0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

7 visualizzazioni14 pagineImpact of Coupled Analysis on Global Performance of Deep Water Tlp's

Apr 21, 2014

© © All Rights Reserved

PDF, TXT o leggi online da Scribd

Impact of Coupled Analysis on Global Performance of Deep Water Tlp's

© All Rights Reserved

0 valutazioniIl 0% ha trovato utile questo documento (0 voti)

7 visualizzazioni14 pagineImpact of Coupled Analysis on Global Performance of Deep Water Tlp's

© All Rights Reserved

Sei sulla pagina 1di 14

Sid Sircar, PMB Engineering Inc.; J, W. Kleinhans, BP Exploration Inc. and Jitendra Prasad, PMB Engineering Inc.

Copyright 1993, Offshore Technology Conference This paper wee presented at the 25th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas, U. S.A., 3-6 May 1993. This peper was selected for presentation by the OTC Progrem Committee following review of information contained in an ebstract submitted by the author(s). Contents of the paper, as presented, hsve not been reviewed by the Offshore Technology Conference and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material, es presented, does not neceeserily reflect eny position of the Offshore Technofegy Conference or ite officers. Permissionto copy is restricted to an abstrsct of not more than 300 words. I)lustratlonsmay not be copied. The sbstract should oentaln censplcuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented,

ABSTRACT This paper presents the results and conclusions of a study whose objective was to determine whether a linear spring analysis approach can adequately predict the global performance behavior of a relatively large TLP in 3,000 ft of water for a typical Gulf of Mexico (GOM) site. Coupled and linear spring analyses of the TLP were performed using random time simulation techniques in extreme, reducectextreme and normal environments, with the TLP in the intact, one-compartment damaged and one-tendon removed conditions. The results presented in this paper show that coupled analysis does not have significant impact on the prediction of the total design responses of the TLP. It however significantly impacts the prediction of the dynamic part of design responses. k is further demonstrated that for such TLPs, high-frequency resonant response of the tendons could significantly impact the strength and fatigue design of these tendons.

lNTRODUCTIO~ Conventional approach to global analysis of Tension Leg Platforms (TLP) includes modeling the tendons as simplified linear springs, i.e., as straight rods having only axial stiffness. It is also assumed that these tendons do not attract any hydrodynamic loads and have no inertia. This approach to TLP design is based on the offshore industrys past experience with design, operation and performance of TLPs in water depths less than 2,000 ft (see reference 1). More complex analytical studies and model test experience on these past projects have confirmed the validity of using the linear spring approach. One such complex analytical technique is where the global analysis is performed using a coupled analysis technique in which each tendon is inodeled as a series of beam elements having axial and bending stiffness and which are exposed to hydrodynamic loads and also have inertia. In water depths 3,000 ft and more, limited experience exists in analyzing and model testing TLPs, Hence, it is not certain if the simplified linear spring approach would produce acceptable global analysis results of such a TLP. API RP 2T (see reference 2) and other codes discuss this issue but do not provide any clear guidance as to when coupled analysis is more applicable. Past publications on this topic (e.g. see Reference 3) have compared analytical methods which were different 103 in other ways besides the tendon

References

OTC 7145

mathematical model, This has resulted in not knowing with certainty whether the differences between the responses predicted by these two methods are significant enough to impact the design of one or more components of a TLP. A study was initiated to determine whether global analysis results of a 3,000 ft water depth TLP, using a coupled analysis technique would confirm linear spring analysis results. The focus of this study was to investigate the differences in global analysis results solely because of the differences between the two types of tendon mathematical models, as described above. To meet this objective, all other differences, such as timelfrequency-domain, wave theory, hydrodynamic theory, etc, were kept the same for both analytical techniques. The results of this study are presented in this paper, DESIGN BASIS Studv Data The overall TLP configuration used in this study is shown in Figure 1. The principal dimensions and major weight categories are summarized in Table 1. These particulars were developed in conjunction with non-site specific engineering studies as previously reported in Reference 4. To reduce the computational effort of this study, all analysis were performed for the TLP with no production or drilling risers installed. The total riser load shown in Table 1 was replaced with the same amount of ballast. Env ironmental Criteria The environmental criteria used in this study, defining the design wave statistics, wind speeds, current profiles and tides are shown in Table 2. To ensure that the theoretically generated random wave elevation included the maximum wave, stochastic maximum wave heights were defined for the 100-year, 10-year and 1-year return period storms. ~~f Design load cases for this study were identified

