Analysis I

OBJECTIVE/SCOPE

To present the main analysis procedures for offshore structures.

PREREQUISITES

Offshore Structures: General Introduction

Loads I: Introduction and Environmental Loads

Loads II: Other Loads

RELATED LECTURES

Analysis II

SUMMARY

Analytical models used in offshore engineering are briefly described. Acceptance

criteria for the verification of offshore structures are presented.

Simple rules for preliminary member sizing are given and procedures for static in-
place and dynamic analysis are described.

1. ANALYTICAL MODEL
The analysis of an offshore structure is an extensive task, embracing consideration of
the different stages, i.e. execution, installation, and in-service stages, during its life.
Many disciplines, e.g. structural, geotechnical, naval architecture, metallurgy are
involved.

This lecture and next lecture are purposely limited to presenting an overview of
available analysis procedures and providing benchmarks for the reader to appreciate
the validity of his assumptions and results. They primarily address jackets, which are
more unusual structures compared to decks and modules, and which more closely
resemble onshore petro-chemical plants.

2. ANALYTICAL MODEL
The analytical models used in offshore engineering are in some respects similar to
those adopted for other types of steel structures. Only the salient features of offshore
models are presented here.

The same model is used throughout the analysis process with only minor adjustments
being made to suit the specific conditions, e.g. at supports in particular, relating to
each analysis.
2.1 Stick Models

Stick models (beam elements assembled in frames) are used extensively for tubular
structures (jackets, bridges, flare booms) and lattice trusses (modules, decks).

2.1.1 Joints

Each member is normally rigidly fixed at its ends to other elements in the model.

If more accuracy is required, particularly for the assessment of natural vibration

modes, local flexibility of the connections may be represented by a joint stiffness
matrix.

2.1.2 Members

In addition to its geometrical and material properties, each member is characterised by

hydrodynamic coefficients, e.g. relating to drag, inertia, and marine growth, to allow
wave forces to be automatically generated.

2.2 Plate Models

Integrated decks and hulls of floating platforms involving large bulkheads are
described by plate elements. The characteristics assumed for the plate elements
depend on the principal state of stress which they are subjected to. Membrane stresses
are taken when the element is subjected merely to axial load and shear. Plate stresses
are adopted when bending and lateral pressure are to be taken into account.

3. ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
3.1 Code Checks

The verification of an element consists of comparing its characteristic resistance(s) to

a design force or stress. It includes:

• a strength check, where the characteristic resistance is related to the yield

strength of the element,
• a stability check for elements in compression where the characteristic
resistance relates to the buckling limit of the element.

An element (member or plate) is checked at typical sections (at least both ends and
midspan) against resistance and buckling. This verification also includes the effect of
water pressure for deepwater structures.

Tubular joints are checked against punching under various load patterns. These
checks may indicate the need for local reinforcement of the chord using overthickness
or internal ring-stiffeners.

Elements should also be verified against fatigue, corrosion, temperature or durability

wherever relevant.
3.2 Allowable Stress Method

This method is presently specified by American codes (API, AISC).

The loads remain unfactored and a unique coefficient is applied to the characteristic
resistance to obtain an allowable stress as follows:

Condition Axial Strong axis Weak axis

bending bending

Normal 0,60 0,66 0,75

Extreme 0,80 0,88 1,00

"Normal" and "Extreme" respectively represent the most severe conditions:

• under which the plant is to operate without shut-down.

• the platform is to endure over its lifetime.

3.3 Limit State Method

This method is enforced by European and Norwegian Authorities and has now been
adopted by API as it offers a more uniform reliability.

Partial factors are applied to the loads and to the characteristic resistance of the
element, reflecting the amount of confidence placed in the design value of each
parameter and the degree of risk accepted under a limit state, i.e:

• Ultimate Limit State (ULS):

corresponds to an ultimate event considering the structural resistance with appropriate

reserve.

• Fatigue Limit State (FLS):

relates to the possibility of failure under cyclic loading.

• Progressive Collapse Limit State (PLS):

reflects the ability of the structure to resist collapse under accidental or abnormal
conditions.

