www.ierjournal.

org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

ISSN 2395-1621
Design and Analysis of Structural
Frame Based on Design Codes for
Subsea Applications
#1
Ajinkya Kulkarni, #2RatnakarGhorpade

1
kulkarni.ajinkya38@gmail.com
2
ratnakar.ghorpade@mitpune.edu.in
#12
Mechanical Engineering Department, MIT,
Kothrud, Pune 411038,
Maharashtra, India

ABSTRACT ARTICLE INFO

Subsea Technology in offshore oil and gas production is a highly specialized field of Article History
application with particular demands on Engineering and Simulation. Oil and gas
Received :18th November 2015
fields reside beneath many inland waters and offshore areas around the world.
Various components and subsystems are required to be lifted, transported and Received in revised form :
deployed to seabed for subsea applications. Different structural frames and baskets
19th November 2015
are used to carry these subsea components as payloads. A structural frame to carry
the Flying lead of 1200m length and weighing 2500kg is designed, and analyzed to Accepted : 21st November ,
evaluate the efficiency ratio according to DNV 2.7-3 and Eurocode 3 using FEA. In 2015
different phases, the effect of environmental loads, accidental loads and permanent
loads is studied. Different load cases according to DNV 2.7-3 - Normal Lifting, Sea Published online :
Transport, Impact, Drop and Retrieval are performed and the member verification is 22nd November 2015
carried out. The structural integrity of different connections or joints within the
structure is checked. Finally, the Optimization is carried out to minimize the
efficiency ratio and to reduce the weight. The structure was analyzed in Autodesk
RSA and calculations were performed in PTC Mathcad. For different load cases the
efficiency ratio of the structure was in between 0.220 to 0.904 but the efficiency ratio
for drop case was beyond limit i.e. 1.045 before optimization and 0.809 after
optimization.

Keywords- Subsea, FLDF, Lifting analysis, Sling cables, Joints, PO unit, Retrieval

I. INTRODUCTION of unit should not increase the 0.85 times the yield stress
value. It is also the intention that PO unit certified according
Subsea is a term to refer to equipment, technology and to DNV 2.7-3 will meet all relevant requirements in DNV
methods employed in offshore oil and gas rules for planning and execution of marine operations.In the
development industries. Oil and gas fields reside beneath Past, Authors have analyzed structures such as skids using
many inland waters and offshore areas around the DNV 2.7-1 regulations. Authors did the analysis for normal
world.Different equipmentare to be deployed to the sea bed lifting case and impact load case. [7]This paper presents
for this purpose and structures (frames or baskets) are design and analysis of FLDF (Flying Lead Deployment
needed to carry those equipment. For a structure to be used Frame) as per DNV regulations. Various lifting analysis
for subsea applications, its lifting analysis is important operations such as Normal Lifting, Sea Transport, Impact,
before sea-going. Structure has to go through stages like Drop and Retrieval have been formulated with the help of
Lifting, Transportation and Deployment. Lifting analysis FEA (Finite Element Analysis) using Autodesk RSA
involves the study of effects of environmental loads, (referred to as Robot). Robot is an integrated graphic
accidental loads and permanent loads in all these stages. program for modeling, analyzing and designing various
DNV (Det Norske Veritas) establishes the rules and types of structures.
guidelines regarding classification, quality assurance and
certification of sea going structures.DNV 2.7-3 addresses all
types of Portable Offshore (PO) units.The acceptance
criteria according to DNV 2.7-3 is the stress in any member

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 1

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

(a) (b)
Fig. 1 FLDF Model (a) CAD Model
in SOLIDWORKS (b) FE Model in
Autodesk RSA II. OPERATIONAL CLASS DECISION

