PUSHOVER AND SHAKEDOWN ANALYSES OF FIXED

OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

A THESIS

submitted by

RALLAPALLI SRIVASTAV

for the award of the degree

of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS.
MAY 2015
 THESIS CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the thesis titled PUSHOVER AND SHAKEDOWN ANALYSES OF
FIXED OFFSHORE STRUCTURES, submitted by Mr. Rallapalli Srivastav, to the
Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai for the award of the degree of Master of
Technology, is a bona fide record of the research work done by him under our supervision.
The contents of this thesis, in full or in parts, have not been submitted to any other Institute or
University for the award of any degree or diploma.

Prof S.K.Bhattacharyya
Project guide
Dept. of Ocean Engineering
IIT-Madras, 600 036

Place: Chennai
Date:
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Prof. S. K. Bhattacharyya for his constant
encouragement, invaluable guidance and support during course of the project. I would like to
thank him deeply for his patience and motivation at every step of my work and his
availability for discussions

I am thankful to members of project review committee Prof. S. Nallayarasu,

Dr. R. Panneer Selvam and Dr. Rajiv Sharma for their critical evaluation and fruitful
suggestions.

I would like thank Dr. Tore Holmas for his timely clarifications on my queries regarding
USFOS software.

I would like to thank Mr. Abhinav for sharing his knowledge in software which helped me a
lot in project work. I would like to thank my friends Ashruf, Pranav, Sravan, Kaushik,
Siddharth and Surendra for their suggestions that improved my quality of work.

I am greatly indebted to my parents and my sister for all their love and affection which
motivated me throughout the project. Lastly I am grateful to the Almighty for his grace and
blessings that he has showered upon me.

i
 ABSTRACT

Offshore platforms possess reserve strength beyond those recognized in traditional design.
This reserve strength may be of interest for several reasons like, checking robustness of
design, to withstand unpredicted design loads or the loads for which the elastic design is
uneconomical (e.g. seismic or accidental loads), extension of life for existing platform.
Reserve strength can be found out by performing ultimate strength level analysis. Static
pushover analysis is most widely accepted tool of ultimate strength level analysis. Reserve
strength is quantified as Reserve Strength Ratio (RSR) in pushover analysis which is defined
as the ratio of the Ultimate platform resistance to 100 year design load.
The present study focuses on pushover analysis of a jacket platform at a water depth of 74 m
in eight wave directions considered for the design of the jacket platform. Nonlinear finite
element analysis tool, USFOS, a module in SESAM software package is used for performing
analysis. The direction sensitivity study is also done to find the weakest direction for the
platform. The jacket members may not experience their highest wave load at maximum base
shear case. So pushover analysis along a wave cycle for a direction is done to find out at
which wave step the RSR of the platform is least and it is found that maximum base shear
case is more appropriate to be considered for finding RSR of the platform.
The present study also compares the effect of selective increase of brace/pile thickness on
RSR of the jacket platform. The effect on RSR with and without considering pile soil
interaction is studied and it is found that the case without considering PSI (just fixing the
jacket at seabed) gave higher RSR and the failure modes were different from that original
(with pile soil interaction).
Pushover analysis considers a single wave in isolation. But in extreme storm, several large
waves may be generated and the main concern of this study whether cumulative damage due
to cyclic loading will reduce system capacity below predictions from the single wave
pushover analysis. In the present study, shakedown load for representative sequence of
extreme waves is found and compared with the result from pushover analysis.

KEY WORDS: Fixed offshore structures, pushover analysis, shakedown analysis, Reserve
Strength Ratio, USFOS, Ultimate Strength.

ii
 Table of contents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT .......................................................................................................... i

ABSTRACT ...............................................................................................................................ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS..........................................................................................................iii

LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................... v

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................... vi

CHAPTER 1 .............................................................................................................................. 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW .......................................................... 1

1.1 Background ...................................................................................................................... 1

1.2 Objective of the study ...................................................................................................... 2

1.3 Scope of the study ............................................................................................................ 2

1.4 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 2

1.5 Literature review .............................................................................................................. 3

CHAPTER 2 .............................................................................................................................. 5

2. PUSHOVER AND SHAKEDOWN ANALYSES ............................................................. 5

2.1 Pushover analysis ............................................................................................................. 5

2.2 Shakedown analysis ......................................................................................................... 7

CHAPTER 3 .............................................................................................................................. 9

3. USFOS- FINITE ELEMENT TOOL ................................................................................. 9

3.1 Theoretical Background .............................................................................................. 9

3.2 Comparison Study ..................................................................................................... 12

CHAPTER 4 ............................................................................................................................ 17

4. JACKET MODEL AND LOAD DESCRIPTION ........................................................... 17

4.1 Jacket details .................................................................................................................. 17

4.2 Dead and live loads ........................................................................................................ 24

4.3 Wave and current load ................................................................................................... 24

4.4 Simplified model for maximum base shear ................................................................... 26

iii
 4.5 Linear buckling analysis ................................................................................................ 27

CHAPTER 5 ............................................................................................................................ 29

5. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF JACKET PLATFORM .................................................... 29

5.1 Static pushover analysis ............................................................................................ 29

5.2 Pile Soil Interaction (PSI) ......................................................................................... 31

5.3 Pushover analysis along a wave cycle....................................................................... 35

5.4 Direction sensitivity study......................................................................................... 40

5.5 Effect on Collapse load factor with increase in thickness of brace or pile ............... 42

CHAPTER 6 ............................................................................................................................ 46

6. SHAKEDOWN ANALYSIS OF JACKET PLATFORM ............................................... 46

6.1 Shakedown analysis ....................................................................................................... 46

CHAPTER 7 ............................................................................................................................ 49

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................... 49

7.1 Summary ................................................................................................................... 49

