11
th
ICSGE
1719 May 2005
Cairo  Egypt
Ain Shams University
Faculty of Engineering
Department of Structural Engineering
Eleventh International Colloquium on Structural and Geotechnical Engineering
DYNAMIC RESPONSE OF FIXED OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
UNDER ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS
SHEHAB MOURAD
1
, MOHAMED FAYED
2
, MOSTAFA ZIDAN
2
,
and MOHAMED HARB
3
ABSTRACT
Waves have a nonlinear behavior. Thus, the application of direct dynamic analysis on offshore
structures will face some difficulties. Therefore, some adjustments are required to the static
analysis procedure in order to account for the dynamic nature of the wavestructure system and
to present efficiently the behavior of offshore structures. A practical static approach for the
design has been proposed by calculating dynamic amplification factors that represent the
dynamic characteristics of the structure and the dynamic behavior of waves, so that it can be
applied to static analysis that utilizes the nonlinear theories of waves.
This paper presents a study of the dynamic response of fixed offshore structures under the
effect of the environmental wave forces in order to determine the Dynamic Amplification
Factors (DAFs), which will be applied to the static analysis to account for the dynamic
nonlinear behavior of waves. These factors are determined through a linear dynamic analysis
using different random wave records generated using the standard PiersonMoskowitz spectrum
are compared. These results are compared with those obtained from a linear static analysis. The
same linear wave theory is utilized for both the dynamic and static analyses. Linear wave
theory is implemented to determine the water particle velocities and accelerations at each time
step and phase angle for each wave heading direction. However, wave forces are calculated
using Morison's equation. Three models of selected real fixed offshore structures are analyzed
to determine the effect of the dynamic nature of wave loads when applied at different angles,
and to determine the corresponding DAFs for both base shear and overturning moments. The
values of DAFs computed by a single seasurface profile (single seed) and those calculated
using a combination of a number of possible sea surface profiles (multi seeds) were compared.
The obtained DAFs were compared with those determined from the approximate formula. The
study includes the effect of marine growth on both the wave response analysis and on the
generated stresses in members obtained from static inplace analysis, and its effect on DAF
values. The results showed that the general tendency of the value of a DAF is to be inversely
proportional to the ratio of the wave period to the platform period. In addition, useful
conclusions were discussed
Keywords: Dynamic Amplification Factors, Dynamic Response, Offshore Structures, Marine
Growth, Wave Spectrum.
1
Associate. Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt.
2
Professor, Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams University, Cairo, Egypt
3
B.Sc, M.Sc, Senior Structural Engineer Offshore Structures
E05SR26 2
1. INTRODUCTION
Offshore structures are designated to those structures that are constructed off the shore in the
sea or the ocean water that are used as platforms for installing the drillers and necessary
equipment for extracting petroleum. A fixed offshore structure is a platform extended from the
sea surface and supported on the sea bed either by deep piles or by gravity footings, API WSD
21
st
Edition (2000). Jacket type structures are considered the classical configuration used for
offshore platforms; it is suitable up to 200 meters water depths. Jacket structures are formed of
main tubular legs braced by tubular members to transfer the lateral environmental forces to the
foundation piles. Number of legs varies from three up to 8 leg jackets. Piles can be connected to
the jacket by two ways. The first is directly inside the jacket leg which is used for shallow to
moderate water depths. The second method is by using external pile sleeves which is widely
used for deep water jackets, CIRIA (1977). Piles are normally grouted through the inner length
of legs and pile sleeves. In some other cases, piles are only welded at the top of the legs using
what is named crown shim plates, without being grouted through the legs. A typical fixed
offshore compound North Sea, UK, is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1: Typical fixed offshore compound North Sea, UK
The nature of such structures makes it different from others in the sense of types of loading
conditions that they are imposed to. In addition to typical dead loads, live loads and equipment
operating loads, it is exposed to different loading conditions that results during transportation,
launching and installation prior to the final positioning and start of operation. In addition,
during operation, such structures are imposed to environmental loads that appear in such certain
E05SR26 3
environment, as wind loads, wave loads, current loads, and seismic loads. Since such loads
have a cyclic and dynamic nature, fatigue phenomenon can cause significant effects. The
design criteria of offshore structures was originally based on twenty five and fifty years as
operating storm conditions till the early sixties of the last century when HILDA hurricanes
attacked the gulf of Mexico with wave heights reaching 42 feet (12.8 meters) accommodated
with wind gust speed of 200 mph (89 m/s). As a result of this hurricane more than 11 platforms
were destroyed. Engineering research centers such as the American Petroleum Institution API
started to reconsider the design basis of offshore structures and to develop new criteria based on
1 year and 100 years operating storm conditions with appropriate considerations for the applied
factors of safety against each case. Although the applied loads are of dynamic nature, the
practical approach of analysis of fixed offshore structures under the operating environmental
forces is performed using the normal static analysis (inplace analysis) in order to be able to
include the nonlinear foundation effect and to utilize high order nonlinear wave theories.
