Regulatory Approaches for Wind Load Assessments of Offshore Structures

W. Peters
{"title":"Regulatory Approaches for Wind Load Assessments of Offshore Structures","authors":"W. Peters","doi":"10.4043/29285-MS","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The need for an accurate or at least conservative assessment of wind loads on offshore structures to ensure adequate safety is acknowledged by all stakeholders. A traditional, empirical method that uses a prescriptive approach has been accepted for many decades. Proposed designs are submitted to a regulatory body to demonstrate that requirements using this method are satisfied. A review verifies that the submission satisfies the standard. However, there are questions with respect to the accuracy of this approach that may lead to over-conservative limits in operation.\n Alternatives exist to the traditional, empirical method to assess wind loads and moments on offshore structures that use both wind tunnel testing and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Challenges to the use of the alternatives to the traditional method for wind load assessment for regulatory purposes have often pointed to a lack of demonstrable consistency or inaccuracy.\n Recent work performed under the guidance of the Offshore Committee of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers has done much to answer the challenges to wind tunnel testing and CFD. However, given the expertise needed to successfully perform wind load assessments using wind tunnel testing or CFD, a traditional regulatory approach that relies on prescriptive standards for acceptance may not be practical.\n This paper explores different approaches for rules or regulations that can leverage the outcomes of the recent work with sufficient reliability to assess confidently that standards are satisfied. Methods by which equivalents to prescriptive standards may be evaluated and applied in a regulatory context are discussed. Comparisons with similar approaches formulated for use in other maritime fields are also examined.","PeriodicalId":11149,"journal":{"name":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-04-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Day 1 Mon, May 06, 2019","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4043/29285-MS","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The need for an accurate or at least conservative assessment of wind loads on offshore structures to ensure adequate safety is acknowledged by all stakeholders. A traditional, empirical method that uses a prescriptive approach has been accepted for many decades. Proposed designs are submitted to a regulatory body to demonstrate that requirements using this method are satisfied. A review verifies that the submission satisfies the standard. However, there are questions with respect to the accuracy of this approach that may lead to over-conservative limits in operation. Alternatives exist to the traditional, empirical method to assess wind loads and moments on offshore structures that use both wind tunnel testing and computational fluid dynamics (CFD). Challenges to the use of the alternatives to the traditional method for wind load assessment for regulatory purposes have often pointed to a lack of demonstrable consistency or inaccuracy. Recent work performed under the guidance of the Offshore Committee of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers has done much to answer the challenges to wind tunnel testing and CFD. However, given the expertise needed to successfully perform wind load assessments using wind tunnel testing or CFD, a traditional regulatory approach that relies on prescriptive standards for acceptance may not be practical. This paper explores different approaches for rules or regulations that can leverage the outcomes of the recent work with sufficient reliability to assess confidently that standards are satisfied. Methods by which equivalents to prescriptive standards may be evaluated and applied in a regulatory context are discussed. Comparisons with similar approaches formulated for use in other maritime fields are also examined.
海上结构风荷载评估的规范方法
所有利益相关者都认识到,需要对海上结构的风荷载进行准确或至少是保守的评估,以确保足够的安全性。几十年来,使用规定性方法的传统经验方法已被接受。建议的设计提交给监管机构,以证明使用该方法满足要求。审查验证提交是否满足标准。然而,关于这种方法的准确性存在一些问题,可能导致操作中过度保守的限制。利用风洞测试和计算流体动力学(CFD)来评估海上结构的风荷载和风矩,除了传统的经验方法之外,还有其他方法。为监管目的而使用替代传统方法进行风荷载评估的挑战往往指向缺乏可证明的一致性或不准确性。在美国海军建筑师和轮机工程师协会海上委员会的指导下,最近的工作在解决风洞测试和CFD的挑战方面做了很多工作。然而,考虑到使用风洞测试或CFD成功进行风荷载评估所需的专业知识,依赖于规范性标准的传统监管方法可能不实用。本文探讨了规则或法规的不同方法,这些方法可以利用最近工作的结果,并具有足够的可靠性,以自信地评估标准是否得到满足。讨论了在监管环境中评估和应用与规定性标准等效的方法。还审查了为在其他海事领域使用而制定的类似方法的比较。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信