engineer and the project manager.
5.7. Project Management Stages
This research presents some stages of offshore construction projects. The offshore platform building services, like other fields of activity, can be given turnkey from its feasibility study for the Investment, basic design scope of work, detailed design, procurement, steel structure installation, equipment installation, and commissioning are all part of this process. Every offshore construction project must be conducted under the supervision of an independent certifying body. Also, the project must have a project schedule and a project manager(s), to ensure that these afore-mentioned project steps in the workplan can be completed, and a certificate of class can be issued as a result. There are certificates of completion issued at the end of each major stage completed, upon delivery and reports need to be delivered, checked off and signed.
For the construction aspect, the availability of materials and its proximity to the shipyard is highly important. Steel constructions for facilities such as offshore platforms are normally fabricated in ship-building yards located some distance from the installation location. Hence, the source of the materials and their delivery to the construction site must also be taken into cognisance. Hence, aside from fabrication, transportation of such big parts is a complex task that necessitates a one-of-a-kind design that includes structural strength calculations for the transportation conditions. Also, there are different offshore construction activities conducted in the shipyard [252,253,254,255,256,257,258,259]. After that, they are moved via barges and other transportation techniques like loadout floating methods to move them to the installation locations. Due to time restrictions, some design, engineering, material/equipment supply, and steel structure manufacturing processes are typically carried out concurrently. However, it should be noted that some studies have looked at different software packages used by comparing, applying and validating them, using designs for marine risers, FOWT and WEC [91,260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271]. These studies have been validated to achieve safe, efficient, and quickly delivered engineering designs and their analysis.
Hence, the design confidence necessitates rapid reaction to coordinate the total engineering design and project management required. Proper project management ensures quick delivery on the project. Lastly, these activities all require a workflow, adequate planning and know-how on the project to ensure that each deadline is met [272]. Figure 16 shows a typical workflow for project management stages used in designing offshore structures, showing concept design, detail design, final design and design approaches used.
6. Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research
The manuscript presents a comprehensive review on fixed and floating offshore platforms. This review is conducted on fixed and floating offshore structures, with sustainable design and management approaches. It is very interesting and provide a valuable tool in support the design and management of these structures. The manuscript includes an introduction on ocean engineering with a description of the current position of the different types of offshore facilities. It also gives the purpose of the offshore structures with some in-depth considerations of most relevant parameters influencing the design process. It also covers considerations regarding the management of the offshore facilities. A brief historical exploration is conducted to present the state-of-the-art review on some offshore platforms and achievements made in the industry are also included. The historical development of different offshore platforms varies over some timelines, as seen in designs, process inventions and patents. However, the design of offshore structures has similar foundations as covered in this review. Simply put, the development and design of offshore platforms differ based on the type of structure, although they have similar project management routines, as presented in this research.
In more recent design, the application of new design approaches has been applied and more of these techniques aid reliable design of offshore structures. However, adequate validation to verify each design is recommended. It could be specified that validation refers to both physical and numerical models. In these cases, the most up-to-date and substantial design and construction processes are used. They are also used in integrity tests, structural validations, and unique monitoring techniques. Hence, some optimisation schemes, design schemes, monitoring schemes and general analyses, have seen more advancements. However, further studies on these schemes and approaches will help to improve awareness of these offshore structures’ design approaches. It is worth stating that different validations have also been conducted on both hydrodynamic, finite element analysis (FEA), and Building Information Modeling (BIM), structural design and structural integrity software to confirm their use for offshore structures [260,261,262,263,264,265,266,267,268,269,270,271].
Furthermore, the efficient component factors required to thoroughly improve the service life and failure patterns of these offshore structures should be done. Finally, suitable types of offshore platforms for various seawater depths are offered for long-term operations, high productivity, high serviceability, and sustainability. Despite the type of offshore platform, the design methods are general, but each type has particular design considerations and unique loads. These designs are also carried out in a variety of geographical locations and environmental conditions. This review also presents strong pointers for choosing offshore platforms as viable choices for offshore exploration and production. In a nutshell, it is our opinion that this review can be useful in providing a comprehensive view on this topic for offshore structures.
Conceptualization, C.V.A.; methodology, C.V.A. and A.R.; software, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; validation, C.V.A. and A.R.; formal analysis, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; investigation, C.V.A., A.R., H.O.B., I.A.J. and C.A.; resources, C.V.A. and A.R.; writing—original draft preparation, C.V.A.; writing—reviewing draft, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; data curation, C.V.A. and A.R.; visualization, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J., H.O.B. and C.A.; supervision, C.V.A.; project administration, C.V.A., A.R., I.A.J. and C.A.; funding acquisition, C.V.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors also acknowledge the permissions of different publishers and industry firms on the images used in this publication. The authors appreciate the feedback and support of the reviewers, which has helped in improving the quality of this manuscript.
The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results. The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| 2D | Two-Dimensional |
| 3D | Three-Dimensional |
| AISC | American Institute of Steel Construction |
| ANN | artificial neural network |
| API | American Petroleum Institute |
| ASTM | American Society for Testing and Materials |
| BOP | Blowout Preventer |
| CFD | Computational Fluid Dynamics |
| CEV | Carbon Equivalent Value |
| CPU | Central Processing Unit |
| DD | Semi Deep Draft Semisubmersible |
| DNV | Det Norske Veritas |
| DoF | Degree of Freedom |
| DTS | Dry-Tree Semisubmersible |
| FOWT | Floating Offshore Wind Turbine |
| FPSO | Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading |
| GA | genetic algorithm |
| GoM | Gulf of Mexico |
| GPU | Graphics Processing Unit |
| h/L | Relative water depth or Ratio of mean water depth to wave length |
| HSE | Health and Safety Executive |
| LSE | Life Support Equipment |
| MET-INT | Metocean Interim |
| MOPU | Mobile Offshore Production Unit |
| NA | Not Applicable |
| NREL | National Renewable Energy Laboratory |
| RAO | Respond Amplitude Operator |
| RP | Recommended Practice |
| SCR | Steel Catenary Risers |
| SemiSub | SemiSubmersible |
| SPAR | Single Point Anchor Reservoir |
| TLP | Tension Leg Platform |
| TTR | Top Tension Riser |
| U.S.A. | United States of America |
| VIV | Vortex Induced Vibration |
| VLFS | Very Large Floating Structures |
| WEC | Wave Energy Converter |
| WSD | Working Stress Design |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Different types of deep-water offshore facilities for drilling and production, showing land rig/onshore platform {10–100 m}, conventional fixed platforms{150–412 m}, jacket platform {150–412 m}, semisubmersibles {457–1920 m}; floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit {1345–1500 m}; tension leg platform (TLP) {457–2134 m}; Truss SPAR {610–3048 m}; subsea wellhead, completion and tieback to a host facility, and subsea manifold.
Enlarge this image.Figure 2. Daily demand for crude oil worldwide from 2006 to 2020, with a forecast until 2026 (in million barrels per day) {** shows the predicted daily demand from the forecast} (Courtesy: IEA & Statista, data retrieved in 2021).
Enlarge this image.Figure 3. Drilling structures used during early explorations in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) showing (a) floating barge, (b) typical offshore drilling rig, (c) service vessel, (d) tugboat, and (e) FPSO vessel.
Enlarge this image.Figure 4. Transocean Enabler semi-submersible drilling rig built in 2016 and designed to operate in harsh environments (Courtesy: Transocean).
Enlarge this image.Figure 5. A labelled 3D hydrodynamic model of a semisubmersible platform showing the moorings and marine riser, designed in OrcaFlex 10.3d.
Enlarge this image.Figure 6. Number of wells drilled over time from 2004–2021, with forecast for 2015*–2022* using data from Statoil (Image Courtesy: Author 1-C.V.A.).
Enlarge this image.Figure 8. Model for hydrodynamic analysis of a floating semisubmersible platform showing its mooring lines, top deck, derrick and marine risers conducted in OrcaFlex software.
Enlarge this image.Figure 9. Load-out 18,000 t topside and transportation from a yard in Zhuhai, China (Courtesy: Ocean energy resource).
Enlarge this image.Figure 10. Sea fasteners for offshore platforms, showing the front and zoomed-out views.
Enlarge this image.Figure 12. Jacket platform topside being transported floatover installation towards platform integration (Courtesy: Saudi Aramco).
Enlarge this image.Figure 13. Application of heavy offshore steel plates S355G10+M and S355G8+M for the offshore crane OSA Goliath (Courtesy: Oakley Steel).
![View Image - Figure 14. Effect of carbon equivalent value (CEV) and steel processing route on plate strength (This section is re-used/reproduced with permission of the Health and Safety Executive under the terms of the Open Government License, from Ref. [179]. Copyright year: 2003, copyright owner: HSE. Courtesy: HSE & HSE Books).](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/10/pFTkN?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=i7esu7WtS3%2FpDMb1uDylA9WCfTI%3D "View Image - Figure 14. Effect of carbon equivalent value (CEV) and steel processing route on plate strength (This section is re-used/reproduced with permission of the Health and Safety Executive under the terms of the Open Government License, from Ref. [179]. Copyright year: 2003, copyright owner: HSE. Courtesy: HSE & HSE Books).")
Enlarge this image.Figure 14. Effect of carbon equivalent value (CEV) and steel processing route on plate strength (This section is re-used/reproduced with permission of the Health and Safety Executive under the terms of the Open Government License, from Ref. [179]. Copyright year: 2003, copyright owner: HSE. Courtesy: HSE & HSE Books).
Enlarge this image.Figure 15. Typical design flowchart of a marine hose structure (Courtesy: Trelleborg).
Enlarge this image.Figure 16. Typical workflow for project management stages used in designing offshore structures, showing concept design, detail design, final design and design approaches (Courtesy: Migaloo).
