DynamicResponseofFixedOffshorePlatforms (Tese) 151593 Azarhoushang2010

FacultyofScienceandEngineering
DepartmentofCivilEngineering

DynamicResponseofFixedOffshorePlatforms
toEnvironmentalLoads

AzinAzarhoushang
ThisthesisispresentedfortheDegreeof
MasterofPhilosophy
of
CurtinUniversityofTechnology
November2010

Declaration
Thisthesiscontainsnomaterialwhichhasbeenacceptedfortheawardofanyotherdegreeor
diplomainanyuniversity.
Tothebestofmyknowledgeandbeliefthisthesiscontainsnomaterialpreviouslypublishedby
anyotherpersonexceptwheredueacknowledgementhasbeenmade.
Thefollowingpublicationhasresultedfromtheworkcarriedoutforthisdegree.
Peerreviewedconferencepaper:
Azin Azarhoushang and Hamid Nikraz

Curtin University of Technology
Perth, Australia
Nonlinear Water-Structure Interaction of Fixed Offshore Platform in Extreme

Storm
Proceedings of the Twentieth (2010) International Offshore and Polar Engineering Conference
Beijing, China, June 2025, 2010
Copyright © 2010 by The International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers (ISOPE)
ISBN 978-1-880653-77-7 (Set); ISSN 1098-6189 (Set); www.isope.org
ii

DynamicResponseofFixedOffshorePlatformstoEnvironmentalLoads

Abstract

In this thesis a simplified method for dynamic response of jackettype offshore structures to
extreme environmental load is investigated using existing experience and the procedures
available within the industry. FixedJacket type offshore platforms may, under extreme wave
loading conditions, exhibit significant nonlinear behavior. This must be accounted for in the
designofsuchplatforms,inordertoensuresatisfactorystructuralsafety.Thecomplicatedand
nonlinear dynamic platform behavior implies that a wide number of significant uncertainties
are introduced to the design process through the included mathematical models, analysis
methodsandthepracticaluseofthesemethods.Themajorsourcesofnonlinearbehaviorare
thewaveloading,thedampingmechanismsandthesoilstructureinteraction.Theinclusionof
nonlinear dynamic platform behavior in the design process implies that nonlinear stochastic
dynamic response based on time domain simulation methods must be applied. Time domain
stochasticdynamicresponseanalysisisananalysismethodwhichwillbeacentralelementof
theprocedure.However,itseemsnottobeclearsofarhowthismethodshouldbeintegrated
in a practical design procedure. Initially an overview of the different sources of nonlinear
platformbehaviorisclarifiedwiththeunderlyingmechanism.Furthermore,itisoutlinedhow
those nonlinear effects may be accounted for with a special focus on estimation of extreme
responseanddynamicamplificationfactors.Thediscussionandoutlinesareillustratedbyan
example of fixed offshore platform. Finally the practical use of the method in the design of
fixedjackettypeoffshoreplatformsisrecommended.

iii

Acknowledgements

It is with the sincerest gratitude that I acknowledge the attention and guidance that my
supervisor, Professor Hamid Nikraz, has given to this work. His brilliance, patience, and
generallygoodnaturehaveprovidedinspirationandmotivationthatshallguidemeformany
years.Hisfriendshipandsupportwillbealwayscherished.
IamalsogratefultoWorleyParsonsforprovidingthecomputersoftwareSACSwithoutwhich
thisprojectwouldhavebeenexceptionallydifficult.
Finally, I wish to acknowledge my parents for their encouragement throughout my academic
endeavorsandmakingallthispossible.
iv

TableofContents
Declaration......................................................................................................................................ii
Abstract..........................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements........................................................................................................................iv
Chapter1........................................................................................................................................1
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................2
1.1 Objectives.......................................................................................................................3
1.2 Background....................................................................................................................3
1.3 Significance....................................................................................................................5
1.4 Methodsofanalysis.......................................................................................................5
1.5 ResearchMethod...........................................................................................................6
1.6 Solutiontechniques.......................................................................................................7
Chapter2........................................................................................................................................8
2.0 Literaturereview............................................................................................................9
2.1 Waveloading.................................................................................................................9
2.2 Forcingfrequencyclassification...................................................................................10
2.3 Wavetheories..............................................................................................................10
2.4 Waveconditionclassification......................................................................................11
2.5 Hydrodynamicloading.................................................................................................12
2.6 Hydrodynamicloadingclassification............................................................................12
2.7 Globalandlocaleffectsofhydrodynamicloading.......................................................14
2.8 Seastateshorttermandlongtermcharacteristics....................................................15
2.9 Nonlinearnatureofhydrodynamicloading...............................................................16
2.10 Dynamicforces.............................................................................................................16
2.11 Sourcesofuncertaintyindesignprocess....................................................................17
2.12 Dynamicanalysismethods...........................................................................................18
v

2.13 Variationininputparameters......................................................................................19
Chapter3......................................................................................................................................20
3.0 Analysisofcasestudies................................................................................................21
3.1 Modeldefinition..........................................................................................................21
3.2 Substructure.................................................................................................................22
3.3 Pilesuperelement.......................................................................................................23
3.4 Soilstructureinteraction.............................................................................................23
3.5 Fluidstructureinteraction...........................................................................................24
3.6 Interactionsofstructurefluidsoilsystems.................................................................25
3.7 Dynamiccharacteristics...............................................................................................26
3.8 Dynamicresponse........................................................................................................27
3.9 Dynamicbehaviorofdragdominatedoffshorestructures.........................................28
3.10 Structuralreliabilityanalysis........................................................................................29
3.11 PracticalStructuraldesignprocedure..........................................................................30
3.12 Determinationofthemaximumrandomresponse.....................................................31
3.13 Calibrationofinternalresponse..................................................................................32
3.14 Randomtimedomainsimulation.................................................................................33
3.15 Structuraldesignoptimization.....................................................................................34
3.16 Designtoolsrequirements...........................................................................................35
3.17 Simplifieddynamicapproach.......................................................................................36
3.18 Alterationtodynamicprocedure.................................................................................37
3.19 Feasibilityofsimplifiedapproach................................................................................37
3.20 PseudoDynamicAnalysis.............................................................................................37
3.21 Basicstepsoftheprocedure........................................................................................38
3.22 Designassumptions.....................................................................................................40
vi

3.23 Assessmentoftheprocedure......................................................................................41
3.24 Waveresponseanalysis...............................................................................................41
3.25 Dynamicamplificationfactor.......................................................................................42
3.26 Inertialshearforces.....................................................................................................46
Chapter4......................................................................................................................................49
4.0 Conclusions..................................................................................................................50
4.1 Outlineoftheprocedure.............................................................................................50
4.2 Recommendations.......................................................................................................53
4.3 Longertermdevelopment...........................................................................................55
4.4 Finalcomments............................................................................................................55
References...................................................................................................................................56
AppendixA...................................................................................................................................58
Figure1GeneralviewofSACSstructuralmodel.....................................................................59
Figure2ModeshapeinXdirection.........................................................................................60
Figure3ModeshapeinYdirection.........................................................................................60
Figure4Inputspectrum...........................................................................................................61
Figure5Wavespectrum.........................................................................................................61
Figure6Waveinthexdirection..............................................................................................62
Figure7Waveintheydirection..............................................................................................62
Figure8Inertialshearinxdirection........................................................................................63
Figure9Inertialshearinydirection........................................................................................63
Figure10Modeshape1inxdirection,EL29.52...................................................................64
Figure11Modeshape2inxdirection,EL29.52...................................................................65
Figure12Modeshape1inxdirection,EL9.0........................................................................66
Figure13Modeshape2inxdirection,EL9.0........................................................................67
Figure14Modeshape1inxdirection,EL6.0.........................................................................68
vii

Figure15Modeshape2inxdirection,EL6.0.........................................................................69
Figure16Modeshape1inxdirection,EL13.9.......................................................................70
Figure24Modeshape1inydirection,EL29.52...................................................................78
Figure25Modeshape2inydirection,EL29.52...................................................................79
Figure26Modeshape1inydirection,EL9.0.......................................................................80
Figure28Modeshape1inydirection,EL6.0.........................................................................82
Figure29Modeshape2inydirection,EL6.0.........................................................................83
Figure38Modeshape1..........................................................................................................92
viii

Figure44Baseshear................................................................................................................98
Figure45Overturningmoment...............................................................................................98
Figure46SurfaceProfile..........................................................................................................99
Table1SurfaceProfileStatistics..............................................................................................99
Table2Loaddistributionmatrix............................................................................................100
Table3DynamicAmplificationFactor...................................................................................100
Table4ModalParticipationfactors.......................................................................................100
Table5 MassParticipationFactors.......................................................................................101
Table6Naturalperiodsforthefirstsixmodes.....................................................................101
Table8GlobalpeakresponsedatapointsinYdirection.......................................................104
Table9DynamicShear...........................................................................................................106
Table10Maincharacteristicsofthejacketandenvironmentaldata...................................107
Table11Hydrodynamiccoefficients......................................................................................107
AppendixB.................................................................................................................................108
StructuralModelInputFile....................................................................................................109
PSI(PileStructureInteraction)InputFile...............................................................................113
WaveResponseInputFile......................................................................................................115
DynamicInputFile.................................................................................................................115
Waveresponseoutput...........................................................................................................116
ix

Chapter1

Introduction
1

1.0
Acompletemodelincludingtopsides,jacket,pilesandthesurroundingsoilisconsideredusing
SACSsoftware(refertoFigure1).ThePlatformdescriptionandenvironmentaldataistabulated
intheAppendixA,table10.Thenonlinearforcedeformationbehaviorofthepilesoilsystemis
modeled to account for finite deflections of the pile (the Pdelta effect). Dynamic
characteristics (mode shapes and frequencies) of the structure are generated with reduced
structural stiffness matrix and consistent mass approach. A random sea state (surface
elevation)canberepresentedbyaGaussianprocess;howeverwaveloadingisnonlineardueto
the drag term in the Morison wave load equation and inundation effects. Therefore fixed
offshore platform response to random wave loading will no longer be Gaussian in nature
(Greeves, 1996). A frequency domainspectral analysis technique is clearly able to reflectthe
random nature of the wave loading via the combination of the structural transfer functions
with a wave spectrum. However it isnot able to directly capture the nonlinear wave loading
behavior. The use of frequency domainspectral analysis techniques requires the response
behaviorofthestructuretobe linearized;thereforerandom dynamic calculationshavebeen
performed through time domain simulations to account for nonlinearities in nonGaussian
process (Soding, 1990). The link between the random dynamic response and the quasistatic
designeventforcesisachievedbymakinguseofglobaldynamicamplificationfactors(Vugts,
1998). An additional static load (Separate inertia load set) is combined with the quasistatic
extremestormenvironmentalloadstoreflecttheinclusionofdynamiceffects.Inertialoadset
which represent the distribution of mass inertia forces over the height of the structure are
appliedatthemainplanlevelsinproportiontothemassdistributioninordertoachievetarget
dynamiclevelshearandoverturningmomentvalues.Thesuitabilityofamethodasapractical
assessmenttoolisinvestigatedasarelevantresponseprocess.
2

1.1 Objectives
The HD researcher has had the opportunity to work in numerous FEED and Detail Design
Projects comprising conventional bottom supported offshore platforms. The data/literature
survey is conducted to identify information that would impact upon the procedures adopted
for the study or its likely outcome. This document provides a data/literature review of the
existing experience and the procedures available within the industry to identify recent
important advances in storm loading assessment for the prediction of the extreme storm
dynamicresponseoffixedoffshoreplatforms.

Theobjectiveoftheresearchpresentedinthisthesisistodevelopaneffectiveprocedurefor
the investigation of the hydrodynamic forces and interactions of fixed jacket type offshore
platformsubjecttoextremestormwaveloads.

Thedynamicresponsewhichmustresultfromdynamicloading(varieswithtimeinmagnitude
and/ordirection) depends on the stiffness (as in the case of static loads) andadditionally on
themassanddampingofthestructure(Hallam,1977).Theemphasisismadeonaprocedure
whichcanbefitthroughexistingdesigncodesofpractice.Finallysomerecommendationswill
bemadeforfuturedevelopmentworktoincorporateadesignapproachfor theprobabilistic
natureoftherandomwaveenvironment(longtermeffects).
1.2 Background
Offshoreplatformsareoneofthemostimportantstructuresinexplorationandproductionof
oilandnaturalgas.Jackettypeoffshoreplatformscompriseofthreemainpartswhichinclude
Jacket,DeckandPilefoundations.Thejacketconsistsofsteelframesmadeoftubularsections
connectedtomudlinebypilefoundationswhicharedriventhroughmainlegsoralternatively
withskirtpiles.

Many Jacket platforms are highly redundant systems with ductility capabilities that permit
displacements greater than that associated with the static ultimate capacity. Such ductile
systems may be able to resist peak applied loads greater than static capacity if the overload
occur for a limited duration (Schmucker, 1996). Dynamic effects are clearly important in the
determination of platform ultimate pushover strength incorporating inertia and resonance
3

effects,strainrateeffectsonyieldstressandsoilproperties,andcyclicdegradationbehavior
(Frieze,1997).

Duetolargeinvestmentthattalloffshoreplatformsrepresent,andbecauseofthecatastrophic
consequences of their failure, an accurate determination of structural response to
environmental loads is of prime importance. The nonlinear dynamic behavior of jacket type
offshore structures subjected to environmental loads has been the subject of the number of
research papers in recent years. Few attempts have been made to incorporate random
dynamic response constraints. The optimum design of structures with random response
constraintsisofgreatimportanceparticularlyinoffshoreplatforms.

Thefailureofstructuremayoccurduetothefatigueofthestructureinthelowtomoderate
seastatesaswellasextremeresponsetotheseverestsea(Kim,2008).Forreliabledesignof
offshoreplatformscareshouldbetakenondynamicbehaviorofJackettypeoffshoreplatforms
toenvironmentalloads.Dynamicanalysisofoffshoreplatformscanbeperformedforextreme
loads(thedesignwaveordesignseastate)orforlongtermeffects(fatiguedegradation).

Inadditiontousingadynamicanalysis,itisessentialthat,inplaceofasingledesignwave,a
stochasticallydefinedseastatebeused.Suchananalysisisessentialindesigningagainstthe
firstexcursionfailureanddesigningforanadequatefatiguelife.Stochasticapproachbasedon
frequency domain spectral analysis or random time domain simulations enable the random
natureofenvironmenttobereflected.Thisapproachleadstomorerealisticsolutionanditis
usually results in reduced design loads allowing lighter and more efficient structures
(Iraninejad,1988).

Waves account the major loading on ocean structures. Environmental loads assumption
introduces a major source of uncertainty in design process. Despite of the engineering
complexities and uncertainties; safe, efficient, and economical platform design approach is
investigated in the proposed thesis with recognition of random nature of the wave
environment.
4

1.3 Significance
Fordynamicallysensitiveplatforms,wheredynamicamplificationcouldbesignificantandwave
particleandstructuralvelocitiesandaccelerationsmayaddorsubtractfromeachother,atime
domainanalysisshouldbeperformed(Chakrabarti,2005).
Thedynamiccomponentsofextremestormloadingareunlikelytogovernthebulkofthesteel
in the structure, even in the deepest water depths, provided the effects of flexibility are
consideredfromanearlystageinconceptdevelopment.
Arelativelylowweightgrowthcanbeachievedfromastrongawarenessofdynamicresponse
effectsandcarefulattentiontotheinteractionbetweenplatformdynamiccharacteristics,wave
loading and dynamic response. These experiences demonstrate the importance of a reliable
assessmentofdynamicresponseandtheneedtoincorporatetheseeffectsataveryearlystage
indesigndevelopment.
1.4 Methodsofanalysis
Methodsofanalysisareprobablythemorereliablepartofthedesignprocess.Methodswhich
relate the frequency content of the random seas and the fundamental natural mode of the
structurearerequired.Sincetheperiodofthedesignwaveisusuallygreaterthanthenatural
periodofthestructure,modalanalysisisoftenusedwithasmallernumberofmodes.Thismay
beappropriatetoreproducesomeglobalresponseparameters(Ko,1988).

If the inertia forces are comparatively important dynamic analysis to be carried out in either
frequencydomaininwhichcasetransienteffectsareneglectedortimedomaininwhichcase
transient effects may be considered as well as nonlinearity (Brebbia and Walker, 1979). The
dynamicanalysisofaplatformsubjectedtothedesignwaveisnormallyperformedforsteady
stateconditionssinceitwouldbeillogicaltoassumethattheseawasatrestwhenthewave
startedtoarrivewiththeirmaximumamplitudes(Ko,1988).

5

1.5 ResearchMethod
Before the motion of an offshore structure can be calculated, an analytical representation is
needed for the structure (refer to Figure 1), together with the loadings and restraints using
SACSsoftware(refertoSACSinputfilesattheendofthethesis).Thelinkbetweentherandom
dynamicresponseandthequasistaticdesigneventforcesisachievedbymakinguseofglobal
dynamicamplificationfactors(refertoTable3)usingrandomdynamicanalyseswhichpreserve
the relative frequency content of the wave environment and the structure’s natural modes
(refertoFigure38toFigure43).Separateinertialoadset(refertodynamicshearinTable9)
which is intended to represent the distribution of mass inertia forces over the height of the
structureareappliedatthemainplanlevelsinproportiontothemassdistributioninorderto
achievetargetdynamiclevelshearandoverturningmomentvalues.Theresultingmassinertia
force distribution is then treated as normal static extra load set and combined with the
deterministic design wave loads in order to generate global level shear and overturning
momentwhichareconsistentwiththerequireddynamicamplificationeffects.
The useof the above methodeliminates the difficulties associated with useof the individual
memberforcesfromarandomwaveanalysisinanabsolutesense.Randomwaveanalysesin
timedomainareusedtodeterminetheappropriateglobal(levelshearandmoment)dynamic
amplification factors. As the result it is consistent to limit the random analyses and the
predictionoftheassociatedDAF’stothoseoftheglobalresponseonly.Inthiscase,itisboth
technically feasible and economic to use simplified random, time domain tools (e.g. SACS
program)tosimulateglobalresponseparameterswhichcanbeusedtoevaluatetherequired
dynamic amplification factors. The procedure and the key assumptions involved will be
describedinmoredetailusingSACSprogramforsimulation.

