Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 10

Proceedings of OMAE06 25st International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering June 4-9, 2006 Hamburg, Germany

Danilo Machado Lawinscky da Silva Breno Pinheiro Jacob Marcos Vincius Rodrigues LAMCSO Laboratory of Computer Methods and Offshore Systems PEC/COPPE Post-Graduate Institute of the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Civil Eng. Department Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil ABSTRACT Recent activities in the offshore oil exploitation industry require new structural concepts employing flexible lines (both mooring lines and risers). Such systems present increasingly complex configurations, with dynamic nonlinear behaviour; therefore, the use of efficient numerical solution procedures, based on the Finite Element Method, becomes mandatory for their analysis. The usual analysis procedure for flexible lines by the FEM is based in the calculation of an initial, stable static equilibrium configuration in order to define the finite element mesh. Usually this configuration is obtained by the classic catenary equations. However, in more complex problems these equations cannot be applied. Therefore, the objective of this work is to present the use of a more general finite element approximation, associated to dynamic relaxation algorithms. Such algorithms can be started from arbitrary configurations, not necessarily in equilibrium. The resulting procedure is accurate, robust, and avoids numerical problems such as the illconditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix, allowing the static equilibrium configuration to be obtained in an efficient way. INTRODUCTION Systems of flexible lines and cables are frequently used in civil and oceanic engineering design. Such lines are typically used in mooring systems to position offshore platforms; in riser systems and offloading floating hoses to transport fluids resulting of the petroleum exploitation process. Flexible lines present strong dynamic nonlinear behavior, with environmental loads dependent on time and nonlinear boundary conditions, therefore requesting complex numeric solution procedures, based on the Finite Element Method. In the usual procedure, the first stage is the establishment of an initial static equilibrium configuration under dead weight only. Traditionally this initial static configuration of flexible lines is obtained by the classic catenary equations [1]. This initial configuration is then employed to define the finite element mesh that is subsequently employed in the full static and dynamic analyses. The research in analytical formulations based on the catenary equations is very extensive [2] and focus in topics as the treatment of lines composed by materials of different properties; including buoys and distributed floaters; considering irregular sea bottom; considering the flexural stiffness, and arbitrary loads such as current. However, there are limitations for the development and efficient use of analytical formulations, when one considers complex systems not only such as those mentioned above, but also systems with several lines connected amongst themselves and to tendons, or for instance offloading hoses, where the flexural stiffness is relatively more important and the hydrostatic behavior is nonlinear and should be treated with a more rigorous formulation. Therefore, it is seen that procedures based on the catenary equations may not be feasible for more complex systems. The determination of static stable configurations for such systems should then use procedures based on more general Finite Element approximations. These procedures require robust solution schemes that can be started from a FE mesh corresponding to an easily defined configuration, not necessarily in balance under the action of the loads. Therefore, in that procedure an initial geometry (free of loads) should be specified arbitrarily. However the conventional solution procedures for nonlinear static problems discretized by FE, which is based on the iterative Newton-Raphson method, can become inefficient for several reasons. For example, the use of an initial geometry free of loads makes the tangent stiffness matrix becomes singular. Supplying an arbitrary state of initial tensions can eliminate that problem, but this leads again to the initial problem, how to define a configuration under such state of tensions. Also, the very low or absent flexural stiffness, as well as the compression stiffness, leads to a highly ill-conditioned tangent stiffness matrix. In static analyses this problem can cause the lack of convergence of the iterative Newton-Raphson process. The objective of this work then consists of establishing robust and efficient static solution procedures, oriented to the

Copyright 2006 by ASME

definition of static stable configurations for complex systems of flexible lines, under the action of all static load components. The static configurations obtained can be used in a subsequent dynamic analysis, guaranteeing a solution that is stable, efficient and free of transient. To overcome the problems previously mentioned, associated to the use of analytical catenary formulations or the Newton-Raphson method as solution algorithm for problems discretizated by FEM, dynamic relaxation algorithms will be considered. The Dynamic Relaxation Method (DRM) has been used to obtain the static solution of structural mechanics problems in general. This method is based on the fact that the static solution is the steady-state part of the transient response. In this case, the transient part of the solution is not of interest, only the steady-state response is desired. This technique is classified in the literature as a pseudo-transient or pseudo-dynamic method [3]. Considering that the static response is the limit case of the dynamic response damped by a long period of time, DRM makes use of "artificial" dynamic effects of inertia and damping to build a conditioning mechanism for the tangent stiffness matrix, in the case of an implicit formulation, or simply in terms of forces in the case of an explicit formulation. To accelerate the convergence, artificial damping can be used, leading to the gradual relaxation of the inertia effects. A direct advantage is obtained in the transformation of a static problem in a dynamic problem; the dynamic terms (inertia and damping) act as a conditioning mechanism and the problem of the illconditioning of the tangent stiffness matrix disappears. The resulting procedure can be started from an arbitrary configuration, not necessarily in equilibrium under the action of the loads. In short, it can overcome the pointed limitations for the catenary equations and for the FEM associated to Newton-Raphson Methods, allowing the definition of initial stable configuration of flexible lines with low computational cost. CHARACTERISTICS OF THE PROBLEM Structural systems which respond with large deflections are said to exhibit a geometric nonlinearity. The deformations must be included in the expressions of static equilibrium for such structures. Typically, the dominant terms in the deformations are rotations; however, problems involving large stretching are also encountered. The nonlinear equations can be solved using incremental/iterative methods based on the modified NewtonRaphson method. One of the most popular incremental solution forms is the so-called incremental self-correcting method. It is essentially a series of simple linearized steps with a single Newton-Raphson iteration after each one. All of these methods rely on an estimate of the initial stiffness of the structure. This implies that a stable initial state should be defined. In the most common nonlinear structural problems, the initial reference state is quite easy to define. This is so because most structures have sufficient stiffness to