Some deep sea facilities with installation details.
| Platforms | Sea Depths | Installed Years | Platform Type | Oil Field |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Perdido | 2450.0 m | 2010 | SPAR | GoM |
| Thunder Horse | 1841.0 m | 2010 | SemiSubmersible | GoM |
| Magnolia | 1400.0 m | 2003 | ETLP | GoM |
| Mad dog | 1311.0 m | 2005 | SPAR | GoM |
| Bonga | 1000.0 m | 2005 | FPSO | Nigeria |
| Marlin | 988.0 m | 1999 | TLP | GoM |
| Ram-Powell | 980.0 m | 1997 | TLP | GoM |
| Olympus | 914.0 m | 2014 | TLP | GoM |
| URSA | 1204.0 m | 1999 | TLP | GoM |
| Mars | 896.0 m | 1996 | TLP | GoM |
| Auger | 872.0 m | 1993 | TLP | GoM |
| Jolliet | 536.0 m | 1989 | TLP | GoM |
| Bullwinkle | 412.0 m | 1988 | Fixed Platform | GoM |
| Appomattox | 2195.0 m | 2019 | Semisubmersible | GoM |
| Na Kika | 1829.0 m | 2003 | Semisubmersible | GoM |
| Atlantis | 2134.0 m | 2007 | Semisubmersible | GoM |
| Heidrun | 351.0 m | 1995 | TLP | GoM |
| Snorre | 310.0 m | 1992 | TLP | North Sea |
| Cognac | 304.0 m | 1978 | Fixed Platform | GoM |
| Hutton | 148.0 m | 1984 | TLP | North Sea |
| Vito | 1189.0 m | 2022 | Semisubmersible | GoM |
| Argos | 1311.0 m | 2022 | Semisubmersible | GoM |
Different environmental and ocean weather conditions globally.
| Parameters | Gulf of Mexico (GoM) | Africa | East Asia | Australia |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winds | Loop current | Seasonal winds and River flow | Monsoon and internal waves | Loop current, Monsoon and internal waves |
| Currents | Winter storms and Hurricane | Bi-modal state and Long period swells | Monsoons and Typhoons | Monsoons, Typhoons, Winter storms and Hurricane |
| Waves | Winter storms and Hurricanes | Trade winds and Squalls | Typhoons, Squalls and monsoons | Monsoons, Typhoons, Winter storms and Hurricanes |
Categories of water depths.
| Types of Water Depth | Relative Depth (h/L) |
|---|---|
| Shallow Water | h/L < 0.5 |
| Intermediate Water | 0.05 < h/L < 0.5 |
| Deep Water | h/L > 0.5 |
Table of some structural software programs, and computer-aided design (CAD) software programs with developer details.
| Name of Software | Year Founded | Type of Software and Program |
Software |
Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANSYS Workbench | 1970 | CAE/multiphysics engineering simulation software for product design, testing and operation | ANSYS | Pennsylvania, U.S.A. |
| COMSOL Multiphysics | 1986 | cross-platform finite element analysis, solver and multiphysics simulation software | COMSOL Inc | Stockholm, Sweden |
| StruCAD | 1986 | a specialised 3D modelling package used in the structural steel industry, detailing, fabrication and information management system | STRUMIS LTD’s AceCad Software Ltd. | Derby, UK |
| ABAQUS | 1978 | finite element analysis and computer-aided engineering (CAE) | Dassault Systèmes’ SIMULIA | Vélizy-Villacoublay, France |
| Solidworks | 1981 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, columns, walls, slabs, CAD, drafting) | Dassault Systèmes | Vélizy-Villacoublay, France |
| CATIA | 1981 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, columns, walls, slabs, CAD, drafting) | Dassault Systèmes | Vélizy-Villacoublay, France |
| STAAD.Pro | 1997 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (Foundations, beams, columns, walls, slabs) | Bentley Systems | Pennsylvania, U.S.A. |
| RAM Structural | 1984 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (Foundations, beams, columns, walls, slabs) | Bentley Systems | Pennsylvania, U.S.A. |
| Solid Edge | 1995 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements | Siemens Digital Industries | Texas, U.S.A. |
| RISA | 1987 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (Foundations, beams, columns, walls, slabs) | Risa Tech, Inc. | California, U.S.A. |
| ADAPT-Builder | 1983 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (foundations, beams, columns, walls, slabs) | Risa Tech, Inc. & ADAPT Corporation | California, U.S.A. |
| SAFE | 1975 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, foundations, and slabs) | Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI) | California, U.S.A. |
| ETABS | 1975 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, columns, walls, and slabs) | Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI) | California, U.S.A. |
| SAP2000 | 1975 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, columns, walls, and slabs) | Computer and Structures, Inc. (CSI) | California, U.S.A. |
| Robot Structural | 1982 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (foundations, beams, columns, walls, slabs) | Autodesk | California, U.S.A. |
| AutoCAD | 1982 | 3D Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams Columns, walls, and Slabs) | Autodesk | California, U.S.A. |
| Autodesk Inventor | 1999 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams Columns, walls, and Slabs) | Autodesk | California, U.S.A. |
| S-Frame | 1981 | 3D Structural Analysis |
Altair Engineering Inc.’s S-Frame | Michigan, U.S.A. |
| S-Concrete | 1981 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, columns, and walls) | Altair Engineering Inc.’s S-Frame | Michigan, U.S.A. |
| S-Steel | 1981 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (beams, columns, and walls) | Altair Engineering Inc.’s S-Frame | Michigan, U.S.A. |
| MARC | 1971 | nonlinear FEA software used to simulate behavior of complex materials and interaction under large deformations and strains. | MSC Software Corporation | California, U.S.A. |
| MSC/Nastran | 1971 | nonlinear FEA software used to simulate behavior of complex materials and interaction under large deformations and strains. | MSC Software Corporation | California, U.S.A. |
| PROKON | 1989 | Design and Analysis of Structural elements (foundations, beams, columns, walls, slabs) | Prokon Software Consultant (Pty) Ltd. | Johannesburg, South Africa |
| PTC Creo (formerly Pro/Engineer) | 1988 | a family of Computer-aided design (CAD) apps supporting product design for discrete manufacturers, 3D/2D, FEA & simulations | PTC (Parametric Technology Corporation) | Massachusetts, U.S.A. |
| RFEM/RSTAB | 1987 | structural analysis/FEA software used to simulate behavior of materials and interaction under large deformations and strains | Dlubal Software | Philadelphia, U.S.A. |
Table of some 3D rendering software programs with developer details.
| Name of Software | Standalone |
Price | Rendering |
Integrations | Developer |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Blender | Windows, Mac OS, Linux | Free | CPU, GPU | NA | Blender |
| Maya | Windows, macOS, Linux | Free (trial ware, academic), £1575/year | CPU, GPU | RebusFarm, Adobe Substance 3D Designer, Adobe Substance, 3D Painter, V-Ray, SyncSketch, Verge3D, Maxwell, OctaneRenderer, Houdini, Anima, Redshift, Iray. | Autodesk Inc. |
| 3ds Max | Windows | Free (academic), $1785/year, $225/m | CPU, GPU | V-Ray, Space Designer 3D, Shapespark, Verge3D, Maxwell, Corona Renderer, Houdini, Anima, Redshift, Iray | Autodesk Inc. |
| Rhino3D/Rhinoceros | Windows, macOS | $995 (€995) (single use), €595 (upgrade) | CPU | Revit | Robert McNeel & Associates |
| Lumion 3D | Windows | From $1760 | GPU | NA | Lumion |
| V-Ray | NA | From $60/month | CPU, GPU | Revit, Rhinoceros, SketchUp, Unreal, 3ds Max, Blender, Cinema 4D, Houdini, Katana, Maya, Modo, Nuke | Chaos Group |
| Keyshot | Windows, macOS | $995 | CPU, GPU (Nvidia) | Solidworks, Maya, Cinema 4D, SketchUp, Rhino | KeyShot |
| DS Solidworks Visualize | Windows | Price on request | CPU, GPU | NA | Solidworks |
| Enscape | Windows | $69.90/$478.80 per m/year | GPU | ArchiCAD, Revit, Rhinoceros, SketchUp, Vectorworks | Enscape |
| OctaneRender | NA | From $19.99/month | GPU (Nvidia) | Rhinoceros, SketchUp, Softimage, Unreal, Maya, Modo, Nuke, Poser, Revit, 3ds Max, ArchiCAD, Blender, AutoCAD, Carrara, Cinema 4D, DAZ Studio, Houdini, Inventor, Lightwave, | Octane Render |
| Corona Renderer | Windows | ~$30/month | CPU | 3ds Max, Cinema4D | Corona |
| 3Delight | Windows, macOS, Linux | Free (limited to 12 cores) |
CPU | NA | 3Delight |
| Maxwell Render | Windows, macOS, Linux | From ~$580 (495€) | CPU, GPU (Nvidia) | Modo, Rhinoceros, SketchUp, 3ds Max, ArchiCAD, Cinema 4D, Form-Z, Maya | Maxwell |
| Thea Render | NA | ~$290 (249€)/year | CPU, GPU | Rhino, SketchUp | Thea Render |
| Cheetah 3D | macOS | Free demo, $99 (single license), $49 (upgrade) | CPU | NA | Cheetah3d |
| Artlantis | Windows, macOS | ~$910 (780€) | CPU (Network) | ArchiCAD, VectorWorks, Revit, 3ds Max, SketchUp, Rhino, MODO, Maya, formZ, Cinema 4D, AutoCAD, Arc+ | Abvent’s Artlantis |
| Clarisse | Windows, macOS, Linux | Free (educational) |
CPU, GPU | NA | Isotropix |
| Arnold | Windows, macOS, Linux | $40/$360 per m/year | CPU | NA | Arnold |
| LuxCore Render | Windows | Free | GPU | NA | LuxCoreRender |
| Redshift | Windows, macOS, Linux | From $500 | GPU (Windows/Linux—Nvidia only; macOS—M1/AMD) | 3ds Max, Cinema 4D, Houdini, Maya | Redshift |
| Marmoset Toolbag | Windows, macOS | $14.99/month |
GPU | NA | Marmoset Toolbag |
| RenderMan | Windows, macOS, Linux | $595 | CPU, GPU (Nvidia) | Blender, Houdini, Katana, Maya | RenderMan |
| Iray | NA | $295/year | GPU (Nvidia) | 3ds Max, Maya, Rhinoceros | Nvidia Iray |
| FluidRay | Windows, macOS | $14.99/month | CPU | NA | FluidRay |
| Guerilla | Windows, Linux | Free (single-seat, connected) |
CPU | Maya | Guerilla |
| Felix | Windows | $50–$800 (credit packs); |
NA | 3ds Max, AutoCAD, Rhinoceros | Felix |
| Indigo Renderer | Windows, macOS, Linux | $835 | CPU, GPU | 3ds Max, Blender, Cinema 4D, Revit, SketchUp | Indigo Renderer |
| FormZ | Windows | $439/year, $995 perpetual | CPU, GPU | NA | AutoDesSys, Inc |
| Twinmotion | Windows | Free (trial, non = commercial, Academic), |
CPU | formZ, CItyEngine, CET, Navisworks, SketchUp, 3ds Max, BricsCAD, RIKCAD, Solidworks, Rhino, Revit, ArchiCAD, VectorWorks | Epic Games, Inc. |
| D5 Render | Windows | Free | CPU (DXR) | Blender, SketchUp, 3ds Max, Rhino, Revit, ArchiCAD, Cinema 4D | d5render |
List of some ocean engineering and hydrodynamic analysis software programs with developer details.