Therefore, the study of the dynamic behavior of offshore structures and their response to
different dynamic loads applied during the operating lifetime of the platforms, are of great
importance to be able to calculate a proper dynamic amplification adjustment factors which are
applied with the calculated static wave forces to assure that the overall structural integrity will
be able to sustain the dynamic effect of the applied wave and current forces. The study carried
out in this paper is focused on studying the dynamic and static behavior of fixed offshore
jackets under the operating wave and current loading conditions using linear wave theory, to
obtain the Dynamic Amplification Factors (DAFs) due to the response of the structurewave
system, in order to apply them to inplace static analysis utilizing nonlinear wave theory to get
the final stresses in the structural members. The study is applied to three models of selected
real fixed offshore structures. The effect of marine growth on both the wave response analysis
and the generated stresses in members obtained from static inplace analysis, and its effect on
DAF values, was investigated.
2. WAVE THEORIES
The true water surface profile is complex and nearly impossible to be described mathematically
due to the infinite number of interferences and nonlinearities. Thus, it is not possible to have
one theory that can mathematically describe all the possible conditions of the sea water surface.
Linear wave theory, alternatively known as Airy wave theory, was developed in 1845 based on
Laplace theory. It is considered as the most important of the classical theories because it forms
the basis of the probabilistic spectral description of waves, Fayed (1999). The Linear wave
theory is based on a sinusoidal representation of the wave profile, as shown in Fig. 2, and it
provides a first approximation to the wave motion. In order to approach the complete solution
more closely, consideration of a perturbation procedure through successive approximations was
developed. Such method was used by Stokes in 1847, and more recent contributions to the
description of Stokes wave theory include those of Yamaguchi and Tsuchiya (1974) and
Barltrop, et al (1991). Stokes and others solved the problem by a successive approximation
procedure in which the solution was formulated in terms of a series of ascending order terms.
Solutions are widely available in the open literature, Sarpkaya and Isaacson (1981). Stokes
theory becomes cumbersome and impractical for long waves of finite heights. Linear wave
E05SR26 4
theories cannot be applied on shallow water zones where waves become less sinusoidal.
Numbers of alternative theories were developed for this case; they include the analytical ones
such as Solitary and Cnoidal Wave theories, and the numerical ones such as the Stream
Function Wave theory. However, the numerical theories are also applicable for deep water of
finite height, but they are of special interest for shallow water because of the limitation of small
amplitude wave theories. The Cnoidal theory is suitable for the shallow water depth (d/L < 1/8).
The Solitary Wave theory can be considered as a special case of the Cnoidal theory since it has
an infinite wave length and the crest lies wholly above the water level. In the Cnoidal theory the
crest becomes more pointed and the trough more flattened, CIRIA (1977). The typical profile of
the Cnoidal wave is shown in Fig.3.
Fig. 2: Sinusodial wave profile
Fig. 3: Cnoidal wave profile
The problem of selecting the wave theory for a particular application invariably arises in
engineering situations. This difficulty can not be resolved since for specified values of H, d,
and wave period (T), different wave theories might better reproduce different characteristics of
interest and there can be no unique answer, Reddy and Arockiasamy (1991). API WSD 21
st
edition (2000) and API LRFD (1993) present a graphical representation of the zones of
application of different wave theories function on the water depth, the wave height and the
wave period. The graph was modified by API task group. Such graph is widely used in the
analysis and design of fixed offshore structures.