6

1.6 Solutiontechniques
Mostofthedynamicanalysesofoffshoreplatformsapplymodalanalysistechniquessincethe
periodofthedesignwaveisusuallygreaterthanthenaturalperiodofthestructure.Intheory
the longterm model provides the most logical approach to design. Especially concerning
fatigueproblems,itseemstobetheonlyrationalapproach.Onlylimitedknowledgeisavailable
concerningthelongtermdistributionoftheseastate,whichisessentialfortheassessmentof
fatigue life. In this situation a proper balance between computational accuracy and physical
realitiesmustbefound(Zienkiewiczetal.,1978).
Nonlinearity’sariseinanumberofareasofoffshorestructuralanalysislikeloading,material,
geometric effects, yielding, strain hardening and large deflection effects (e.g. buckling). In
general if significant nonlinearity’s are present it will probably be necessary to perform time
historyanalysis.
Thisthesispresentsafixedjackettypeoffshorestructureplatformmodelforthepredictionof
hydrodynamic forces induced by extreme storm waves and the resultant dynamic response.
Thesolutionprocedureisextendedtoastochasticanalysisintimedomaindynamicresponse
offixedjacketoffshorestructures.Theconclusionsreachedindicatethatthewaveloadingon
thestructureduetointeractionsisaffecteddistinctlynearthewatersurfaceandaroundthe
excitationfrequencyofwavewhenthisiscoincidentwithanyofthenaturalfrequenciesofthe
system(Haritos,1992).
7

Chapter2

Literaturereview

8

2.0 Literaturereview
2.1 Waveloading
Waves account for most of the structural loading and, because they are time dependent,
producedynamiceffectstendingtoincreasethestressesanddamagethelongtermbehavior
of the system. The response of offshore structures to wave loading is of fundamental
importanceintheanalysis.
The determination of wave forces on structure is a difficult problem. The difficulties are due
partly to lack of knowledge about the kinematics of the flow field and partly to insufficient
knowledgeconcerningviscousforces.
This description of the kinematics refers to the undisturbed wave field. However it is known
thatthepresenceofthestructurewillimposedisturbancesintheflowfield.Anotherpointof
controversyistheinfluenceofthewavyseasurfaceonthekinematics,aninfluencewhichis
commonlynotaccountedfor.
Atpresenttheproblemsconcerningthekinematicsoftheflowfieldareovercomebyassuming
that velocities and accelerations of the water particles can be calculated by combining Airy’s
wavetheoryandtheprinciplesoflinearsuperpositionofindependentandarbitrarydistributed
disturbances. Hence, if the contribution from a single harmonic wave component to the
velocity is given by Airy’s wave theory, the total horizontal velocity vector and crossspectral
densitymatrixofthewaterparticlevelocitycanbederived.
When the wave kinematics have been determined it is most common to evaluate the
longitudinal wave forces by Morison’s equation. Morison’s equation is valid as long as the
presenceofastructuredoesnotinfluencetheflowfieldsignificantly,whichisthecasewhen
thestructuredimensionsaresmallcomparedtothewavelength.
It is seen that the wave force is a nonGaussian process due to the drag term, making the
stochasticanalysismorecomplicated.Inadditiontothelongitudinalforcecomponentalateral
(orlift)forcecomponentduetoalternatingvortexsheddingmaybepresent.
9

2.2 Forcingfrequencyclassification
Forcingfrequenciesandtheirinfluenceondynamicresponseofthestructurecanbeclassified
asbellow:
x lowforcingfrequency,<<n
The response is predominantly controlled by stiffness and therefore tends toward the static
response.Thisisbecauseaccelerationandinertiaforcesaresmall.Inthisregimeitisusualto
use a quasistatic analysis. Obviously, the accuracy of a quasistatic analysis reduces as the
forcingfrequencyapproachesthenaturalfrequency.
x Forcingfrequencyclosetosystemnaturalfrequency,~n
The elastic and inertia forces approximately balance, and the motion proceeds as if it were
entirelyduetospringandmassforces,(ie.intheabsenceofexcitationanddamping).Theonly
demand on the excitation force is to overcome damping, which means that the degree of
dampingisofprimaryimportanceneartheresonancefrequency.
The structural response is very much greater than the static response, particularly if the
dampingislow.Iftherewaszerodamping,theoreticallyinfiniteamplitudewouldbeattained.
The coincidence of forcing and natural frequency is termed resonance. A dynamic analysis is
essentialtocalculatetheresponseinthisregime.
x Highforcingfrequency,>>n
Reversalsaresorapidthatinertiadominates.Theresponseissmall,andmaybelessthanthat
duetoastaticforceofthesamemagnitude.
2.3 Wavetheories
Wave theories can be classified into two general groups depending on their range of
applicability;SmallAmplitudeandFiniteAmplitudeWaveTheories.Thesmallamplitudewave
theoryisbasedontheassumptionthatmotionsaresufficientlysmalltoallowthefreesurface
boundary condition to be linearized; in particular terms involving the wave amplitude to the
secondandhigherordersareneglected.ItisalsoreferredtoaslinearorAirywavetheory.It
representsanapproximationtothecompletetheoreticaldescriptionofwavebehaviorbutitis
10

oftenusedinpracticeduetoitssimplicity.Largeorfiniteamplitudewavetheoriesretainhigher
orderterms.TheyareastheresultNonlinearwavetheories.AmongtheseareStokessecond
and fifth order wave theories, stream function wave theory etc (Ko, 1988). For most
applicationswherethewaterdepthtowavelengthisnotsmallnonlinearfreesurfaceeffects
indiffractionmechanicsisgenerallynegligible(Zienkiewiczetal.,1978).
2.4 Waveconditionclassification
Loadsonstructuresinwavesdependonthesizeandtypeofthestructureandthenatureof
the wave condition can be classified as drag, inertia and diffraction forces. Drag forces
originates mainly from flow separation due to viscous effects (Thampi, 1989) and are more
significantfortubularcomponentsofsmalldiameterinwavesoflargeheight(D/H<0.1).Inertia
loads are due to pressure gradient associated with the relative acceleration of the ambient
fluid and are most significant for structural components of large sectional dimensions
(0.5<D/H<1.0). Diffraction forces are due to scattering of the incident wave by the structure
and areonlysignificantwhenthesectionaldimensionsareasubstantialfractionofthewave
length(D/>0.2)(Wilson,2003).

The lateral forces on the structure in the wave environment are primarily composed of drag
andinertiaforcesinducedaswaterpassestheindividualmembers.Informationonseasurface
elevationinconjunctionwithawavetheoryisusedtocomputethewaterparticlekinematics.
Oncethewaterparticlekinematicsisknown,thewaveloadingonaplatformcanbecomputed
through Morison’s equation that has a drag term proportional to the square of the fluid
velocityandaninertiatermproportionaltotheaccelerationofthefluid.Localinertiaeffects
maybe significant in the response to lift and slam forces and will be neglected when
determiningtheglobalstructureforces.

For a member with dimensions such that it’s presence does not significantly disturb the
incidentwavefield,theinlinecomponentofhydrodynamicloadingiscommonlyevaluatedby
Morison’sequation.Thisequation,ofanempiricalnature,wasoriginallydevelopedforvertical,
rigidcylinders.TheoriginalMorisonformulationwaslaterextendedtoflexiblestructures;this
extensionrenderstheloadingasanonlinearfunctionofwaterparticlevelocityrelativetothe
moving structure (nonlinear drag term). Despite the concerns raised, Morison formulation,
11

whichisusedinpresentstudy,remainsthemostcommonlyutilizedmethodofrelatingwater
particlekinematicstohydrodynamicloadingonthestructure.
2.5 Hydrodynamicloading
The first step in the computation of the hydrodynamic forces acting on the members of an
offshoreplatform is thedeterminationofthe wavekinematics startingwithwaterelevations
usingawavetheory.Thisimpliesthecomputationofthefluidvelocitiesandaccelerationsat
anypointasafunctionoftime,whennostructureispresent(freefield).Aplanewavefront,an
ideal (inviscid) fluid and irrotational flow are always assumed. Further to that hydrodynamic
forcesisderivedapplyingMorison’sequationordiffractiontheory(BrebbiaandWalker,1979).
HydrodynamicloadingonslenderstructuralelementsgovernedbyMorison’sequationandon
largevolumeelementsgovernedbythepotentialtheory.
Thetwomainidentifiablewaveforcesonasupportingmemberofanoffshorestructurearethe
dragandinertiaforces.
2.6 Hydrodynamicloadingclassification
Hydrodynamicloadingonoffshorestructuresmaybeclassifiedasbelow:
Dragloadingcausedbyvorticesgeneratedintheflowasitpassesthemembers.Dragforceis
proportionaltoincidentvelocitysquaredandsimplyduetotheeffectsofviscosityinthefluid
(discountingthevortexsheddingeffects).
In an accelerating fluid, inertia loading caused by the pressure gradient and the local
interactionofthestructuralmember.Theinertiaforceisproportionaltotheaccelerationofthe
fluid.Theinertiaforcewhichisindependentofanyviscositypresentcanbethoughtofasbeing
composedoftwoparts;
x Hydrodynamic,addedorvirtualmassofthememberinmotion,representingthepart
ofthewaterthatisentrainedwiththemovingmember.Thisaddedmasshastheeffect
of increasing the apparent mass of the member, and can be thought of as an added
inertiaoraforceinoppositiontothemember.
x Theinertiaforceonastationarymemberinanacceleratingfluidduetodistortionof
thestreamlinesaroundthemember.
12

Thedragforceisproportionalto“D”whereastheinertiaforceisproportionalto“D2”.Aswe
wouldexpect,forlargediametermemberstheinertiaforcesdominate.
Diffractionloadingisatypeofinertialoadinginwhichthepresenceofthestructuremodifies
the wave pattern and so changes the loading on the structure. Diffraction occurs when a
structuremodifiesthewavepattern.Thisgenerallyrequiresstructuralmemberstohavecross
sectiondimensiongreaterthan1/5ofthewavelength.Thediffractioneffectwillbeimportant
for:
x Thecalculationofdragloadingonthetowersandexposedconductorsandrisersofa
gravityplatform
x Thecalculationoftheairgaptothedeck.
x Thecalculationofthewaveloadingoncloselyadjacentstructures
Slamandslaploadingisaninertiaforceoccursasamemberpassesthroughthewatersurface.
The force is proportional to the relative velocity squared. Wave slam and slap forces occur
when a member is suddenly immersed in water. Wave slam occurs when an approximately
horizontal member is engulfed by a rising water surface as a wave passes. Wave slamming
force on horizontal member consists of the fluctuating buoyancy force due to the periodic
immersionofthememberandtheforcearisingfromthetransferoftheupwardmomentumof
thewaterparticlesinthepartofthewavethatwasbelowthemember.Thehighestslamming
forces occur for members at mean water level and the slam force direction is close to the
vertical. Wave slap isassociated withbreaking wavesand affectsmembersatanyinclination
butintheplaneperpendiculartothewavedirection.Waveslappingforceonverticalmember
istheresultoffluctuatingbuoyancyforceintheverticaldirectionduetothevaryinglengthof
thememberimmersed.Thehighestforcesoccuronmembersabovemeanwaterlevelandthe
slapforcedirectionisclosetothehorizontal.Inbothinstancestheforceisappliedimpulsively
andthedynamicresponseofthestructureisthereforeofimportance.Forpracticalpurposesin
exposedwatersitisprobablyreasonabletoallowforapressureof1MPaonsurfacesliableto
slamorslap(Barltrop,1991).
13

Vortex shedding induced oscillatory loading as each of the vortices, causing drag loading,
moves away from the structure. If the structural natural frequency is close to the vortex
sheddingfrequencythenlargeoscillationscandevelop.
Morison’s equation is the commonly used expression for the calculation of drag and inertia
loadingonframestructures.Overallthereisstillaconsiderableuncertaintyinthetheoretically
correctvaluesofCdandCmappropriateforoffshorestructuredesign(Barltrop,1991).
In general for frame structures the drag force is dominant in extreme waves and the inertia
forceismoreimportantinthesmallerwaveswhicharemoresignificantforfatigue.However
whenlargediametermemberarepresenttheinertiaforcesmaybeimportantunderextreme
loading.
If the structure moves, then the relative velocity modifies the drag force and can result in
hydrodynamicdamping.Therelativeaccelerationresultsinaforcesimilartotheinertiaforce
whichcanmostconvenientlybeanalyzedusingtheconceptofanaddedmassofwaterwhichis
constrainedtomovewiththestructureormember.Thenonlinearityintroducedbythedrag
forceequationcausesconsiderableproblemsindynamicanalysis.
Theplatformwillrespondquasistaticallytothewaveloadingatperiodsmuchlongerthanthe
naturalperiod,butdynamicallytocomponentsofwaveloadingwhichhaveperiodsclosetothe
naturalperiod.
For fixed offshore structures wave lengths that are multiples of the spacing of primary
membersandwhichthereforehaveawavecrestoneachmemberatapproximatelythesame
time,resultinmuchlargertotalloadingonthestructurethanwavelengthswhichhaveacrest
alignedwithonememberwhilstanotherisinatrough.
2.7 Globalandlocaleffectsofhydrodynamicloading
Thehydrodynamicloadingisoftenclassifiedasinlineforces,i.e.forcesinthewaveandcurrent
direction; and transverse forces, i.e. forces normal to the wave and current direction.
Transverseforcesarenotwellcorrelatedalongthelegssotheywillnothaveanyeffectinthe
global analysis, and they are therefore neglected in such analysis. However under special
current conditions, transverse forces may cause vortex induced vibrations of individual legs
14

whichhastobeinvestigatedaslocalchecking.Sincethewaveloadedpartoffixedjackettype
offshoreplatformsconsistofframeworksofslenderelements,boththesetypesofforcesare
highlynonlinearwithrespecttothewaveheightandcurrentspeed.Theinlineforcesarebyfar
the most important. For all practical purposes they are modeled by the so called extended
Morisonequation.Inextremewavesituationsthequadraticdragtermofthisloadmodelisthe
dominatingterm,withsevereconsequencesfordynamicresponse.Astherelativeimportance
of the drag term increases in a pure wave load situation, the kurtosis of the force process is
higherthanintheinducingprocess.Ifcurrentisincludedthisimpliesthattheskewnessofthe
loadprocessalsoincreasescomparedtotheinducingprocess,leadingtoafurtherincreaseof
theextremeforces(Karunakaran,1995).
2.8 Seastateshorttermandlongtermcharacteristics
To evaluate the fluidinduced forces acting on a structure hydrodynamic flow field (wind,
current,andwave)whichistimevaryinginnatureshouldbedetermined.Incharacterizingthe
sea environment, it is important to distinguish between the short term and longterm
descriptions.Intheshorttermdescription,theseastate,whichisassumedtobestationary,is
characterizedoverashorttimeperiod;typicallyfromhalfanhourtoseveralhours.Inthelong
termdescription,thegoalistodescribethevariationoftheshorttermcharacterizationovera
longperiod,e.g.overthelifetimeofthestructure.Inoffshoreplatformdesign,theshortterm
descriptionisdirectlyusedforcomputingthewaveloading.Thelongtermdescriptionmaybe
usedinfirstexcursionfailureanalysisinordertodefinethemostcriticalshorttermseastate
description; or in fatigue analysis in order to establish the statistical variation of the various
short sea states experienced by a platform (Iraninejad, 1988). Surface gravity waves which
occur in short time scale corresponds most closely to the response time of fixed offshore
structuresandischaracterizedbydeterministicdescriptions.Thelongertimescalecorresponds
mostlytofatiguefractureofthestructureandcharacterizedbyprobabilisticdescription.
15

2.9 Nonlinearnatureofhydrodynamicloading
Themaindifficultyinperformingadynamicanalysisonoffshorestructuressubjectedtowave
andcurrentactionisthenonlinearnatureofhydrodynamicloading.Ananalysisinfrequency
domainimplyingnotonlylinearizationofthedragtermofMorison’sequationbutalsotheuse
of linear wave theory and the assumption of a constant water level (the mean level) which
ignoresthevariationsduetothewaveprofile.Analysesinthetimedomainrequiremarching
outthesolution until thesteadystatehasbeenreached.Theyareoftenperformed withthe
linearizedformofMorison’sequationbuttheycanincludethevariationinthewaterleveland
nonlinearwavetheories.

Inarandomwavefield,thetroughsareclosertothemeanwaterlevelthanarethecrests.Due
to this uneven distribution of water surface elevation about the mean water level, the
skewness coefficient for the wave field is nonzero. A Gaussian assumption however is
inaccurateandwouldresultinazeroskewnesscoefficient.Tomodelthenonzeroskewnessof
the water surface elevation process, a nonlinear wave theory has to be used. For a random
wave loading, the equivalent linearization method, which leads to a Gaussian distribution on
response, significantly underestimates the extreme value statistics. The Gaussian assumption
also precludes the wave breaking process (Iraninejad, 1988). As a further complication, the
influence of soil and foundation system on structural response is significant and cannot be
ignored.
2.10 Dynamicforces
Manyenvironmentalloadshaveatime–dependentbehaviorwhosetimescaleiscomparable
with the resonant period of the structure, and hence a full dynamic analysis is required. In
addition these loads are random in nature, which necessitates a random vibration analysis
becauseonlystatisticalmeasuresoftheirvariationcanbeknown.
Wind forces are only 510 percent of the total environmental forces on typical offshore
structure, and of course act totally on the superstructure. Because of the low value for the
densityofair,theseforcestaketheformofdragnotinertiatermsinourequation.
Offshorestructuresaresubjectedtoaseriesofloads.Forcessuchasgravityloads,buoyancy,
forces induced by the average wind velocity, temperature stresses, certain operational loads
16

andcurrentforcescanbeconsideredasstatic.Themostimportantdynamicforcesarethose
duetothewaves.Sometimesevenwaveforcesareconsideredasstatic,butforstructureswith
naturalperiodlongerthantwosecondstheyhavetobeconsideredasdynamicloads.
The equivalent static loading approach (or quasistatic analysis is no longer valid as dynamic
amplificationbecomesimportant.Inadditionfatigueeffectsneedtobestudiedincertainhot
spots(mainlyinsteelstructures),andtheycanonlybeproperlyanalyzedusingdynamictheory.
Finallyfoundationstructureinteractioneffectsaregenerallyfrequencydependent.Ifoneuses
a series of design waves of given height and period, the solutions thus obtained do not
representwellthevariabilityoftheseastates.Thisisespeciallyimportantforfatigueanalysis,
whereagoodhistorypredictionofthestressmagnitudeandnumberofcyclesisneeded.Itis
more accurate in this case to use random vibration analysis, for which a sea spectrum is
required.
2.11 Sourcesofuncertaintyindesignprocess
Thetwomaintechniquesfordefiningseastatesiswaveheightexceedancediagramorseveral
wave spectral density curves. In both cases the minimum information required is the wind
distributionorwindrose.Thisinformationcanbetransformedintoawavescatterdiagramby
relating thewind and it’s duration tobasic parameters of the sea state, e.g. significant wave
heightandmeanzerocrossingperiods.
Thedeterminationoftheforcesexertedbywavesonstructuresisaverycomplextaskandcan
be formulated in two basic steps: first, computation of the kinematic flow field staring with
waterelevations,usingawavetheory;second,determinationofhydrodynamicforcesapplying
Morison’sequationordiffractiontheory.
Two sourcesof uncertainty are the values to be taken fordrag and inertia coefficients when
applyingMorison’sequation.
Further source of uncertainty is the effect of different wave theories used to calculate the
velocities and accelerations. The asymmetric shape corresponding to the fifthorder stokes
theory produces secondary peaks in the dynamic response that tendto amplify theeffect of
smallerwaves.
17

2.12 Dynamicanalysismethods
The methods of analysis are probably the more reliable part of the design process. Dynamic
amplificationbecomesimportantwhentheperiodofthesystemislargerthan2seconds.Even
structuresanalyzedstaticallywilleventuallyrequiresomedynamicconsiderationtoanalyzethe
effectoffatigue.Iftheinertiaforcesarecomparativelyimportantoneusesdynamicanalysis.
Frequencydomain methods canbedivided into deterministic and probabilistic methods. The

deterministicapproachisbasedontheheightexceedancediagramwhileprobabilisticapproach
isbasedonthespectralcurvesofwaveheight(BrebbiaandWalker,1979).Thedeterministic
method of analysis is usually appropriate when the structural natural periods and the wave
periodswithsignificantenergyarewellspaced,i.e.whenthestructuredoesnotrespondatits
natural period. This quasi static behavior permits the dynamic amplification factor to be
calculatedbyjustconsideringthedominantwavesinthesea(Barltrop,1991).Foranoffshore
structurethedominantloadisnormallyduetowindgeneratedrandomwaves.Althoughthese
structurescanbedesignedbydeterministicmethods,itisinherentlymuchmoresatisfactoryto
accountfortherandomnessoftheloadingandresultingresponses.
The probabilisticapproachdepends onlinear random wavetheory(LRWT) andhencecannot

easilyaccountforwavebreaking,andfiniteamplitudeeffects(i.e.wavenonlinearities),which
lead to skewed surface elevations(higher crests and lowertroughs) and mildly nonGaussian
waterparticlekinematics.Howevertheprobabilisticapproachdoesprovideaconsistentmeans
of calibrating code design procedures such as emergent LRFD (load and resistance factor
design)methods.Themajorobstacleintheprobabilisticanalysisoftheresponseduetowave
and current loading is the nonlinearity of the drag component of Morison’s wave loading,
which results in nonGaussian probability distributions for both loading and response. The
problem is further compounded by current and by intermittent loading on members in the
splashzone,whichhaveasignificanteffectonthestatisticalpropertiesofresponse(Najafian,
2007).
18

2.13 Variationininputparameters
In performing random dynamic analysis, the influence of variations in input parameters on
structuralresponseshouldbeassessed.Suchvariationsmayariseduetochangingconditions
over the lifetime of a structure (e.g. operating mass), underlying statistical randomness (e.g.
environment), and uncertainty due to incomplete information of required analysis
simplifications(e.g.soilbehavior).Inaddition,theselectedanalysismethodshouldensurethat
allresponseeffectsofinterestarecaptured.
Structuralnaturalperiodandthedesignwavespectrumareofkeyimportanceinestablishing
levels of dynamic response for fixed offshore structures. The natural period is a function of
massandstiffness,andthedesignwavespectrumischaracterizedbyapeakspectrumperiod,
an assumed variation of wave energy with direction. Generally the closer the fundamental
natural period and the peak wave spectrum period, the greater the degree of dynamic
amplification,andsothelargertheresponsewillbe.Thisrelationshipcanbemodifiedbythe
occurrenceofglobalwaveloadcancelationeffects;frequenciesatwhichnetglobalwaveload
effectsareminimizedduetotherelationshipbetweenthespatialarrangementofthestructure
andthewavelength.Proximityofastructureresonantfrequencywithawaveloadcancelation
frequencycanleadtothesuppressionofdynamicresponseeffects.
Upperandlowerboundsofstructuremassandfoundationstiffnessshouldbedetermined,and
the corresponding credible range of structurenatural periods established. Values for each of
theseanalysisparametersshouldbefinallyselectedsuchthatglobalresponseismaximizedina
consistentmanner.

