MEASUREMENT OF WIND LOAD

RESISTANCE ON DRILLING
STRUCTURES

Phase One

Prepared for
JOINT INDUSTRY PROJECT
SPONSORS

DECEMBER 2001
 CONFIDENTIAL

MEASUREMENT OF WIND LOAD RESISTANCE

ON
DRILLING STRUCTURES
Phase One

PN1996103

Prepared for
Joint Industry Project Sponsors

Co-Prepared by: _____________________

Michael J. Effenberger, P. E.
Senior Associate

Co-Prepared by: _____________________

David R. Lewis, P. E.
Lewis Engineering Group

Stress Engineering Services, Inc.

13800 Westfair East Drive
Houston, Texas 77041-1101

December 2001
Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CONFIDENTIALITY OF REPORT
The release and sharing of this report is restricted in accordance with the confidentiality restrictions of the
Participation Agreement signed by all sponsors and Confidentiality Agreement signed by all contractors.

Excerpts from Participation Agreement dealing with Confidentiality of Information

ARTICLE 7 - CONFIDENTIALITY AND USE OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION

7.1 SES will hold title to all Program Results in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. Except as provided in
this Article 7, SES and Sponsors will keep confidential in the same manner as they protect their own confidential
information, all Program Results for a period of three (3) years following completion or termination of the Program.
By unanimous written consent of SES and Tier I Sponsors, the confidentiality period for all or any portion of the
Program Results may be reduced, changed or terminated. This confidentiality obligation, however, shall not apply
to information, which SES or a Sponsor can show by reasonable proof:

a. was in the public domain prior to the time the information was developed or acquired thereunder or subsequently
becomes part of the public domain through no fault of Sponsor;

b. was in the possession of SES or a Sponsor or its Affiliates prior to the time it was developed or acquired
thereunder;

c. subsequent to the time it was developed or acquired thereunder, is obtained by SES or a Sponsor or its Affiliates
without a confidential obligation; or

d. is developed by SES or a Sponsor or its Affiliates as a result of activities carried out independently of the
Program.

For the purpose of this Agreement, specific items of Program Results will not be considered to fall within any of the
exceptions recited above merely because such items are embraced in more general information, which falls within
one or more of the exceptions.

7.2 Subject to the provisions of Article 7.1, SES and each Sponsor or its Affiliates shall have the right to freely use
any of the Program Results developed or acquired by SES thereunder. Sponsor is responsible for its own
interpretation and subsequent application of Program Results, and in no way shall SES be liable for use of data by
Sponsor or its Affiliates. Each Sponsor shall also have the right to disclose such Program Results and to extend the
right to use such information to each of its Affiliates who accepts the confidentiality obligation set forth in Article
7.1, above. Each Sponsor to this Agreement, and each Affiliate to whom a Sponsor has made Program Results
available pursuant to this Paragraph, shall also have the right to disclose Program Results and extend the right to use
such Program Results (a) to third party consultants and contractors who agree to the confidentiality obligation set
forth in Article 7.1, above and agree to use the Program Results solely for the Sponsor or its Affiliates; and (b) to
third party operators having working interest in Sponsors or its Affiliates gas or oil field, provided that each third
party operator agrees to observe the confidentiality obligation set forth in Article 7.1 and agrees to use the Program
Results only in connection with such oil or gas field. Each Sponsor and each Affiliate to whom the Sponsor has
made Program Results available pursuant to this Article will also have the right to make appropriate disclosures of
Program Results to governmental authorities in permitting procedures, provided such Sponsor or affiliate first makes
a reasonable effort to obtain from such governmental authority in writing an acceptance of a confidentiality
obligation similar to Article 7.1, above.

7.3 Following expiration of the confidentiality period specified in Article 7.1 hereof, SES and each Sponsor in the
Program may freely use, sell, or license the Program Results without accounting to any other party.

7.4 Notwithstanding any other term or condition of this Agreement, the HSE reserves the right to publish any
Program Results which it has a statutory duty to publish or make available to the public or a section of the public.
Provided, however, that before taking the preceding action, HSE shall notify all Sponsors of the Program Results it
intends to publish or make available and provide the statutory reason therefore. The Sponsors shall have one month
from the date of HSE’s notification to provide HSE with any objections. Thereafter, HSE shall reply to any
objections, but may then publish, hold or post a cautionary statement regarding the relevant Program Results.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors wish to thank the sponsors for funding this project, furnishing information for the
database, and drilling structures. Appreciation also goes to the steering committee for help in
addressing questions during the JIP. Thanks, also goes to the ‘best practice’ committee for help in
developing the best practice supplement. The database committee help was instrumental in
identifying the database parameters. Appreciation also goes to the manufacturers for providing
drawings and computer models for the wind load evaluations performed.

The authors wish to thank Mr. Mark Trevithick of T&T Engineering for the help with the best
practice document, database parameters, and providing the first structure.
Sponsors Sponsor Representative
American Bureau of Shipping Dr. Yong Bai
Atwood Oceanics, Inc. Mark Childers
BP Amoco Corporation Shu-Yin Yu
Cooper Manufacturing Corp. Samir Ghalayini
Ensco International Inc. Tom C. Baucke
ExxonMobil J. Ward Turner
GlobalSantaFe Jim Pittman
Grey Wolf Drilling Company L.P. Robert Urbanowski
Health & Safety Executive Roland Martland
Helmerich & Payne, Inc. Scott Armbrust
Lewis Engineering Group David Lewis
MH-Pyramid Inc. Louis Wells
Minerals Management Service Robert Smith
Nabors Drilling International Ltd David Mochizuki
National Oilwell Abdul Megahed
Noble Drilling Services Inc. Jitendra Prasad
Pride International Pierre J. Ferran
Rowan Companies, Inc. Bob Shetti
GlobalSantaFe N Pharr Smith
Transocean Sedco Forex Darrel Pelley
Woolslayer Companies, Inc. Dewayne G. Vogt
Zentech, Inc. Ramesh Maini

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page i PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Project Management Team

Lewis Engineering Group David Lewis
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Terry Lechinger
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Michael Effenberger

Best Practice Team Database Team

Michael Effenberger (Chairman) Dave Lewis (Chairman)
Dave Lewis Mike Effenberger
National Oilwell Terry Lechinger
Woolslayer Companies National Oilwell
MH-Pyramid Woolslayer Companies
ABS Americas MH-Pyramid
Mark Trevithick (T&T Engr.) Pride Offshore
Nabors Drilling
Mark Trevithick (T&T Engr.)

STEERING COMMITTEE
Government: Robert Smith (MMS)
Manufacturers: Louis Wells (Pyramid)
Oil Companies: Ward Turner (ExxonMobil)

Drilling Contractors
Group (1) Group (2) Group (3)
Land and Platform Rigs Jack-up MODU's Floating Systems
Scott Armbrust, H&P Pharr Smith, GlobalSantaFe Jitendra Prasad, Noble
1. Helmerich & Payne, Inc. 1. GlobalSantaFe 1. Noble Drilling Services Inc.
2. Nabors 2. Ensco 2. GlobalSantaFe
3. Greywolf 3. ABS (P.L. Tan) 3. Transocean Sedco Forex
4. Pride Offshore 4. Rowan Companies, Inc.
The Drilling Contractors are grouped according to areas of interest. One drilling contractor was
selected to represent the interests of the others in their group. ABS elected to be part of the Jack-
up group.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page ii PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

An API workgroup developed a new methodology for determining wind loads on drilling
structures, masts and derricks. In an effort to evaluate the proposed methodology, a Joint Industry
Project (JIP) titled “Wind Loads on Drilling Structures” was developed to evaluate and compare
the current and proposed methodologies for determining the wind force on drilling structures. The
JIP is a cooperative project of interested industries and regulators. The JIP is a multi-phased
project, with Phase I addressing desktop analyses of six structures and the effects of the proposed
methodology on drilling structures. This report documents the work and conclusions of Phase I,
which provides an understanding of the impact the proposed methodology, will have on present
drilling structures.

Initially in Phase I, mast and derrick designers, drilling contractors and other industry
representatives aided in developing a “best practice” supplement for the existing API-4F
specification, addressing issues not covered by the current and proposed documents. A worked
example for wind loading on a drilling structure for both methods is provided using this “best
practice” supplement. The worked example is performed using a procedure developed for
determining wind loads on drilling structures. The procedure uses reactions from StruCAD*3D
preprocessor and performs wind calculations in EXCEL workbooks for wind acting in three
directions for the frame and equipment.

In conjunction with the development of the best practice, a database was developed to provide
information on the range of derricks and masts submitted by the sponsors. The size and diversity
of the submitted fleet was captured in the database. The creation of the database aided in the
selection of drilling structures that represented the range of the sponsor’s range. This permitted
the selection of representative structures that satisfied the project requirement of six (6) drilling
structures for the desktop analysis with a limitation that no more than two structures from any
manufacturer would be selected. Pie charts created from the database demonstrate that the masts
and derricks were representative of the majority of structures currently in use.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page iii PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Desktop wind calculations of the six-selected derricks/masts were performed for both the current
API-4F and proposed methodology. One drilling structure was evaluated to a range of code
practices permitting a comparison of the API-4F and proposed method to other practices. From
the evaluations, trends were documented which highlighted areas inadequately addressed.

As originally conceived, “an effects study” was to investigate the cost and affect of the new
methodology on jack-up, land, platform etc. operations. After completion of the desktop analysis
it was found that the effect would be small. At that time, the task scope was changed to a
comparison of terms in the current API-4F and proposed methods.

The effects task reviewed the formulas used in the current and proposed methods. Comments and
recommendations were provided based on these comparisons. This task also looked at results
from the proposed ISO wind practice, providing a reference from other work. Finally the results
of the six-derrick/mast analyses compared the global effects of the proposed method to current
practice. The results demonstrate the two methods predict similar results; therefore, a detail
comparison of effect was not required.

The Phase I work demonstrated that the present API 4F wind methodology is incomplete requiring
the designers to supplement the specification with assumptions. These assumptions are different
among users, depending on the range of assumptions used. The calculated wind force would vary
by a factor of almost two. The present wind load methodology needs to be modified or replaced.

The desktop analyses determined, when using consistent conditions, the current and proposed
wind load methodologies provided similar results. The text in the proposed method document,
however, needs editing to reduce misinterpretation and address gusting effects for both individual
member and global effects.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page iv PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Also, the current methodology does not address gusting and this should be addressed.

Equipment wind loads were found to be significant with both methods. Wind forces on equipment
may be as much as 36% of the total wind force and should be included in an analysis of drilling
structures.

A 3-second gust velocity comparison of the proposed onshore and the offshore equations showed
the onshore formula resulted in higher pressure, as expected, due to higher surface friction from
the ground. The proposed offshore formula resulted in good agreement with the current API-4F
method.

When the proposed method’s shielding factor was used, the 1-hour wind for the proposed offshore
wind pressure is found to compare well with the current methodology. The wind tunnel tests will
aid in the validation of the shielding factor in the proposed methodology. This shielding factor’s
verification is an objective of the wind tunnel testing.

The proposed simplified approach is given in the Best Practice Example. The frame’s wind load,
as documented, is from StruCAD*3D wind load evaluation, but a good alternative for wind load
on the derrick frame is given in ASCE7-98.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page v PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page No.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ............................................................................................................... i
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................. iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. vi
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................. vii
CHAPTER 1.......................................................................................................................................1
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER 2.......................................................................................................................................5
BEST PRACTICE SUPPLEMENT .............................................................................................. 5
CHAPTER 3.....................................................................................................................................11
WIND ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION GENERAL ...................................................................... 11
Description of the Analysis for the Present (API-4F) Wind Load Methodology ................... 13
Description of the Analysis for the Proposed Wind Load Methodology................................ 15
Description of StruCAD*3D Load Cases ............................................................................... 17
CHAPTER 4.....................................................................................................................................18
EXAMPLE PROBLEM .............................................................................................................. 18
TEST CASE ................................................................................................................................ 21
CHAPTER 5.....................................................................................................................................27
DATABASE................................................................................................................................ 27
Database .................................................................................................................................. 29
Selection of Derrick/Mast ....................................................................................................... 33
CHAPTER 6.....................................................................................................................................39
DESKTOP ANALYSIS & Interpretation of Analysis Results ................................................... 39
Desktop Wind Analysis..................................................................................................... 40
Interpretation of Analysis Results ..................................................................................... 41
CHAPTER 7.....................................................................................................................................55
WIND LOAD EFFECTS ............................................................................................................ 55
Current and Proposed Methods ............................................................................................... 57
Effect Evaluation..................................................................................................................... 60
CHAPTER 8.....................................................................................................................................70
CONCLUSION From “Phase I” Study....................................................................................... 70
CHAPTER 9.....................................................................................................................................74
RECOMMENDATIONS “PHASE I” STUDIES ....................................................................... 74
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................77

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page vi PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

APPENDICES
Appendix 2.1 Proposed API 4F Specification - Final Draft
Appendix 4.1a Best Practice Example Model Input - Present Methodology
Appendix 4.1b Best Practice Example Model Input - Proposed Methodology
Appendix 4.2 Wind Area Calculations for Example Problem (Structure 1)
Appendix 4.3 Wind Calculations for Best Practice Derrick - Structure 1 – Present Method
Appendix 4.4 Wind Calculations for Best Practice Derrick - Structure 1 – Proposed Method
Appendix 4.5 StruCAD*3D Test Case Input - Checking Wind Load Preprocessor
Appendix 4.6 Checking StruCad*3D Wind Load Preprocessor
Appendix 5.1a Database - Pie and Bar Chart Discussion
Appendix 5.1b Database - Pie and Bar Charts with Statistics
Appendix 5.2a Database - Template Explanation
Appendix 5.2b Database - Template Sketches
Appendix 5.2c Database - Template
Appendix 6.1 Plots of Six (6) Structures Evaluated
Appendix 6.2.1 Wind Analysis by Present Method General Derrick - Structure No 2
Appendix 6.2.2 Wind Analysis by Proposed Method General Derrick - Structure No 2
Appendix 6.2.3 Wind Analysis by Present Method General Mast - Structure No 3
Appendix 6.2.4 Wind Analysis by Proposed Method General Mast - Structure No 3
Appendix 6.2.5 Wind Analysis by Present Method Dynamic Derrick Structure No 4
Appendix 6.2.6 Wind Analysis by Proposed Method Dynamic Derrick - Structure No 4
Appendix 6.2.7 Wind Analysis by Present Method Vertical Erecting Mast - Structure No 5
Appendix 6.2.8 Wind Analysis by Proposed Method Vertical Erecting Mast - Structure No 5
Appendix 6.2.9 Wind Analysis by Present Method Guyed Mast - Structure No 6
Appendix 6.2.10 Wind Analysis by Proposed Method Guyed Mast - Structure No 6
Appendix 6.3 Wind Analysis by Other Methods General Derrick Structure No 2
Appendix 6.4 Investigation of API Wind Drag Coefficient – Cd = 1.25
Appendix 7.1 Derivation of Proposed Onshore Equation in Proposed API 4F Specification
Appendix 7.2 General Effects Studies Information