based on a combination of past TLP design experience and the design practice recommended in API RP 2T. These design load cases are shown in Table 3. For each load case, the TLP condition and the corresponding environmental criteria were selected to produce conservative estimates of maximum and minimum tendon tensions, maximum vessel offset, minimum airgap and maximum tendon stress interaction ratio. OBAL ANAL YSIS METHODOLOGY Qmw ter Proaram Des criDtioq

All analytical work in this study were performed using a Joint Industry developed computer program. It is a general purpose, non-linear, time-domain, program dynamic analysis developed specifically for the design and analysis of TLPs, semi-submersibles, Compliant Towers, fixed structures, etc. (see Reference 5).

comDu ter

Model

The TLP configuration has port/starboard symmetry in head, beam and quartering seas. All analysis were performed in quartering seas since this heading is expected to produce the most conservative results. To take advantage of the symmetry, only half the TLP about the quartering axis was modeled, In this model the X-axis is located at the center of the TLP and runs parallel to the quartering environmental heading. Surge is defined as motions along the X-axis and pitch as rotations about a horizontal axis perpendicular to the X-axis (see Figure 2). To take further advantage of the symmetry, all out-of-plane Degrees Of Freedom (DOF) were constrained, i.e. only surge, heave and pitch DOF were released. In the upstream and downstream columns, only half the column and half the number of tendons were modeled, For the midstream column, the complete column and all tendons were modeled, This symmetric model significantly reduced computer run times without having to compromise on any of the analyses results. The hull structure was modeled with a series of

104

OTC 7145

tubular beam elements as shown in Figure 2. The columns which are cut in half, were modelled to represent one half the volume of the full column. Each pontoon was modeled with tubular beam elements having different cross section areas to represent the pontoon flare at the pontoon-to-column connection. The mass of the hull was modeled as lumped masses distributed to produce the correct total mass and radii of gyration. Weights were also similarly modeled as lumped weights. The tendons at each column were represented by a single equivalent tendon consisting of:

G

generated using Morisons equation, The drag and inertia coefficients used are shown below:

Element Coupled Cd CM Linear Spring Cd CM

0.7 1.75

1.8 1.4

2.0 2.2

1.g 2.0

0.7 1.75

1.8

2.0 2.2

1.9

0.0

0.0

The main objective of this study was to determine whether the coupled analysis approach results in significantly different global response behavior of the study TLP as compared to the linear spring ana[YSiS predictions. This necessitate using the same hydrodynamic forces for the two different global analyses, In other words the objectives of the study could be met irrespective of which hydrodynamic theory was used. It is for this reason that the computationally more efficient Morisons equation (see Reference 6) was selected for hydrodynamic load generation instead of the more time consuming first-order, three dimensional, diffraction theory (see Reference 7). Since the pontoons of this TLP configuration have varying cross section area and shape along their lengths between the columns, they were modeled with two different member properties representing more closely the actual configuration. Wind. C urrent And Wave Induce d Forces In this study the wind, current and the various components of wave induced forces were obtained from a combination of direct computations by the program or defined by the user in the program. The following table identifies the sources of origin of these forces: Based on past model test experience of TLPs, the potential component of low-frequency offset was estimated to be +/-1 O ft for all combinations of TLP and environmental conditions, This estimate is reasonable if it is added directly to the wave-induced offset as calculated by the program. For the maximum offset, maximum tension and maximum tendon stress ratio design cases, it is conservatively

28 tubular beam elements of equal 100 ft lengths and one beam element 84 fi long for the coupled analysis case. These elements have axial as well as bending stiffness. They attract potential and viscous hydrodynamic forces and have inertia. One tubular weightless rod element 2,884 ft long for the linear spring case. These elements have axial stiffness only. They do not attract potential or viscous hydrodynamic forces and have no inertia.