2.1 Linear (Airy) Wave Theory
As shown in Fig. 4, the vertical axis of the equations is measured positive from the meanwater
level upwards. The general potential function ) , , ( z y x satisfies Laplace equation:
0
2
2
2
2
=
y x
(1)
The horizontal and vertical velocities can be then expressed respectively as:
y
v
x
u
= , (2)
E05SR26 5
The Potential equation can be expressed in general as:
) sin(
) cosh(
)) ( cosh(
4
t x k
kd
d y k T H g
+
= (3)
where:
H= 2a = wave height in meters
k=(2/L) = wave number
=(2/T) = wave frequency
T = wave period in seconds.
The equation of the free surface (t) can be expressed as a function in the time (t) as follows:
Fig. 4: Airy wave equation's parameters
 
t x H

.
\
=
T L
t
2
2
) (
cos
(4)
E05SR26 6
2.2 Random Wave Theories
Random wave theories can model the general properties of the real sea much more closely than
the regular theories. Unfortunately the theories are based on the linear (Airy) wave theory, and
therefore, the nonlinearity, which is usually included in higher order wave theories, is not
included in random wave theories. The designer shall envisage which is more important for a
specific structural analysis, nonlinearity or randomness of the sea, or to envisage a practical
way to compromise between the two analyses. For example, in deep water, the structure may
often be subjected to seas with significant energy at longer period, and in these cases, a random
analysis is not easy to avoid, in addition to the need for better understanding of the behavior of
structures in extreme seas, Barltrop and Adams, (1991). Random Wave theory involves taking a
water surface elevation spectrum and building up the resulting particle kinematics, loadings,
and response, from the summation of the effect of different frequencies. This can be performed
using a time domain or a frequency domain approach which is explained in more details
hereinafter in the wave spectrum section.
3. WAVE SPECTRUM AND FORCES
If a time history is made for waves passing a point in the ocean, the resulting trace can be in
principle be viewed as a summation of a large number of regular sinusoidal wavelets, each
superimposed on the other. Such presentation of wave was found, theoretically and
experimentally, to be a much better model for the real sea surface representation, and in
particularly useful for the dynamic response analysis of offshore structures under
environmental sea loads. Therefore, the water surface and particle kinematics are the
summation of wavelets of various amplitude phases and periods. The amplitude content of
various frequencies can be represented by a spectrum. The phases are assumed to be random
and uncorrelated between frequencies.
3.1 PiersonMoskowitz Spectrum
PiersonMoskowitz (1964) spectra (B/PM) is commonly used to determine the wave spectrum
based on known values for the significant wave height (H
s
) and mean zero crossing period (T
z
).
The general equation of the PM spectrum is given by Eq. 5 and presented in Fig. 5.

.

\

4
z
5 4
z
2
s
) fT (
1
exp
f T 4
H
) f ( S ( 5 )
Fig. 5: PiersonMoskowitz spectrum
E05SR26 7
3.2 Morison's Equation
The wave induced loading on a structure is a result of pressure field produced by the wave. A
number of separate mechanisms have been identified within this phenomenon. There is the drag
force, which is proportional to the first approximation of the frontal area of the body and the
square of the flow velocity. There is the inertia force that is proportional to the acceleration of
flow and volume of the structure. Morisons equation application is limited to the assumption
that water motion is unaffected by the presence of the structure itself. Morisons Equation can
be expressed in the following form:
( )
+ = U A C U U D C F
m d
2 / 1
(6)
where: F = The force in the direction of velocity per unit member length.
U
= The water acceleration normal to the axis of the member.
D = The member outer diameter.
A = The area of the member = D
2
/4.
