Journal of Sound and Vibration (1996) 190(1), 77103

NON-LINEAR DYNAMICS OF AN ARTICULATED

TOWER IN THE OCEAN
P. B-A H. B*
Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Rutgers University, Piscataway,
New Jersey 08855, U.S.A.

(Received 28 June 1994 and in final form 3 May 1995

This paper presents studies on the response of an articulated tower in the ocean subjected
to deterministic and random wave loading. The tower is modeled as an upright rigid
pendulum with a concentrated mass at the top, having one angular-degree-of-freedom
(planar motion) about a hinge with Coulomb friction, and viscous structural damping. In
the derivation of the differential equation of motion, non-linear terms due to geometric
(large angle) and fluid forces (drag and inertia) are included. The wave loading is derived
using a modified Morisons equation to include current velocity, in which the velocity and
acceleration of the fluid are determined along the instantaneous position of the tower,
causing the equation of motion to be highly non-linear. Furthermore, since the differential
equations coefficients are time-dependent (periodic), parametric instability can occur
depending on the system parameters such as wave height and frequency, buoyancy, and
drag coefficient. The non-linear differential equation is then solved numerically using
ACSL software. The response of the tower to deterministic wave loading is investigated
and a stability analysis is performed (harmonic, subharmonic and superharmonic
resonance). To solve the equation for random loading, the Pierson-Moskowitz power
spectrum, describing the wave height, is first transformed into an approximate time history
using Borgmans method with slight modification. The equation of motion is then solved,
and the influence on the tower response of different parameter values such as buoyancy,
initial conditions, wave height and frequency, and current velocity and direction, is
investigated.
7 1996 Academic Press Limited

1. REVIEW AND PROBLEM DEFINITION

Compliant platforms such as articulated towers are economically attractive for deep water
conditions because of their reduced structural weight compared to conventional platforms.
The foundation of the tower does not resist lateral forces due to wind, waves and currents;
instead, restoring moments are provided by a large buoyancy force, a set of guylines or
a combination of both. These structures have a fundamental frequency well below the wave
lower-bound frequency. As a result of the relatively large displacements, geometric
non-linearity is an important consideration in the analysis of such a structure. The analysis
and investigation of these kinds of problems can be divided into two major groups:
deterministic and random wave and/or current loading. Work in this area is briefly
reviewed in the next two subsections.

1.1.
Chakrabarti and Cotter [1] analyzed the motion of an articulated tower fixed by a
universal joint having a single degree of freedom. They assumed linear waves, small

