CHAPTER 5

Response and Stability Analysis of Articulated Leg Plateform

5.1 Introduction
As discussed in the literature review, stochastic response and stability analysis of Articulated
Leg Plateform (ALP) using probability domain technique have not been investigated so far.
Although the nonlinear response of ALP to random waves have been studied by various
investigators [Datta and Jain (1990), Choi and Lou (1991), Gottlieb et al. (1992), Bar-Avi
and Benaroya (1996)] using both time and frequency domain techniques using different
mathematical modelings. However, most of the investigators ignored the hydrodynamic
damping in their study. ALP has low frequency and size of excitation is also significant.
Formulation of the problem in probability domain by modeling ALP as a SDOF system is
complicated because of its buoyancy effect and wave induced drag nonlinearity. In the
present chapter, ALP is modeled as a SDOF nonlinear oscillator considering the rotation of
tower at the base as only degree of freedom. The hydrodynamic loading and the consequent
drag induced nonlinearity is expressed in such a way that probability domain technique can
be applied. Two ALP problems are analyzed for different significant wave heights to show
the effect of various parameters on the response and stability of the system.
5.2 Theory
5.2.1 Assumptions
The articulated tower as shown in Fig. 1a is idealized as a rigid column with single degree of
freedom as angular rotation at the base hinge. Fig. 2 shows the mathematical model of
tower. For the formulation of the problem, the following assumptions are made


i. The flexural deformations of the tower are negligible compared to its displacements
as a rigid body.
ii. The tower is idealized as a single column two-dimensional structure undergoing
motion in the plane of the fluid loading caused by waves.
iii. The base of the tower is assumed to be hinged.
iv. The tower is discretized into a number of segments, each of uniform property and
having appropriate mass, drag areas and volumes.
v. The structural damping of the system is specified as a fraction of the critical damping
corresponding to the un-deflected configuration of the tower.
5.2.2 Equation of Motion of Articulated Loading Platform
The equation of motion of the tower [Rajagopalan and Eatock Taylor (1982); Datta and Jain
(1990); Bar- Avi and Benaroya (1960)] is written as
( )
0 0 0
2 1 ( )
s
I I R F t + + + =

(5.1)
where
2
( ) t = ;
0 0
R V g

=
In which is the angular rotation at the base hinge; dot denotes the derivative with respect
to time;
0
V is the displaced volume of water by the tower;
s
is the frequency of the tower
for its un-displaced position given by ( )
1 2
0 0
R I ;
0
I is the mass moment of inertia of tower
about the base hinge; is the percentage critical damping corresponding to the un-displaced
position of the tower.


Discretizing the tower in N number of elements along the height,
0
R and
0
I can be
obtained as
0
0
1 1
n N
j j j j
j j
R g S V S W

= =
=

(5.2)
( )
0
2
2
0
1 1
1
n N
j j
m j j
j j
S W
I C S V
g
= =
= +

(5.3)
where
0
n is the number of submerged elements of the tower when tower is standing
vertically;
j
V and
j
W are volume and weight in air, respectively of the j
th
element;
j
S is the
distance of the centre of gravity (CG) of the j
th
element from the base hinge measured along
the tower and

is the mass density of water.

In Eq. (5.1), ( ) F t represents the total moment of the hydrodynamic force about the base and
is calculated using Morisons equation. Total moment is obtained by summing up the
contributions from each submersed elements of the tower. For computational purpose it is
assumed that the variation along the length of an element of the tower is negligible. It is also
assumed that the variation in ( ) F t due to displacement of tower is negligible as change in
number of submersed elements is almost negligible in comparison to the total number of
submerged elements. Using modified Morisons equation for hydrodynamic loading, ( ) F t
can be given as
( )
D I
F t F F = + (5.4)
where
( )
0
1
1
2
i i
n
D D i i x i x i i
j
F C Dl u x u x x

=
=

(5.5)


0
1
i
n
I m i x i i
i
F C Vu x l

=
=

(5.6)
Substituting for ( ) F t in Eq. (5.1) using Eqs. (5.4 to 5.6)
( ) ( )
0 0
0 0 0
1 1
1
2 1
2
i i i
n n
s D i i x i x i i m i x i i
j i
I I R C Dl u x u x x C Vu x l


= =
+ + + = +


(5.7)
in which
D
C and
m
C are the Morisons drag and inertia coefficients, respectively;

is the
mass density of water;
i
x
u ,
i
x
u are the horizontal fluid particle velocity and acceleration at
the midpoint of i
th
Element which is at the height of
i
x from the base of the tower;
i
D ,
i
V
and
i
l are the diameter, volume and length of the i
th
element.
D
F , the drag term in loading, is further simplified by assuming the structural velocity to be
generally greater than the wave particle velocity. This assumption can be justified in view of
the system being highly flexible and will be shown to be valid by numerical example.
With the assumption the relative velocity term of Eq. (5.7) can be written as
( ) ( )( )
2
sgn
i i i i
x i x i x x i
u x u x u u x =

if
i
i x
x u >

and
( ) ( )
sgn sgn
i
x
u =

(5.8a)

( ){ }
2 2 2
sgn 2
i i i
x x i x i
u u x u x = +

(5.8b)