support their own weight. When the weight loading is small compared to the design loads, the dead loaded state is not very different from the weightless state. Such structures have an intrinsic stiffness. Cable Structures (suspended roofs, moorings, large ocean structures) are examples of structures which are likely to present difficult in obtaining an initial state suitable for structural calculations. The common denominator in all of these is the fact that in an unloaded, weightless condition they are essentially mechanisms with negligible intrinsic stiffness. This general type of problem has strong geometric nonlinearities even if the initial singularity is overcome. BASIC FORMULATION The general discrete form of the static equilibrium equations can be written as FExt(t) - FInt(t) = 0 (1) where FExt(t) represents the vector of external loads for each d.o.f. of the Finite Element mesh; FInt(t) represents the internal forces. In geometrically nonlinear problems the internal forces depend on the displacements. When the external loads also depend on the displacements (as in pressure loading), the loading is nonconservative. Combinations of the two effects are common. Although equation (1) represents the equilibrium equations, it does not describe a method for finding the values of the displacements which satisfy equilibrium, nor does it give explicit information on how to calculate the internal and external forces.
Newton-Type Methods

The most popular method for solving equation (1) in structural applications is the modified Newton-Raphson method. Its general form is K
(k) (k -1) T DU



- F n+1


(2) (3)

with (k) (k -1) (k) Un+1 = U n+1 + DU


where KT is the tangent stiffness matrix; k is the iteration index; DU are the displacement increments between two successive (k) (k -1) are respectively the external and iterations; R and F (k -1) internal forces; and U n+1 are the displacements measured from the initial reference state as estimated in the kth iteration. It is seen that the Newton-Raphson iteration scheme (k) involves the approximation of the nonlinear term Fn+1 by a truncated Taylor series comprised by F n+1 and KTDU . Equation (2) is then applied recursively until both the residual and the displacement increments are smaller than a preselected level. The usual form of the Newton-Raphson procedure is obtained by recalculation of the stiffness matrix at the beginning of each iteration. Modified schemes use
(k -1) (k)

Copyright 2006 by ASME

approximations for the stiffness matrix and/or hold the matrix constant for a number of iterations. Two major problems detract from the use of these Newton methods for the class of problems under discussion. First is the conditionally stable nature of these methods. There is an interval of convergence around the correct solution, within which a particular method will converge. When the starting estimate is outside this interval, convergence cannot be obtained without introducing special procedures. These convergence enhancement schemes are usually limited in scope and highly specialized so that their effectiveness is quite restricted. The interval of convergence is highly problemdependent and sensitive to variations in the solution method. In most situations this interval is not explicitly calculated. The second problem is the need for making an initial estimate of the solution. This boils down to requiring the very thing that is being sought. A common means of starting a Newton-Raphson (0) solution is to assume; Un+1 is zero and use the initial geometry to calculate a linear step. Quite often the stiffness matrix in the initial configuration is singular or very ill-conditioned. This means that the first step cannot be solved or the solution will be very far from the starting configuration. It is also quite likely to be far from the correct solution. This ill-conditioning can be compensated for to some extent by introducing an artificial stiffness. Even with this artificial stiffness there is no guarantee that a solution starting from a very poor quality initial configuration will lead to a first step result that is anywhere near the correct solution. Without that guarantee, there is a strong likelihood that additional iterations will diverge.
The Idea of Dynamic Relaxation

addition to the externally applied discretized forces and the internal nodal forces of the continuum or structure, and may be written as FI(t) + FD(t) + FInt(t) = FExt(t) (4) where FI(t) are the inertia forces, FI(t) = MU; FD(t) are the * damping forces, FD(t) = CU; FInt(t) are the internal forces, FInt(t) = F(U); and FExt(t) are the external forces, FExt(t) = R, all of them being time-dependent. Denoting by n the current time increment, the semi-discrete finite element equations of motion for time increment n + 1 may be written as MUn+1 + CUn+1 + F(Un+1) = Rn+1
** * **


where M is a mass matrix, C is the damping matrix, F is the internal force vector and R is a vector of external loads. The ** * parameters U, U and U represent the acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors, respectively. It should be noted that internal force vector F is a function of the displacement as (6) F(Un+1) = K0Un+1 + Q0(Un+1) where K0 represents the linear stiffness matrix and Q is a vector of non-linear terms which may arise from geometric/material non-linearities, contact/boundary conditions and follower forces. The solution of equation (5) may be obtained by employing any one of the many direct time integration algorithms.
Conventional Explicit Solution Method