I. FLDF A “PO Unit” (Portable Offshore Unit) is a package or unit

intended for repeated or single offshore transportation and
Flying Leads are used to link subsea trees to main umbilical installation or lifting. PO Units typically carry equipment
termination arrangements, manifolds and subsea distribution (or any kind of installation) intended for a service function
units. These are frequently deployed by ROVs. The FLDF is offshore. The equipment could be an integrated part of the
designed to provide an easy method of deploying flying PO unit or detachable.DNV 2.7-3 groups the PO unit into
leads to the sea floor. It overcomes the problem of leaving five types, namely type A, B, C, D and E. FLDF is a type A
flying leads lying on the sea floor during equipment PO unit as it is a PO unit with primary structure frame. It
deployment.Here, The Flying lead with 1200 m length and includes skids arranged with crash frame. It shares many
50mm diameter is to be deployed to the sea bed. The characteristics with offshore containers.PO Units shall be
geometric limitations of the frame were, height should not assigned to an operational class for the offshore lift. The
be above 4m and width should not be above 4m. The class should be selected based on the basis of weight/mass,
ultimate bending radius of pipe is 1.5m. And weight of the risk evaluation and type of structure. [1]Risk level should
frame should not increase above 20T. The material used for normally be defined as “High” if at least one of the risk
frame is S355 steel.The CAD model drawn using elements listed in Table I is fully applicable or at least two
SOLIDWORKS and FE model drawn in Autodesk RSA are are partially applicable; otherwise risk level should
shown in fig. 1. The FE model of FLDF is simplified by be ”Low” Here, two elements are clearly applicable and one
removing all secondary structure members. Primary element is partially applicable, thus the Risk level should be
structure includes all members that participate in global HIGH. Type of PO unit is type A and Weight of PO unit is
structural strength of the PO unit, padeyes, lashing points, below 25T, thus the class of frame is R 45.
panels, while secondary structure includes parts which are
not essentially load carrying.

TABLE I
RISK EVALUATION

Not Clearly Partially

Risk Element Applicable Applicable Applicable

A Installed Equipment specially sensitive to impact loads √

B Crane hook could catch in protruding parts √
C Protruding parts may stuck on transported items or transport vessel √
D Lack of Roof Protection, Crane hook may accidently hook onto items √
inside PO units
E Lift Points in positions where they could be damaged by the impacts √
F Lack of proper crash framing √
G PO units of exceptional geometry or unhandy (big) size √
H Sling sets include loose spreader bars √
I Other (Describe) √
Clearly applicable risk elements : 2
Partially applicable risk elements : 1
RISK LEVEL : HIGH