| Name of Software | Year Founded | Type of Software and Program |
Software |
Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANSYS AQWA | 1970 | Hydrodynamic software designed for |
ANSYS Inc. | Pennsylvania, U.S.A. |
| ABAQUS AQUA | 1978 | Hydrodynamic software designed for |
Dassault Systèmes’ SIMULIA | Vélizy-Villacoublay, France |
| FASTRUDL/NSOTM | 1981 | finite element analysis software designed for |
PRINCIPIA | La Ciotat, France |
| Deeplines | 1981 | finite elements method and forms an integrated software solution for installation analyses of offshore structures; Global analysis of risers, moorings and flowlines | PRINCIPIA | La Ciotat, France |
| NSO/ISYMOST | 1981 | ISYMOST (Interactive SYstem for MOdeling of STructures) manages the modeling, analysis, pre- and post-processing of structures; Frames and Finite Elements solver | PRINCIPIA | La Ciotat, France |
| Flexcom | — | offshore marine engineering simulator that for the engineering design of installations, risers, moorings, umbilicals, pipelines & FOWT. | Wood Group PLC | Aberdeen, U.K. |
| PipeLay | — | an engineering tool for pipeline installation, complex finite element analysis and post-processing, automation challenges with installation scenarios in deep and shallow water | Wood Group PLC | Aberdeen, U.K. |
| OrcaFlex | 1986 | Design, 3D modelling and dynamic analysis of offshore marine systems | ORCINA | Ulverston, U.K. |
| OrcaLay | 1998 | Design, 3D modelling and dynamic analysis of for pipelaying designs | ORCINA | Ulverston, U.K. |
| OrcaBend | 1989 | Design, 3D modelling and dynamic analysis of bend stiffener design to derive an optimum stiffener profile | ORCINA | Ulverston, U.K. |
| VIVANA | 1968 | VIV, hydrodynamic and hydrostatic analysis of offshore platforms and ships | DNV | Oslo, Norway |
| DeepC, Helica & HydroD | 1968 | hydrodynamic and hydrostatic analysis of fixed and floating structures like offshore platforms and ships | DNV | Oslo, Norway |
| Sesam | 1968 | Structural and hydrodynamics analysis, FEM for design to analysis of marine operation; interaction for hull, riser and mooring lines | DNV | Oslo, Norway |
| PIPESIM & OLGA | — | Steady-state multiphase flow simulator to overcome fluid flow challenges and optimize production | Schlumberger | Texas, U.S.A. |
| WAMIT | 1987 | WAMIT, “WaveAnalysisMIT” for computing wave loads and motions, interaction of offshore structures, vessels or other structures | WAMIT Inc. | Massachusetts, U.S.A. |
| MOSES | 1984 | Hydrodynamic software designed for |
Bentley Systems | Pennsylvania, U.S.A. |
| RIFLEX | 1968 | Riser System Analysis Program (RIFLEX) is a tailor-made and advanced tool for static and dynamic analysis of slender marine structures | DNV | Oslo, Norway |
| ANFLEX | 1995 | an in-house nonlinear dynamic analysis of lines and risers software; for static and dynamic analysis of slender marine structures | PETROBRAS/CENPES/DIPREX/ |
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil |
| HYDPROD | 2011 | Drilling hydraulics software and the suite of drilling software to meet the challenges that operators and service companies face | Pegasus Vertex Inc. (PVI) | Texas, U.S.A. |
| ProteusDS | 2006 | in-house dynamic analysis software package; time domain solvers to model hydrodynamic response of offshore structures like FOWTs | DSA Ocean | Victoria BC, Canada |
| SeaFEM | — | seakeeping 3D multi-body radiation and diffraction simulations; a suite of tools for the computational analysis of the effect of waves, wind and currents on naval and offshore | Compass Ingeniería y Sistemas | Barcelona, Spain |
| SIMA & SIMO | — | SIMA workbench offers a complete solution for simulation and analysis of marine operations and floating systems | SINTEF | Trondheim, Norway |
| aNySIM | — | time domain solvers to simulates the motions of both stationary offshore vessels, sailing ships and offshore structures like FOWTs | MARIN | Wageningen, |
| HydroDyn | — | time domain solvers to model hydrodynamic response of offshore structures like FOWTs | NREL | Colorado, U.S.A. |
| 3DFloat | — | integrated wind turbine simulation software; time domain solvers to model hydrodynamic response of offshore FOWTs | IFE | Kjeller, Norway |
| BECAS | 1986 | BECAS, the BEam Cross section Analysis Software, determines cross section stiffness properties using a finite element based approach | DTU Wind Energy | Roskilde, |
| HAWC2 | 1986 | HAWC2 (Horizontal Axis Wind turbine simulation Code 2nd generation) is an aeroelastic code to model the dynamic response of offshore structures like FOWTs | DTU Wind Energy | Roskilde, |
Table of some mathematical codes, and programming software programs with developer details.
| Name of Software | Year Founded | Type of Software and Program |
Software |
Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| MathCAD | 1986 | Analysis of matrix-based problems & performing specialized mathematical tasks | Parametric Technology Corporation (PTC)’s Mathsoft | Massachusetts, U.S.A. |
| MATLAB | 1979 | Analysis of matrix-based problems & performing specialized mathematical tasks | Mathworks | Massachusetts, U.S.A. |
| Simulink | 1984 | a MATLAB-based graphical programming environment for modeling, simulating and analyzing multidomain dynamical systems | Mathworks | Massachusetts, U.S.A. |
| GNU Octave | 1993 | Analysis of matrix-based problems & performing specialized mathematical tasks | John W. Eaton et al. | Texas, U.S.A. |
| Scilab | 1990 | Analysis of matrix-based problems & performing specialized mathematical tasks | ESI Group | Rungis, France |
| Mathematica | 1988 | Analysis of matrix-based problems & performing specialized mathematical tasks | Wolfram Research | Illinois, U.S.A. |
| Maple | 1982 | Analysis of matrix-based problems & performing specialized mathematical tasks | Waterloo Maple (Maplesoft) | Ontario, Canada |
| Macsyma | 1968 | Macsyma “Project MAC’s SYmbolic MAnipulator” is a general-purpose computer algebra systems still available | Symbolics’s Macsyma, Inc | Massachusetts, USA |
| LabView | 1986 | a system-design platform and development environment for a visual programming language; for state machines and flow charts | National Instruments | Texas, U.S.A. |
| RStudio | 2011 | an integrated development environment for R, a programming language for statistical computing and graphics; free and open-source software for data science. | RStudio, PBC | Washington, U.S.A. |
| MathJax | 2009 | displays mathematical notation in web browsers, using MathML, LaTeX and ASCIIMathML markup, scans the page, and typesets the mathematical information | American Mathematical Society | Rhode Island, U.S.A. |
| SageMath | 2005 | SAGE, “System for Algebra and Geometry Experimentation” is a computer algebra system (CAS) on aspects of mathematics | Prof. William Stein et al. | Washington, U.S.A. |
| SimulationX | 2002 | CAE software to efficiently model, simulate, and analyze technical, mechanical, hydraulic, pneumatic, electrical, and combined systems | ESI Group’s ESI ITI GmbH | Rungis, France |
| SU2 (Stanford University Unstructured) Code | 2012 | suite of open-source software tools in C++ for numerical solution of partial differential equation (PDE) constraints and optimization | Dr. Francisco Palacios & Dr. Thomas D. Economon | Stanford, U.S.A. |
| Simscale | 2012 | computer-aided engineering (CAE) software-as-a-service simulation application for performance testing based on cloud computing | SimScale GmbH | Munich, Germany |
| ANSYS Fluent | 1988 | commercial Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software application for performance testing | ANSYS | Pennsylvania, U.S.A. |
| STAR-CCM+ | 1980 | Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) software application for performance testing | Siemens Digital Industries Software | Texas, U.S.A. |
| OpenFOAM | 2004 | free, open source CFD software application for performance testing and the solution of continuum mechanics problems | ESI Group’s OpenCFD Ltd. | Rungis, France |
Application of some high strength steels in the offshore industry.
| Steel Grade | Strength | Application Area | Standard | Process Route |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| X52 | 350 | Structures | EN 10225 | N |
| Structures & Pipelines | EN 10225 | M | ||
| X65 | 450 | Structures | EN 10225 | Q & T |
| Pipelines | EN 10225 | M | ||
| X80 | 550 | Moorings & Structures | EN 10225 | Q & T |
| Pipelines | EN 10225 | M | ||
| 650 | Jack-ups & Moorings | EN 10225 | Q & T | |
| 750 | Jack-ups & Moorings | EN 10225 | Q & T | |
| 850 | Jack-ups & Moorings | EN 10225 | Q & T | |
| API 2MT1 | ~ | Small scale construction | API 2M | M, Q & T |
| API 2H Grade 42 | ~ | Small scale construction | API 2H | M, Q & T |
| API 2H Grade 50 | ~ | Small scale construction | API 2H | M, Q & T |
| API 2W Grade 50 | ~ | Small scale construction | API 2W | M, Q & T |
| API 2Y Grade 50 | ~ | Small scale construction | API 2Y | M, Q & T |
| S355G8+M/S355G10+M | 500/660 | construction of offshore platforms and oil rigs | EN 10225 | M |
| S420G1+M/S450G1+Q | 500/660 | construction of offshore platforms and oil rigs | EN 10225 | M, Q & T |
| S420G1+M/S450G1+Q | 500/660 | construction of offshore platforms and oil rigs | EN 10225 | M, Q & T |
| S235/S355 | 350 | Heavy steel plates for construction of offshore platform | EN10025-2 | M, Q & T |
| S355G10/S355MLO/S355NLO | 350 | construction of offshore platforms and oil rigs | EN10025-2 | M |
| ASTM A36 | 250 | Structures & Pipelines | API RP-2A | M, Q & T |
Note: N (Normalised); M (thermo-mechanically processed); Q & T (Quenching and Tempering).
Appendix A
Enlarge this image.Figure A2. Deepwater Systems Global Distribution showing different offshore platforms and the total number of operating vessels (Courtesy: Wood Group Mustang).
Enlarge this image.Figure A3. Worldwide progression of water depth capabilities for offshore drilling and production (Courtesy: Wood; Revised by C.V.A.).
Enlarge this image.Figure A4. Map of extreme weather, its risks of physical impact by country ranking and sea level rising conditions globally (Courtesy: Mapsofworld).
![View Image - Figure A5. Map of global distribution of wave energy density showing annual mean power density Large Wave Power Density regions exist around 50° N and 50° S (red represents highest wave power density and arrows represent predominant direction). (Permission obtained to reuse image from Elsevier. Author: Kester Gunn and Clym Stock-Williams; Publication: Renewable Energy; Publisher: Elsevier; Date: August 2012; Source [273]).](https://media.proquest.com/media/hms/THUM/26/pFTkN?_a=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%3D%3D&_s=u2NQ3AlB5FOyoTGpq8yrHZUgGVg%3D "View Image - Figure A5. Map of global distribution of wave energy density showing annual mean power density Large Wave Power Density regions exist around 50° N and 50° S (red represents highest wave power density and arrows represent predominant direction). (Permission obtained to reuse image from Elsevier. Author: Kester Gunn and Clym Stock-Williams; Publication: Renewable Energy; Publisher: Elsevier; Date: August 2012; Source [273]).")
Enlarge this image.Figure A5. Map of global distribution of wave energy density showing annual mean power density Large Wave Power Density regions exist around 50° N and 50° S (red represents highest wave power density and arrows represent predominant direction). (Permission obtained to reuse image from Elsevier. Author: Kester Gunn and Clym Stock-Williams; Publication: Renewable Energy; Publisher: Elsevier; Date: August 2012; Source [273]).
References
1. Chakrabarti, S.K. Handbook of Offshore Engineering; 1st ed. Elsevier: Plainfield, IL, USA, 2005; Volume 1.
2. Haritos, N. Introduction to the analysis and design of offshore structures—An overview. Electron. J. Struct. Eng.; 2007; 7, pp. 55-65. Available online: https://ejsei.com/EJSE/article/download/65/64 (accessed on 12 February 2022).