• Service Limit State (SLS):

corresponds to criteria for normal use or durability (often specified by the plant
operator).

3.3.1 Load factors

Norwegian Authorities (2, 4) specify the following sets of load factors:

Limit State Load Categories

P L D E A

ULS (normal) 1,3 1,3 1,0 0,7 0,0

ULS (extreme) 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,3 0,0

FLS 0,0 0,0 0,0 1,0 0,0

PLS (accidental) 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0

PLS (post-damage) 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0

SLS 1,0 1,0 1,0 1,0 0,0

where the respective load categories are:

P are permanent loads (structural weight, dry equipments, ballast, hydrostatic

pressure).

L are live loads (storage, personnel, liquids).

D are deformations (out-of-level supports, subsidence).

E are environmental loads (wave, current, wind, earthquake).

A are accidental loads (dropped object, ship impact, blast, fire).

3.3.2 Material factors

The material partial factors for steel is normally taken equal to 1,15 for ULS and 1,00
for PLS and SLS design.

3.3.3 Classification of Design Conditions

Guidance for classifying typical conditions into typical limit states is given in the
following table:

Condition Loadings Design

P/L E D A Criterion

Construction P ULS,SLS
Load-Out P reduced wind support disp ULS

Transport P transport wind and ULS

wave

Tow-out (accidental) P flooded compart PLS

Launch P ULS

Lifting P ULS

In-Place (normal) P+L wind, wave & snow actual ULS,SLS

In-Place (extreme) P+L wind & 100 year wave actual ULS

SLS

In-Place (exceptional) P+L wind & 10000 year actual PLS

wave

Earthquake P+L 10-2 quake ULS

Rare Earthquake P+L 10-4 quake PLS

Explosion P+L blast PLS

Fire P+L fire PLS

Dropped Object P+L drill collar PLS

Boat Collision P+L boat impact PLS

Damaged Structure P + reduced L reduced wave & wind PLS

4. PRELIMINARY MEMBER SIZING

The analysis of a structure is an iterative process which requires progressive
adjustment of the member sizes with respect to the forces they transmit, until a safe
and economical design is achieved.

It is therefore of the utmost importance to start the main analysis from a model which
is close to the final optimized one.

The simple rules given below provide an easy way of selecting realistic sizes for the
main elements of offshore structures in moderate water depth (up to 80m) where
dynamic effects are negligible.

4.1 Jacket Pile Sizes

 • calculate the vertical resultant (dead weight, live loads, buoyancy), the overall
shear and the overturning moment (environmental forces) at the mudline.
• assuming that the jacket behaves as a rigid body, derive the maximum axial
and shear force at the top of the pile.
• select a pile diameter in accordance with the expected leg diameter and the
capacity of pile driving equipment.
• derive the penetration from the shaft friction and tip bearing diagrams.
• assuming an equivalent soil subgrade modulus and full fixity at the base of the
jacket, calculate the maximum moment in the pile and derive its wall
thickness.

4.2 Deck Leg Sizes

• adapt the diameter of the leg to that of the pile.

• determine the effective length from the degree of fixity of the leg into the deck
(depending upon the height of the cellar deck).
• calculate the moment caused by wind loads on topsides and derive the
appropriate thickness.

4.3 Jacket Bracings

• select the diameter in order to obtain a span/diameter ratio between 30 and 40.
• calculate the axial force in the brace from the overall shear and the local
bending caused by the wave assuming partial or total end restraint.
• derive the thickness such that the diameter/thickness ratio lies between 20 and
70 and eliminate any hydrostatic buckle tendency by imposing D/t<170/3√H
(H is the depth of member below the free surface).

4.4 Deck Framing

• select a spacing between stiffeners (typically 500 to 800mm).

• derive the plate thickness from formulae accounting for local plastification
under the wheel footprint of the design forklift truck.
• determine by straight beam formulae the sizes of the main girders under
"blanket" live loads and/or the respective weight of the heaviest equipments.