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 2

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

I. MASS ESTIMATION Partial safety factor value γM0 = 1.18 or 1/0.85 shall be used
for Eurocode calculations purpose. [2]
A. Normal Lifting
The Design loading on all elements in a lift with lifting
slings are calculated based on F (in kN). For all PO units, F
is given by,
F = Max {DF*MGW*g, 2.5*MGW*g}
Where, DF is design factor. For R45 operational class and
MGW less than 50T, the value of the Design factor is-
calculated based on [5], based on geometry to weight
relation and wave conditions. Details of this calculation are
not in the scope of this paper.
DF = 4.91
Thus, the new mass estimates are tabulated in Table III.
TABLE III
MASS ESTIMATES FOR LIFTING CASE
Mass value Mass used in
Fig. 2 Equally Distributed Payloads on FLDF
after DF calculations for
Maximum Gross Weight (MGW) is the maximum mass of
contingency (T) Normal Lifting (T)
the PO unit including payload. MGW is the sum of Tare
Tare Weight 11.55 56.71
Weight and the Payload. Where, Payload is the mass of the
equipment carried by the PO unit and Tare Weight is the Outer Drum
1.54 7.56
mass of an empty unit and equals to the combined mass of Payload
4.91
primary and secondary structure. For FLDF the Tare Weight Inner Drum
1.21 5.94
of the original model is 10.5T and Payload is 2.5T. Out of Payload
these 2.5T, Outer drums carry 1400kg; Inner drums carry MGW 14.3 70.213
1100kg weight. Thus MGW becomes 13T.After completing
the FE model, its mass is measured and compared with the
original design. The weight of the FE model is 5.57T and
the Tare weight of original frame is 10.5T. This difference
is because of removing secondary structure. The Tare
weight value is matched by scaling the density of the
material. The force density of the material S355 is increased
from 75,550N/m3 to 142,413N/m3. Mass estimate based on
CAD model may differ from the mass of an actual real
structure, so mass contingencies should be included to
account for inaccuracies and uncertainties in the mass
estimates. Here, 10% contingency (CF=1.1) is used for mass
Fig. 3 FE Modelling for Normal Lifting case
estimation. [1] For Normal Lifting case, the sling angle with the vertical
TABLE II
is 30˚, length of the cable is 4m, diameter of the cable
MASS ESTIMATES AND CONTINGENCY section is 18mm and material used is steel. Sling strength
Mass used in and selection is not the scope of this work. The master link
Original is pinned.
Basis CF calculations
Mass (T) After calculations, the maximum vonMises stress is
(T)
Solid obtained at upper bar of the outer drum and it is 345MPa.
Tare Weight Work 10.5 11.55 B. Impact Loading
s Impact loads may occur during lift off or set down of PO
Units and they are a result of the relative velocitiesbetween
Outer Drum
1.4 1.1 1.54 transport vessel deck and the hanging load. Impacts loads
Payload
Input occur randomly and are of very shortduration. Due to the
Inner Drum
1.1 1.21 inherent uncertainties in the input parameters it is not
Payload
considered feasible to calculate these loads accurately.For
MGW 13.0 14.3 R45 operational class, [1]
III. LIFTING ANALYSIS
FHI = 0.08*2.5*MGW*g = 28.05kN
FVI = 0.08*F = 55.084kN
According to DNV 2.7-3, three different methods are To study the Impact loads, the cables are removed and
fixed support is applied at the position of padeyes. The
available for design analysis. Those are Eurocode, Elastic
vertical impact force is applied at the middle of the
FEA and Limit FEA method. In this paper, Eurocode
analysis method is used. Design calculations are performed horizontal bar at the bottom and horizontal impact force is
according to Eurocode 3 (EN-1993-1-1) for steel structures. applied at the outermost bar of the outer drum.
DNV says, The vonMises stress produced due to the design For vertical impact, the global maximum von Mises stress
loads shall not exceed 0.85 times the yield stress, i.e. The is obtained at upper bar of the outer drum. It is 70.5MPa.

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 3

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

And local maximum von Misesstress value in a bar carrying

impact load is 11.6MPa. For Horizontal impact, the
maximum vonMises stress is in the bar carrying impact load.
It is 153.5MPa.
C. Sea Transport
If the PO unit is transported by sea, it should be designed
for this purpose. The securing arrangement could include
lashing ropes, stops welded to the deck to prevent sliding of
the PO unit. The stability of all PO Units shall be checked
for loads due to the maximum accelerations and wind
pressure that could occur duringsea transport. The vertical
and horizontal accelerations for the sea transportation are
taken from DNV 2.7-3. For sea transport purpose, eight
lashing ropes are used. Four long cables are of length 4m
and four short cables are of length 0.7 m. Long cables make
30˚ angle with platforms and short cables make 10˚ angle
with platform.
Horizontal Component = AH = g =9.81 Fig 6. Projected area for the calculation of wind load
Max Vertical component=AVmax = 1.3*g = 12.753m/s2
Min Vertical component = AVmin = 0.7*g = 6.867m/s2 D. Drop Case
Wind load is calculated by considering the wind pressure In a general case, drop event can be divided into four
Pwind = 1.0kN/m2 acting in the same direction as in the phases as shown in fig. 8: Free Fall i.e. the PO unit falls
horizontal acceleration. An equivalent horizontal freely and gains speed and kinetic energy, Rigid Body
acceleration for wind load is given by, [1] Rotation i.e. if the initial impact is only on the one corner,
Awind = (Pwind * Aproj)/MGW the PO unit will start rotating as a rigid body, Deceleration
Here, Aproj value is calculated as in the fig 6. Projected i.e. once the PO unit touches the ground with at least three
area for FLDF is 29.15m2 and wind load acceleration is points, the kinetic energy will be converted into internal
Awind = 2.038m/s2. energy (strain energy) in a structure and Rebound i.e. after
The maximum vonMises stress is obtained in the vertical all the kinetic energy is taken by the structure, the structure
bars. It is 315.09MPa. will start to oscillate around the static deflections.
Acceptance criteria for the structure should be evaluated
when the loads on the structure are highest i.e. at the end of
the deceleration phase and the beginning of the rebound.
The design factor for drop case is 4.5. [6]