The axial stiffness of the tendons was modeled to match the physical structure. The horizontal stiffness of the tendons is derived from the geometric stiffness resulting from the axial load in the tendons. For the tendons the program computes buoyancy and mass per unit length. For the TLP model where tendons are modeled as beam elements, the program computes hydrodynamic loads for these elements based on user-defined inertia, added mass and drag coefficients. For the TLP model where tendons are modelled as linear springs, no hydrodynamic coefficients were specified, In this model, onethird of the tendons mass was lumped at the top node of each tendon to represent the tendons mass contribution, Hvd rodv namic Model Hydrodynamic loads on all elements were

105

IMPACT

OF COUPLED ANALYSIS

ON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE

OTC 7145

Fbrce Co~onent

Rogrern

Figure 3 show the time history of wave elevations and its spectral representation for the 100-year storm condition. A time step of 0.5 seconds was adopted for all runs. This time step modeled wave components with periods as low as 3 seconds adequately, and provided reasonably good resolution for the wave spectral peak period of about 16 seconds. Several computer test runs were made with 0,2 second time step to confirm these assumptions. LINEAR SPRINGW ANALYSIS Maxim RESULTS

Mean IMnd Force Maan Currant Fbrca Mean Wave Drift Force -R2tantial Component -Viscous Cotnponant Wava-fraquancy Force -Fbtentkl Co~onent -V13cousComponent x

x

x

urn Offse t

Desian Case

as med that this low-frequency offset adds to the total offset, However, for the minimum tension design case it is assumed that the lowfrequency offset subtracts from the total offset. The assumption of 10 ft low-frequency offset for all environmental conditions is consistent with the fact that wave drift force is directly proportional to the square of the wave height and inversely proportional to the square of the wave period, Wave Kine* All analysis performed in this study were based on random wave simulation in time-domain. Wheeler Stretching (see Reference 8) was used to define the water particle kinematics. Since Morisons equation was used for computing wave loads, all loads were computed in a consistent manner up to the instantaneous wave elevation. Conversely, even if second-order diffraction theory (see Reference 9) was used, all first-order and most second-order potential forces, would be computed only up to the still water line.

Global analysis results for the maximum offset design case (defined in Table 3) is summarized in Table 4. The variation of surge offset with time is shown in Figure 4. The maximum dynamic offset of 41 ft includes both wavefrequency and low-frequency components and includes both potential and viscous contributions, Minimum airgap corresponding to this maximum offset position is 7,5 ft, measured to the underside of the Module Support Frame (MSF). In this calculation it is assumed that the maximum wave crest height is 41 ft (57% of the maximum design wave height). The maximum angle made by the upstream and the downstream tendons (at the top and bottom of the tendons) to the vertical is 6.84 degrees, The linear spring TLP model assumes that the tendons remain straight at all times, This results in the tendon angle being the same at the top and the bottom of the tendons, Maximum Tendon Tension Desian Case Global analysis results for the maximum tendon tension design case (defined in Table 3) are summarized in Table 5, The tension results are for the upstream tendons and are per TLP column. The maximum tide condition is used (as compared to the minimum tide condition) since it produces maximum tendon tension due to the increase in water elevation resulting in increased hull buoyancy, Figure 5 shows a magnified view of the upstream tendon tension