5. STATIC IN-PLACE ANALYSIS

The static in-place analysis is the basic and generally the simplest of all analyses. The
structure is modelled as it stands during its operational life, and subjected to pseudo-
static loads.

This analysis is always carried at the very early stage of the project, often from a
simplified model, to size the main elements of the structure.

5.1 Structural Model

5.1.1 Main Model

The main model should account for eccentricities and local reinforcements at the
joints.

Typical models for North Sea jackets may feature over 800 nodes and 4000 members.

5.1.2 Appurtenances

The contribution of appurtenances (risers, J-tubes, caissons, conductors, boat-fenders,

etc.) to the overall stiffness of the structure is normally neglected.

They are therefore analysed separately and their reactions applied as loads at the
interfaces with the main structure.

5.1.3 Foundation Model

Since their behaviour is non-linear, foundations are often analysed separately from the
structural model.

They are represented by an equivalent load-dependent secant stiffness matrix;

coefficients are determined by an iterative process where the forces and displacements
at the common boundaries of structural and foundation models are equated.

This matrix may need to be adjusted to the mean reaction corresponding to each
loading condition.

5.2 Loadings

This Section is a reminder of the main types of loads, which are described in more
detail in Loads 1 and 2.

5.2.1 Gravity Loads

Gravity loads consist of:

• dead weight of structure and equipments.

• live loads (equipments, fluids, personnel).

Depending on the area of structure under scrutiny, live loads must be positioned to
produce the most severe configuration (compression or tension); this may occur for
instance when positioning the drilling rig.

5.2.2 Environmental Loads

Environmental loads consist of wave, current and wind loads assumed to act
simultaneously in the same direction.

In general eight wave incidences are selected; for each the position of the crest
relative to the platform must be established such that the maximum overturning
moment and/or shear are produced at the mudline.
5.3 Loading Combinations

The static in-place analysis is performed under different conditions where the loads
are approximated by their pseudo-static equivalent.

The basic loads relevant to a given condition are multiplied by the appropriate load
factors and combined to produce the most severe effect in each individual element of
the structure.

6. DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
A dynamic analysis is normally mandatory for every offshore structure, but can be
restricted to the main modes in the case of stiff structures.

6.1 Dynamic Model

The dynamic model of the structure is derived from the main static model.

Some simplifications may however take place:

• local joint reinforcements and eccentricities may be disregarded.

• masses are lumped at the member ends.
• the foundation model may be derived from cyclic soil behaviour.

6.2 Equations of Motion

The governing dynamic equations of multi-degrees-of-freedom systems can be

expressed in the matrix form:

MX'' + CX' + KX = P(t)

where

M is the mass matrix

C is the damping matrix

K is the stiffness matrix

X, X', X'' are the displacement, velocity and acceleration vectors (function

of time).

P(t) is the time dependent force vector; in the most general case it may depend on the
displacements of the structure also (i.e. relative motion of the structure with respect to
the wave velocity in Morison equation).

6.2.1 Mass
The mass matrix represents the distribution of masses over the structure.

Masses include that of the structure itself, the appurtenances, liquids trapped in legs or
tanks, the added mass of water (mass of water displaced by the member and
determined from potential flow theory) and the mass of marine growth.

Masses are generally lumped at discrete points of the model. The mass matrix
consequently becomes diagonal but local modes of vibration of single members are
ignored (these modes may be important for certain members subjected to an
earthquake). The selection of lumping points may significantly affect the ensuing
solution.

As a further simplification to larger models involving considerable degrees-of-

freedom, the system can be condensed to a few freedoms while still retaining its basic
energy distribution.

6.2.2 Damping

Damping is the most difficult to estimate among all parameters governing the
dynamic response of a structure.

It may consist of structural and hydrodynamic damping.

Structural Damping

Structural damping is associated with the loss of energy by internal friction in the
material.

It increases with the order of the mode, being roughly proportional to the strain
energy involved in each.

Hydrodynamic Damping

Damping provided by the water surrounding the structure is commonly added to the
former, but may alternatively be accounted as part of the forcing function when
vibrations are close to resonance (vortex-shedding in particular).