3. Yu, L.C.; King, L.S.; Hoon, A.T.C.; Yean, P.C.C. A Review Study of Oil and Gas Facilities for Fixed and Floating Offshore Platforms. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol.; 2015; 10, pp. 672-679. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.19026/rjaset.10.2476]
4. Amiri, N.; Shaterabadi, M.; Kashyzadeh, K.R.; Chizari, M. A Comprehensive Review on Design, Monitoring, and Failure in Fixed Offshore Platforms. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 1349. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9121349]
5. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Butler, H.O.; Ja’e, I.A.; An, C. Review on fixed and floating offshore structures. Part I: Types of platforms with some applications. JMSE; 2022; under review
6. Al-Sharif, A.A. Design, Fabrication and Installation of Fixed Offshore Platforms in the Arabian Gulf. Proceedings of the Fourth Saudi Engineering Conference; Nashville, TN, USA, 5–8 November 1995; Saudi Arabian Oil Company: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 1995; Volume 1995, pp. 99-105.
7. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Engineering Handbook; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2010.
8. Wilson, J. Dynamics of Offshore Structures; 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
9. Ladeira, I.; Márquez, L.; Echeverry, S.; Le Sourne, H.; Rigo, P. Review of methods to assess the structural response of offshore wind turbines subjected to ship impacts. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; 2022, pp. 1-20. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2072583]
10. Jaculli, M.A.; Leira, B.J.; Sangesland, S.; Morooka, C.K.; Kiryu, P.O. Dynamic response of a novel heave-compensated floating platform: Design considerations and the effects of mooring. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; 2022, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2075647]
11. Saiful Islam, A.B.M.; Jameel, M.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Shirazi, S.; Salman, F.A. Review of offshore energy in Malaysia and floating Spar platform for sustainable exploration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2012; 16, pp. 6268-6284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2012.07.012]
12. Muyiwa, O.A.; Sadeghi, K. Construction planning of an offshore petroleum platform. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2007; 2, pp. 82-85.
13. Sadeghi, K.; Al-koiy, K.; Nabi, K. General Guidance for The Design, Fabrication and Installation of Jack-Up Platforms. Asian J. Nat. Appl. Sci.; 2017; 6, pp. 77-84. Available online: http://www.ajsc.leena-luna.co.jp/AJSCPDFs/Vol.6(4)/AJSC2017(6.4-08).pdf (accessed on 22 May 2022).
14. Sadeghi, K. An Overview on Design, Construction and Installation of Offshore Template Platforms Suitable for Persian Gulf Oil/Gas Fields. Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Applications; Girne, Cyprus, 6–8 November 2013.
15. Sadeghi, K. Significant guidance for design and construction of marine and offshore structures. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2008; 4, pp. 67-92. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/250310894_Significant_Guidance_for_Design_and_Construction_of_Marine_and_Offshore_Structures (accessed on 6 July 2022).
16. Sadeghi, K.; Dilek, H. An Introduction to the design of Offshore Structures. Acad. Res. Int.; 2019; 10, pp. 19-27. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.10(1)/ARInt.2019(10.1-03).pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
17. Wu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Pang, S.; Wu, Z. Nonlinear vibration analysis of deepwater top tension riser under drilling condition. J. Dyn. Control. Phys. Rev. Lett.; 2019; 17, pp. 112-120.
18. Liao, M.; Wang, G.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Li, R. Mathematical Modelling and Dynamic Analysis of an Offshore Drilling Riser. Shock Vib.; 2020; 2020, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2020/8834011]
19. Bernitsas, M.M.; Kokarakis, J.E.; Imron, A. Large deformation three-dimensional static analysis of deep water marine risers. Appl. Ocean Res.; 1985; 7, pp. 178-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-1187(85)90024-0]
20. Patel, M.; Sarohia, S.; Ng, K. Finite-element analysis of the marine riser. Eng. Struct.; 1984; 6, pp. 175-184. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-0296(84)90045-2]
21. Burke, B.G. An analysis of Marine Risers for Deep Water. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1973.
22. Bae, Y.; Bernitsas, M.M. Importance of Nonlinearities in Static and Dynamic Analyses of Marine Riser. Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference; Hague, The Netherlands, 11–16 June 1995.
23. Wang, Y.; Gao, D.; Fang, J. Coupled dynamic analysis of deepwater drilling riser under combined forcing and parametric excitation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.; 2015; 27, pp. 1739-1747. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2015.10.038]
24. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Gillet, N.; Wang, C.; Ja’E, I.A.; Reda, A.; Odijie, A.C. Review of Composite Marine Risers for Deep-Water Applications: Design, Development and Mechanics. J. Compos. Sci.; 2022; 6, 96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcs6030096]
25. Toh, W.; Bin Tan, L.; Jaiman, R.K.; Tay, T.E.; Tan, V.B.C. A comprehensive study on composite risers: Material solution, local end fitting design and global response. Mar. Struct.; 2018; 61, pp. 155-169. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2018.05.005]
26. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillett, N.; Odijie, A.C.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Composite risers for deep waters using a numerical modelling approach. Compos. Struct.; 2018; 210, pp. 486-499. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2018.11.057]
27. Amaechi, C.V. Local tailored design of deep water composite risers subjected to burst, collapse and tension loads. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 250, 110196. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110196]
28. Roberts, D.; Hatton, S.A. Development and Qualification of End Fittings for Composite Riser Pipe. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013.
29. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillet, N.; Ja’E, I.A.; Wang, C. Tailoring the Local Design of Deep Water Composite Risers to Minimise Structural Weight. J. Compos. Sci.; 2022; 6, 103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jcs6040103]
30. Pham, D.-C.; Sridhar, N.; Qian, X.; Sobey, A.J.; Achintha, M.; Shenoi, A. A review on design, manufacture and mechanics of composite risers. Ocean Eng.; 2016; 112, pp. 82-96. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.12.004]
31. Wichers, I.J. Guide to Single Point Moorings; WMooring Inc: Houston, TX, USA, 2013; Available online: http://www.wmooring.com/files/Guide_to_Single_Point_Moorings.pdf (accessed on 17 May 2022).
32. Petrone, C.; Oliveto, N.D.; Sivaselvan, M.V. Dynamic Analysis of Mooring Cables with Application to Floating Offshore Wind Turbines. J. Eng. Mech.; 2015; 142, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EM.1943-7889.0000999]
33. Mavrakos, S.; Papazoglou, V.; Triantafyllou, M.; Chatjigeorgiou, I. Deep water mooring dynamics. Mar. Struct.; 1996; 9, pp. 181-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(94)00019-O]
34. Mavrakos, S.; Chatjigeorgiou, J. Dynamic behaviour of deep water mooring lines with submerged buoys. Comput. Struct.; 1997; 64, pp. 819-835. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(96)00169-1]
35. Ja’E, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Optimisation of mooring line parameters for offshore floating structures: A review paper. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 247, 110644. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110644]
36. Amaechi, C.V.; Odijie, A.C.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Numerical investigation on mooring line configurations of a Paired Column Semisubmersible for its global performance in deep water condition. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 250, 110572. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110572]
37. Xu, S.; Ji, C.-Y.; Soares, C.G. Experimental and numerical investigation a semi-submersible moored by hybrid mooring systems. Ocean Eng.; 2018; 163, pp. 641-678. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.05.006]
38. Xue, X.; Chen, N.-Z.; Wu, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Guo, Y. Mooring system fatigue analysis for a semi-submersible. Ocean Eng.; 2018; 156, pp. 550-563. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.022]
39. Wang, K.; Er, G.-K.; Iu, V.P. Nonlinear vibrations of offshore floating structures moored by cables. Ocean Eng.; 2018; 156, pp. 479-488. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.03.023]
40. Harnois, V.; Weller, S.D.; Johanning, L.; Thies, P.R.; Le Boulluec, M.; Le Roux, D.; Soule, V.; Ohana, J. Numerical model val-idation for mooring systems: Method and application for wave energy converters. Renew. Energy; 2015; 75, pp. 869-887. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2014.10.063]
41. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Numerical studies on CALM buoy motion responses and the effect of buoy geometry cum skirt dimensions with its hydrodynamic waves-current interactions. Ocean Eng.; 2021; 244, 110378. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110378]
42. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Strength of submarine hoses in Chinese-lantern configuration from hydrodynamic loads on CALM buoy. Ocean Eng.; 2018; 171, pp. 429-442. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2018.11.010]
43. Gao, Q.; Zhang, P.; Duan, M.; Yang, X.; Shi, W.; An, C.; Li, Z. Investigation on structural behavior of ring-stiffened composite offshore rubber hose under internal pressure. Appl. Ocean Res.; 2018; 79, pp. 7-19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.07.007]
44. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Review on the design and mechanics of bonded marine hoses for Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) buoys. Ocean Eng.; 2021; 242, 110062. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.110062]
45. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. An Overview on Bonded Marine Hoses for sustainable fluid transfer and (un)loading operations via Floating Offshore Structures (FOS). J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 1236. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9111236]
46. Tonatto, M.L.; Tita, V.; Araujo, R.T.; Forte, M.M.; Amico, S.C. Parametric analysis of an offloading hose under internal pressure via computational modeling. Mar. Struct.; 2017; 51, pp. 174-187. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2016.10.008]
47. Gao, P.; Gao, Q.; An, C.; Zeng, J. Analytical modeling for offshore composite rubber hose with spiral stiffeners under internal pressure. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos.; 2020; 40, pp. 352-364. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0731684420962577]
48. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ja’E, I.A.; Aboshio, A.; Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. A literature review on the technologies of bonded hoses for marine applications. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; pp. 1-32. (Ahead-of print) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2027682]
49. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Mathematical Modelling of Bonded Marine Hoses for Single Point Mooring (SPM) Systems, with Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) Buoy application—A Review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 1179. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9111179]
50. Wang, Z.; Bai, Y.; Wei, Q. Mechanical properties of glass fibre reinforced pipeline during the laying process. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; 2022, pp. 1-8. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1971825]
51. Liu, W.; Bai, Y.; Gao, Y.; Song, X.; Han, Z. Analysis of the mechanical properties of a reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe joint. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2021; 2021, pp. 1-7. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1932024]
52. Liu, W.; Gao, Y.; Shao, Q.; Cai, W.; Han, Z.; Chi, M. Design and analysis of joints in reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe under internal pressure. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2021; 17, pp. 1276-1285. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2021.1907065]
53. Ochoa, O.; Salama, M. Offshore composites: Transition barriers to an enabling technology. Compos. Sci. Technol.; 2005; 65, pp. 2588-2596. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.compscitech.2005.05.019]
54. Langen, I.; Skjåstad, O.; Haver, S. Measured and predicted dynamic behaviour of an offshore gravity platform. Appl. Ocean Res.; 1998; 20, pp. 15-26. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1187(98)00010-8]
55. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A.; Wahab, M. Dynamic Analysis of Semi-submersible Under the Postulated Failure of Restraining System with Buoy. Int. J. Steel Struct.; 2020; 21, pp. 118-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13296-020-00420-7]
56. Tong, C. Advanced Materials and Devices for Hydropower and Ocean Energy. Introduction to Materials for Advanced Energy Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-98002-7_7]
57. Anastasiades, K.; Michels, S.; Van Wuytswinkel, H.; Blom, J.; Audenaert, A. Barriers for the circular reuse of steel in the Belgian construction sector: An industry-wide perspective. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law; 2022; pp. 1-14. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jmapl.21.00044]
58. Odijie, A.C.; Quayle, S.; Ye, J. Wave induced stress profile on a paired column semisubmersible hull formation for column reinforcement. Eng. Struct.; 2017; 143, pp. 77-90. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2017.04.013]
59. Chandrasekaran, S.; Gaurav, S. Design Aids for Offshore Structures under Special Environmental Loads, Including Fire Resistance; Springer: Singapore, 2017; ISBN 9789813221076087
60. Chandrasekaran, S.; Nagavinothini, R. Offshore Triceratops Under Impact Forces in Ultra Deep Arctic Waters. Int. J. Steel Struct.; 2019; 20, pp. 464-479. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13296-019-00297-1]
61. Barltrop, N.D.P.; Adams, A.J. Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures; 3rd ed. Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1991.