Cd = The drag coefficient
Cm = The inertia coefficient
4. ANALYSIS OF MODELS
Three models of fixed jackets are selected form real projects approved and installed in the
desired offshore locations. The configurations of models are shown in Figs. 68, while the
description of models is summarized in Table 1. It can be noted that only the third model
has 15 drilled conductors of 660 mm diameter each. The analysis of this study is divided
into linear dynamic response analysis compared with linear static analysis using Linear
wave theory, to determine the proper DAF values. Then, a final static inplace analysis,
using Stokes high order wave theory and applying the calculated DAF, is carried out to
obtain the final member stresses under the applied wave and current loads. The software
used in analyzing the mathematical models is SACS commercial software release 5 which
is widely used in the analysis of offshore structures. SACSIV program is capable of
performing various types of analysis starting from normal static inplace analysis and
ending with the sophisticated types of analysis such as fatigue analysis, transportation,
nonlinear collapse, and dynamic response analyses. Wave and current parameters are
extracted as per the installation zone meteorological data of each jacket location. The C
d
and C
m
values are considered as per API (2000) to be 0.65 and 1.6, respectively. The same
values of wave parameters are applied in three directions 0
o
, 45
o
and 90
o
(X, XY, and
Y) with the associated current parameters having the same direction of wave application.
For each wave direction, five different generated wave records (seeds) were applied to each
model, and the results of each seed is extracted and tabulated, calculating the vector base
shear and base moment for the dynamic and static forces at each time step. The Dynamic
Amplification Factor DAF at each time step is determined by dividing the dynamic base
shear and moments by the static base shear and moments. Then, the median value is
calculated for the whole set of time steps for each wave record, which will give the DAF
value for this specific applied wave and direction.
E05SR26 8
Fig. 6: Model 1
Fig. 7: Model 2
Fig. 8: Model 3
Table 1: Models Description
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Water
depth:
90 m 59 m 59.5 m
N
u
m
b
e
r
o
f
l
e
g
s
,
a
n
d
l
e
g
d
i
a
m
e
t
e
r
Four vertical legs (no leg
inclination) with an average
diameter of 1400 mm.
Four battered (inclined) legs
with slope 1:10 of average
diameter of 1180 mm.
Four legs, of average
diameter of 1330 mm, 2 of
them are battered in both
directions with slope 1:10
and the other 2 legs are
inclined in one direction
with a slope of 1:8
D
i
m
e
n
s
i
o
n
s
22.5 x 22.5 m overall
dimension at Deck junction
elevation +22.0m above sea
water level, Pile sleeves are
spaced 45 x 45 m
16 x 16 meters overall
dimension at Deck junction
elevation +7.50 m above sea
water level, and 29 x 29 m at
sea bed
14 x 14 meters overall
dimension at Deck
junction elevation +7.50 m
above sea water level, and
22 x 22 m at sea bed
F
o
u
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
Pile soil interaction is
represented by four
prismatic equivalent pile
stubs having: Length = 25
m, Section Area = 9000
cm
2
, Inertia I
z
= I
y
=
3.213x10
7
cm
4
Pile soil interaction is
represented by four
prismatic equivalent pile
stubs having: Length = 9 m,
Section Area = 297.62 cm
2
,
Inertia I
z
= I
y
= 1429700cm
4
Pile soil interaction is
represented by four
prismatic equivalent pile
stubs having: Length =
13.4m, Section Area =
524.82 cm
2
, Inertia I
z
= I
y
= 3222500.0
cm
4
Jacket
steel
weigh
29400 kN (without piles) 8177.79 kN (without piles)
15472.55 kN
(without piles) )
Deck
weight
191296 kN 1564 kN 14824 kN
E05SR26 9
Pilesoil interaction is represented by four prismatic equivalent pile stubs, whose properties
were determined from the soil properties by the software. The marine growth phenomenon has
to be considered in the main analysis due to its significant effect on the generated
hydrodynamic forces and therefore the stresses during the platform life. The marine growth has
been modeled in order to study its effect on the wave response analysis and on the static in
place analysis, as well as the generated stresses in members for the inplace analysis and the
values of DAFs. The maximum marine growth profile (radial thickness) against the water depth
considered in the analysis are as given in Table 2.