Representation of Damping

Viscous damping represents the most common and simple form of damping. It may
have one of the following representations:

• modal damping: a specific damping ratio ζ expressing the percentage to

critical associated with each mode (typically ζ = 0,5% structural; ζ = 1,5%
hydrodynamic)
• proportional damping: defined as a linear combination of stiffness and mass
matrices.

All other types of non-viscous damping should preferably be expressed as an

equivalent viscous damping matrix.
6.2.3 Stiffness

The stiffness matrix is in all aspects similar to the one used in static analyses.

6.3 Free Vibration Mode Shapes and Frequencies

The first step in a dynamic analysis consists of determining the principal natural
vibration mode shapes and frequencies of the undamped, multi-degree-of-freedom
structure up to a given order (30th to 50th).

This consists in solving the eigenvalue problem:

KX = λ MX

For rigid structures having a fundamental vibration period well below the range of
wave periods (typically less than 3 s), the dynamic behaviour is simply accounted for
by multiplying the time-dependent loads by a dynamic amplification factor (DAF):

DAF =

where β = TN/T is the ratio of the period of the structure to the wave period.

6.4 Modal Superposition Method

A convenient technique consists of uncoupling the equations through the normal

modes of the system.

This method is only applicable if:

• each mass, stiffness and damping matrix is time-independent.

• non-linear forces are linearized beforehand (drag).

The total response is obtained by summing the responses of the individual single-
degree-of-freedom oscillators associated to each normal mode of the structure.

This method offers the advantage that the eigen modes provide substantial insight into
the problem, and can be re-used for as many subsequent response calculations as
needed at later stages.

It may however prove time-consuming when a large number of modes is required to

represent the response accurately. Therefore:

• the simple superposition method (mode-displacement) is applied to a truncated

number of lowest modes for predicting earthquake response.
• it must be corrected by the static contribution of the higher modes (mode-
acceleration method) for wave loadings.

6.4.1 Frequency Domain Analysis

Such analysis is most appropriate for evaluating the steady-state response of a system
subjected to cyclic loadings, as the transient part of the response vanishes rapidly
under the effect of damping.

The loading function is developed in Fourier series up to an order η:

p(t) =

The plot of the amplitudes pj versus the circular frequencies ωj is called the amplitude
power spectra of the loading. Usually, significant values of pj only occur within a
narrow range of frequencies and the analysis can be restricted to it.

The relationship between response and force vectors is expressed by the transfer
matrix H, such as:

H = [-M ω2 + i x C ω + K]

the elements of which represent:

Hj,k =

The spectral density of response in freedom j versus force is then:

The fast Fourier transform (FFT) is the most efficient algorithm associated with this
kind of analysis.

6.4.2 Time Domain Analysis

The response of the i-th mode may alternatively be determined by resorting to

Duhamel's integral:

Xj(t) =

The overall response is then obtained by summing at each time step the individual
responses over all significant modes.

6.5 Direct Integration Methods

Direct step-by-step integration of the equations of motion is the most general method
and is applicable to:
 • non-linear problems involving special forms of damping and response-
dependent loadings.
• responses involving many vibration modes to be determined over a short time
interval.

The dynamic equilibrium at an instant τ is governed by the same type of equations,

where all matrices (mass, damping, stiffness, load) are simultaneously dependent on
the time and structural response as well.

All available integration techniques are characterised by their stability (i.e. the
tendency for uncontrolled divergence of amplitude to occur with increasing time
steps). Unconditionally stable methods are always to be preferred (for instance
Newmark-beta with β = 1/4 or Wilson-theta with θ = 1,4).

7. CONCLUDING SUMMARY
• The analysis of offshore structures is an extensive task.
• The analytical models used in offshore engineering are in some respects
similar to those used for other types of steel structures. The same model is
used throughout the analysis process.
• The verification of an element consists of comparing its characteristic
resistance(s) to a design force or stress. Several methods are available.
• Simple rules are available for preliminary member sizing.
• Static in-plane analysis is always carried out at the early stage of a project to
size the main elements of the structure. A dynamic analysis is normally
mandatory for every offshore structure.