62. Brebbia, C.; Walker, S. Dynamic analysis of offshore structures. Appl. Ocean Res.; 1981; 3, 205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0141-1187(81)90066-3]
63. Chandrasekaran, S. Dynamic Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-6089-2]
64. Leffler, W.L.; Pattarozzi, R.; Sterling, G. Deepwater Petroleum Exploration & Production: A Non-technical Guide; PennWell: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781593702533
65. Fang, H.; Duan, M. Offshore Operation Facilities; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2011-0-07477-x]
66. Aird, P. Deepwater Drilling: Well Planning, Design, Engineering, Operations, and Technology Application; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2016-0-00499-0]
67. Saavedra, N.; Joshi, S. Application of Horizontal Well Technology in Colombia. J. Can. Pet. Technol.; 2002; 41, 2. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/02-03-02]
68. Stewart, G. Well Test Design and Analysis; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011.
69. Azar, J.J.; Robello, S. Drilling Engineering; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2007.
70. Samie, N.N. Disciplines Involved in Offshore Platform Design. Practical Engineering Management of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 25-212. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2014-0-04721-1]
71. Clews, R. Project Finance for the International Petroleum Industry; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2013-0-13683-5] ISBN 9780128001585
72. Chandrasekaran, S.; Jain, A.K. Ocean structures, Construction, Materials, and Operations; CRC Press: Norco, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 9781498797429
73. Laik, S. Offshore Petroleum Drilling and Production; 1st ed. CRC Press: Norco, FL, USA, 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1201/9781315157177]
74. Speight, J.G. Subsea and Deepwater Oil and Gas Science and Technology; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2009-0-19144-4]
75. Grace, R.D. Blowout and Well Control Handbook; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2016-0-03296-5]
76. Renpu, W. Advanced Well Completion Engineering; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2010-0-66820-9]
77. Byrom, T.G. Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion; 2nd ed. Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2013-0-18762-4]
78. Caenn, R.; Darley, H.; Gray, G.R. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids; 7th ed. Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2015-0-04159-4]
79. Devereux, S. Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1998.
80. Veatch, R.W.; King, G.E.; Holditch, S.A. Essentials of Hydraulic Fracturing: Vertical and Horizontal Wellbores; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
81. Raymond, M.S.; Leffler, W.L. Oil & Gas Production in Nontechnical Language; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
82. Crumpton, H. Well Control for Completions and Interventions; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2014-0-00602-8]
83. Sadeghi, K. An Overview of Design, Analysis, Construction and Installation of Offshore Petroleum Platforms Suitable for Cyprus Oil/Gas Fields. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci.; 2007; 2, pp. 1-16. Available online: https://cemtelecoms.iqpc.co.uk/media/6514/786.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
84. Yan, J.; Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Optimal design and hydrodynamic response analysis of deep water mooring system with submerged buoys. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2018; 13, pp. 476-487. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1426282]
85. Ormberg, H.; Larsen, K. Coupled analysis of floater motion and mooring dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl. Ocean Res.; 1998; 20, pp. 55-67. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0141-1187(98)00012-1]
86. Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Global responses analysis of a semi-submersible platform with different mooring models in South China Sea. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2012; 8, pp. 441-456. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2012.718971]
87. Bargi, K.; Hosseini, S.R.; Tadayon, M.H.; Sharifian, H. Seismic Response of a Typical Fixed Jacket-Type Offshore Platform (SPD1) Under Sea Waves. Open J. Mar. Sci.; 2011; 1, pp. 36-42. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ojms.2011.12004]
88. Jang, J.-J.; Jyh-Shinn, G. Analysis of Maximum Wind force for Offshore Structure Design. J. Mar. Sci. Technol.; 2009; 7, 6. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.51400/2709-6998.2511]
89. Thiagarajan, K.P.; Finch, S. An Investigation into the Effect of Turret Mooring Location on the Vertical Motions of an FPSO Vessel. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.; 1999; 121, pp. 71-76. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.2830080]
90. Ja’E, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Effect of Various Mooring Materials on Hydrodynamic Responses of Turret-Moored FPSO with Emphasis on Intact and Damaged Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2022; 10, 453. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse10040453]
91. Sheng, W.; Tapoglou, E.; Ma, X.; Taylor, C.; Dorrell, R.; Parsons, D.; Aggidis, G. Hydrodynamic studies of floating structures: Comparison of wave-structure interaction modelling. Ocean Eng.; 2022; 249, 110878. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2022.110878]
92. Hirdaris, S.E.; Bai, W.; Dessi, D.; Ergin, A.; Gu, X.; Hermundstad, O.A.; Huijsmans, R.; Iijima, K.; Nielsen, U.; Parunov, J. et al. Loads for use in the design of ships and offshore structures. Ocean Eng.; 2014; 78, pp. 131-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2013.09.012]
93. Lee, Y.; Incecik, A.; Chan, H.-S. Prediction of Global Loads and Structural Response Analysis on a Multi-Purpose Semi-Submersible. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; pp. 3-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2005-67003]
94. Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics; 1999 Reprint IT Press: London, UK, 1977.
95. Chakrabarti, S.K. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures; Reprint WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2001.
96. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998.
97. Bishop, R.E.D.; Price, W.G. Hydroelasticity of Ships; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
98. Singh, R. Corrosion Control for Offshore Structures; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2014; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2012-0-01231-8]
99. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A. Postulated failure analyses of a spread-moored semi-submersible. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut.; 2020; 5, 36. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41062-020-0284-2]
100. Sarpkaya, T. Wave Forces on Offshore Structures; 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
101. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Östergaard, C. Offshore Structures: Conceptual Design and Hydro-Mechanics; 1st ed. English Translation Springer: London, UK, 2012; Volume 1.
102. McCormick, M.E. Ocean Engineering Mechanics with Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
103. Holthuijsen, L.H. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters; 1st ed. Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
104. Dean, R.G.; Dalrymple, R.A. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists-Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering; World Scientific: Singapore, 1991; Volume 2.
105. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Coastal Engineering; 3rd ed. Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
106. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Wave Mechanics: For Coastal and Ocean Engineers; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 1993.
107. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics and Wave Loads on Marine Structures; Elsevier B.V. & Butterworth-Heinemann: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.
108. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics for Ocean Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
109. Seyed, F.; Patel, M. Mathematics of flexible risers including pressure and internal flow effects. Mar. Struct.; 1992; 5, pp. 121-150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8339(92)90025-K]
110. Dareing, D.W. Mechanics of Drillstrings and Marine Risers; 1st ed. ASME Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.859995]
111. Sparks, C. Fundamentals of Marine Riser Mechanics: Basic Principles and Simplified Analyses; 2nd ed. PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2018.
112. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Pipelines and Risers; 1st ed. 2013 Reprint Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005.
113. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q.; Ruan, W. Flexible Pipes: Advances in Pipes and Pipelines; Wiley Scrivener Publishing: Beverly, MA, USA, 2017.
114. Sævik, S. On Stresses and Fatigue in Flexible Pipes. Ph.D. Thesis; Department of Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH): Trondheim, Norway, 1992; Available online: https://trid.trb.org/view/442338 (accessed on 15 February 2022).
115. Amaechi, C.V. Novel Design, Hydrodynamics and Mechanics of Marine Hoses in Oil/Gas Applications. Ph.D. Thesis; Engineering Department, Lancaster University: Lancaster, UK, 2022.
116. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Bashmal, S.; Iqbal, N.; Dai, W.; Bai, Y. Fatigue Crack Monitoring of T-Type Joints in Steel Offshore Oil and Gas Jacket Platform. Sensors; 2021; 21, 3294. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/s21093294]
117. Paik, J.K.; Lee, D.H.; Park, D.K.; Ringsberg, J.W. Full-scale collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading at a temperature of −80 °C. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2020; 16, pp. 255-270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2020.1791685]
118. He, K.; Kim, H.J.; Thomas, G.; Paik, J.K. Analysis of fire-induced progressive collapse for topside structures of a VLCC-class ship-shaped offshore installation. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2022; pp. 1-15. (Ahead-of print) [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2022.2027681]
119. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Iqbal, N.; Bashmal, S.; Hameed, H.; Bai, Y. An Experimental Study of Damage Detection on Typical Joints of Jackets Platform Based on Electro-Mechanical Impedance Technique. Materials; 2021; 14, 7168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ma14237168]
120. Zhang, X.; Ni, W.; Sun, L. Fatigue Analysis of the Oil Offloading Lines in FPSO System under Wave and Current Loads. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2022; 10, 225. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse10020225]
121. Chojaczyk, A.; Teixeira, A.; Neves, L.; Cardoso, J.; Soares, C.G. Review and application of Artificial Neural Networks models in reliability analysis of steel structures. Struct. Saf.; 2015; 52, pp. 78-89. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2014.09.002]
122. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of Maintained Ship Hulls Subjected to Corrosion. J. Ship Res.; 1996; 40, pp. 235-243. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5957/jsr.1996.40.3.235]
123. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Fatigue reliability of the ship hull girder accounting for inspection and repair. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf.; 1996; 51, pp. 341-351. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0951-8320(95)00123-9]
124. Hussein, A.; Soares, C.G. Reliability and residual strength of double hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules. Ocean Eng.; 2009; 36, pp. 1446-1459. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2009.04.006]
125. Gaspar, B.; Teixeira, A.; Soares, C.G. Assessment of the efficiency of Kriging surrogate models for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Eng. Mech.; 2014; 37, pp. 24-34. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.probengmech.2014.03.011]
126. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads. Mar. Struct.; 1999; 12, pp. 425-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0951-8339(99)00028-3]
127. Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G.; Netto, T.A.; Estefen, S.F. Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip.; 2008; 85, pp. 228-237. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpvp.2007.09.002]
128. Aboshio, A.; Uche, A.O.; Akagwu, P.; Ye, J. Reliability-based design assessment of offshore inflatable barrier structures made of fibre-reinforced composites. Ocean Eng.; 2021; 233, 109016. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2021.109016]
129. Santala, M.J. API RP-2MET Metocean 2nd Edition: Updates to the Gulf of Mexico Regional Annex. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/28665-MS]
130. Stear, J.B. Development of API RP2 Met: The New Path for Metocean. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2008; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/19602-MS]
131. Stear, J. Use of RP 2MET Annex Gulf Metocean Conditions with 2A and 2SIM. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23459-MS]
132. Stear, J. SS: New API codes: Updates, New suite of Standards/RP 2MET: An API Standard for Metocean. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20693-MS]
133. Puskar, F.; Spong, R. SS: New API codes: Updates, New Suite of Standards—API Bulletin 2HINS—Guidance for Post-Hurricane Structural Inspection of Offshore Structures. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20817-MS]
134. Zwerneman, F.; Digre, K. SS: New API Codes: Updates, New Suite of Standards: API RP 2A-WSD, the 23rd Edition. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20837-MS]
135. O’connor, P.; Versowsky, P.; Day, M.; Westlake, H.; Bucknell, J. Platform Assessment: Recent Section 17 Updates and Future API/Industry Developments. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/20837-MS]
136. Versowski, P.; Rodenbusch, G.; O’Connor, P.; Prins, M. Hurricane Impact Reviewed Through API. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18417-MS]
137. Balint, S.; Orange, D. Panel Discussion: Future of the Gulf of Mexico after Katrina and Rita. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18410-MS]
138. Maxwell, P.; Verret, S.; Haugland, T. Fixed Platform Performance During Recent Hurricanes: Comparison to Design Standards. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18989-MS]
139. Westlake, H.S.; Puskar, F.; Oconnor, P.E.; Bucknell, J. The Development of a Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of Fixed Offshore Platforms. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/18332-MS]
140. Wisch, D.J.; Mangiavacchi, A. Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with ISO 19900 Series and Usage of the API Suite. Proceedings of the Off-shore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/23443-MS]
141. Wisch, D.J.; Puskar, F.; Laurendine, T.T.; Oconnor, P.E.; Versowsky, P.E.; Bucknell, J. An Update on API RP 2A Section 17 for the Assessment of Existing Platforms. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16820-MS]
142. Lotsberg, I. Background for Revision of DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Steel Structure. Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering; Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; Volume 3, pp. 297-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2005-67549]
143. Horn, A.M.; Lotsberg, I.; Orjaseater, O. The Rationale for Update of S-N Curves for Single Sided Girth Welds for Risers and Pipelines in DNV GL RP C-203 Based on Fatigue Performance of More than 1700 Full SCALE fatigue Test Results. Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Materials Technology; Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018; Volume 4, V004T03A024. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2018-78408]
144. Lotsberg, I. Development of fatigue design standards for marine structures. ASME. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. June; 2019; 141, 031301. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4041993]
145. Lotsberg, I. Fatigue design recommendations for conical connections in tubular structures. ASME. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.; 2019; 141, 011604. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4040800]
146. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Osnes, H.; Ronold, K.O.; Moe, E.T. Recommended Practice for Composite Risers. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, 1–4 May 2002; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/14022-MS]
147. Echtermeyer, A.; Steuten, B. Thermoplastic Composite Riser Guidance Note. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/24095-MS]
148. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Sund, O.E.; Ronold, K.O.; Moslemian, R.; Moe, E.T. A New Recommended Practice for Thermoplastic Composite Pipes. Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Composite Materials; Xi’an, China, 20–25 August 2017; Available online: http://iccm-central.org/Proceedings/ICCM21proceedings/papers/3393.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
149. Lotsberg, I.; Fjeldstad, A.; Ronold, K.O. Background for Revision of DNVGL-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures in 2016. Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Materials Technology; Busan, Korea, 19–24 June 2016; Volume 4, V004T03A015. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2016-54939]
150. Lotsberg, I.; Sigurdsson, G. A New Recommended Practice for Inspection Planning of Fatigue Cracks in Offshore Structures Based on Probabilistic Methods. Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Materials Technology, Petroleum Technology; San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; Volume 5, V005T03A005. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2014-23188]
151. Lotsberg, I. Background for New Revision of DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; Volume 6, pp. 125-134. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2010-20649]
152. Lotsberg, I.; Skjelby, T.; Vareide, K.; Amundsgard, O.; Landet, E. A New DNV Recommended Practice for Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Ships. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Safety and Reliability, Materials Technology; Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006; ASME: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 3, pp. 573-580. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2006-92370]
153. API. API RP 2MET—Derivation of Metocean Design and Operating Conditions; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
154. API. API 2INT-MET—Interim Guidance on Hurricane Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico; Bulletin 2INT-MET. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Available online: https://law.resource.org/pub/us/cfr/ibr/002/api.2int-met.2007.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
155. API. API Bulletin 2INT-DG Interim Guidance for Design of Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
156. API. API Bulletin 2INT-EX Interim Guidance for Assessment of Existing Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
157. API. API RP 95F, Gulf of Mexico MODU Mooring Practices for the 2007 Hurricane Season—Interim Recommendations; 2nd ed. American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA.
158. Wang, P.; Tian, X.; Peng, T.; Luo, Y. A review of the state-of-the-art developments in the field monitoring of offshore structures. Ocean Engineering; 2018; 147, pp. 148-164. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.10.014]
159. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Ja’e, I.A.; Wang, C.; An, C. Guidelines on Composite Flexible Risers: Monitoring Techniques and Design Approaches. Energies; 2022; 15, 4982. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en15144982]
160. Reddy, D.; Swamidas, A. Essentials of Offshore Structures: Theory and Applications; 1st ed. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
161. Bull, A.S.; Love, M.S. Worldwide oil and gas platform decommissioning: A review of practices and reefing options. Ocean Coast. Manag.; 2018; 168, pp. 274-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2018.10.024]
162. Ronalds, B. Applicability ranges for offshore oil and gas production facilities. Mar. Struct.; 2005; 18, pp. 251-263. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2005.06.001]
163. Al-Yafei, E.F. Sustainable Design for Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: A Conceptual Framework for Topside Facilities Projects. Ph.D. Thesis; School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society, Heriot Watt University: Edinburgh, UK, 2018; Available online: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/199293388.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
164. Kreidler, T.D. The Offshore Petroleum Industry: The Formative Years, 1945–1962. Ph.D. Thesis; History Department, Texas Tech University: Lubbock, TX, USA, 1997; Available online: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.455.2343&rep=rep1&type=pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
165. Mustapa, M.; Yaakob, O.; Ahmed, Y.M.; Rheem, C.-K.; Koh, K.; Adnan, F.A. Wave energy device and breakwater integration: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2017; 77, pp. 43-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2017.03.110]
166. Zhao, X.; Ning, D. Experimental investigation of breakwater-type WEC composed of both stationary and floating pontoons. Energy; 2018; 155, pp. 226-233. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.energy.2018.04.189]
167. He, F.; Huang, Z.; Law, A.W.-K. An experimental study of a floating breakwater with asymmetric pneumatic chambers for wave energy extraction. Appl. Energy; 2013; 106, pp. 222-231. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apenergy.2013.01.013]
168. Mares-Nasarre, P.; Argente, G.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Armor Damage of Overtopped Mound Breakwaters in Depth-Limited Breaking Wave Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 952. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9090952]
169. Howe, D.; Nader, J.-R. OWC WEC integrated within a breakwater versus isolated: Experimental and numerical theoretical study. Int. J. Mar. Energy; 2017; 20, pp. 165-182. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijome.2017.07.008]
170. Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Development of multi-oscillating water columns as wave energy converters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2019; 107, pp. 75-86. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.02.021]
171. Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Experimental investigation and performance comparison of a 1 single OWC, array and M-OWC. Renew. Energy; 2020; 168, pp. 365-374. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2020.12.032]
172. Konispoliatis, D.N.; Mavrakos, S.A. Hydrodynamic Efficiency of a Wave Energy Converter in Front of an Orthogonal Breakwater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2021; 9, 94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse9010094]
173. Konispoliatis, D.N. Performance of an Array of Oscillating Water Column Devices in Front of a Fixed Vertical Breakwater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 8, 912. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse8110912]
174. Khan, R.; Mad, A.B.; Osman, K.; Aziz, M.A.A. Maintenance Management of Aging Oil and Gas Facilities. Maintenance Management; Márquez, F.P.G.; Papaelias, M. IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2019; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.82841]
175. Dehghani, A.; Aslani, F. A review on defects in steel offshore structures and developed strengthening techniques. Structures; 2019; 20, pp. 635-657. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2019.06.002]
176. Nadeem, G.; Safiee, N.A.; Abu Bakar, N.; Karim, I.A.; Nasir, N.A.M. Connection design in modular steel construction: A review. Structures; 2021; 33, pp. 3239-3256. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2021.06.060]
177. Chandrasekaran, S. Design of Marine Risers with Functionally Graded Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/c2020-0-00360-9]
178. Gardner, L. The use of stainless steel in structures. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater.; 2005; 7, pp. 45-55. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pse.190]
179. Billingha, J.; Sharp, J.V.; Spurrier, J.; Kilgallon, P.J. Review of the Performance of High Strength Steels Used Offshore; Report RR105 Cranfield University for the Health and Safety Executive: Cranfield, UK, 2003; Available online: https://www.hse.gov.uk/research/rrpdf/rr105.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
180. Craig, J.; Gerali, F.; MacAulay, F.; Sorkhabi, R. The history of the European oil and gas industry (1600s–2000s). Geol. Soc. Lond. Spéc. Publ.; 2018; 465, pp. 1-24. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP465.23]
181. Craig, J. Drilling: History of Onshore Drilling and Technology. Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscienc; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_26-2]
182. Craig, J. History of Oil: The Premodern Era (Thirteenth to Mid-Nineteenth Centuries). Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_33-1]
183. Craig, J. History of Oil: The Birth of the Modern Oil Industry (1859–1939). Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_34-1]
184. Craig, J. History of Oil: Regions and Uses of Petroleum in the Classical and Medieval Periods. Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscienc; Sorkhabi, R. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-02330-4_38-1]
185. Zhang, G.; Qu, H.; Chen, G.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, F.; Yang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Ma, M. Giant discoveries of oil and gas fields in global deepwaters in the past 40 years and the prospect of exploration. J. Nat. Gas Geosci.; 2019; 4, pp. 1-28. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jnggs.2019.03.002]
186. Glennie, K.W. History of Exploration in the Southern North Sea. Petroleum geology of the southern North Sea: Future Potential; Special Publications 123 Ziegler, K.; Turner, P.; Daines, S.R. Geological Society: London, UK, 1997; pp. 5-16.
187. Macini, P.; Mesini, E. History of Petroleum and Petroleum Engineering. Petroleum Engineering–Upstream; Eolss Publishers Co., Ltd.: Oxford, UK, Volume 4.
188. Kontorovich, A.E.; Eder, L.V.; Filimonova, V.; Mishenin, M.V.; Nemov, V.Y. Oil industry of major historical centre of the Vol-ga-Ural petroleum province: Past, current state, and long-run prospects. Russ. Geol. Geophys.; 2016; 57, pp. 1653-1667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rgg.2016.10.011]
189. Krzywiec, P. Birth of the Oil Industry in the Northern Carpathians. Geological Society Conference on European Oil & Gas Industry History; Burlington House: London, UK, 2016; pp. 32-33.
