Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1 -- 2455 2022-07-21 12:42:02 |
2 update references and layout Meta information modification 2455 2022-07-22 03:26:37 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?


Are you sure to Delete?
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Amaechi, C.V.;  Reda, A.;  Butler, H.O.;  Ja’e, I.A.;  An, C. Design Considerations of Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures. Encyclopedia. Available online: (accessed on 21 June 2024).
Amaechi CV,  Reda A,  Butler HO,  Ja’e IA,  An C. Design Considerations of Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures. Encyclopedia. Available at: Accessed June 21, 2024.
Amaechi, Chiemela Victor, Ahmed Reda, Harrison Obed Butler, Idris Ahmed Ja’e, Chen An. "Design Considerations of Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures" Encyclopedia, (accessed June 21, 2024).
Amaechi, C.V.,  Reda, A.,  Butler, H.O.,  Ja’e, I.A., & An, C. (2022, July 21). Design Considerations of Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures. In Encyclopedia.
Amaechi, Chiemela Victor, et al. "Design Considerations of Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures." Encyclopedia. Web. 21 July, 2022.
Design Considerations of Fixed and Floating Offshore Structures

Offshore structures exist in a variety of forms, and they are used for a variety of functions in varied sea depths. These structures are tailored for certain environments and sea depths and other design considerations. 

offshore structure offshore platform fixed platform floating platform

1. Introduction

Oil and gas facilities include offshore structures and onshore structures, onshore oil tanks, as well as both downstream and upstream assets [1][2][3]. Although offshore wind farm facilities are renewable energy facilities, while Very Large Floating Structures (VLFS) could have offshore applications, they are sometimes classified as offshore structures. However, the main categories include fixed and floating offshore structures [4][5][6]. Fixed offshore structures, monopods, and guyed wire caissons are examples of offshore structures. In the same vein, complex deep water assets such as Floating Production and Storage Offloading (FPSO), Mobile Offshore Production Unit (MOPU), Tension Leg Platform (TLP), and semi-submersible structures, are also examples of offshore structures. Advances in ocean engineering are currently being undertaken, with a variety of new offshore structure designs spanning from fixed platforms to floating platforms [6][7][8][9][10]. These offshore platforms can also be used for dynamic positioning, exploratory activities, drilling/production, navigation, ship (un)loading, fluid transport, and bridge support [11][12][13][14][15][16]. Hence, the facilities on the offshore structures require project management, asset/facilities management, and general maintenance. In addition, there are supporting attachments for these offshore installations that are used for a variety of functions and in a variety of water depths and environments globally. These components included drilling/production marine risers [17][18][19][20][21][22][23], composite risers [24][25][26][27][28][29][30], mooring lines [31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39], and marine hoses [40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49]. Figure 1 depicts some offshore platform installations.
Figure 1. Different types of deep-water offshore facilities for drilling and production, showing land rig/onshore platform {10–100 m}, conventional fixed platforms{150–412 m}, jacket platform {150–412 m}, semisubmersibles {457–1920 m}; floating production, storage and offloading (FPSO) unit {1345–1500 m}; tension leg platform (TLP) {457–2134 m}; Truss SPAR {610–3048 m}; subsea wellhead, completion and tieback to a host facility, and subsea manifold.
Offshore platforms have been employed in a variety of aquatic situations and could be used as artificial reefs for many years. As a result, designing and maintaining them is incredibly challenging. Hence, careful consideration should be given to the design and maintenance of offshore structures in order to avoid early decommissioning, significant corrosion hazards, oil spillage, and other permanent environmental damage. Different activities for proper equipment selection [50][51][52][53][54][55][56][57], design of platform types [58][59][60][61][62][63][64], engineering management of well bores [65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73], and other drilling/production procedures [74][75][76][77][78][79][80] are required for the uses of these off-shore structures. One of the most obvious of these applications is offshore oil production, which presents a substantial challenge to the product designer or offshore engineer [81][82][83]. Environmental loadings [84][85][86][87][88], hydrodynamics [89][90][91][92][93][94][95][96], hydroelasticity [97], corrosion [98], failure analysis [99], ocean wave mechanics [100][101][102][103][104][105][106][107][108], fluid content loadings [109][110][111][112][113][114][115], fatigue limits [116][117][118][119][120], reliability [121][122][123][124][125][126][127][128], and so on are all factors to consider during the design process. As a result, the designer must ensure that the product is safe, stable, has a high fatigue resistance, has a long service life, and is cost-effective for the customer. Secondly, it is important that these offshore structures have high service life to ensure sustainability and durability, so that the oil producers can produce enough oil and gas products to meet the global demand. Figure 2 shows the daily demand for crude oil globally, showing dependence on fossil fuels.
Figure 2. Daily demand for crude oil worldwide from 2006 to 2020, with a forecast until 2026 (in million barrels per day) {** shows the predicted daily demand from the forecast} (Courtesy: IEA & Statista, data retrieved in 2021).
Since offshore structures are exposed to extremely harsh marine environments and changing sea depths, these offshore assets must generally run securely for at least twenty-five (25) years. As a result, the designs are carried out using peak loads generated by hurricane wind and waves during the platform design life [129][130][131][132][133][134][135]. In addition, fatigue loads induced by waves over the platform’s lifetime, as well as platform motion, are all essential design challenges addressed by standards [136][137][138][139][140][141][142][143][144][145][146][147][148][149][150][151][152]. Strong currents can occasionally impact the platforms, putting the integrity of the entire system at a threat, hence the need for designing offshore structures against harsh weather conditions [153][154][155][156][157]. To ensure the integrity of the structure is maintained, monitoring is essential for the design [158][159]. Furthermore, the scale of an offshore structure is considered during the design for its stability and hydrodynamics [159][160][161][162][163]. The material density is also taken into account in the design. The majority of offshore platforms are built in shipyards using enormous steel or in-situ using concrete, as is the case with gravity-based structures. These fixed and floating offshore constructions are mostly utilised for energy generating or oil production, while some are used as breakwater devices and wave-energy converters (WECs) [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173]. Offshore platforms can be small or massive, depending on the functionality. However, offshore structures are recorded as among the world’s highest man-made structures built. Also, the material grade must have high corrosion resistance to be used in ocean environments, such as high-grade steel [174][175][176][177][178][179]. The oil and gas are separated on the platform and transported to shore via pipelines or tankers [180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187][188][189][190][191][192]. The lifting, transportation, installation, design, fabrication, and commissioning of these offshore platforms must all be carefully planned to meet these goals [193][194][195][196][197][198][199][200][201][202][203]. The foundation of this semi-submersible in deeper waters requires excellent payload integration [204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212] for minimal motion responses across all degrees of freedom (DoF) due to the direction of the superstructure [213][214][215].

2. Design Considerations

The development and design of floating and fixed platforms are based on some design criteria. All operating considerations and environmental data that potentially affect the platform’s detailed design are included in the design parameters discussed here.