19

Chapter3

Analysisofcasestudies
20

3.0 Analysisofcasestudies
3.1 Modeldefinition
The model for nonlinear dynamic response analysis of jacket type offshore platforms should
allowfor nonlinear soilbehavior,materialandgeometricnonlinearityofjacketelementsand
energy dissipation through radiation and hysteretic damping (the damping caused by the
frictionbetweentheinternalplanesthatsliporslideasthematerialdeforms).
Thedynamicperformanceofthesoilisnotwellunderstood,theresultbeingthatconsiderable
uncertainties are connected with stiffness and damping in the soil. Soil is strongly nonlinear
material, its properties depend upon the magnitude of the strain level, and hysteresis loops
appearduringcyclicloadings.Themodelliterallyrestonthespringdashpotsystemsimulating
the soilstructure interaction and they can only be justified if realistic properties can be
assignedtothesespringsanddashpots.
Thedisplacementsareoutofphasewiththecorrespondingforcecomponents.Inotherwords
thesystemisdamped.Thisdampingwhichisreferredtoasgeometricaldampingiscausedby
lossofenergythroughwavesthatoriginateatthestructuresoilinterfaceandpropagateaway
from the interface and are not reflected. Using a viscoelastic material model, material
(hysteretic)dampingmayalsobeconsidered.
Structural damping is due to internal friction in the structure itself and the damping force is
assumed to be proportional with the displacement and in phase with velocity. This type of
damping may be introduced into the equation of motion. It is however transformed into an
equivalentviscosedamping.Althoughhystereticdampingismorerepresentativeoftheenergy
dissipationwithinthematerial,andfrictiondampingmorerepresentativesoflossesinjoints,
viscousdampingisassumedformostanalysispurposes.
Whileallthreemediacontributestothedampingofthesystem,onlythestructureandthesoil
contribute to the stiffness, and the wavy sea provides the forces. Combined structural and
hydrodynamicdampingissetto0.5percentofcriticaldamping.Theprecisenatureofdamping
islessimportantthanmodelingthecorrectenergylosspercycle(Barltrop,1991).
21

The structural stiffness is adequately expressed by an assemblage of beam elements. If the
massofthestructureislumpedatthenodalpointsonlythetranslationaldegreesoffreedomis
associated with mass. If a lumped parameter model is used, both for mass and loading, all
rotational degrees of freedom, except at the base point may be eliminated by simple static
condensationwithoutintroducingadditionalconstraintsonthemodel.Thisreducedmodelisa
realistic proposition for even quite extensive parametric studies. The added mass can,
disregardingthreedimensionaleffects(freesurface),betakenequaltothemassofthewater
displacedbythecylinder.Itisfoundthattheeffectsofthefreesurfacegenerallywillreduce
theaddedmassandthustendtoincreasethenaturalfrequencyofthestructure.
In this research a complete model including piles, jacket, topsides, and surrounding soil is
considered.ThelinearandnonlinearbehaviorofthesystemismodeledusingSACSsoftware.
ToillustratetheaforementionedmethodologyajackettypeplatforminPersianGulfhasbeen
selected.MaincharacteristicsofthisjacketandenvironmentaldataarelistedintheTable10.
The fixed jacket platform considered is supported by four legs. This platform is designed as
wellhead production platform to operate at a water depth of 29m. The environmental loads
correspondingtoastormwaveof11mheightandperiod11secwereevaluatedusingStoke’s
5thorderwavetheoryasquasistaticpart.Acurrentof1.071m/svelocityonafreesurfaceand
0.09m/s on the bottom was considered, acting in the wave direction. The platform has four
levelsintopsidewithtopsideoperatingweightof5000tonesandthreelevelsJacketwiththe
totalweightof1400tones.Topsideinstalledusingfloatovermethodsothereisnobracesin
seawaterlevelbayinYdirectionandportalactionisconsideredinthisdirection.Thefirsttwo
naturalperiodsofthestructureare3.01inYdirectionand1.78inXdirectionwhicharesway
modes. The next mode is a torsional mode with a natural period of 1.52. The hydrodynamic
coefficientsusedinthisanalysisarereferredtoinTable11.
3.2 Substructure
For purpose of dynamic response analysis, the tower substructure is idealized by a discrete
systemconsistingofasetofnodalpointsinterconnectedbylinearelasticelements.Allmassof
the structure is lumped at the nodal points. For a general threedimensional analysis, each
nodal point has six degrees of freedom, three translational and three rotational. The total
numberofdegreesoffreedom“n”ofthediscretestructuralmodelcanbeseparatedintoaset
22

of“ns”degreesoffreedomrepresentingallndegreesoffreedomexclusiveofthe“nb”degrees
of freedom associated with the nodal points at the structure foundation interface boundary
“n=ns + nb”. Since the loads of the structure are transmitted to the foundation through the
interface nodal points the influence of foundation flexibility on the dynamic response of the
structurecanbedeterminedthroughtheforcedisplacementrelationsassociatewiththe“nb”
degreesoffreedomattheinterfaceboundaryofthefoundationsubsystem(Zienkiewiczetal.,
1978).
3.3 Pilesuperelement
It is possible to develop a pile super element within the pile solution module of SACS. To
generate pile super element it is necessary to include a specification of the load cases to be
used for the calculation of the stiffness matrix for the piles. The program creates a coupled
threedimensionalstiffnessmatrixwhichcanbederivedfromeithertheaveragedisplacement
of all the piles in the group or from the maximum pile displacements for the load cases
specified.Oncethesuperelementhasbeencreateditwillonlyneedtoberecalculatedifthe
foundationmodelchanges.
Twofilesarerequiredforthepileanalysis.ThesearethestructuralinputfileandthePSI(pile
structure interaction) input file. PSI file should contain all the foundation input information
requiredincludingTZandPYcurvesasappropriate.Itispossibletoenterthedataaboutthe
soilstratathatisrequiredfortheAPIcurvestoletSACScalculatethisitself.
3.4 Soilstructureinteraction
An area of still greater uncertainty than fatigue is soilstructure interaction. It is well known
that manysoil materials exhibitelastoplastic behavior. The platform foundationsystem may
thusactasanonlinearsystemwithsignificanthystereticbehavior.Thiswillinfluenceboththe
stiffnessanddampingpropertiesoftheplatform.Insomecasesthisbehaviorisapproximated
byanequivalenthystereticdamping(5to15percent).Inadditionthelossofenergythrough
the boundaries extending to infinity is taken into account by radiation damping, and this is
usuallyestimatedusinghalfspacetheories.Thehalfspaceresultsusedhavethedisadvantage
ofbeingvalidonlyforhomogeneouselasticsoils,forwhichnomaterialdampingoccurs.
23

A sufficiently accurate description of the problem for most cases of dynamic analysis is
providedIfreasonablepropertiescanbeassignedtothespringsanddashpotssimulatingthe
soil structure interaction which can be used for any direction of incoming waves, being it
deterministicorstochastic,thesingleextremepeakresponseorthecompleteresponsehistory,
andregardlessofresponsequantity(deckmemberresponseorforcesatmudline).
Soilstructureinteractioncanbeeffectivelysimulatedbynonlinearspringsattachedtothepile
nodalpointsalongitsburiedlengthasrecommendedbyAPIcode.Thenonlinearfunctionsthat
define the cyclic soil behavior vary from quasielastic at deep regions to strongly nonlinear
curvesnearmudline,whichexhibitsacomplexplasticbehavior.Therefore,onlythefirstsoil
layersareremarkablynonlinear.(Lima,1985).
Another way is to represent a foundation by a set of nonlinear springs at the so called
decoupling point at the leg base, i.e. where there is no coupling between rotations and
translations. This will preserve nonlinear soilstructure behavior as a kinematic hardening
material with nested yield surfaces. Each spring is modeled by a so called backbone curve
which defines the yield surfaces and loaddeflection characteristics and thus describes the
isotropickinematichardeningbehavior.Thesebackbonecurvesareestablishedinaseparate
analysis based on simplified elastic and plastic models which combines limit equilibrium
methodsandelastichalfspacesolutionsforthesoilmaterialbehavior.Thissoilmodelimpliesa
hystericalbehaviorofthesoilstructureinteraction(Karunakaran,1995).
Itisnowgenerallyacceptedthatsoilfoundationinteractionisimportantandshouldbetaken
intoaccountwhencalculatingtheresponseofthesystem.Howimportantitiswilldependon
theparticularsoilandstructureunderconsideration(BrebbiaandWalker,1979).
3.5 Fluidstructureinteraction
Analytical representations of the fluidstructure interaction are complicated by many
phenomena, such as turbulent flow about the structure, and the nonlinear relation between
water particle kinematics and water surface displacement (BarAvi and Benaroya, 1959). A
meanstoincorporatethefreesurfaceeffectsisrequiredandultimatelyafacilitytoaccountfor
otherstaticloadcomponentswouldalsobeneededtocompletethepicture.
24

3.6 Interactionsofstructurefluidsoilsystems
Sincetheoffshorestructureislocatedinadynamicenvironment,thedynamicresponseofthe
structure inthe environment should be considered in the model design. Due todynamic sea
environment,offshoreplatformsarealwayssubjectedtoextremelylargeandcyclicwaveand
wind forces. Hence cyclic loads cause large stress reversals and fatigue cracks are likely to
developattheweldedregionsofoffshoreplatforms.Suchdefectsgrowoveraperiodoftime
and may cause a structure’s failure before it reaches its strength limit. The failure of any
offshore structure may lead to veryheavy losses interms of personnel, equipment and cost.
Henceinmodelingtheoffshoreplatform,theinfluenceofadefectshouldbeconsidered.Ithas
been observed that the presence of a defect reduces the natural frequency of the offshore
structure(Shumin,1995).
Adetailedmathematicalmodelingoftheinteractionproblem,includingstructure,soilandsea,
and accounting accurately for hydrodynamic and constitutive laws, is at present not
practicable. The reasons are both lack of knowledge regarding the physical laws and lack of
reliablecomputationalproceduresforproblemsofthiscomplexity.Thethesisislargelyastate
of art report, describing a modeling that reflects present knowledge of physical properties,
computational capabilities and economical restraints. The prediction of structural safety and
serviceability is the objective of the analysis. Hence the structural response is of primary
concern.Neverthelessasubstantialpartofthethesisisconcernedwithproblemsrelatedtothe
surrounding media, sea and soil. The causality is evident. The modeling of the structure
presentsmodestdifficultiesincomparisonwithanadequatedescriptionofseaandsoil.
Eventhoughthedesignermustberesponsibleforthestructuralanalysisonwhichthedesign
shallbebased,modernsocietyrequiresacertainlevelofsafety,inparticularinrelationtorisks
forhumanlivesandseriouspollution.Suchrequirementsarelaiddownincodesand
regulationstoestablishaminimumsafetylevel,suchregulationsalsoformaframework
regardingminimumrequirementsforstaticanddynamicanalysis.
25

3.7 Dynamiccharacteristics
SincethedynamicmoduleinSACSusesthelineartheory(i.e.modalsuperposition),linearized
foundation super elements are automatically created at each pilehead by the PSI program
usingthemaximumpilestiffnessforeachpilegroupspecifiedintheinputfiles.Differentload
cases are used to calculated stiffness in each orthogonal direction as well as the diagonal
direction. Pile sensitivity analysis may be considered in design process on the basis that the
higherperiodwillyieldmoreconservativeresultsintermsoftheDAF’s.
Whendealingwithverylargestructures(particularlylatticestructures)thetechniqueofmass
condensationmaybeused.Asetofmaster(retained)degreesoffreedomareselectedateach
horizontal elevation on the main legs to extract the Eigen values (periods) and Eigen vectors
(modeshapes),whichincludesallstiffnessandmasspropertiesrelatedtothereduceddegrees
of freedom. After the modes are extracted using the master degrees of freedom, they are
expandedtoincludethefull6degreesoffreedomforalljointsinthestructure.
DYNPACisthemodulethatcalculatesthedynamiccharacteristicsofthestructure.Itrequires
model input file and dynamic input file (refer to Appendix B). In the model input file the
retaineddegreesoffreedomshouldbespecified.Ifrotationaldegreesoffreedomareretained
thenaconsistentmassmatrixwillhavetobeused.However,onlyretainingthetranslational
degrees of freedom gives a good definition of the mode shapes. Here a consistent mass
approach is considered since it is more desirable for structures immersed in the fluid. The
added mass is generated automatically by SACS and depends on the size, orientation and
proximity of the member to the free surface. Entrapped mass is calculated for members
designatedasfloodedinthemodelfile.Hydrodynamiceffectsofmarinegrowthareincludedin
theprogramtoaccountforthedensityandeffectivediameterduetomarinegrowth.Itisvital
toincludetheseawaterdensity,mudlineelevationandwaterdepthdatainthedynamicinput
filebecausewithoutthesetheaddedmasswillnotbeincludedintheresults.
Theevaluation ofthedynamic characteristicis simplyacase of puttingthestructuralmodel,

completewithfoundationsuperelement,throughthedynamicsolutionmoduleofSACS.This
modulegeneratesthedynamiccharacteristicsofthestructure,includingmodeshapes,masses
and natural periods. It is important to ensure that the module includes the mass from the
weightofentrappedfluidaswellasthehydrodynamicaddedmassandbuoyancyeffectsinthe
26

mass calculation. This information is given in the dynamics module (DYNPAC) listing file for
each member group. It is necessary to manually distribute this extra mass to the dead load
distribution.Themassparticipationfactorshouldbeabove90%inatleasttolateraldirections.
The normalized mode shapes in both the X and Y directions, as well as the normalized
combined mode shape is calculated. The normalized mode shapes for the first two lateral
modeshapesofvibrationineachdirectionisshowninFigure2andFigure3.Finallythelumped
massdistributioniscalculatedusingagloballoadingmoduleofSACS.Thismoduleallowsthe
usertocalculatetheforcesthatareinastructureataseriesofspecifiedelevations.Bybacking
outtheforceintheverticaldirectionitispossibletoobtainthemassdistributionbylevelfor
thedeadloadcase.
Thedynamicproblemsofjackettypeoffshorestructuressupportedonpilescanbeclassified
amongthoseinwhicharelativelyfewnumberofmodeshapesaresufficienttorepresentwith
accuracythestructuralresponseandthenonlinearsoilbehaviorisrestrictedtoarelativesmall
zonenearthefirstsoillayers(Lima,1985).
3.8 Dynamicresponse
Dynamicresponseofanyoffshorestructureisalwaysmadeupoftwoparts,i.e.thequasistatic
part when all dynamic effects are suppressed and a truly dynamic part, which is the
amplificationofthequasistaticresponseduetodynamicsandmoreorlessresonantinnature.
Using frequency domain procedures, the two parts are, in some cases, well separated and
independent of another one, while in other cases they are interrelated and difficult to
distinguish. When time domain procedures are used the two parts are usually not visibly
distinguishable.Ingeneral,howeverthetwopartsareintricatelyrelatedinacomplexfashion,
including phase differences in addition to modifications to the magnitude of the component
parts.Ananalysisshouldallowforthesegeneralphenomenatoavoidincorrectinterpretation
and the inadvertent introduction of (potentially large) errors. Therefore, the dynamic part of
theresponsemustbedeterminedbysubtractionofthequasistaticresponsefromthe(overall)
dynamicresponse.Inthetimedomainthesubtractionisnotasimplealgebraicsubtractionof
results.
27