7.2 Conclusions from static pushover analysis ............................................................... 49

7.3 Conclusions from Pile Soil Interaction (PSI) ............................................................ 50

7.4 Conclusions from pushover analysis along a wave cycle ......................................... 50

7.5 Conclusions from direction sensitivity study ............................................................ 50

7.6 Conclusions from selective increase of brace thicknesses ........................................ 51

7.7 Conclusions from shakedown analysis ..................................................................... 51

7.8 Recommendations for future work ............................................................................ 51

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 52

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1: Cyclic load history................................................................................................... 7
Figure 2.2: Response to cyclic loading (Ultiguide (1999))........................................................ 8
Figure 3.1: Incremental-cum-iterative approach...................................................................... 11
Figure 3.2: Input and output files of USFOS ........................................................................... 12
Figure 3.3: X Brace system...................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3.4: Progressive collapse analysis ................................................................................ 14
Figure 3.5: Portal frame system ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 3.6: Elasto-plastic analysis of portal frame .................................................................. 16
Figure 4.1: Jacket structure and key plan................................................................................. 18
Figure 4.2: Elevation of Row 1 (left) and Row 2 (right) ......................................................... 19
Figure 4.3: Elevation of Row A (left) and Row B (right) ........................................................ 20
Figure 4.4: Row 1 elements ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.5: Row 2 elements ..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.6: Row A elements .................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.7: Row B elements..................................................................................................... 21
Figure 4.8: Elevation level 7.6 m (without conductor framing) .............................................. 22
Figure 4.9: Elevation level -10 m (without conductor framing) .............................................. 22
Figure 4.10: Elevation level -30 m (without conductor framing) ............................................ 23
Figure 4.11: Elevation level -50 m (without conductor framing) ............................................ 23
Figure 4.12: 100 year return period wave and current ............................................................. 25
Figure 4.13: Maximum base shear vs. direction of wave and current ..................................... 26
Figure 4.14 Linear and nonlinear buckling analysis of jacket platform .................................. 28
Figure 5.1: Load factor vs. displacement for various directions (with PSI) ............................ 30
Figure 5.2: Response of jacket structure with and without considering PSI ........................... 33
Figure 5.3: Base shear and first yield load factors along a wave cycle ................................... 36
Figure 5.4: First member failure and collapse load factors ..................................................... 37
Figure 5.5: Element numbers of first member yield and failure load factors .......................... 38
Figure 5.6: Maximum base shear along 8 directions ............................................................... 41
Figure 5.7: Load factors (direction sensitivity study) .............................................................. 41
Figure 5.8 Node 209, jacket without PSI (middle) and with PSI considered (right) ............... 44
Figure 5.9: First yield, first failure for =180°wave direction................................................. 45
Figure 6.1: Load factor vs. displacement for shakedown analysis .......................................... 47

v
 LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1: X brace system ........................................................................................................ 13
Table 3.2 Portal frame system ................................................................................................. 15
Table 4.1: Description of jacket ............................................................................................... 17
Table 4.2: Material details ....................................................................................................... 25
Table 4.3: Linear and nonlinear buckling analysis .................................................................. 27
Table 5.1: Load factors for the platform considering PSI (without considering PSI) ............. 30
Table 5.2 Load factors without current and considering PSI (without considering PSI) ........ 34
Table 5.3: Direction sensitivity analysis .................................................................................. 40
Table 5.4: RSR of modified jacket .......................................................................................... 42
Table 5.5: Effect on load factors due to change in thickness (wave direction =180) .......... 43
Table 6.1: Plastic displacement in axial direction for element 353 ......................................... 48

vi
 ABBREVIATIONS

API American Petroleum Institute

DNV Det Norske Veritas

MN Mega Newton

MSL Mean Sea Level

PSI Pile Soil Interaction

OTC Offshore Technology Conference

RSR Reserve Strength Ratio

RF Redundancy Factor

vii
 NOTATIONS
 Angle between the X-axis and the wave direction
Strain in X direction
Displacement along X direction
Displacement along Y direction
Displacement along z direction
KT Tangent stiffness matrix
u Incremental displacement
F External load vector
Fnr Internal force vector

Drag force vector per unit length acting normal to the axis of the
member in the plane of axis
Inertia force vector per unit length acting normal to the axis of the
member in the plane of the member axis

U Component of the velocity vector (due to wave and/or current) of the

water normal to the axis of the member

̇ Component of the local acceleration vector of the water normal to

the axis of the member

Drag coefficient
Inertia coefficient
Density of sea water
B Maximum base shear (N)
h Wave height (m)
u Current speed (m/s)

viii
 CHAPTER 1

1. INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW

1.1 Background
Fixed offshore structures (Offshore steel jacket) are used for oil and gas exploration in
shallow and moderate water depth. While designing jacket, a linear frame analysis is
performed, members and joints are checked for allowable values provided by the design
codes. In traditional design, elastic region of the member capacity is only used providing
potential for reserve strength. The potential reserves may be of interest for several reasons
like checking robustness of design, to withstand unpredicted design loads (e.g. seismic or
accidental loads) without global collapse (local over stressing of members allowed),
Extension of life for existing platforms. Reserve strength can be assessed by performing
ultimate strength level analysis. The reserve strength comes from frame action, system
redundancy, significant conservatism included in design codes in terms of partial safety
factors (or overall safety factor) of material and load, designing for other type of loadings
(lifting, transportation, launching etc.), overdesigning of members due to non-structural
requirements (corrosion allowance, non-availability of thickness so next higher available
thickness adopted etc.). The frame action and system redundancy are more important than
other factors.
Ultimate strength analysis provides a better understanding of global structural system than
considered in conventional design practices. This analysis takes material and geometric
nonlinearity into consideration. In this type of analysis, the structural, foundation components
and connections will be subjected to stresses beyond elastic limit, ultimate capacity as well as
the post buckling behaviour are taken into account. It simulates more realistic behaviour of
structure during collapse. Static pushover analysis is a widely accepted tool of ultimate
strength level analysis. The Ultimate strength is not easy to calculate and it requires robust
and reliable nonlinear finite element package. USFOS, module of SESAM, a computer
program for nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of space frame structures is used for this
purpose. The reserve strength found from static pushover analysis is quantified as Reserve
Strength Ratio (RSR) which is the ratio of the ultimate platform resistance to the 100 year
design load.

1
1.2 Objective of the study
The objective of the study is to calculate potential resistance reserves of the platform by
performing static pushover and shakedown analyses using finite element method.

1.3 Scope of the study

a. To perform static pushover analysis and obtain RSR of the platform in eight different
directions under incremented wave loading and identify the first yield and first
member failure load factors.
b. To perform static pushover analysis along a wave cycle.
c. To compare the effect on RSR by selective increasing the brace/pile thickness.
d. To perform shakedown analysis for a representative sequence of extreme waves.
e. To discuss the effect of extreme cyclic loading on global integrity and compare the
results with ultimate strength predictions from pushover analysis.

1.4 Methodology
a. Literature review.
b. Modelling the complete jacket structure using SESAM GeniE and performing design
code check.
c. Performing static pushover analysis using USFOS, a module in SESAM for 100 year
design wave loading.
d. Performing static pushover analysis along a wave cycle (wave step angle taken as 10
degrees).
e. Performing static pushover analysis by selectively increasing the thickness of the
brace/pile
f. Performing shakedown analysis for representative sequence of wave loading of
extreme wave

2
1.5 Literature review
Skallerud and Amdahl (2002), in the book “Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures” [3],
explained the importance of nonlinear finite element analysis in assessing the platforms. They
discussed about the procedure to perform pushover analysis, the effects of rigid versus
nonlinear modelling of joints, member imperfections, pile/soil modelling. They reported that
the member imperfections along the global base shear direction or direction following the
loading of the individual members produces the conservative results. The rigid modelling of
brace/chord intersections is appropriate for conventional jackets as far as joint capacity is not
exhausted. The joint failure reduces the capacity up to 10% in the case study discussed where
nonlinear modelling of joint is done. Reassessment of existing structures, dynamic effects on
pushover analysis, collision between ship and platform, and fire analysis are also presented.

Stewart et al. [4] studied the suitability of the reserve strength estimated using static pushover
analysis. Instead of extreme single wave in isolation, they modelled extreme storm event as
series of waves, studied cumulative damage due to repeated action of wave and found that
extreme single wave can be used for estimation of reserve strength if the structure is likely to
shakedown 98% of the value obtained from isolated case.

In the offshore technology report (OTH 92 365) prepared by BOMEL (1993)[7], a base
reference for ultimate response of different structural configurations is made by collecting all
the available data on reserve strength of frames from experimental and analytical sources.
The importance of system behaviour and frame action on reserve strength is discussed. The
difference between elastic single element behaviour and ultimate strength system behaviour
is a major source of reserve strength.