2.1. Operational Factors

2.1.1. Location

Before the design is finished and the work is completed on the engineering design layout, the platform’s position should be determined. Environmental circumstances vary by location; within a particular geographic area, foundation conditions, as well as design wave heights, periods, and tides, will differ. Figure 3 shows some floating structures like the drilling barge used during early explorations in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), USA. The details of some platforms are given in Table 1.
Figure 3. Drilling structures used during early explorations in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM) showing (a) floating barge, (b) typical offshore drilling rig, (c) service vessel, (d) tugboat, and (e) FPSO vessel.
Table 1. Some deep sea facilities with installation details.
Platforms Sea Depths Installed Years Platform Type Oil Field
Perdido 2450.0 m 2010 SPAR GoM
Thunder Horse 1841.0 m 2010 SemiSubmersible GoM
Magnolia 1400.0 m 2003 ETLP GoM
Mad dog 1311.0 m 2005 SPAR GoM
Bonga 1000.0 m 2005 FPSO Nigeria
Marlin 988.0 m 1999 TLP GoM
Ram-Powell 980.0 m 1997 TLP GoM
Olympus 914.0 m 2014 TLP GoM
URSA 1204.0 m 1999 TLP GoM
Mars 896.0 m 1996 TLP GoM
Auger 872.0 m 1993 TLP GoM
Jolliet 536.0 m 1989 TLP GoM
Bullwinkle 412.0 m 1988 Fixed Platform GoM
Appomattox 2195.0 m 2019 Semisubmersible GoM
Na Kika 1829.0 m 2003 Semisubmersible GoM
Atlantis 2134.0 m 2007 Semisubmersible GoM
Heidrun 351.0 m 1995 TLP GoM
Snorre 310.0 m 1992 TLP North Sea
Cognac 304.0 m 1978 Fixed Platform GoM
Hutton 148.0 m 1984 TLP North Sea
Vito 1189.0 m 2022 Semisubmersible GoM
Argos 1311.0 m 2022 Semisubmersible GoM

2.1.2. Function

Drilling, producing, storing, materials processing, living quarters, or a combination of these are the most common functions for which a platform is created. A study of the layouts of equipment to be located on the decks should be used to decide the platform configuration. Before deciding on final dimensions, the clearances and spacing of equipment should be carefully considered. Function determines the classification of the offshore structure. The function of jack-ups could be for drilling or decommissioning or the installation of wind turbines. Figure 3 shows the floating drilling barge used in early explorations in the Gulf of Mexico (GoM), USA.

2.1.3. Orientation

The platform’s orientation refers to its location in the design with respect to a fixed axis, such as true north. The direction of prevailing seas, winds, and currents, as well as operational requirements, are frequently used to determine orientation.

2.1.4. Water Depth, Waves and Current

Following the increased need for energy, fossil fuels have recently gained market share from various energy sources. However, both renewable energy sources and non-renewable energy sources have competed fairly based on the use of onshore and offshore platforms. To choose the right oceanographic design parameters, information on sea depth, ocean waves, current and tides is required. The water depth should be as precise as is feasible so that elevations for fenders, decks, boat landings, and corrosion protection may be set. Floating offshore wind turbines (FOWTs) are also designed by considering the water depth, waves and current. Some of the newer offshore platforms contain advanced technologies derived from existing offshore platforms employed in oil and gas development. Some wind turbines have foundations designed based on other platforms like semisubmersibles [213][214][215][216][217][218][219][220]. For breakwater and wave energy devices, they require shallower water depths. However, these devices have been able to operate under a diverse range of wave environments as seen in the diverse range of technologies, and devices such as the single column and multi-column wave energy converters (WECs) [164][165][166][167][168][169][170][171][172][173].

2.1.5. Deck Elevation

When waves contact a platform’s bottom deck and equipment, they produce large forces and overturning moments. Unless the platform is intended to withstand these forces, the deck’s height should be sufficient to offer appropriate clearance above the design wave’s crest. Additionally, an “air gap” should be considered to allow for the passage of waves greater than the design wave. There are some guidelines for the air gap.

2.2. Environmental Factors

API and other relevant industry standards include general meteorological and oceanic factors such as in API WSD 2000 Cl. No. 1.3.1 and API RP-2MET-INT [153][154][155][156]. When establishing the relevant meteorological and oceanographic parameters impacting a platform location, experienced specialists should be engaged. The sections that follow provide a broad overview of the information that may be necessary. After consulting with both the platform designer and a meteorological oceanography specialist, the information needed at a place should be chosen. Data from measurements and/or models should be statistically examined to provide the necessary descriptions of typical and extreme environmental conditions.
All relevant information on the environmental data used should be meticulously documented. The estimates on the structural reliability, fatigue life prediction and the source for all design data should be noted for validation, verification, trustworthiness, and dependability. Lastly, both the parameters used and the methodology listing all the procedures used to convert existing data into desired environmental values should be recorded. Typical environmental conditions are seen in the North Sea’s weather conditions where the Transocean Enabler semisubmersible drilling rig operates (see Figure 4).
Figure 4. Transocean Enabler semi-submersible drilling rig built in 2016 and designed to operate in harsh environments (Courtesy: Transocean).

2.3. Loading Factors

In ocean engineering, the term “environmental load conditions” is used in the design of offshore structures and other marine structures to include wind, waves, currents, and tides, depending on the environment under consideration. Operating environmental load conditions are the forces placed on the structure by a minor occurrence that is not severe enough to obstruct normal operations as stipulated by operators. The forces imposed on the structure by minor events that are not harsh enough to hinder any normal operation, as prescribed by the operators, are known as operating environmental load conditions. The forces placed on the platforms by the selected design scenario are known as design environmental load conditions. Design loading conditions are introduced as seen in industry standards, such as API-WSD 2000 Cl. No. 1.3.1 and API 2MET-INT, to design these structures.
The platform should be built to withstand the loads that will have the most severe consequences for the construction. The following loading conditions should be included in the loading conditions: environmental conditions, as well as appropriate dead and live loads:
  • Operating environmental parameters, including dead loads and maximum live loads, that are appropriate for the platform’s usual operations;
  • Operating environmental parameters, including dead loads and minimum live loads that are adequate for the platform’s usual operations;
  • Establish environmental factors in the design with maximum live loads and dead loads that can be combined with extreme conditions;
  • Establish environmental conditions in the design with a minimum of dead loads and a maximum of live loads that can be combined with harsh conditions;
  • Environmental loads should be factored in according to the likelihood of any simultaneous occurrences in the loading scenario under consideration, except seismic loading. Where applicable, a seismic (or earthquake) load should be applied to the platform as a distinct environmental loading condition;
  • The operating environment should be realistic of the platform’s relatively severe weather conditions. They do not have to be hard and fast rules that cause the platform to shut down if they’re broken. In the Gulf of Mexico, a 5-year winter storm from 1-year weather is typically employed as an operational condition, however recent designs have longer design times as seen in API 2MET-INT;
  • Both production and drilling platforms should have a maximum live load that takes into account production, drilling, and work over mode loadings, as well as any acceptable combinations of drilling or work over operations with production;
  • To maximise design stress in the platform members, consider variability in supply weights and the positions of mobile equipment such as a drilling derrick.