Dynamic relaxation (DR) is a technique by which the static solution is obtained by determining the steady-state response to the transient dynamic analysis for an autonomous system. In this case, the transient part of the solution is not of interest, only the steady-state response is desired. Since the transient solution is not desired, fictitious mass and damping matrices which no longer represent the physical system are chosen to accelerate the determination of the steady-state response. These matrices are redefined (using existing equations) so as to produce the most rapid convergence. A clear advantage is gained through this static-to-dynamics transformation; the dynamic term(s) (inertia and damping) acts as the conditioning mechanism and the problem of an ill-conditioned tangent stiffness matrix disappear. The idea of dynamic relaxation has been exploited widely in a variety of structural analysis. A history of DR and the development of an adaptive algorithm have been presented by Underwood [4]. GOVERNING STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS EQUATIONS In dynamic analysis the governing semi-discrete equations of motion are obtained by considering the static equilibrium at time t which includes the effect of acceleration-dependent inertia forces and velocity-dependent damping forces in

The use of an explicit, rather than implicit, time integration technique to solve the semi-discrete system of equations given by equation (5) is attractive for parallel computations. Centraldifference approximations are typically employed for the derivatives. That is, ** 1 Un = 2 (Un-1 - 2Un + Un+1) (7) h * 1 Un = 2h (Un+1 - Un-1) (8) Substituting these approximations into equation (5), the following equations for displacement at time n + 1 may be obtained 12 M + 1 CUn+1 = Rn - F(Un) + 22 MUn 2h h h (9) 1 1 - 2 M - 2h C Un-1 h where h is the time step. These equations are linear (even for non-linear problems), and the left-hand side matrix is constant unless the time step h changes during the solution process. Also, if diagonal mass and damping matrix are used, these equations represent an uncoupled system of algebraic equations in which each solution component may be computed independently. For transient dynamic analysis, a time history of displacement (system response) is sought. Mass and damping vector that best model the physical properties of the system are used. Techniques for estimating the maximum allowable time step are available, such that the time step size may change

Copyright 2006 by ASME

during the transient dynamic analysis. As such, explicit time integration techniques are attractive candidates for implementation on parallel computers. These techniques generally have low memory and communication requirements but are also only conditionally stable numerically.
Conventional Implicit Solution Method

In general, the dynamic response of inertial problems is more efficiently attained with implicit time integration algorithms. The non-linear effects involving the dynamic equations have been traditionally treated by a variant of the Newton-Raphson iterative technique usually referred to as the modified Newton-Raphson (MNR) method [5]. A time-discretized, incremental-iterative form of the equations of motion is written as MUn+1 + CUn+1 + (K



(k -1) (k) T DU )n+1

= Rn+1 - F(U n+1 ) (10) (11)


(k -1)

with (k) (k -1) (k) Un+1 = U n+1 + DUn+1

In the equation, KT is the tangent stiffness matrix and k is the iteration index. The static equations are obtained by dropping the inertia and damping terms, see equation (2). However, occurrence of a singular or highly ill-conditioned KT will result in collapse of the solution for equation (2). By making use of Newmarks implicit integration formulas Un+1 = Un + [(1 - )Un + Un+1]h
(k) Un+1





(k) Un+1]

= Un +

(k) hU n

+ [(0.5 - )Un +



the initial conditions. The static loads are then applied and held constant as the system is allowed to move dynamically until motion dies out. This effectively avoids the singularity problem if damping and mass terms are appropriately defined. If the physical characteristics are used to model the mass and damping, one can expect very large transients which persist for long times. This means excessive solution costs and difficulties in controlling spurious oscillations in the solution. An obvious remedy is to assume artificial properties (fictitious mass and damping) which assure strongly damped responses. In the context that the static response is the limiting case of the damped dynamic response over a long period of time then an important parameter controlling convergence is the damping coefficient. This parameter is determined using basic physical principles. Preference is given to values of damping just less than critical so that the solution will oscillate about its equilibrium position rather than convergence from one side. The following sections will summarize the basic formulations of the explicit and implicit DR methods. It should be stressed that in both cases the basic formulations follows closely the presented by, respectively, Underwood [4] and Wu [6]. Therefore, the contribution of this work relative to these earlier publications relies mainly in some (crucial) aspects regarding the solution strategy, including for instance the order of the application of load components; the selection of parameters, and the choice of the initial mesh, as will be shown later and in the numerical examples.
Explicit Dynamic Relaxation Method

(13) (14)

the equation (10) becomes

(k -1) (k) K TE DU |n+1

(k) DRn+1

with K
(k -1) (k -1) TE |n+1 = (K T + a0M + (k -1) (k) (k) DRn+1 = Rn+1 - (KU) n+1 (k -1)

This section describes the basic formulation of the explicit dynamic relaxation method [4]. The fundamental time step equations will be derived first and then the equations used for evaluating the integration parameters will be presented. Derivation of time step equations The algorithm of DR is based on the following semi-discrete equations of motion governing structural dynamic response for the nth time increment MUn + cMUn + F(Un) = Rn
** *