*Corresponding author.
77
0022460X/96/060077+27 $12.00/0 7 1996 Academic Press Limited
78 . - .
perturbations about an equilibrium position, a linear drag force and that the wind, current
and wave are collinear. The resulting equation of motion is
Ic +B(c )+Dc +Cc=M0 ei(abt) , (1)
where I is the total moment of inertia including added mass, B(c ) is the non-linear drag
term, Dc is the structural damping, Cc is the restoring moment due to buoyancy and M0
is the wave moment. An analytical solution is then compared to experimental results,
showing good agreement as long as the system is inertia dominant and not drag dominant.
In a later paper, Chakrabarti and Cotter [2] investigated transverse motion, the motion
perpendicular to the horizontal velocity. The tower pivot is assumed to have two angular
degrees of freedom and is taken to be frictionless. It was also assumed that the motion
is not coupled, so the inline solution is obtained (the same as in the previous paper), from
which the relative velocity between the tower and the wave is obtained. The lift force (in
the transverse direction) can then be obtained and the linear equation of motion solved
analytically and compared to experimental results. The comparison shows good
agreement, especially when the drag terms are small.
Jain and Kirk [3] investigated the dynamic response of a double articulated offshore
structure to waves and current loading. They assumed four-degrees-of-freedom, two
angular for each link. The equations of motion were derived using Lagranges equations.
In deriving the equations of motion the following assumptions were made: drag and inertia
forces tangent to the tower are negligible, and the wave and current velocities are evaluated
at the upright position (small angles assumption). The linearized equations were solved to
find the natural frequencies of the system and then numerically solved to find the response
due to collinear and non-collinear current and wave velocities. They found that when the
wave and the current velocities are collinear, the response of the top is sinusoidal, while
for non-collinear velocities the response is a complex three dimensional whirling
oscillation.
Thompson et al. [4] investigated the motions of an articulated mooring tower. They
modeled the structure as a bilinear oscillator which consists of two linear oscillators having
different stiffnesses for each half cycle,
mx+cx+(k1 , k2 )x=F0 sin vt, (2)
where k1 , k2 are the stiffnesses for xq0 and xQ0, respectively. The equation is solved
numerically for different spring ratios and, as expected, harmonics and subharmonic
resonances appeared in the response. A comparison between the response and
experimental results of a reduced-scale model showed good agreement in the main
phenomenon.
Choi and Lou [5] have investigated the behavior of an articulated offshore platform.
They modeled it as an upright pendulum having one-degree-of-freedom, with linear springs
at the top having different stiffnesses for positive and negative displacements (bilinear
oscillator). The equation of motion is simplified by expanding non-linear terms into a
power series and retaining only the first two terms. They assumed that the combined drag
and inertia moment is a harmonic function. The discontinuity in the stiffness is assumed
to be small, and thus replaced by an equivalent continuous function using a least-squares
method to get the Duffing equation
Iu +cu +k1 u+k2 u 2+k3 u 3=M0 cos vt, (3)
where k1 , k2 , k3 are spring constants depending on buoyancy, gravity and the mooring
lines. The equation of motion is solved analytically and numerically, and stability analysis
is performed. The analytical solution agrees very well with the numerical solution. The
 79
main results of their analyses are that as damping decreases, jump phenomena and higher
subharmonics occur, and chaotic motion occurs only for large waves and near the first
subharmonic (excitation frequency equals twice the fundamental frequency); the system is
very sensitive to initial conditions.
Seller and Niedzwecki [6] investigated the response of a multi-articulated tower in planar
motion (upright multi-pendulum) to account for the tower flexibility. The restoring
moments (buoyancy and gravity) were taken as linear rotational springs between each link,
although the authors state that non-linear springs are more adequate for this model. Each
link is assumed to have a different cross section and density. The equations of motion are
derived using Lagranges equations, in which the generalized co-ordinates are the angular
deflections of each link. The equations in matrix form are
[M]{u }+[K]{u}={Q}, (4)
where [M] is a mass matrix that includes the actual mass of the link and added mass terms,
while the stiffness matrix [K] includes buoyancy and gravity effects. Damping and drag
forces are not included in the model. The homogeneous equations for a tri-articulated
tower are numerically solved to study the effects of different parameters, such as link
length, material density and spring stiffness, on the natural frequency of the system.
Gottlieb et al. [7] analyzed the non-linear response of a single degree of freedom
articulated tower. In the derivation of the equation, the expressions for the buoyancy
moment arm, added mass term, and drag and inertia moments were evaluated along the
stationary upright tower position and not at the instantaneous position of the tower. The
governing equation is of the form
u +gu +R(u)=M(u , t), (5)
where R(u)=a sin u and a is linear function of buoyancy and gravity, M(u , t) is the drag
moment. Approximated harmonic and subharmonic solutions are derived using a finite
Fourier series expansion, and stability analysis is performed by a Lyapunov function
approach. The solution shows a jump phenomenon in the primary and secondary
resonances.