Fig. 4 FE Modelling for Sea Transport case

Fig. 7 FE Modelling for Drop case

(a) (b)

Fig 5 FE Modelling (a) Vertical Impact Test (b) Horizontal Impact Test

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 4

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

(a) (b) (c)

Fig. 8 Different phases in drop event (a) Rigid body rotation (b) Deceleration (c) Rebound
depends on width to thickness ratio of the parts subject to
compression and material yield strength.
E. Retrieval Load Case
Retrieval load is a force required to pull out a PO unit
from a soil or seabed. For retrieval load case, the retrieval
load in the direction of cables local x axis is 412701.519N
and cables are removed. The support condition is a
foundation support with kz = 9979.969N/m. [4]
The maximum vonMises stress is in a bar at bottom and it
is 221MPa.

Fig. 11 Moment Rotation curve depending on cross section classes 1 to 4

After classification of cross section, resistance of cross
section isfound out and efficiency ratio of members is
calculated. The efficiency ratio should be below 1.
Eurocode does not calculate vonMises stress.It calculates
the efficiency ratio for tension, compression, bending, shear,
and torsion, whichever loads are present, independently. If
more than one type of loads is present then it will calculate
design resistance considering effect of all the loads. And
then calculate the efficiency ratio for that combination. Out
Fig. 9 FE Modelling for Retrieval case of all these efficiency ratios, whichever value is maximum
I. STEEL DESIGN that would be the efficiency ratio of that particular member.
[2]
Autodesk RSA is code based software. It is possible to do II. OPTIMIZATION
steel design using different National codes. In this paper,
Eurocode (Steel code EC3 EN 1993-1-1) is used for steel Optimization is used here to obtain minimum weight
design purpose. while keeping the efficiency ratio below unity. From the
Eurocode first classifies members according to their cross table IV, it is seen that the structure is not safe for drop case.
sections. The role of cross section classification is to The intention of optimization is to bring the efficiency ratio
identify the extent to which the rotation capacity is limited below 1 and also to reduce the weight of the structure.
by its local buckling resistance. For Optimization purpose, first the efficiency ratio of all
In the fig. 11 the cross sections classification is given with the members in different cases according to Eurocode is
the help of moment vs rotation capacity graph. Class 1 is found out. And the members having less efficiency ratio in
plastic cross section, class 2 is compact, class 3 is semi all the cases are listed separately in table V; these members
compact and class 4 is slender cross section. Class 1 and 2 will not contribute in load carrying and can be removed.
are least susceptible to local buckling while class 3 and 4 are When efficiency ratio of different members in all cases are
most susceptible to local buckling. In class 1 and 2 plastic compared, bar 8 and bar 40 are having least efficiency ratio
moment resistance can be developed while in class 3 and 4 in all cases and these members can be removed.After
the failure is due to local buckling. [2] removing the members, once again the efficiency ratios are
During steel design calculations, plastic section modulus calculated.
is used for class 1 and 2while elastic section modulus is
used for class 3 and 4. The classification of cross section

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 5

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

TABLE IV
EFFICIENCY RATIO FOR DIFFERENT STAGES IN LIFTING ANALYSIS
S, Mises Eurocode
Sr. Run Time
Stage Efficiency Efficiency
No. Stress (MPa) Class of section (Sec)
ratio ratio
1 Normal Lifting 345 1.15 1 0.672 42
2 Sea Transport 315 1.051 1 0.886 71
3 Horizontal Impact 153.5 0.511 1 0.287 36
4 Vertical Impact 70.5 0.235 3 0.220 34
5 Drop 375 1.247 1 1.045 39
6 Retrieval 221 0.735 1 0.904 97

TABLE V
MEMBERS HAVING LEAST EFFICIENCY RATIO IN ALL CASES
Bar No. Normal Lifting Sea Transport Vertical Impact Horizontal Impact Drop Retrieval
8 0.043 0.007 0.026 0.05 0.076 0.04
40 0.043 0.007 0.021 0.055 0.076 0.04