To distinguish the two parts clearly in descriptions and discussions the “dynamic part of the
responseishenceforthcalledthe“inertial”response.Thisisrelatedto(butnotnecessarilyfully
analogous with) the mass inertial forces generated by the movements (vibrations) of the
structure and the extreme inertial load, but should not be confused with the inertial wave
loading. The overall dynamic response including both contributions is henceforth called the
dynamicresponseonly,droppingtheoveralldistinction.
3.9 Dynamicbehaviorofdragdominatedoffshorestructures
For dynamically sensitive offshore platforms, the design sea state may be different from the
extreme sea state which defines the 100 year wave height. This implies that, longterm
response analysis be employed in dynamic response analysis of these platforms to preserve
thecontributionfromallpossibleseastatesandreflectallthenonlineareffectstotheextreme
response.Suchanalysisishoweverhardlyapplicableasapracticaldesigntool.Formostfixed
jacket type offshore platforms the extreme dynamic response will be dominated by extreme
seastates,thelongtermdynamicresponseisthereforewillnotberequiredanditisfocused
onshorttermnonlinearresponse.Howevertheshorttermmodelingoftheextremedynamic
responseformsthebasisforthisanalysisalso.
The shortterm analysis of the nonlinear dynamic response requires stochastic time domain
simulation techniques. This is becausethe different nonlinear phenomena involved may only
beproperlymodeledinthetimedomainasdiscussedabove,andrealisticrepresentationofthe
dynamic behavior of the platform demands stochastic modeling of the load and response
process. Such analysis maybe performed as an integrated analysis where the waves,
hydrodynamicforcesanddynamicresponsearecalculatedsimultaneouslyateachtimestepor
by a stepwise procedure where the force process and the dynamic response are established
sequentially.
Dragdominatedoffshorestructuresexhibitingapronounceddynamicbehaviorwhensubjected
toharshweatherconditions.Sincethenonlinearbehavioroffixedoffshoreplatformsismainly
related to the loading process and to the soilstructure interaction, the nonlinearities are
connectedtotheloadvectorandtoafewresponsedegreeoffreedomsystemswhichmaybe
isolatedfrom thetotal structuralsystem.Astepwise analysisproceduremay thusbeapplied
forsuchplatforms,andthisisrecommendedduetoitscomputationalefficiencycomparedto
28

integrated analysis. This procedure has shown to be a very applicable tool in wide range of
fixed platforms studies. The key quantity for extreme response prediction is the mean up
crossingratefunction,whichcanbesimplyextractedfromsimulatedresponsetimehistories.A
commonlyadoptedpracticeforobtainingadequateextremesfordesignpurposerequiresthe
execution of 20 or more time domain analysis for several extreme seastates. There is no
accurateandfastmethodforestimatingtheextremeresponsevalues.Firstofallthedragforce
isnonlinear.Secondlysincethestructureisbottomfixedthereistheaddedcomplexityofthe
inundation effect. These complications make simple approximations very hard to achieve, if
accurateresultsarerequired.Inadditionthesurfaceelevationusedfortheloadsimulationsis
ofsecondorder,i.e.thecrestheightsareontheaverageslightlylargerthanthedepthsofthe
wavetroughs(Naess,2007).
Independentofanalysisprocedure,timedomainstochasticdynamicresponseanalysisimplies
twobasicproblems:
x Howtodecidethesimulationscheme,i.e.selecttimestep,samplelengthandnumber
ofsamples.
x Howtoderiveestimatesofextremeresponsefromsimulatedsamples
Except for the selection of time step which has to be decided on the basis of the natural
frequency of a structure and the property of solution algorithms for the dynamic response
equation,theseproblemareasareinterrelated.
3.10 Structuralreliabilityanalysis
It follows from above discussions that the nonlinear dynamic behavior of fixed offshore
platforms implies a wide range of significant uncertainties related to structural analysis
methods, to mathematical models for structural behavior, loading and response to the
parametersinvolvedinthesemethodsandmodels.Onthisbackgrounditis,atleastfroman
academicalspointofview,temptingtorecommendthatstructuralreliabilityanalysisshouldbe
included in the design process. However, even if the tools are available and the analysis
techniqueisproven,itseemsobviousthatreliabilityanalysiscannotbeapracticaldesigntool.
This is because it requires specially qualified personnel, it is extremely computer demanding
and,maybemostimportant,itrequiresstatisticalinformationwithsufficientconfidenceona
29

wide number of models and parameters which may not be available for a specific platform.
Thus,itispossibletousethistypeofanalysisforestablishmentofcalibratedcodeswhichgives
the design engineer consistent load factors and resistance factors to be applied to extreme
valuesderivedfromthedesignstructuralanalysis.
Adoptingtheconceptofloadfactors,thedesignproblemisthen,fromtheresponsepointof
view,reducedtocalculatetheextremeresponse.Inordertobeconsistentwiththeexpected
nonlinearstochasticdynamicbehavioroffixeddragdominatedoffshoreplatforms,thisshould
formally be done using the nonlinear long term response analysis or, if there exists a well
defineddesignseastate,byshorttermstochasticanalysis.Howeverduetothecomplexityof
theanalysismethods,theircomputerdemandsandinherentuncertainties,thisapproachisnot
veryefficient.
3.11 PracticalStructuraldesignprocedure
Withrespecttodesignstructuralanalysisitappearsthustobeattractivetoestablishapractical
procedurewhichlinksthesophisticatednonlinearlongtermandshorttermanalysismethods
with the traditional design wave methods in a manner which is consistent with a complete
reliabilityanalysis.Basedontheexperiencesfromawidenumberofdragdominatedoffshore
platformstudiesthefollowingprocedureissuggested:
x Identifytheshorttermdesignseastatebylongtermanalysis
x Estimatedynamicamplificationfactorsbyshorttermstochasticresponseanalysis
x Establishextremevaluesforthedynamicresponsebycombiningdesignwaveanalysis
andtheestimateddynamicamplification
x Establish design response values by applying calibrated load factors to the estimated
extremedynamicresponse
Thefirststepisrequiredsincethedesignseastatefordragdominatedoffshoreplatformsdue
toitsdynamicbehaviormaybedifferentfromtheseastatewhichdefinesthe100yeardesign
storm(Karunakaran,1995).
30

Theapplicabilityofthisgeneralmethodofanalysistothedesignoffixedoffshoreplatformsfor
random wave excitation is presented and comparison is made for numerical results for
differentcasestudies.
A stochastic dynamic response is carried out to establish wave design loads. The inertia and
drag effects of the surrounding water are included in all dynamic analysis. At least 2 normal
modesofvibrationshouldbeincludedinalldynamicanalyses(Penzien,1972).
3.12 Determinationofthemaximumrandomresponse
The statistics of Gaussian random variables are theoretically known and are completely
described by the standard deviation of the variable, provided that the mean “μ” has been
subtracted first and the assumption is made that the variable is narrow banded. The most
probablemaximumisoneofafamilyofpossibleindicatorstoquantifythemagnitudeofthe
variable;itdependsupon“”and“N”,thenumberofpeaksoccurringwithinthetimeperiod
considered. NonGaussian elements in the wave environment and nonlinear aspects in a
structure’sresponsemaketheresultingresponsenonGaussian.ThestatisticsofnonGaussian
random variables are not theoretically known and even techniques for direct empirical
determination of the statistics of a given variable are not widely available and generally of
limitedapplicability.
The maximum of a random process is itself a random variable governed by a probability
distribution.Therearethreecommondescriptivevaluestocharacterizethepointaboutwhich
a probability distribution is centered, known as measures of central tendency. For the case
under consideration, where the distribution describes the maximum, these are the median
maximum,theexpectedmaximumandthemostprobablemaximum.Ingeneraltheseareall
different with different chances of being exceeded. They are best explained using the
geometric properties of the probability density function (pdf) of the maximum. The median
maximumisthatvaluethathasexactlyonehalfoftheareaunderthepdftoitsleftandone
half to its right. It has therefore by definition a chance of 50% of being exceeded in any
particularrealizationoftherandomprocess.Theexpectedmaximumisthecenterofgravity(or
“mean”)ofthepdfandthemostprobablemaximumisthemode,i.e.thehighestpointofthe
pdf.Thechancesofthesemaximabeingexceededinanyonerealizationoftherandomprocess
dependontheskewnessofthepdf.Foranarrowbandedrandomprocessandalargenumber
31

ofpeaksNtheexpectedmaximumhasachanceof43%beingexceededandthemostprobable
maximumachanceof63%.Inoffshoreengineeringapplicationsitiscommonpracticetoselect
the most probable maximum as the characteristic value. This practice will be followed
consistentlyinthefollowingsections.Usersofthepracticeshouldbeawareoftheimplications
ofthischoiceasdescribedabove.
Under the circumstances of having to deal with nonGaussian random variables, the
recommendedprocedureistomakeuseofthetwocomponentsofdynamicresponsevariable.
Themaximaarethendeterminedforthequasistaticandtheinertialpartsseparately,making
use of engineering approximations to make both determinations tractable, and subsequently
combinedtoestimatethemaximumofthedynamicresponse.
Inlinewiththefirstparagraphofthissection,thedeterminationofthemaximumresponseofa
random variable always starts with calculating the basic statistical parameters which are the
mean“μ”andthestandarddeviationofthevariable,alsowhenthevariableisnonGaussian.
Theseparametersmaybeobtainedfromtimedomainsimulationsorfromfrequencydomain
analysisusingappropriatelylinearisedtransfer(orfrequencyresponse)functions.
Theextremeinertialloadisgeneratedbyrandomdynamicandquasistaticanalysis.Thusitis
necessary to establish levels of extreme random response with a predefined probability of
exceedance.
The response statistics for a dragdominated, steel space frame structure during storm wave
loadingcanbecharacterisedasnongaussian.Suchnongaussianityarisesfrombothnonlinear
loading aspects (drag loading and free surface inundation), and nonlinear structural behavior
(e.g. foundation stiffness) during response. The use of linear Gaussian assumptions for
calculatingpeaklevelsofresponseforsuchstructureswillgenerallybenonconservativetoa
significantdegree.
3.13 Calibrationofinternalresponse
Using response results determined by random techniques, the magnitude of the extreme
inertialloadmustbecalibratedforuseduringdesign.Thepreferredtechniqueistocombine
the extreme wave and current loading for the selected design conditions, with the global
response dynamic amplification factors (DAFs) determined by the extremewave dynamic
32

analysis. An alternative approach is to use absolute levels of response generated by the
dynamic analysis, taking into account of any approximations introduced, such as problem
linearization.
3.14 Randomtimedomainsimulation
For a steel space frame offshore platform the principal sources of nonlinearity result from
waveloading(usuallypredictedusingtheMorisonequation)soilcharacteristicsanddamping.
The nonlinearity within the velocity squared drag component of the Morison equation is
further complicated by the influence of free surface inundation effects. Further uncertainty
surrounds questions about how, and under what circumstances, the relative motion of the
structuremayinfluenceboththeappliedloadingandthesystemdamping.
AcceptingthebasicMorisonforceformulation,itisnowconsideredthatsolutionsbasedupon
random time domain solutions represent the most realistic representation of an offshore
platform in a real sea. The procedure involves a number of discrete steps which are shown
schematicallyandsummarizedbelow.
x Developtimehistoriesofwavesurfaceelevationandwaterparticlekinematicseither
from measured wave data or using inverse Fourier transformations from specified
stormwavespectra.Thisinformationisusedtodeveloptimehistoriesoftheapplied
hydrodynamicloading.
x Using the applied loading history perform numerical time domain integration of the
equationsofmotioninordertodeveloptimehistoriesofthestructuralresponsewhich
include all the nonlinear components of both the loading and the dynamic system
(referto
x Figure44andFigure45).
x Statisticalanalysisoftheresultingtimehistories.
These solutions are able to incorporate system nonlinearities, such as those outlined
above,explicitlywithouttheneedforsimplificationorlinearizationofthecomponents.In
modeling the random environment it is assumed that the wave surface elevation is a
stationary,ergodic,Guassianprocess.Asaresultofsystemnonlinearities,theresponseis
certainly nonGuassian but it is also possible that it may not be stationary in a statistical
33

sense as well. Therefore, a single realization of the nonlinear structural response only
representsoneofatheoreticallyinfinitenumberofsuchrealizations.Inordertodevelop
confidence in the short term statistical characteristics of the response it is necessary to
carry out a number of such simulations. Information on the extreme values, which
represent the tails of the peak response distribution, can only be obtained reliably by
performing a very large number of simulations, or by performing extrapolations based
uponexistingorassumedextremevaluedistributions,e.g.theWeibulldistribution.
3.15 Structuraldesignoptimization
concept screening tools for parametric exercises or feasibility studies are most usefully
performedusingsimplifiedmodelswhichconcentrateontheoverallresponsecharacteristicsof
the structure, i.e.natural frequenciesandmodeshapes,globalresponses such as baseshear
and overturning moments together with associated dynamic amplification factors.
Fundamental mode response characteristics can be adequately represented using relatively
simple, lumped parameter stick models. These models enable sensitivity studies to be
performedquicklyandatverylowcostcomparedtoequivalentfull3Dmodels.Theycanalso
becoupledtowaveloadgenerationroutinesineitherthetimedomainorfrequencydomainto
predict dynamic and static level shear force and overturning moment distributions, thereby
enabling the development of level dynamic amplification factors based upon the short term
responsestatisticsforrandomwavestormloadingconditions.Basedonthesensitivityanalysis
method,thestructuraldesignoptimizationsubjecttorandomdynamicresponsewithsizeand
shapedesignvariablescanbeinvestigated.Thegoalistominimizethestructuralweightwhile
satisfyingtherequirementsofstructuralworkingcharacteristics(e.g.,vibrationfrequenciesand
displacement).
If the frequency at which the peak energy of storm occurs is close to a fundamental natural
frequencyofaplatform,thenconsiderationmustbegiventopossibledynamicamplificationof
structuralresponse.Thereforethefirststepinthedynamicanalysisofanoffshoreplatformis
to evaluate the fundamental natural frequencies and associated shapes of the platform. For
dynamicanalysisofjackettypeoffshoreplatformsacompletemodelconsideringbehaviorof
the pile foundations, fluid structure interaction, stiffness and the mass of the jacket and
34

topside module should be prepared. Overall dynamic behavior of the jacket type offshore
platformsdependsonthejacket,pilesanddecklegstiffnessaswellastopsidemodulemass.In
thedynamicresponseofsuchstructures,thetopsidemodulesactasheavymassonthetopof
the jacket. Since the first two orthogonal modes control primary response characteristics of
jacket type offshore platforms, attention can be focused on simplified model considering
overallbehaviorofthestructure.
For the case of wave loading due to 90° phase angle difference between the maximum drag
and inertia force components and the relatively small dimensions of a typical jackettype
platform with respect to wavelengths and heights in an extreme condition at the time drag
forcesactingontheplatformreachamaximumvaluetheinertiaforcesarerelativelysmalland
hencenegligible(Asgarian,2004).
Individualmemberloadingshavetobeestimatedseparatelyusingthelevelshearandmoment
response characteristics. The calculations are performed assuming the response is to be
dominatedbyoverallframeaction;i.e.localloadingandresponseeffectsareignored.
3.16 Designtoolsrequirements
Requirementsfordesigntoolsaresomewhatmoredemandingthanthoseofconceptscreening
toolsforparametricexercises.Designtoolsmusttransformtheresultsofthedynamicresponse
predictions into requirements for member sizes. The influence of dynamic response in the
extremestormmustbecombinedwiththeotherloadingsontheplatform(i.e.topsideloading,
selfweight,buoyancy,windloads,etc.)bothintermsoftheirglobalandlocaleffects.
Dynamiccomponentsoftheextremestormloadingareunlikelytogovernthebulkofthesteel
in the structure, even in the deepest of water depths provided that the effects of structures
flexibility are considered from an early stage in concept development. However in fatigue
loadingconditionsresonantdynamicbehaviormayinsomecasesbefullycontrolling.Otherin
placeloadingssuchasselfweight,quasistaticwaveforces,andalsothoseassociatedwiththe
fabrication, load out, launch hydrostatic forces, etc. also impact steel weight significantly.
Generallytheseloadsarelikelytohaveamoreimportantroleintotalweightgrowththanthe
dynamicloads.Thisrelativelylowweightgrowthresultedfromastrongawarenessofdynamic
35

response effects and careful attention to the interrelationships between platform dynamic
characteristics,waveloadinganddynamicresponse.
Theseexperiencesdemonstratetheimportanceofareliableassessmentofdynamicresponse
and the need to incorporate these effects at a very early stage in the design development.
However, they also suggest theneed for a balanced approach tothe design. Theprocedures
usedmustincorporatethekeyfeaturesofthedynamicresponseproblem,buttheymustalso
fitwithintheframeworkoftheotherloadconditionsinaconsistentmanner.
Inthefirstinstanceitappearslogicaltorelateadesignprocedureincorporatingrandomwave
loadinganddynamicresponseeffectstothatoftheexistingapproachfor offshoreplatforms
whichhavebeendesignedinaccordancewithdeterministicprocedures.Ultimately,theoverall
quality and realism of the deterministic and random wave model approaches need to be
comparedandanyappropriatecoderevisionsshouldincorporatesafetyfactorswhichproduce
aconsistentlevelofoverallsafetyandreliability.Suchrevisionsarepresentlybeingconsidered
within the context of the API’s proposed Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD). On this
basis,explicitrepresentationoftherandomnatureofthewaveenvironmentandthedynamic
response may justify a reduction in the safety factors associated with these individual
components.
3.17 Simplifieddynamicapproach
Simple dynamic analysis procedures have been developed to represent the key features of
globaldynamicresponsebehaviorwithintheframeworkofdeterministicwavedesignpractice.
The link between the random dynamic response and the quasistatic design event forces is
achieved by making use of global dynamic amplification factors (refer to Table 3). These
amplification factors are developed using random dynamic analyses which maintain the
relativefrequencycontentofthewaveenvironmentandthestructure’snaturalmodes.
Inthesimplestapproach,quasistaticdesigneventwaveforcesaredeterminedwiththeuseof
conventional deterministic wave force analysis, refer to global BS (base shear) and OTM
(overturningmoment)inTable9.Theresultingcycliccomponentoftheappliedloadingisthen
factoredbyaconstant,globaldynamicamplificationfactorwhichhasbeendeterminedfroman
appropriaterandomwaveanalysis.Thememberanalysisanddesignarethenperformedina
36

deterministicapproachusingtheexistingdesigncodes.Thismethodhasthedisadvantagethat
theapplieddynamicloadingisassumedtohavethesamedistributionovertheheightofthe
structureasthequasistaticwaveforces.
3.18 Alterationtodynamicprocedure
Arefinementtothisprocedureisachievedusingaseparateinertiaforceloadsettoreflectthe
distributionofmassinertiaforcesovertheheightofthestructure.Asetofmassinertiaforces
aredevelopedinaccordancewiththemassdistributionandthenaturalmodeshape(s)overthe
heightofthestructure.Theseforcesareappliedatthemainplanlevelsinproportiontomass
distribution,inordertoachievetargetdynamiclevelshearand/oroverturningmomentvalues.
Theresultingmassinertiaforcedistributionisthentreatedasanormalstaticextraloadsetand
combinedwiththedeterministicdesignwaveloadsinordertogenerategloballevelshearand
overturningloadswhichareconsistentwiththerequireddynamicamplificationeffects.
3.19 Feasibilityofsimplifiedapproach
Theuseofeitheroftheaboveapproacheseliminatesthedifficultiesassociatedwithuseofthe
individual member forces from a random wave analysis in an absolute sense. Random wave
analysisintimedomainareusedtodeterminetheappropriateglobal(levelshearandmoment)
dynamicamplificationfactors.Theseamplificationfactorscaninprinciplebegeneratedforany
response variable. However, the DAF’s are applied within the framework of a deterministic
wave analysis, which is limited to designing individual members for the forces which
correspond to the peak global forces such as the maximum base shear and overturning
moment. As a result it is consistent to limit random analysis and the prediction of the
associatedDAF’stothoseoftheglobalresponseonly.Inthiscase,itisbothtechnicallyfeasible
and economic to use simplified random, time domain analysis to simulate global response
parameterswhichcanbeusedtoevaluatetherequireddynamicamplificationfactors.
3.20 PseudoDynamicAnalysis
An accurate and highly efficient algorithm series for the random vibration computation of
complex engineering structures, known as the pseudo excitation method (PEM), has been
developedsinceearly1980s(Hongyan,2004).
37

Pseudo Dynamic Analysis is a simplified dynamic structural procedure suitable for the
conventional bottom supported structures under the influence of environmental loading and
selfweightforces.ThebasisfortheprocedurewasfirstdevelopedbyShellOilCo.Ithasbeen
refinedsomewhat,resultingintheproceduredocumentedhere.
Theneedforasimplifieddynamicanalysisprocedureresultsfromtherequirementtodesigna
structureratherthansimplyanalyzeitsdynamicresponse.
A simplified approach is desirable as a short term alternative to the implementation of true
randomwaveanalysis.Thesimplifiedapproachshouldincorporatetheessentialfeaturesofthe
platform dynamic response, but also fit within the framework of existing codes of practice
whicharepresentlybasedupontheuseofconventionaldeterministicwavedesignprocedures.
A regular deterministic, quasistatic analysis which is modified to include the effects of mass
inertiaforcesprovidessuchanoptionandwillbeoutlinedhere.
The simplified ‘Pseudo dynamic analysis’ described here is basically a static analysis using a
totalappliedloadwhichmatchespredeterminedglobaldynamicforcelevels.Platformdesign
isusuallybasedonthetimesteprelatedtothemaximumglobalplatformloadingratherthan
those of the individual member maxima. On this basis the quasistatic loading from
environmentalforcesissupplementedbyadditionalstaticloadsetswhicharedevelopedsoas
tomatchpredetermineddynamicbaseshearandoverturningmomentvalues.
Globaldynamicresponseeffectsisdeterminedbyperformingwaveresponseanalysesforthe
design storm, including current to establish dynamic amplification factors of base shear and
overturningmoment(refertoTable3)baseduponstandarddeviationsoftheglobalresponses;
i.e.theratiosofthestandarddeviationsofthedynamicandstaticbaseshearsandoverturning
moments.
Wave forces under a regular (deterministic) design wave are considered for the wave crest
position corresponding to the maximum base shear as in conventional design wave analysis.
Thisresultsthetargetdesignlevelstaticloadingwhichisfurtherusedtodeveloptherequired
dynamicamplificationofbaseshearandoverturningmomentusingasetofmassinertiaforces.
38