1.2.
Muhuri and Gupta [8] investigated the stochastic stability of a buoyant platform. They
used a linear single-degree-of-freedom model,
x+2cx+(1+G(t))x=0, (6)
where x is the displacement, c is the damping coefficient and G(t) is a stochastic
time-dependent function due to buoyancy. It is assumed that G(t) is a narrow-band
random process with zero-mean. A criterion for the mean square stability is obtained from
which the following results are found: for cq1 the system is always stable, and for 0QcQ1
there are regions of stability and instability.
Datta and Jain [9] investigated the response of an articulated tower to random wave
and wind forces. In the derivation of the single-degree-of-freedom equation of motion the
tower is discretized into n elements having appropriate masses, volumes and areas lumped
at the nodes, with viscous damping. The equation of motion is
I(1+b(t))u +cu +R(1+n(t))u=F(t), (7)
where Ib(t) is the time varying added mass term, Rn(t) is the time varying buoyancy
moment and F(t) is the random force due to wave and wind. The Pierson-Moskowitz
spectrum is assumed for the wave height and Davenports spectrum is assumed for the
80 . - .
wind velocity. The equation is solved in the frequency domain using an iterative method,
which requires that the deflection angle u(t) and the forcing function F(t) be decomposed
into Fourier series. The coefficients of the sin and cos are then found iteratively. From their
parametric study, they concluded the following:
1. Non-linearities such as large displacements and drag force do not influence the response
when only wind force is considered.
2. The random wind forces result in higher responses than do wave forces.
3. The r.m.s. response due only to wind forces varies in a linear fashion with the mean
wind velocity.
In a later paper, Jain and Datta [10] used the same equation and the same method of
solution to investigate the response due to random wave and current loading. The wave
loadings (drag, inertia and buoyancy) are evaluated using numerical integration. The
following results were obtained from the parametric study:
1. The dynamic response is very small since its fundamental frequency is well below the
waves fundamental frequency.
2. Non-linear effects (drag force, variable buoyancy) have considerable influence on the
response.
3. Current velocity has a large influence on the response.
Hanna et al. [11] analyzed the non-linear dynamics of a guyed tower platform. The tower
is represented by a lumped parameter model consisting of discrete masses. Each mass has
three-degrees-of-freedom, two translations and one rotation about the vertical axis. The
external forces on the structure are approximated by concentrated forces and torques at
the nodal points. The equation of motion is
[M]{u }+[C]{u }+[K(u)]{u}={P(t, u, u )}, (8)
where [M] is the total mass matrix including added mass terms, [C] is the structural
damping matrix assumed to be proportional to the mass matrix and [K(u)] is the total
non-linear stiffness matrix that includes mooring lines effects, soil stiffness and geometric
stiffness. {P(t, u, u )} is the non-linear dynamic load vector due to wave, current and wind.
The equation is then solved using normal mode superposition and the response is
calculated at each time step. This method is good only if the non-linearities are not large.
Deterministic and random loading are considered. The solution shows insignificant flexure
modes while the torsional one has a noticeable effect on the deck rotational response.
Wilson and Orgill [12] presented a study which deals with the methodology for selecting
the parameters for the best cable mooring array. The idea was to find a cable configuration
so that the towers r.m.s. deflection is minimized. The tower was assumed rigid with a pivot
at the sea floor. Only planar motion was assumed. The equation of motion was derived
and forces due to wind, wave, and six cables attached to the tower were considered. The
optimization problem was formulated and solved for normal operating conditions and
then for storm conditions. They showed that a stiff cable array is needed for normal
condition while a softer system is preferred for storm conditions.
Kanegaonkar and Haldar [13] investigated the non-linear random vibration of a guyed
tower. They included non-linearities due to guyline stiffnesses, geometry, load and
material. The simplified planner equation of motion is
Iu +cu +Ku+k1 u 3=M(t), (9)
where K is a spring constant depending on buoyancy, gravity and guyline horizontal
stiffness, and k1 is a constant depending on the guyline vertical stiffness. M(t) is the random
 81
wave loading. The equation is then solved numerically where the wave height is defined
by the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. It was seen that the response is non-Gaussian for
significant wave heights greater than 5 m.
Gerber and Engelbrecht [14] investigated the response of an articulated mooring tower
to irregular seas. It is an extension of earlier work done by Thompson et al. [4]. The tower
is modeled as a bilinear oscillator, that is, a linear oscillator with different stiffnesses for
positive and negative deflections,

mx+cx+(k1 , k2 )x=F(t). (10)