106

OTC 7145

time history for this 100-year storm case. Evidence of springing contribution due to second-order viscous forces can be seen in this figure. The total dynamic tension of 3,194 S. Tons shown above includes wave-frequency, low-frequency and high-frequency components of tension response. Wave-frequency and lowfrequency computations include both the potential and viscous force contributions. High-frequency tension response includes only ViSCOUS fOrCe contribution since the computation of second-order potential forces was outside the scope of this study. Minimum airgap calculation results show that the minimum Airgap corresponding to this offset position is 2,2 ft. For this particular TLP with a specified maximum tide of 6 ft, minimum airgap is obtained for the maximum tendon tension design case instead of the maximum offset design case. Minimum Tendon Tension De sifm Cas~ Global analysis results for the minimum tendon tension design case (defined in Table 3) are summarized in Table 6. The tension results are for the downstream tendons and are per TLP column. The minimum tide condition is used (aS compared to the maximum tide condition) since it produces minimum tension due to the decrease in water elevation resulting in reduced hull buoyancy. Figure 6 shows a magnified view of the downstream tendon tension time history for this 10-year storm case with one downstream compartment flooded. Evidence of significant springing contribution due to second-order viscous forces can be seen in this figure. The total dynamic tension of 1,027 S, Tons shown above includes wave-frequency, low-frequency and high-frequency components of tension response. The minimum tension of 297 S.Tons (per column) is at the bottom of the tendons. ~as~ im M Tn r

to 1-year storm condition. Figure 7 shows a magnified view of the upstream tendon tension (per column) time history for this design case. The results in Table 7 are for one tendon and the results in the Figure 7 are per column. Maximum tide condition (as compared to minimum tide condition) is used since it produces maximum tension stress ratio due to the increase in water elevation resulting in increased hull buoyancy. It can be seen from this figure that springing contribution to dynamic tension, due to second-order viscous forces, is almost as significant as wavefrequency contribution. # ~uLT~ For the coupled analysis, the linear spring computer model was modified by replacing each single tubular rod element tendon with a string of 28 beam elements having axial and bending stiffness, All other aspects of the analysis was kept the same. Global analysis results for the maximum offset, maximum tension and minimum airgap, minimum tension and maximum tension stress ratio design cases are summarized in Tables 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. Time history of offset and tendon tensions for these four design cases are shown in Figures 4, 5, 6 and 7 respectively. All discussions regarding the results presented in the previous section are equally applicable for these coupled analysis results and hence will not be repeated.

cOMPARISON

QZ!QGl!

OF RESULTS

Global analysis results for the maximum tendon stress ratio design case (defined in Table 3) is summarized in Table 7. This design case has one upstream tendon removed and is exposed

A comparison of global analysis results using the linear spring and coupled analysis approach is presented in this section. The parameters compared are maximum design offset, minimum airgap, maximum angle made by the tendon to the vertical, maximum design tension, minimum design tension and maximum tendon stress interaction ratio, All results presented under the column Difference in Tables 4 through 7, are in comparison to the linear spring results,

107

IMPACT

OF COUPLED ANALYSIS

ON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE

OTC 7145

xi MJ!dt Table 4 shows a comparison of maximum offset results. It may be noted that even though a large difference exists in the prediction of the dynamic offset, the coupled analysis approach prediction of maximum design offset is only 5,5% greater than the linear spring approach. Minimum airgap results for this design case show that the coupled analysis approach predicts 2,4 ft less airgap than the linear spring approach. This is primarily due to the difference in setdown caused by the difference in maximum design offset. This difference though small, could impact the feasibility of a selected configuration. Table 4 also shows that the difference in the results of tendon top angle is negligible (1.8%). However the difference in the prediction of the tendon bottom angle is quite significant (35.8%). This could impact the design of the foundation templates. These results indicate that when computing maximum offset, minimum airgap and tendon angle it may not be conservative to use the linear spring approach.