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page vii PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1: Best Practice Guidelines .................................................................................................. 8

Table 3.2: Six EXCEL Calculation Worksheets for Present Methodology .................................... 14
Table 3.1: Load Cases Used for Present and Proposed Methodology ............................................ 17
Table 4.1: JIP Structure 1 - Best Practice - Derrick Summary of Results/Present ......................... 22
Table 4.2: JIP Structure 1 - Best Practice - Derrick Summary of Results/Proposed ...................... 23
Table 4.3: Summary Table of StruCAD*3D Wind Load Preprocessor.......................................... 24
Table 6.1: Jip Structures Manufacturers Description...................................................................... 42
Table 6.2: Characteristics of JIP Structures Evaluated ................................................................... 43
Table 6.3: JIP Structure 2 - General Derrick Summary of Results/Present .................................... 44
Table 6.4: JIP Structure 2 - General Derrick Summary of Results/Proposed ................................. 45
Table 6.5: JIP Structure 3 - General Mast Summary of Results/Present ........................................ 46
Table 6.6: JIP Structure 3 - General Mast Summary of Results/Proposed ..................................... 47
Table 6.7: JIP Structure 4 - Dynamic Derrick Summary of Results/Present .................................. 48
Table 6.8: JIP Structure 4 - Dynamic Derrick Summary of Results/Proposed ............................... 49
Table 6.9: JIP Structure 5 - Vertical Erecting Mast Summary of Results/Present.......................... 50
Table 6.10: JIP Structure 5 - Vertical Erecting Mast Summary of Results/Proposed .................... 51
Table 6.11: JIP Structure 6 - Guyed Mast Summary of Results/Present ........................................ 52
Table 6.12: JIP Structure 6 - Guyed Mast Summary of Results/Proposed ..................................... 53
Table 6.13: Interpretation of Results Summary .............................................................................. 54
Table 7.1: Comparison of Wind Velocity and Pressure/Height and Gust Effects/3 Second Gust.. 66
Table 7.2: Comparison of Wind Velocity and Pressure/1-hour Steady Wind Velocity ................. 67
Table 7.3: Comparison of Wind Pressure/Shielding Correction/1-hour Stead Wind Velocity ...... 68
Table 7.4: Effect on Wind Force Prediction ................................................................................... 69

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page viii PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1: 0.707 Diagonal Wind Approach ................................................................................... 10

Figure 4.1: Best Practice Example Model Structure Number 1...................................................... 25
Figure 4.2: Test Case Model ........................................................................................................... 26
Figure 7.1: Proposed “Offshore” and “Onshore” Compared to Present “API-4F”......................... 69

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page ix PN1996103

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 1-Page 1 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

An API workgroup developed and documented a new methodology for determining wind loads
on drilling structures, such as, masts and derricks. In an effort to evaluate the proposed
methodology, a Joint Industry Project (JIP) was developed to evaluate and compare the current
and proposed methodologies for determining the wind force on drilling structures. The JIP is a
cooperative project of interested industries (oil companies, drilling contractors,
designers/manufacturers, and consultants) and regulators.

The Wind Loads on Drilling Structures’ JIP is a multi-phased project. Phase I addresses the
desktop analyses and the effects of the proposed methodology on drilling structures. This report
documents the work and conclusions of Phase I. Completion of the desktop analysis provides an
understanding of the impact the proposed methodology has on present drilling structures. With
this understanding, an informed decision may be made with regard to further work and use of the
new methodology.

At the start of Phase I, mast and derrick designers developed a “best practice” for the existing
API-4F specification. This “best practice” is a supplement to the existing specification
addressing issues not covered by the existing and proposed documents. A worked example using
the “best practice” is provided covering wind loading on a drilling structure.

A procedure was developed for determining wind loads on drilling structures for the current and
proposed methods. The procedure uses reactions from StruCAD*3D solutions and performs
wind calculations in EXCEL spreadsheets. Wind calculations are performed for the structural
frame, windwall, equipment and setback. Wind loads are evaluated for three wind attack angles;
on two adjacent faces of the structure and 45 degrees off a face. In addition, the structures are
evaluated with the traveling equipment in two positions: high in the structure and at the drill
floor.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 1-Page 2 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

In conjunction with the development of the best practice, a database, covering wind parameters
on drilling structure, was developed to aid in the selection of drilling structures for the wind load
analyses and a study of the effect the proposed methodology has on the existing drilling fleet.
The database aids in obtaining a reasonable cross-section of the full range of typical masts and
derricks in use by the sponsors.

A desktop analysis of six derrick/mast structures are subjected to an analysis according to the
current API-4F and proposed methodology. The example problem was one of the six selected
structures. One of the selected drilling structures will be subjected to a range of code practices,
such as, ABS, ASCE7, AS1170, and BS8100. These analyses permit a comparison of the API-
4F and proposed method to other practices allowing for an interpretation of methodology results.
From the evaluations, trends were documented, and highlighted areas inadequately addressed.

As originally conceived, “the effects study” evaluated the effects on load rating, stability,
operations, systems, elevated storm criteria, and also addressed the cost impact of the new
methodology on the industry. The report will show the proposed methodology will have
minimum impact on existing fleet assuming that mid-range assumptions in the current Spec 4F
specification were used. “The effects study” was modified to evaluate and compare the current
API-4F methodology to the proposed method.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 1-Page 3 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Phase I of “Measurement of Wind Load Resistance of Drilling Structures” included several

objects. The project objectives were completed with the development of:

“Best Practice” Addendum to Current API-4F Methodology

“Derrick/Masts Database”
Documentation of an example problem to “Best Practice”
Benchmark Current and Proposed Methodologies for six structures
Interpretation of Results by benchmarking with other Wind Practices
Evaluate & Quantify Effect on Industry
Develop Simplified Conservative Method
Desktop Analysis Method Provided (Example Problem)
Derrick Structures Only: ASCE7 or ABS Method with Equipment

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 1-Page 4 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 2

BEST PRACTICE SUPPLEMENT

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 2-Page 5 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

In developing wind loads on drilling structures using API’s Specification 4F, “Specification for
Drilling and Well Servicing Structures”, the designer needs to obtain additional shape
coefficients and apply considerable engineering judgment. This is due to incomplete wind load
methodology in the specification. Since judgment is involved, the designer has broad latitude in
the development of these loads. Therefore this joint industry project undertook a task of
developing a best practice of the current API 4F methodology as applied by practitioners.

In developing the “best practice” guide, the designers were asked for procedures used in
calculating the wind load where the specification does not provide guidance. Originally, as
described in the JIP proposal, the “best practice” guide was to be a single set of guidelines for
calculating the wind loads. But based on the practitioners contrasting responses, the guide below
was setup as a high and a low set of guidelines to cover the range of practices used by the
designers.

The wind loads reported for the best practice example structure were developed using the current
published API-4F specification with the additional guidance listed in “best practice” document.
These reported wind loads do not necessarily reflect the wind loads calculated by a
manufacturer’s design practice. A manufacturer may use any combination of the high/low
guideline that is described in the following pages. Table 2.1 is attached describing the two sets
of guidelines.

Although the proposed method (see Appendix 2.1) is not in use, the designers were asked to
review the document and supplement areas not covered or needing further development. The
only comment received from the practitioners was the need to check overturning against a factor
of safety consistent with the current API-4F. As a result, no second best practice supplement
was needed to cover the proposed methodology.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 2-Page 6 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Some of the specific items addressed in the “best practice” document are: how the diagonal wind
loading should be addressed for derricks and masts, what shape coefficients should be used for
various items, and how setback and equipment should be included. One un-conservative method
used by manufactures in the past for determining diagonal wind is illustrated in Figure 2.1. This
method should not be used.

A comprehensive analysis of the derricks was performed from these inputs to assess the affects
of using the current methodology and to assess the effects of the proposed methodology on
current mast and derrick designs. The worked example of the “best practice” includes both
orthogonal and the diagonal wind conditions.

(Note: When evaluating the shielding effect of components behind a wind wall, different
opinions were expressed by the “Best Practice” committee. These opinions included several
assumptions from full to zero shielding. The committee discussed the use of a slope method
(e.g. 1 to 10) to identify structures shielded. After this discussion, the two bounds cases in the
table were selected. The question of shielding provided by the wind wall is open for
consideration and should be addressed by the API 4F wind committee).

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 2-Page 7 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 2.1: Best Practice Guidelines

ITEM BEST
PRACTICE
LOW HIGH
METHOD
ABS Not Used Not Used
PROJECTED AREA YES YES
PROJECTED PRESSURE Not Used Not Used

DIAGONAL WIND
PROJECTED AREA - YES
SCALE FACTOR, Using Wind Loads on YES, =
SF 0.7071 -
Adjacent Structure Faces

DRAG COEFFICIENTS
SETBACK 1.00 1.00
MAST 1.25 1.25
DERRICK 1.25 1.25
CROWN 1.0, BLOCK 1.25, PRECISE
TRAVELING BLOCK 1.0, BLOCK 1.25, PRECISE
TOP DRIVE 1.0, BLOCK 1.25, PRECISE
GUIDE RAILS 1.5, RAILS ALONE 1.25, RAIL &
BRACING
Pipes, Hoses, Round Tubing 0.6 0.6
WIND WALLS 1.5, FRONT ONLY 1.0, FRT & BCK
WIND WALLS Shielding of None None
Setback

SHIELDING
BEHIND SETBACK 0 0
BEHIND WINDWALLS Note 1, 5 Note 2, 5
AT DRILL FLOOR Note 3, 5 Note 4, 5
CROWN AREA 100
SUBSTRUCTURE 0 100%, WINTERIZED

CRITICAL WIND DIR 45 45

OVERTURNING YES YES

OVERTURNING F. S. 1.25 1.25

ACCESSORIES None 1.25

Ladders, Standpipe, Cable tray, etc.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 2-Page 8 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 2.1
(continued)
Notes :

Block Area – Taking a prismatic shape and breaking into rectangles. The rectangle
dimensions are the maximum width and height of the region being evaluated. The
block area is the sum of rectangles.
Precise Area – Taking a prismatic shape and calculated as close a possible the total
projected area.
(1 On non-drill floor windwalls, framing directly behind windwall, that supports
the windwall is 100% shielded. Shielded windwall (behind front windwall) is
100% shielded.
(2) On non-drill floor windwalls, framing directly behind windwall, that support
the windwall is 100% shielded. Shielded windwall (behind front windwall) is
calculated with no shielding (catching full wind).
(3) On drill floor windwalls, framing directly behind windwall, that supports the
windwall is 100% shielded. Shielded windwall (behind front windwall) is
100% shielded.
(4) On drill floor windwalls, framing directly behind windwall, that support the
windwall is 100% shielded. Shielded windwall (behind front windwall) is
calculated with no shielding (catching full wind).
(5) Setback behind windwalls is NOT shielded.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 2-Page 9 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

0.707 Diagonal Wind Approach

FX Wind FY Wind
FY
FX

Diagonal Wind
FDiag 0.707F Y

0.707FX
FDiag = SQRT((0.707F X)2+(0.707F Y) 2)

For a Square Symmetrical Frame,

Where FX = F Y ; F Diag = FX = F Y

Figure 2.1: 0.707 Diagonal Wind Approach

DO NOT USE THIS METHOD!
(Unless verification is provided)

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 2-Page 10 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 3

WIND ANALYSIS DESCRIPTION GENERAL

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 11 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Wind load evaluations of the drilling structures, mast and derricks, were performed to the
guidelines of the present API 4F specifications and proposed methodology. In addition, the
calculations were performed to the current practices of manufacturers where the specification
does not provide guidance. These manufacturer’s practices are described in the best practice
guideline. The best practice guidelines are detailed in Chapter 3 of this report.

For the JIP wind analysis, the primary information to be determined is the base shear and the
centroidal elevation of the wind load. There are eighteen sets of wind calculation performed for
each drilling structure. The wind loads were investigated for three wind directions. Wind on
two adjacent faces of the structure and across the diagonal of the structure 0°, 45° and 90°. For
each direction the wind loads were calculated for a Best Practice high and a low condition. In
addition for these load cases the structure was evaluated with the traveling equipment in two
positions:

Position 1- the traveling equipment is at the highest position in the structure and
Position 2 the traveling equipment is at the lowest position.

Since these studies are investigating the amount of wind load on a drilling structure, no structural
evaluations were performed.

The wind load evaluation was performed using the following computer programs, StruCAD*3D
by Zentech, Inc. and Microsoft’s EXCEL, a spreadsheet program. StruCAD*3D is a finite
element program that performs wind calculations on beam type elements using both the
projected area and projected velocity approaches. These two techniques for applying wind on
members are required for the present and proposed methodologies.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 12 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS FOR THE PRESENT (API-4F) WIND LOAD METHODOLOGY

The derrick finite element model was used to obtain the structure’s base reactions and
overturning moments from a specified list of load conditions (28 load conditions, Table 3.1).
The model as provided by the designers required modifications. Gin pole frames were added to
structures’ 1 and 2. Group card names were changed for members to account for shielding of the
members behind racking board and drill floor wind walls. In addition, several of the models
group card names were changed isolating the top drive with bracing and gin pole structure
members. With these modifications these components could be independently shielded in
specified load cases.

