A crucial success factor in offshore engineering is to predict the construction, installation and in-service costs as early as possible in the design process. The new functionality for efficient member redesign and rapid design iterations will help engineers and their managers to meet this goal.
Customers can expect to save a significant number of man-hours by using the new capabilities in Sesam. A positive side effect is higher quality due to the simplification of tedious and error-prone manual design iterations.
Industry challenges
A typical challenge in the offshore engineering process is the need for committing construction and installation costs even before detailed engineering has been carried out. This means that there is little room for influencing the final design. Project managers are often concerned about the lead time from analysis start to first results so that an initial material take off (MTO) can be made. A typical question is, “How long does it take from modelling to first code check result?”
Depending on the complexity of a structure, the results processing (typically member code check) takes 40–60% of the engineering project time. Design iterations are frequently carried out to see the effect of changing section types (tubes or others) or from modifying the str5ucture by inserting member stiffeners or end brackets. Relevant questions raised by engineering managers are typically, “How fast can you determine new code check results without re-running the entire analysis?” and “How long does it take to re-run complete analysis and document code compliancy based on modifications to the model?”
Save man-hours and improve quality
The new functionalities for efficient member redesign (i.e. determine new code check results without updating analysis results) and design iterations (i.e. update model, re-run analysis and code check runs) solve the above challenges with ease. It is a new functionality, but the development has been carried out in close cooperation with key customers to ensure that the functionality is fit for purpose. In addition, we have focused on engineering-based reporting of beams and their results.
All in all, the new version of GeniE will guarantee a significant saving of manhours during design iterations, in addition to the already fast process from start of modelling to first assessment of code compliancy. We are confident that the new functionality will be highly welcomed by existing and potential Sesam users.
| 1. |  | 2. |  |
| A typical model and a graphic visualisation of initial code check results - max value 1,88 | |||
 | |||
| The user made four modification attempts of the section type during redesign - max value 0,85 | |||
| 4. |  | ||
| The new and consistent code check results based on the modifications in the redesign phase - max value 0,81 | |||
Member redesign and design iterations
Member redesign and design iterations normally consist of three steps; prior to these, a code check analysis has been carried out. Fig. 1 shows that two members have failed and have utilisation factors above 1.0 (max value 1.88).
The first task is to assess the effect of modifications, for example a section type or buckling length of those members that did not pass the code compliancy. This is a preliminary assessment, as the analysis results are not updated during this pass. When a modification has been carried out, GeniE will immediately show the new results. Fig. 3 shows that the section types have been modified. In this case, four attempts were made by the user until satisfactory results (yet preliminary) were achieved. In previous versions of Sesam, a full re-run was required to gain such results. Hence, the saving of man-hours is mainly done in this pass.
When all members show satisfactory results, a re-run must be carried out to ensure that the code check is based on consistent analysis results. This is very easy to do and consists of two single actions.
The first action is to commit the changes to the concept model to be part of the analysis; this is done in one go. The second action is to use the re-run functionality that will carry out the analysis as well as to do the code check based on new analysis results. The higher quality mainly stems from this task, as GeniE will take care of consistencies between manual updates and the concept model and analysis results.
The final step is to reproduce a report. This can also be done in a single action if the user wants to use the same report layout as in the initial code check. The ability to re-use existing report layouts when the model changes has reduced tedious labour. In addition the quality of reports is improved, as the content is automatically updated and there are no possibilities of user errors when updating a report.
To conclude
We are confident that the new functionality for member redesign and design iterations will significantly reduce labour for our customers. The redesign functionality was launched at a course in Singapore, in the first week of July. See our training schedule for more details on future courses.
We will continue to focus on the efficient engineering of offshore structures by simplifying multiple analyses, as well as including the PULS plate code check in the same manner as for beam code checks. Having said that, the new functionality can certainly be used on relevant structures in the maritime industry as long as they are code checked against the codes of practice we support.