* **


+ M[a0(Un - U n+1 ) + a2Un + a3Un] + C[a1(Un (k) Un+1 (k -1) U n+1 )


+ a 4U n + a 5U n] (17)



(k -1) U n+1

(k) DUn+1

In the above equations, as are constants which depend only on the integration parameters, and , and time step, h. Equation (15) shows that although the tangent stiffness matrix, KT, may be ill-conditioned, presence of the dynamic terms prevents the resultant tangent stiffness matrix, KTE, from becoming ill-conditioned. Equilibrium iteration on equation (14) are initiated at each time step until we achieve (k) (k -1) (18) || DUn+1 || eU ; || DR n+1 || eR DYNAMIC RELAXATION METHOD A procedure for moving towards a correct solution from a nonequilibrium starting guess involves the use of dynamic equations. The starting guess with zero velocities is taken as

where M is a mass matrix, c is a damping coefficient for mass-proportional damping, F is the internal force, and R is a ** * vector of external loads. The vectors U, U and U represent the acceleration, velocity and displacement vectors, respectively. Internal force F is a function of the displacement and may be assembled on an element-by-element basis. A diagonal mass matrix obtained by mass lumping, as well as diagonal mass-proportional damping matrix are used in this research. This approach has significant computational advantages. It leads to an uncoupled system of algebraic equations in which each solution component may be computed independently. The need for assembly and factorization of global matrices is therefore avoided. The lumped mass technique also improves performance of the algorithm.

Copyright 2006 by ASME

The solution of equation (19) is obtained using an explicit time integration method. In this work a central-difference scheme is utilized, where velocities are defined at the mid-point of the time step, and the approximations for the temporal derivatives are given [7]. Namely, * 1 Un+1/2 = h (Un+1 - Un) (20) ** * 1 * Un = h (Un+1/2 - Un-1/2) (21) where h is a fixed time increment. Given that the velocity vectors are computed at half-station points, it remains to define * an expression for Un whish is needed for the damping term. In [8] it is recommended to average Un over a time step as Un = 2 (Un+1/2 + Un-1/2)
* * * *

e = || R - Fn || / || R || = || Rn || / || R || etol


where R is the static load and Rn is the residual force vector for time step n. Note that when convergence is obtained (i.e. e etol), the internal forces balance the external forces and the inertial terms vanish just as in a static analysis. Alternate convergence criteria can be formulated based on energy considerations or when the norms of the velocity and acceleration vectors approach and remain near zero over several time steps. Evaluation of DR integration parameters The DR integration parameters for static analysis consist of the diagonal mass matrix M, damping coefficient c and time step h. Performance (rate of convergence) is a function of the spectral radius . The most rapid convergence is obtained for the smallest possible || < 1 which produces uniform convergence over the entire range of eigenvalues l0 < l < lm. The following expressions for h and c satisfy the optimal convergence condition [4] h2/ lm (28) (29) c @ 2 l0


Substituting equations (21) and (22) into equation (19) and re-arranging terms in equation (20) yields the fundamental time marching equations for advancing the velocity and displacement vectors to the next time step. Thus, * -1 (2 - ch) * 2h Un+1/2 = (2 + ch) Un-1/2 + (2 + ch) M (Rn - Fn) (23) Un+1 = Un + hUn+1/2


where the matrix inverse of M is a trivial computation since M is diagonal. The above equations involve the use of Un and Un-1/2, therefore calculation of the solution for the first time step requires the use of a special starting procedure. Since U0 and U0 are known initial displacements and velocities, the following relation may be determined from equation (22) * * * (25) U1/2 = 2U0 - U-1/2 Making use of above expression, equation (23) may be simplified to the following special form needed for the first time step * * 1 h -1 (26) U1/2 = 2(2 - ch) U0 + 2 M (R0 - F0) The following may be noted in reference to the fundamental time step equations (23) and (24). These equations represent a linear combination of vectors for computing displacements at the next time step implying that each displacement component is uncoupled and may be computed independently. It also implies that the computational cost per step is very low and is mostly associated with evaluation of the internal force vector F. Since F may be assembled on an element-by-element basis (so that the need for a global stiffness matrix is avoided), memory requirements are very low. The objective of a static analysis using DR is to obtain the steady-state solution of the pseudo-transient response. The mass and damping parameters need not represent the physical system. Instead, they are defined so as to produce the most rapid convergence to a steady-state solution, where convergence herein is based on a relative error of the force imbalance or
* *

As noted in [4], the first equation corresponds to the stability limit of the central-difference integrator and the second equation represents critical damping for the lowest eigenvalue. Since l0 and lm are generally not known a priori, effective techniques for their estimation must be established. An upper bound to the maximum eigenvalue can be obtained from Gerschgorins theorem which implies that

~ n |K | ij lm < max(i) M ii


~ where Kij is an element of the global tangent stiffness matrix. It may be noted from equations (30) and (28) that the time step size and the mass are not independent. Either of these parameters (h or c) may be fixed and then the appropriate value of the other determined. In the current algorithm, the time step size is held constant and arbitrarily assigned a value of one. By equating the equations (30) and (28), a relationship is obtained for defining the diagonal entries of the mass matrix as
h n ~ Mii 4 |Kij|
j=1 2