Table 2 : Marine growth profile considered in the three models
Model 1 Model 2 & 3
Depth (m) Thickness (cm) Depth (m) Thickness (cm)
0 30 2.5 0 30 2.5
30 60 5.0 30 59/59.5 5.0
60 90 7.5 NA NA
4.1 Wave Response Analysis Procedure
For better representation for the wave response analysis, which is the core of this study, the
analysis steps performed for each wave direction was obtained by stretching the Pierson
Moskowitz spectrum to fit the specified wave height (H
s
) and period (T
z
). The energy spectrum
is then broken into Fourier pairs and corresponding possible Airy wave components (height H,
period T, and phase angle ). The phase angle of each component is selected randomly, and
then the associated period and height are determined accordingly such that by superimposing
these components (H, T, ) they will represent the random sea surface profile corresponding to
the specified energy spectrum. The time duration of the analysis is taken to be 50 times the
wave period specified. This duration is the number of time points at which the calculation of
the dynamic and static forces equilibrium will be performed. Forces applied on structural
members are calculated using Morisons equation for each Airy wave component. Then, the
final value is resolved by linear combination of all components forces. Then, these forces are
applied as member and joint loads in the global stiffness matrix of the structure. The reactions
are then calculated as base shear and base moments. The Dynamic versus the Static base shear
and base moments are presented for each time step in the output file. The previous step is
repeated again for another set of random phase angles to get another possible representation of
the random sea surface with another set of Airy components (H, T, ) that describes the same
wave energy spectrum. Each set of phase angles are termed as random SEED in the SACS
program. The analysis considers five random seeds for each wave direction. The values of wave
height (H
s
), dominant wave period (T
z
), number of linear wavelets components that represent
the wave spectrum, and number of response analysis time points at which the results of both
E05SR26 10
dynamic and static results are computed and given in Table 3 for each wave direction applied
on each model.
Table 3: Wave Response Results
Wave
Direction
Wave
height
H
s
(m)
Dominant
period T
z
(sec)
Number of Air
wave components
(linear wavelets)
Number of
response analysis
time points
0
o
13.2 10.5 261 525
45
o
14.7 11.1 276 555
First
Model
90
o
16.1 11.6 289 580
90
o
8 9 449 900
137
o
6.8 8 399 800
Second
Model
180
o
5.8 7.5 374 750
180
o
8 9 449 900 Third
Model
230
o
6.8 8 399 800
5. ANALYSIS RESULTS
The results of the first six free vibration periods are given in Table 4 for the three models. The
highest 25 values of base shear and overturning moments from both dynamic and static analysis
for the five seeds for each direction and model were obtained. Figure 9 shows those values for
the first model when the wave direction was zero
Table 4: Modal Analysis Results
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
Mode Freq. Hz
(CPS)
Period T
(sec)
Freq. Hz
(CPS)
Period T
(sec)
Freq. Hz
(CPS)
Period T
(sec)
1 0.399 2.508 0.703 1.422 0.379 2.637
2 0.399 2.506 0.726 1.377 0.455 2.196
3 0.526 1.901 1.072 0.933 0.803 1.246
4 0.847 1.181 1.700 0.588 1.275 0.784
5 0.848 1.179 1.777 0.563 1.313 0.762
6 1.468 0.681 3.289 0.304 2.008 0.498
Fig. 9: Dynamic & static base shear and overturning moments for 5 seeds of first model with
wave angle 0
o
DYNAMIC AND STATIC BASE SHEAR  5 SEEDS  MODEL 1 SW 0 DEG
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 109 113 117 121 125
POINTS OF MAXIMUM BASE SHEAR FROM 5 SEEDS
B
A
S
E
S
H
E
A
R
(
K
N
)
Dyn. BS Stc. BS
Dynamic & static Base Shear, 5 Seeds
DYNAMIC AND STATIC MOMENTS  5 SEEDS  MODEL 1 SW  0 DEG
0
20000
40000
60000
80000
100000
120000
140000
160000
180000
200000
1 5 9 13 17 21 25 29 33 37 41 45 49 53 57 61 65 69 73 77 81 85 89 93 97 101 105 109 113 117 121 125
POINTS OF MAXIMUM OVER TURNING MOMENT FROM 5 SEEDS
M
O
M
E
N
(
K
N
.
M
)
Dyn. M Stc. M
Dynamic & static overturning moment, 5 Seeds
E05SR26 11
The Dynamic Amplification Factors "DAFs" are calculated by dividing the base shear or the
overturning moments resulted from the dynamic analysis by those resulted from static analysis
for each time step, for each seed. It was observed that the DAF value can reach a high value as
50, as shown in Fig. 10. However, that does not reflect the case that forces generated from the
dynamic nature of waves can reach 50 times those resulted from static wave force, since such
high value can occur due to outliers that results at an instant of time where the static base shear
or overturning moment is very low whereas that resulted from dynamic analysis is within an
average value. Therefore, if the "arithmetic mean" of the DAFs is chosen to represent the
whole values of DAF from a certain seed, that will result in an unrealistic value due to the
presence of outliers.
