HYDROELASTIC MODELLINGOF TRIPOD TOWER PLATFORM

X. Srinivasan andA.S.J.

Swamidas

Faculty of Engineering and Applied Science Memorial University of Newfoundland St. John's, Canada A l B 3x5 ABSTRACT (f) thickness of column .125 m ( ) outer diameter of legs 9 8 m The work presented in this paper is concerned with (h) thickness of legs .165 m modelling of deepwater the Tripod Tower Platform (i) distance between legs at mud level 183.3 m (TTP) for wave loading. Feasibility of physical (j) distance between column and leg 105.8 m modelling for wave structure interaction is investigated. In modelling flow the two TTP is an original design, developed Heerema by parameters, viz., Reynolds and number Engineering Service, The Netherlands. More Keulegan-Carpenter number, are considered to check details are given in reference 1 [Michelsen and the adequacy of physical modelling for Meek, wave 19821. loading. Model laws via dimensional analysis 'for regularwavetrainsinteractingwithstructure is 1.2 Background obtained. The dimensionless parameters are examined to validate the structural modelling at Physical modelling and experimental studies of structures in scale. offshore small conducted for many years and a great volume of literature exists. In most of these studies the 1. INTRODUCTION between difference numbers Reynolds the the of model and prototype has been accepted as an Theproduction ofhydrocarbons fromoffshoreexperimental error. was It concluded that the demands the development of production platforms physics of the loading phenomena for drag 300 for water depths greater than m. Beyond this dominated situations are not correctly reproduced depth, the jacket piled platform and other at small scales for the model. For that reason on fixed jacket structures are not conventional structures are not feasible any more. model studies Many new concepts have been developed so far, such encouraged. There are remarkably a few costly as the Tension Leg Platform, the Guyed Tower attempts in which the fluids were modelled to Platform, the Roseau Tower Platform and the Steel fulfill the similarity conditions (Roitman et al, Tripod Platform. platforms a Tower These show 1985). large diversity of shapes and are identified by their principles. The present study is confined The present work is no different from them as far to the problem of feasbility of physical modelling as the development of similitude theory is the Tripod of Tower Platform (TTP). concerned. But the inclusion of Keulegan-Carpenter number which plays an important 1 1 Description . of TTp role in finding Cm and Cd values model, of the leads to a favourable situation for model study in The TTP essentially containsa few large diameter the design ofTTP. The necessity of model study heavy wall thickness steel tubular members in wave tanks requires very little justification. connected together to form a stiff deepwater Certainly at the development stage, the prospect structure. It's main central concentric vertical of conducting extensive studies of the new design column is supported three inclined legs, at a by in several environments at relatively low is cost batter of 3:1, to transmit the vertical loads Of most attractive. the structure to the seabed. The general configuration of the TTP is shown inFig. 1 . The objectives of the study are to investigate the dynamic characteristics of the immersed structure The basic geometric characteristics of this and to compute the wave forces the structure. on platform are: Model for such a study satisfy laws of must similitude dealing with hydrodynamic and water(a) depth of 340 m structural behaviour as well as geometric (b) total topside weight including deck similarity. The similitude laws are obtained from structure 50,000 t dimensional analysisby applying the principles of (c) deck clearance: 25 m above MSL dimensional homogeneity [Sharp(1981)and Sarpkaya ( d ) centregravitytopside: of of 42.5 m and Isaacson (1981)l. above MSL. (e) outer diameter column of main 15 m

CH2498-4/87/0000- 530 $1.00 01987 IEEE

2.

HYDROELASTIC MODELS

s c a l eb e h a v i o u rr e q u i r e s c o m p a t i b l ew i t ht h ec d d e s i g n of t h e p r o t o t y p e .