2.4. Structural Attachments: Mooring lines and Marine Risers

The design of an offshore structure is usually dependent upon the function of the structure. For offshore structures that are used in drilling and production purposes, there are structural attachments, particularly mooring lines and marine risers. It is important to state that a typical offshore production platform could have up to 35 risers, each with up to 90 large diameter tube segments (riser joints) that run the length of the platform. Production risers made of high-grade steel are currently used in the offshore oil and gas industry, and their weight limits the ability of offshore operations to move into deeper seas. With rising depths of the sub-sea wellhead, the weight of a riser and, as a result, the top tension required to retain it in the desired position increases. At the same time, the offshore platform’s top-tensioning capacity limits the number of risers that may be attached to it. As a result, if the weight of a single riser can be lowered, it will be able to utilize natural resources in deeper waters or incorporate more risers to existing platforms, increasing their production capacity. A tension application is supplied to the top of a top-tension riser (TTR) to remove compressive stresses and maintain the vertical position of the riser, and sometimes strakes are used to suppress vortex-induced vibrations (VIV) on the risers. However, steel risers are heavy and add to the weight called the deck load, as such there is the need to have a weight-optimised riser. Thus, the need for other structures like flexible risers, hybrid composite risers, and steel catenary risers (SCR) [204][205][206][207][208][209][210][211][212]. A typical hydrodynamic model developed using environmental data for a floating semisubmersible platform in Orcaflex 10.3d is given in Figure 5.
Figure 5. A labelled 3D hydrodynamic model of a semisubmersible platform showing the moorings and marine riser, designed in OrcaFlex 10.3d.