DNV-SINTEF-BOMEL in their Ultiguide (1999) [6] provided guidance on performing

nonlinear analysis of offshore structures mainly focused on jacket platforms. The theory
behind the nonlinear finite element modelling and the effects that should be taken in account
while modelling structural behaviour along with failure criteria is well discussed.

3
Brown and Root Ltd (1997) [8] found the RSRs of two old and new North Sea platforms
which were designed using different codes. The paper conducts pushover analysis using four
sets of extreme conditions. The paper recommends that increasing wave height analysis must
be used in the future to obtain the RSR of a structure if the wave is going to contact the
topsides rather wave load factoring method. The shortcomings of RSR in reliability analysis
are discussed.

API [1] recommended the use of the inelastic static pushover analysis for assessment of
existing jackets.

Nedushan (1995) [11] studied ultimate strength capacity of two offshore platforms located in
Gulf of Mexico in order to validate nonlinear finite element models for estimation of strength
and loads. Pushover analysis was used to estimate the ultimate strength of the platform. It
was concluded the result of analysis are very sensitive to pile soil modelling.

Bea et al. (1997) [10] conducted ultimate strength analysis of four platforms which were
subjected hurricane loading and compared the nonlinear analysis results with the observed
results. The analysis results replicated the observed behaviour of the platforms. These results
were found to be sensitive to pile soil foundation modelling where accurate information on
the in situ conditions of the platform before hurricane was needed.

4
 CHAPTER 2

2. PUSHOVER AND SHAKEDOWN ANALYSES

2.1 Pushover analysis

Static pushover analysis is one of the reliable and most widely accepted tools for predicting
the ultimate strength of the platform. Pushover analysis is mostly used for the life extension
of existing structures and sometimes during initial stages of design. The reserve strength
estimated is quantified as the Reserve Strength Ratio (RSR).Pushover analysis provides an
insight about global nonlinear behaviour of structure and can simulate closely realistic
behaviour of structure during collapse.

Pushover analysis can be done by incrementing the environmental load (wind, wave or
current loads) until collapse of the structure. There is more uncertainty in prediction of
environmental loads and can exceed their design values in the extreme storm case. Although
dead and live loads are not incremented, they can influence the pushover analysis results.
Dead and live loads are also uncertain but the degree of uncertainty is small compared to that
of environmental loads so they are not incremented. In the present case, wind load is not
considered as it causes load much smaller than those caused by wave and current action for
quasi-static structures.

Reserve strength can be found out either by factoring the wave and current load or increasing
the wave height (keeping the current velocity constant) .The increasing wave height analysis
can be done for more accurate results as it considers increase of the wet zone structure area
which is more practical than the other case. This is particularly important in platforms
without adequate air gap between deck and sea surface elevation, where wave in deck forces
can even make structure collapse. This type of analysis requires the interaction between wave
and deck, which is currently outside scope of study. Moreover this type of study is of less
importance when the wave doesn’t hit the deck and factoring the wave load gives reliable
results.

5
Titus and Banon (1988) [6] gave mathematical expression for RSR as

Reserve Strength Ratio (RSR)

Redundancy Factor (RF)

For understanding pushover analysis, failure mechanism of the structure must be understood.
When the load on the jacket is incremented , there will be yield in one of its members (first
yield). If the load is futher incremented, there will be buckling detected (stability failure) or
formation of plastic hinge (due to axial and bending forces) in one of its members.The
member cannot take further load.This is called first member failure.

After the member failure, the load is shed to other members because of the available
redundancy of the structure. In some cases where structures with low redundancy (due to
unavailability of alternate load paths for load shedding) the first member failure might
become the collapse load of the strucutre.Generally, compression failure force the load to be
shed to new load paths.Further loading will make the member failure and shed the load to
tensile members.When the tensile members reach their ultimate capacity, all stable load paths
have failed and cannot take any more loading thus reaching the ultimate capacity of the
structure.

Methodology
1. The dead and live loads are applied on the jacket structure.
2. The 100 year design environmental load (global max base shear) is incremented till
the collapse of the structure.
3. The first member yield and first member failure load factors and their respective
member numbers are noted.
4. The collapse load factor is obtained from the Load factor vs. displacement curve and
it is the maximum load of the Load factor vs. displacement curve
5. The RSR is established which is same as the collapse load fatctor.

6
2.2 Shakedown analysis
The extreme storm event is not an isolated wave but a series of extreme waves. The primary
concern is to find whether an extreme isolated event static analysis is adequate or cumulative
damage will reduce system capacity below predictions of extreme isolated event.

The load history for cyclic loading consists of

a) Dead and live loads
b) Multiple (2 to 3) cycles of 100 year design environmental load from primary and
opposite directions
c) Multiple (3 to 4) cycles of factored 100 year design environmental load (maximum
forward and maximum reverse load in the wave cycle are used)
d) Multiple (2 to 3) cycles of 100 year design environmental design load from primary
and opposite directions.

LOAD HISTORY
3 4 5 6 7

1 2 8 9 10

11 LOAD HISTORY

Figure 2.1: Cyclic load history

The number indicates the cycle number. The bias in the load history in factored E100 results
from the asymmetry of wave profile (fifth order Stokes wave);forward action of the wave
crest, current and reverse action of the wave trough opposed by the forward action of the
current. The load ratio is found about the 0.11 for the present study.

7
After establishing load history, for a structure subjected to cyclic loading into the
Elasto-Plastic range, three possible cases may result.
1. Shakedown occurs when the overload (factored load) is moderate, the structure yields
less and less on each loading cycle. After a number of cycles, the yield increment may
cease completely. For subsequent load repetitions, the structure behaves elastic. The
permanent plastic deformations have induced a residual stress field which counteracts
with effect of the wave load.
2. Incremental collapse occurs when the overload (factored load) is larger; the yield
increment per cycle doesn’t decrease significantly. The accumulated displacement
sooner grows so large that structure becomes unstable and collapse.
3. Low cycle fatigue occurs when the load causes large inelastic straining locally and
fracture may take place due to ductility exhaustion. Though it doesn’t represent global
collapse of the structure, may initiate global instability and prevent the structure
reaching shakedown state.
Cyclic capacity is defined as the maximum load intensity at which structure shakedown to an
elastic state. Few cycles are required to verify shakedown or indicate incremental collapse.
The cyclic degradation can be considered insignificant when the structure shakedowns to
98% of the collapse load obtained from static pushover analysis.

a. Shakedown
b. Incremental collapse

c. Low cycle fatigue

Figure 2.2: Response to cyclic loading (Ultiguide (1999))

8
 CHAPTER 3

3. USFOS- FINITE ELEMENT TOOL

3.1 Theoretical Background

The collapse analysis requires a nonlinear finite element analysis tool. This software should
be robust enough to handle to both material and geometric nonlinearity. USFOS is a
computer program for nonlinear static and dynamic analysis of space frame structures.
USFOS stands for Ultimate Software package for nonlinear static and dynamic analysis For
Offshore Structures.It simulates the collapse process accurately from initial yielding to the
formation of complete collapse mechanism and even the post collapse behaviour.