Members defined by certain group cards are shielded in StruCAD*3D with the use of Group
OVERRIDE cards and setting the wind coefficient to zero. The Group override cards are placed
within the specified 28 required load cases. The specified list of load cases is given in Table. 3.1.
The order of the load case is important as well as the structural component overridden within
certain load cases. The reason it is important that these load cases are maintained is that certain
components are overridden within certain load cases and the reactions for this load case are input
directly into a reactions spreadsheet. The reactions that are input into a reaction spreadsheet is
given in the last table of the StruCAD*3D OT3 output file. In this reaction spreadsheet the wind
areas for the frame structure, the guide tracks with bracing, and gin pole are obtained with their
centroidal elevation of the wind loads.

The StruCAD*3D solutions were performed with a 100 knot wind and no height coefficient.
The spreadsheets are setup for these conditions. Therefore, if these variables are changed, the
spreadsheet must also be changed for consistency.

In the same EXCEL workbook, but on separate worksheets, the structures wind areas are
internally transferred into specified locations on the two “area” worksheets (representing
different positions of traveling equipment). There are two “area” worksheets in every workbook
and each of these worksheets has all the wind areas, including structure and equipment. Areas

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 13 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

for items not included in the derrick’s finite element model are also input on these two area
worksheets. These other items are equipment areas, stairways, ladders, walkways, traveling
equipment, etc. The only difference between the two worksheets is the location of the traveling
equipment. The first “area” worksheet has the traveling equipment at the highest position in the
structure and the second area worksheet has the traveling equipment at the lowest position in the
structure. The “area” worksheets are also set-up to input areas for both the high and low
conditions as described in the best practice document. Diagonal wind areas are also accounted
for on these worksheets.

From these “area” worksheets data is transferred into six-wind “calculation” worksheets located
in the same workbook. The wind calculations are performed using the wind force equation given
in API-4F. These calculations are performed for each structured component or piece of
equipment. The wind loads are combined using the principal of superposition. The six
“calculation” worksheets are:

TABLE 3.2: Six EXCEL Calculation Worksheets for Present Methodology

Worksheet Worksheet Title Description
Number
1 X Low Calculates wind along the X Axis according to Best Practice “Low Load Guidelines”
2 Y Low Calculates wind along the Y Axis according to Best Practice “Low Load Guidelines”
3 45 Low Calculates wind along the 45 Degrees Off the X Axis according to Best Practice
“Low Load Guidelines”
4 X High Calculates wind along the X Axis according to Best Practice “High Load Guidelines”
5 Y High Calculates wind along the Y Axis according to Best Practice “High Load Guidelines”
6 45 High Calculates wind along the 45 Degrees Off the X Axis according to Best Practice
“High Load Guidelines”

From these worksheets the results are tabularized in a worksheet titled Summary. There is an
additional worksheet; this worksheet contains a table of the height coefficients versus elevation
as given in API 4F (Do not change this worksheet). The wind calculation worksheets obtain
the appropriate height coefficient from this table.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 14 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

With the use of this EXCEL workbook, the structure can be evaluated for different wind
velocities and the base of the structure can be adjusted to different elevations. Theses variables
can be changed on the first worksheets tabbed General Info. Although the present API 4F does
not address wind gusts, for comparison purposes, the wind load is assumed to be a 3-second gust
so a direct comparison can be made with the proposed method.

An important point not covered in the discussion above is that all structural members have the
same drag coefficient. For the present API 4F methodology structural shapes have only one drag
coefficient, 1.25, which also includes shielding (see Chapter 6). Because of this, it allowed the
structure to be evaluated with one StruCAD*3D solution. If the structural shapes were to have
several different drag coefficients, multiple StruCAD*3D solutions would be required depending
on the number of structural shapes having different drag coefficients.

DESCRIPTION OF THE ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED WIND LOAD METHODOLOGY

Many of the steps used in determining the wind loading on the drilling structure are the same for
the proposed methodology. Both start with StruCAD*3D solutions that are fed into an EXCEL
workbook. The basic format of the EXCEL workbook is similar. Both have reaction worksheet
used to determine the drilling frame wind area, both have two area worksheets, both have work
sheets to determine the wind loads by direction and both have summary pages.

There are differences as well. First the proposed method requires making multiple StruCAD*3D
solutions. Where the present method has one drag coefficient for all structural shapes, the
proposed method has different shape coefficients based on the member type (wide flange,
channel, structural tube, etc.). For example, angles, channel and wide flanges have a drag
coefficient of 1.8, square and rectangular tube sections have a 1.5 drag coefficient and circular
cross sections have a 0.8 drag coefficient. Due to the three drag coefficients, three solutions are
needed. Each solution is based on one of the drag coefficient with the other drag coefficients
zeroed out. This results in wind areas based on each drag coefficients. The proposed method

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 15 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

also only determines wind load for three basic directions; 0, 45 and 90 degrees. The high and
low cases, resulting from the best practice differences, are not needed for the proposed method.

Another big difference in the two methodologies is the wind’s velocity gust duration. In the
proposed method a one-hour wind velocity is adjusted to a 3-second wind in the local wind
velocity condition (see paragraph [Link] of the proposed methodology) to design individual
members.

The present methodology does not address gust duration needed in the design of a derrick or
mast.

NOTE: MANY OF THE CELLS IN WORKBOOKS (DISCUSSED IN CHAPTERS 4 AND 5)

CONTAIN EQUATIONS USING INFORMATION FROM OTHER WORKSHEETS.
BECAUSE OF THIS MANY OF THE WORKSHEETS CELLS ARE PROTECTED AND
CANNOT BE CHANGED. CELLS WITH VALUES HAVING A YELLOW BACKGROUND
CAN BE CHANGED. THE MAIN INPUTS TO THE SPREADSHEETS ARE ON THE
REACTIONS WORKSHEETS, GENERAL INFO WORKSHEET, AND THE POSITION 1
AREA WORKSHEET. THE SUMMARY WORKSHEET HAS NO INPUTS AND ALL
VALUES ARE EQUATIONS OR DATA FROM CALCULATION WORKSHEETS.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 16 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

DESCRIPTION OF STRUCAD*3D LOAD CASES

TABLE 3.1: Load Cases Used for Present and Proposed Methodology

WIND DIR.
Load Measured From OVERRIDE
WINDWALL
Case X-AXIS CARDS
Deg.
1 0 R F&R
2 45 R F&R
3 90 R F&R
4 135 R F&R
5 0 - F&R
6 45 - F&R
7 90 - F&R
8 135 - F&R
9 0 - R
10 45 - R
11 90 - R
12 135 - R
13 0 - F
14 45 - F
15 90 - F
16 135 - F
17 0 - T
18 45 - T
19 90 - T
20 135 - T
21 0 - -
22 45 - -
23 90 - -
24 135 - -
25 0 - G
26 45 - G
27 90 - G
28 135 - G

Notes:
R – Area Cards are used to represent the racking board
F – Override Cards are used to set Cd = 0 for members behind the Drill Floor Wind Walls
R – Override Cards are used to set Cd = 0 for members behind the Racking Board Wind Walls
T – Override Cards are used to set Cd = 0 for Guide Track and Track Bracing members
G – Override Cards are used to set Cd = 0 for Gin Pole members

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 3-Page 17 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 4

EXAMPLE PROBLEM

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 18 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

An example problem was documented to demonstrate how wind loads on a drilling structure are
developed. The example was performed on a generic derrick structure. The example derrick
was furnished by T&T Engineering and is not a finalized structure ready for construction. The
structure was selected because the information is not proprietary and the member sizes and
dimensions could be included in this discussion. StruCAD*3D input of the model is given in
Appendix 4.1a (Present) and 4.1b (Proposed).

The derrick is 160 feet clear height and a 30-foot square base. Figure 4.1 is a plot of the model.
The structure is fully framed on all four sides and has 11 bays from bottom to top that are braced
with Vee bracing. The derrick is primarily constructed with wide flange shapes used for legs and
girts. Angles are primarily used for bracing. The structure has a gin pole frame above the crown
that extends to an elevation of 192 feet above the base of the structure. A Varco TDS4 top drive
with rails is installed on the off-drillers side. The racking area has two 6 by 6.5 foot rectangular
shape areas. The two racking areas are on the off-drawworks side of the structure and are 5 foot
apart. Drawings of attached equipment were not provided but an attempt was made to select
accessory equipment typically used on derricks of this size.

There are two wind walls shielding the derrick. The drill floor wind wall shields the bottom 15
feet of the derrick and the racking board walls shield from elevation 80 feet to 95 feet of the
derrick. The floor wind wall is on the substructure and the racking board wind wall is attached
to the derrick.

The equipment areas are based on typical pieces of equipment used on this type of structure.
Calculations were performed and are in Appendix 4.2 of this report. As stated above, these
values are inline with similar equipment used for structures of this size.

Most equipment items are prismatic shapes and for both methodologies, the area is calculated
based on projected area in the direction of the wind. A sample of one of these calculations is
attached (see Appendix 4.2). For one item, the top drive, the manufacturer furnished a cad file of
the projected shapes of the equipment. The precise area for this item and the traveling block

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 19 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

were determined using the AutoCAD program. An alternative method of calculating the area is
the block area method. For this method, the component is broken into a series of rectangles and
the block area is the sum of these rectangles describing the equipment. One item needing special
attention are wind wall areas using the proposed methodology. The walls are not based on
projected areas but on actual width and height, even for diagonal winds. The pressure and
suction coefficients are used with these areas. The calculations for the wind wall areas are
attached (see Appendix 4.2).

Using the procedure described in the previous chapter, the “best practice” derrick is evaluated for
the current API-4F and proposed methods. Summary tables for both methods are provided in
Tables 4.1 and 4.2. In Appendices 4.3 and 4.4 are the Excel workbooks printouts for the both
methods.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 20 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TEST CASE

Since StruCAD*3D was used in calculating the basic frame structure wind areas using the
projected area and projected velocity, a simple frame was developed to check the wind loads
calculated by the program. This simple frame is a one bay structure with inverted Vee bracing
on two opposite faces. The columns are rectangular tubing, the beams are wide flange shapes
and the bracing has angle members. A plot (Figure 4.2) of the frame is attached. Appendix 4.5
is a StruCAD*3D listing of test case.

The wind loads were check for both methodologies for wind hitting both faces of the frame and
across the frame’s diagonal. Wind load calculations were performed for the six load cases using
an EXCEL workbook. The calculated values are checked against the StruCAD*3D values. A
description of the equations used in the calculations of the loads for both methodologies is
described in the commentary of the proposed methodology. The calculations were performed
using a rational observation of the winds attack angle on the member, i.e., the equations are not
matrix algebra. Table 4.3 summarizes the comparison of the StruCAD*3D test case results. In
Appendix 4.6 are six tables checking the StruCAD*3D results for the test case.

From the calculations, it was interesting to learn that for projected area method, StruCAD*3D
treats an angle as a square or rectangular section where in the proposed methodology (projected
velocity) the angle is correctly evaluated with only two plates, not a box section. In other words,
if a wind is going across a diagonal of an angle’s minor axis the projected velocity method only
sees one leg of the angle (the other leg of the angle is shielded by the front leg). In the
StruCAD*3D simulation projected area approach wind would be hitting both legs, one leg of the
angle and a nonexistent leg because the angle is not a box section as StruCAD*3D assumes.
However, the example case found good match for all six cases. The wind calculations are
difficult for diagonal members not angling in the direction of the wind. Although these checks
are approximate, the calculated values are well within 1% of the StruCAD*3D values.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 21 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 4.1: JIP Structure 1 - Best Practice - Derrick Summary of Results/Present

(30' Base X 160' Tall)

Analysis Using API 4F Present Wind Methodology

API 4F Present Methodology

Wind Low High

Direction
Position 1 Position 2 Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure
with
All Accessories X 197.0 184.2 197.0 179.4 254.5 185.6 258.0 182.5
Y 213.8 181.1 213.8 177.1 256.8 182.2 260.3 179.1
45 206.3 182.6 206.3 178.2 362.8 182.9 369.2 179.8
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls
X 106.5 185.4 106.5 185.4 106.5 185.4 106.5 185.4
Y 108.5 185.2 108.5 185.2 108.5 178.8 108.5 185.2
45 107.5 185.4 107.5 185.4 150.8 185.4 150.8 185.4
Setback
X 29.4 146.5 29.4 146.5 29.4 146.5 29.4 146.5
Y 45.3 146.5 45.3 146.5 45.3 146.5 45.3 146.5
45 38.2 146.5 38.2 146.5 62.7 146.5 62.7 146.5
Wind Walls
Only at Racking Board X 23.0 187.5 23.0 187.5 30.6 187.5 30.6 187.5
Y 23.0 187.5 23.0 187.5 30.6 187.5 30.6 187.5
45 23.0 187.5 23.0 187.5 43.3 187.5 43.3 187.5
Equipment
X 38.0 208.2 38.0 183.3 87.9 198.4 91.4 189.1
Y 37.1 207.7 37.1 184.4 72.5 207.4 75.9 186.5
45 37.7 208.3 37.7 184.1 106.0 199.0 112.4 187.9

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 22 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 4.2: JIP Structure 1 - Best Practice - Derrick Summary of Results/Proposed

(30' Base X 160' Tall)

Analysis Using API 4F Proposed Methodology

Wind API 4F Proposed Method

Direction
Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure with all
Accessories X 228.5 185.6 232.4 183.2
Y 236.0 182.1 239.9 179.8
45 312.2 180.3 315.6 177.6
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls X 106.0 186.1 106.0 186.1
Y 109.4 185.3 109.4 185.3
45 129.6 181.9 129.6 181.9
Setback
X 28.2 146.5 28.2 146.5
Y 43.3 146.5 43.3 146.5
45 63.5 146.5 63.5 146.5
Wind Walls
(Racking Board Only) X 12.8 187.5 12.8 187.5
Y 12.8 187.5 12.8 187.5
45 17.4 187.5 17.4 187.5

Equipment
X 81.5 198.2 85.5 190.9
Y 70.5 198.2 74.4 189.7
45 101.6 198.0 105.1 189.3

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 23 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 4.3: Summary Table of StruCAD*3D Wind Load Preprocessor

Evaluation Wind Evaluation Evaluation

Load Case Method Attack StruCAD*3D Check Check
Direction (Kips) (Kips)
1 Velocity X 8.358 8.358 Exact
2 Velocity 45 7.082 7.082 Exact
3 Velocity Y 6.064 6.064 Exact
4 Area X 8.358 8.358 Exact
5 Area 45 10.772 10.771 Good
6 Area Y 6.875 6.875 Exact

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 24 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Figure 4.1: Best Practice Example Model Structure Number 1

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 25 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Figure 4.2: Test Case Model

LEG: Rectangular Tubes; DIAGONALS: Angles; BEAMS: WF Shapes

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 4-Page 26 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 5

DATABASE

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 27 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The database goal, in the Wind Measurement JIP, was to identify the wind characteristics of the
derricks and masts in the fleet of the fourteen (11) drilling contractor sponsors. These wind
directed characteristics are documented in a database that represents the selected derrick/mast
parameters that can be used to evaluate the derrick/mast fleet for the wind study. The completed
database will aid in the selection of the structures for the six desktop analyses that are required of
the program.