Fig. 13 Group of members for code group design

After optimization, UAP 250 is finalized to substitute the

current C section members. As it reduces the efficiency ratio
Fig. 12 Structure after optimization
TABLE VI
to 0.797 and weight of the structure is increased by 2.31%.
EFFICIENCY RATIO BEFORE AND AFTER OPTIMIZATION But, 10% contingency for mass is already provided.
Before After
Load Case
Optimization Optimization
Normal Lifting 0.672 0.671
Sea Transport 0.886 0.853
Horizontal Impact 0.287 0.287
Vertical Impact 0.220 0.232
Drop 1.045 1.029
Retrieval 0.904 0.929

From Table VI, it is seen that for drop case, still the
efficiency ratio is above one. To bring it below 1, code
group design operation is performed using Autodesk Robot. Fig. 14Efficiency ratio for different cross sections under code group design
First the members having efficiency ratio above 1 are
listed. From analysis of drop case, it is seen that C section IV.
bars at the bottom are having maximum efficiency ratio.
Thus all the bars having C section are grouped together.All FLDF is an R45 class structure, with MGW = 13T. The
the channel sections in the Eurocode database i.e. UAP, efficiency ratio is calculated according to Eurocode using
UPE, UPN and UPAF are selected and asked for calculation Autodesk RSA tool. Initially the efficiency ratio for drop
of efficiency ratio of the group members for each of the case is above 1. Thus, optimization process is performed
sections selected. and efficiency ratio for drop case brings to 0.801
The results are summarized in table VII.

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 6

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

S, MISES AND RUN TIME AFTER OPTIMIZATION AND

TABLE VII EFFICIENCY RATIOS BEFORE AND AFTER OPTIMIZATION
Sr. No. Load Case S, Mises Eurocode Run
Stress Efficiency ratio Efficiency ratio Efficiency ratio Time
before optimization after optimization (Sec)
1 Normal Lifting 344.65 1.14 0.672 0.671 42
2 Sea Transport 301.45 1 0.886 0.887 67
3 Horizontal Impact 152.63 0.5 0.287 0.287 32
4 Vertical Impact 70.065 0.23 0.220 0.229 33
5 Drop Case 284.64 0.95 1.045 0.801 34
6 Retrieval 210 0.7 0.904 0.896 65

V. CONCLUSION

The structural frame FLDF is designed and analyzed for

subsea applications, by Lifting analysis process according to
DNV 2.7-3. The efficiency ratio according to code
(Eurocode EN 1993) and according to S, Mises values are
different. According to Eurocode, design is safe for subsea
applications.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The Authors are grateful to thank Mr. Satyajit Lonkar and
Mr. Amey Bhide from Aker Solutions for their invaluable
help in this thesis process. We would also like to thank Prof.
Dr.S. T. Chavan, M.E. Designcoordinator from MIT Pune.
Thanks are also due to WOS team of Aker Solutions and
Mechanical Engineering Dept., MIT, Pune.

CONFIDENTIALITY STATEMENT
Copyright of all material including photographs, drawings and images in
this document remains vested in Aker Solutions and third party contributors
as appropriate. Accordingly, neither the whole nor any part of this
document shall be reproduced in any form nor used in any manner without
express prior permission and applicable acknowledgements. No trademark,
copyright or other notice shall be altered or removed from any reproduction.

REFERENCES
[1] DNV 2.7-3 Standard for certification Portable offshore Unit, May 2011
[2] Eurocode 3 BS 1993-1-1_2005 Design of steel structures - General
rules and rules for buildings
[3] Eurocode 3 BS EN 1993 -1-8_2005 Design of steel structures – Design
of joints
[4] API RP 2GEO Geotechnical and foundation design considerations,
First Edition, April 2011
[5] DNV RP H103 Modelling and Analysis of Marine Operations, April
2011
[6] Eurocode 1991-1-7 Actions on structures - Accidental Actions