USFOS unlike other nonlinear software uses only one finite element for physical beam
element of the structure. So it is very easy to direct import the model used for linear analysis
because of the coarser mesh used. The computational time is reduced significantly because of
this coarser mesh and the accuracy of results obtained is good.

The geometric nonlinearity is incorporated using nonlinear Green strain formulation with
Von Karman approximation. This is done to account for large displacements (with moderate
strains). Updated Lagrange formulation is used in USFOS.

( ) ( ) ( )

For moderate strains the higher order terms in axial displacement are neglected (Von Karman
approximation)

( ) ( )

where is the strain in axial direction

is the displacement along X axis
is the displacement along Y axis
is the displacement along Z axis

9
Material nonlinearity is modelled by using plastic hinges. Plastic hinges can be inserted at
element ends and mid span of the element. Only Kinematic hardening is supported in USFOS
current version.

The basic element formulation of USFOS is based on the exact solution of the differential
equation for a beam subjected to end forces. The stiffness formulation of USFOS is derived
from potential energy consideration.

The influence of axial force on bending stiffness is accounted for by the nonlinear terms in
Green strain formulation. The beam column behaviour of slender members is taken care by
using an element stiffness formulation by Livesley stability functions. These stiffness terms
are nonlinear functions of axial force.

USFOS nonlinear analysis follows the following procedure:

1. The load is incremented in steps.
2. The nodal coordinates are updated after each load step.
3. The structure stiffness is assembled at each load step. The element stiffness are then
calculated from the updated geometry.
4. At every load step each element is checked to see whether the forces exceed the
plastic capacity of the cross section. If such an event occurs, the load step is scaled to
make the forces comply exactly with the yield condition.
5. A plastic hinge is inserted when the element forces have reached the yield surface.
6. The load step is reversed (the load is reduced) if global instability is detected.
Elastic Plastic column buckling is automatically contained in the formulation. Buckling is
always accompanied by the occurrence of plastic hinges and it doesn’t differ from
conventional plastic failure modes.

In the nonlinear analysis, the element stiffness is a function of axial force in the element and
the stiffness decreases with the axial forces increase, the stiffness reaches is reduced to the
extent that column cannot take additional loading. The axial force in the member has to be
reduced to maintain equilibrium. The column buckling can be taken as the maximum force in
the axial force vs. axial displacement curve.

10
USFOS uses combined incremental, iterative approach. The method used in USFOS is the
modified Newton- Raphson method with arc length control.Pure Newton-Raphson scheme
works in the following procedure

1. Applies the load gradually, in increments (load steps)

2. Also performs equilibrium iterations at each load increment to drive the incremental
solution to equilibrium
3. Solves the equation [KT] {u}= {F} - {Fnr}
4. The displacement increment is used to calculate the strain from established relations.
5. Then stress is calculated from strain and the new internal forces are established.
6. Steps 3 to 5 are repeated till iterations continue until {F} - {Fnr} reaches a minimum
value
where [KT] is tangent stiffness matrix,{u} is displacement increment,{F} is external load
vector and {Fnr} is internal force vector

Figure 3.1: Incremental-cum-iterative approach

So each load increment contains a number of iterations and for each iteration, the tangent
stiffness needs to be updated (Pure Newton- Raphson method) which consumes a lot of time.
Modified Newton-Raphson keeps the tangential stiffness constant over a number of cycles
thus reducing the computation time. But the procedure may fail when it has to pass through
limiting or bifurcation points. To overcome these problems, an arc length iteration procedure
is implemented in USFOS.

11
USFOS first uses the load step specified by the user. It may scale down the load step down if
there is plastic hinge formation or exceedance of the user defined maximum displacement
increment (u). By following this procedure only one hinge is detected for one load
increment. So the step may be small, the minimum load can be specified. This minimum load
should be specified in a manner not more than 5 plastic hinges (thumb rule) are inserted in
that load step otherwise the results won’t be accurate.

a. Analysis results text

file(.text;.out)
General structure
USFOS b. Analysis-data-file
and load input
(.raf)(structure data
(.ufo format) and analysis results
data)

Special USFOS
parameters
(head.fem)

Figure 3.2: Input and output files of USFOS

3.2 Comparison Study

An example of X brace truss work system is considered, the ultimate collapse load of the
system is found with help using USFOS and compared to existing result. The static
indeterminacy of the system is one.

12
 Figure 3.3: X Brace system
A horizontal load is applied at node 3 and incremented till collapse of the frame. The area of
legs is twice the area of the braces. The member 13 will be in compression and member 24
will be in tension

Table 3.1: X brace system

Parameters Legs and beam (members 12, 23 & 34) Braces (members 13 & 24)

Diameter (m) 0.5 0.25

Thickness (m) 0.0250 0.0266

Yield strength (MPa) 248 248

13
 Figure 3.4: Progressive collapse analysis

Global displacement refers to the displacement of node 3 along negative X direction. Global
load refers to the load applied in negative X direction at node 3. The buckling load of
member 13 is predicted as 4.02 MN and the ultimate collapse load 4.39 MN. In USFOS,
imperfections are needed to provoke buckling. The member 13 is given with lateral
displacement 0.0015 times its length at the mid span, without altering the lateral displacement
at ends. There is mismatch between the present study and reference [3] results because the
imperfections are assumed in the present study might be different from that of the reference
study. The amounts of imperfections affect the behaviour of Global load vs. Global
displacement and more over the stress-strain curve is assumed as default in the present study
which might be different in the reference (not available to assume). The ultimate load is
predicted with a 3.3 % error (Reference study ultimate collapse load 4.54 MN).

Portal frame system is also studied for comparison study. The portal frame description is
given in Figure 3.5. The horizontal load applied at node 2 is half of the vertical load applied
at node 4. The plastic capacity of the beam is 1.2 times the columns. The above load case
(horizontal load at node 2+ vertical load at node 4) is incremented till the collapse of the
structure.

14
 Figure 3.5: Portal frame system

Table 3.2 Portal frame system

Parameters Legs (members 12 & 34) Beam (members 24 & 34)

Diameter (m) 0.5 0.5

Thickness (m) 0.020 0.02

Yield strength (MPa) 300 360

15
 Figure 3.6: Elasto-plastic analysis of portal frame
Global load refers to the load case defined above. Global displacement refers to displacement
of node 4 in negative z direction. The ultimate collapse load is found to be 0.96MN which is
less than the theoretical calculations made by using kinematic analysis (1.015 MN).The major
reason for this might be the additional moment might be induced during sway which is not
considered in kinematic analysis.