190. Krzywiec, P. The birth and development of the oil and gas industry in the Northern Carpathians (up until 1939). Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ.; 2018; 465, pp. 165-189. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP465.24]
191. Spencer, A.; Chew, K. Petroleum exploration history: Discovery pattern versus manpower, technology and the development of exploration principles. First Break; 2009; 27, pp. 35-41. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3997/1365-2397.2009018]
192. Tulucan, A.D.; Soveja-Iacob, L.-E.; Krezsek, C. History of the Oil And gas Industry in Romania. History of the European Oil and Gas Industry; Craig, J.; Gerali, F.; MacAulay, F.; Sorkhabi, R. Geological Society: London, UK, 2018; Special Publication Volume 465, pp. 191-200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1144/SP465.15]
193. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Östergaard, C. Offshore Structures. Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics; Springer: London, UK, 1992; Volume 1, 64. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-3193-9]
194. Ahmad, O. An overview of design, construction and installation of gravity offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.; 2022; 3, pp. 27-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v3i1.81]
195. DTI. An Overview of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities; Hartley Anderson Limited: Aberdeen, UK, 2001; Available online: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/197799/SD_SEA2EandP.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
196. Chalke, A.; Nalawade, S.; Khadake, N. Review on Analysis of Offshore Structure. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol.; 2020; 7, pp. 1241-1245. Available online: https://www.irjet.net/archives/V7/i8/IRJET-V7I8202.pdf (accessed on 12 February 2022).
197. Sarhan, O.; Raslan, M. Offshore petroleum rigs/platforms: An overview of analysis, design, construction and installation. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.; 2021; 2, pp. 7-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v2i1.58]
198. El Rahim, M.K.A.; Al Husban, M. Analysis of the Lebanese oil and gas exploration in the Mediterranean Sea: An overview and analysis of offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl.; 2021; 2, pp. 25-29. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47346/ijaesa.v2i1.60]
199. Kharade, A.; Kapadiya, S. Offshore Engineering: An Overview of Types and Loadings on Structures. Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res.; 2014; 3, pp. 16-28.
200. Sadeghi, K.; Bichi, A. Offshore Tower Platforms: An Overview of Design, Analysis, Construction and Installation. Acad. Res. Int.; 2018; 9, pp. 62-70. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.9(1)/ARInt.2018(9.1-08).pdf or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323835149_Offshore_tower_platforms_An_overview_of_design_construction_and_installation (accessed on 6 July 2022).
201. Sadeghi, K.; Guvensoy, A. Compliant Tower Platforms: A General Guidance for Analysis, Construction, and Installation. Acad. Res. Int.; 2018; 8, pp. 37-56. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323706788_Compliant_tower_platforms_general_guidance_for_analysis_construction_and_installation (accessed on 6 July 2022).
202. Sadeghi, K.; Tozan, H. Tension leg platforms: An overview of planning, design, construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int.; 2018; 9, pp. 55-65. Available online: http://www.savap.org.pk/journals/ARInt./Vol.9(2)/ARInt.2018(9.2-06).pdf or https://www.researchgate.net/publication/326159712_Tension_leg_platforms_An_overview_of_planning_design_construction_and_installation (accessed on 6 July 2022).
203. Esteban, M.; Couñago, B.; López-Gutiérrez, J.; Negro, V.; Vellisco, F. Gravity based support structures for offshore wind turbine generators: Review of the installation process. Ocean Eng.; 2015; 110, pp. 281-291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.10.033]
204. Tahar, A.; Kim, M. Hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis and sensitivity study of a tanker-based FPSO. Appl. Ocean Res.; 2003; 25, pp. 367-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2003.02.001]
205. Ja’E, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical Validation of Hydrodynamic Responses and Mooring Top Tension of a Turret Moored FPSO Using Simulation and Experimental Results. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ICACE2021); Kualar Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 August 2021.
206. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical Studies on the Effects of Mooring Configuration and Line Diameter on the Re-storing Behaviour of a Turret-Moored FPSO. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering; Niagara, ON, Canada, 12–14 November 2020.
207. Ali, M.O.A.; Ja’E, I.A.; Hwa, M.G.Z. Effects of water depth, mooring line diameter and hydrodynamic coefficients on the behaviour of deepwater FPSOs. Ain Shams Eng. J.; 2019; 11, pp. 727-739. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2019.12.001]
208. Montasir, O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Kurian, V.J. Mooring System Optimisation and Effect of Different Line Design Variables on Motions of Truss Spar Platforms in Intact and Damaged Conditions. China Ocean Eng.; 2019; 33, pp. 385-397. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s13344-019-0037-1]
209. Montasir, O.A.A. Numerical and Experimental Studies on the Slow Drift Motions and the Mooring line Responses of Truss Spar Platform. Ph.D. Thesis; Universiti Teknologi Petronas: Seri Iskandar, Malaysia, 2012.
210. Otteren, A. A Mathematical Model for Dynamic Analysis of a Flexible Marine Riser Connected to a Floating Vessel. Model. Identif. Control. Nor. Res. Bull.; 1982; 3, pp. 187-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4173/mic.1982.4.1]
211. Williams, D. Analysis of Drilling Risers in Harsh and Deepwater Environments. 2010; Available online: https://www.offshore-mag.com/rigs-vessels/article/16763767/analysis-of-drilling-risers-in-harsh-and-deepwater-environments (accessed on 9 April 2021).
212. Ochoa, O.O.; Technology, O. Composite Riser Experience and Design Guidance; MMS Project Number 490, Texas, USA. 2006; Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/sites/bsee.gov/files/tap-technical-assessment-program//490aa.pdf (accessed on 13 January 2022).
213. Russo, S.; Contestabile, P.; Bardazzi, A.; Leone, E.; Iglesias, G.; Tomasicchio, G.; Vicinanza, D. Dynamic Loads and Response of a Spar Buoy Wind Turbine with Pitch-Controlled Rotating Blades: An Experimental Study. Energies; 2021; 14, 3598. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14123598]
214. Tomasicchio, G.R.; Vicinanza, D.; Belloli, M.; Lugni, C.; Latham, J.-P.; Iglesias Rodriguez, J.G.; Jensen, B.; Vire, A.; Monbaliu, J.; Taruffi, F. et al. Physical model tests on spar buoy for offshore floating wind energy converion. Ital. J. Eng. Geol. Environ.; 2020; pp. 129-143. Available online: https://doi.org/10.4408/IJEGE.2020-01.S-15 (accessed on 21 May 2022). [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4408/IJEGE.2020-01.S-15]
215. Borg, M.; Jensen, M.W.; Urquhart, S.; Andersen, M.T.; Thomsen, J.B.; Stiesdal, H. Technical definition of the tetraspar demonstrator floating wind turbine foundation. Energies; 2020; 13, 4911. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13184911]
216. Petersen, H. The scaling laws applied to wind turbine design. Wind Energy; 1984; 8, pp. 99-108.
217. Jonkman, J.M. Dynamics of offshore floating wind turbines-model development and verification. Wind Energy; 2009; 12, pp. 459-492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.347]
218. Koo, B.J.; Goupee, A.J.; Kimball, R.W.; Lambrakos, K.F. Model Tests for a Floating Wind Turbine on Three Different Floaters. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng.; 2014; 136, 20907. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/1.4024711]
219. Sethuraman, L.; Venugopal, V. Hydrodynamic response of a stepped-spar floating wind turbine: Numerical modelling and tank testing. Renew. Eng.; 2013; 52, pp. 160-174. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.09.063]
220. Ruzzo, C.; Fiamma, V.; Nava, V.; Collu, M.; Failla, G.; Arena, F. Progress on the experimental set-up for the testing of a floating offshore wind turbine scaled model in a field site. Wind Energy; 2016; 40, pp. 455-467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0309524X16660023]
221. Chitwood, J.E.; McClure, A.C. Semisubmersible Drilling Tender Unit. SPE Drill. Eng.; 1987; 2, pp. 104-110. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/13482-PA]
222. Lim, E.; Ronalds, B. Evolution of the Production Semisubmersible. Proceedings of the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition; Dallas, TX, USA, 1–4 October 2000; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/63036-MS]
223. Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. Effect of Vortex Induced Vibration on a Paired-Column Semisubmersible Platform. Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn.; 2015; 15, 1540019. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1142/S0219455415400192]
224. Odijie, A.C. Design of Paired Column Semisubmersible Hull. Ph.D. Thesis; Engineering Department, Lancaster University: Lancaster, UK, 2016; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.17635/LANCASTER/THESIS/39]
225. Odijie, A.C.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. A review of floating semisubmersible hull systems: Column stabilized unit. Ocean Eng.; 2017; 144, pp. 191-202. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2017.08.020]
226. Lamas-Pardo, M.; Iglesias, G.; Carral, L. A review of Very Large Floating Structures (VLFS) for coastal and offshore uses. Ocean Eng.; 2015; 109, pp. 677-690. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.oceaneng.2015.09.012]
227. Zhang, J.; Koh, C.G.; Trinh, T.N.; Wang, X.; Zhang, Z. Identification of jack-up spudcan fixity by an output-only substructural strategy. Mar. Struct.; 2012; 29, pp. 71-88. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marstruc.2012.10.001]
228. Tan, X.; Li, J.; Lu, C. Structural behaviour prediction for jack-up units during jacking operations. Comput. Struct.; 2003; 81, pp. 2409-2416. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0045-7949(03)00299-2]
229. Murugaiah, S. A Review Study of Floating, Production, Storage and Offloading (F.P.S.O.) Oil and Gas Platform. Bachelor’s Thesis; Department of Petrochemical Engineering, Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman: Kampar, Malaysia, 2015; Available online: http://eprints.utar.edu.my/1759/1/A_Review_Study_of_Floating%2C_Production%2C_Storage_and_Offloading_(FPSO)_Oil_and_Gas_Platform.pdf (accessed on 30 May 2022).
230. FPSOAsia. FPSO Projects Breakdown by Geo Regions. Proceedings of the FPSO Network, 13th Annual FPSO Congress, Sands Expo & Convention Centre, Jumptopia Holiday Village, Marina Bay Sands; Singapore, 2013; Available online: https//www.fpsonetwork.com/user/email-login/roivsnisycaqgwibdkk2t2cn01rwlaj59dtscqyptzhldujdml/5b04b63b97533d72c14f9ba8 (accessed on 30 May 2022).
231. Menon, J. What Are Jack Up Barges? Marine Insight. 2021; Available online: https://www.marineinsight.com/offshore/jack-up-barges/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
232. Duggal, A.S.; Liu, Y.A.; Heyl, C.N. Global Analysis of Shallow Water FPSOs. Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference; Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2004; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4043/16720-MS]
233. Meng, H.; Kloul, L.; Rauzy, A. Production availability analysis of Floating Production Storage and Offloading (FPSO) systems. Appl. Ocean Res.; 2018; 74, pp. 117-126. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.apor.2018.02.026]
234. McCaul, J. Market Reports: FPSO- Charting Path Ahead. Offshore Engineer. 2021; Available online: https://www.oedigital.com/news/485300-market-report-fpsos-charting-the-path-ahead (accessed on 30 May 2022).