DAF Base Shear  SEED1  Model 2 PP1  180
o
0.000
5.000
10.000
15.000
20.000
25.000
30.000
35.000
40.000
45.000
50.000
1 28 55 82 109 136 163 190 217 244 271 298 325 352 379 406 433 460 487 514 541 568 595 622 649 676 703 730 757 784 811 838 865 892
Analysis Time Steps
D
A
F
=
(
D
y
n
.
B
S
/
S
t
c
B
S
)
Fig. 10 : DAF for base shear against time step form single seed
In order to remove the effect of the outliers different statistical representation for the central
tendency of the results, the median is to be implemented. The "median" is calculated instead of
the arithmetic mean as it represents the middle value of the array of numbers, i.e. half of the
values which are greater than or equal to the median, and the other half of the values are less
than or equal to it. In this way, the effect of outlier will be eliminated. Three cases of study for
a descriptive statistical normality test has been performed on the results of the first SEED
applied on the second model results, using AndersonDarling normality test to verify that the
median lies within a proper confident interval. The confident interval indicates how certain
does the calculated parameter represent the specific percentage of the population. i.e. 95%
confident interval for the median means that the upper and lower limits of this interval
represents not less than 95% of the results. The results are summarized in Table 5. The median
value of all time steps is calculated for each seed to represent the overall DAF of a single
particular seed (a seed is a particular group of Linear Airy wave components that represents
E05SR26 12
Table 5: Median values of DAFs and confidence intervals for first SEED at different
angles for second model
Study Case
No. of
points
Mean
Standard
Deviation
Median
95%
Lower
95%
Upper
PP190BSSTUB 747 2.425 4.955 1.327 1.261 1.3956
PP1137BSSTUB 800 2.228 7.033 1.157 1.108 1.201
PP1180BSSTUB 900 1.907 3.618 1.114 1.0737 1.1504
the random sea surface profile). The ''Max 25x5'' value for the DAF is calculated by selecting
the highest 25 values of DAFs for base shear and overturning moment from each seed and
determining the median for those highest values, that will represent ''Max 25x5''. It can be noted
that this method produce more conservative results for DAF values. The calculated DAF values
for both base shear and overturning moment for each seed, direction, and model, with the
corresponding ''Max 25x5'' DAF values are given in Tables 68.
Table 6 : DAF values for model 1
0
o
45
o
90
o
Seed DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
1 1.184 1.219 1.084 1.085 1.092 1.089
2 1.178 1.164 1.065 1.060 1.109 1.082
3 1.151 1.150 1.079 1.084 1.122 1.113
4 1.208 1.206 1.082 1.081 1.083 1.077
5 1.185 1.152 1.058 1.050 1.105 1.093
Max 25x5 1.218 1.238 1.11 1.122 1.129 1.142
Table 7 : DAF values for model 2
180
o
137
o
90
o
Seed DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
1 1.119 1.114 1.133 1.157 1.225 1.327
2 1.139 1.137 1.141 1.162 1.219 1.285
3 1.139 1.155 1.111 1.121 1.252 1.331
4 1.095 1.116 1.13 1.142 1.264 1.347
5 1.136 1.13 1.132 1.137 1.313 1.406
Max 25x5 1.147 1.16 1.15 1.171 1.456 1.565
Table 8 : DAF values for Model 3
180
o
230
o
Seed DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
DAF for
moment
DAF for
base shear
1 1.484 1.370 1.614 1.483
2 1.415 1.352 1.711 1.591
3 1.396 1.320 1.619 1.524
4 1.437 1.324 1.742 1.608
5 1.422 1.300 1.626 1.496
Max 25x5 1.550 1.499 1.618 1.572
E05SR26 13
The results of the main analysis shows that the general tendency of the values of the DAFs
is to be inversely proportional to the ratio between the wave periods (T
z
) to the platform
fundamental period (T
p
) as presented in Table 9, that shows the values of DAFs for base
shear of the three models with different wave periods.