3.21 Basicstepsoftheprocedure
Theprocedureconsistsofthefollowingbasicsteps:
x Determine the cyclic quasistatic base shear (BS) and overturning moment (OTM)
corresponding to the specified design wave height, period and current for each
orthogonaldirection,usingaregulardesignwavemethod(refertoTable9).
x Determine the influence of dynamic response in terms of the increases in the cyclic
components of loading due to mass inertia force amplification effects. The effects of
dynamic response should preferably be determined using appropriate random wave
dynamicanalysisintimedomain.Thedynamiccomponentsareevaluatedintermsof
the resulting dynamic amplification factors of cyclic base shear and overturning
moment,referto͹andTable8.TheDAF’saredeterminedfromtheratioofthe
shorttermresponsestatistics,i.e.standarddeviationsofstaticanddynamicbaseshear
andoverturningmomentoronthebasisofequalprobabilitiesofoccurrenceofpeak
staticanddynamicresponses.
x Generate a mass inertia load set for each of the principal orthogonal directions, in
termsofaseriesoflateralpointloadsactingateachplanlevelovertheheightofthe
structure. The mass inertia load sets are proportional to the fundamental bending
modesofthestructureineachprincipaldirection.Assumingfullparticipationofeach
mode the resulting inertial base shear and overturning moments are obtained by
summingthecontributionsfromeachlevel.
x Develop dynamic components of the base shear and overturning moment from the
sum of the modal contributions. Inertial responses in each mode are proportional to
the product of the mass and mode shapes. The contributions from each mode are a
functionofthemodalparticipationfactorswhichdependonthecharacteristicsofthe
loadingandthemodeshape.Theparticipationcoefficients(refertoTable4 )foreach
modearedeterminedassumingtwomodesbeingrelevant.
x Obtainthemassinertiaforceloadsetsforeachmodeandforeachprincipaldirection
by multiplying the mass inertia load sets developed above by the appropriate modal
participation values. These can be applied to the structure as static extra load sets
whichsupplementalltheotherenvironmentalandselfweightloads.Themassinertia
loadsetiscombinedwitharegularwavedeterministicanalysistodesignthestructure
39

in a same manner as for conventional structures which do not experience dynamic
response.
The above procedure must be applied to principal wave approach (end on and broadside
directions)usingtheappropriatemodeshapes,massdistributionsandparticipation.
Forobliquewavedirectionssomefurtherapproximationsarenecessary.Initiallytotaldynamic
andstaticforcecomponentsmustbedeterminedinthedirectionofthewaveapproachangle
inordertoobtainthedynamicforcecontributionortherequireddynamicamplificationfactor
fortheobliquedirection.Thecomponentsofthe total quasistatic applied loadingineachof
theprincipaldirectionsmustalsobeestablished.Thisinformationcanthenbeusedtoestablish
the appropriate mass inertia load sets for each principal direction. A simultaneous linear
combinationoftheinertialoadsetsinbothprincipaldirectionscanbeusedinordertoachieve
thetargetdynamicamplificationforthediagonaldirection.
The above relationships match the required base shear and overturning moment using two
proportionality constants, and two modes. Level shears and moments at any two other
locationscanalsobematchedinasimilarmanner.
3.22 Designassumptions
Thisapproachisareasonablerepresentationoftheextremewavedynamicresponsesincethe
inertialloadsetsareproportionaltothefundamentalbendingmodesofthestructureineach
of the principal directions. Apart from the basic dependence on the quasistatic design level
forces,themethodisbasedontwoprincipalassumptions.
x Themassinertiaforcesresultingfromdynamicresponseareinphasewiththeapplied
loading.
x Thatthemassinertiaforcesfromeachofthemodesusedareinphasewitheachother.
Thefirstassumptionappearsreasonablegiventhatthestructure’sfundamentalmodenatural
frequencies are much higher than, and well separated from those of the predominant wave
40

energy.Resultingdynamicresponseisnotresonantinnatureanddynamicforcescorrespond
to the mass inertia forces associated with the motion of the structure when excited at the
frequencieslowerthanthoseofthefundamentalmodes.
The dynamic response contributions of most fixed offshore platforms are dominated by the
fundamentalmodes.Inthiscasethesecondassumptionisalsoreasonableandwillenablelocal
loads to be represented reliably. As the influence of the second mode increases, the above
approximation (and hence the individual member forces) becomes more inaccurate due to
relative phase differences between the inertia forces in the selected modes, which are not
constantovertheheightofthestructure.
3.23 Assessmentoftheprocedure
The method described above incorporates several approximations but also has a number of
practical benefits. The method enables inertia force effects to be combined with other
importantglobalandlocalloadingsinordertodevelopthedetailedmemberforcepicturefor
designcodechecking.Onthisbasisitprovidesatruedesigntoolratherthanananalysisoption.
Theglobaldynamicamplificationfactorshavebeendevelopedusingatimedomainapproach
(for random wave loading) and are based on the standard deviations of the base shear and
overturningmomentresponselevels.Amodalanalysiswithstaticresponsecorrectionisused
to perform the time domain dynamic analysis incorporating nonlinear effects due to drag
loading and free surface variations. Dynamic amplification factors based on the standard
deviationsofresponseobtainedfromlinearGaussianmodelisconservativewhencomparedto
the results of timedomain simulation analyses, particularly for thehigher load and response
levels.FortheextremeeventconditiontheDAF’sshouldpreferablybebasedontheresultsof
random time simulations and should be related to the probabilities of exceedence of peak
dynamicandstaticforces.
DAF=Dynamicresponseatprobabilitylevelp/Staticresponseatprobabilitylevelp
Inthisdefinitionamaximumdynamicresponseisnotnecessarilycoupledtoamaximumstatic
event in the same response time history. DAF’s based on standard deviations of response
appeartoofferasuitablebasisforestimatingglobaldynamiceffectsintheshortterm.Inthis
41

casethepeakresponsedefinitionmayofferpotentialforreductionsintheDAFandhencethe
totalsteelweight.
3.24 Waveresponseanalysis
Awaveresponseanalysisrequiresthree,usergeneratedinputfilesincludingmodelinputfile
(sacinp),waveresponse(wvrinp)andenvironmentaldata(seainp)inputfiles.
Seainp file containing the information required for seastate module of SACS to calculate the
hydrodynamicpropertiesforallthemembersthatarelikelytogetwetinarandomseastate
includingthedesignwaveoratleastthemaximumexpectedwaveintherandomseasurface
profile.Therandomsurfaceprofilewillbegeneratedinthewaveresponsemodule.
Theloadingresponsesurfaceforeachdirectionisafunctionofcrestelevation,zerocrossing
period,currentspeed(allowingforblockage),windspeedandmarinegrowththickness.
The most appropriate quasistatic wave force model will be selected and applied for the
analysis.Asufficientnumberofanalyseswillbeusedtogenerateanndimensionalresponse
surfacewherenis thenumberofadopted random waveload parameters,namely maximum
wave height, wave period and drag and inertia coefficient. A separate response surface is
requiredforeachconsideredwavedirectionevery45o.
The wave response input file (wvrinp) gives the detail about how the time stepping is to be
done. All time steps are included in the results to get all the dynamic and static overturning
moments andbase shear for later sorting. Twentyinput file is considered for wave response
analysis,foreachinputfileadifferentseed(waveloadparameters)isconsidered.Thetopfive
maxima are selected forbase shear and overturning moment in each wave response results.
Themaximaselectedarenotfromthesamewave;hencethetimestepshoulddifferbyatleast
2seconds.Aoneseconddifferentmaybeusedprovidedthetimestepinbetweenisnotinthe
maximalistaswell.
Oncealldatapointshavehadindependentmaximaselected,DAFiscalculatedforeachpairof
dynamicversusstaticresults.FinallyusingthemedianfunctioninExcel,DAFsiscalculatedfor
eachwavedirection.
42

3.25 Dynamicamplificationfactor
As part of thesis program a sampleexample of fixedbottom jackettype offshore platform is
providedtocalculatetheDynamicamplificationfactorsthatshouldbeusedfortheDesignof
thejacket.ThestructuralmodelincludingthepileisinformatcompatiblewiththeStructural
AnalysisComputerSoftware(SACS)suiteofprograms.
Theoverallworkscopeisasfollows:
x Determine the first two lateral modes of vibration in each direction, and the first
torsional mode. Provide the periods and mode shapes for each of these modes. The
torsionalmodeshapeisrequiredincaseofeccentricload.
x Calculatetheassociatedlumpedmassdistributionforthesemodeshapes.
x Calculate the DAF’s for the base shear and overturning moment for the most critical
directioninthedesignstormcondition.
x CalculatetheinertialshearforcedistributionfromtheseDAFs.
Random wave analysis is required for flexible structures which respond dynamically during
extremestormconditions.ThewaveresponsemoduleofSACSisusedinrandomwavemode
toperformthedynamicresponse ofa structureusingthefullthreedimensionalSACSmodel
and dynamic characteristics (mode shape and mass). Twenty modes are considered in the
analysis. In the random wave procedure Pierson –Moskowitz spectrum is specified with time
durationof1200sec.ThespectrumisanalyzedandbrokenintoAirywavecomponents.Only
wavecomponentswithperiodsthataredivisibleintotheanalysistimedurationareconsidered
aspossiblecomponents.Theperiodofapossiblewavecomponent,n,isdeterminedfromthe
followingequation:
ൌ Ȁ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ͵ǡǤǤǤǡ (3.1)
WhereTn istheperiod,TDisthetimedurationandnmaxisthelastsignificantcomponentwhich
is 30 in this analysis. Here for an analysis time duration of 1200 seconds the period of first
possible component is 1200 seconds, the period of the second possible component is 600
seconds,thethirdis400seconds.
43

The input spectrum is divided into strips (refer to Figure 4), with each strip having a center
frequencycorrespondingtothefrequencyofoneofthepossiblewavecomponents.Thestrips
arethenlumpedtogethersothateachlumpedstripcontainsatleasttheminimumportionof
thespectrumallowed(herethedefaultvalueof1%isconsidered).
TheprogramreproducesthespectrumbylinearadditionofAirywaves.Theresultsshowsthat
there is no discrepancy between the theoretical and calculated wave spectra, since the time
duration of the surface time history was long enough to represent the statistical properties
sufficiently, refer to Figure 5. For random wave analysis, random linear waves with modified
crestkinematicsaregeneratedbasedonwavespectra.Thereferencewaveisselectedtowet
themaximumheightlikelytooccurduringtherandomwave.LinearcombinationsoflinearAiry
wavesareusedtosimulatethewavesurfaceprofile.
The change in the position of the structure due to its own motion is considered. The
displacements of the structure are usually very small as compared to the lengths of the
significantwavecomponents,thereforethewavekinematicsfromthefirstiterationareused
forallsubsequentiterationsassumingthatthereisnosignificantlossofaccuracy.
Theeffectsofasteadyhorizontalcurrentareincludedintherandomwaveanalysis.Asetof20
user input seeds is used to generate numerous random surfaces of the random wave (Fish,
1979)andresponsescalculatedforeachprofileat0.5secondintervals.Fordesignapplications,
onlyextremewavesareofinterest,thereforefromeachofthetwentysimulationsthelargest
five peak responses of static and dynamic base shear forces as well as static and dynamic
overturningmomentswerepickedfromindependentwavestomakeatotalof100datapoints
foreachresponsevariable(refertoTable7andTable8).
TheDAFs(DynamicAmplificationFactor)forBS (baseshear)andOTM(overturningmoment)
are derived from dividing the ordered sequence of dynamic responses by the corresponding
orderedsequence of thestatic responses.The resultsareshownin Figure6and Figure7for
twoorthogonaldirections.
TheresultsshowthattheDAFishigherinYdirectioncomparedtoXdirection.Sincethejacket
isdesignedforfloatoverinstallationthereisnoXbracingprovidedinthetopbayinYdirection
44

and the structure is more flexible and dynamically sensitive for waves approaching in this
direction.ThemedianvaluesoftheDAFsfromtheseplotsaregiveninTable3.
FurthercalculationiscarriedoutforbaseshearDAFsusingconventionalmethodasaresponse
tosimpleharmonicloading(Hallam,1977)whichisfollowed:
ଵ
ࡰ࡭ࡲ࢞ = =1.025 (3.2)
మ మ
ට൫ଵିπ౔ ൯ ାሺଶǤకǤπ೉ ሻమ
ଵ
ࡰ࡭ࡲ࢟ = =1.143 (3.3)
మ
ට൫ଵିπ౯ మ ൯ ାሺଶǤకǤπ೤ ሻమ
ܶ௡௫ ͳǤ͹ͺ (3.4)

ࢹ࢞ ൌ ൌ
ܶ௙௫ ͳͳǤ͵
ܶ௡௬ ͵ǤͲͳ (3.5)

ષ‫ ܡ‬ൌ ൌ
ܶ௙௬ ͺǤͷ
TfstandsforforcingperiodofthewaveandTnstandsfornaturalperiodofthestructure(refer
toTable8).ߦstandsfordampingratiowhichisconsideredtobe0.02.
AcomparisonoftheDAFsfromrandomtimedomainanalysisandconventionalmethodsshows
that the DAFs in xdirection are the same; however there is a huge difference for DAF in y
direction.TheDAFinydirectionderivedfromrandomtimedomainanalysisisabouttwotimes
bigger than the one derived from the conventional method. As a conclusion if there is any
discontinuityinjacketbraceswhichresultsinhighernaturalperiods,theconventionalmethods
for DAF calculation is no more reliable. The extent of dynamic response relates to the
structure’s fundamental modes and frequency content of the applied loading. Design and
analysis procedures for structures which respond dynamically must account for the random
nature of the excitation by random time domain simulation or frequency domain spectral
analysis.
45

TherandomtimedomainanalysisiscompletedusingthefullthreedimensionalSACSmodel.It
isinthisphasethatthepilesuperelementcalculatedearlierisimportant.
The wave response module of SACS is capable of performing dynamic structural response
analysisresultingfromrandomwaveloading.Theinputrelatedtothetimesteppingisrequired
andthewaveenergyspectrumtobeusedtogeneratetherandomseasurfaceprofile,andthe
frequencybandtobeusedtogeneratethewavecomponents.Theenergyspectrumisbroken
upintobandsofthewidthspecifiedandtheareaineachbandcalculated.Thisenergyisthen
convertedintoanairywaveandallthewavesfromthebandsaresuperimposedwitharandom
phasedifferencebetweenthecomponents.
In order to create different sea surface profiles a random number seeds is used to provide
differentphaseanglesforthecomponentsofthespectrumforeachseasurfacegenerated.In
this analysis 20 different sea surface profiles of 1024 seconds duration were generated and
responsescalculatedforeachprofileat0.5secondintervals.Furtherdiscussionofthemethod
ofgenerationisgivenintheSACSmanual,WaveResponse.
From each of the 20 simulations the largest five peak responses of static and dynamic base
shearforceandstaticanddynamicoverturningmomentwerepeaked.Thisgaveatotalof100
data points for each response variable. For each response variable the data is sorted in
descending order (refer to ͹and Table 8). The DAFs for base shear and OTM are
obtainedbydividingtheorderedsequenceofdynamicresponsesbythecorrespondingordered
sequenceofthestaticresponses.TheDAFstendtodecreasetowardsthelowerordernumber,
whichisthehigherwaveloads,withsomenoiseattheextreme loads.Themedian valuesof
theDAF’sarecalculated.
3.26 Inertialshearforces
For the purpose of design, dynamic response effects during extremewave loading are
representedbyaconstantintimeloadset,approximatingmassinertiaforces.Thisinertiaload
setreflectsthemassdistributionandthenaturalmodeshapesovertheheightofthestructure
and represents the additional base shear and overturning moment components necessary to
achievetherequireddynamicamplificationofthesequantities.Thesearedevelopedbymaking
46

useofthefundamentalbendingmodesandlumpmassdistributionofthestructure.Theinertia
loadsetsareobtainedinproportiontothelumpmassandmodeshapedistributionsoverthe
height of the structure for the endon and broadside wave directions. The inertia loads are
applied as additional static load sets in deterministic, storm wave structural analysis. For
obliquedirectionthecomponentsofthediagonalwaveloadingaredeterminedinorthogonal
fundamental modes simultaneously (inphase) and the appropriate inertia load sets are
generatedaccordingly.
Theloadsetmustberepresentedinaconsistentmannersuchthatareasonabledistributionof
memberforceamplificationsisachieved,inadditiontotheamplificationofgloballoadlevels,
on the basis of which the magnitude of the load set is determined. The distribution of the
extreme inertial load should therefore be established by an appropriate combination of
structuralmodeshapesandlumpedmasses.Thebasisforthecalculationisthatthebaseshear
andoverturningmomentinertialeffectsaresimultaneouslymatched,whilstcombiningthemin
phasewiththequasistaticloadssuchthatgloballevelsoftotalresponsearemaximized.
Theextremeinertialloadwillgenerallybethreedimensionalinnature.Itshouldbenotedthat
verticaldynamicresponseeffectsarenotnormallysignificantforstormwaveconditions.
It is entirely possible that the response of the structure under the combination of extreme
waveandinertialloadingwillnotbeinlinewiththeappliedwaveandcurrentactions.
Abriefdescriptionofthecalculationprocessisalsogivenbelow:
Step1performrandomresponseanalysisusingwaveattackforeachprincipalhorizontalaxis.
Establish global response DAFs for base shear and moment. This requires the resolution of
randomresponsesintoorthogonalcomponents.
Step2–generatethemaximumextremewaveandcurrentloading,duetotheselecteddesign
conditions. Resolve peak levels of base shear and moment into orthogonal components
correspondingtotheprincipalplanaxes.Theinertialcomponentsofresponsealongandabout
eachaxiscanbeobtainedbyacombinationoforthogonalDAFandorthogonalglobalextreme
waveload.
47

Step 3 – establish a set of simultaneous equations of (3D) mode shapes, nodal masses and
unknownmodalscalars,whichmatchtheinertialbaseshearandmomentcomponentsalong
andabouteachplanaxis.Solvethisequationsettodeterminethemodalmultipliers.
Step – 4 establish the (3D) inertial load set for wave attack from each direction, by a
combinationoftheselectedstructuralmodeshapes,scalarmultipliersandnodalmasses.
The inertial load may require modification of global torsional effects contribute to member
force amplifications. In these cases, the procedure described above may be modified to also
match global torsional structural response at an appropriate plan elevation. This may be
achievedbyexpandingtheequationsettoincludethefirsttorsionalmodeofthestructure.