2
2
i i i
x x i x i
u u x u x = +

(5.8c)
Since
( )
sgn

is equal to
( )
sgn
i
x
u , the terms
( )
2 2
sgn
i
x i
u x

and
( )
sgn 2
i i
x x i
u u x

in Eq.
(5.8b) is written as
2
i
x

and 2
i
x i
u x

, respectively. Many researchers [Rajagopalan and

Eatock Taylor (1982)] ignored the drag term in frequency domain analysis because in
comparison to inertia term,
I
F , drag term is small. Later, effect of ignoring the drag term


will be examined in the parametric study. Further, with the help of Eq. (5.8c), Eq. (5.7) can
be written as
( )
0 0 0 0
2 2 2 3
1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0
1 1
2 1
2 2
i i i i
n n n n
D D D m
s s i i x i i i i i i x x i i x i i
j j j i
C C C C
Dl u x Dl x Dl u u x Vu x l
I I I I



= = = =
+ + + = +



(5.9)
Further, it can be simplified to
( )
2 2 0
1 2 3
0 0 0 0
2 1 ( ) ( ) ( )
2
D d D m
s s
C K C C
a t a t a t
I I I I


+ + + = +

(5.10)
where
s
is the frequency of the tower, i.e. ( )
0.5
0 0
R I at rest;
1
( ) a t ,
2
( ) a t , and
3
( ) a t are the
random processes whose power spectral density functions (PSDF) are expressed in terms of
the PSDF of sea. The derivations are explained in the next section. The rms values of
responses and the probability density function (PDF) of responses obtained from the
solution of Eqs (5.7) and (5.10) using time domain analysis are found to be the same (see
example problems solved). Thus, the simplifications made to convert Eq. (5.7) in the form
of Eq (5.10) do not change the mean square statistics of the response.
5.2.3 Computations of PSDFs of
1
( ) a t ,
2
( ) a t and
3
( ) a t
Comparing Eq. (5.9) with Eq. (5.10), coefficients
0 d
K ,
1
( ) a t ,
2
( ) a t ,
3
( ) a t can be obtained
in integral form as
3
0
0
2
h
D
d x
C
K D x dx

(5.11)
Term having
1
( ) a t in Eq. (5.10) can be written as
1
0 0
( )
d D
K C
a t
I I

=

(5.12)


in which
2
0
h
d D x x
K C D u x dx

(5.13)
In order to perform the integration of the Eq. (5.13), the expressions for water particle
velocity at any water depth are obtained in terms of sea surface elevations. For this purpose,
the following basic relationships are used
( )
1
( ) cos
n n n n
n
t A K y t

=
=

(5.14)
( )
1
cosh 1
( ) 2 cos
2 sinh
n
x n n n n n
n
n
K x
u t A K y t
K h

=
=

(5.15)
( )
2
1
cosh 1
( ) 2 sin
2 sinh
n
x n n n n n
n
n
K x
u t A K y t
K h

=
=

(5.16)
where
n
A ,
n
,
n
K ,
n
are the amplitude, frequency, wave number and phase, respectively
for the n
th
component wave; ( ) t is the fluctuation of sea surface about the mean sea level;
y is the lateral distance of the concerned point from the vertical central axis of the tower at
rest, which is zero here.
Using Eq. (5.15) in Eq. (5.13),
d
K may be written as
( )
2
0
1
cosh 1
2 cos
2 sinh
h
n
d D n n n n n x
n
n
K x
K C A K y t D x dx
K h

=
=

(5.17)
or it can be written in the form
( )
1
1
cos
d D n n n n n n
n
K C G A K y t

=
=

(5.18)
where
2
1
0
cosh
sinh
h
n
n x
n
K x
G D x dx
K h
=

(5.19)


Table 1: Physical properties of ALP
Part of ALP Weight (kN)
Buoyancy
(kN)
Head 3730.0
Upper shaft (above msl) 2810.0
Upper shaft (below msl) 1740.0 5220.0
Buoyancy chamber 7210.0 27170.0
Lower shaft 22580.0 23390.0
Ballast chamber 40140.0 24700.0
Lowest shaft 840.4 320.06
Total 79050.4 80800.06






Table 2: Coefficients used in Eq. (5.10) for both towers

d
C
m
C

0
I
s


Case 1 0.6 2 100 1.05e10 0.11 0.05
Case 2 0.6 2 100 1.88e12 0.169 0.03





l owest Shaft
Ballast chamber
Lower Shaft
Bouyancy chamber
Upper Shaft
Platform
universal Joint
15
9.7
h=141.5
75.10
25.60
18.10
29.30
15
6.3
10.5
2.3
6

Fig 1a: Articulated loading Platform, Case I (all dimensions are in meter)
sea bed
300m
75m
25m
Deck weight 25000KN
Tower Weight 200KN/M
Structural critical damping ratio 3%
Fund. Freq. of Structure 0.167 rad/sec
EQUIVALENT DIAMETERS
Tower Buoyancy chamber
Drag 34 m 40m
Inertia 4.5m 7.5m
Buoyancy 15m 50m

Fig 1b: Articulated loading Platform, Case II (all dimensions are in meter)