The derrick/mast includes parameters for identifying specific structure characteristics, which
affect the wind force. Once these parameters were defined, Microsoft’s Excel program was used
to create a database template for documenting the parameters for individual structures. This
template was distributed to all the drilling contractor sponsors who completed and returned the
templates creating individual contractor databases. These individual databases were then
combined into a master database for evaluation. Data reduction, including a statistical study,
was performed.

The master database and reduced data was used to aid in the selection of the structures for the
desktop analysis. A condition for selecting the structures required that the derrick/mast selected
cover a wide range of drilling applications and these structures were valid for the ultimate
intended use by the owner. The project limitation of six (6) structures for desktop analyses is
limiting, in that, the selections made must represent small to large drill structures. Other
limitations were that no more than two (2) structures may be submitted from any one-sponsor
manufacturer and the selected structure must have a finite element model available. As the
derrick/mast structures are used in many different applications, which gave the ability to
compare similar parameters in the database permits and allowed the evaluation of the limited
number of selected structures to be applied across the range of applications.

In the selection of the structures a common structure, an angle leg derrick, was deferred from the
program. This was necessary due to the project limitations.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 28 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The database has provided the basis for selection of five desktop structural analyses. By
evaluating selected characteristics, the selected five structures may be applied for different
applications.

DATABASE

The database represents derricks and mast drilling structures. The following definitions are used
to defined these structures:

DERRICKS – A derrick is a four-sided frame structure. Racked pipe is contained within

the four sides of the structure. A derrick is considered a more permanent structure that is
not as easily disassembled for moving as a mast. A derrick is commonly used on fixed
platforms, jack-ups, drill ships, and semi-submersibles.

MAST – An open-framed structure having a C shaped cross-section. The mast is open

on the V-door side of the structure for racking pipe. The structure is typically a self-
elevating structure that does not require an additional crane for assembly. Masts are
commonly used for land operations or minimum space platforms.

A technical committee selected variables to represent parameters that will impact the wind area
in the evaluation of wind loads. These variables were grouped into four categories:

1. Identification
2. Design
3. Leg Member
4. Appurtenances affected by wind

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 29 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The variables representing the four categories are incorporated into an Excel workbook.
Spreadsheet templates were developed to aid in recording the structure information. These
templates were aided with a general description of the parameters and sketches showing the
information requested. The sketches were cross-referenced with the database variables to further
describe the requested information. This package was then submitted to the drilling contractor
sponsors of the Wind Measurement JIP. (A copy of the package is attached as Appendix 5.2).

For ease of use, the database was subdivided into five worksheets of common information.

1. Identification
2. Modifications
3. API Name Plate
4. Dimensional Information
5. Miscellaneous Information (Leg Construction, Application, and Wind Walls)

These five worksheets templates fed a master spreadsheet that, once completed by the drilling
contractor, represented a drilling contractor’s master database.

Drilling Contractor, Rig Name, substructure and derrick/mast manufacturers comprised the
identification work sheet. The substructure and derrick/mast manufacturers are important to
identify the different original manufacturers (44 total) and allows sorting by sponsor
manufacturers (Cooper Industries, National Oilwell, Pyramid, and Woolslayer). The
manufacturer information allows the project to contact the manufacturer for information on the
drilling structure. The substructure information originally was requested because this structure
supports the drill floor wind walls. Therefore these details would be on the substructure
manufacturer’s drawings rather than the derrick/mast manufacturer’s drawing. This request
proved difficult to obtain and as a result the variable was eventually eliminated from the request.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 30 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Several drilling contractors have modified their derrick/mast to accommodate top drives and pipe
handling systems. The modifications worksheet permits the project to identify the number of
derrick/masts that have undergone this modification. A modification for a top drive and/or pipe
handling system will increase the wind force from the added system(s). The supporting
structure, particularly where the derrick/mast structure is modified to accommodate new
equipment, will change the total wind force for all components.

API Manufacturers building derrick/masts supply an API nameplate to the purchaser of the
equipment. Drilling contractors have a different use for the information contained on the
nameplate than the project. However, this plate is an excellent resource for information related
to the calculation of wind effects. API worksheet requested information contained on the
nameplate and some non-API nameplate information.

The API nameplate identifies the API standard used in the original design, which contains the
methodology used in predicting wind forces for the derrick/mast. The racking capacity provides
an approximation of the setback wind area. The project requested the setbacks configuration,
and drill pipe stands in setback (doubles or triples). Through manipulation of this setback
information, the project is able to get an estimate of the exposed area due to racked drill pipe.
Hook capacity generally controls the leg member’s selection that may, depending on design
approach, have an affect on wind area of this member. Finally, the mast is identified as
freestanding (cantilevered) or guyed. A change in wind force will affect the anchor design of the
guyed mast.

The dimensional information worksheet requested lengths, widths, and heights at various
locations on the derrick/mast. The dimensional information requested only applies to the drilling
structure and does not include wind walls. These are addressed on another worksheet.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 31 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The miscellaneous worksheet identified the leg type (wide flange, channel, angle etc.) used in the
construction of the derrick/mast. The importance of this variable can be seen in the table below
that lists shape coefficient for different sections.

Member Shape
Description Coefficient
Wide flange 1.8
Tee 1.8
Angle 1.8
Channel 1.8
Tube (square) 1.5
Tube (Round) 0.8

The structural use of each derrick/mast will identify the effect analyses of interest to the project
sponsors. The windwalls at the racking board, drill floor, and substructure were requested to
evaluate the effect of these structures on the wind calculation. After issuance of the database, the
project recognizing the wind measurement program is limited to the derrick/mast effects, the
wind walls on the substructure (area below drill floor) were considered outside of the project
scope and the request for this variable was eliminated.

During the course of collecting data a reduced set of parameters representing minimum variables
was issued to aid any drilling contractor wishing to provide input but unable to provide all the
requested data.

The drilling contractor completed the database for their units and returned these to the project.
The individual master databases were collected and incorporated into a final master database that
included the first three selected JIP derrick/mast structures. The database has a total population
of 575 derrick/mast structures and calculations on the setback area, racking board windwall, and
drill floor windwall. These calculations were included to provide additional information for the
evaluation of the database. This aided in the selection of the final structures for the desktop
analyses.
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 32 PN1996301
Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The data was sorted against the different variables and results plotted on forty-one (41) pie and
bar charts (Appendix 5.1). In addition to presenting the results in this visual format, statistics for
mean (average), median (mid point of population), and mode (maximum recurring in population)
were calculated for the variables requested. These statistics allow the project to evaluate how
well the analyzed selected derrick/mast represented the population.

SELECTION OF DERRICK/MAST

In selecting the derricks/masts for the desktop analysis, the selected structure must represent the
largest possible range of the population. The selected derrick/mast also should represent the
different applications (platform rig, land, jack-up etc) in which the sponsors use these structures,
and finally, the structures selected will be used in the effects analysis. The project would prefer
selecting a structure in an application that would be directly affected by the wind method to
evaluate the effect of a change in methodology. However, limitations described below prevented,
in some cases, these structures being selected.

The selection is limited by non-technical considerations relating to finite element models

availability and a manufacturer limitation. The StruCAD*3D program by Zentech, Inc (the
program developer) has been modified in recent years to perform wind calculations on beam
elements for the projected area method (present API 4F) and the projected velocity method
(proposal method). In the development of the Wind Measurement Joint Industry Project, the use
of this StruCAD*3D was assumed to keep the man-hour and schedule to a minimum. Therefore,
the availability of a StruCAD*3D (or SACS) model is extremely important. To avoid
inconveniencing one or two manufacturer sponsors who must supply drawings and technical
support, a maximum of two structures are selected from any one manufacturer. As a result a
structure other than one best suited for the effects analysis may be selected.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 33 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The database and best practice tasks were started at the same time. A typical or general mast and
derrick were needed to begin the best practice analysis. A preliminary database of available
variables was used to define parameters for the selection of these structures. Using these
parameters, two of the manufacturer sponsors provided the information on a typical mast and
derrick to begin the desktop analyses. Once selected, the project completed a database (SES
Database) for these two structures and an ‘example derrick’. This latter structure was included
because the best practice deliverable required providing sample calculations. These calculations
could not be performed on the typical derrick or mast because they would have violated the
proprietary agreement with the manufacturer.

Having already selected the typical derrick and mast, these selected structures were evaluated
against the norm. The statistics for eighteen variables were found and summarized in attached
tables. The typical “general” derrick and mast are described in Table 5.1 Derricks and Table 5.2:
Masts. In the attached statistical table, the requested database parameters are given for all six
selected structures. This table includes the statistical values for mean, median and mode. Where
applicable, the minimum and maximum values are included in the table to provide a perspective
on where the selected structures fall relative to these values.

Comparison of the typical derrick/mast shows the structures selected are representative of the
typical structure with many variables falling within or just outside the statistical range. D1 and
M1 are plotted on the pie charts (see Appendix 5.1) and a review shows many locations fall near
the statistical norm.

An area where the typical mast and derrick fall near the maximum is the racking board wind
wall. The mast and derrick used in the analyses are recent designs reflecting the deeper depths
drilled. In the case of the derrick, the leg batter (taper) starts above the racking area (~95’) to
provide for the pipe handling systems preferred by many contractors. Using the final master,
derricks/masts were sorted to identify three additional structures that represented additional
applications to the typical derrick/mast (semi-submersibles, self-erecting platform rigs, and
guyed masts). In the evaluation, the project also looked for alternative member sizes. Potential

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 34 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

candidate rigs were selected for consideration for the last three structures. Once the candidate
rigs were identified, the limitation that no more than two structures could be requested from any
manufacturer eliminated some potential candidates and in one incidence only one manufacturer
was identified for a particular type of structure. The manufacturers were contacted concerning
available structures that have both drawing packages and computer model. The last three drilling
structures included in the desktop analysis task are the results of the selection process.

The three additional structures include a dynamic derrick representing a structure used on drill
ships and semi-submersibles. A self-erecting (boot strap) mast was one of two selected mast
structures to evaluate the impact on limited area platforms. Finally, a guided mast was selected
to evaluate the effect on anchor design. The inclusion of the best practice derrick, general
derrick, general mast, dynamic derrick, self-erecting mast, and guided mast completed the six
structures to be analyzed in the desktop analysis. The characteristics of these structures are
presented in the database template included in Chapter 6.

In reviewing the statistics for these three structures (see Tables 5.1 and 52) the project finds, the
dynamic derrick has characteristics that fall towards the upper bound of the database. This is
expected as these structures are found in harsh environments. These structures are on semi-
submersibles drill ships where they are also subjected to vessel motions while drilling. The self-
erecting mast (Mast 2) has characteristics that match the norms with a few exceptions. These
exceptions include setback plan area and racking board wind walls. The reasons for the
exceptions are similar to the general mast exceptions that resulted from using a more recent
design. Therefore, this mast and the derrick likely represent future construction. The guided
mast represents the lower statistical end of the masts in the database.

A dual-purpose derrick was given serious consideration for inclusion in the desktop analysis, as
these structures are believed to become more common in the future. The inclusion of this
structure would have increased the number of desktop analyses. The limiting factors described
above, time, budget, and scheduling considerations prevented the inclusion of this structure at

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 35 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

this stage of the project. Also, no sponsor provided data for a dual-purpose derrick in the final
master database for any of the sponsors.