Cd and Cm v a l u e s

and Cm v a l u e s u s e d i n t h e

H y d r o e l a s t i c models a r e models of immersed s t r u c t u r e s i n which e l a s t i c d e f o r m a t i o n s of t h e s t r u c t u r ea r ea l s om o d e l l e d .H e r e ,i na d d i t i o nt o m o d e l l i n gt h ef l u i ds y s t e m , i t i s n e c e s s a r yt o model t h es t r u c t u r a lr e s p o n s et ot h a ts y s t e m . Since wave motionsareinvolved, we meet t h e f o l l o w i n gi n e v i t a b l ec o n d i t i o n s :( 1 )w a t e rh a st o beusedinthemodelledsystem, ( 2 ) Froude s i m i l a r i t y h a s t o be r e t a i n e d . The majorrequirementsthat need t o be s a t i s f i e d are: (1) t h e geometry of t h e model must be similar and ( 2 ) t h e r a t i o of e l a s t i c f o r c e s must be the same f o rg r a v i t y and i n e r t i a lf o r c e s . It is d i f f i c u l t t o s a t i s f y a l l t h e s i m i l a r i t y conditions simultaneously. The main d i f f i c u l t y i s due t o t h e p r e s e n c e of v i s c o s i t y f o r c e s i n t h e l i q u i d . The p r o b l e m s , s s o c i a t e d i t h o i l a w s s t r u c t u r e i n t e r a c t i o n and damping i n t h e s t r u c t u r ea r en o tc o n s i d e r e di nt h i ss t u d y . 2.1 Modelling TTP

I n t h ec a s e

of d r a gd o m i n a t e ds t r u c t u r e s ,t h e down models a r e of C d and Cm of t h e

cd

and C m v a l u e s of t h e s c a l e d d i f f e r e n tf r o mt h ev a l u e s

prototype. This shows t h e e f i c i e n c y d of modelling s u c hs t r u c t u r e s ,f o r example a j a c k e ts t r u c t u r e , a ts m a l ls c a l e .

It i s e q u a l l yi m p o r t a n tt oc h e c kt h ed i f f e r e n c e s
o Cd and Cm v a l u e s f o r t h e i n e r t i a l d o m i n a t e d

s t r u c t u r e s and their models. This problem w i l l be c o n s i d e r e di nd e t a i l by d e v e l o p i n gt h es i m i l i t u d e theoryandcheckingthevalidparameters i n the n e x tt o p i c .B e f o r eg o i n gt ot h a t , a simple study, usingPiorisonequation,with some assumptionsas t ot h es i g n i f i c a n te f f e c t of d r a gf o r c e component of wave l o a d i n g on TTP i s c a r r i e do u t . The assumptions made a r e : 1. Linear wave t h e o r y i s u s e dt oc a l c u l a t et h e v a l u e s of h o r i z o n t a l w a t e r p a r t i c l e v e l o c i t y and a c c e l e r a t i o n . Deep waterapproximation. A wave l e n g t ho t wave h e i g hr a t i o , t = 15

The e s s e n t i a lr e q u i r e m e n t s of any model a r e t h a t i t s h o u l da d e q u a t e l yr e p r e s e n tt h el o a d i n g on t h e s t r u c t u r e and t h es t r u c t u r ei t s e l f . The v a l i d i t y of physicalmodelling of TTP a t s m a l l s c a l e is discussedunderthreemajorheadings:

i)

2. 3.

ii) iii)

Wave l o a d i n g and regimes for 'TTP The s i m i l i t u dte e o r y h Modelling of t h ee l a s t i cs t r u c t u r e

4. 5.

cm =

i s used. 2.0
Cd = 0.6

3.

KAVE LOADING AND REGIME FOR TTP

The r a t i o of themagnitude FDmax, w i t hr e s p e c tt ot h e i n e r t i af o r c e ,