The random forcing function F(t) is assumed to be the sum of a large number of harmonic
components, each at different frequencies, a procedure similar to that proposed by
Borgman [15]. The equation is then solved analytically, since it is linear for each half cycle.
The solution is obtained for different cases: linear oscillator (both stiffnesses are the same),
bilinear oscillator, and for the case of impact oscillator (a rigid cable) in which oscillation
can occur only in one half of the cycle. For future study they suggest inclusion of non-linear
stiffness and/or using a different spectrum to describe the wave height.

1.3.
In this paper, the planer response of an articulated tower submerged in the ocean is
investigated. The non-linear differential equation of motion is derived, including
non-linearities due to geometry, Coulomb damping, drag force, added mass, and
buoyancy. All forces/moments are evaluated at the instantaneous position of the tower
and, therefore, they are time-dependent and highly non-linear. The equation is then
numerically solved using ACSLAdvanced Continuous Simulation Language [16], a
software language, for deterministic and random wave loading using the Pierson-Moskow-
itz wave height spectrum. Harmonic, superharmonic, and subharmonic solutions for
deterministic wave heights are obtained. The response to random wave heights for different
significant wave heights is then investigated, the influence of Coulomb damping and
current velocity and direction on the response is analyzed, and chaotic regimes of behavior
are identified.
The distinctions between this study and the literature of which we are aware are that:
a sound and exact derivation of the non-linear equation of motion is provided; all terms
in the governing differential equation of motion are analytically derived; Coulomb friction
in the tower hinge is added; usage of ACSL for the numerical solution provides an easy
way to modify parameters and perform sensitivity studies.

2. PROBLEM DESCRIPTION
A schematic of the structure is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a tower submerged in
the ocean having a concentrated mass at the top and one degree of freedom u about the
z-axis. The tower is subjected to wave and current loading. Two coordinate systems are
used; one fixed (x, y, z) and the second attached to the tower (x', y', z'). All
forces/moments are derived in the fixed coordinate system, which means that the tower
rectilinear velocity is resolved into x, y coordinates. The motion of the tower is assumed
to be only in plane (x, y) but the wave and current can be three dimensional.
This problem has similarities to that of an inverted pendulum, but due to the presence
of gravity waves, additional considerations are included:
(1) A buoyancy force T0 , keeps the pendulum in a stable upright position.
82 . - .

Figure 1. Model and coordinate frames.

(2) Drag forces proportional to the square of the relative velocity between the fluid and
the tower are considered.
(3) Fluid inertia forces due to fluid acceleration and lift forces due to vortex shedding are
part of the loading environment.
(4) Fluid added mass is directly included in the inertia forces.
(5) Current influence on the wave kinematics is considered.

3. EQUATIONS OF MOTION
The equation of motion is derived using Lagranges equation. The model consists of a
single-degree-of-freedom: a rotation u about the z-axis (planar motion). The equation is
derived for large displacements under certain assumptions that are listed below.

3.1.
The tower stiffness is infinite (EI=a): Coulomb friction in the pivot and viscous
structural damping are included; the tower has a uniform mass per unit length, m and is
of length l and diameter D; the tower diameter is much smaller than its length, Dl; the
tower is a slender smooth structure with uniform cross section; the end mass M is
considered to be concentrated at the end of the tower (It has no volume); the tower length
is greater than the fluid depth, but the dynamics is not limited to the case of M always
being above the mean water level; the structure is statically stable due to the buoyancy
force; the waves are linear having random height; Morisons fluid force coefficients CD and
CM are constant; the center of mass (c.g.) of the tower is at its geometric center.