It was also necessary for the project to defer an analysis of an angle derrick. The angle and
“Tee” derrick are commonly occurring structures in the population. However, the addition of a
non-proprietary structure for the sample calculations resulted in man-hour and schedule
constraints in the best practice and desktop analysis task. FEA models for an angle derrick were
not readily available as the manufacturers have moved to other member types in recent
construction and the angle derrick design preceded the common use of computer models
(StruCAD*3D and SACS) in design. The project believed changes in wind methodology could
be approximated on the angle derricks by applying ratios that represent changes in wind force
prediction for the typical derrick selected. For these reasons, the absence of an angle derrick is
not considered detrimental to the project scope.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 36 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Table 5.1: Derricks Matrix

General Dynamic Best Practice

Description Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum
Derrick Derrick Derrick
Manufacturers Dreco WCI T&T Eng'r
Top Drive Installations Yes Yes No
Pipe Handlers No Yes No
Design Standard API 4E API 4E API 4E API 4F API 4F API 4F
19,000- 19,000- 19,000-
Setback Capacity 21,000 21,000 21,000 13,000 42,000 25,366 33,820 25,500
Set Back Plan Area 100-149 100-149 50-99 20 510 163 240 163
Set Back Projected Wind Area 2000-2299 2000-2299 1500-1999 1,230 5,760 3,285 3,960 3,285
Setback Configuration 3 3 3 2 2 2
Hook Load 1000-1299 1300-1600 1300-1600 500 2,500 1,000 2,500 1,000 est.
Clear Height 150-170 150-170 150-170 139 220 170 170 160
Leg Construction T T L W W W
Application Jack-up Jack-up Jack-up Jack-up Jack-up No Answer
Racking Board Height 11-14 15-19 20-25 10 114 15 25 15
Racking Board Plan Area 100-399 400-699 No Wall 140 1,849 1,292 1,849 1,225
Racking Board Projected Wind Area 100-499 500-999 500-999 320 2,150 1,080 2,150 1,050
Rig Floor Wind Wall Height 15-19 15-19 20-25 10 114 15 15 15
Rig Floor Plan Area 2000-2499 2000-2499 2000-2499 1,600 3,988 Assumed Assumed Assumed
Rig Floor Projected Wind Area 850-1499 850-1499 1500-2499 850 12,996 Assumed Assumed Assumed

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 37 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Table 5.2: Mast Matrix

General Self Guyed

Description Mean Median Mode Minimum Maximum
Mast Erecting Mast
Manufacturers Pyramid WCI Skytop B
Top Drive Installations No Yes No
Pipe Handlers No Yes No
Design Standard API 4E API 4E API 4E API 4E API 4F API 4F
19,000- 19,000- 19,000-
Setback Capacity 21,000 21,000 21,000 3,000 32,000 26,691 20,460 13020
Set Back Plan Area 50-99 50-99 50-99 12 360 98 288 66
Set Back Projected Wind Area 2000-2299 2000-2299 2300-2499 510 5,184 2,520 2171 1416
Setback Configuration M M M M 4 M
Hook Load 500-999 500-999 25-500 25 2,500 1,275 1,000 410
Clear Height 120-139 120-139 120-139 48 170 152 150 119
Leg Construction T W W W W Tube
Application Land/Cant'l Land/Cant'l Land/Cant'l Jack-up Platform Guided
Racking Board Height 15-19 15-19 No Wall 8 60 15 15 No Wall
Racking Board Plan Area 100-299 100-299 100-299 144 513 405 520 No Wall
Racking Board Projected Wind Area 100-299 100-299 100-299 208 763 605 690 No Wall
Rig Floor Wind Wall Height 15-19 15-19 No Wall 8 60 25 15 No Wall
Rig Floor Plan Area 295-499 500-999 No Wall 296 2,860 Assumed Assumed No Wall
Rig Floor Projected Area 350-499 500-999 No Wall 352 2,870 Assumed Assumed No Wall

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 5-Page 38 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 6

DESKTOP ANALYSIS & INTERPRETATION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 6-Page 39 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

In the enhanced Joint Industry Project, “Measurement of Wind Load Resistance on Drilling
Structures”, a task performing desktop analysis of typical derricks and masts was enlarged to six
drilling structures. This task evaluated the structures using the current API 4F specification and
the proposed wind load method. The example problem (Best Practice Analysis), covered
previously, was one of these six structures. The other five structures were selected with the aid
of the previously described database and the database workgroup. These five structures were
subjected to the same analysis as used in the best practice analysis example problem.

After the six-structure wind analyses were performed using the two methodologies, one structure
was selected for evaluation by other wind load methodologies. A natural selection for the
structure used for these load calculations was the structure selected for the wind tunnel testing.
The voting Tier I sponsors selected between structures #2 and #3, the general mast and general
derrick. The voting sponsors selected the general derrick (structure #2) for testing in the wind
tunnel. The other methodologies include non-API wind methodologies, such as, national wind
codes and regulatory organizations.

6.1 DESKTOP WIND ANALYSIS

Present API 4F & Proposed Wind Load Methodology

Six structures were evaluated using the present and proposed API 4F methodologies. These six
structures were evaluated using the same format as described in the example problem. Refer to
Chapters 3 and 4 for an understanding of the procedure presented and the organizational format.

Table 6.1 list the six structures and identifies the manufacturers of these structures on which
wind loads were performed. Table 6.2 gives a description of the six selected structures. The
descriptive information covers the rig parameters requested for the database. In Appendix 6.1
are plots of the five remaining structures. Plots of the example structure were covered earlier.

In Appendix 6.2 are the wind load calculations for the remaining structures. Both calculation
methods are included for five structures (ten calculation packages). Tables 6.3 through 6.12 are

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 6-Page 40 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

wind load summary tables for the five structures. As in the example problem, the wind loads are
for 100-knot winds with the drill-floor evaluated at a 100-foot elevation. For the proposed
method the structures were evaluated for a 3-second gust wind. The present methodology does
not address the effects of wind gust.

6.2 INTERPRETATION OF ANALYSIS RESULTS

Non- API Methods

After completion of the two API 4F wind load methodologies, a task of evaluating one drilling
structure using other methodologies was performed. These methodologies were performed on
General Derrick (D2), which was also selected as the structure for the wind tunnel test structure.

The derrick’s wind loads were evaluated using the methodologies in the following documents:

ABS, “Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU)”,
American Bureau of Shipping, 1991

ASCE 7-99, ASCE Standard, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers.

AS 1170, Australian Standard, “Minimum Design Loads on Structures” (Known as the

SAA Loading Code) Part 2, Wind Loads.

BS 8100, British Standard, “Lattice Towers and Masts, Part 2, Guide to the background
and use of Part 1” “Code of practice for loading”.

As was used in the API 4F desktop analyses, the derrick was evaluated for a 100-knot, 3-second
gust (if applicable) wind and structure elevated 100 feet above the water.

Table 6.13 is a summary of results for the four different wind load methodologies. All “non-
API” methodologies used in the evaluation were for square trussed towers. These procedures

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 6-Page 41 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

appear to have the same basic method for determining the wind load but with several different
starting assumptions and also differ whether to add wind loads for attachments or appurtenances,
however, results are unreasonably low compared to other methodologies because of the
appurtenance issue. These documents usually call the appurtenances or attachments, ancillaries,
a term from the electrical tower industry. Most of the tower work was directed toward the
electrical industry.

ASCE 7-99 document is the simplest of the methods, which covers most of the aspects of wind
force prediction. It covers all aspect concerning the tower with regard to wind: varying solidity
ratios, appurtenances and diagonal winds. The AS1170 is very similar to the ASCE document
but does not address appurtenances. This Australian standard also has another method to address
member aspect ratio and inclination in a more complete manner than the other standards (this
method is the basis for the proposed method). The ABS method is very simple but only
addresses a tower with a 30% solidity ratio and does not address appurtenances or a diagonal
wind. In Appendix 6.3 is a brief investigation/explanation of the 1.25 drag coefficient. The
BS8100 is the most complex of the “non API methods” but very complete. This method
addresses gust effects not addressed by the API methods.

TABLE 6.1: JIP Structures Manufacturers Description

Structure Company
Best Practice Derrick T & T Engineering
General Derrick National Oilwell
General Mast MH Pyramid
Dynamic Derrick Woolslayer Companies Inc.
Self Erecting Mast Woolslayer Companies Inc.
Guyed Mast National Oilwell

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 6-Page 42 PN1996301

 Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.2: Characteristics of JIP Structures Evaluated

Company Name: JIP JIP JIP JIP JIP JIP

Substructure

Rig Name/Number: 1 - Best Practice 2 - General Derrick 3 - General Mast 4 - Dynamic Derrick 5 - Vert. Erect. Mast 6 - Guided Mast

Manufacturer NA NA NA NA NA NA

Substructure S/N NA NA NA NA NA NA

Date of Manufacture NA NA NA NA NA NA

Mast (M) or Derrick(D) D D M D M M

Derrick

Manufacturer T&T Engr Dreco Pyramid WCI WCI Skytop Brewster

Mast/

Mast/Derrick S/N NA H-D6670-D44 DA-M733-91-1 W-15263-GVI TV -07 115-XF-410

Date of Manufacture NA April 1, 1998 December 1, 1991 April 5, 1999 August 1, 1995 April 20, 1994

Top Drive Manufacturer Varco TDS 4 Varco TDS 4H Varco TDS 4 National Varco NA
Modifications by

Modifications by NA NA NA NA NA NA
Mast/Derrick

Contractor

Date NA NA NA NA NA NA

Pipe Handler Manufacturer NA NA NA Varco Varco Star Racking NA

Modifications by NA NA NA NA NA NA
MAST/DERRICK INFORMATION

Date NA NA NA NA NA NA

Design Standard API-4F API-4F API-4E API-4F API-4F API-4F

API Ratings (Name Plate if Available)

Racking Capacity (Lin. Feet) 25,500 25,366 26,691 33,820 20,460 13,020
No. 2 2 2 2 1 2
11 x 8 11 x 8 7.5 x 6.5 12 x 10 7.3 x 4.5
Length x Width List Each (feet) 22.33 x 12.9
7.5 x 10 7.5 x 10 7.5 x 6.5 12 x 10 7.3 x 4.5
Setback

Capacity (Lin. Feet) 25,500 25,366 26,691 14345 19475 20,460 13,020
Rack
T T T T T D
(Doubles D / Triples T)
Setback Config. Option
4 2 M 2 4 M
(See Sketches)
Hook Capacity (lbs.) 1,000,000 1,275,000 2,500,000 1,000,000 410,000

Guyed (G) or Freestanding (F) F F F F F G

Wind Velocity w/ Set Back (knots) 100 87 (100 mph) 120 2 70 mph

Wind Velocity w/o Set Back (knots) 107 100 (115 mph) 120 107 100 mph

Clear Height "D" (feet) NA NA NA NA NA NA

structure
Mast/Derrick Package

Sub-

Overall height "E" (feet) NA NA NA NA NA NA

Dimensions

Clear Height "A" (feet) 160 170 152 170 150 115
Mast/Derrick
Dimensions

Overall Height "B" (feet) 189.25 192.5 160 195 156 118.5

Length (Side) "S" (feet) 30 30 23 40 NA 130

Width "T" (feet) 30 30 30 40 NA 150

Wide Flange (W)
Member

Channel (C)
Leg

W W W W W Pipe
Angle (L)
Tube (T)
Land (L)
Type Application

Jack-up (J)
Semi-Submersible (S)
Drillship (D) ?? J BARGE J P G
Platform Rig (P)
Cantilever Mast (C)
Guided Mast (G)
Height "F" (feet) 15 15 10 25 15 NA
Racking
Board
NEOUS

Length "G" (feet) 35 38 22.25 43 26 NA

eights

Width "H" (feet) 35 34 19 43 20 NA

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 6-Page 43 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.3: JIP Structure 2 - General Derrick Summary of Results/Present

(30' Base X 169.625' Tall)

Analysis Using API 4F Present Wind Methodology

API 4F Present Methodology

Wind Low High

Direction
Position 1 Position 2 Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure
with All Accessories X 250.4 184.6 250.4 181.2 296.1 185.5 299.7 182.7
Y 230.6 186.7 230.6 182.6 269.9 187.5 273.6 184.9
45 242.4 185.8 242.4 182.0 443.7 181.4 450.4 178.9
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls
X 113.8 190.4 113.8 190.4 113.8 190.4 113.8 190.4
Y 108.4 189.0 108.4 189.0 108.4 182.2 108.4 189.0
45 111.1 190.4 111.1 190.4 154.9 189.2 154.9 189.2
Setback
X 56.6 146.5 56.6 146.5 56.6 146.5 56.6 146.5
Y 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5
45 46.7 146.5 46.7 146.5 115.1 146.5 115.1 146.5
Wind Walls
Only at Racking Board X 36.1 187.5 36.1 187.5 48.1 187.5 48.1 187.5
Y 39.5 187.5 39.5 187.5 52.7 187.5 52.7 187.5
45 37.9 187.5 37.9 187.5 71.3 187.5 71.3 187.5
Equipment
X 43.9 216.5 43.9 196.9 77.6 205.5 81.2 194.4
Y 48.6 208.9 48.6 189.5 74.8 213.7 78.5 194.1
45 46.8 212.6 46.8 193.1 102.4 204.6 109.1 192.7

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 44 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.4: JIP Structure 2 - General Derrick Summary of Results/Proposed

(30' Base X 169.625' Tall)

Analysis Using API 4F Proposed Methodology

Wind API 4F Proposed Method

Direction
Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure with all
Accessories X 261.7 184.8 265.6 182.6
Y 235.1 186.3 239.0 184.2
45 371.9 176.9 375.2 174.6
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole & Windwalls
X 112.3 190.5 112.3 190.5
Y 107.9 188.4 107.9 188.4
45 129.3 184.8 129.3 184.8
Setback
X 54.2 146.5 54.2 146.5
Y 32.5 146.5 32.5 146.5
45 116.6 146.5 116.6 146.5
Wind Walls
(Racking Board Only) X 20.1 187.5 20.1 187.5
Y 22.0 187.5 22.0 187.5
45 27.3 187.5 27.3 187.5
Equipment
X 75.2 203.0 79.1 194.8
Y 72.6 200.7 76.6 193.4
45 98.8 199.5 102.0 190.4

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 45 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.5: JIP Structure 3 - General Mast Summary of Results/Present

(30' Wide X 25' Deep X 152' Tall)

Analysis Using API 4F Present Wind Methodology

API 4F Present Methodology

Wind Low High

Direction
Position 1 Position 2 Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure with
All Accessories X 145.5 179.7 145.5 173.2 170.3 179.0 174.6 174.6
Y 169.0 175.5 169.0 170.4 196.0 175.6 200.2 171.7
45 159.3 177.0 159.3 171.3 283.2 175.6 290.6 171.8
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls
X 60.1 188.8 60.1 188.8 60.1 188.8 60.1 188.8
Y 71.0 189.3 71.0 189.3 71.0 181.0 71.0 189.3
45 65.8 188.8 65.8 188.8 91.0 189.2 91.0 189.2
Setback
X 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5
Y 56.6 146.5 56.6 146.5 56.6 146.5 56.6 146.5
45 46.7 146.5 46.7 146.5 90.5 146.5 90.5 146.5
Wind Walls
Only at Racking Board X 14.7 190.0 14.7 190.0 19.6 190.0 19.6 190.0
Y 12.5 190.0 12.5 190.0 16.7 190.0 16.7 190.0
45 13.6 190.0 13.6 190.0 25.6 190.0 25.6 190.0
Equipment
X 36.8 191.2 36.8 165.5 56.7 184.4 61.0 171.2
Y 28.9 191.9 28.9 162.0 51.7 195.3 55.9 169.2
45 33.3 191.3 33.3 163.9 76.0 189.1 83.4 174.8

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 46 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.6: JIP Structure 3 - General Mast Summary of Results/Proposed