16
 CHAPTER 4

4. JACKET MODEL AND LOAD DESCRIPTION

4.1 Jacket details

Table 4.1: Description of jacket

Water depth 74 m
Jacket height 82.5 m
Working point elevation 83.6 m
Base dimension (z = -73m) 32.325m × 30.650 m
Top dimension (z = 7.6m) 22.250m × 10.500 m
Batter (pile A1, B1) 1H : 8V
Batter (pile A2, B2) 1H : 5.66V
Elevation levels 7.6 m, -10 m, -30 m, -50 m, -73 m
Legs dimensions Φ 1802 ×40 mm
Vertical brace Φ 762 × 13 mm -10 m -30 m -50 m -73 m (b/w these
elevations)
Φ 762 × 16 mm -50m -73m
Φ 762 × 25 mm 7.6m -10m
Conductors Φ 862 × 38 mm
Horizontal frame Φ 660 × 25 mm Φ 610 × 19 mm 7.6 m
Φ 610 × 25 mm -10 m
Φ 660× 30 mm -30 m 50 m
Φ 762×16 mm -73 m
Wt. of jacket 20.13MN (2013 tonne) including conductor weight
Buoyancy 13.9MN
CD 0.65 (smooth) 1.05 (fouled)
CM 1.6 (smooth) 1.2 (fouled)
Marine growth 0.0 0.07 m (elevation- thickness)
-20.0 0.07 m
-50.0 0.03 m
-74.0 0.0 m

The jacket is fixed to seabed with the help of four main piles (Φ 1676 × 38 mm) which are
driven into soil up to a depth of 109 m. The soil characteristics of each layer of soil are given
by P-Y, T-Z and Q-Z graphs. USFOS generates finite elements which include beam and
nonlinear springs to model the PSI. 22 layers of soil are defined up to a depth of 109 m below
the mud line.

17
Figure 4.1: Jacket structure and key plan

18
 7.6 m

0m
MSL
-10 m

-30 m

-50 m

-73 m

Seabed

Figure 4.2: Elevation of Row 1 (left) and Row 2 (right)

19
 7.6 m

0m
MSL
-10 m

-30 m

-50 m

-73 m

Seabed

Figure 4.3: Elevation of Row A (left) and Row B (right)

20
 Figure 4.6: Row A elements Figure 4.7: Row B elements
Figure 4.4: Row 1 elements Figure 4.5: Row 2 elements

21
Figure 4.8: Elevation level 7.6 m (without conductor framing)

Figure 4.9: Elevation level -10 m (without conductor framing)

22
Figure 4.10: Elevation level -30 m (without conductor framing)

Figure 4.11: Elevation level -50 m (without conductor framing)

23
Loads acting on the jacket should include self-weight, topside loads, environmental loads etc.
Though environmental loads are incremented till collapse, the other loads also influence RSR
calculation.

4.2 Dead and live loads

The dead load is contributed by the self-weight of deck, jacket structure, permanent
equipment on the topside etc. Live loads include fluid components in the piping, helicopter
load, load from personnel etc. For simplicity, the total topside load is taken as 3000 tonnes
and applied on the corners of the jacket.

4.3 Wave and current load

Wave force on the jacket structure is calculated using the Morison equation as members of
jacket don’t significantly modify the incident wave (wave length to diameter ratio is greater
than 5).Wave force is calculated as sum of drag and inertia forces. The wave particle velocity
and acceleration should be calculated from chosen wave theory. The water particle velocity is
found by the resultant of velocity due to wave and current.

= | | ̇

where F is force vector per unit length of the member acting normal to the axis of member,
is drag force vector per unit length acting normal to the axis of the member in the plane of
axis, is inertia force vector per unit length acting normal to the axis of the member in the
plane of the member axis, U is component of the velocity vector (due to wave and/or current)
of the water normal to the axis of the member, ̇ is component of the local acceleration
vector of the water normal to the axis of the member, is drag coefficient, is inertia
coefficient and D is diameter of the cylinder

In the present case, wind load is not considered as global forces caused by wind action are
small compared to global forces caused by wave and current. The 100 year design wave and
current used for the analysis is shown in Figure 5-12. Before performing static pushover
analysis, the modelling is done in SESAM GeniE and code checking is done for 100 year
design environmental load. Current speed is constant from mean sea level to 20 m below and
from 20 m to seabed as linear variation in order to simulate tidal current in the present study.
In the present study, maximum base shear generated by the load is taken as 100 design
environmental (wave and current) load. The present approach is deterministic and doesn’t
consider time dependant properties and dynamics of the structure.

24
 

Figure 4.12: 100 year return period wave and current

The material details for modelling the jacket platform are given in Table 4.2
Table 4.2: Material details

Material property (steel) Value

Modulus of elasticity 2.1×105 MPa
Poisson’s ratio 0.3

Yield strength 345 MPa

Density 7850 kg/m3

The effect of current on the maximum base shear for each direction is shown below. In few
directions the load due wave is almost one third of the load due to wave and current for the
present 100 year design environmental load.

25
 Figure 4.13: Maximum base shear vs. direction of wave and current
4.4 Simplified model for maximum base shear
For the present jacket structure, a parametric model to calculate the maximum base shear is
presented.
( ) ( )
B is maximum base shear in newton (N).
h is to wave height in meters (m).
u is current speed in m/s.
are adjusted constants for a jacket platform by performing parametric fit. For

the present platform, = 1.128e+04, = 3.701, = 2.378. This relation estimates

maximum base shear within 15% error.

26
4.5 Linear buckling analysis
The jacket structure will not experience linear buckling. In order to compare the linear
buckling load with that of nonlinear buckling load of the jacket structure, the present analysis
is done. A wave height of 12 m with wave period of 11 s at an angle of 0° ( = 0°).
With the considered data, the linear buckling analysis is done in SESAM GeniE and the first
member buckling load factors are found using USFOS. The self-weight, topside weight and
buoyancy are same as discussed in Table 5-1.
Table 4.3: Linear and nonlinear buckling analysis

Eigenvalue buckling factor First element buckling factor

Load
(Linear) (Nonlinear)

Self-wt. & topside-wt. 15.08 2.01

Wave load & buoyancy 24.16 4.03

Wave load 26.17 4.38

From results, the linear buckling values are high compared to values of nonlinear buckling.
The linear buckling values are 6 to 7 times the nonlinear buckling values. The linear buckling
mode is shown in the Figure 4.14.

27
Linear buckling Nonlinear buckling

moe mode

508

Nonlinear buckling factor = 4.38

Eigenvalue = 26.17
Figure 4.14 Linear and nonlinear buckling analysis of jacket platform

28
 CHAPTER 5

5. PUSHOVER ANALYSIS OF JACKET PLATFORM

5.1 Static pushover analysis

The static pushover analysis is done by incrementing 100 year design environmental (wave
and current) load. In the present study, maximum base shear case is taken design
environmental load. To find the maximum base shear, the following steps are followed
a) The wave crest is positioned at the centre of the structure.
b) The wave is divided into small segments in terms of angle (generally 100) called
wave step.
c) The wave force is computed on each member for every divided step using the wave
velocity and acceleration of water particles computed using the suitable wave theory
(Present study, fifth order Stokes wave theory is used).
d) The lateral forces are added up at that wave step.
e) At all other wave steps the base shear is calculated. The wave step with maximum
base shear is taken as the governing case and it is taken as 100 year design load.

The first member yield, first member failure (load factors) and Reserve Strength Ratio (RSR)
are found for each direction. The analysis is done as described in chapter 3.The results
indicated that the maximum lateral load is along =135° which doesn’t mean that the
platform have least RSR in the same direction. Therefore it is important to calculate RSR
from all directions.