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 7

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 8

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

Web delivered services and applications have dedicated container, an isolated virtual computing
increased in both popularity and complexity over the past environment. We use the container ID to accurately
few years. Daily tasks, such as banking, travel, and social associate the web request with the subsequent DB queries.
networking, are all done via the web. Such services typically Thus, Double Guard can build a causal mapping profile by
employ a web server front end that runs the application user taking both the web server and DB traffic into account.
interface logic, as well as a back-end server that consists of
a database or file server. Due to their ubiquitous use for II. RELATED WORK
personal and/or corporate data, web services have always
been the target of attacks. These attacks have recently
become more diverse, as attention has shifted from attacking Double guard and its classification:-
the front end to exploiting vulnerabilities of the web Double Guard is a system used to detect attacks in multitier
applications in order to corrupt the back-end database web services [1] [2].A network Intrusion Detection System
system (e.g., SQL injection attacks). can be classified into two types: anomaly detection and
misuse detection. Anomaly detection first requires the IDS
A plethora of Intrusion Detection Systems (IDSs) to define
currently examine network packets individually within both and characterize the correct and acceptable static form and
the web server and the database system. However, there is dynamic behaviour of the system, which can then be used to
very little work being performed on multitier Anomaly detect abnormal changes or anomalous behaviours. The
Detection (AD) systems that generate models of network boundary between acceptable and anomalous forms of
behavior for both web and database network interactions. In stored code and data is precisely definable. Behaviour
such multitier architectures, the back-end database server is models are built by performing a statistical analysis on
often protected behind a firewall while the web servers are historical data or by using rule-based approaches to specify
remotely accessible over the Internet. Unfortunately, though behaviour patterns. An anomaly detector then compares
they are protected from direct remote attacks, the back-end actual usage patterns against established models to identify
systems are susceptible to attacks that use web requests as a abnormal events [1] [2] [3].
means to exploit the back end. Methodology:-
To protect multitier web services, Intrusion This approach can create normality models of isolated user
detection systems have been widely used to detect known sessions that include both the web front-end (HTTP) and
attacks by matching misused traffic patterns or signatures. A back-end (File or SQL) network transactions [1] [3]. It
class of IDS that leverages machine learning can also detect employs a light-weight virtualization technique [1] [3] to
unknown attacks by identifying abnormal net-work traffic assign each users web session to a dedicated container, an
that deviates from the so-called “normal” behavior isolated virtual computing environment. It uses the
previously profiled during the IDS training phase. container ID to accurately associate the web request with the
Individually, the web IDS and the database IDS can detect subsequent
abnormal network traffic sent to either of them. However, DB queries. Double Guard forms container-based IDS with
we found that these IDSs cannot detect cases wherein multiple input streams to produce alerts. The correlation of
normal traffic is used to attack the web server and the input streams provides a better characterization of the
database server. system for anomaly detection because the intrusion sensor
has a more precise normality model that detects a wider
For example, if an attacker with non admin range of threats[1] [2] [3] [4].
privileges can log in to a web server using normal-user Possible Attacks:-
access credentials, he/she can find a way to issue a Some of the important attacks are generally used by
privileged database query by exploiting vulnerabilities in the attackers for hacking i.e. SQL injection, Direct DB Attack
web server. Neither the web IDS nor the database IDS ,Hijack future session attack, Privilege escalation[1] [2] [3]
would detect this type of attack since the web IDS would [5]and D-DOS attack [1].
merely see typical user login traffic and the database IDS
would see only the normal traffic of a privileged user. This
type of attack can be readily detected if the database IDS Algorithm Used:-
can identify that a privileged request from the web server is In order to detect such attacks algorithms which are being
not associated with user-privileged access. Unfortunately, used are Static model building algorithm [1] [2] [3] [4].
within the current multithreaded web server architecture, it
is not feasible to detect or profile such causal mapping Limitations:-
between web server traffic and DB server traffic since Vulnerabilities Due to Improper Input Processing :-
traffic cannot be clearly attributed to user sessions.
Once the malicious user inputs are normalized, Double
We present Double Guard, a system used to detect attacks in Guard cannot detect attacks hidden in the values [1].
multitier web services. Our approach can create normality
models of isolated user sessions that include both the web Possibility Of Evading Double Guard :-
front-end (HTTP) and back-end (File or SQL) network
transactions. To achieve this, we employ a light-weight It is possible for an attacker to discover the mapping
virtualization technique to assign each user’s web session to patterns by doing code analysis or reverse engineering, and