(30' Wide X 25' Deep X 152' Tall)

Analysis Using API 4F Proposed Methodology

Wind API 4F Proposed Method

Direction
Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure with all
Accessories X 160.5 177.5 164.4 174.2
Y 179.0 174.9 182.9 172.0
45 242.0 179.4 245.7 176.0
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole & Windwalls
X 63.3 188.9 63.3 188.9
Y 67.6 190.2 67.6 190.2
45 90.5 187.9 90.5 187.9
Setback
X 33.9 146.5 33.9 146.5
Y 54.2 146.5 54.2 146.5
45 63.5 146.5 63.5 146.5
Wind Walls
(Racking Board Only) X 8.2 190.0 8.2 190.0
Y 7.0 190.0 7.0 190.0
45 10.3 190.0 10.3 190.0
Equipment
X 55.2 181.7 59.1 172.3
Y 50.3 183.0 54.2 172.4
45 77.7 195.0 81.3 184.1

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 47 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.7: JIP Structure 4 - Dynamic Derrick Summary of Results/Present

Analysis Using API 4F Present Wind Methodology

API 4F Present Methodology

Wind Low High

Direction
Position 1 Position 2 Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure
with
All Accessories X 374.5 184.1 374.5 179.0 448.6 184.4 455.7 181.0
Y 356.6 193.2 356.6 189.4 439.9 191.5 447.0 188.9
45 364.0 185.6 364.0 181.0 631.8 186.5 641.8 183.5
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls
X 162.3 190.3 162.3 190.3 162.3 190.3 162.3 190.3
Y 176.5 200.5 176.5 200.5 176.5 181.5 176.5 200.5
45 164.9 190.3 164.9 190.3 228.6 195.1 228.6 195.1
Setback
X 84.6 146.5 84.6 146.5 84.6 146.5 84.6 146.5
Y 49.8 146.5 49.8 146.5 49.8 146.5 49.8 146.5
45 69.4 146.5 69.4 146.5 110.1 146.5 110.1 146.5

Wind Walls
Only at Racking Board X 72.5 186.3 72.5 186.3 96.7 186.3 96.7 186.3
Y 72.5 186.3 72.5 186.3 96.7 186.3 96.7 186.3
45 72.5 186.3 72.5 186.3 136.7 186.3 136.7 186.3
Equipment
X 55.1 220.7 55.1 185.7 105.0 203.9 112.1 188.9
Y 57.9 219.7 57.9 196.3 117.0 230.0 124.1 191.5
45 57.2 218.3 57.2 189.2 156.4 202.2 166.4 189.9

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 48 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.8: JIP Structure 4 - Dynamic Derrick Summary of Results/Proposed

Analysis Using API 4F Proposed Methodology

Wind API 4F Proposed Method

Direction
Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure with all
Accessories X 392.0 184.2 397.8 181.7
Y 374.3 193.1 380.3 191.1
45 578.8 187.0 584.0 184.6
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole & Windwalls
X 172.9 189.9 172.9 189.9
Y 179.5 200.2 179.5 200.2
45 258.8 194.8 258.8 194.8
Setback
X 81.0 146.5 81.0 146.5
Y 49.6 146.5 49.6 146.5
45 111.6 146.5 111.6 146.5
Wind Walls
(Racking Board Only) X 40.3 186.3 40.3 186.3
Y 40.3 186.3 40.3 186.3
45 54.8 186.3 54.8 186.3
Equipment
X 97.9 204.7 103.6 193.9
Y 104.9 205.7 110.9 198.1
45 153.6 203.5 158.8 194.1

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 49 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.9: JIP Structure 5 - Vertical Erecting Mast Summary of Results/Present

Analysis Using API 4F Present Wind Methodology

API 4F Present Methodology

Wind Low High

Direction
Position 1 Position 2 Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft
Complete Structure
with All Accessories X 216.2 168.5 216.2 166.2 237.1 170.0 240.3 167.8
Y 188.7 172.6 188.7 170.6 215.3 174.1 218.6 172.2
45 204.2 170.2 204.2 168.0 290.3 174.4 295.8 172.0
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls
X 81.7 176.9 81.7 176.9 81.7 176.9 81.7 176.9
Y 72.8 178.4 72.8 178.4 72.8 184.8 72.8 178.4
45 77.4 176.9 77.4 176.9 106.8 178.0 106.8 178.0
Setback
X 84.2 146.5 84.2 146.5 84.2 146.5 84.2 146.5
Y 58.4 146.5 58.4 146.5 58.4 146.5 58.4 146.5
45 72.5 146.5 72.5 146.5 75.2 146.5 75.2 146.5
Wind Walls
Only at Racking Board X 27.7 192.0 27.7 192.0 36.9 192.0 36.9 192.0
Y 29.7 192.0 29.7 192.0 39.5 192.0 39.5 192.0
45 28.7 192.0 28.7 192.0 54.1 192.0 54.1 192.0
Equipment
X 22.6 192.0 22.6 169.2 34.3 187.5 37.4 172.2
Y 27.8 191.4 27.8 177.9 44.5 176.8 47.9 177.9
45 25.6 193.0 25.6 175.4 54.2 188.4 59.7 175.4

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 50 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.10: JIP Structure 5 - Vertical Erecting Mast Summary of Results/Proposed

Analysis Using API 4F Proposed Methodology

Wind API 4F Proposed Method

Direction
Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft

Complete Structure with all

Accessories X 205.0 167.0 208.4 165.3
Y 189.3 171.7 192.8 170.3
45 264.1 171.7 267.1 169.7
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole & Windwalls
X 85.0 177.1 85.0 177.1
Y 75.7 178.6 75.7 178.6
45 117.7 178.3 117.7 178.3
Setback
X 80.6 146.5 80.6 146.5
Y 55.9 146.5 55.9 146.5
45 76.2 146.5 76.2 146.5
Wind Walls
(Racking Board Only) X 8.5 192.0 8.5 192.0
Y 16.5 192.0 16.5 192.0
45 17.9 192.0 17.9 192.0
Equipment
X 30.9 185.7 34.3 173.5
Y 41.1 185.1 44.6 177.9
45 52.2 186.5 55.2 176.3

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 51 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.11: JIP Structure 6 - Guyed Mast Summary of Results/Present

Analysis Using API 4F Present Wind Methodology

API 4F Present Methodology
Wind Low High
Direction
Position 1 Position 2 Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft Kips Ft

Complete Structure
with All Accessories X 55.5 156.2 55.5 155.3 56.7 157.2 58.6 156.0
Y 56.1 155.6 56.1 154.2 57.4 156.6 59.2 155.0
45 55.8 156.2 55.8 155.0 73.8 156.7 76.8 154.9
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole &
Windwalls
X 30.5 158.5 30.5 158.5 30.5 158.5 30.5 158.5
Y 30.3 157.5 30.3 157.5 30.3 100.0 30.3 157.5
45 30.4 158.5 30.4 158.5 34.2 158.3 34.2 158.3
Setback
X 23.7 151.0 23.7 151.0 23.7 151.0 23.7 151.0
Y 24.5 151.0 24.5 151.0 24.5 151.0 24.5 151.0
45 24.1 151.0 24.1 151.0 36.1 151.0 36.1 151.0
Wind Walls
Only at Racking Board X 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Y 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
45 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Equipment
X 1.2 201.4 1.2 157.6 2.4 202.7 4.4 165.8
Y 1.4 196.0 1.4 137.4 2.6 863.6 4.4 160.1
45 1.3 198.5 1.3 146.9 3.5 200.8 6.5 159.2

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 52 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.12: JIP Structure 6 - Guyed Mast Summary of Results/Proposed

Analysis Using API 4F Proposed Methodology

Wind API 4F Proposed Method

Direction
Position 1 Position 2
Shear CG Shear CG
Kips Ft Kips Ft

Complete Structure with all

Accessories X 45.7 156.5 47.7 155.2
Y 46.4 157.9 48.3 156.1
45 65.1 157.4 66.9 155.7
Bare Str. w/o Ginpole & Windwalls
X 21.9 158.0 21.9 158.0
Y 22.6 160.8 22.6 160.8
45 28.4 160.6 28.4 160.6
Setback
X 21.9 151.0 21.9 151.0
Y 21.7 151.0 21.7 151.0
45 33.9 151.0 33.9 151.0
Wind Walls
(Racking Board Only) X 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
Y 0.0 100.0 0.0 100.0
45 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Equipment
X 1.9 202.5 3.9 163.4
Y 2.0 199.3 4.0 157.5
45 2.9 200.8 4.7 159.5

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 53 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 6.13: Interpretation of Results Summary

Evaluation by Non – API Methods

General Derrick
Structure Number 2

BARE FRAME w/WW COMPLETE

FRAME w/WW,
SETBACK, & EQUIP.
Evaluation Method Base Shear Base Shear
X-Dir 45 Deg X-Dir 45 Deg
(Kips) (Kips) (Kips) (Kips)

Current API 4F Method (Low) 149.9 149.0 250.4 242.0

Current API 4F Method (High) 161.9 226.2 296.1 443.7

Propose API 4F Method 132.4 156.6 261.7 371.9

ABS 134.0 N.C. 134.0 N.C.

ASCE 7-98 157.0 181.7 286.4 397.1

AS1170 141.8 166.2 141.8 166.2

BS8100 160.6 194.1 317.4 467.0

WW - Wind Walls
High - Best Practice Upper Bound
Low - Best Practice Lower Bound
N. C. – Not Covered

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 54 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 7

WIND LOAD EFFECTS

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 55 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Derricks and masts are used in various applications in the exploration of oil and gas. These
applications include mobile offshore drilling units (MODU), offshore platforms, floating units and
land operations. Depending on the application, a change in wind force may affect the operation of
the derrick/mast differently. The purpose of the “effects analysis” task is to evaluate any affect on
operation of the derrick/mast structures due to a change in wind loading calculation methodology.

Comprehensive analyses of six derrick/mast combinations were performed to predict the wind
forces using current API-4F and proposed method on derrick/mast structures. These desktop
analyses are based on the current API-4F and proposed practice as defined in these documents.

For the “effects analysis” to fully evaluate the proposed equation, the current and proposed method
will be presented and discussed. Recommendations for both methods will be provided as a way
forward.

The effects study will evaluate the results from implementing the practice using the 3-second gust
wind velocity currently required by the proposed practice. Since the current and proposed methods
use different approaches for calculation of wind force, this comparison will involve the
determination of height coefficients, wind velocity, and pressure in determining the wind force.
(Note: For the purpose of the effects study the pressure is a report specific definition).

The effect study will then compare the present and proposal wind load methods using the same
velocity and pressure for an assumed 1-hour wind. Included in this comparison will be the
proposed 1-hour wind prediction for ISO 19901-1. This latter practice is being developed for the
design of fixed offshore structures.

The methods compared will consider the effect of shielding with the pressure calculation. Finally
evaluating the desktop results for complete structures using a steady wind force assumption such as
1-hour wind will complete the effects analysis.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 56 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CURRENT AND PROPOSED METHODS

The current and proposed methods are based on Bernoulli’s Equation for flow. This equation is
modified with correction factors that are intended to match test results. Both methods use member
drag correction factors, with the proposed method adding additional factors to address additional
characteristics affecting the wind.

Height coefficients are included as a step-function in the current method and directly in the
proposed equation. The proposed method adjusts the wind velocity from a one-hour wind to a
three-second gust. This section presents the two equations used in the desktop analysis.

1. Current API Spec 4F Equations

The basic equation from API-Specification 4F is shown below. Included in the equation are
shape and height coefficients. Dividing both sides of the equation by the area (A), the quantity
has units of pressure. For the purpose of this report, Pz will be defined for convenience as
pressure.

F = 0.00338 x Vz2 x Cs x Ch x A (1)

Vz = Vref = Wind Velocity (Knots)
CS = 1.25 (Constant Shape Coefficient) (See Note)
Ch = Height Coefficient from Table (See Table in Specification)
A = Total Projected Area Perpendicular to the Direction of the Wind
Pz = F/A (2)
Combine Eqs. 1 and 2
Pz = 0.00338*Ch*Vref2

Note: The 1.25 is typically described as a shape factor. However, the derivation of this value
assumes a shielding factor of 0.85.

The API-4F specification requires that “wind forces for various design wind speeds shall be
calculated” for two conditions (with setback and without setback). Typically the user will

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 57 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001
specify wind velocity for dynamic derricks/masts but typically these specifications are based on
providing a steady wind velocity. As a result many manufacturer/designers use the referenced
wind velocities for the derrick/mast analysis for all design considerations unless the owner
modifies this assumption. Therefore, the same wind velocities are used for design of individual
members, global analysis of the derrick/mast (e.g. overturning, combined operating and wind),
and combined analysis for a derrick/mast system (platform, jack-up, semi-submersible etc…).

Many design practices, including API-RP2A, recommend lower gust time periods (e.g. 3
second) for design of individual members to ensure that these elements will not be overstressed
due to local peaks in velocity. As the component or structure increases in size, this practice
permit increase in return (15-second, 1-minute, and 1-hour) period to allow for reasonable
design of connections and assessment of global effects. A similar approach should be adopted
for the continued use of the current equation.

2. Proposed API-4F Equation

The proposed method expands the Bernoulli Equation to incorporated correction factors for
shielding (Ksh), Kar (member aspect ratio), and Ki (member inclination). This result in the
following equation:

F = 0.00338 x Ksh x Kar x Ki x Vz2 x Cs x A (3)

Terms defined in Specification 4F final draft (Appendix 2.1) page 3.

The proposed method provides both an onshore and offshore equation for determining the
design velocity (discussed later). These equations convert the reference 1-hour wind velocity
into a 3-second gust to be used in individual member design. The proposed method does not
provide guidance on other gust factors to be used in other design or assessment conditions. This
restricts the user, without outside information, in evaluating these structures for other purposes.

The height coefficient modifies the velocity term and as velocity is squared in the Bernoulli
Equation, this factor should also be squared to compare to equivalent factors in the current
method.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 58 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The proposed specification Section [Link] has two potentially confusing statements. The first
states:

“The reference wind velocities listed in Tables [Link] and [Link] are to be scaled by
the appropriate elevation factors to obtain the velocity to be used to estimate wind
forces per Paragraph 6.2.2”.