tension. This results in a difference in the prediction of minimum design tension of 73 S. tons indicating that it is conservative to use the linear spring approach. Ma ximum Tendon Stress RatiQ Similar to the maximum tendon tension design case, maximum tendon stress ratio results presented in Table 7 show that the coupled analysis approach predicts 22.8% more mean tension and 33,8% less dynamic tension. However the difference in the prediction of maximum tendon stress ratio is only 4.9%. For this design case results indicate that it is unconservative approach. to

use the

linear sp&9;

N4 PACT ON DESIGN To determine whether the results presented above impacts the design of any of the components of the study TLP, a comparison of the overall design values was made and are summarized in Table 8. The following are observed from this table: 1. Linear spring approach under-predicts maximum design offset by about 5.5%, As a result, minimum airgap is also under-predicted by about 2.1 ft. If linear spring analysis is used, this discrepancy can be rectified by including a 5% to 6% margin in the maximum design offset calculations, 2. Linear spring approach under-predicts maximum tendon top angle by 1.8% (O. 12 deg). It under-predicts maximum tendon bottom angle by 35,8% (2.45 deg). This, however, is not considered to be a problem since as part of conventional tendon design procedure, it is common practice to perform a beam element analysis of a standalone tendon. Such an analysis produces the correct tendon top and bottom angles. It should be noted that these more realistic tendon angles should be used to develop the inplace foundation template design loads and

M .-Q

im

A comparison of maximum tendon tension results presented in Table 5 show that the coupled analysis approach predicts 20.2% more mean tension and 51.4% less dynamic tension. However, the difference in the prediction of maximum design tension is only 4.1 %. This indicates that the linear spring approach produces conservative maximum tension. Similar to the maximum offset design case, Table 5 shows that the coupled analysis approach predicts 2.1 ft less airgap than the linear spring approach. ~inimum . Tendon Tens[~ tendon tension shows that the predicts 11 .6% % less dynamic

A comparison of minimum results presented in Table 6 coupled analysis approach less mean tension and 22.1

108

OTC 7145

tendon design. 3,

top

and

bottom

connector

Linear spring approach over-predicts maximum tendon tension by 4.1% of maximum design tension. Minimum tendon tension is also over-predicted by 1.8% of tendon pretension. These results indicate that the Linear spring approach results in a conservative selection of tendon pretension. Linear spring approach under-predicts maximum tendon stress interaction ratio by 4.9%. This is not considered to be a problem since as part of conventional tendon design procedure, it is common practice to perform a beam element analysis of a standalone tendon, Such an analysis will produce the correct tendon stress ratio.

springing impacts tendon strength design, Although fatigue analysis was not performed as part of this study, from the above observation, it can be concluded that springing is expected to significantly shorten the fatigue life of the tendons.

Global analysis results performed as part of this study showed the following:

G

4.

Linear spring approach to global analysis for the study TLP in 3,000 ft of water, produces reasonable results. Using this analysis approach, the maximum and minimum design tendon appear to be tension estimates conservative. Using the Linear spring approach, estimates of maximum offset and minimum airgap is determined not to be conservative. However, this can be resolved by allowing for an offset margin of about 5%. If a coupled analysis approach is used, this margin would not be required, Linear spring analysis under-predicts maximum tendon angle at the top and at the bottom. This analysis approach under-predicts maximum tendon stress interaction ratio. This is not considered to be a problem since as part of conventional tendon design procedure, it is common practice to perform a beam element analysis of a stand-alone tendon. Such an analysis will produce the correct tendon angles and stress ratios. Resonant response i.e. springing of the tendons, impacts both tendon strength and fatigue life. Springing contribution to total dynamic tension is found to be significant for a 1-year storm and less significant for a 100-year storm

lMP A CT O F TENDON

SPRINGING

Dynamic tendon tension variation at high frequency is a resonant response of the TLP in heave, pitch and roll DOF. These responses are produced as a result of second-order potential and viscous exciting forces. As mentioned earlier, only the viscous part of these forces were included in the mathematical formulations in this study. Past experience with advanced analytical techniques have shown that higher the content of shorter waves in a seastate, greater is the possibility of springing contribution to total dynamic tension, In other words a 1-year storm is expected to show a higher contribution from springing as compared to a 100-year storm. Results presented in Figures 5, 6 and 7 confirm this observation, These results show that tension contribution from springing is significant for the 1-year storm, moderate for the 10-year storm and minimal for the 100-year storm. For this particular study TLP, the 1-year storm combined with one-tendon removed load case, produced the highest tendon stress ratio, From this it can be concluded that for this TLP