  1. Chakrabarti, S.K. Handbook of Offshore Engineering, 1st ed.; Elsevier: Plainfield, IL, USA, 2005; Volume 1.
  2. Haritos, N. Introduction to the analysis and design of offshore structures—An overview. Electron. J. Struct. Eng. 2007, 7, 55–65. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  3. Yu, L.C.; King, L.S.; Hoon, A.T.C.; Yean, P.C.C. A Review Study of Oil and Gas Facilities for Fixed and Floating Offshore Platforms. Res. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. Technol. 2015, 10, 672–679.
  4. Amiri, N.; Shaterabadi, M.; Kashyzadeh, K.R.; Chizari, M. A Comprehensive Review on Design, Monitoring, and Failure in Fixed Offshore Platforms. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1349.
  5. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Butler, H.O.; Ja’e, I.A.; An, C. Review on fixed and floating offshore structures. Part I: Types of platforms with some applications. JMSE 2022. under review.
  6. Al-Sharif, A.A. Design, Fabrication and Installation of Fixed Offshore Platforms in the Arabian Gulf. In Proceedings of the Fourth Saudi Engineering Conference, Nashville, TN, USA, 5–8 November 1995; Saudi Arabian Oil Company: Dhahran, Saudi Arabia, 1995; Volume 1995, pp. 99–105.
  7. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Engineering Handbook; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2010.
  8. Wilson, J. Dynamics of Offshore Structures, 2nd ed.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002.
  9. Ladeira, I.; Márquez, L.; Echeverry, S.; Le Sourne, H.; Rigo, P. Review of methods to assess the structural response of offshore wind turbines subjected to ship impacts. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022, 2022, 1–20.
  10. Jaculli, M.A.; Leira, B.J.; Sangesland, S.; Morooka, C.K.; Kiryu, P.O. Dynamic response of a novel heave-compensated floating platform: Design considerations and the effects of mooring. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022, 2022, 1–11.
  11. Saiful Islam, A.B.M.; Jameel, M.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Shirazi, S.; Salman, F.A. Review of offshore energy in Malaysia and floating Spar platform for sustainable exploration. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2012, 16, 6268–6284.
  12. Muyiwa, O.A.; Sadeghi, K. Construction planning of an offshore petroleum platform. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci. 2007, 2, 82–85.
  13. Sadeghi, K.; Al-koiy, K.; Nabi, K. General Guidance for The Design, Fabrication and Installation of Jack-Up Platforms. Asian J. Nat. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 77–84. Available online: (accessed on 22 May 2022).
  14. Sadeghi, K. An Overview on Design, Construction and Installation of Offshore Template Platforms Suitable for Persian Gulf Oil/Gas Fields. In Proceedings of the First International Symposium on Engineering, Artificial Intelligence and Applications, Girne, Cyprus, 6–8 November 2013.
  15. Sadeghi, K. Significant guidance for design and construction of marine and offshore structures. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci. 2008, 4, 67–92. Available online: (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  16. Sadeghi, K.; Dilek, H. An Introduction to the design of Offshore Structures. Acad. Res. Int. 2019, 10, 19–27. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  17. Wu, P.; Zhang, Y.; Pang, S.; Wu, Z. Nonlinear vibration analysis of deepwater top tension riser under drilling condition. J. Dyn. Control. Phys. Rev. Lett. 2019, 17, 112–120.
  18. Liao, M.; Wang, G.; Gao, Z.; Zhao, Y.; Li, R. Mathematical Modelling and Dynamic Analysis of an Offshore Drilling Riser. Shock Vib. 2020, 2020, 1–13.
  19. Bernitsas, M.M.; Kokarakis, J.E.; Imron, A. Large deformation three-dimensional static analysis of deep water marine risers. Appl. Ocean Res. 1985, 7, 178–187.
  20. Patel, M.; Sarohia, S.; Ng, K. Finite-element analysis of the marine riser. Eng. Struct. 1984, 6, 175–184.
  21. Burke, B.G. An analysis of Marine Risers for Deep Water. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 1973.
  22. Bae, Y.; Bernitsas, M.M. Importance of Nonlinearities in Static and Dynamic Analyses of Marine Riser. In Proceedings of the International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference, Hague, The Netherlands, 11–16 June 1995.
  23. Wang, Y.; Gao, D.; Fang, J. Coupled dynamic analysis of deepwater drilling riser under combined forcing and parametric excitation. J. Nat. Gas Sci. Eng. 2015, 27, 1739–1747.
  24. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Gillet, N.; Wang, C.; Ja’E, I.A.; Reda, A.; Odijie, A.C. Review of Composite Marine Risers for Deep-Water Applications: Design, Development and Mechanics. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 96.
  25. Toh, W.; Bin Tan, L.; Jaiman, R.K.; Tay, T.E.; Tan, V.B.C. A comprehensive study on composite risers: Material solution, local end fitting design and global response. Mar. Struct. 2018, 61, 155–169.
  26. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillett, N.; Odijie, A.C.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Composite risers for deep waters using a numerical modelling approach. Compos. Struct. 2018, 210, 486–499.
  27. Amaechi, C.V. Local tailored design of deep water composite risers subjected to burst, collapse and tension loads. Ocean Eng. 2022, 250, 110196.
  28. Roberts, D.; Hatton, S.A. Development and Qualification of End Fittings for Composite Riser Pipe. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013.
  29. Amaechi, C.V.; Gillet, N.; Ja’E, I.A.; Wang, C. Tailoring the Local Design of Deep Water Composite Risers to Minimise Structural Weight. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 103.
  30. Pham, D.-C.; Sridhar, N.; Qian, X.; Sobey, A.J.; Achintha, M.; Shenoi, A. A review on design, manufacture and mechanics of composite risers. Ocean Eng. 2016, 112, 82–96.
  31. Wichers, I.J. Guide to Single Point Moorings; WMooring Inc: Houston, TX, USA, 2013; Available online: (accessed on 17 May 2022).
  32. Petrone, C.; Oliveto, N.D.; Sivaselvan, M.V. Dynamic Analysis of Mooring Cables with Application to Floating Offshore Wind Turbines. J. Eng. Mech. 2015, 142, 1–12.
  33. Mavrakos, S.; Papazoglou, V.; Triantafyllou, M.; Chatjigeorgiou, I. Deep water mooring dynamics. Mar. Struct. 1996, 9, 181–209.
  34. Mavrakos, S.; Chatjigeorgiou, J. Dynamic behaviour of deep water mooring lines with submerged buoys. Comput. Struct. 1997, 64, 819–835.
  35. Ja’E, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Optimisation of mooring line parameters for offshore floating structures: A review paper. Ocean Eng. 2022, 247, 110644.
  36. Amaechi, C.V.; Odijie, A.C.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Numerical investigation on mooring line configurations of a Paired Column Semisubmersible for its global performance in deep water condition. Ocean Eng. 2022, 250, 110572.
  37. Xu, S.; Ji, C.-Y.; Soares, C.G. Experimental and numerical investigation a semi-submersible moored by hybrid mooring systems. Ocean Eng. 2018, 163, 641–678.
  38. Xue, X.; Chen, N.-Z.; Wu, Y.; Xiong, Y.; Guo, Y. Mooring system fatigue analysis for a semi-submersible. Ocean Eng. 2018, 156, 550–563.
  39. Wang, K.; Er, G.-K.; Iu, V.P. Nonlinear vibrations of offshore floating structures moored by cables. Ocean Eng. 2018, 156, 479–488.
  40. Harnois, V.; Weller, S.D.; Johanning, L.; Thies, P.R.; Le Boulluec, M.; Le Roux, D.; Soule, V.; Ohana, J. Numerical model val-idation for mooring systems: Method and application for wave energy converters. Renew. Energy 2015, 75, 869–887.
  41. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Numerical studies on CALM buoy motion responses and the effect of buoy geometry cum skirt dimensions with its hydrodynamic waves-current interactions. Ocean Eng. 2021, 244, 110378.
  42. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Hou, X.; Ye, J. Strength of submarine hoses in Chinese-lantern configuration from hydrodynamic loads on CALM buoy. Ocean Eng. 2018, 171, 429–442.
  43. Gao, Q.; Zhang, P.; Duan, M.; Yang, X.; Shi, W.; An, C.; Li, Z. Investigation on structural behavior of ring-stiffened composite offshore rubber hose under internal pressure. Appl. Ocean Res. 2018, 79, 7–19.