An estimate of the minimum eigenvalue may be obtained from the following mass-stiffness Rayleigh quotient (32) l0 @ (Wn)T K* Wn / (Wn)T MWn n where Wn is a selected weighting matrix. For linear problems K* is equivalent to the linear stiffness matrix K0. For n non-linear problems, (K*)ii represent the diagonal estimators of n the directional stiffness after step n and are given by

Copyright 2006 by ASME

(K*)ii = {(Fn)i - (Fn-1)i} / h(Un-1/2)i n

* *


Weighting vector options include Un , Un-1/2 and Rn. In this research Un-1/2 is utilized. This choice appears to produce the most reliable results, and it also allows for cancellation of * Un-1/2 in equation (33) which eliminates the possibility of zero in the denominator. For non-linear problems which exhibit structural instabilities (snap-through buckling applications, for example), the stiffness matrix may lose positive definiteness. When this occurs, the lowest eigenvalue, and therefore the argument of the square root in equation (29), may become negative. Under these conditions, the damping coefficient c is set equal to zero as recommended in [4]. Also, some strategies to update adaptively the dynamic relaxation parameters may be used [4].
Implicit Dynamic Relaxation Method

efficiency. They are affected by many factors, such as the form and amount of artificial damping and its control procedure, the size of load and time increments. With stability being the priority in mind, some form of adaptive control of these factors according to the level of dynamic response is necessary to improve efficiency. These are discussed in detail below. Numerical stability Numerical experiments indicated that both computational damping and artificial damping were needed to achieve convergence [9]. In addition, it was necessary to adjust the artificial damping and the time step size adaptively as time was incremented. Computational damping is deliberately introduced by selecting > 0.5 in Newmarks integration formulas. The choice = 1 and = 3/2 provides the strongest possible highfrequency dissipation. This achieves very poor accuracy in the low modes and thus it is not useful for transient analysis. However, the strong damping characteristics may be exploited in quickly bringing a transient solution to equilibrium, as desired. Choice of the artificial damping term, though arbitrary, is important. In general, the assembled global matrices are very narrowly banded. For simplicity it is only necessary to contrive a diagonal damping matrix. For example, a damping term cii = 2m siimii could be used, with s and m being the diagonal terms of the stiffness matrix and mass matrix, respectively. For a given set of > 0.5 and > 0.25(0.5 + )2 in Newmarks integration, the present numerical procedure becomes an implicit single step scheme with two principal parameters, namely, m and h. Control of the artificial damping term was left to the adjustment of m. In general this value should be chosen such that with the adjustment of load level and time step, the number of equilibrium iteration on DU(k) is kept below 10. In practice, only two or three iterations are necessary. Adjusting the time step size affects both the inertia effect and damping level. Acceleration of convergence For improved efficiency of the numerical algorithm, overall convergence can be accelerated by adaptively adjusting the following parameters. Load increment. For non-linear analysis, better stability is obtained by applying the external loads and given displacement incrementally. Also, it is preferred that at each load level convergence on equilibrium iterations can be achieved very quickly. The two parameters associated with load increment are the size of load increment and the moment at which load level is incremented. A constant load increment can be used, but convergence can be greatly accelerated by adaptively controlling the increment. This adaptive control, as proposed by Wu [6], is done in such a way that the load increment is: (a) unchanged if the number of equilibrium iterations (Niter) to (k) achieve convergence on DUn+1 is between 5 and 10; and (b)

This section begins by presenting the basic formulation of the implicit dynamic relaxation method (without theoretical analysis), following the lines already discussed in Wu [6]. Again, the idea of dynamic relaxation is discussed here in the context of utilizing the kinetic effect for the construction of an efficient conditioning mechanism. This paper presents some new contributions relative to the earlier work of Wu [6], related mainly to some aspects of the solution strategy, that were presented in [9]. While in the explicit formulation the use of diagonal mass and damping matrices is mandatory to maintain the explicit (uncoupled) nature of the algorithm, now in the implicit formulation there is no need to employ contrived diagonal, lumped matrices, and the true structural mass matrix can be used instead. In both explicit and implicit relaxation formulations the damping term is artificial; while in the explicit formulation the choice of a mass-proportional damping C = cM is natural, for the implicit formulation, where the mass matrix does not need to be diagonal, an artificial diagonal damping term is added that does not involve the product of a coefficient by the mass matrix, as will be described below. The equations of motion are solved by using the Newmarks integration formulas in which computational (numerical) damping is also deliberately introduced. For stability and acceleration of convergence, detailed control procedures for the damping level, load increment, time steps, and the integration parameters are presented. Relaxation of kinetic effect is achieved gradually by adaptively decreasing the artificial damping coefficient and increasing the time increment. The final solution is obtained when at full load level the motion, force residual, and increase in displacements are all zero within the specified tolerance level. Theoretically, the transient response of the damped motion will die down and the final static solution will be achieved if a sufficiently long time is allowed. Practically, however, this is not always possible. There are the questions of stability and