29
 Table 5.1: Load factors for the platform considering PSI (without considering PSI)

First member
Wave direction Maximum base First yield load Collapse load factor
Element failure Element
() shear (N) factor (RSR)
load factor
0 6.56E+06 4.27 (4.76) 350 (314,315) 5.46 (5.77) 531 (507,508) 5.551 (5.868)
45 6.09E+06 5.34 (5.51) 8 (20) 6.66 (7.87) 55 (16 ,52) 7.021 (8.451)
90 1.68E+07 1.59 (1.74) 55 (16) 1.97 (2.28) 55 (16 ,52) 2.254 (2.504)
135 2.03E+07 1.42 (1.47) 60 (86) 1.84 (2.23) 350 (314) 1.907 (2.375)
180 1.98E+07 1.27 (1.42) 350 (501,502) 1.58 (1.82) 350,353 (314,317 ) 1.623 (1.857)
225 7.88E+06 2.5 (2.53) 89 (89) 4.72 (5.43) 353 (17 ,42) 4.833 (5.799)
270 1.05E+07 2.24 (2.24) 89 (89) 3.2 (3.5) 8 (12 ,17) 3.529 (3.884)
315 1.01E+07 2.97 (3) 42 (42) 4.07 (4.4) 8 (17 ,42) 4.164 (4.977)

8
7
6 0
5
Load factor

45
4 90
3 135

2 180

1 225

0 315
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

Figure 5.1: Load factor vs. displacement for various directions (with PSI)
30
5.2 Pile Soil Interaction (PSI)
As a second case, the jacket fixed just at sea bed without considering Pile Soil Interaction
(PSI) is done to compare with the results where Pile Soil Interaction is considered. The
responses are plotted for all directions

7
Wave direction 0
6

5
Load factor

3 NO PSI
PSI
2

0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

9 Wave direction 45

8
7
6
Load factor

5
4 NO PSI
3 PSI
2
1
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

31
 3 Wave direction 90

2.5

2
Load factor

1.5
NO PSI
1 PSI

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

2.5
Wave direction 135

2
Load factor

1.5

NO PSI
1
PSI
0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

2 Wave direction 180

1.8
1.6
1.4
Load factor

1.2
1
NO PSI
0.8
0.6 PSI

0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

32
 7 Wave direction 225°
6

5
Load factor

3 NO PSI
PSI
2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

4.5 Wave direction 270°

4
3.5
3
Load factor

2.5
2
NO PSI
1.5
PSI
1
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

6 Wave direction 315°

5

4
Load Factor

3
NO PSI
2
PSI
1

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Displacement along load direction for node 209 (m)

Figure 5.2: Response of jacket structure with and without considering PSI

33
While without considering Pile Soil Interaction, the minimum RSR found to be at =180° though it is not direction where the maximum lateral
load occurs. But, the RSR when compared with original case (PSI considered) are larger. Even the mode of failure is different from the original
case. So the results are not conservative. From, load vs. displacement curves without considering PSI case shows higher stiffness as expected.
The displacements at which peak load factor is obtained are more due to presence of PSI. The response of the structure observed is ductile.
Ductility is defined as the global capacity to be maintained or continue to increase despite a component failure. If rapid unloading happens then
the response is termed as brittle.
Table 5.2 Load factors without current and considering PSI (without considering PSI)

Wave direction Maximum First yield First member Collapse

Element Element
() base shear (N) factor failure factor load factor
16.323
0 2.25E+06 12.61 (14.27) 350 (315,316) 16.12 (16.86) 531,532 (507,508)
(17.091)
45 2.33E+06 11.85 (12.53) 7 (7) 17.36 (21.79) 55 (16,52) 18.512 (22.865)
90 1.00E+07 2.68 (2.97) 55 (86) 3.58 (3.89) 55 (52) 3.822 (4.318)
135 9.50E+06 3.02 (3.01) 86 (86) 3.95 (4.94) 350 (314) 4.093 (5.291)
180 9.94E+06 2.53 (2.95) 350,353 (501,502) 3.15 (3.75) 353 (314,317) 3.252 (3.846)
225 3.66E+06 4.62 (4.62) 89 (89) 9.91 (11.23) 353 (17,42) 10.153 (12.257)
270 3.81E+06 4.92 (4.9) 89 (89) 8.63 (8.78) 17 (17,42) 9.972 (9.943)
315 3.35E+06 8.56 (9.09) 42 (42) 11.38 (13.09) 17 (17,42) 11.747 (15)

34
The same behaviour is observed as discussed when the table 5-2 is observed .The current load
has significant contribution of the total wave and current load .In the present case, in few
cases the current load contribution almost twice that of wave loads contribution in wave and
current load. In cases (with and without current), the maximum and minimum base shear
occurs in with the current case. The current not only increases the load but decreases the load.
But minimum base shear is not of interest for a designer.

5.3 Pushover analysis along a wave cycle

Jacket members may not experience their maximum load at maximum base shear case. The
aim of this analysis is to find RSR at other wave steps and obtain the least RSR. A member
experiencing its highest load at other wave step (other than maximum base shear case step)
may fail earlier than considered in maximum base case and how it affects RSR needs to be
studied. In the present analysis wave step angle of 100 which is generally used for design base
shear is considered. The first member yield, first member failure and collapse load factor
(RSR) are obtained for all the cases.

35
 Base shear and first yield load factors(=180°)
2.50E+07 12

1.98E+07
11

11.13
8.98
10
2.00E+07
9

7.79

7.50
8

6.63

6.47
6.01
1.50E+07 7

5.89
5.75

5.73

5.65
5.31

First yield load factor

5.18
6
Base shear (N)

4.80
4.76

4.53
4.47

4.41

4.38
4.28
4.04 5
3.93
3.89

1.00E+07

3.44
4

2.16
2.09

1.78
1.67

1.53
1.44

1.37
1.32

1.28
1.27

1.27
2.69
2.67

5.00E+06 2

-1.70E+05
1

0
0.00E+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340 360 -1
-2

-5.00E+06 -3
Wave step(degrees)

Base shear First yield

Figure 5.3: Base shear and first yield load factors along a wave cycle

36
 360

1.623 1.58
1.642 1.6
340

1.756 1.71
1.963 1.91
320

2.285 2.23
2.78 2.71
300

3.469 3.38
4.457 4.34
280

5.907 5.72
7.856 7.63
Figure 5.4: First member failure and collapse load factors
260

10.554 10.12
14.351 13.65
240

20.602 18.75
Collapse load factor

32.29 23.3
Wave cycle (=180°)
220

43.202 27.33
66.192 16.06
200

30.26 11.91
25.864 10.1
180

19.592 9.17

37
17.814 9

First member failure

160

17.088 9.45
17.136 10.3
140

17.482 11.61
17.859 13.34
120

17.917 15.07
20.408 12.16
100

30.07 10.8
35.184 9.93
80

17.586 9.56
9.236 9.11
60

5.352 5.28
3.659 3.62
40

2.617 2.56
2.1 2.05
20

1.844 1.8
1.683 1.64
0 1.623 1.58
68
66
64
62
60
58
56
54
52
50
48
46
44
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Load factor
 Load factor