  44. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Review on the design and mechanics of bonded marine hoses for Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) buoys. Ocean Eng. 2021, 242, 110062.
  45. Amaechi, C.V.; Chesterton, C.; Butler, H.O.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. An Overview on Bonded Marine Hoses for sustainable fluid transfer and (un)loading operations via Floating Offshore Structures (FOS). J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1236.
  46. Tonatto, M.L.; Tita, V.; Araujo, R.T.; Forte, M.M.; Amico, S.C. Parametric analysis of an offloading hose under internal pressure via computational modeling. Mar. Struct. 2017, 51, 174–187.
  47. Gao, P.; Gao, Q.; An, C.; Zeng, J. Analytical modeling for offshore composite rubber hose with spiral stiffeners under internal pressure. J. Reinf. Plast. Compos. 2020, 40, 352–364.
  48. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ja’E, I.A.; Aboshio, A.; Odijie, A.C.; Ye, J. A literature review on the technologies of bonded hoses for marine applications. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022, 1–32, (Ahead-of print).
  49. Amaechi, C.V.; Wang, F.; Ye, J. Mathematical Modelling of Bonded Marine Hoses for Single Point Mooring (SPM) Systems, with Catenary Anchor Leg Mooring (CALM) Buoy application—A Review. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 1179.
  50. Wang, Z.; Bai, Y.; Wei, Q. Mechanical properties of glass fibre reinforced pipeline during the laying process. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022, 2022, 1–8.
  51. Liu, W.; Bai, Y.; Gao, Y.; Song, X.; Han, Z. Analysis of the mechanical properties of a reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe joint. Ships Offshore Struct. 2021, 2021, 1–7.
  52. Liu, W.; Gao, Y.; Shao, Q.; Cai, W.; Han, Z.; Chi, M. Design and analysis of joints in reinforced thermoplastic composite pipe under internal pressure. Ships Offshore Struct. 2021, 17, 1276–1285.
  53. Ochoa, O.; Salama, M. Offshore composites: Transition barriers to an enabling technology. Compos. Sci. Technol. 2005, 65, 2588–2596.
  54. Langen, I.; Skjåstad, O.; Haver, S. Measured and predicted dynamic behaviour of an offshore gravity platform. Appl. Ocean Res. 1998, 20, 15–26.
  55. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A.; Wahab, M. Dynamic Analysis of Semi-submersible Under the Postulated Failure of Restraining System with Buoy. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2020, 21, 118–131.
  56. Tong, C. Advanced Materials and Devices for Hydropower and Ocean Energy. In Introduction to Materials for Advanced Energy Systems; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019.
  57. Anastasiades, K.; Michels, S.; Van Wuytswinkel, H.; Blom, J.; Audenaert, A. Barriers for the circular reuse of steel in the Belgian construction sector: An industry-wide perspective. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Manag. Procure. Law 2022, 1–14.
  58. Odijie, A.C.; Quayle, S.; Ye, J. Wave induced stress profile on a paired column semisubmersible hull formation for column reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2017, 143, 77–90.
  59. Chandrasekaran, S.; Gaurav, S. Design Aids for Offshore Structures under Special Environmental Loads, Including Fire Resistance; Springer: Singapore, 2017; ISBN 9789813221076087.
  60. Chandrasekaran, S.; Nagavinothini, R. Offshore Triceratops Under Impact Forces in Ultra Deep Arctic Waters. Int. J. Steel Struct. 2019, 20, 464–479.
  61. Barltrop, N.D.P.; Adams, A.J. Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures, 3rd ed.; Butterworth Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 1991.
  62. Brebbia, C.; Walker, S. Dynamic analysis of offshore structures. Appl. Ocean Res. 1981, 3, 205.
  63. Chandrasekaran, S. Dynamic Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures; Springer: Singapore, 2018.
  64. Leffler, W.L.; Pattarozzi, R.; Sterling, G. Deepwater Petroleum Exploration & Production: A Non-technical Guide; PennWell: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011; ISBN 9781593702533.
  65. Fang, H.; Duan, M. Offshore Operation Facilities; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2014.
  66. Aird, P. Deepwater Drilling: Well Planning, Design, Engineering, Operations, and Technology Application; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2019.
  67. Saavedra, N.; Joshi, S. Application of Horizontal Well Technology in Colombia. J. Can. Pet. Technol. 2002, 41, 2.
  68. Stewart, G. Well Test Design and Analysis; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2011.
  69. Azar, J.J.; Robello, S. Drilling Engineering; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2007.
  70. Samie, N.N. Disciplines Involved in Offshore Platform Design. In Practical Engineering Management of Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 25–212.
  71. Clews, R. Project Finance for the International Petroleum Industry; Elsevier: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2016; ISBN 9780128001585.
  72. Chandrasekaran, S.; Jain, A.K. Ocean structures, Construction, Materials, and Operations; CRC Press: Norco, FL, USA, 2016; ISBN 9781498797429.
  73. Laik, S. Offshore Petroleum Drilling and Production, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Norco, FL, USA, 2018.
  74. Speight, J.G. Subsea and Deepwater Oil and Gas Science and Technology; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.
  75. Grace, R.D. Blowout and Well Control Handbook; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017.
  76. Renpu, W. Advanced Well Completion Engineering; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2011.
  77. Byrom, T.G. Casing and Liners for Drilling and Completion, 2nd ed.; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2015.
  78. Caenn, R.; Darley, H.; Gray, G.R. Composition and Properties of Drilling and Completion Fluids, 7th ed.; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2017.
  79. Devereux, S. Practical Well Planning and Drilling Manual; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 1998.
  80. Veatch, R.W.; King, G.E.; Holditch, S.A. Essentials of Hydraulic Fracturing: Vertical and Horizontal Wellbores; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
  81. Raymond, M.S.; Leffler, W.L. Oil & Gas Production in Nontechnical Language; Pennwell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2017.
  82. Crumpton, H. Well Control for Completions and Interventions; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2018.
  83. Sadeghi, K. An Overview of Design, Analysis, Construction and Installation of Offshore Petroleum Platforms Suitable for Cyprus Oil/Gas Fields. GAU J. Soc. Appl. Sci. 2007, 2, 1–16. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  84. Yan, J.; Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Optimal design and hydrodynamic response analysis of deep water mooring system with submerged buoys. Ships Offshore Struct. 2018, 13, 476–487.
  85. Ormberg, H.; Larsen, K. Coupled analysis of floater motion and mooring dynamics for a turret-moored ship. Appl. Ocean Res. 1998, 20, 55–67.
  86. Qiao, D.; Ou, J. Global responses analysis of a semi-submersible platform with different mooring models in South China Sea. Ships Offshore Struct. 2012, 8, 441–456.
  87. Bargi, K.; Hosseini, S.R.; Tadayon, M.H.; Sharifian, H. Seismic Response of a Typical Fixed Jacket-Type Offshore Platform (SPD1) Under Sea Waves. Open J. Mar. Sci. 2011, 1, 36–42.
  88. Jang, J.-J.; Jyh-Shinn, G. Analysis of Maximum Wind force for Offshore Structure Design. J. Mar. Sci. Technol. 2009, 7, 6.
  89. Thiagarajan, K.P.; Finch, S. An Investigation into the Effect of Turret Mooring Location on the Vertical Motions of an FPSO Vessel. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 1999, 121, 71–76.
  90. Ja’E, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Nizamani, Z.; Nakayama, A. Effect of Various Mooring Materials on Hydrodynamic Responses of Turret-Moored FPSO with Emphasis on Intact and Damaged Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 453.
  91. Sheng, W.; Tapoglou, E.; Ma, X.; Taylor, C.; Dorrell, R.; Parsons, D.; Aggidis, G. Hydrodynamic studies of floating structures: Comparison of wave-structure interaction modelling. Ocean Eng. 2022, 249, 110878.