48

Chapter4

Conclusions
49

4.0 Conclusions
FixedoffshoreplatformresponsetorandomwaveloadingisnotGaussianinnature.A
frequencydomainspectralanalysistechniqueisabletoreflecttherandomnatureofthewave
loadingviathecombinationofthestructuraltransferfunctionswithawavespectrum.Time
domainsimulationsinrandomwavesisabletoincludetheresponsenonlinearitiesduetodrag
forceandfreesurfacevariation(BarAviandBenaroya,1959).Thereforerandomdynamic
calculationshavebeenperformedthroughtimedomainsimulationstoaccountfor
nonlinearitiesinnonGaussianprocess.PseudoDynamicAnalysisisasimplifieddynamic
structuralproceduresuitablefortheconventionalbottomsupportedstructuresunderthe
influenceofenvironmentalloadingandselfweightforces. Giventhepotentialimpactofnon
linearcomponentsintheextremestormconditionasillustratedinthisthesis,itisnow
acceptedthatmodelswhichreflectthesefeaturesexplicitlyarerequired.
4.1 Outlineoftheprocedure
Foralowloadingfrequencythetotalresponsecanberepresentedbythecontributionofthe
lowervibrationmodesandapseudostaticcorrection,totakeintoaccountthecontributionsof
theneglectedhighermodes(Lima,1985).
For random excitation the influence of dynamics on global loading can be expressed by a
generalized form of the Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF, refer to section 3.25 for more
detail)throughtherandomanalysistechniques.
Todeterminetheextremeresponseofthestructureforthepurposeofdesignagainststrength
andstabilityapseudodynamicdesignwaveprocedureisused.Thismethodmodifiesthestatic
shearforcesbydynamicamplificationfactors.
The inertia load set is an additional static load which, when combined with the quasistatic
extremestormload,resultsingloballevelsofresponsewhichreflecttheinclusionofdynamic
effects (Greeves, 1996). Inertia shear forces are proportional to the fundamental bending
modesofthestructurefortheendonandbroadsidewavedirectionsatthemainplanlevels.
Determination of the inertial load set is achieved by making use of global responses (Vugts,
1998). This simplified approach incorporates the essential features of the platform dynamic
response and eliminates the difficulties associated with use of the individual member forces
fromarandomwaveanalysistosuitwithexistingcodesofpractice.
50

Randomwaveanalysisintimedomainisusedtodeterminetheappropriateglobal(levelshear
andmoment)dynamicamplificationfactors.Asaresulttherandomtimedomainanalysesand
the prediction of the associated DAFs are limited to the global response only, which is
technicallyfeasibleandeconomical.
Theshearforcesfromthedesignwavewerecalculatedattheelevationofinterest.Theseshear
forcesarethenmodifiedtocreatetheinertialloadset.Consideringthefirsttwofundamental
modes theappropriateinertiaload set isderived as thesummationofmassinertiaforcesof
motionsothat:
V1=M.1 (4.1)
V2=M.2 (4.2)

Where:
Vi&Mi=vectoroflateralmodalforcesandmomentsinmodei,refertoTable9.
M=systemmassmatrix
i=modeshapeforithmode(refertoFigure2ModeshapeinXdirectionandFigure3)

Assumingfullparticipationofeachmodetheresultinginertialbaseshearandoverturning
momentsformodei,areobtainedbysummingthecontributionsfromeachlevelasfollows:

ModalShearinmodei,
(4.3)
ܸ௜ ൌ ෍ ߶௜௝ ݉௝
௝ୀଵǡ௡

51

ModalMomentinmodei,
(4.4)
‫ܯ‬௜ ൌ ෍ ߶௜௝ ݄௝ ݉௝
௝ୀଵǡ௡
Where:
j=planlevelsubscript
n=totalnumberoflumpedmasses
i=modenumber
mj=lumpedmassatlevelj
hj=heightabovebasetolevelj
ij=modeshapeamplitudeformodeiatlevelj
Fortimedomainsimulationstheinertialresponseisobtainedbydirectsubtractionofthetwo
randomdynamicandquasistaticresponses.Thedynamiccomponentsofthebaseshearand
overturning moment are then developed from the sum of the modal contributions. Inertial
responses in each mode are proportional to the product of the mass and mode shapes. The
contributions from each mode are a function of the modal participation factors i which
dependsuponthecharacteristicsoftheloadingandthemodeshape.

Theproportionality(orparticipation)coefficients(i) foreachmodearedeterminedbysolving
thefollowingequations,assumingthattwomodesarerelevant(refertoTable4).
(4.5)
‫ ݎ݄݈ܽ݁ܵܽ݅ݐݎ݁݊ܫ‬ൌ ߙͳ ෍ ߶ଵ௝ ݉௝ ൅ ߙʹ ෍ ߶ଶ௝ ݉௝
௝ୀଵǡ௡ ௝ୀଵǡ௡
(4.6)
‫ ݐ݊݁݉݋ܯ݈ܽ݅ݐݎ݁݊ܫ‬ൌ ߙͳ ෍ ߶ଵ௝ ݄௝ ݉௝ ൅ ߙʹ ෍ ߶ଶ௝ ݄௝ ݉௝
௝ୀଵǡ௡ ௝ୀଵǡ௡
Theinertialoadsetsforeachmodeandforeachprincipaldirectioniscalculatedbymultiplying
the modal load sets developed above using the appropriate modal participation () values
(refertoFigure8andFigure9).Theinertialoadsetisappliedtothestructureasastaticextra
loadsetinadditiontoalloftheotherenvironmentalandselfweightloads.Theinertialoadset
52

is combined with a regular wave deterministic analysis to design the structure in the same
approachasforconventionalstructures.
The above procedure is applied to both principal wave approach directions. The above
relationships match the required base shear and overturning moment using two
proportionality constants 1, 2, and two modes. Level shears and moments at any other
locationcanalsobematchedinasimilarmanner.
Ifthedynamicresponsecomponentsaretobematchedatmorethantwolevels(sayn)thenn
modesandnproportionalityconstantsmustbeusedresultinginasetofnequationssimilarto
theabove.Howeverinthisexampleonly2modesand2proportionalityconstantshavebeen
usedbasedontheassumptionthatthedynamicresponsecontributionsaredominatedbythe
firsttwofundamentalmodes(refertotheTable3).Astheinfluenceofhighermodesincreases
theaboveapproximationbecomesmoreinaccurate.
Thismethodmodifiesthestaticshearforceswhichhavebeencalculatedforthestaticanalysis
design wave event to increase the base shear, BS, and overturning moment, OTM. These
increases are matched to the respective dynamic amplifications obtained from the random
timedomainanalyses.
Thedistributionofthemassinertiaforcesofmotionovertheheightisassumedproportionalto
themassdistributionmultipliedwiththedisplacementsofthefirsttwofundamentalvibration
modes. Hence the appropriate inertia load set is a summation of the mass inertia forces of
motionresultingfromthefirsttwofundamentalmodes.
4.2 Recommendations
Dynamicresponseanalysesusingaregularwavedeterministicmodelareinappropriate,dueto
artificial lumping of excitation energy at a single wave frequency and due to possible
introduction of higher order wave force components associated with the selection of a
particularwavetheory.
Timedomainsimulationsinrandomwavesrepresenttheultimateanalysistoolbecauseoftheir
ability to include an explicit definition of all loading and response nonlinearities. Offshore
platformssubjectedtorandomwavesareusuallymodeledasmultidegreefreedomsystems.
53

Theforcescausedbytherandomwavescanexcitecertainvibratorymodescorrespondingto
frequencies near or equal to wave frequencies. At present time due to lack of experience in
their application within the framework of the existing design codes it is being employed in a
relativesensetocomparestaticanddynamicresponsepredictionsfortheevaluationofglobal
responsedynamicamplificationfactors(Elshafey,2009).
For inplace design and code checking of conventional bottom supported fixed platform a
pseudodynamic analysis, founded upon the existing deterministic design wave approach,
represents a good short term engineering compromise. The effects of mass inertia forces
shouldberepresentedusinganadditionalstaticloadsetwhichisconsideredappropriatefor
structureshavingfundamentalmodenaturalfrequencieswhicharemuchhigherthanthepeak
frequency of the design storm event (say, the ratio of the natural frequencies and the
frequencyofthepeakstormenergyshouldbegreaterthan2.5to3.0).Theresponseofsuch
structures remains essentially stiffness dominated and the basic assumptions are satisfied.
Sincethemethodreliesuponareliableestimateoftheglobaldynamicamplificationfactorsfor
thedesignstormthisismostcorrectlyachievedusingsimplifiedrandomtimedomaintools.
For inplace design and code checking of structures having a fundamental natural frequency
whichismuchclosertoorevenlowerthanthepeakfrequencyofthedesignstormeventthe
‘Pseudodynamic’analysismethodismostprobablyinadequate.Compliantbottomsupported
structuresmay,forexample,fallinthiscategory.
In designing a dynamically sensitive platform it is essential that the influence of dynamic
response isrecognizedatanearly stagein thedesigndevelopmentprocess.Therelationship
betweenthe frequencycontent oftheapplied loading andthenatural modesofvibrationof
thestructurearethekeyelementsindefiningthedynamicresponse.Attemptsshouldbemade
toreducethe waveforceexcitationin thevicinityoftheexpectedrange ofthefundamental
modenaturalfrequencies.Thismaybeachievedbyacarefulselectionofthegeometryofthe
structuralmembersandappurtenancesinandclosetothefreesurface.
Optimization exercises have been shown to have a dramatic influence on the fatigue
performanceofdynamicallysensitivedeepwaterstructures.Theresultsofsuchanoptimization
are less dramatic for the extreme storm condition, since amplification of the low frequency
loading, which is not markedly influenced by spatial separation effects, contributes
54

significantly. However, such an optimization is still beneficial in reducing the total dynamic
loading.
4.3 Longertermdevelopment
In this thesis a subjective assessment to examine the extreme event dynamic response of
bottomsupportedoffshoreplatformsiscarriedoutwhichmayenableweightandcostsavings
in any fixedoffshoreplatformswith recognitionof randomnature of thewave environment.
Most of the material presented is based on experience gained during the design of offshore
platforms in Persian Gulf. Final implementation and work for necessary verification of the
procedurearerequiredtoestablishanindustrialdesignpractice.
Some ofthepotential development work is anticipated to incorporate adesign approach for
theprobabilisticnatureoftherandomwaveenvironment(longtermeffects).Thelongertime
scale corresponds mostly to fatigue fracture of the structure. In theory the longterm model
providesthemostlogicalapproachtodesign.Especiallyconcerningfatigueproblems,itseems
tobetheonlyrationalapproach.Onlylimitedknowledgeisavailableconcerningthelongterm
distributionoftheseastate,whichisessentialfortheassessmentoffatiguelife.Howeverthe
shorttermmodelingoftheextremedynamicresponseformsthebasisforthisanalysisalso.
4.4 Finalcomments
Thepositionofthenaturalfrequenciesofthestructurerelativetothepeaksandtroughsofthe
base shear wave load transfer function may have profound effect on the level of dynamic
response. Since the natural frequency can vary significantly depending upon design
assumptions and operational deck mass, the theoretical frequencies should be reviewed
critically. A realistic range of natural frequency values should be considered, based on lower
andupperboundvaluesfortheplatformstiffnessandmass.

55

References
ASGARIAN, B. (2004) Simplified method to assess dynamic response of jacket type offshore
platforms subjected to wave loading. 23rd International Conference on offshore
MechanicsandArcticEngineering.Vancouver,Canada,OMAE200451383.
BARAVI, P. & BENAROYA, H. (1959) Nonlinear Dynamics of Compliant Offshore Structures,
Swets&Zeitlinger
BARLTROP,N.D.P.(1991)DynamicsofFixedMarineStructures.
BREBBIA,C.A.&WALKER,S.(1979)DynamicAnalysisofOffshoreStructures,Butterworth&Co.
CHAKRABARTI(2005)HandbookofOffshoreEngineering,Elsevier.
ELSHAFEY,A.(2009)Identificationoftheexcitationandreactionforcesonoffshoreplatforms
usingtherandomdecrementtechnique.OceanEngineering,36,8.
FISH, P. R. (1979) Fluidstructure interaction in Morison'sequation for thedesign of offshore
structures.Eng.Struct.,2,12.
FRIEZE, P. A. (1997) Fixed and Jackup Platforms: Basis for Reliability Assessment. Marine
Structures,10.
GREEVES,E.J.(1996)EvaluatingJackupDynamicResponseUsingFrequencyDomainMethods
andtheInertialLoadSetTechnique.MarineStructures,9,27.
HALLAM,M.G.(1977)DynamicsofMarineStructures,CiriaUnderwaterEngineeringGroup.
HARITOS,N.A.E.A.(1992)Hydrodynamicforcesandinteractionsofmultiplecircularcylindrical
structurefluidsoilsystems.AppliedOceanResearch,14,9.
HONGYAN, M. (Ed.) (2004) Structural design optimization on random vibration responses,
Warsaw,Poland,XXIICTAM.
IRANINEJAD, B. (1988) Dynamic Analysis of Fixed Offshore Platforms Subject to Nonlinear
HydrodynamicLoading.Berkeley,UniversityofCalifornia.
KARUNAKARAN,D.(1995)NonlinearDynamicBehaviorofJackupPlatforms.MarineStructures,
9,30.
KIM,C.H.(2008)NonlinearWavesandOffshoreStructures,WorldScientific.
KO, C. K. (1988) Three Dimensional Dynamic Analysis of Fixed Offshore Platforms. Austin
University.
LIMA,E.C.P.E.A.(1985)NonlinearDynamicAnalysisofaJacketTypePlatfoembyRitzMode
SuperpositionMethod.OffshoreTechnologyConference,11.
NAESS, A. (2007) Efficient estimation of extreme response of dragdominated offshore
structuresbyMonteCarlosimulation.OceanEngineering,34,10.
NAJAFIAN,G.(2007)probabilitymodelsforoffshorestructuralresponseduetoMorisonwave
loading.OceanEngineering,34,11.
PENZIEN, J. (1972) Stochastic response of offshore towers to random sea waves and strong
motionearthquakes.Computersandstructures,2,24.
SCHMUCKER, D. G. (1996) Nearfailure Behavior of Jackettype Offshore Platforms in the
ExtremeWaveEnvironment.StandfordUniversity.
SHUMIN, C. A. E. A. (1995) Similarity method for modeling hydroelastic offshore platforms.
OceanEngineering,23,21.
SODING, H. (1990) Environmental Forces on Offshore Structures: a StateoftheArt Review.
MarineStructures,3,23.
THAMPI,S.K.(1989)ExternalandParametricRandomExitationofNonlinearOffshoreSystems
Texas,A&MUniversity.
56

VUGTS, J. H. (1998) The extreme dynamic response of bottom supported structures using
equivalentquasistaticdesignwaveprocedure.AppliedOceanResearch,20,17.
WILSON,J.F.(2003)DynamicsofOffshoreStructures,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.
ZIENKIEWICZ, O. C., LEWIS, R. W. & STAGG, K. G. (1978) Numerical Methods in Offshore
Engineering,JohnWiley&Sons,Inc.

57

AppendixA

Figures1to46
&
Tables1to11

58

ͳ

59

70
Elevation above mudline (m) 60
50
40
First mode
Second mode
30
20
10
0
-1.000 -0.500 0.000 0.500 1.000 1.500
Normalized deflection

ʹǦ

70
60
Elevation above mudline (m)
50
40
First mode
Second mode
30
20
10
0
0.000 0.200 0.400 0.600 0.800 1.000 1.200
Normalized deflection

͵Ǧ

60

Ͷ

ͷ
61

\

͸Ǧ

͹Ǧ
62

ͺǦ

ͻǦ
63

ͳͲͳǦǡǦʹͻǤͷʹ
64

ͳͳʹǦǡǦʹͻǤͷʹ
65

ͳʹͳǦǡǦͻǤͲ
66

ͳ͵ʹǦǡǦͻǤͲ
67

ͳͶͳǦǡ͸ǤͲ
68

ͳͷʹǦǡ͸ǤͲ
69

ͳ͸ͳǦǡͳ͵Ǥͻ
70

ͳ͹ʹǦǡͳ͵Ǥͻ
71

ͳͺͳǦǡʹͲǤͷ
72

ͳͻʹǦǡʹͲǤͷ
73

ʹͲͳǦǡʹͺǤͳ
74

ʹͳʹǦǡʹͺǤͳ
75

ʹʹͳǦǡ͵͹Ǥͳ
76

ʹ͵ʹǦǡ͵͹Ǥͳ
77

ʹͶͳǦǡǦʹͻǤͷʹ
78

ʹͷʹǦǡǦʹͻǤͷʹ
79

ʹ͸ͳǦǡǦͻǤͲ
80

ʹ͹ʹǦǡǦͻǤͲ
81

ʹͺͳǦǡ͸ǤͲ
82

ʹͻʹǦǡ͸ǤͲ
83

͵ͲͳǦǡͳ͵Ǥͻ
84

͵ͳʹǦǡͳ͵Ǥͻ
85

͵ʹͳǦǡʹͲǤͷ
86

͵͵ʹǦǡʹͲǤͷ
87

͵ͶͳǦǡʹͺǤͳ
88

͵ͷʹǦǡʹͺǤͳ
89

͵͸ͳǦǡ͵͹Ǥͳ
90

͵͹ʹǦǡ͵͹Ǥͳ
91

͵ͺͳ
92

͵ͻʹ
93

ͶͲ͵
94

ͶͳͶ
95

Ͷʹͷ
96

Ͷ͵͸
97

ͶͶ

Ͷͷ
98

Ͷ͸

MaximumWave Max.Crest Min.Trough Zero

Seed Height Time Height Time Height Time Upcrossing Kurtosis
No. Period
(M) (SECS) (M) (SECS) (M) (SECS) (SECS)
1 9.20 604.75 5.10 641.00 -4.59 903.00 7.10 3.1610
2 9.18 605.00 4.27 583.00 -5.11 641.50 6.90 3.1197
3 9.14 605.00 5.19 641.50 -4.40 899.00 6.90 3.0962
4 9.11 605.25 4.34 583.00 -5.23 642.00 7.02 3.1348
5 9.28 640.25 5.32 642.00 -4.69 903.00 7.10 3.1062
6 9.21 640.25 4.29 583.00 -5.15 642.00 7.19 3.0661
7 9.46 640.75 5.12 642.50 -4.44 899.00 6.90 3.1447
8 9.46 641.00 4.44 639.00 -5.05 603.50 6.90 3.1104
9 9.62 641.25 5.07 603.50 -4.76 903.00 7.02 3.1229
10 9.59 641.50 4.66 639.50 -5.08 603.50 6.78 3.1018
11 9.77 641.75 5.09 603.50 -4.82 640.00 7.02 3.1733
12 9.62 642.00 4.90 640.50 -5.10 603.50 7.06 3.0390
13 9.53 642.25 5.10 603.50 -5.13 640.50 6.94 3.1279
14 9.31 642.25 5.13 640.50 -5.10 603.50 6.94 3.0603
15 9.29 901.00 5.10 603.50 -5.27 641.00 6.94 3.1287
16 8.87 643.00 5.25 641.00 -5.09 603.50 7.06 3.0675
17 9.29 901.00 5.08 603.50 -5.34 641.50 6.63 3.1102
18 8.93 640.00 5.28 642.00 -5.07 603.50 7.02 3.0602
19 9.28 901.00 5.05 603.50 -5.44 642.00 6.67 3.0897
20 9.43 640.25 5.34 642.00 -5.06 604.00 6.74 3.0951
ͳ
99

ʹ

͵

DAFs Xdir Ydir
Baseshear 1.02 2.07
Overturningmoment 1.05 4.02

Ͷ

Participationcoefficients xdirection ydirection
1 0.001792519 0.14229167
2 0.002451498 0.169660792
100

ͷ
MODE X Y Z
1 0.0000006 0.8204587 0.0000100

2 0.7685387 0.0000250 0.0000058
3 0.0985639 0.0000992 0.0000014
4 0.0000059 0.0671181 0.0000014
5 0.0659842 0.0000139 0.0000013
6 0.0001300 0.0000006 0.0000000
7 0.0438895 0.0026830 0.0017154
8 0.0010757 0.0963786 0.0002689
9 0.0007284 0.0031202 0.0013132
10 0.0047347 0.0001783 0.0181825
11 0.0018160 0.0000054 0.0000830
12 0.0000030 0.0000336 0.0000121
13 0.0003991 0.0077855 0.0000080
14 0.0054696 0.0002324 0.0042012
15 0.0065685 0.0000463 0.0000616
16 0.0000002 0.0000098 0.0000154
17 0.0001224 0.0000106 0.0355004
18 0.0000349 0.0000057 0.7826106
19 0.0000523 0.0000000 0.0038140
20 0.0000160 0.0002289 0.0006175