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 9

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

issue expected web requests prior to performing malicious Attacks such as SQL injection do not require compromising
database queries [1]. the web server. Attackers can use existing vulnerabilities in
the web server logic to inject the data or string content that
Distributed DOS attacks:- contains the exploits and then use the web server to relay
these exploits to attack the back-end database [fig 2]. Since
Previous Double Guard system was not designed to mitigate our approach provides a two-tier detection, even if the
D-DOS attacks. These attacks can also occur in the server exploits are accepted by the web server, the relayed contents
architecture without the back-end database. Denial-of- to the DB server would not be able to take on the expected
service attacks are common and fashionable these days. In structure for the given web server request.
denial-of service attack, attacker tries to prevent legitimate
users from using a service or shutting down a service owing
to some implementation vulnerability crashing the machine
[1].

III.DOUBLE GUARD SYSTEM ARCHITECTURE

System architecture:-
This is the system architecture design. In this, first the client
sends a request for price and other information related to a
particular product then that request is analyzed in order to
identify if the request is HTTP request or a query and this is
done using static model building algorithm.

Fig 3.2 SQL- injection attack [5]

Attacks such as SQL injection do not require

compromising the web server. Attackers can use existing
vulnerabilities in the web server logic to inject the data
or string content that contains the exploits and then use
the web server to relay these exploits to attack the back-
end database. Since our approach provides two-tier
detection, even if the exploits are accepted by the web
server, the relayed contents to the DB server would not
be able to take on the expected structure for the given
web server request. For instance, since the SQL injection
attack changes the structure of the SQL queries even if
the injected data were to go through the web server side,
it would generate SQL queries in a different structure
that could be detected as a deviation from the SQL query
Figure 3.1: System Architecture diagram structure that would normally follow such a web request.
After the request is categorized if the request is HTTP
request then that request is passed through firewall and web 2. D-Dos Attacks:-
server receives that request and that request is send as a Double Guard is not designed to mitigate D-DoS
query to database server and response is sent accordingly attacks [fig 3]. These attacks can also occur in the server
but the request is handled only after user authentication is architecture without the backend database. In computing,
satisfied .If the values in database is changed then data a denial-of-service (DoS) attack is an attempt to make a
leakage occurs and that’s when data leakage algorithm machine or network resource unavailable to its
works and saves the intended users, such as to temporarily or indefinitely
records of unauthorized user and sends it to admin. If a interrupt or suspend services of a host connected to
particular authorized user requests for hacked data then the internet. A distributed denial-of-service (D-DoS) is
previous data is provided to that user and this is done using where the attack source is more than one–and often
hashing algorithm. thousands–of unique IP addresses. Criminal perpetrators
of DoS attacks often target sites or services hosted on
Attacks scenario:- high-profile web server such as banks, credit card
payment gateways; but motives of revenge, blackmail or
1. SQL-Injection Attacks:- activism can be behind other attacks. A distributed
denial-of-service (D-DoS) attack occurs when multiple
systems flood the bandwidth or resources of a targeted

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 10

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

system, usually one or more web servers. Such an attack Step 5: Forward AQ and AR to virtual server to
is often the result of multiple compromised systems validate.
flooding the targeted system with traffic.
Step 6: If attack identified then virtual system
automatically terminate the HTTP request.

Step 7: Else HTTP request is forwarded to the original

server.

Step 8: Display information.

Step 9: Exit.