FImax,

of maximum d r a gf o r c e , magnitude of maximum wave h e i g h t s

f o rd i f f e r e n t

Wave l o a d i n g on o f f s h o r e s t r u c t u r e s i s , f o r c o n v e n i e n c e ,d i v i d e di n t ot h r e er e g i o n s : d i f r a c t i o n , i n e r t i a and i n e r t i a p l u s drag[see i of t h e s e h r e e t Fig. 21. The r e l a t i v e m p o r t a n c e majorregimes i n a p a r t i c u l a r c a s e depend on t h e r a t i o of member d i a m e t e r o wave l e n g t h . Given t theZylinderdiameter D , t h e wave h e i g h t H and t h e wave l e n g t h X, t h e wave loadingregimeforany s t r u c t u r e c a n be i d e n t i f i e d w i t h t h e h e l p of Fig. 2. The wave loadingregimefor TTP is i n e r t i a p l u s drag. I n t h i s e g i o n h e a m i l i a r i o r i s o n r t f t e q u a t i o n i s u s e df o r wave loadcomputation on t h e structure. (1) where D is t h ec y l i n d e rd i a m e t e r , d e n s i t y , u t h ep a r t i c l ev e l o c i t y , a c c e l e r a t i o n , Cd t h e c o e f f i c i e n t
p t h ef l u i d

and f o r t h e l e g and t h e column diameters of TTP a r e p l o t t e d and shown i nF i g . 3.

Tine t y p i c a l v a l u e s
are: ( a )F o rt h ec e n t e r i s 0.1. ( b )F o rt h el e g s

of

FDmax
FImax

f o r a 20 m wave h e i g h t

column of 15.0 m d i a m e t e r , it of d i a m e t e r , 8.0 m, i t i s 0.18.

u t h ep a r t i c l e of dragand Cm

This shows t h a t t h e wave f o r c e s on TTP a r e predominantlynertial. i But t h i s i s not s u f f i c i e n t enough t o summarize t h a t a r e a d i l y That is a c c e p t a b l e model f o r TTP can be designed. becausethe wave l o a d i n g a t small s c a l e may be dominated by drag component andcompletelyupset I n o r d e rt o examine viscous the t h er e s u l t . e f f e c ti nt h e model a t small s c a l e , a studybased on s i m i l i t u d et h e o r y i s d i s c u s s e di nt h en e x t topic.

t h ec o e f f i c i e n t of i n e r t i a . I t i s assumed t h a t theMorisonequation i s e q u a l l yv a l i df o r c a l c u l a t i n g t h e wave f o r c e s on model s t r u c t u r e s a t small s c a l e s . n I Eqn. 1, t h es c a l i n gr e l a t i o n s based on Froude's Law and geometricscalingcan be o b t a i n e df o ra l lp a r a m e t e r se x c e p t cd and C, valuesThereforean cceptable . , a model of f u l l

4.

THE SIMILITUDE THEORY

The experimentalproblem of p i l e s t r u c t u r e s s u b j e c t e dt ot h ea c t i o n of p r o g r e s s i v e g r a v i t y waves c a n a l s o be approached by dimensional analysis. The f o r c e on t h ep i l ec a n be d e f i n e da s