The onshore and offshore design velocities are adjusted to a 3-second-wind velocity and height
correction factor. This was confirmed by the “effects analysis” task. The API wind committee
should review and revise this language to avoid confusion and the possibility of “double
dipping” on height correction coefficient. This language may cause confusion with users of the
proposed practice as a result of including an additional height adjustment. The second
paragraph in Section [Link] has caused confusion in the design velocity:

“The design wind velocity is a five-second wind gust. The equations below include a
conversion from a one-hour duration wind to a wind with a three-second gust.”

The equations provided are intended for individual member design. However, in the method’s
brief existence this language has proven to be confusing. Also, the wording should be to a
single design wind velocity, 3-second or a 5 second.

The Pz term discussed in the current method will be again included to permit comparison of the
methods.

Onshore:
Vz = Vref x 2.17 x (Z/900) 0.105, knots (4)
P = F/A (5)
Combine Eqs. 3, 4, & 5; Set Ksh, Kar, Ki, Cs = 1.0
Pz = 0.00338 Vr*2.17 x (Z/900)0.105
By setting terms to unity, these terms can be investigated independently.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 59 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001
(Note: This equation is referenced from ASCE 7-95 and is developed for an exposure C
category. Exposure C is for open terrain with scattered obstructions, generally less than 30 feet
tall. The derivation of this equation is included in Appendix 7.1.)

A single correction constant for height and gust may be appropriate for derrick/mast structures
but separate equations permitting the user to calculate the gust and height terms independently
will add flexibility to the procedure.

Offshore:
Vz = Vref x [(Z/33)0.125] x [1 + 0.45 x (Z/66)-0.275], knots (6)
Z = Elevation above sea level, feet
Height Coefficient Ch = [(Z/33)0.125]
Gust Correction = [1 + 0.45 x (Z/66)-0.275]
Combine Eqs. 3,5, &6; Set Ksh, Kar, Ki Cs = 1.0
Pz = 0.00338 x Vref x [(Z/33)0.125] x [1 + 0.45 x (Z/66)-0.275]
By setting terms to unity, these terms can be investigated independently.

(Note: For offshore structures, velocity is adjusted for height and gust using a procedure from the
API-RP2A 20th edition)

EFFECT EVALUATION

The method described in the current “API Specification 4F” (API-4F) is based on a projected area
approach for calculating wind force of a derrick/mast. This approach has association to the “ABS
method” because of the reference in the API specification to ABS height and shape factors used in
the method. In the current method, the height coefficient is external to the calculation of velocity
whereas the new method uses this term to modify the velocity. This means an apparent difference
in the tables will appear due to the squaring of velocity in the proposed method.

A 100-knot 3-second gust wind velocity is assumed for the comparison of the current and proposed
methods. To compare the methods the velocity is calculated for both approaches and includes the
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 60 PN1996301
Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001
height coefficient. In the current API Spec 4F method the velocity is backed calculated from the
pressure multiplied by the height coefficient. As stated in the above discussion, the proposed
method starts with 1-hour wind velocity assumption that is adjusted in the velocity equation to a 3-
second wind. To match the 100-knot assumption for the current wind velocity approach for
member design, the proposed method required a 65-knot 1-hour wind be used in the proposed
equations of Section [Link] (reference). This results in the same 100-knot wind velocity at 10
meters reference elevation for both methods.

The results of the calculations are shown in Table 7.1 for the current, proposed onshore, and
proposed offshore methods. The results show the velocity for the onshore method increases from
the present API method. This is probably due to lower friction effects between winds moving over
water verses land. The proposed offshore method provides similar velocities up to 65.6 feet (20
meters) at which point the proposed offshore method actually predicts a smaller wind velocity than
the corresponding current API method.

The resulting equivalent wind pressure Pz is calculated for all methods as this value is used in the
force equation. The desktop analysis, discussed below, used the offshore approach to evaluate six
drilling structures. Due to this fact the “effects study” was limited to only the offshore equation.
When applicable, conclusions and recommendations are discussed for both onshore and offshore
equations.

Both the onshore and offshore wind pressure is compared to the current method. In Table 7.1, the
percentage change from the current API method is calculated and shows that the resulting pressure
for the onshore equation increases above the 10-meter reference elevation. In contrast, the offshore
equation results in an equal or smaller pressure for the proposed methodology 3-second gust. This
is more clearly shown in Figure 7.1. In this figure the pressure for the proposed offshore, current
API-4F, and proposed onshore methods are plotted. One may conclude, when only pressure is
assumed, the results from an analysis using the proposed method in a 3-second gust condition will
affect an onshore structure but the offshore will not be affected (or may be improved slightly). The
increased onshore pressure appears to be the result of the higher surface friction (ground versus
water) and the exclusion of the ASCE7-98’s rigid structure gust effect factor, 0.85, in the derivation.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 61 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

For the current API-4F method, it has been assumed the height coefficient will not change from the
3-second gust and these values are used from the previous calculations. The current method does
not differentiate between different wind gusts. Therefore, the velocity, and pressure are the same as
previously calculated. In the proposed offshore method, the 3-second gust velocity and pressure are
modified to a 1-hour wind to allow for evaluating the affect the proposed methodology would have
on derrick/mast use when compared to current practice. Finally, the proposed international standard
for calculating wind force (ISO 19901-1) is included for comparison to the proposed method. The
results of these calculations are summarized in Table 7.2. Since the gust and height correction
factor are not easily extracted from the onshore equation, a 1-hour wind velocity comparison was
not considered.

As with the 3-second gust comparison, the wind velocity and pressure parameters are used to
evaluate the affect of the proposed methodology on the wind force prediction. Implementing the
proposed method increases the wind pressure as the desired elevation moves above the reference
elevation. The increase in pressure is approximately 120% with a maximum of 124%. However,
this ignores the other wind force modifiers including shielding discussed below.

The wind committee may consider changing the current or proposed methods to the ISO wind
approach (height and gust) in a future revision. When the ISO and proposed method are compared,
the values are found to be similar. The ISO method is more conservative by approximately 8%.
Therefore, for a 1-hour wind condition the resulting wind force would be greater than the proposed
method. This fact should be included in any consideration of adopting the ISO wind approach.

The current method includes shielding in the drag coefficient of 1.25. The proposed methodology
includes a factor of 0.85 for structural shielding (Ksh). This is a constant applied to the wind force
equation that is not affected by elevation or member characteristics. The shielding coefficient is
applied to the calculated equivalent pressure for the onshore and offshore methods (3-second and 1-
hour wind velocities). The pressures are then compared to the current API 4F specification and the
results reported as percentage of the current method and presented in Table 7.3. Similar pressure
were predicted for the current and proposed onshore method when shielding is included. For the
Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 62 PN1996301
Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001
offshore method, the 3-second gust is approximately 75-80% of the current method for the 3-second
gust condition and the 1-hour wind slightly larger than the current method. This difference is due to
the fact the present method does not address gusting effects.

Therefore, including the height, gust, and structural shielding in the proposed methodology, and
excluding the member characteristics, the proposed method will provide an equivalent (onshore) or
smaller (offshore) member design for a 3-second gust condition. An equivalent design will result
for the 1-hour offshore conditions. Other wind gust assumptions will be between these two gust
velocities.

The current method has the one remaining variable (Cd = 1.25) to evaluate. The proposed method
has shape coefficients associated with member type. This method also includes coefficients for
aspect ratio and angle. To evaluate these characteristics the global structure is evaluated.

As FEA program developers included automated load generating options in their products, as in
StruCAD*3D, the industry moved away from the block approach to automated load generation.
The use of the ABS shape factor of 1.25 was applied to individual elements in a derrick/mast
structure analysis. The “current” procedure, referenced in this report, uses the desktop analysis (see
Chapter 6) results. The FEA model used a shape factor of 1.25 for all elements.

As the API Method evolved among the designer/manufactures independent interpretations of the
API-4F specifications were implemented. This resulted in a lack of consistent application between
the designer/manufacturers. For example, some designer/manufacturers method of calculating a
diagonal wind equals the wind load on a face of a structure (see best practice Figure 2.1). The API-
4F committee proposed an alternate method for API 4F that expands the recommended shape
coefficients and provided a constant shielding value. The JIP “Measurement of Wind Load
Resistance on Drilling Structures” analyzed representative derrick/mast structures in the desktop
analysis task to compare the wind force results from the current and proposed methodology.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 63 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001
The proposed method in the desktop analysis is based on a 3-second wind gust. For the current
method a referenced wind velocity of 100-knot was assumed for calculating wind forces. Using the
conversion, a steady 1-hour wind velocity of 66.67 would correspond to the assumed 100-knots 3-
second gust, which is used in the proposed equation. The current method does not address the use of
gust factors but the proposed method is for a 3 second gust of 100 knots. Therefore, the resulting
100 knots used in both cases represents an equivalent comparison of global effects. To the
reference wind velocities the height corrections are applied.

The shape coefficient of 1.25 is used for the current analysis method. The proposed method has
shape coefficients based on the member type or construction as shown in the following examples.
Wind walls are addressed in the proposed method.

Sharp Edge Members (WF, Angles, Tee, Channel) 1.8

Built-up Members 2.0
Square and Rectangular Tube 1.5
Round Pipe 0.8

Included in the proposed method are additional member characteristics for aspect ratio and
inclination. The results from the desktop analysis for current and proposed methods are extracted
from the desktop analysis and incorporated into one table for each of the six structures (see
Appendix 7.2: General Information Section). Results of the desktop analyses are manipulated and
summarized in Table 7.4.

Included in the desktop analysis is equipment such as traveling block, top drive, and pipe handling
systems. Equipment represents a significant percentage of the total wind force as seen in Table 7.4.

The lower bound values contain two columns to represent different assumptions for diagonal wind.
As reported above, some designer/manufacturers assume the diagonal wind factor of 0.707 resulting
in the same wind force as on the face of the structure. This effectively reduces the equivalent area.
To evaluate this assumption, one table column (“Lower Bound w/o Scale Fac.”) represents a

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 64 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001
condition where the diagonal assumption is ignored. When using the lower bound assumptions
without the 0.707 factor, results are found to be within 10-12% of the current prediction for the 45-
degree assumption. This range would have minimal effect on the global structure. The second
lower bound table column (“Lower Bound w/Scale Fac.”) includes the lower bound assumption for
diagonal wind. In this column we see a decrease in wind force as great as 28% when compared to
the proposed methodology. This will have an affect on the design of a derrick or mast. Any
designer/manufacturers using the diagonal scale factor approach should demonstrate the factor is
appropriate to their structure.

The actual comparison of results for the current and proposed methods likely fall between the lower
and upper bound “best practice” assumptions. Without performing an analysis of each current
derrick/mast structure and including each designer/manufacturer assumptions in the analysis a
definitive conclusion cannot be made. However, based on the results of this study, the two
methods, when all factors are included, result in similar wind force predictions. Therefore, a study
of individual affect on application (land, jack-up operation, platform, etc.) is not needed.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 65 PN1996301

 Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 7.1: Comparison of Wind Velocity and Pressure/Height and Gust Effects/3 Second Gust
Comparison of Wind Velocity and Pressure
Evaluation Height and Gust Effects
(3 Second Gust Assumption)
Reference Wind Velocity (Uo), 1 hour 65 knots
Reference Wind Velocity (Uo), 3 sec. gust 100 knots
API Spec 4F and Proposed Onshore API-4F
Elevation Z ABS MODU Practice (with 3 second Gust Correction)
(feet) ABS Velocity Pressure Height & Gust Velocity Pressure Percent Chg
Coefficient (knots) (psf) Correction (knots) (psf) Current API
0.0 1.00 100.0 33.80 1.53 100.01 33.80 100%
32.8 1.00 100.0 33.80 1.53 100.01 33.80 100%
65.6 1.03 101.5 34.84 1.65 107.56 39.10 112%
98.4 1.10 104.7 37.07 1.72 112.23 42.58 115%
147.6 1.19 109.2 40.34 1.79 117.12 46.36 115%
196.9 1.29 113.7 43.71 1.85 120.71 49.25 113%
246.1 1.37 116.8 46.15 1.89 123.57 51.61 112%
295.3 1.42 119.3 48.14 1.93 125.96 53.62 111%
344.5 1.48 121.4 49.85 1.96 128.01 55.39 111%
393.7 1.51 123.1 51.20 1.99 129.82 56.96 111%
442.9 1.55 124.7 52.55 2.01 131.43 58.39 111%
492.2 1.59 126.2 53.86 2.04 132.90 59.70 111%
541.4 1.63 127.5 54.92 2.06 134.23 60.90 111%
590.6 1.66 128.9 56.18 2.08 135.47 62.03 110%
639.8 1.69 130.2 57.26 2.09 136.61 63.08 110%
656.2 1.70 130.5 57.55 2.10 136.97 63.41 110%
API Spec 4F and Proposed Offshore API-4F
Elevation Z ABS MODU Practice (with 3 second Gust Correction)
(feet) ABS Velocity Pressure Height Gust Factor Combined Velocity Pressure Percent Chg
Coefficient (knots) (psf) Coefficient Correction Correction (knots) (psf) Current API
0.0 1.00 100.0 33.8 1.00 1.55 1.54 100.0 33.79 100%
32.8 1.00 100.0 33.8 1.00 1.55 1.54 100.0 33.79 100%
65.6 1.03 101.5 34.8 1.09 1.45 1.58 102.4 35.42 102%
98.4 1.10 104.7 37.1 1.15 1.40 1.61 104.2 36.67 99%
147.6 1.19 109.2 40.3 1.21 1.36 1.64 106.2 38.15 95%
196.9 1.29 113.7 43.7 1.25 1.33 1.67 107.9 39.36 90%
246.1 1.37 116.8 46.1 1.29 1.31 1.69 109.3 40.39 88%
295.3 1.42 119.3 48.1 1.32 1.30 1.71 110.5 41.30 86%
344.5 1.48 121.4 49.9 1.34 1.29 1.72 111.6 42.10 84%
393.7 1.51 123.1 51.2 1.36 1.28 1.74 112.6 42.84 84%
442.9 1.55 124.7 52.5 1.38 1.27 1.75 113.5 43.51 83%
492.2 1.59 126.2 53.9 1.40 1.26 1.76 114.3 44.14 82%
541.4 1.63 127.5 54.9 1.42 1.25 1.78 115.0 44.72 81%
590.6 1.66 128.9 56.2 1.43 1.25 1.79 115.7 45.27 81%
639.8 1.69 130.2 57.3 1.45 1.24 1.80 116.4 45.79 80%
656.2 1.70 130.5 57.5 1.45 1.24 1.80 116.6 45.96 80%
Note: 1) The Percent Change to Current API is based on a comparison of calculated proposed pressure compared to the
current API method.
2) The shaded area represents typical range of elevations for drilling structures exposed to wind loading for onshore
and offshore application..