Copyright 2006 by ASME

increased/decreased by a factor of 10/Niter (maximum 2) otherwise. Quick convergence was achieved with a load increment varying from 1 to 10%. Significant advantages are obtained by applying the full dead weight before starting the external load increments, as discussed in [9]. Also, the dead weight is not applied incrementally; the full dead weight is applied in one step only. After that, the first load increment is started and the load level is increased with time successively until full load level is reached. That is, the load level is increased at the end of equilibrium iteration at the current time step. Once full load level is achieved, it is held constant over all the subsequent time steps until the final static solution is obtained. Time step. The size of time step has a bearing on the level of damping and more importantly on inertia effect. The speed at which equilibrium iteration converges at each time step is directly affected. Presently, it was adjusted in two different ways according to the load level. Before reaching the full load level, it was adjusted the same way as the load increment. Once full load level was reached, it was adjusted as follows: it was increased by 35% if Niter 5; it was unchanged if 5 < Niter 10; it was decreased by 15% (Niter/10)1/2 if Niter > 10; and notwithstanding, it was reduced by 25% if || Un+1 || > 2 || Un ||. The objective is to ensure convergence on the equilibrium iteration and a reasonable rate at which this convergence is achieved at each time step, minimizing the number of time steps and the total number of equilibrium iterations needed to increase the time step size as the motions die down and the solution moves towards the final static equilibrium position. The step by step movement can be monitored by checking the norm of the force residual || Rn+1 - (KU)n+1 || at the end of each time step, say its maximum absolute value. As the motions die down this should be reduced gradually. The time step is a very important parameter in spite of the analysis not being a dynamic analysis. The choice of the initial time step value and its control procedure not always guarantee the convergence. The time step h = 0.1 was found to give satisfactory convergence speed [9]. In addition, another strategy is incorporated [9], involving a step-back procedure consisting in storing in memory the information of the previous step (such as nodal displacement and element curvatures); if the current step fails to converge, that information is recovered and the procedure restarts with a smaller time step. Damping. The damping parameter, m, is adjusted simultaneously with the size of time step to control the level of artificial damping introduced. Before full load was reached, m was kept the same from one time step to the next. Once full load level is achieved, m is adjusted from one time step to the ** ** next as follows. It was reduced by 25% if || Un+1 || > || Un ||. This reduction is disallowed if || Un+1 || > || Un ||. If, however, Niter > 10, it is increased to 5n (n = Niter/10) times of its current value for the next time step instead.

The compound effect of adjusting both the time step size and damping level is reflected by the steady decrease of the force residual. Convergence to the static solution is achieved when the norms of displacement increment between steps n and n + 1, the velocity and acceleration vectors and force residual were all zero within the specified tolerance level. The damping parameter is also adjusted by the step-back strategy described above [9]. IMPLEMENTATION AND NUMERICAL EXAMPLES The proposed techniques have been incorporated into a computer program for the nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of lines [10]. The program is integrated to a pre and posprocessing interface that generates the models (including the FE meshes) and visualizes the results. The integration of the interface with the DRM method allows a completely automated generation of the FE meshes that correspond to an initial stable static configuration of the system. The user needs only to define length and properties of the line segments, and the position of the connections. All other parameters (including analysis parameters such as time step h and damping coefficient c) are automatically selected and adaptively varied. Some details of this automated generation procedure will be illustrated in the following examples. Several small preliminary problems have been run to test the validity of the theoretical predictions [9]. A variety of examples involving complex configurations and nonlinear boundary conditions were also analyzed. In each case, several initial starting positions were used, including initial unstretched positions. These unstretched positions can be conveniently specified arbitrarily; this advantage cannot be taken in conventional numerical techniques because the initial tangent stiffness matrix is singular. For more complex mooring systems, the facility of generating the initial mesh becomes more prominent. Convergence was achieved in all cases, demonstrating satisfactory numerical robustness of the method. The efficiency varied with the quality of the initial starting position, as expected. For convenience, a straight line (free of loads) was used as initial mesh and then its connections are moved to the design positions. This approach has given a satisfactory numerical efficiency for all cases.
Offloading Floating Hose

Among the studies presented in [9], a special case is a floating offloading hose, composed by materials of different properties, with flexural stiffness relatively more important and nonlinear hydrostatic behavior. Offloading hoses are pipes used to transport fluids resultant of the explotation process, from a floating offshore system to another, in general from a storage unit to a transport unit [11], as shown in Figure 1. The floating hose treated here has a total length of 278.5m connecting two vessels distant 250m. The hose comprises 53 segments of different diameters and materials, presenting segments with flotation. Their connections with the FPSO are articulated. The FE discretization employs nonlinear frame

Copyright 2006 by ASME

elements based in a co-rotational formulation that allows the consideration of the flexional stiffness of the hose. The environmental load consists of a current profile with 1 m/s at the water surface and null at the sea bottom.

the line leave the XZ plane. The final configuration assumed by the line is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 4 Static stable configuration (without current and initial imperfection)

Figure 1 Offloading floating hose scheme The pre-processing interface automatically generates an arbitrated initial configuration that consists of a straight line resting in the water surface. The initial mesh that corresponds to this initial configuration is completely free of loads, without initial tensions or curvatures. Prescribed displacements are then automatically applied to move their connections to the userspecified positions, as shown in Figure 2. At this time, some options are available, such as, to apply or not the current load; to use adaptive strategies in the solution procedure, or to manually specify the analysis parameters.