͸

MODE PERIOD(SECS) Degreeoffreedom
1 3.01 Y
2 1.78 X
3 1.53 X
4 1.28 Y
5 1.18 Y
6 1.17 X

101

͹

Data Seed Dynamic Static DAF
points No. TIME OTM TIME TIME OTM TIME
(SECS) (kN.m) (SECS) BS (kN) (SECS) (kN.m) (SECS) BS (kN) OTM BS
1 641 75070 641 3925 603 69685 641 3751 1.08 1.05
2 603 72790 603 3851 641 69222 603 3749 1.05 1.03
3 1 604 66535 641 3775 604 62625 641 3701 1.06 1.02
4 899 64968 711 3511 899 59981 711 3443 1.08 1.02
5 411 62601 411 3443 711 59977 411 3346 1.04 1.03
6 607 77899 607 4124 607 72500 607 4089 1.07 1.01
7 414 66571 608 3864 414 62341 608 3790 1.07 1.02
8 2 716 65582 414 3637 583 60273 414 3502 1.09 1.04
9 606 65466 716 3631 606 60167 716 3495 1.09 1.04
10 103 64521 606 3564 645 59667 606 3433 1.08 1.04
11 642 75344 641 3946 642 71098 641 3846 1.06 1.03
12 603 73946 603 3937 603 70987 603 3842 1.04 1.02
13 3 641 73182 642 3935 641 70147 642 3825 1.04 1.03
14 604 69985 712 3611 604 65124 712 3600 1.07 1.00
15 103 65374 713 3598 712 61854 713 3514 1.06 1.02
16 607 74860 607 4081 607 72016 607 4074 1.04 1.00
17 608 70195 608 3937 608 68290 608 3858 1.03 1.02
18 4 901 69043 411 3625 901 64641 901 3499 1.07 1.04
19 411 66154 901 3624 411 61132 411 3487 1.08 1.04
20 645 62811 606 3377 583 59674 606 3310 1.05 1.02
21 642 78152 642 4072 642 72294 603 3920 1.08 1.04
22 603 77007 603 4058 603 72025 642 3917 1.07 1.04
23 5 604 70629 414 3732 604 67402 414 3642 1.05 1.02
24 643 66628 604 3676 643 64200 604 3576 1.04 1.03
25 414 66424 714 3571 414 63313 714 3529 1.05 1.01
26 607 71632 607 4058 607 71138 607 4036 1.01 1.01
27 608 70968 608 3977 638 60974 608 3900 1.16 1.02
28 6 638 67952 638 3532 583 60877 638 3372 1.12 1.05
29 105 65535 408 3421 608 59039 583 3343 1.11 1.02
30 582 62620 583 3357 105 58731 408 3309 1.07 1.01
31 603 78658 603 4139 603 72819 603 3985 1.08 1.04
32 642 78337 642 4083 643 72672 643 3966 1.08 1.03
33 7 643 76825 643 4078 642 70390 642 3885 1.09 1.05
34 604 72863 604 3816 604 69462 604 3709 1.05 1.03
35 411 67008 411 3748 411 62612 411 3631 1.07 1.03
36 607 71731 607 4018 607 69917 607 3977 1.03 1.01
37 608 70355 608 3986 608 68970 608 3918 1.02 1.02
38 8 901 70048 901 3712 901 66499 901 3605 1.05 1.03
39 639 66410 415 3657 639 64631 415 3599 1.03 1.02
40 414 64673 414 3642 415 62394 639 3588 1.04 1.02
41 603 78474 603 4178 603 73396 603 4037 1.07 1.03
42 643 75802 643 3996 643 72210 643 3969 1.05 1.01
43 9 604 74871 604 3945 604 71318 604 3832 1.05 1.03
44 644 68922 644 3737 644 66636 644 3643 1.03 1.03
45 899 67374 408 3552 899 62895 408 3436 1.07 1.03
46 640 71901 608 3977 608 68717 608 3913 1.05 1.02
47 10 607 71591 607 3963 640 68657 607 3900 1.04 1.02
48 639 71510 639 3884 607 68393 639 3781 1.05 1.03
102

49 608 69706 640 3797 639 67874 640 3704 1.03 1.03
50 411 65827 412 3729 412 63491 412 3683 1.04 1.01
51 603 79555 603 4239 603 73776 603 4078 1.08 1.04
52 644 74498 604 4014 644 70927 604 3944 1.05 1.02
53 11 643 66410 644 4001 903 64318 644 3923 1.03 1.02
54 604 66050 643 3747 604 61935 643 3714 1.07 1.01
55 904 65433 415 3558 681 61042 415 3522 1.07 1.01
56 640 75551 640 4066 640 72384 640 3946 1.04 1.03
57 901 71123 608 3932 608 68107 608 3887 1.04 1.01
58 12 607 70366 607 3887 901 67954 607 3807 1.04 1.02
59 641 69326 901 3800 607 66607 901 3704 1.04 1.03
60 608 68534 639 3576 641 63831 639 3515 1.07 1.02
61 603 79777 603 4267 604 74433 603 4109 1.07 1.04
62 644 77716 604 4104 603 73970 604 4045 1.05 1.01
63 13 604 75716 644 4010 644 68835 644 3829 1.10 1.05
64 102 70049 645 3742 645 65840 412 3659 1.06 1.02
65 899 68566 102 3697 102 65174 645 3647 1.05 1.01
66 641 77849 640 4218 641 75340 641 4107 1.03 1.03
67 640 77743 641 4185 640 72784 640 4073 1.07 1.03
68 14 103 73754 103 3901 103 67701 608 3841 1.09 1.02
69 102 70295 608 3826 608 67164 103 3749 1.05 1.02
70 607 68900 607 3806 607 64598 607 3701 1.07 1.03
71 603 79138 603 4265 604 75687 604 4135 1.05 1.03
72 604 77352 103 3930 603 73986 103 3804 1.05 1.03
73 15 645 73862 645 3820 103 68038 645 3687 1.09 1.04
74 103 72889 604 3733 104 67446 603 3648 1.08 1.02
75 904 66566 903 3629 645 65968 903 3610 1.01 1.01
76 641 81057 641 4332 641 77309 641 4236 1.05 1.02
77 901 71447 901 3863 901 68995 104 3822 1.04 1.01
78 16 105 71252 104 3850 104 68967 901 3779 1.03 1.02
79 104 68279 901 3850 608 65920 608 3777 1.04 1.02
80 902 67729 104 3783 640 62142 412 3603 1.09 1.05
81 604 79240 604 4296 604 76730 604 4214 1.03 1.02
82 105 72436 105 3920 105 68021 105 3800 1.06 1.03
83 17 899 70611 603 3705 899 64874 603 3605 1.09 1.03
84 693 66865 899 3684 603 62576 899 3539 1.07 1.04
85 603 66505 645 3549 645 62430 645 3505 1.07 1.01
86 642 82204 642 4438 642 78190 642 4307 1.05 1.03
87 105 70562 105 3776 106 66128 608 3696 1.07 1.02
88 18 581 66242 608 3690 608 64409 106 3682 1.03 1.00
89 607 64575 641 3597 681 61871 641 3557 1.04 1.01
90 608 63588 581 3525 641 61740 681 3436 1.03 1.03
91 604 80914 604 4370 604 71605 604 4280 1.13 1.02
92 903 67958 903 3678 903 63949 903 3580 1.06 1.03
93 19 904 67735 603 3611 106 63658 106 3569 1.06 1.01
94 106 66890 106 3592 638 62562 603 3554 1.07 1.01
95 638 64948 638 3584 904 61664 638 3512 1.05 1.02
96 642 84194 642 4499 642 78015 642 4321 1.08 1.04
97 901 72730 901 3942 901 69715 901 3837 1.04 1.03
98 20 682 66857 608 3616 608 62665 608 3602 1.07 1.00
99 691 65014 682 3585 682 61722 641 3480 1.05 1.03
100 581 63702 641 3472 581 60777 682 3449 1.05 1.01
103

ͺ

Data Seed Dynamic Static DAF
points No. TIME OTM TIME BS TIME OTM TIME BS
(SECS) (kN.m) (SECS) (kN) (SECS) (kN.m) (SECS) (kN) OTM BS
1 1110 30178 1082 805 634 7361 861 337 4.10 2.39
2 1115 30165 1120 669 597 6707 599 328 4.50 2.04
3 1 1121 29985 1146 665 139 6386 182 319 4.70 2.09
4 1118 29552 1108 633 899 6303 638 304 4.69 2.08
5 1104 28850 354 631 139 6245 1082 301 4.62 2.10
6 1109 32387 1082 744 897 6944 597 374 4.66 1.99
7 354 31735 1134 704 599 6910 182 351 4.59 2.01
8 2 1115 31289 1146 661 582 6712 634 344 4.66 1.92
9 1121 30777 355 656 638 6593 859 303 4.67 2.17
10 1083 30426 1119 656 424 6477 1081 302 4.70 2.17
11 1083 33653 1081 779 726 6929 599 321 4.86 2.43
12 1121 33266 1134 693 597 6788 1080 309 4.90 2.25
13 3 1103 31640 1119 665 392 6702 183 299 4.72 2.22
14 1115 31560 1145 621 597 6686 600 297 4.72 2.09
15 1109 31277 353 612 843 6641 177 296 4.71 2.07
16 1109 34586 1133 686 997 7066 597 377 4.90 1.82
17 1115 32233 354 669 976 6938 861 320 4.65 2.09
18 4 1083 31174 1116 662 599 6912 178 319 4.51 2.08
19 1120 30375 1081 659 495 6842 1080 314 4.44 2.10
20 1082 30056 312 646 695 6563 597 295 4.58 2.19
21 1082 35011 1133 681 596 6916 179 317 5.06 2.15
22 1120 32860 999 664 497 6816 599 315 4.82 2.11
23 5 1109 30967 1116 610 182 6780 139 314 4.57 1.94
24 1103 30173 690 597 597 6648 998 311 4.54 1.92
25 1114 30161 1110 587 975 6413 860 305 4.70 1.92
26 1082 32490 1116 675 1082 6978 596 391 4.66 1.73
27 1108 32333 1110 661 599 6772 383 324 4.77 2.04
28 6 1114 30230 998 623 897 6741 496 319 4.48 1.95
29 354 29011 290 599 183 6447 139 318 4.50 1.88
30 1120 27626 140 593 392 6439 998 317 4.29 1.87
31 1082 28944 1110 663 596 7248 599 310 3.99 2.14
32 1120 28879 140 653 383 7163 695 303 4.03 2.15
33 7 1108 27563 354 647 1081 7134 140 301 3.86 2.15
34 1081 26463 696 644 496 6978 181 297 3.79 2.17
35 1134 25972 1083 626 597 6965 600 296 3.73 2.12
36 1081 29207 1083 731 1081 7617 596 407 3.83 1.80
37 1120 26035 1109 668 138 7062 182 331 3.69 2.02
38 8 1114 25842 355 649 599 6622 496 313 3.90 2.07
39 1108 25744 1026 643 600 6315 182 303 4.08 2.12
40 290 25448 1115 637 726 6311 861 302 4.03 2.11
41 311 27561 1082 713 495 7758 383 324 3.55 2.20
42 1081 26835 1109 664 596 7553 633 324 3.55 2.05
43 9 314 25311 1103 611 1080 7497 182 309 3.38 1.98
44 354 25086 141 609 694 7239 599 304 3.47 2.00
45 119 24825 121 603 139 7231 183 304 3.43 1.99
46 332 27312 1082 815 383 7326 596 420 3.73 1.94
47 10 1081 25998 690 691 1106 6868 178 322 3.79 2.14
48 1134 25984 1109 660 633 6725 385 309 3.86 2.14
104

49 697 25850 1115 651 997 6707 495 301 3.85 2.16
50 355 24918 353 640 139 6674 1082 301 3.73 2.13
51 1080 26046 1082 841 596 7757 497 354 3.36 2.38
52 120 25802 999 667 494 7232 178 330 3.57 2.02
53 11 333 25566 1109 654 182 7102 633 322 3.60 2.03
54 510 24898 1082 638 597 7004 1082 314 3.55 2.03
55 1083 24620 497 619 695 6859 633 307 3.59 2.02
56 1083 27451 332 776 496 8249 596 428 3.33 1.81
57 120 26810 1081 751 392 6717 695 318 3.99 2.36
58 12 336 26357 696 708 822 6561 383 312 4.02 2.26
59 330 26280 690 680 600 6545 1081 311 4.02 2.19
60 1133 25929 338 626 480 6514 596 304 3.98 2.06
61 331 29992 385 769 596 7878 496 341 3.81 2.26
62 1083 29928 1081 748 383 6967 633 340 4.30 2.20
63 13 120 25899 327 643 178 6051 496 339 4.28 1.90
64 141 25142 496 637 597 5870 1081 325 4.28 1.96
65 311 24956 333 610 382 5742 385 314 4.35 1.94
66 121 29188 696 742 496 8777 596 433 3.33 1.71
67 332 27978 1081 677 384 7060 1080 330 3.96 2.05
68 14 1082 27563 386 616 694 6626 596 315 4.16 1.96
69 724 25855 122 610 419 6578 386 300 3.93 2.03
70 326 25612 330 603 600 6531 139 299 3.92 2.02
71 1082 30009 331 834 596 7966 495 349 3.77 2.39
72 333 28984 689 669 822 7098 689 326 4.08 2.06
73 15 327 28819 495 667 385 7001 633 312 4.12 2.14
74 121 27881 337 656 597 6932 182 311 4.02 2.11
75 385 27132 718 655 392 6757 495 305 4.02 2.14
76 331 30501 385 824 495 8254 596 436 3.70 1.89
77 1082 29741 332 767 694 7133 497 335 4.17 2.29
78 16 328 27098 326 652 495 6943 596 326 3.90 2.00
79 121 26301 120 647 1082 6588 822 326 3.99 1.99
80 342 26184 697 646 695 6570 384 325 3.99 1.99
81 331 30492 690 702 497 8156 494 324 3.74 2.17
82 325 27587 327 684 596 8005 386 315 3.45 2.17
83 17 723 27281 120 670 496 7978 178 311 3.42 2.15
84 122 26675 386 660 1081 7251 386 303 3.68 2.18
85 717 26660 895 622 383 7220 689 294 3.69 2.11
86 332 32466 331 782 1081 7459 596 434 4.35 1.80
87 326 30052 120 643 385 7428 496 382 4.05 1.68
88 18 1081 26786 496 642 822 7050 597 341 3.80 1.88
89 385 26719 723 632 176 6761 179 325 3.95 1.94
90 329 25158 1083 624 494 6713 497 310 3.75 2.01
91 724 28925 332 826 496 9709 384 342 2.98 2.41
92 330 26197 385 754 596 7879 823 316 3.32 2.38
93 19 1081 25909 331 747 1080 6826 991 307 3.80 2.43
94 119 25890 384 738 597 6720 391 292 3.85 2.52
95 718 25865 690 730 177 6412 331 291 4.03 2.51
96 331 32339 326 717 383 7725 596 427 4.19 1.68
97 384 28650 1082 714 1102 6582 496 373 4.35 1.92
98 20 325 26880 495 671 419 6569 596 337 4.09 1.99
99 337 26367 332 641 1080 6525 386 334 4.04 1.92
100 328 26335 496 640 792 6263 597 332 4.20 1.93
105

ͻ

106

ͳͲ

OverallJacketSizeatworkpoint(EL8.3m) 16(m)x36(m)
OverallJacketSizeatmudline(EL29.5m) 25(m)x36(m)
TopsideDeckdimension(EL37.1m) 21(m)x40.5(m)
TopsideDeckdimension(EL13.9m) 21(m)x56.2(m)
TopsideOperatingWeight 5000(MT)
WaterDepth 29.3m
CurrentVelocity 1.0710.634m/s
WaveHeight 11m
WavePeriod 11.3sec

ͳͳ

Cleanmember Fouledmember

Dragcoefficient,Cd 0.65 1.05

Masscoefficient,Cm 1.6 1.2
107

AppendixB

SACSfiles
108

StructuralModelInputFile
LDOPT NF+Z 1.030 7.85 -29.20 29.20GLOBMN HYDFLD
DYNAMIC INPLACE ANALYSIS
OPTIONS MN PI SDUC 9 9 PTPTPTPT
LCSEL ST D301 D302 D303 D304 D305 D306 D307 D308 D311 D312 D313 D314
LCSEL ST D315 D316 D317 D318 D321 D322 D323 D324 D325 D326 D327 D328
LCSEL ST D331 D332 D333 D334 D335 D336 D337 D338
HYDRO +ZAPEXTMNNNPA 34.400 2.000 1.028
HYDRO2 0.90ML 0.80
UCPART 1.0090.00 0.80 1.00 0.00 0.80
AMOD
AMOD D311 1.330D312 1.330D313 1.330D314 1.330D315 1.330D316 1.330D317 1.330
AMOD D318 1.330D331 1.330D332 1.330D333 1.330D334 1.330D335 1.330D336 1.330
AMOD D337 1.330D338 1.330
SECT
.
GRUP
GRUP 168 16.800 1.097 20.50 7.8935.50 9 1.001.00 0.50N 7.849
.
MEMBER
MEMBER 51724592 168
.
PGRUP
PGRUP CPM 0.8000 20.000 0.25027.500 7.849
.
PLATE
PLATE ZZZE 2161223022362263CPM 1
.
JOINT
JOINT 2 -12.813-18.000-30.200 PILEHD
.
AREA
AREAX1 342.0 0.00 3.50 16.70 1.004640452446854034404040464891F
AREAX2 155.9 0.00 -26.57 17.20 1.00627362724509651265094005 F
AREAX4 307.8 0.00 1.25 24.30 1.00403440404046353235383544 F
AREAX5 364.5 0.00 1.25 32.60 1.00353235383544303230383044 F
AREAX6 232.2 0.00 4.50 41.40 1.003009301130133008300430063038F
AREAX7 70.0 8.00 -1.50 53.50 1.003499 F
AREAX8 77.4 -4.00 -13.50 41.40 1.003072310231093079 F
AREAX9 144.0 -12.50 12.50 45.05 1.003317331633193318332033213323F
AREAY1 237.5 -0.38 0.00 16.70 1.00477242544783426240404267 F
AREAY2 216.6 0.00 0.00 24.30 1.00426240404267370335383709 F
AREAY3 287.9 0.00 0.00 33.10 1.00370335383709320030383708 F
AREAY4 68.4 4.50 0.00 41.90 1.003046304730273028302930303038F
AREAY5 70.0 -9.00 -18.00 53.50 1.003499 F
AREAY6 64.0 -12.50 12.50 45.05 1.003317331633193318332033213323F
AREAY7 60.8 -4.00 -13.50 41.90 1.003102307231093079 F
AREAFX 329.9 19.92 29.92 61.73 1.00300230183019 F
AREAFY 329.9 19.92 29.92 61.73 1.00300230183019 F
AREABX 261.3 -11.50 23.00 23.40 1.0040984102 F
CDM
CDM 0.10 0.650 1.600 1.050 1.200
CDM 200.00 0.650 1.600 1.050 1.200
WINSHL 13.300 86.000
MGROV
MGROV 0.000 26.700 1.250 -29.200 1.400
MGROV 26.700 32.200 2.500 1.400
MGROV 32.200 80.000 0.000 0.001
GRPOV
GRPOV DX0 .800.8002.452.45
GRPOV DX1 .800.8002.452.45
GRPOV DX2 .890.8903.863.86
GRPOV DX4 2.152.152.252.25
GRPOV DX5 2.152.152.252.25
GRPOV BLH 2.202.202.642.64
GRPOV BLI 2.002.002.522.52
GRPOV BLJ 1.981.981.861.86
GRPOV 168 .890.8903.863.86
109