  92. Hirdaris, S.E.; Bai, W.; Dessi, D.; Ergin, A.; Gu, X.; Hermundstad, O.A.; Huijsmans, R.; Iijima, K.; Nielsen, U.; Parunov, J.; et al. Loads for use in the design of ships and offshore structures. Ocean Eng. 2014, 78, 131–174.
  93. Lee, Y.; Incecik, A.; Chan, H.-S. Prediction of Global Loads and Structural Response Analysis on a Multi-Purpose Semi-Submersible. American Society of Mechanical Engineers Digital Collection. In Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; pp. 3–13.
  94. Newman, J.N. Marine Hydrodynamics; 1999 Reprint; IT Press: London, UK, 1977.
  95. Chakrabarti, S.K. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures; Reprint; WIT Press: Southampton, UK, 2001.
  96. Faltinsen, O.M. Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1998.
  97. Bishop, R.E.D.; Price, W.G. Hydroelasticity of Ships; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2005.
  98. Singh, R. Corrosion Control for Offshore Structures; Gulf Professional Publishing: Oxford, UK, 2014.
  99. Chandrasekaran, S.; Uddin, S.A. Postulated failure analyses of a spread-moored semi-submersible. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2020, 5, 36.
  100. Sarpkaya, T. Wave Forces on Offshore Structures, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014.
  101. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Östergaard, C. Offshore Structures: Conceptual Design and Hydro-Mechanics, 1st ed.; English Translation; Springer: London, UK, 2012; Volume 1.
  102. McCormick, M.E. Ocean Engineering Mechanics with Applications; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2010.
  103. Holthuijsen, L.H. Waves in Oceanic and Coastal Waters, 1st ed.; Cambridge University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2007.
  104. Dean, R.G.; Dalrymple, R.A. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists-Advanced Series on Ocean Engineering; World Scientific: Singapore, 1991; Volume 2.
  105. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Coastal Engineering, 3rd ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2006.
  106. Sorensen, R.M. Basic Wave Mechanics: For Coastal and Ocean Engineers; John Wiley and Sons: London, UK, 1993.
  107. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics and Wave Loads on Marine Structures; Elsevier B.V. & Butterworth-Heinemann: Waltham, MA, USA, 2015.
  108. Boccotti, P. Wave Mechanics for Ocean Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2000.
  109. Seyed, F.; Patel, M. Mathematics of flexible risers including pressure and internal flow effects. Mar. Struct. 1992, 5, 121–150.
  110. Dareing, D.W. Mechanics of Drillstrings and Marine Risers, 1st ed.; ASME Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012.
  111. Sparks, C. Fundamentals of Marine Riser Mechanics: Basic Principles and Simplified Analyses, 2nd ed.; PennWell Books: Tulsa, OK, USA, 2018.
  112. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q. Subsea Pipelines and Risers, 1st ed.; 2013 Reprint; Elsevier Ltd.: Oxford, UK, 2005.
  113. Bai, Y.; Bai, Q.; Ruan, W. Flexible Pipes: Advances in Pipes and Pipelines; Wiley Scrivener Publishing: Beverly, MA, USA, 2017.
  114. Sævik, S. On Stresses and Fatigue in Flexible Pipes. Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Marine Structures, Norwegian Institute of Technology (NTH), Trondheim, Norway, 1992. Available online: (accessed on 15 February 2022).
  115. Amaechi, C.V. Novel Design, Hydrodynamics and Mechanics of Marine Hoses in Oil/Gas Applications. Ph.D. Thesis, Engineering Department, Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK, 2022.
  116. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Bashmal, S.; Iqbal, N.; Dai, W.; Bai, Y. Fatigue Crack Monitoring of T-Type Joints in Steel Offshore Oil and Gas Jacket Platform. Sensors 2021, 21, 3294.
  117. Paik, J.K.; Lee, D.H.; Park, D.K.; Ringsberg, J.W. Full-scale collapse testing of a steel stiffened plate structure under axial-compressive loading at a temperature of −80 °C. Ships Offshore Struct. 2020, 16, 255–270.
  118. He, K.; Kim, H.J.; Thomas, G.; Paik, J.K. Analysis of fire-induced progressive collapse for topside structures of a VLCC-class ship-shaped offshore installation. Ships Offshore Struct. 2022, 1–15, (Ahead-of print).
  119. Ali, L.; Khan, S.; Iqbal, N.; Bashmal, S.; Hameed, H.; Bai, Y. An Experimental Study of Damage Detection on Typical Joints of Jackets Platform Based on Electro-Mechanical Impedance Technique. Materials 2021, 14, 7168.
  120. Zhang, X.; Ni, W.; Sun, L. Fatigue Analysis of the Oil Offloading Lines in FPSO System under Wave and Current Loads. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2022, 10, 225.
  121. Chojaczyk, A.; Teixeira, A.; Neves, L.; Cardoso, J.; Soares, C.G. Review and application of Artificial Neural Networks models in reliability analysis of steel structures. Struct. Saf. 2015, 52, 78–89.
  122. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of Maintained Ship Hulls Subjected to Corrosion. J. Ship Res. 1996, 40, 235–243.
  123. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Fatigue reliability of the ship hull girder accounting for inspection and repair. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 1996, 51, 341–351.
  124. Hussein, A.; Soares, C.G. Reliability and residual strength of double hull tankers designed according to the new IACS common structural rules. Ocean Eng. 2009, 36, 1446–1459.
  125. Gaspar, B.; Teixeira, A.; Soares, C.G. Assessment of the efficiency of Kriging surrogate models for structural reliability analysis. Probabilistic Eng. Mech. 2014, 37, 24–34.
  126. Soares, C.G.; Garbatov, Y. Reliability of maintained, corrosion protected plates subjected to non-linear corrosion and compressive loads. Mar. Struct. 1999, 12, 425–445.
  127. Teixeira, A.P.; Soares, C.G.; Netto, T.A.; Estefen, S.F. Reliability of pipelines with corrosion defects. Int. J. Press. Vessel. Pip. 2008, 85, 228–237.
  128. Aboshio, A.; Uche, A.O.; Akagwu, P.; Ye, J. Reliability-based design assessment of offshore inflatable barrier structures made of fibre-reinforced composites. Ocean Eng. 2021, 233, 109016.
  129. Santala, M.J. API RP-2MET Metocean 2nd Edition: Updates to the Gulf of Mexico Regional Annex. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2018.
  130. Stear, J.B. Development of API RP2 Met: The New Path for Metocean. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 5–8 May 2008.
  131. Stear, J. Use of RP 2MET Annex Gulf Metocean Conditions with 2A and 2SIM. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012.
  132. Stear, J. SS: New API codes: Updates, New suite of Standards/RP 2MET: An API Standard for Metocean. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  133. Puskar, F.; Spong, R. SS: New API codes: Updates, New Suite of Standards—API Bulletin 2HINS—Guidance for Post-Hurricane Structural Inspection of Offshore Structures. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  134. Zwerneman, F.; Digre, K. SS: New API Codes: Updates, New Suite of Standards: API RP 2A-WSD, the 23rd Edition. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  135. O’connor, P.; Versowsky, P.; Day, M.; Westlake, H.; Bucknell, J. Platform Assessment: Recent Section 17 Updates and Future API/Industry Developments. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2010.
  136. Versowski, P.; Rodenbusch, G.; O’Connor, P.; Prins, M. Hurricane Impact Reviewed Through API. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
  137. Balint, S.; Orange, D. Panel Discussion: Future of the Gulf of Mexico after Katrina and Rita. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
  138. Maxwell, P.; Verret, S.; Haugland, T. Fixed Platform Performance During Recent Hurricanes: Comparison to Design Standards. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2007.
  139. Westlake, H.S.; Puskar, F.; Oconnor, P.E.; Bucknell, J. The Development of a Recommended Practice for Structural Integrity Management (SIM) of Fixed Offshore Platforms. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 1–4 May 2006.
  140. Wisch, D.J.; Mangiavacchi, A. Alignment of API Offshore Structures Standards with ISO 19900 Series and Usage of the API Suite. In Proceedings of the Off-shore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 30 April–3 May 2012.