Figure 2 Initial mesh The first result to be presented is the final configuration under action of self weight, buoyancy and current, shown in Figure 3.

Figure 5 Static stable configuration (without current, with initial imperfection) In summary, three static stable configurations were obtained: the first one under the action of current, and the other two without current. When current load is not applied, the line remains in the XZ plane. That configuration, besides generating compression in the line, generates curvatures and excessive moments in the proximities of their connections. The convergence of DRM is hindered and a small loss of efficiency is seen in the solution procedure. The introduction of the imperfection in the initial straight mesh caused the line to leave the XZ plane, forming an "S" shape in the XY plane. In that configuration, compression is practically eliminated and the curvatures are reduced. However, this "S" configuration is not adequate for the subsequent dynamic analysis that will consider all environmental loadings including current. The significant flexural stiffness hinders the line to assume its actual position under current action, similar to the one shown in Figure 3, determined by the DRM with the application of current. When current is applied, the generation of the static configuration is simpler, the solution procedure is more efficient and the final configuration is adequate for the dynamic analysis to be done subsequently.
Lazy-S Riser

Figure 3 Static stable configuration (with current) Next, two alternative strategies are used to obtain the stable configuration of the line without application of current. In this case, the effect of introducing initial arbitrary imperfections is studied. Firstly, Figure 4 presents the static configuration assumed by the line without the application of any imperfection to the initial mesh. It is seen that the line remains in the vertical XZ plane. Then, another analysis is performed imposing a small imperfection to the straight mesh (a sine wave, with amplitude 1x10-8m in the horizontal XY plane). That imperfection makes

Figure 6 presents a typical model of a Lazy-S riser configuration. This configuration presents an intermediate section passing through an arch with floaters (whose buoyancy alleviates the weight supported by the floating unit, and contributes with restoring moments under lateral loads). It also includes a tendon that supports the buoyancy of the floaters. The Lazy-S model can be seen as three interconnected lines: a catenary line connecting the platform to the floaters (with a length of 100.0 m), a tendon (with a length of 71.1 m), and catenary line connecting the floaters to the seabottom, (120.0 m length). The discretization of the lines employs a FE mesh with 176 nodes and 177 elements. The environmental

Copyright 2006 by ASME

load consists of a current profile with speed 1.12m/s (to north) at the deep water surface and 0.57m/s (to northeast) at the sea bottom (85m).

The mooring line considered here is comprised by 14 segments of different diameters and materials, including chain and polyester cable, with a total length of 1662.0m. The FE discretization of the line employs a mesh with 674 nodes and 675 truss elements. The following Table presents the environmental conditions applied on the mooring line. Table 1 Environmental conditions
Depth (m) 0 100 350 500 1000 1260.9 Current Profile Speed (m/s) Going to 1.53 S 1.46 S 0.89 SW 0.78 N 0.49 N 0.00 N Azimuth (degrees) 180 180 225 0 0 0

Figure 6 Typical Lazy-S Riser Configuration and Initial mesh In this application, the strategy for the generation of the static equilibrium configuration does not consider initially straight meshes for the upper and lower catenary lines; rather, the initial meshes for the DRM method are defined as follows: a) The mesh of the tendon is defined as a vertical line; b) The mesh of the upper and lower catenary lines are defined employing the catenary equations (under self weight only), assuming all ends fixed. Therefore, the three lines in the initial mesh are equilibrated individually, but the whole system is not. The static stable configuration determined by the DRM, is shown in Figure 7. This configuration can then be employed as the initial mesh of the subsequent dynamic analysis.

While the application of the NRM to this model was not successful, due to lack of convergence, both DRM formulations (implicit and explicit) were capable to reach the static stable configuration with equivalent accuracy. The static configuration is shown in Figure 9, along with the initial mesh (derived by the classic catenary equations).

Figure 7 Static stable configuration

Installation of a Mooring Line

The Lazy-S application of the previous section could be amenable to both the DRM and the Newton-Raphson method (NRM). The accuracy is similar for both methods, and the computational efficiency is also similar. In this section, we now present an application where the NRM fails to converge due to stiffness matrix singularity the simulation of a step of the installation procedure of a mooring line, where it remains in position connected only to a buoy (Figure 8). For illustration purposes, this Figure also shows the installed configuration.

Figure 9 Static Stable Configuration and Initial Mesh An additional test is then performed, where the initial mesh is determined not by the analytical catenary formulation, but by the use of the DRM in a FE analysis, without application of current, from a straight mesh as shown in Figure 10. This straight mesh is generated by placing the buoy in the direction of the azimuth of the line, with the distance between the buoy and the anchor equals to the line length, thus resulting in a straight line linking the anchor and the buoy. The analysis then consists in releasing the buoy until the system finds its equilibrium position under dead weight only. In that case, as expected, the equilibrium position determined by the DRM coincides with position calculated by the catenary equations.