Data leakage algorithm (II):-

Input: Input data D = D1, D2, D3,.., Dn saves into the

hash table.
Step 1: Arrange all input data into matrix format (save
Fig 3.3 D-DoS attack into log files).
Step 2: Consider m as a selected data act as a new
When a server is overloaded with connections, new
selected data.
connections can no longer be accepted. The major
Step 3: m position gets changed after allocated time
advantages to an attacker of using a distributed denial-of-
period.
service attack are that multiple machines can generate
Step 4: If Ms data get hacked.
more attack traffic than one machine, multiple attack
Step 5: Data leakage is occurs.
machines are harder to turn off than one attack machine,
Step 6: We have to check the leakage data and prevent
and that the behavior of each attack machine can be
Step 7: Using Revert back function we have to get
stealthier, making it harder to track and shut down. These
original data.
attacker advantages cause challenges for defense
Step 8: When user calls that corrupted file, hash function
mechanisms. For example, merely purchasing more
gives to user a previous data.
incoming bandwidth than the current volume of the attack
Step 9: Return True.
might not help, because the attacker might be able to
simply add more attack machines. This after all will end
up completely crashing a website for periods of time.
MD5 Hashing algorithm (III):-
Malware can carry D-DoS attack mechanisms; one of the
better-known examples of this was My Doom. Its DoS
mechanism was triggered on a specific date and time. MD5 which stands for Message Digest algorithm 5 is a
This type of D-DoS involved hard coding the target IP widely used cryptographic hash function The idea behind
address prior to release of the malware and no further this algorithm is to take up a random data (text or binary)
interaction was necessary to launch the attack. as an input and generate a fixed size hash value as the
output The input data can be of any size or length, but
the output hash value size is always fixed
IV.ALGORITHM
Step 1: Start
Static Model Building Algorithm (I):-
Step 2: For each candidate set element.
Ensure: The Mapping Model for static website
Input: Set AQ for database query. Set AR for
Step 3: For PV (i) and CV (i) compare attributes and
server request. detect which fields are corrupted.
Step 1: Identify the input type of HTTP request
Step 4: get who and when of corruption event.
whether it is a query or a request.
Step 5: Prepare a report.
Step 2: for each different request do, if r is a
request to static file. Step 6: Stop
Step 3: Store the input in hash table as per their
type AQ for query and for request AR.
V.FUTURE SCOPE
Step 4: The key for hash table entry will be set as
The basic idea is provide two tier security to for web
the input itself. applications. The aim is to secure the web server from the

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 11

 www.ierjournal.org International Engineering Research Journal (IERJ) Special Issue 2 Page 4599-4610, 2015, ISSN 2395-1621

attacker client and to secure the data from the internal

authorized persons in the data care centres. This security
model can be further extended to provide security against
other attacks.

VII.CONCLUSION

This paper States the design level approach taken by team

for the project. In this document, a fair amount of
elaboration has been done on the project scenario pointing
out the most of the important detail. The goal for the final
product has become
apparent as the scenario and the desired user interface is
visually explained. Additionally, this report defines
proposed system architecture and is discussed with attacks
scenario. Further information on the technical design is
given and progress is summarized. In this the system
architecture is designed for detecting intrusions like SQL
injection and D-Dos attacks.

REFERENCE
[1].Mixing Le, Angelos Stavros, Member, IEEE, and Brent
ByungHoon Kang, Member, IEEE, IEEE Transactions on
dependable and secure computing, Double Guard: Detecting
Intrusions in Multitier Web Applications, VOL. 9,NO. 4,
March, 2014.
[2]. Mr. Chaudhari Hitesh Kumar, Prof. Ajay V. Nadargi,
Mr. Bodade Narendra, Mr. Shinde Sushil , Double Guard:
Detecting Intrusions in Multi-tier Web applications,
International Journal of Advanced Research in Computer
and Communication Engineering Vol. 4, Issue 2, February
2015.
[3].K.Karthika, K.Sripriyadevi, To Detect Intrusions in
Multitier Web Applications by using Double Guard
Approach., International Journal of Scientific and
Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 1, January-2013.
[4]. ShapnaRani.E, G.Sathesh Kumar, Mythili.R,
Karthick.R. Intrusion Detection System for Multitier Web
Applications Using Double Guard, International Journal of
Engineering And Computer Science ISSN: 2319-7242
Volume 2 Issue 7 (July 2013), Page No. 2162-2166.
[5].Niraj Gaikwad, Swapnil Kandage, Dhanashri Gholap,
Double Guard: Detecting and Preventing Intrusions in
Multitier Web Applications, Networks and Systems, 2(2),
February March 2013, International Journal of Networks
and system.

© 2015, IERJ All Rights Reserved Page 12