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 66 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 7.2: Comparison of Wind Velocity and Pressure/1-hour Steady Wind Velocity

Comparison of Wind Velocity and Pressure

(1-hour Steady Wind Velocity Assumption)
Referenced Wind Velocity 1-hour 100

API Spec 4F and ISO 19901-1 Proposed Offshore API-4F

Elevation Z ABS MODU Practice 1 Hour Wind (for 1-hr Wind Velocity)
(feet) ABS Velocity Pressure Velocity Pressure Height Velocity Pressure Percent Chg
Coefficient (knots) (psf) (knots) (psf) Coefficient (knots) (psf) Current API
0.0 1.00 100.0 33.80 100.0 33.80 1.00 100.0 33.80 100%
32.8 1.00 100.0 33.80 100.0 33.80 1.00 100.0 33.80 100%
65.6 1.03 101.5 34.84 111.7 42.19 1.09 109.0 40.19 115%
98.4 1.10 104.7 37.07 118.6 47.53 1.15 114.7 44.48 120%
147.6 1.19 109.2 40.34 125.4 53.19 1.21 120.7 49.23 122%
196.9 1.29 113.7 43.71 130.3 57.40 1.25 125.1 52.90 121%
246.1 1.37 116.8 46.15 134.1 60.78 1.29 128.6 55.93 121%
295.3 1.42 119.3 48.14 137.2 63.60 1.32 131.6 58.54 122%
344.5 1.48 121.4 49.85 139.8 66.05 1.34 134.2 60.84 122%
393.7 1.51 123.1 51.20 142.0 68.20 1.36 136.4 62.91 123%
442.9 1.55 124.7 52.55 144.0 70.13 1.38 138.4 64.79 123%
492.2 1.59 126.2 53.86 145.8 71.87 1.40 140.3 66.52 123%
541.4 1.63 127.5 54.92 147.4 73.47 1.42 142.0 68.12 124%
590.6 1.66 128.9 56.18 148.9 74.94 1.43 143.5 69.62 124%
639.8 1.69 130.2 57.26 150.3 76.31 1.45 145.0 71.02 124%
656.2 1.70 130.5 57.55 150.7 76.75 1.45 145.4 71.48 124%

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 67 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 7.3: Comparison of Wind Pressure/Shielding Correction/1-hour Stead Wind Velocity

Comparison of Wind Pressure with Shielding (Ksh) Correction

(1-hour Steady Wind Velocity Assumption)
Shielding Correction Factor Ksh = 0.85
Proposed Offshore API-4F
Current Proposed Onshore API-4F
(with Correction)
Elevation Z API Spec 4F (3 second Gust Correction)
3 second Gust 1 Hour Wind
(feet)
Pressure Pressure Percent Chg Pressure Percent Chg Pressure Percent Chg
(psf) w/ Ksh (psf) Current API w/ Ksh (psf) Current API w/ Ksh (psf) Current API
0.0 33.80 28.73 85% 28.72 85% 28.73 85%
32.8 33.80 28.73 85% 28.72 85% 28.73 85%
65.6 34.84 33.24 95% 30.10 86% 34.16 98%
98.4 37.07 36.19 98% 31.17 84% 37.81 102%
147.6 40.34 39.41 98% 32.43 80% 41.84 104%
196.9 43.71 41.86 96% 33.46 77% 44.96 103%
246.1 46.15 43.87 95% 34.33 74% 47.54 103%
295.3 48.14 45.58 95% 35.10 73% 49.76 103%
344.5 49.85 47.08 94% 35.79 72% 51.71 104%
393.7 51.20 48.42 95% 36.41 71% 53.47 104%
442.9 52.55 49.63 94% 36.99 70% 55.07 105%
492.2 53.86 50.74 94% 37.52 70% 56.54 105%
541.4 54.92 51.77 94% 38.02 69% 57.90 105%
590.6 56.18 52.72 94% 38.48 68% 59.17 105%
639.8 57.26 53.62 94% 38.92 68% 60.37 105%
656.2 57.55 53.90 94% 39.06 68% 60.75 106%

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 68 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

TABLE 7.4: Effect on Wind Force Prediction

Effect on Wind Force Prediction

Equipment Average Wind Force Increase
Description
Wind Force Increase (Propose/Current)
Present Lower Bound Lower Bound Upper
Derrick/Mast Proposed
(High) w/o Scale Fac w/Scale Fac Bound
Best Practice Derrick 35% 37% 115% 128% 89%
General Derrick 27% 30% 105% 122% 86%
General Mast 35% 36% 111% 125% 90%
Dynamic Derrick 23.4% 26% 106% 124% 88%
Vertically Erecting Mast 16% 16% 99% 110% 88%
Guided Mast 7% 8% 86% 97% 83%

Note: Two tables are provided for the Best Practice low comparison. The best practice low
includes an assumption for a 0.707 scale factor for diagonal winds. Including this
assumption increases the effect of the proposed methodology. However, using a typical
approach of calculating wind force in "X" and "Y" direction and combining these for off
diagonal wind results in a better comparison between the two methods.

3-Second Gust Comparison

700
Current API-4F
600 API-4F Onshore
Offshore Offshore
500
Elevation (feet)

400 Onshore

300

200

100

0
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70

Pressure (ksf)

Figure 7.1: Proposed “Offshore” and “Onshore” Compared to Present “API-4F”

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 7-Page 69 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 8

CONCLUSION FROM “PHASE I” STUDY

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 8-Page 70 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

Phase I, Desktop Analysis, of the JIP included specific objectives to be satisfied by the desktop
analysis. These objectives were completed and have been discussed in the previous chapters.
Conclusions from these studies are summarized below.

The present method is incomplete requiring the designer to use interpretation of API
Specification 4F. Manufacturers make many assumptions in performing wind load analysis
using current API-4F. Among manufacturers, these assumptions differ as seen by best practice
high/low conditions. The list of items in the best practice document illustrates the need for a
change. The present wind load methodology needs to be modified or replaced.

The desktop analysis uses the StruCAD*3D FEA package in the desktop analysis. An
independent verification of the StruCAD*3D wind force prediction was performed. This check
demonstrated the StruCAD*3D wind loads were correctly calculated according to the proposed
methodology.

The desktop analyses included the current specification with best practice in the wind force
prediction of derricks and masts. The current and proposed methods compare favorably.

The text in the proposed methodology has resulted in “test case” users misinterpreting the gust
velocity for calculated global wind forces. This resulted in an over-prediction of the wind force
when calculating the total global wind force for comparing the two methods.

A commonly perceived belief that a smaller wind force would result from stowing the traveling
block at the drill floor was found to be invalid. The results of the desktop analysis show the total
shear force is greater when the traveling block is at the drill floor and the moments are about
equal for both positions. This is due to the wire rope between the crown and traveling block.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 8-Page 71 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

For operations, it is better to keep traveling equipment near the drill floor where is can be
restrained.

The database proved to be a valuable tool in selecting structures for the desktop analysis. The pie
charts will be useful to evaluate the applicability of future analysis results for the range of drill
structures. The project sponsors may find additional use for the database not recognized by the
project. The database, charts, and statistics created from drilling contractor submittals confirmed
the general mast and derrick selected early in the project were representative of typical structures
that would be subjected to wind calculations.

A parameter outside the statistical base is the racking board wind wall area. This outlier is due to
the structures investigated are of recent construction and these designs have larger wind walls.
This increase in wind wall force is reported as a separate item in the desktop analysis results.
This permits the analyst to exclude these effects when comparing wind force predictions between
methods.

Equipment wind load was found to contribute equally and significantly to both the current API-
4F and proposed methods. The affect on the calculated wind force may be as much as 36% of
the total wind force. The impact of this load is significant. Therefore, equipment should be
included in an analysis of drilling structures.

The lower and upper bound current methodology compare favorably to the proposed method
when the diagonal scale factor of 0.707 is ignored. The structures diagonal wind force, using the
0.707 scale factor method (see Figure 2.1), results in approximately 20% less wind force when
compared to the proposed method and the projected area method.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 8-Page 72 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

A 3-second gust velocity comparison showed the proposed onshore equation would predict
higher calculated wind pressure while the proposed offshore equation would result in equal or
smaller pressure when compared to the current API-4F method. This is due to the higher ground
surface frictional effects compared to a water surface effect and the exclusion of the ASCE7-98’s
rigid structure gust effect factor, 0.85, in the derivation.

The proposed method addresses local member design only but no guidance was given for overall
structural wind loads. The current methodology does not address gusting effects.

For the 1-hour wind, the proposed offshore calculated wind pressure was 20% over the current
methodology. However, incorporating the shielding factor reduced the wind pressure for the 1-
hour wind to a general equivalent condition. The wind tunnel tests will aid in the validation of
the shielding factor in the proposed methodology. This was one of the original objectives of the
proposed wind testing.

Where similar assumptions for velocity and elevation of structure are made, the results of the two
methods are reasonably close. As a result, the effect on the drilling contractor operations should
be negligible.

The proposed simplified approach is given in the Best Practice Example. The frame’s wind load,
as documented, is from StruCAD*3D wind load evaluation. The manufacturer may provide this
information. A good alternative for wind load on the derrick frame is the method given in
ASCE7-98. The ABS method showed good agreement for the wind on a face of a derrick but
did not give guidance for diagonal wind across the derrick. The ABS method is based on a
frame structure with 30% solidity ratio, where ASCE permits variable solidity ratios.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 8-Page 73 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

CHAPTER 9

RECOMMENDATIONS “PHASE I” STUDIES

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 9-Page 74 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The wind loads reported for the best practice example structure were developed using the current
published API-4F specification with additional guidance listed in “best practice” document. For
the immediate future, the additional guidance required to perform a consistent wind calculation
should be disseminated to the industry while the current API-4F method is modified or the new
method adopted. The final API-4F document may be a combination of both methods.

Regardless of the method used, the drilling equipment is found to contribute significantly to the
calculated wind force. Equipment exposed to wind should be included in calculations.

The use of the 0.707 diagonal scale factor should not be used. If a designer/manufacture
incorporates a scale factor in a design then the factor used must be validated by wind tunnel
testing or existing test data.

Other practices (including API RP2A) recommend different wind gust velocities for member and
system design. The owners and designer/manufacturer should develop guidelines for the
inclusion of gust factors and definitions for use in the design and assessment of drilling
structures. These guidelines can be forwarded to the API-4F committee for inclusion in the
specification.

The proposed “Onshore Method” and “Offshore Methods” should include gust and height
correction factor as separate terms in the velocity equation. This will permit the
design/assessment of drilling structures to evaluate different wind gust velocities in member and
system design. Separate terms will allow the designer/manufacturer to adopt correction factors
from other design practice.

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 9-Page 75 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

The API-4F wind committee should make available the derivation of their proposed equations.
The review of the onshore equation should include consideration of the ASCE7-98’s rigid
structure gust effect factor, 0.85, previously ignored.

In the proposed specification Section [Link] is potentially confusing with respect to the
application of height coefficients in the velocity equation. The height correction is built into the
velocity equations. Since the height correction term is not identified in the velocity equation, the
following statement may result in incorporating an additional height correction.

Section [Link] says, “The reference wind velocities listed in Tables [Link] and
[Link] are to be scaled by the appropriate elevation factors to obtain the velocity to
be used to estimate wind forces per Paragraph 6.2.2”.

Both methods are based on imperial units. For ISO standards, equivalent SI units should be
developed.

In checking StruCAD*3D’s wind load processor it was learned, for the projected area method,
StruCAD*3D treats an angle as a square or rectangular section. In their velocity component
approach (proposed methodology) for determining wind loads, the angle is correctly evaluated.
Users of this program should be made aware of this characteristic. The program developer
(Zentech) should document the velocity component approach and make users aware of the
projected area limitation.

In the definition of areas in the proposed method document, the areas definition should be fully
described. The area term only covers beam members but does not cover wind walls or
equipment areas. In addition, for wind walls, guidance for other angles of attached besides 0 and
45° should be developed and shielding of equipment behind windwalls should be considered.
The committee may consider a slope method (see page 7).

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Chapter 9-Page 76 PN1996301

Wind Loads in Drilling Structures CONFIDENTIAL December 2001

BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABS, “Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units (MODU)”,
American Bureau of Shipping, 1991
ASCE 7-95, ASCE Standard, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers, 1996.
ASCE 7-98, ASCE Standard, “Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other
Structures”, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2000.
AS 1170.2, “Minimum Design Loads on Structures” (Known as the SAA Loading Code)
Part 2, Wind Loads, Australian Standard, 1989.
BS 8100 : Part 2 : 1986, British Standard, “Lattice Towers and Masts, Part 2, Guide to
the background and use of Part 1” “Code of practice for loading”, British Standards
Institute, 1986.
Specification for Drilling and Well Servicing Structures, API Specification 4F, Second
Edition, American Petroleum Institute, June 1, 1995,
Draft Specification for Drilling and Well Servicing Structures (Wind), API Specification
4F, API Specification 4F Committee.
API RP2A-WSD “Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing
Fixed Offshore Platforms – Working Stress Design” 20th Edition, July 1, 1993
“Wind Effects on Structures”, 3rd Edition by Emil Simiu and Robert [Link], John
Wiley & Son, Inc., 1996
“Applied Fluid Dynamics Handbook”, by Robert D. Blevins, Krieger Publishing Co.,
1984

Stress Engineering Services, Inc. Page 77 PN1996301