Figure 10 Straight Initial Mesh Figure 8 Mooring Line

Copyright 2006 by ASME

FINAL REMARKS This work had as objective to demonstrate the use of dynamic relaxation algorithms for generation of initial static stable configurations for flexible lines. The use of dynamic relaxation algorithms not only overcame the limitations imposed by the classic catenary equations to the generation of initial configurations of lines, but also avoided the numeric problems that arise in the traditional FE solution methods for nonlinear problems, by supplying a conditioning mechanism for the tangent stiffness matrix. Two formulations of the Dynamic Relaxation Method were presented, one implicit and another explicit. Both formulations have presented good results in the numeric experiments. In general, the following observations can be made: (a) It is extremely important to start the dynamic analysis from a static stable configuration under the action of all static components of the loads, including current. The performance gain in the dynamic analysis is considerable, due to the reduction of the unnecessary transient part of the solution. (b) The main advantage of DRM is its robustness, being able to reach the static equilibrium configuration in situations where the Newton-Raphson Method fails (as is usual in complex configuration of flexible lines). Although in some cases DRM may request a little more CPU time than the NRM, the cost of the static solution is still low, insignificant in comparison with the total time of the dynamic analysis. (c) The use of adaptive strategies for definition of time steps increases significantly the efficiency of the DRM algorithm. (d) The DRM presents an additional advantage in relation to the classic methods of solution for nonlinear problems: it is very easy to implement. The implementation of the DRM in the graphic preprocessing interface (as a tool for generation of FE meshes of initial static configurations) leads to an automated model generation procedure that is completely independent of all subsequent static and/or dynamic analyses that can be performed with the generated model (since it incorporates the applicable initial state of tensions and curvatures). Therefore, once the initial configuration/mesh is defined, several analyses can be performed with the same model. It should be stressed that, while the current implementation of the DRM is performed in an in-house software code, it could also be used as a pre-processor module to generate FE meshes of initial stable configurations for commercial FE codes. Also, the time spent to generate this configuration is very small: the generation procedure is automatically performed by the interface in a matter of seconds, at the click of a button. On the other hand, the performance gain in the dynamic analysis is considerable when it starts from a static stable configuration, due to the reduction of the unnecessary transient part of the solution.

In summary, the presented procedures based in the DRM to generate initial static stable configurations for flexible lines were shown to be quite efficient and robust, and comprises an important contribution to the analysis and design of offshore systems with flexible lines such as mooring lines, risers and hoses. REFERENCES [1] CARDOSO, D. C. T., LIMA, B. S. L. P., JACOB, B. P., ALBRECHT, C. H., MASETTI, I. Q., Analyticalnumerical methods for calculation of equilibrated configurations of mooring lines with relief buoys (in Portuguese), Annals of XXXI South American journey of Structural Engineering, vol.3, pp. 1081-1090, may 17-21 , Mendoza - Argentina, 2004. [2] FERREIRA, F. M. G., SILVEIRA, E. S. S., MASETTI, I. Q., MENEZES, I. F. M., A strategy for the generation of 3D initial configurations for dynamic analysis of morring lines (in Portuguese), XXV CILAMCE Iberian-Latin Americam Congress on Computational Methods in Engineering, Recife, Brazil, November/2004. [3] OAKLEY, D. R., KNIGHT Jr., N. F., Adaptive Dynamic Relaxation Algorithm for Non-Linear Hyperelastic Structures Part I: Formulation, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., vol.126, pp. 67-89, 1995. [4] UNDERWOOD, P. G., Dynamic Relaxation, Computational Methods for Transient Dynamic Analysis, eds. T. Belytshko e T.J.R. Hughes, North Holland, Amsterdam, pp. 246-265, 1983. [5] JACOB, B. P., EBECKEN, N. F. F., An Optimized Implementation of the Newmark/Newton-Raphson Algorithm for the Time Integration of Nonlinear Problems, Comm. Numer. Methods Engrg.,vol.10, pp. 983-992, John Wiley & Sons, UK/USA, 1994. [6] SHUKAI WU, Adaptive Dynamic Relaxation Technique for Static Analysis of Catenary Mooring, Marine Structures,vol.8, pp. 585-599, 1995. [7] PARK, K.C., Practical Aspects of Numerical Time Integration, Comput. Struct.,vol.7, pp. 343-353, 1977. [8] PARK, K.C., UNDERWOOD, P.G., A Variable-Step Central Difference Method o Structural Dynamics Analysis Part 1: Theoretical Aspects, Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Engrg., vol.22, pp. 241-258, 1980. [9] SILVA, D. M. L., Generation of initial stable configurations of flexible lines by Dynamic Relaxation Methods (in Portuguese). M.Sc thesis, COPPE/UFRJ, Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil, 2005. [10] JACOB, B. P., PROSIM: Numerical Simulation of Moored Floating Units, Data input manual version 3.0 (in Portuguese), COPPE/UFRJ, Civil Engineering Department, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 2006. [11] COSTA, A. P. S., ROLO, L.F.A., GOULART, M.P., SILVA, S.H.S.C., Offshore Loading Trends In Brazil, World Maritime Technology Conference, 2002.


Copyright 2006 by ASME