531

By considering only Reynolds number, since the prototype is generally in supercritical region a and the model in subcritical region, there is a a large increasein drag coefficient from prototype to model, see Fig. ; it does not give the correct 4 value of Cd for the model. This is because at subcritical region the Keulegan-Carpenter number plays a very important role in finding the Cd and Cm values whereas its effect is relatively less at supercritical region. Fig. 5 gives the values of In the case ofdeepwater, Id is no longer a Cd and Cm for various Keulegan-Carpenter numbers relevant variable and is excluded from this for low Reynolds numbers [Holmes, 19811. An equation.Theparameteraccounts or fluid example study for TTP is carried out to Tu demonstrate the feasibility of physical modelling viscosity and is replaced Reynolds number,Re. by A Since L the wave length for shortwaves is defined for wave loading at small scale. geometric scale of 1:lOO is taken. Important parameter as gT2/2r, Eqn.3 can be writtenas values are calculated for three different wave heights, 10.0 m, 15.0 m and 20.0 m, of the -- F (H/L, D/L, Re) ( 41 prototype. Since the TTP column diameter is 15.0 2 PwgW m and the leg diameters are0 m each, in Case 8 . 1, 2, D is takenas 15.O m and in Case D is taken as In Eqn. 4 , the first non-dimensional parameter H/L 8 0 m. The parameter values are presented in . ensures that the wave train is suitably Table 1 for the column and the legs. The Cd and represented between model and prototype. The Cm values given were taken from Fig. 5. second non-dimensional parameter D/L has no direct From Table1 it can be seen that the discrepancies physical significance but it acts a as between the prototype design and Cm values and Cd representative for Keulegan-Carpenter number KC model cd andCm values are not remarkably high for [Sarpkaya and Isaacson, 19811. various wave heights. As we try to model higher wave heights of the prototype, there is an ,, is the maximum Kc = (Vmx.) T/D, whereV increase in Cd of model and the difference with particle velocity, T the wave period D the and the design Cd of the prototype also increases. At diameter of pile. Thus Eqn. 4 becomes very low wave heights can see we that Cd of the model matches with tgeCd of the prototype. On the other hand, there is an increase of the Cm of Therefore, in addition to H/L, Kc and Re are the the model corresponding to the of the Cm relevant parameters needed to be considered in prototype. But this increase is not high. modelling the wave loads on pile. When we try to model higher wave heights in the laboratory to get large excitationof the model a 1 It is interesting to note that Eqn.and 5 both structure, the wave period is limited the by define the same thing and they can be equated. available wave generator and in many cases wave That would result in period is no longer than 1.2 seconds. For this wave period theCm and Cd values of model match Cd = f (Kc and Re) with the designCm and cd values of prototype. Cm = f (Kc and Re) I can be summarized that the above study confirms t that an acceptable model can be designed TTP for This shows Cd and C are functions of both , which can represent the full-scale behaviour Reynolds number and Keulegan-Carpenter number. Kc reasonably. and Re are the two parameters which characterize the flow. The Reynolds number characterizes the flow as subcritical region, critical region, 5 MODELLING OF ELASTIC STRUCTURE . supercritical region and post supercritical region [see F i g . 41 whereas Keulegan-Carpenter number The preceding discussion shows the adequacy of characterises theflow in term of vortex physical modellingof wave loading for TTP at shedding. small scale. In order to solve the wave-structure interaction problem, the TTP is to be modelled by In order to check the validity of physical of Considering the elastic behaviour the modelling of TTP for the wave loading mechanism at small scalethe cd and Cm values of the model
~

where, Fis the waveforce, Dthe pile diameter,H the wave height, the wave period, the water T d depth, pw the density ofwater, g the gravitational acceleration and the kinematic viscosity v of fluid; these are called the pertinent variables. From dimensional analysis, Eqn. 2 can be represented by an equation of dimensionless parameters containing the pertinent variables.

considering bothKc and Re number should be found and then compared with the and Cm design values Cd of prototype.

532

prototype. The problem of modelling of elastic structures is discussed in Ref. 7. The similarity conditions ares o restrictive that reduced models for the study of dynamic behaviour of offshore structures would be practically impossible until a distorted model is proposed. For problems involving wave-structure interaction we encounter following inevitable conditions: Model has to be built using plastic material whose modulus of elasticity and density are much lower than that of the structure. Distributed extra masses have to be added throughout the model structure, in such way a (9.b) that the stiffness would not be affected. The internal dimensions of the tubular members of the structure are distorted relative to the geometric scale. But the external dimensions of these members are kept accordingto the general geometric scale.
In Eqn. 2 modulus of elasticity'E' and density of material ps are the two additional parameters that need to be considered in the case of elastic structure and wave interaction problem. The additional non-dimensional parameters are obtained from dimensional analysis and including them in Eqn. 5 would result in

where tm and t are the wall thickness of the P tubular members of the model and prototype, respectively. Using Kt and KL the scale factor for moment of inertia canbe defined as KI
=

KL

Kt

Geometric similarity in a Froudian model requires ideally KE = KL Otherwise, if sectional distortion is applied for the model, as stated before, the following conditions should be fulfilled.
2

KL = KL/KE Km
=

(9.c)

KL/Kt

(9-d)

Eqn. 9.c is used to find the model wall thickness needed for a given geometric scale and for a selected model material. Additional mass, distributed over the model to satisfy the similarity required by Eqn. 8.b, is calculated by using Eqn. 9.d. The scaling relations for the model are given in Table 2 .