235. Wang, C.; Utsunomiya, T.; Wee, S.C.; Choo, Y.S. Research on floating wind turbines: A literature survey. IES J. Part A Civ. Struct. Eng.; 2010; 3, pp. 267-277. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19373260.2010.517395]
236. Watson, S.; Moro, A.; Reis, V.; Baniotopoulos, C.; Barth, S.; Bartoli, G.; Bauer, F.; Boelman, E.; Bosse, D.; Cherubini, A. et al. Future emerging technologies in the wind power sector: A European perspective. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.; 2019; 113, 109270. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rser.2019.109270]
237. REM. Horns Rev 2 Offshore Wind Farmin Denmark Topped 10 billion kWh. Renewable Energy Magazine. Available online: https://www.renewableenergymagazine.com/wind/horns-rev-2-offshore-wind-farm-in-20210205 (accessed on 30 May 2022).
238. The Guardian. Floating Wind Turbines Could Open up Vast Ocean Tracts for Renewable Power. Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/aug/29/floating-wind-turbines-ocean-renewable-power (accessed on 30 May 2022).
239. Hartman, L. Top 10 Things You Didn’t Know about Offshore Wind Energy; US Department of Energy (DOE); Wind Energy Technologies Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2014; Available online: https://www.energy.gov/eere/wind/articles/top-10-things-you-didnt-know-about-offshore-wind-energy (accessed on 30 May 2022).
240. Pantusa, D.; Francone, A.; Tomasicchio, G.R. Floating Offshore Renewable Energy Farms. A Life-Cycle Cost Analysis at Brindisi, Italy. Energies; 2020; 13, 6150. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en13226150]
241. Gallun, R.A.; Wright, C.J.; Nichols, L.M.; Stevenson, J.W. Fundamentals of Oil and Gas Accounting; 4th ed. PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2001.
242. Kaiser, M.J. A Review of Exploration, Development, and Production Cost Offshore Newfoundland. Nonrenewable Resour.; 2021; 30, pp. 1253-1290. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11053-020-09784-3]
243. Kaiser, M.J. Offshore oil and gas records circa 2020. Ships Offshore Struct.; 2020; 17, pp. 205-241. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2020.1827633]
244. Kaiser, M.J.; de Klerk, A.; Gary, J.E.; Handwerk, G.E. Petroleum Refining: Technology, Economics, markets; 6th ed. CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020.
245. Kaiser, M.J.; Snyder, B. Capital investment and operational decision making in the offshore contract drilling industry. Eng. Econ.; 2013; 58, pp. 35-58. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013791X.2012.758331]
246. Kosleck, S.; Clauss, G.F.; Lee, Y.J. Deepwater Solutions for Offshore Production Technology (Off-shore-Förderplattformen: Entwicklungen für die Tiefsee). Proceedings of the Annual General Conference of the German Society for Maritime Technology; Hamburg, Germany, 17–19 November 2004; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283297430_Deepwater_Solutions_for_Offshore_Production_Technology_Offshore-Forderplattformen_Entwicklungen_fur_die_Tiefsee (accessed on 11 June 2022).
247. Kaiser, M.J.; Pulsipher, A.G. Generalized Functional Models for Drilling Cost Estimation. SPE Drill. Complet.; 2007; 22, pp. 67-73. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2118/98401-PA]
248. Kaiser, M.J.; Narra, S. An empirical evaluation of economic limits in the deepwater U.S. Gulf of Mexico. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng.; 2019; 63, pp. 93-106. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jngse.2019.01.011]
249. Gowda, S.S.; Hassinen, P. Development of Offshore Structures: An Overview. IABSE Congr. Rep.; 1992; 14, 223. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5169/seals-13814]
250. Kaiser, M.J. A review of deepwater pipeline construction in the U.S. Gulf of Mexico–Contracts, cost, and installation methods. J. Mar. Sci. Appl.; 2016; 15, pp. 288-306. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11804-016-1373-7]
251. El-Reedy, M.A. Offshore Structures: Design, Construction and Maintenance; Gulf Professional Publishing: London, UK, 2012; [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/C2010-0-65924-4]
252. Yew, W.K.; Ismail, S.; Sabri, H.A.R.; Rahim, A.R.A. Project management of oil and gas project in Malaysia. Proceedings of the 5th Annual Conference; Incheon, Korea, 27–28 November 2014; Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333102792_Project_Management_of_Oil_and_Gas_Project_in_Malaysia (accessed on 11 June 2022).
253. WavesGroup. Sea Fastening Design for Transporting Heavy Lift. 2020; Available online: https://www.waves-group.co.uk/services/transport-heavy-lift-engineering/sea-fastening-design/ (accessed on 30 May 2022).
254. ESDEP. Lecture 15A.3: Loads (II)—Other Loads in WG 15A: Structural Systems: Offshore; ESDEP Work Group (WG) Course Faculty of Civil and Geodetic Engineering, University of Ljubljana: Ljubljana, Slovenia, Available online: http://fgg-web.fgg.uni-lj.si/~/pmoze/esdep/master/wg15a/l0300.htm (accessed on 30 May 2022).
255. SUT. Offshore Structures: General Introduction; Sharif University of Technology (SUT): Tehran, Iran, 1993; Available online: http://cie.sut.ac.ir/People/Courses/11/Offshore%20Structures.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
256. Al-Khaldi, S.; Al-Mansour, H. Floatover Installations Gaining Momentum in the Arabian Gulf. 2022; Available online: https://www.offshore-mag.com/field-development/article/14210525/saudi-aramco-floatover-installations-gaining-momentum-in-the-arabian-gulf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
257. Shell. Shell’s Deep Water Portfolio in the Gulf of Mexico. 2020; Available online: https://www.shell.us/energy-and-innovation/energy-from-deepwater/shell-deep-water-portfolio-in-the-gulf-of-mexico.html (accessed on 26 August 2020).
258. BP. Our platforms—Gulf of Mexico. 2020; Available online: https://www.bp.com/en_us/united-states/home/where-we-operate/gulf-of-mexico/our-platforms.html (accessed on 26 August 2020).
259. BSEE. FAQS/How Many Platforms Are in the Gulf of Mexico?. 2020; Available online: https://www.bsee.gov/subject/decommissioning-faqs (accessed on 26 August 2020).
260. Thomsen, J.B.; Ferri, F.; Kofoed, J.P. Screening of Available Tools for Dynamic Mooring Analysis of Wave Energy Converters. Energies; 2017; 10, 853. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en10070853]
261. Jarrah, R.; Chen, C.-R.; Kassem, M. Ranking structural analysis software applications using AHP and Shannon’s entropy. J. Asian Archit. Build. Eng.; 2022; 21, pp. 900-907. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/13467581.2021.1900858]
262. Ruiz, J.M. BIM Software Evaluation Model for General Contractors. Master’s Thesis; Department of Building Construction, University of Florida: Gainesville, FL, USA, 2009; Available online: https://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0024456/00001 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
263. Ruehl, K.; Michelen, C.; Kanner, S.; Lawson, M.; Yu, Y.-H. Preliminary Verification and Validation of WEC-Sim, an Open-Source Wave Energy Converter Design Tool. Proceedings of the 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering; San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; Available online: https://www.nrel.gov/docs/fy14osti/61531.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
264. Maximiano, A. PivotBuoy: An Advanced System for Cost-effective and Reliable Mooring, Connection, Installation & Operation of Floating Wind. Report Number: H2020-LC-SC3-RES-11-2018. D5.4 Benchmark of PivotBuoy Compared to Other Floating Systems. 2021; Available online: https://pivotbuoy.eu/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/D5.4-Benchmark-of-PivotBuoy-versus-other-floating-systems-v1.1.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
265. Borg, M.; Bredmose, H. Qualification of Innovative Floating Substructures for 10 MW Wind Turbines and Water Depths Greater than 50 m. Deliverable D4.4—Overview of the Numerical Models Used in the Consortium and Their Qualification. Project acronym LIFES50+, Danmark Tekniske Universitet, Report DTU Wind Energy E-0097. 2015; Available online: http://lifes50plus.eu/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/GA_640741_LIFES50-_D4.4.pdf (accessed on 21 May 2022).
266. Vorpahl, F.; Strobel, M.; Jonkman, J.M.; Larsen, T.J.; Passon, P.; Nichols, J. Verification of aero-elastic offshore wind turbine design codes Under IEA Wind Task XXIII. Wind. Energy; 2014; 17, pp. 519-547. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/we.1588]
267. Paduano, B.; Giorgi, G.; Gomes, R.P.F.; Pasta, E.; Henriques, J.C.C.; Gato, L.M.C.; Mattiazzo, G. Experimental Validation and Comparison of Numerical Models for the Mooring System of a Floating Wave Energy Converter. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2020; 8, 565. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse8080565]
268. Zhan, J.P. Review and Verification of Marine Riser Analysis Programs. Master’s Thesis; The Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Faculty of Engineering Science and Technology, Department of Marine Engineering: Trondheim, Norway, 2010; Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11250/237853 (accessed on 21 May 2022).
269. Bhinder, M.A.; Murphy, J. Evaluation of the Viscous Drag for a Domed Cylindrical Moored Wave Energy Converter. J. Mar. Sci. Eng.; 2019; 7, 120. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/jmse7040120]
270. Leary, M.; Rusch, C.; Zhang, Z.; Robertson, B. Comparison and Validation of Hydrodynamic Theories for Wave Energy Converter Modelling. Energies; 2021; 14, 3959. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/en14133959]
271. Gourlay, T.; von Graefe, A.; Shigunov, V.; Lataire, E. Comparison of AQWA, GL Rankine, MOSES, OCTOPUS, PDStrip and WAMIT With Model Test Results for Cargo Ship Wave-Induced Motions in Shallow Water. Proceedings of the ASME 2015 34th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering. Prof. Robert, F. Beck Honoring Symposium on Marine Hydrodynamics; St. John’s, NL, Canada, 31 May–5 June 2015; Volume 11, [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1115/OMAE2015-41691]
272. Migaloo. ‘Migaloo—The Future of Yachting’. Migaloo Private Submersible Yachts, Graz, Austria. 2015; Available online: https://www.migaloo-submarines.com/migaloo/ (accessed on 21 May 2022).
273. Gunn, K.; Stock-Williams, C. Quantifying the global wave power resource. Renew. Energy; 2012; 44, pp. 296-304. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.renene.2012.01.101]
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Ahmed, Reda 2 ; Harrison Obed Butler 3 ; Idris Ahmed Ja’e 4
; Chen, An 5 1 Department of Engineering, Lancaster University, Bailrigg, Lancaster LA1 4YR, UK; Standards Organisation of Nigeria (SON), 52 Lome Crescent, Wuse Zone 7, Abuja 900287, Nigeria
2 School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering, Curtin University, Bentley, WA 6102, Australia;
3 Department of Wind Energy, Danmarks Tekniske Universitet (Technical University of Denmark)—DTU, 2800 KGS Lyngby, Denmark;
4 Department of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi PETRONAS, Seri Iskandar 32610, Malaysia;
5 College of Safety and Ocean Engineering, China University of Petroleum-Beijing, Beijing 102249, China;