3.2.
The general form of Lagranges equations is

0 1
d 1KE 1K 1P 1D
E+ E+ E=Qqi , (11)
dt 1qi 1qi 1qi 1qi

where KE is the kinetic energy, PE is the potential energy, DE is the dissipative energy and
Qqi is the generalized force related to the qi generalized coordinate.
The model consists of a single-degree-of-freedom, thus there is one generalized
coordinate, u. The generalized force in the relevant direction is derived using the principle
 83

Figure 2. Generalized force for u.

of virtual work by first deriving its general form assuming an external force having two
components,

s Fe=s Fx x+s Fy y . (12)

From Figure 2 the virtual work done by Fe due to a virtual displacement du,

Fu du=s Fx x'[cos (u+du)cos u]+s Fy x'[sin (u+du)sin u], (13)

and using appropriate trigonometric identities,

Fu du=s Fx x'[cos u cos dusin u sin ducos u]

+s Fy x'[sin u cos du+cos u sin dusin u].

Since virtual work is being considered, the virtual displacement du1, and x'=x/cos u.
Thus, the generalized force per unit length for the u coordinate is

Fu=s Fx x tan u+s Fy x. (14)

Finally, the generalized moment is evaluated by integrating Fu along the tower,

g g0 1
L L

Qu= Fu dx= s Fx x tan u+s Fy x dx, (15)

0 0
84 . - .
where L is the projection, in the x direction, of the submerged part of the tower. It depends
on the angle u as follows:

6
l cos u, if d+h( y, t)ql cos u,
L= (16)
d+h( y, t), if d+h( y, t)Ql cos u,

where h( y, t) is the wave height elevation to be defined later.

3.3. ,
To derive the equation of motion using Lagranges equations requires that the kinetic,
dissipative, and potential energies be evaluated, as well as the generalized forces. In this
subsection, the tower absolute velocities, linear and angular, and accelerations are
determined in the fixed coordinate system (x, y, z) attached to earth. Then in section 3.4
the fluid moments are evaluated.

3.3.1. Tower kinematics

The tower is assumed to be oriented along a unit vector 1 with the directional cosines
(see Figure (1))
1=cos ux+sin uy , (17)
so that the towers radius vector R is
R=x'1=x' cos ux+x' sin uy . (18)
Its velocity V, relative to the waves velocity, is found by taking the time-derivative of
the radius vector,
dR
=V=x'u sin ux+x'u cos uy , (19)
dt
and the acceleration V by taking the time-derivative of the its velocity,
dV
=V=x'(u sin u+u 2 cos u)x+x'[u cos uu 2 sin u]y . (20)
dt
Since the equation is derived in the fixed coordinate system x, y, x'=x/cos u giving,
R=xx+x tan uy , V=xu tan ux+xu y ,
V=x(u tan u+u 2 )x+x(u u 2 tan u)y . (21)
Finally, the tower total angular velocity is
V=u z . (22)

3.3.2. Wave and current kinematics

In this study linear wave theory is assumed; therefore the horizontal and vertical wave
velocities are (Wilson [17]):
1 cosh kx 1 sinh kx
uw= Hv cos (kyvt), ww= Hv sin (kyvt), (23)
2 sinh kd 2 sinh kd
and the respective accelerations:
1 cosh kx 1 sinh kx
uw= Hv 2 sin (kyvt), ww= Hv 2 cos (kyvt), (24)
2 sinh kd 2 sinh kd
 85
where H is the wave height, v the wave frequency, k the wave number, and d the mean
water level, which are related by

v 2=gk tanh (kd). (25)

Without losing generality it is assumed that the wave propagates in the y-direction so
that the horizontal velocity u is in that direction, and w is in the x-direction, although it
should be noted that random waves are not uni-directional but that is beyond the scope
of this study.
Current velocity magnitude is calculated assuming that it consists of two components
(Issacson [18]): the tidal component, Uct , and the wind-induced current Ucw . If both
components are known at the water surface, the vertical distribution of the current velocity
Uc (x) may be taken as