It is proposed to construct model with scale a T KL = 1/100, made of acrylic plastic material whose - JThe non-dimensional parameters ps/pw and E iE = 1 / 7 5 . C pw represent the ratio of structural inertia force to fluid inertia force and the Cauchy number, Kt = (L)2 x 7 5 = 0.0075 respectively. 100

.-.

These two parameters form the model laws to arrive With the above conditions the member geometric certain scaling criteria for the construction of characteristics of the structural modelcan be structural model at small scale. Following are found. The required sizes of column and leg the important scaling relations that are to be members for model are used in model study. = 0.15 m Column diameter The length ratio of model and prototype is defined Column wall thickness 1.0 mm = as Leg diameter = 08 m . Leg wall thickness = 1.24 mm where subscript m and p correspond to the model and prototype. The submerged density ratio of model and prototype material is defined as or The elastic moduli of model and prototype is defined as Em RE = EP The sectional distortion the model structure in requires a geometric scale in addition to KL (ps/pw The calculation for additional mass distribution using Eqn. 9.d is given below

l ) m 1 . 3 3 (7.8 =

1) = 9.06

or the required (ps/pw)m = 10.06 But the available (ps/pw)m = 1 . 2 is for acrylic plastic material. Therefore additional masses should be placedalong the tubular members of the mass by a model so as to increase the structural factor (10.06 - 1 . 2 ) = 8.86.

533

8. REFERENCES The above preliminary study proves that a readily acceptable reduced elastic model for canbe TTP (1) Michelsen, F.C. and Meek, J. 1982. constructed for the problem of wave-structure Development of the Tripod Tower Platform Design. interaction. Behaviour of Offshore Structures, Volume pp. 2, 847-863. 6 CONCLUSION . (2) Sharp, J.J. 1981. Hydraulic Modelling. I is shown that the designed hydroelastic model Butterworths. t of TTP at small scale is adequate to reproduce the (3) Sarpkaya, T. and Isaacson, M. 1981. dynamic behaviour of prototype the wave tank. in The experimental results are reliable because both Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures. Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, U.S.A. the loading mechanism as well as the elastic behaviour arewell represented for the proposed ( 4 ) Chakrabarti et al. May 1976. Wave Forces on model of TTP. Since deep structures are more Vertical Cylinders. A.S.C.E., W 2 W. flexible than the conventional shallow jacket structures and also the dynamic amplification of (5) Holmes, P. 1981. Fundamental Aspects of Wave the wave forces are significant at higher depth of water, experimental study of TTP is very useful inLoading and Modelling Offshore Structures. Proceedings of a Conferenceon the Use of Physical the design ofTTP at its development stage. The Models in their Design, The Construction Press. study also shows the feasibility hydroelastic of modelling of 'PTP at small scale. (6) Roitman, N., Batista, B.C., Carneiro, F.L.L.B. 1985. Reduced Model of Fixed Platform for Investigation of Fluid-Structure Interaction. 7 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . International Symposium Offshore Engineering, on Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. The authors would like thank Dean to G.R. Peters, Associate Dean T.R. Chari, of the Faculty of (7) Carneiro, P.L.L.B. 1981. Some Aspects of the I. Engineering and Applied Science, and Dr. Dimensional Analysis Applied to the Theory and the Rusted, Vice President of Professional Schools, Experimentation of Offshore Platforms. Interfor their continued interest and support.The national Symposiumon Offshore Engineering, Rio de Commonwealth Fellowship provided by the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada Janeiro, Brazil. is to the first author gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are due to Ms. Michele Walsh for (8) Sorensen, R.M. 1978. Basic Coastal Engineering. John Wiley and Sons. the careful typing of the manuscript.