109

IMPACT

OF COUPLED ANALYSIS

ON GLOBAL PERFORMANCE

environment. ACKNOWLEDGMENT This work was commissioned by BP Exploration Inc. The authors would like to thank BP Exploration for their support of this work and for permission to publish these results. BEFERENCE~ 1. Sircar S., Rager B.L., Praught M. W., and Adams C. J,, A Consistent Method for Motions, Strength and Fatigue Analysis of TLPs, Proceedings of 7th OMAE Conference, 1988. API RP 2T, Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Tension Leg Platforms, Davies K, B. and Mungall J. C. H,, Methods for Coupled Analysis of TLPs, OTC 6567, 1991. Rajabi F, D,, Kleinhans J. W., A new approach for TLP Installation in the Gulf of Mexico, OTC 6900, 1992. SEASTAR Users Engineering, 1986. Manual, PMB

- A state of the Art Review, Edited bv Zeki Demirbilek, 1988, ASCE Wave and Wave Forces Committee.

2,

3.

4.

DESCRIPTION VESSEL CONFIGURATION Deoksize(ftxft) No. of Columns &) Column Spaoing @) Column Diameter (ft) Column Height (ft) Pontoon Crose Seotion Shape Pontoon Width (ft) Pontoon Height (ft) Ckaft @) Total No. of Tendon$ Tendon Length @) Tendon O,D. (in) Tendon W,T. (in) Total Tendon Weight in Air (S.T.) Tendon Buoyancy (S.T,)

VALUE

225 X2SS

5.

4

210 x 210 88 185.5 Reotanglo 32 28.6 116 16 2,878 28

6.

Morrison J. R., OBrien, M. P., Johnson, J,W. and Shaaf, S, A,, The Forces Exerted by Surface Waves on Piles, Petroleum Transactions, ASME Vol. 189, 1950, pp. 149-154. Garrison, C.J., Hydrodynamics of large Displacement Fixed and Floating Structures in Waves, Report No, 80102, December 1980, C.J. Garrison & Assoc.

7.

1,4375

9,880

5,728

WEIGHT~ l-lullSteelWeight (S.T.) Deok Steel Weight (S.T.) Hull Syetems Weight (S.T.) 13affaat (S,T.) Total Operating Payload (S.T.) Total F&or bad (S.T.) Total Tendon Tension (S.T.)

DISPiACEMENT (S,T.) 18,220 7,377 3,878

8,

Wheeler J, D,, Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves, Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1970. Williams, A. N., Nonlinear Diffraction Effects on TLPs, Tension Leg Platform

4,717

9,8s8 7,852 16,208 67,708

9.

110

TABLE 2: ENVIRONMENTAL

CRITERIA

DESCRIPTION

Ff + &o \ +

NORWL OPERATION

Max. Wave Height ASS. WaV8 Period Spectrum Hs Tz Duration Tide High w, r. t. MLW Low w. r. t. MLW

Wind

Fr SEC

48.9 12.0

30.0 9.1

;.:

z: 4.4

M 160 g

M 16.0 ::

1.0

+ 3.5 -1.0

+ 3,5 -1.0

Fr

-2.0

/ I

-1.0

(1/6 power Law, measured @ +33 (F7J Abwe 1- min. Avg, 1 - hour Avg. 5- sec. Gust Current Linearly hterpola!ed Surface Elev. Elev. Elev. Elev. Bonom

I IT/

1

115.0 98.0 129.0

!