  141. Wisch, D.J.; Puskar, F.; Laurendine, T.T.; Oconnor, P.E.; Versowsky, P.E.; Bucknell, J. An Update on API RP 2A Section 17 for the Assessment of Existing Platforms. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 3–6 May 2004.
  142. Lotsberg, I. Background for Revision of DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Steel Structure. In Proceedings of the ASME 2005 24th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Halkidiki, Greece, 12–17 June 2005; Volume 3, pp. 297–306.
  143. Horn, A.M.; Lotsberg, I.; Orjaseater, O. The Rationale for Update of S-N Curves for Single Sided Girth Welds for Risers and Pipelines in DNV GL RP C-203 Based on Fatigue Performance of More than 1700 Full SCALE fatigue Test Results. In Proceedings of the ASME 2018 37th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Materials Technology, Madrid, Spain, 17–22 June 2018; Volume 4, p. V004T03A024.
  144. Lotsberg, I. Development of fatigue design standards for marine structures. ASME. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. June 2019, 141, 031301.
  145. Lotsberg, I. Fatigue design recommendations for conical connections in tubular structures. ASME. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2019, 141, 011604.
  146. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Osnes, H.; Ronold, K.O.; Moe, E.T. Recommended Practice for Composite Risers. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, 1–4 May 2002.
  147. Echtermeyer, A.; Steuten, B. Thermoplastic Composite Riser Guidance Note. In Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference, Houston, TX, USA, 6–9 May 2013.
  148. Echtermeyer, A.T.; Sund, O.E.; Ronold, K.O.; Moslemian, R.; Moe, E.T. A New Recommended Practice for Thermoplastic Composite Pipes. In Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Composite Materials, Xi’an, China, 20–25 August 2017; Available online: (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  149. Lotsberg, I.; Fjeldstad, A.; Ronold, K.O. Background for Revision of DNVGL-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures in 2016. In Proceedings of the ASME 2016 35th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Materials Technology, Busan, Korea, 19–24 June 2016; Volume 4, p. V004T03A015.
  150. Lotsberg, I.; Sigurdsson, G. A New Recommended Practice for Inspection Planning of Fatigue Cracks in Offshore Structures Based on Probabilistic Methods. In Proceedings of the ASME 2014 33rd International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Materials Technology, Petroleum Technology, San Francisco, CA, USA, 8–13 June 2014; Volume 5, p. V005T03A005.
  151. Lotsberg, I. Background for New Revision of DNV-RP-C203 Fatigue Design of Offshore Steel Structures. In Proceedings of the ASME 2010 29th International Conference on Ocean, Offshore and Arctic Engineering, Shanghai, China, 6–11 June 2010; Volume 6, pp. 125–134.
  152. Lotsberg, I.; Skjelby, T.; Vareide, K.; Amundsgard, O.; Landet, E. A New DNV Recommended Practice for Fatigue Analysis of Offshore Ships. In Proceedings of the 25th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Safety and Reliability, Materials Technology, Hamburg, Germany, 4–9 June 2006; ASME: New York, NY, USA, 2006; Volume 3, pp. 573–580.
  153. API. API RP 2MET—Derivation of Metocean Design and Operating Conditions; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2012.
  154. API. API 2INT-MET—Interim Guidance on Hurricane Conditions in the Gulf of Mexico; Bulletin 2INT-MET.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007; Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  155. API. API Bulletin 2INT-DG Interim Guidance for Design of Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  156. API. API Bulletin 2INT-EX Interim Guidance for Assessment of Existing Offshore Structures for Hurricane Conditions; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA, 2007.
  157. API. API RP 95F, Gulf of Mexico MODU Mooring Practices for the 2007 Hurricane Season—Interim Recommendations, 2nd ed.; American Petroleum Institute (API): Washington, DC, USA.
  158. Wang, P.; Tian, X.; Peng, T.; Luo, Y. A review of the state-of-the-art developments in the field monitoring of offshore structures. Ocean Engineering 2018, 147, 148–164.
  159. Amaechi, C.V.; Reda, A.; Ja’e, I.A.; Wang, C.; An, C. Guidelines on Composite Flexible Risers: Monitoring Techniques and Design Approaches. Energies 2022, 15, 4982.
  160. Reddy, D.; Swamidas, A. Essentials of Offshore Structures: Theory and Applications, 1st ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2013.
  161. Bull, A.S.; Love, M.S. Worldwide oil and gas platform decommissioning: A review of practices and reefing options. Ocean Coast. Manag. 2018, 168, 274–306.
  162. Ronalds, B. Applicability ranges for offshore oil and gas production facilities. Mar. Struct. 2005, 18, 251–263.
  163. Al-Yafei, E.F. Sustainable Design for Offshore Oil and Gas Platforms: A Conceptual Framework for Topside Facilities Projects. Ph.D. Thesis, School of Energy, Geoscience, Infrastructure & Society, Heriot Watt University, Edinburgh, UK, 2018. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  164. Kreidler, T.D. The Offshore Petroleum Industry: The Formative Years, 1945–1962. Ph.D. Thesis, History Department, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, USA, 1997. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  165. Mustapa, M.; Yaakob, O.; Ahmed, Y.M.; Rheem, C.-K.; Koh, K.; Adnan, F.A. Wave energy device and breakwater integration: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 77, 43–58.
  166. Zhao, X.; Ning, D. Experimental investigation of breakwater-type WEC composed of both stationary and floating pontoons. Energy 2018, 155, 226–233.
  167. He, F.; Huang, Z.; Law, A.W.-K. An experimental study of a floating breakwater with asymmetric pneumatic chambers for wave energy extraction. Appl. Energy 2013, 106, 222–231.
  168. Mares-Nasarre, P.; Argente, G.; Gómez-Martín, M.E.; Medina, J.R. Armor Damage of Overtopped Mound Breakwaters in Depth-Limited Breaking Wave Conditions. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 952.
  169. Howe, D.; Nader, J.-R. OWC WEC integrated within a breakwater versus isolated: Experimental and numerical theoretical study. Int. J. Mar. Energy 2017, 20, 165–182.
  170. Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Development of multi-oscillating water columns as wave energy converters. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2019, 107, 75–86.
  171. Doyle, S.; Aggidis, G.A. Experimental investigation and performance comparison of a 1 single OWC, array and M-OWC. Renew. Energy 2020, 168, 365–374.
  172. Konispoliatis, D.N.; Mavrakos, S.A. Hydrodynamic Efficiency of a Wave Energy Converter in Front of an Orthogonal Breakwater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2021, 9, 94.
  173. Konispoliatis, D.N. Performance of an Array of Oscillating Water Column Devices in Front of a Fixed Vertical Breakwater. J. Mar. Sci. Eng. 2020, 8, 912.
  174. Khan, R.; Mad, A.B.; Osman, K.; Aziz, M.A.A. Maintenance Management of Aging Oil and Gas Facilities. In Maintenance Management; Márquez, F.P.G., Papaelias, M., Eds.; IntechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2019.
  175. Dehghani, A.; Aslani, F. A review on defects in steel offshore structures and developed strengthening techniques. Structures 2019, 20, 635–657.
  176. Nadeem, G.; Safiee, N.A.; Abu Bakar, N.; Karim, I.A.; Nasir, N.A.M. Connection design in modular steel construction: A review. Structures 2021, 33, 3239–3256.
  177. Chandrasekaran, S. Design of Marine Risers with Functionally Graded Materials; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021.
  178. Gardner, L. The use of stainless steel in structures. Prog. Struct. Eng. Mater. 2005, 7, 45–55.
  179. Billingha, J.; Sharp, J.V.; Spurrier, J.; Kilgallon, P.J. Review of the Performance of High Strength Steels Used Offshore; Report RR105; Cranfield University for the Health and Safety Executive: Cranfield, UK, 2003. Available online: (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  180. Craig, J.; Gerali, F.; MacAulay, F.; Sorkhabi, R. The history of the European oil and gas industry (1600s–2000s). Geol. Soc. Lond. Spéc. Publ. 2018, 465, 1–24.
  181. Craig, J. Drilling: History of Onshore Drilling and Technology. In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscienc; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.