Uc (x)=Uct (x/d)1/7+Ucw (x/d). (26)

The tidal current Uct at the surface can be obtained directly from the tide table, and the
wind-driven current Ucw at the surface is generally taken as 1 to 5% of the mean wind speed
at 10 m above the surface.
When current and waves coexist, the combined flow field should be used to determine
the wave loads. Figure 3 shows a top view of the system. The influence of current velocity
on the wave field is treated by applying wave theory in a reference frame which is fixed
relative to the current velocity. For a current of magnitude Uc propagating in a direction
a relative to the direction of the wave propagation, the wave velocity defined as c0=v0 /k
without current is modified and becomes

c=c0+Uc cos a, v=ck. (27)

The velocities used to determine wave loads are the vectorial sum of the wave and
current velocities:

w=ww , u=uw+Uc cos a, (28)

where w and u are the total velocities in x, y directions, respectively.

Figure 3. Wave and current fields.

86 . - .
To consider geometrical non-linearities, the velocities and accelerations are evaluated at
the instantaneous position of the tower. Replacing y=x tan u in the velocity and
acceleration expressions (equations (23) and (24)) yields velocities
1 sinh kx
w= Hv sin (kx tan uvt),
2 sinh kd
1 cosh kx
u= Hv cos (kx tan uvt)+Uc cos a, (29)
2 sinh kd
and accelerations

0 1
1 kx sinh kx
w= Hv v+u cos (kx tan uvt),
2 cos2 u sinh kd

0 1
1 kx cosh kx
u= Hv v+u sin (kx tan uvt). (30)
2 cos2 u sinh kd

The influence of current on the wave height depends on the manner in which the waves
propagate onto the current field. An approximation to the wave height in the presence of
current is given by Isaacson [18],
H=H0 z2/(g+g 2 ) , (31)
where H0 , H are the wave heights in the absence and presence of current respectively, and
g is
g=z1+(4Uc /c0 )cos a , for (4Uc /c0 ) cos aq1. (32)

3.4.
Figure 4 depicts the external forces acting on the tower: T0 is a vertical buoyancy force;
Ffl are fluid forces due to drag, inertia, added mass and vortex shedding; Mg, mlg are the
forces due to gravity.
These forces and moments are described and developed next.

Figure 4. External forces acting on the tower.

 87
3.4.1. Buoyancy moment
The restoring moment is achieved via the buoyancy force

Mb=T0 lb . (33)

T0 is the buoyancy force and lb is its moment arm; both are time-dependent, where

T0=rgV0=rgp(D 2/4)Ls . (34)

V0 is the volume of the submerged part of the tower, r is the fluid density and Ls , which
is the length of the submerged part of the tower, is

Ls=[d+h( y, t)]/cos u, (35)

where h( y, t) is the wave height elevation evaluated at the instantaneous position of the
tower and at x=d with y=d tan u,

h(u, t)=12 H cos (kd tan uvt+e). (36)

The buoyant force acts at the center of mass of the submerged part of the tower. If the
tower is assumed to be of cylindrical cross-section then the center of mass in the x', y'
coordinates is

D2 1 D2
lby'= tan2 u, lbx'= Ls+ tan2 u. (37)
16Ls 2 32Ls

Transforming to x, y coordinates the moment arm lb ,

0 1
D2 1 D2
lb= tan2 u cos u+ Ls+ tan2 u sin u, (38)
16Ls 2 32Ls

and finally the buoyancy generalized moment is then

$ 0 1 %
2
D2 D2 1 (d+h( y, t))
Mbu=rgp tan2 u(2 cos u+sin u)+ sin u . (39)
4 32 2 cos u

3.4.2. Morisons equation for wave forces

In general, the fluid forces acting on a slender smooth tower are of two types, drag and
inertia. The drag force is proportional to the square of the relative velocity between the
fluid and the tower, and the inertia force is proportional to the fluid acceleration. The drag
and inertia forces per unit length are approximated by Morisons equation,