.
0

VE 30M) 0.0 x75W.T. FRAME

4000 0.0. 125 W.T. x

D lx
FIG. 2 R E G I O N SO FV A L I D I T Y- F O R C E P R E D I C T I O N E T H O D O RF I X E 0 M F A PILE [ F R O M A R R I S O N 1 9 7 6 1 1 G (

FIG I

THE STEELPOO T T O STRUCTURE

DEVELOPED e y

HEEREMAENGINEERINGSERVICE,THENETHERLANDS

534

1 0

A-Subcritical B-Critical C Supercritical 0-Post-su~rcriticol

- 1 . 0

10''

loo

1' 0

lo2 lo3
Re

1. 0

I' O

lo6 10'

FIG. 4 DRAG COEFFICIENT FOR CIRCULAR CYLINDERS AS A FUNCTIONOF

FIG 3 R4TlO OF MAXIMUM DRAG FORCE T O MAXIMUM INERTIA FORCE FOR VARIOUS W4VE HEIGHT 4ND C Y L I N D E R O l 4 H E T E R

REYNOLDS NUMBER(SCHLICHT1NG 1968)

IO

I 1 5

I 20 KC

I 30

I
40

-- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 5

IO

15

I 20
KC

30

40

.
DAVIES,

SOURCE OF RESULTS
1976

RANGE OF KC

Re

DIA.
1 ~ 0 ;

TYPE OF EXPERIMENT
INCLINED CYLINDERS

35 b15 x 1 0 3

y4n;a;;;~ ; ;; y
3"

-_-_ _ -

CHAKRABARTI ET AL,1976 0 t o 1 *28 x IO3 6 SARPKAYA, KEULEGAN a CARPENTER, 1958

VERTICAL CYLINDERS IN WAVES

o t 0 2 0 0 '7x105
to

2' 'O 3" '

9

2oo s23x,03 "4 ' g'' , 3

3 DIMENSIONAL . OSCILLATING

HORIZONTAL CYLINDERS

IN ONEFLOW

FIG. 5

Cd

A N D C,,,

V S K E U L E G A N - C A R P E N T E RN U M B E R

FOR VERTICAL

CYLINDERS

535

Table 1 Some TypicalParameterValuesforPrototype

and Nodel

**
Parameter Values

at Situation

. __

For Model a t S i t u a t i o n F o r P r o t o t y p e

__-

_H
(m)

a
20.0

b 15.0 12.0 3.927

a 0.2 1.39 0.453

b 0.15 1.2

(set)

10.0 9.8 13.86 3.206 4.533

0.1 0.98 0.321 0.393

Vmaxhoriz.(m/sec) CASE 1

D = 15.0 m

D = 0.15 m

***
CASE 2 Kc d '
Cm

***
D = 0.08 m

D = 8.0 m

7.854

5.89

0.6
2.0

0.6
2 .o

0.6
2.0

*** 1.11 ***

7.854

5.89 3.928 0.75

3.928

***

0.68
2.23

*** *** ***

2.14 2.0

* ** ***

To c a l c u l a t e V,,(horiz.)
cd, Cm f o r t h e

wave s t e e p n e s s is assumed as 1/15.

cd, Cm f o rt h ep r o t o t y p e ,g i v e na r ed e s i g nv a l u e s model a r e found based

on K and Re numbers. c Model

is i n t h e s u b c r i t i c a l r e g i o n Fig. 5 is used t o f i n d Cd, Cm Table 2 S c a l i n gR e l a t i o n sf o r

whose R e i s very low

Model Study

Quantity Length Tubularwallthickness Moment of i n e r t i a

'rototypf
L
t

Mode 1 K L

KL
3

I T
U

KLKtl 112 KL 112 KL KL i s r a t i o of l e n g t h s

Time
Velocity Acceleration Frequency Force Moment Presure Stress

is r a t i o of t u b e w a l l t h i c k n e s s

a
-112 KL
3

i s r a t i o of moduliof

elasticity

N
F
M

KL
4

KL

K L K E b

536