~ I I 78.0 67.o 68.0

I i

53.0 45.0 59.0

I

53.0 45.0 59.0 2.7 2.2 1.7 0.7 0.3 0.1

I

fl

1.0

0.2

TABU

3:

Minimum Tonaion Caao One Compart. Damage None 1O-yaar 1-hour meen Min Tide Quart. -1o

Max Tonrfon Stroaa Ratio One Tandon Ramowsd None 1-year 1-minuta maan Max Tida Quart. +10 Caae

No. of Riaara Storm Return Period Wind Spaad Tida Lavel Environment Heading Low-frequancy Potential Wave Drift Offset

+10

111

MAX3MW

302 n

COUPLED RESULTS

302 tt

DIFFERENCE

%wllic

9COUPLEORESULTS

DIFFERENCE 1

41 ft

343 it 7.6 ft 6.s4 dq.

Wft

362 fi 5.1 ft 6.96 9.29 &g. &g.

+ 48.3 % Total

+ 6.6 % M@x. Tumion -2.4 ft Min. Akgap te MsF 2.2 n 0.1 ft 9,414 ST 3,1 S4 ST

% % %

Max. Duign

Off-t

Min. Airgap to MSF Max. Tandon TOP AWb Max. Tin-don Sottom hgh

-2.1 ft

+ 1.s% + 36,S %

6.S4 ckfj.

TASLS C: MWIMm

TENsIoN

DEsIGN CASE

TASL67:

MAXIMW

TENDON

ITEM

DESCRIPTION

COUPLW

DIFFERENCE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

LINEAR

SPRING

RESULTS + 1,170ST

- Soo ST .

a7n @l-

DIFFERENCE

RESULTS

Mean T~on

-11.s%

-22.1

,---

1,327

ST

+ 22.s - 33.s

% %

Tuwion

-1,027

ST

+ 297 ST

T,mion

6s2 ST

3s5 ST

Tumica

1,90!3 ST 0.82

2,016 ST 0.86 ST

6.6 % + 4.s %

T~LE

S: IMPACT

OF DLOBAL PERFORMANCE

ITEM DESCRIPTION

6.S4 chg. 6.S4 (k)&

6.9S d~. 8.29 (kg.

DIFFERENcE

Max.

IMsign Offset

Top Anglc

+ 6,6 %

+ 1.8% + 36.s %

Sottcm

AKIIe

Min. Dadgn Teruhn Max. Daign b StraOS R.tiO

2.2 ft

S,414 ST

0.1 ft

S,029 ST

-2.1 ft

-4.1 %

+ 297 ST 0.s2

+ 370 ST 0,S6

+ 1.s% + 4,9 ?4

112

,,,,,, ,,

),,,,

0

.

.,

, .. < . , / , E

/

, x . .

.-

It

I

2 v

80 16C 2$0 320

a. 00

Time

(see)

400

480

560

640

720

800

88o

HISTORY

LinearSpring z62o

64o 660 66o 7@o m,.-. .,. . i 720 140 760

s .

660 680 700 720 Time 740 (Se=) 760

CoupledAnalysis

780 Eho

FIGURE 5: UPSTREAM

STORM

114

Unear Spring

680 700 720 Time 740 (see) 76o 780 8bo

660

! : 860

Unear Spring

880 900 92!? 940

Time

(see)

96o

98o

1001

Iysis

:

76o 78o 800 820 840

CoupledAnaiysis

Time (see)

860 880 900

FIGURE &

DOWNSTREAM

TENDON TENSION IN 1O-YEAR STORM FIGURE 7: MAXIMUM TENSION STRESS RATlO CASE

115

## Molto più che documenti.

Scopri tutto ciò che Scribd ha da offrire, inclusi libri e audiolibri dei maggiori editori.

Annulla in qualsiasi momento.