Table 9: Effect of wave periods on the DAF values
Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
T
z
/ T
p
DAF T
z
/ T
p
DAF T
z
/ T
p
DAF
4.2 1.238 6.33 1.16 3.40 1.499
4.4 1.122 5.62 1.171 3.03 1.572
4.63 1.142 5.27 1.565
5.1 Comparison of DAF Values
The obtained DAF values from the previous analysis were compared with those obtained from
the approximate equation that is usually used in practice when the jacket first natural period is
less than 2.5 sec. The approximate equation is based on the fact that waves has a dominate
period (T) and the jackets vibrate mainly in the first mode with a period (T
P
), with a damping
ratio () that is usually taken 0.02. The approximate equation is given by;

.

\

=


.

\


.

\

=
+
=
T
Tp
B
T
Tp
A
B A
DAF
2
, 1 ,
1
2
2 2
(7)
Table 10, presents the variation in the DAF values calculated by the approximate equation as
compared to the DAF values obtained from the analysis for the Overturning Moment (OTM)
and Base Shear (BS). These values are based on the results of a single seed. It can be noted that
the values obtained from the analysis are higher than those obtained by the equation, even for
the second model whose fundamental period (1.42 sec) is less than 2.5 sec, a case for which
the approximate equation is applicable. It is clear that there is a difference in case of simple
hydrodynamic configuration (jackets without conductors or boatlanding) such as models 1 and
2, that can reach up to about 15%, while there is a significant difference for jackets having
hydrodynamic force collectors such as boatlandings and conductors which is the case of model
3, and can reach up to about 35%.
Table 10: Comparison of DAF values calculated by various methods.
DAF
(from analysis)
Model H T Tp
DAF
(Approximate
Equation)
DAF
OTM
%
difference
DAF
BS
%
difference
1 13.2 10.5 2.508 1.061 1.184 11.6 1.219 14.8
2 8 9 1.422 1.026 1.119 9.11 1.114 8.57
3 8 9 2.637 1.094 1.484 35.6 1.378 25.2
E05SR26 14
5.2 Effect of Marine Growth
The marine growth phenomenon was not considered in the main analysis as it was preferred to
be studied as a separate case in order to demonstrate its effect on the jacket stresses and the
DAF values. Tables 11 and 12 summarize the stresses Unity Check (U.C.) ratios of the jacket
members with and without marine growth. Table 11 presents the (U.C.) calculated considering
the marine growth against the (U.C.) without marine growth. As can be noted from Table 11,
the marine growth can cause an increase in the stress Unity Check (U.C.) ratio for splash zone
members that can reach up to 6% in model 1. However, due to the existence of conductors that
attract more hydrodynamic forces in model 3, the unity check stress increased to 13% for
members at plash zone in model 3, Table 12. The increase in marine growth has insignificant
effect on DAF values for overturning moments and base shear, as can be noted from Table 13.
Table 11 : Stress U.C. comparison with marine growth for model 1
Face Location
U.C.
without marine
growth
U.C. with
marine
growth
% increase
due to marine
growth
Lower leg part 0.24 0.28 4%
1
Splash zone members 0.08 0.14 6%
Lower leg part 0.06 0.07 1%
2
Splash zone members 0.09 0.1 1%
Lower leg part 0.1 0.1 0%
3
Splash zone members 0.11 0.14 3%
Lower leg part 0.24 0.28 4%
4
Splash zone members 0.1 0.12 2%
Table 12: Stress U.C .with and without marine growth for Model 3
Face Location
U.C.