D D2
Ffl=CD r =(Vrel )=(Vrel )+CM rp (Uw ), (40)
2 4

where Ffl is the fluid force per unit length normal to the tower. (Vrel )=(UwV) is the
relative velocity between the fluid and the tower in a direction normal to the tower, and
(Uw ) is the fluid acceleration normal to the tower. CD and CM are the drag and inertia
coefficients, respectively. The relative velocity and fluid acceleration normal to the tower
can be decomposed to their components as
x y T
[Vrel , Vrel ] =1(UwV)1, [Uwx , Uwy ]T=1Uw1. (41)
88 . - .
Using Morisons equation (40), the tower velocity equation (21), and fluid velocity and
acceleration equations (29) and (30), the fluid force components are: the drag force,
D
[FDx , FDy ]T=CD r =1(UwV)1=(1(UwV)1)
2
D
=CD r x 2
(+z(Vrel y 2
) +(Vrel x
) )[Vrel y T
, Vrel ], (42)
2
and the inertia force,
D2 D2
[FIx , FIy ]T=CM rp (1Uw1)=CM rp [w , u ]T. (43)
4 4

3.4.3. Vortex shedding moment

The lift force FL due to vortex shedding is acting in a direction normal to the wave
velocity vector and normal to the tower. In this section, since the motion is in plane, only
shedding forces in the direction of the wave propagation due to current velocity
perpendicular to the waves (a=90) are considered. Different models of lift force exist in
the literature; see especially Billah [19]. Initially a simple model will be used,
D
FL=[FLx , FLy ]T=CL r cos vs t=1UT =(1UT ), (44)
2
where UT , the vector of the maximum fluid velocity, is
UT=[wm , um ]T, (45)
CL is the lift coefficient which depends on the Reynolds number Re, and vs is the vortex
shedding frequency that depends on the Keulegan-Carpenter number K as follows
(Issacson [18]):
CL=02, for Ree15105; vs=2v, for K=516. (46)

3.4.4. Total fluid moment

The moment due to the fluid forces (drag, inertia, and lift) is evaluated by substituting
the sum of all fluid forces, defined by equation (47):

s Fxfl=FDx +FIx+FLx , s Fyfl=FDy +FIy+FLy , (47)

into equation (15). Therefore, the fluid moment Mflu is

g 0$ % 1
L

Mflu= s Fflx , s Ffly [tan u, 1] x dx, (48)

0

which is evaluated using MAPLE and is not given here because of its length and
complexity.

3.4.5. Added mass moment

The fluid added mass force per unit length Fad is
D2
Fad=CA rp V , (49)
4
 89
where CA=CM1 is the added mass coefficient. Substituting expression (21) for the
tower acceleration into equation (49) leads to expressions for the forces in the x, y
directions,

D2 D2
x
F ad =CA rp x(u tan u+u 2 ), y
Fad =CA rp x(u u 2 tan u). (50)
4 4

Substituting these added mass forces into the generalized moment equation (15), and
integrating to yield the generalized moments due to fluid added mass, results in

1 D2 3
u
Mad = CA rp L (1+tan2 u)u . (51)
3 4

3.4.6. Friction moment

The tower hinge is assumed to be governed by Coulomb friction. In this section this
friction/damping moment is evaluated. The damping force is equal to the product of the
normal force N and the coefficient of friction m. It is assumed to be independent of the
velocity, once the motion is initiated. Since the sign of the damping force is always opposite
to that of the velocity, the differential equation of motion for each sign is valid only for
a half cycle interval. The friction force is

F fru =Nm[sgn (u )]. (52)

The normal force is

N=s Fx cos u+s Fy sin u, (53)

where a Fx , a Fy are the total forces due to gravity, buoyancy and tower acceleration in
the x, y directions, respectively. The fluid forces (drag, inertia and vortex shedding) do not
influence the friction force since they are perpendicular to the tower. Thus,

s Fx=T0Fg+F acx , s Fy=F acy , (54)

where T0 is the buoyancy force given in equation (39), Fg is the gravitational force,