0
2
4
6
8
10
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30

12
0

350 350/353
350/353 350
20

350 350/353
532 350
40

532 350/353
350 521/522
60

478/479 521/522
478/479 522
80

478/479 50
479 13/50
224 50
100

50 13
7/56 13/56
120

7/56 7
7/56 7
140

7/56 7
7/56 7
160

First member failure

7 56

38
7 56
180

7 56
7 56
200

7 56
Wave cycle (=180°)

478/479 56
220

478/479 50/478/479
First member yield

478/479 50
240

478/479 350/353
478/479 350/353
260

478/479 350/353
350/353 350/353
280

Figure 5.5: Element numbers of first member yield and failure load factors

353 350/353
350 350/353
300

350 350/353
350/353 350/353
320

350 350/353
350 350/353
340

350/353 350/353
350 350/353
360
The analysis is repeated for other directions.The minimum collapse load factor (RSR) is
found to match with maximum base shear case and maximum collapse factor with the
minimum base shear case.But maximum and minimum first yield and first member failures
are not matching with maximum and minimum base shear case sometimes.
In the current wave direction,the minimum base shear case is at 2100 wave step.But
maximum first member failure (27.33) is occuring at 2200 wave step instead of 2100 (16.06)
as the element (56) in 2100 case in overstressed than the 2200 but maximum collapse load is
occuring at 2100 (minimum base shear).It shows that the system effects are important, the
other elements are not overstressed as much in the case of 2100 so it continues to take more
load even after the early first failure of the element.So one member failure in this case is not
accounting to system damage.For a designer, minimum base shear is not of much importance
but it clearly explains that system behaviour is predominant.

It is appropriate to consider the maximum base case for carrying out static pushover analysis
and considering cases with wavestep nearby (100) to maximum base shear will be quite
helpful in determining lowest collapse load factor.

39
5.4 Direction sensitivity study
The direction sensitivity study is done by applying the same wave height (17.738 m) and
current speed (1.615m/s) in all directions.
Table 5.3: Direction sensitivity analysis

First
First member Normalised
Wave yield Collapse load Normalised
failure load *
collapse load**
direction () load factor (RSR) yield
factor (RF)
factor
0 1.39 1.8 1.829 0.78 1.02
45 1.63 1.89 2.074 0.86 1.10
90 1.18 1.48 1.682 0.80 1.14
135 1.42 1.51 1.903 0.94 1.26
180 1.26 1.58 1.623 0.80 1.03
225 1.42 1.52 1.9 0.93 1.25
270 1.18 1.48 1.682 0.80 1.14
315 1.63 1.92 2.077 0.85 1.08
*Normalised yield is the ratio of first yield to first member failure
**Normalised collapse load is the ratio of collapse load factor to first member failure which
is same as Redundancy Factor (RF).

40
 H=17.738 m C=1.615m/s Base shear (N)
0
5.00E+07

4.00E+07
315 45

2.00E+07
3.00E+07
2.05E+07

2.05E+07
2.00E+07

1.00E+07
2.24E+07

2.24E+07
270 0.00E+00 90 Maximum base shear (N)
2.03E+07

2.03E+07
1.98E+07

225 135

180

Figure 5.6: Maximum base shear along 8 directions

0
4
3.5
315 3 45
2.51.829
2.077 2 2.074
1.5
1
0.5
270 1.682 0 1.682 90

1.9 1.903
1.623
225 135

180
First member failure RSR First yield

Figure 5.7: Load factors (direction sensitivity study)

41
The structure is symmetric about the line joining the =0° and =180°. So the load factors
obtained are same in the =90° and =270°wave directions. The =180° is weakest for the
platform. Though the lateral load obtained is not the maximum of all the loads, the RSR is
lowest of all the directions. The Redundancy Factor (RF) indicates the redundancy present in
the system after first member failure. The =135° has the highest RF and =0° wave direction
has lowest. The lower RF means the structure likely to fail after first member failure.

5.5 Effect on Collapse load factor with increase in thickness of brace or pile
The brace/pile thicknesses are selectively increased to study the change of collapse load
factor (RSR).The =180° is considered as it has least RSR. 1st, 2nd, 3rd (from bottom) level
vertical bracings thicknesses are changed to 25, 16, 16 mm respectively. Then collapse load
factor and the first member failure are obtained. Then failure is initiated by the formation of
plastic hinge in the pile. So the pile thickness is changed from 38 to 50 mm (D/T from 44 to
33.52), the failure is initiated by 1st level bracing buckling. The thickness of 1st level bracing
is increased from 25 to 30 mm. Then the failure is initiated by the formation of plastic hinge
in pile. Further increase of pile thickness cannot be done as the D/T for pile members should
lie in between 30 and 45.The lower D/T makes it difficult to fabricate.

Table 5.4: RSR of modified jacket

Direction of wave Percentage

RSR for original jacket RSR for modified jacket
() increase

0 5.551 7.24 30.43

45 7.021 8.512 21.24

90 2.254 3.189 41.48

135 1.907 2.322 21.76

180 1.623 2.22 36.78

225 4.833 5.934 22.78

270 3.529 4.717 33.66

315 4.164 5.04 21.04

42
 Table 5.5: Effect on load factors due to change in thickness (wave direction =180)

Parameters First member First member Collapse load Wt.increase

Original Modified Comment
(with pile soil interaction) yield failure factor (tons)
st
1 level brace yield and
Original 1.27 (350) 1.58 (350/353) 1.623
buckle
Modified
nd rd st
Change of 2 , 3 ,1 level 13mm 16mm leg yield and plastic hinge
1.57 (3) 1.76 (1000568) 1.803 82.57
vertical bracing 16 mm 25 mm formed in pile
st
Pile thickness changed from leg yield and 1 level
1.60 (60) 2.12 (353) 2.196 38mm 50mm 272.67
38 to 50 mm brace buckle
st leg yield and plastic hinge
1 level brace 1.60 (60) 2.22 (1000619) 2.220 25mm 30 mm 298.73
formed in pile

43
209

Figure 5.8 Node 209, jacket without PSI (middle) and with PSI considered (right)

44
 350
353

Figure 5.9: First yield, first failure for =180°wave direction

45
 CHAPTER 6

6. SHAKEDOWN ANALYSIS OF JACKET PLATFORM

6.1 Shakedown analysis

The aim of shakedown analysis is to discuss the effect of extreme cyclic loading on the
integrity of structure and compare it to the single extreme event analysis. The load history is
as shown in Figure 3-1. According to this load history, the structure is required to survive for
the extreme environmental load (storm case) and should be able resist the design 100 year
load in damaged condition in order to allow reasonable time for to repair damages.
The shakedown limit load is achieved by trial and error by increasing the factor in the load
history till the shakedown cannot be achieved. The last successful cyclic load factor is taken
as shakedown limit load. In the present study, =180° wave direction is considered.