without
marine growth
U.C. with
marine
growth
% increase due to
marine growth
Lower leg part 0.14 0.2 6%
Lower x brace 0.11 0.17 6% 1
Splash zone members 0.22 0.31 9%
Lower leg part 0.1 0.13 3%
Lower x brace 0.13 0.2 7% 2
Splash zone members 0.18 0.26 8%
Lower leg part 0.08 0.11 3%
Lower x brace 0.18 0.23 5% 3
Splash zone members 0.12 0.25 13%
Lower leg part 0.14 0.2 6%
Lower x brace 0.21 0.28 7% 4
Splash zone members 0.37 0.43 6%
E05SR26 15
Table 13: Effect of marine growth on the DAF values
With marine growth Without marine growth
Model DAF for Overturning
moment
DAF for
Base shear
DAF for Overturning
moment
DAF for
Base shear
1 1.153 1.153 1.150 1.150
2 1.091 1.073 1.090 1.070
3 1.410 1.320 1.401 1.310
6. CONCLUSIONS
The effect of the dynamic nature of wave loads on fixed offshore structures was investigated on
three different real models. The wave records were generated to have a matched spectrum to
PiersonMoskowitz Spectrum with different significant wave heights and a mean zero crossing
period that are applied at different angles. Both static inplace analysis and dynamic analysis
was carried out to determine the Dynamic Amplification Factor (DAF) for both overturning
moment and base shear. The effect of marine growth was investigated on both the stress unity
of members and the DAF values. From the results of the presented study in this paper, the
following conclusions can be drawn:
1 The general tendency of the value of the DAF is to be inversely
proportional to the ratio between the wave period to the platform
fundamental period. the dynamic effect of waves with shorter periods
is significantly greater than waves with longer period, considering that
the probability of occurrence of such short period waves is higher than
longer period waves. Therefore, the study of the dynamic behavior of
the structure under such waves is of significant importance regarding
the degree of dynamic amplification expected rather than static stresses
which will be much less than the stresses generated from longer period
waves.
2 Comparing the DAF values obtained from the approximate equation
and those obtained from the dynamic analysis, it was noted that the
approximate equation underestimates the DAF values by about 15%
and 10% for first model and second model, respectively, while there is
a significant underestimation that can reach 35% for jackets having
quite complex hydrodynamic configuration such as the third model.
3 Calculation of the Dynamic Amplification Factors using multi Seeds
by selecting the maximum forces from each seed gives more
conservative values than the ones calculated from a single Seed.
4 The Use of the median values of the resulted DAFs from a single seed
gives a better representation for the DAF, since it was proven that the
median value lies within a 95% confidence interval, rather than the
arithmetic mean, that can represent a misleading value due to the
existence of outliers.
E05SR26 16
5 The existence of marine growth that can be accumulated with time has
a significant effect on increasing stress check unity, especially for
members at splash zone. In case of jackets that has complex
hydrodynamic configurations, however, it was found that the marine
growth has insignificant effect on the DAF values.
REFERENCES
[1] API (American Petroleum Institute) recommended practice 2AWSD (RP 2AWSD) 21
st
edition (2000) for design of offshore structures, USA.
[2] API (American Petroleum Institute) recommended practice RP 2ALRFD Load
Resistance Factor Design  First edition, July 1993 for design of offshore structures, USA.
[3] Barltrop, N. D. and Adams, A. J. (1991), Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures, 3
rd
edition, Marine Technology Directorate Limited, Epsom, U.K.
[4] CIRIA (1977) Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures, methods of calculating the dynamic
response of fixed structures subjected to wave and current action, Underwater Engineering
Group report, UR8, U.K.
[5] Fayed, M. N., (1999), Static and Dynamic Response of Offshore Structures to
Environmental Loading, State of the Art Report Faculty of Engineering, Ain Shams
University  Cairo.
[6] Pierson, W. J., and Moskowitz, L. (1964), A Proposed Spectral form For Fully Developed
Wind Seas Based on the Similarity Theory of S.A. Kitaigorodskii J. of Geophysical
Research, December, Vol. 69.
[7] Reddy, D. V., and Arockiasamy, M. (1991), Offshore Structures, Krieger Publishing
Company, Malabar, Florida, USA.
[8] SACSIV
TM
(Structural Analysis Computer System). A computer software for design and
analysis of offshore structures by Engineering Dynamics Incorporated (EDI), Ver. 5.1,
2004. For more details, consult http://www.sacsedi.com/.
[9] Sarpkaya, T. and Issacson, M. (1981), Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures
Chapter 4, Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., The Netherlands, 1981.
[10] Yamaguchi, M., and Tsuchiya, Y. (1974), Relation between Wave Characteristics of
Cnoidal Wave Theory, Derived by Latione and Chappelear, Bull. Disaster Prev. Res. Inst.,
Kyoto Univ., Vol. 24, PP. 217231, Japan.
Molto più che documenti.
Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.
Annulla in qualsiasi momento.