  182. Craig, J. History of Oil: The Premodern Era (Thirteenth to Mid-Nineteenth Centuries). In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.
  183. Craig, J. History of Oil: The Birth of the Modern Oil Industry (1859–1939). In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscience; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2021.
  184. Craig, J. History of Oil: Regions and Uses of Petroleum in the Classical and Medieval Periods. In Encyclopedia of Petroleum Geoscienc; Sorkhabi, R., Ed.; Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2020.
  185. Zhang, G.; Qu, H.; Chen, G.; Zhao, C.; Zhang, F.; Yang, H.; Zhao, Z.; Ma, M. Giant discoveries of oil and gas fields in global deepwaters in the past 40 years and the prospect of exploration. J. Nat. Gas Geosci. 2019, 4, 1–28.
  186. Glennie, K.W. History of Exploration in the Southern North Sea. In Petroleum geology of the southern North Sea: Future Potential; Special Publications 123; Ziegler, K., Turner, P., Daines, S.R., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 1997; pp. 5–16.
  187. Macini, P.; Mesini, E. History of Petroleum and Petroleum Engineering. In Petroleum Engineering–Upstream; Eolss Publishers Co., Ltd.: Oxford, UK; Volume 4.
  188. Kontorovich, A.E.; Eder, L.V.; Filimonova, V.; Mishenin, M.V.; Nemov, V.Y. Oil industry of major historical centre of the Vol-ga-Ural petroleum province: Past, current state, and long-run prospects. Russ. Geol. Geophys. 2016, 57, 1653–1667.
  189. Krzywiec, P. Birth of the Oil Industry in the Northern Carpathians. In Geological Society Conference on European Oil & Gas Industry History; Burlington House: London, UK, 2016; pp. 32–33.
  190. Krzywiec, P. The birth and development of the oil and gas industry in the Northern Carpathians (up until 1939). Geol. Soc. Lond. Spec. Publ. 2018, 465, 165–189.
  191. Spencer, A.; Chew, K. Petroleum exploration history: Discovery pattern versus manpower, technology and the development of exploration principles. First Break 2009, 27, 35–41.
  192. Tulucan, A.D.; Soveja-Iacob, L.-E.; Krezsek, C. History of the Oil And gas Industry in Romania. In History of the European Oil and Gas Industry; Craig, J., Gerali, F., MacAulay, F., Sorkhabi, R., Eds.; Geological Society: London, UK, 2018; Special Publication; Volume 465, pp. 191–200.
  193. Clauss, G.; Lehmann, E.; Östergaard, C. Offshore Structures. In Conceptual Design and Hydromechanics; Springer: London, UK, 1992; Volume 1, p. 64.
  194. Ahmad, O. An overview of design, construction and installation of gravity offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. 2022, 3, 27–32.
  195. DTI. An Overview of Offshore Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Activities; Hartley Anderson Limited: Aberdeen, UK, 2001. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  196. Chalke, A.; Nalawade, S.; Khadake, N. Review on Analysis of Offshore Structure. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2020, 7, 1241–1245. Available online: (accessed on 12 February 2022).
  197. Sarhan, O.; Raslan, M. Offshore petroleum rigs/platforms: An overview of analysis, design, construction and installation. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. 2021, 2, 7–12.
  198. El Rahim, M.K.A.; Al Husban, M. Analysis of the Lebanese oil and gas exploration in the Mediterranean Sea: An overview and analysis of offshore platforms. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Sci. Appl. 2021, 2, 25–29.
  199. Kharade, A.; Kapadiya, S. Offshore Engineering: An Overview of Types and Loadings on Structures. Int. J. Struct. Civ. Eng. Res. 2014, 3, 16–28.
  200. Sadeghi, K.; Bichi, A. Offshore Tower Platforms: An Overview of Design, Analysis, Construction and Installation. Acad. Res. Int. 2018, 9, 62–70. Available online: or (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  201. Sadeghi, K.; Guvensoy, A. Compliant Tower Platforms: A General Guidance for Analysis, Construction, and Installation. Acad. Res. Int. 2018, 8, 37–56. Available online: (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  202. Sadeghi, K.; Tozan, H. Tension leg platforms: An overview of planning, design, construction and installation. Acad. Res. Int. 2018, 9, 55–65. Available online: or (accessed on 6 July 2022).
  203. Esteban, M.; Couñago, B.; López-Gutiérrez, J.; Negro, V.; Vellisco, F. Gravity based support structures for offshore wind turbine generators: Review of the installation process. Ocean Eng. 2015, 110, 281–291.
  204. Tahar, A.; Kim, M. Hull/mooring/riser coupled dynamic analysis and sensitivity study of a tanker-based FPSO. Appl. Ocean Res. 2003, 25, 367–382.
  205. Ja’E, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical Validation of Hydrodynamic Responses and Mooring Top Tension of a Turret Moored FPSO Using Simulation and Experimental Results. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering (ICACE2021), Kualar Lumpur, Malaysia, 18 August 2021.
  206. Ja’e, I.A.; Ali, M.O.A.; Yenduri, A. Numerical Studies on the Effects of Mooring Configuration and Line Diameter on the Re-storing Behaviour of a Turret-Moored FPSO. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Civil, Structural and Transportation Engineering, Niagara, ON, Canada, 12–14 November 2020.
  207. Ali, M.O.A.; Ja’E, I.A.; Hwa, M.G.Z. Effects of water depth, mooring line diameter and hydrodynamic coefficients on the behaviour of deepwater FPSOs. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2019, 11, 727–739.
  208. Montasir, O.A.; Yenduri, A.; Kurian, V.J. Mooring System Optimisation and Effect of Different Line Design Variables on Motions of Truss Spar Platforms in Intact and Damaged Conditions. China Ocean Eng. 2019, 33, 385–397.
  209. Montasir, O.A.A. Numerical and Experimental Studies on the Slow Drift Motions and the Mooring line Responses of Truss Spar Platform. Ph.D. Thesis, Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Seri Iskandar, Malaysia, 2012.
  210. Otteren, A. A Mathematical Model for Dynamic Analysis of a Flexible Marine Riser Connected to a Floating Vessel. Model. Identif. Control. Nor. Res. Bull. 1982, 3, 187–209.
  211. Williams, D. Analysis of Drilling Risers in Harsh and Deepwater Environments. 2010. Available online: (accessed on 9 April 2021).
  212. Ochoa, O.O.; Technology, O. Composite Riser Experience and Design Guidance; MMS Project Number 490, Texas, USA. 2006. Available online: (accessed on 13 January 2022).
  213. Russo, S.; Contestabile, P.; Bardazzi, A.; Leone, E.; Iglesias, G.; Tomasicchio, G.; Vicinanza, D. Dynamic Loads and Response of a Spar Buoy Wind Turbine with Pitch-Controlled Rotating Blades: An Experimental Study. Energies 2021, 14, 3598.
  214. Tomasicchio, G.R.; Vicinanza, D.; Belloli, M.; Lugni, C.; Latham, J.-P.; Iglesias Rodriguez, J.G.; Jensen, B.; Vire, A.; Monbaliu, J.; Taruffi, F.; et al. Physical model tests on spar buoy for offshore floating wind energy converion. Ital. J. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2020, 129–143. Available online: (accessed on 21 May 2022).
  215. Borg, M.; Jensen, M.W.; Urquhart, S.; Andersen, M.T.; Thomsen, J.B.; Stiesdal, H. Technical definition of the tetraspar demonstrator floating wind turbine foundation. Energies 2020, 13, 4911.
  216. Petersen, H. The scaling laws applied to wind turbine design. Wind Energy 1984, 8, 99–108.
  217. Jonkman, J.M. Dynamics of offshore floating wind turbines-model development and verification. Wind Energy 2009, 12, 459–492.
  218. Koo, B.J.; Goupee, A.J.; Kimball, R.W.; Lambrakos, K.F. Model Tests for a Floating Wind Turbine on Three Different Floaters. J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng. 2014, 136, 20907.
  219. Sethuraman, L.; Venugopal, V. Hydrodynamic response of a stepped-spar floating wind turbine: Numerical modelling and tank testing. Renew. Eng. 2013, 52, 160–174.
  220. Ruzzo, C.; Fiamma, V.; Nava, V.; Collu, M.; Failla, G.; Arena, F. Progress on the experimental set-up for the testing of a floating offshore wind turbine scaled model in a field site. Wind Energy 2016, 40, 455–467.
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to : , , , ,
View Times: 4.9K
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 29 Jul 2022
Video Production Service