GRPOV 273 2.152.152.252.25
MEMOV
MEMOV 21512193 1.561.561.561.56
.
KEEP 102 103 104 202 203 204 302 303 304 5044 5047 4503 4540 4717
KEEP 4667 4664 5050
DELETE 1212 1215 1207 1210 1201 1205 1202 1203 1204 540M 540N 540F 540B 540P
DELETE 540I 540O 540K 540L 540S 540T 540U 540D 540G 540H 540R 540C 540A 540E
DELETE 540Q
DUMMY CAISSONS
KEEP 8592 1103 1104 8599 1112 1111 4764 4979 4763 4543 4701 4510 4768 4544
KEEP 4706 4502 8594 8593
DELETE 1105 1107 1108 1113 1115 1116 1117 1121 1122 4880 4881 4884
DUMMY CAISSON2
KEEP 8632 8633 4624 4503 4910 4912
DELETE 1119 1106 439A
LOAD
.
LOADCNWC11
LOADLBWC11 WAVE+CURRENT(MWD 100 , 0DEG)
WAVE
WAVE0.95STOK 11.00 29.20 11.30 0.00 D 0.00 5.00 72MM10 1 1
CURR
CURR 0.000 0.634 0.000 BC LN WDP AWP
CURR 50.000 0.970 0.000
CURR 100.000 1.071 0.000
GRPOV
GRPOV CN1 .656.656.750.750
GRPOV CN2 .656.656.750.750
LOAD 101 0.52500 GLOB JOIN DYNSHEAR
LOAD 301 -.25000 GLOB JOIN DYNSHEAR
LOADCNWC12
WAVE
WAVE0.95STOK 6.40 29.20 9.00 45.00 D 0.00 5.00 72MM10 1 1
CURR
CURR 0.000 0.333 45.000 BC LN WDP AWP
CURR 50.000 0.510 45.000
CURR 100.000 0.563 45.000
LOAD 101 -3.6240-3.6240 GLOB JOIN DYNSHEAR
110

LOAD 301 2.705002.70500 GLOB JOIN DYNSHEAR
LOADCNWC13
WAVE
WAVE0.95STOK 5.60 29.20 8.50 90.00 D 5.00 72MM10 1 2
CURR
CURR 0.000 0.176 90.000 BC LN WDP AWP
CURR 50.000 0.270 90.000
CURR 100.000 0.298 90.000
LOAD 201 -59.375 GLOB JOIN DYNSHEAR
.
LCOMB
LCOMB D211 D001 1.110D002 1.110D121 1.110J001 1.110T001 1.110
LCOMB D212 D011 1.150D012 1.120D013 1.120D014 1.143D017 1.125
LCOMB D212 D037 1.125D052 1.107D123 1.125D124 1.120D125 1.120
LCOMB D213 D022 1.120D023 1.120D025 1.128D026 1.090D027 1.125D046 1.090
LCOMB D213 D122 1.090
*LIVE LOADS CELLAR DECK
LCOMB DCLV D4830.7500D4870.2500D4890.5000
111

*LIVE LOADS AT LAY DOWN AREA
LCOMB DLLV D180 2.000D280 2.000D380 2.000D480 2.000
*LIVE LOADS MAIN DECK
LCOMB DMLV D2830.7500D2840.3750D2880.7500
*LIVE LOADS WEATHER DECK
LCOMB DWLV D181 1.000D1820.7500D1870.2500
*LIVE LOADS MEZZANINE DECK
LCOMB DZLV D3830.7500D3870.2500D388 1.000
*INTERIM LOAD COMB FOR MAXIMUM LOAD
LCOMB D214 D211 1.000D212 1.000D213 1.000
*LIVE LOADS FOR OPERATING CASE
LCOMB DPLV DWLV 1.000DMLV 1.000DZLV 1.000DCLV 1.000DLLV 1.000
*MAXIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD FOR OPERATING COMB
LCOMB D220 D214 1.000DPLV 1.000
*LIVE LOADS FOR EXTREME CASE
LCOMB DXLV DWLV0.5000DMLV0.5000DZLV0.1577D180 2.000D280 2.000D380 2.000
*MAXIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD FOR EXTREME COMB
LCOMB D221 D214 1.000DXLV 1.000
*MINIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD FOR OPERATING COMB
LCOMB D222 D214 1.000
*LIVE LOADS FOR EXTREME CASE
*MINIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD FOR EXTREME COMB
LCOMB D223 D214 1.000
*OPERATING MAXIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD
LCOMB D301 D220 1.000WI01 1.000WC01 1.000D061 1.000D065 1.000
LCOMB D302 D220 1.000WI02 1.000WC02 1.000D061 1.000D064-0.707D0650.7070
LCOMB D303 D220 1.000WI03 1.000WC03 1.000D061 1.000D064-1.000D054 1.200
LCOMB D304 D220 1.000WI04 1.000WC04 1.000D061 1.000D064-0.707D065-0.707
LCOMB D305 D220 1.000WI05 1.000WC05 1.000D061 1.000D065-1.000
LCOMB D306 D220 1.000WI06 1.000WC06 1.000D061 1.000D0640.7070D065-0.707
LCOMB D307 D220 1.000WI07 1.000WC07 1.000D061 1.000D064 1.000D054-1.200
LCOMB D308 D220 1.000WI08 1.000WC08 1.000D061 1.000D0640.7070D0650.7070
*EXT. STORM MAXIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD
LCOMB D311 D221 1.000WI11 1.000WC11 1.000
LCOMB D312 D221 1.000WI12 1.000WC12 1.000
LCOMB D313 D221 1.000WI13 1.000WC13 1.000D054 1.200
LCOMB D314 D221 1.000WI14 1.000WC14 1.000
LCOMB D315 D221 1.000WI15 1.000WC15 1.000
LCOMB D316 D221 1.000WI16 1.000WC16 1.000
LCOMB D317 D221 1.000WI17 1.000WC17 1.000D054-1.200
LCOMB D318 D221 1.000WI18 1.000WC18 1.000
*OPERATING MINIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD
LCOMB D321 D222 1.000WI01 1.000WC01 1.000D061 1.000D065 1.000
LCOMB D322 D222 1.000WI02 1.000WC02 1.000D061 1.000D064-0.707D0650.7070
LCOMB D323 D222 1.000WI03 1.000WC03 1.000D061 1.000D064-1.000D054 1.200
LCOMB D324 D222 1.000WI04 1.000WC04 1.000D061 1.000D064-0.707D065-0.707
LCOMB D325 D222 1.000WI05 1.000WC05 1.000D061 1.000D065-1.000
LCOMB D326 D222 1.000WI06 1.000WC06 1.000D061 1.000D0640.7070D065-0.707
LCOMB D327 D222 1.000WI07 1.000WC07 1.000D061 1.000D064 1.000D054-1.200
LCOMB D328 D222 1.000WI08 1.000WC08 1.000D061 1.000D0640.7070D0650.7070
*EXT. STORM MINIMUM WITH LIVE LOAD
LCOMB D331 D223 1.000WI11 1.000WC11 1.000
LCOMB D332 D223 1.000WI12 1.000WC12 1.000
LCOMB D333 D223 1.000WI13 1.000WC13 1.000D054 1.200
LCOMB D334 D223 1.000WI14 1.000WC14 1.000
LCOMB D335 D223 1.000WI15 1.000WC15 1.000
LCOMB D336 D222 1.000WI16 1.000WC16 1.000
LCOMB D337 D223 1.000WI17 1.000WC17 1.000D054-1.200
LCOMB D338 D223 1.000WI18 1.000WC18 1.000
END
112

PSI(PileStructureInteraction)InputFile
PSIOPT +ZMN SM0.00254 0.0001 200 PT 100 7.849047
PLTRQ SD DL AL UC
PLGRUP
PLGRUP PL1 152.4 4.00 20. 8. 34.5 71. 1.0 1.824
PLGRUP PL2 91.40 3.81 20. 8. 34.5 44. 1.0 0.6561
PILE
PILE 2 101 PL1 SOL1 SOL1
PILE 20022102 PL2 SOL1 SOL1
SOIL
SOIL TZAXIAL HEAD 16 0.1SOL1
SOIL SLOCSM 7 0.00 0.0261 CLAY
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .002 2.0 .003 3.8 0.004 6.9 0.005 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.005 12.2 0.004 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .004 2.0 .006 3.8 0.009 6.9 0.011 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.012 12.2 0.009 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .009 2.0 .015 3.8 0.022 6.9 0.026 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.029 12.2 0.021 24.4
SOIL SLOCSM 7 3.21 0.0261 SAND
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .003 .5 .005 1.0 0.008 1.5 0.010 2.0
SOIL T-Z 0.013 2.5 0.013 5.1
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .005 .5 .009 1.0 0.014 1.5 0.019 2.0
SOIL T-Z 0.024 2.5 0.024 5.1
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .012 2.0 .020 3.8 0.030 6.9 0.035 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.039 12.2 0.028 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .015 2.0 .025 3.8 0.037 6.9 0.045 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.049 12.2 0.035 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .027 2.0 .045 3.8 0.067 6.9 0.081 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.090 12.2 0.063 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .055 2.0 .092 3.8 0.137 6.9 0.165 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.183 12.2 0.128 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .123 2.0 .205 3.8 0.308 6.9 0.370 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.411 12.2 0.228 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .174 2.0 .291 3.8 0.436 6.9 0.523 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.582 12.2 0.407 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .231 2.0 .385 3.8 0.577 6.9 0.693 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.770 12.2 0.539 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .073 .5 .146 1.0 0.218 1.5 0.291 2.0
SOIL T-Z 0.364 2.5 0.364 5.1
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .073 .5 .146 1.0 0.218 1.5 0.291 2.0
SOIL T-Z 0.364 2.5 0.364 5.1
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .227 2.0 .378 3.8 0.567 6.9 0.681 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.756 12.2 0.529 24.4
SOIL T-Z 0.000 0.00 .242 2.0 .403 3.8 0.604 6.9 0.725 9.8
SOIL T-Z 0.806 12.2 0.564 24.4
SOIL BEARING HEAD 13 0.1SOL1
113

SOIL SLOC 6 43.0 0.0856CLAY
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.74 2.40 1.47 15.80 2.21 51.20 2.65 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.94 121.9
SOIL SLOC 6 44.0 0.0856SAND
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 1.27 2.40 2.54 15.80 3.81 51.20 4.57 89.0
SOIL T-Z 5.08 121.9
SOIL SLOC 6 45.0 0.0856SAND
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 1.09 2.40 2.18 15.80 3.27 51.20 3.93 89.0
SOIL T-Z 4.37 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.66 2.40 1.31 15.80 1.97 51.20 2.36 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.63 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.66 2.40 1.33 15.80 1.99 51.20 2.39 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.65 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.68 2.40 1.35 15.80 2.03 51.20 2.44 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.71 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.69 2.40 1.38 15.80 2.07 51.20 2.49 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.77 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.71 2.40 1.41 15.80 2.12 51.20 2.54 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.82 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.72 2.40 1.44 15.80 2.16 51.20 2.59 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.88 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.73 2.40 1.47 15.80 2.20 51.20 2.64 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.93 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.75 2.40 1.49 15.80 2.24 51.20 2.69 89.0
SOIL T-Z 2.99 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.76 2.40 1.52 15.80 2.28 51.20 2.74 89.0
SOIL T-Z 3.04 121.9
SOIL T-Z 0.0 0.0 0.77 2.40 1.55 15.80 2.32 51.20 2.79 89.0
SOIL T-Z 3.10 121.9
SOIL LATERAL HEAD 34 YEXP121.9 0.1 SOL1 CYCLIC P-Y DATA
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.006 10.1 0.009 45.7 0.013 137.2 0.000 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.010 10.1 0.017 45.7 0.025 137.2 0.006 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.016 10.1 0.026 45.7 0.038 137.2 0.014 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.022 10.1 0.037 45.7 0.053 137.2 0.027 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.035 2.1 0.091 11.2 0.093 20.3 0.093 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.051 2.4 0.128 11.4 0.134 20.3 0.134 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.074 2.8 0.182 11.6 0.195 20.3 0.196 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.101 3.2 0.241 11.8 0.265 20.3 0.268 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.033 10.1 0.054 45.7 0.078 137.2 0.076 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.060 10.1 0.099 45.7 0.142 137.2 0.108 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.074 10.1 0.123 45.7 0.178 137.2 0.131 685.8
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.284 6.7 0.470 30.5 0.677 91.4 0.296 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.440 6.7 0.729 30.5 1.052 91.4 0.468 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.608 6.7 1.007 30.5 1.452 91.4 0.677 457.2
114

SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.316 6.7 0.524 30.5 0.756 91.4 0.396 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.267 6.7 0.442 30.5 0.638 91.4 0.383 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.213 6.7 0.353 30.5 0.509 91.4 0.360 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.155 6.7 0.256 30.5 0.370 91.4 0.333 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.211 6.7 0.349 30.5 0.503 91.4 0.388 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.218 6.7 0.362 30.5 0.522 91.4 0.428 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.234 6.7 0.388 30.5 0.560 91.4 0.512 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.242 6.7 0.401 30.5 0.578 91.4 0.556 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 2.882 3.6 3.658 12.0 3.658 20.3 3.658 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 3.217 3.8 3.658 12.1 3.658 20.3 3.658 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 3.658 3.4 3.658 12.2 3.658 20.3 3.658 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 3.658 2.9 3.658 12.2 3.658 20.3 3.658 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.580 6.7 0.960 30.5 1.385 91.4 1.385 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.580 6.7 0.960 30.5 1.385 91.4 1.385 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.580 6.7 0.960 30.5 1.385 91.4 1.385 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.580 6.7 0.960 30.5 1.385 91.4 1.385 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 1.060 6.7 1.756 30.5 2.532 91.4 2.532 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.795 6.7 1.317 30.5 1.899 91.4 1.899 457.2
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 7.398 5.1 12.19 20.3 12.19 20.3 12.19 45.7
SOIL P-Y 0.0 0.0 0.863 6.7 1.429 30.5 2.061 91.4 2.061 457.2
END
WaveResponseInputFile
WROPT MNPSL ALL 20 -1 RW
PSEL SPB OMBBSB 27.9421.59 .254
DAMP 2.0
WAVTIM +Z 32.9 -29.2 0.50 30 ST LN 1.0
WSPEC 1PM 5.9 9.70 1.0 1200.0
CURR
CURR 0.001 0.634 0.0
CURR 16.45 0.970
CURR 32.9 1.071
END

DynamicInputFile
DYNPAC INPUT - DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
DYNOPT +ZMN 20CONS7.850 1.025 1.0 SA-Z
END
115

Waveresponseoutput
Waveparametersforrandomseed1:
NO. OF WAVE TIME POINTS .... 2400
MAXIMUM CREST HEIGHT ....... 5.10 M
AT TIME ....... 641.00 SECS
MINIMUM TROUGH DEPTH ....... -4.59 M
AT TIME ....... 903.00 SECS
MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT ........ 9.20 M
AT TIME ....... 604.75 SECS
ZERO UPCROSSING PERIOD ..... 7.10 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
STANDARD DEVIATION . ...... 1.47 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0595
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1610
AT TIME ....... 583.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 605.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0057
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1197
116


AT TIME ....... 641.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 899.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 605.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0166
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0962

AT TIME ....... 583.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 605.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0242
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1348
117


AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 903.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0314
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1062

AT TIME ....... 583.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0303
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0661
118


AT TIME ....... 642.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 899.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.75 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0017
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1447

AT TIME ....... 639.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0265
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1104
119


AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 903.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0237
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1229

AT TIME ....... 639.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.50 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0054
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1018
120


AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.75 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0709
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1733

AT TIME ....... 640.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0043
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0390
121


AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 642.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0046
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1279

AT TIME ....... 640.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 642.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0156
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0603
122


AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 901.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0463
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1287

AT TIME ....... 641.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 643.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0172
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0675
123


AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 641.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 901.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... -0.0486
KURTOSIS ................... 3.1102

AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0369
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0602
124


AT TIME ....... 603.50 SECS
AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 901.00 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0016
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0897

AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 604.00 SECS
AT TIME ....... 640.25 SECS
MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M
SKEWNESS ................... 0.0144
KURTOSIS ................... 3.0951
125

DynamicResponseofFixedOffshorePlatforms (Tese) 151593 Azarhoushang2010

Загружено:

Сведения о документе

Авторское право

Доступные форматы

Поделиться этим документом

Поделиться или встроить документ

Параметры публикации

Этот документ был вам полезен?

Это неприемлемый материал?

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

DynamicResponseofFixedOffshorePlatforms (Tese) 151593 Azarhoushang2010

Загружено:

Авторское право:

Доступные форматы

Azin Azarhoushang and Hamid Nikraz

Nonlinear Water-Structure Interaction of Fixed Offshore Platform in Extreme

Frequencydomain methods canbedivided into deterministic and probabilistic methods. The

The probabilisticapproachdepends onlinear random wavetheory(LRWT) andhencecannot

Theevaluation ofthedynamic characteristicis simplyacase of puttingthestructuralmodel,

 ൌ Ȁ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ͵ǡǤǤǤǡ (3.1)

ܶ௡௫ ͳǤ͹ͺ (3.4)

ܶ௡௬ ͵ǤͲͳ (3.5)

Elevation above mudline (m) 60

MaximumWave Max.Crest Min.Trough Zero

Baseshear 1.02 2.07

Overturningmoment 1.05 4.02

1 0.001792519 0.14229167

2 0.002451498 0.169660792

1 0.0000006 0.8204587 0.0000100

NO. OF WAVE TIME POINTS .... 2400

MAXIMUM CREST HEIGHT ....... 5.10 M

AT TIME ....... 641.00 SECS

MINIMUM TROUGH DEPTH ....... -4.59 M

AT TIME ....... 903.00 SECS

MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT ........ 9.20 M

AT TIME ....... 604.75 SECS

ZERO UPCROSSING PERIOD ..... 7.10 SECS

MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M

STANDARD DEVIATION . ...... 1.47 M

SKEWNESS ................... 0.0595

KURTOSIS ................... 3.1610

MAXIMUM CREST HEIGHT ....... 4.27 M

AT TIME ....... 583.00 SECS

MINIMUM TROUGH DEPTH ....... -5.11 M

AT TIME ....... 641.50 SECS

MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT ........ 9.18 M

AT TIME ....... 605.00 SECS

ZERO UPCROSSING PERIOD ..... 6.90 SECS

MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M

STANDARD DEVIATION . ...... 1.47 M

SKEWNESS ................... -0.0057

KURTOSIS ................... 3.1197

NO. OF WAVE TIME POINTS .... 2400

MAXIMUM CREST HEIGHT ....... 5.19 M

AT TIME ....... 641.50 SECS

MINIMUM TROUGH DEPTH ....... -4.40 M

AT TIME ....... 899.00 SECS

MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT ........ 9.14 M

AT TIME ....... 605.00 SECS

ZERO UPCROSSING PERIOD ..... 6.90 SECS

MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M

STANDARD DEVIATION . ...... 1.47 M

SKEWNESS ................... 0.0166

KURTOSIS ................... 3.0962

NO. OF WAVE TIME POINTS .... 2400

MAXIMUM CREST HEIGHT ....... 4.34 M

AT TIME ....... 583.00 SECS

MINIMUM TROUGH DEPTH ....... -5.23 M

AT TIME ....... 642.00 SECS

MAXIMUM WAVE HEIGHT ........ 9.11 M

AT TIME ....... 605.25 SECS

ZERO UPCROSSING PERIOD ..... 7.02 SECS

MEAN VALUE ................. 0.00 M

STANDARD DEVIATION . ...... 1.47 M

SKEWNESS ................... -0.0242

KURTOSIS ................... 3.1348

NO. OF WAVE TIME POINTS .... 2400

MAXIMUM CREST HEIGHT ....... 5.32 M

ൌ Ȁ ൌ ͳǡʹǡ͵ǡǤǤǤǡ (3.1)

1 0.001792519 0.14229167

2 0.002451498 0.169660792