The following changes are noticed during the analysis

a. No members yield under the first multiple cycles of 100 year design environmental
load (soil elements yield)
b. Few members yield under the factored multiple cycles of 100 year design
environmental load, the structure yielded less and less on each loading cycle
c. Few members yield under the first cycle of the last 100 year design environmental
load

46
 2

Shakedown load =180°wave direction

1.5

1 cycle1
cycle2

0.5 cycle3
cycle4
Load factor

cycle5
0
cycle6
-0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
cycle7
-0.5 cycle8
cycle9

-1 cycle10
cycle11

-1.5

-2
Displacement of node 209 along load direction(m)

Figure 6.1: Load factor vs. displacement for shakedown analysis

The shakedown limit load factor is found to be 1.61 which is 99.19% of the pushover
collapse load factor (1.623).The structure shakes down to elastic state above the first member
failure load factor (1.58\353).The platform shakedowns at greater than 98 % of the collapse
load so the cyclic degradation can be considered insignificant.

47
 Table 6.1: Plastic displacement in axial direction for element 353

Plastic displacement in axial direction for

Cycle number
element 353 (m)
1 0
2 0
3 0.00045
4 0.002258
5 0.003547
6 0.003547
7 0.003547
8 0.003547
9 0.003547
10 0.003547
11 0.003547

The plastic displacement increases for few initial cycles and then ceases completely which
develops residual stress field to counteract wave load.

48
 CHAPTER 7

7. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

7.1 Summary
The objective of the study is to perform pushover and shakedown analyses and find the
resistance reserves of the jacket platform. The RSR for the platform is found in all directions
using 100 year design environmental load. The effect of PSI is also studied and how the
results change without considering soil interaction with structure. Instead of using maximum
base shear for finding collapse load factor, the other wave steps are used for static pushover
analysis. The study indicated that maximum base shear is appropriate for obtaining RSR. The
weakest direction of the platform is found by performing direction sensitivity study. The
platform RSR is increased by increasing the thicknesses of selective brace or pile elements
and the change is compared with the increase in weight. The cyclic degradation effect is
studied by performing shakedown analysis for a representative sequence of wave in a storm
condition and the results are compared with static pushover analysis.

7.2 Conclusions from static pushover analysis

a) The lowest RSR value is found to be 1.623 for the =180° wave direction.
b) The maximum lateral load is in =135° wave direction and it is found that lowest
RSR can be in other directions.
c) The response obtained (Load vs. displacement) is ductile.
d) The bottom level vertical bracings are highly stressed and the failure of the platform is
initiated by the failure of these elements.

49
7.3 Conclusions from Pile Soil Interaction (PSI)
a) The results without considering Pile Soil Interaction (PSI) predicted higher RSR
values compared to PSI case.
b) The failure modes (members failing) are different when considered with actual Pile
Soil Interaction case.
c) Though the maximum lateral load is =135° wave direction, the lowest RSR is found
to be in =180° direction even for without considering PSI.
d) The stiffness of the structure is more for the without considering PSI case as expected
and the displacements are quite different due to soil interaction.
e) Either 2nd level or 3rd level braces are highly stressed in without considering PSI case
and the failure of the platform is initiated by one of their failures.

7.4 Conclusions from pushover analysis along a wave cycle

a. The minimum collapse load factors and maximum collapse load factors match with
maximum base shear and minimum base shear respectively.
b. It is appropriate to consider maximum base shear case for finding minimum collapse
load factor and considering the wave step nearby (100) to maximum base shear case is
helpful in finding the lowest collapse load factor.
c. The maximum and minimum first yield/first member failure load factors may not
match with the minimum and maximum base shear cases respectively. It confirms the
importance reserve strength contribution of the system behavior.

7.5 Conclusions from direction sensitivity study

a. The =180° wave direction is found to be weakest direction due to lowest RSR value
though it doesn’t have the maximum lateral loading indicating the need for the
assessment of platform for all wave directions.
b. Due to symmetry, the = 90° and = 270° wave directions have the same RSR values.
c. The =0°wave direction has the least redundancy factor and the =135° wave
direction has the highest redundancy factor. Redundancy factor indicates the capacity
beyond the first member failure.

50
7.6 Conclusions from selective increase of brace thicknesses
a. The selective increase of brace/pile thicknesses increased the RSR has been 38% by
original value with 14.64% increase in original wt. of jacket.
b. The thickness cannot be increased after certain extent, due diameter to thickness
restrictions of tubular members.
c. By modifying the jacket, the maximum increase of RSR is in =90° wave direction
which is about 41.48 %.

7.7 Conclusions from shakedown analysis

a. The static pushover analysis should be followed by shakedown analysis in order to
know the effect of cyclic degradation.
b. In the present study, the shakedown load obtained is greater than 98% of load
obtained from the static pushover analysis, so cyclic degradation effects are neglected.
c. It helps to know whether the system strength demonstrated using the isolated extreme
event degrades due to cyclic action of extreme waves which is the real case.

7.8 Recommendations for future work

a. Wind load can be considered in the pushover analysis and its effect on RSR can be
studied.
b. The topside main deck framing can be modelled and the effect of deck forces on RSR
can be studied.
c. The joints in the present study are considered rigid. So the effect of joint flexibility on
RSR can be discussed.
d. The effect of inertial forces can be discussed by performing dynamic analysis as both
analysis performed in the present study are static analysis.

51
 REFERENCES

1. American Petroleum Institute (2005), Recommended Practice for Planning,

Designing and Construction Fixed Offshore Platforms-Working Stress Design, API-
RP2A, Washington, DC 21st Edition.
2. NORSOK N-004 (2004), Design of steel structures
3. Skallerud,B., Amdahl,J.(2009), Nonlinear Analysis of Offshore Structures, Standard
Publishers Distribution.
4. Stewart, G., Moan, T., Amdahl, J., and Eide, O. I. (1993), Nonlinear re-assessment of
jacket structures under extreme storm cyclic loading: Part I - Philosophy and acceptance
criteria. In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and
Arctic Engineering (OMAE) 1993, Glasgow, Scotland.
5. Hellan,O., Tandberg, T and Hellevig,N.C.(1993), Nonlinear re-assessment of jacket
structures under extreme storm cyclic loading: Part IV: Case Studies on existing North
Sea Structures, In Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Offshore
Mechanics and Arctic Engineering Conference (OMAE) 1993, Glasgow, Scotland.
6. Ultiguide (1999),Best Practice Guidelines for use of Nonlinear Analysis Methods in
Documentation of Ultimate Limit States for Jacket Type Offshore Structures.DNV-
SINTEF-BOMEL.
7. Bolt, H.M, Billington, C.J and Ward, J.K. (1996), A Review of The Ultimate
Strength of Tubular Framed Structures, Health and Safety Executive – Offshore
Technology Report, OTH-92365.
8. Brown and Root Ltd. (1997), Comparison of Reserve Strength Ratios of old and new
platforms, Offshore Technology Report, OTO-97046.
9. Usfos user manual, www.usfos.no/manuals/usfos
10. Bea, R.G., Loch K.J., and Young P.L.(1995), Evaluation of Capacities of Template-
Gulf of Mexico Platforms, Proceedings of Fifth International Offshore and Polar
Engineering Conference, June 1995,Hague, Netherlands.
11. Nedushan,B,A. (1995), Progressive Collapse Analysis of Offshore Platforms, Master
Thesis, Dept. of Civil Engineering and Applied Mechanics, McGill University,
Montreal,Canada

52
12. Vishnu,C. (2013), Pushover Analysis of Well Head Platform in Mumbai High, M.Tech
Thesis, Dept. of Ocean Engineering, IIT Madras.

53