Fg=(ml+M)g, (55)

and the forces due to the tower acceleration F acx , F acy are

$ 0 1%
1 1 1 1
F acx = C rpD 2L 2+ ml+M l (u tan u+u 2 ),
8 A 2 2 cos u

$ 0 1%
1 1 1 1
F acy = C rpD 2L 2+ ml+M l (u +u 2 tan u), (56)
8 A 2 2 cos u
90 . - .
where l is the projection of the towers length l in the x-direction, i.e., l =l cos u. Assuming
a hinge radius Rh , and substituting for N, the generalized damping moment is

00 1 1
1 L2 1 1
Mfru = CA rpD 2 + ml 2+ Ml u 2+(T0Fg ) cos u Rh m[sgn (u )]. (57)
8 cos2 u 4 2

The only term remaining in the acceleration forces is the centrifugal one which is tangential
to the tower, namely lu 2.

3.5.
u
The dynamic moments Mdy , those which are evaluated in the left hand side of Lagranges
equation (11), are found using the kinetic, dissipative, and potential energies,

KE=12 Iz V 2, DE=Cu 2, PE=( 12 ml+M)gl cos u, (58)

where C is the structural damping constant and Iz is the moment of inertia of the tower
about the z axis, given by

Iz=13 ml 3+Ml 2. (59)

Substituting equations (59) and (22) into (58) leads to the expression for the kinetic energy,

KE=12 ( 13 ml 3+Ml 2 )u 2. (60)

The dissipative energy due to Coulomb friction is not velocity dependent, but the viscous
u
damping is. Substituting the energies into the left hand side of equation (11) leads to Mdy ,
u
Mdy =( 13 ml 3+Ml 2 )u +Cu ( 12 ml+M)gl sin u. (61)

3.6.
The governing non-linear differential equation of motion is found by equating the
u u
dynamic moment, Mdy , to the applied moment, Map , which is the sum of all external
moments:
u u
Mdy =Map , (62)

where the applied moment is found by adding equations (39), (51), (57), and (48):
u
Map =MfluMad
u
Mbu+Mfru . (63)

Substituting equations (61) and (63) into (62) and rearranging leads to the governing
non-linear time dependent differential equation of motion for the tower:

g 0$ % 1
L

Jeff u +Cu = s F flx , s F fly [tan u, 1] x dxMgb

u
Mfru , (64)
0

where Jeff is the effective moment of inertia,

0 1
1 3 1 D2 3
Jeff= ml +Ml 2 + CA rp L (1+tan2 u), (65)
3 3 4
 91
T 1
Towers properties
Property Value
Towers length 400 m
Towers diameter 15 m
Towers mass 20103 kg/m
End mass 252105 kg
Friction coefficient 01 to 04
Pivot radius 15 m

and Mgb is the moment due to gravity and buoyancy,

$ 0 1 %0 1
2
D2 D2 1 d+h( y, t) 1
u
Mgb =rgp tan2 u(2 cos u+sin u)+ sin u ml+M gl sin u.
4 32 2 cos u 2
(66)

4. NUMERICAL SOLUTION
The governing non-linear differential equation of motion (64) is numerically solved using
ACSL and the results are analyzed using MATLAB.
The tower response to various waves and current is investigated. The analysis is
performed for deterministic as well as for random wave heights. The physical parameters
used in the simulation are shown in Tables 1 and 2.

4.1.
The non-linear differential equation for the single-degree-of-freedom system is solved for
several cases: equilibrium position of the tower in the presence of current; fundamental
frequency, and damping (drag, viscous and friction) effect; response to wave excitation;
superharmonics, harmonic and subharmonics resonances; chaotic regions and influence of
current velocity and direction.

4.1.1. Response in the absence of waves

In this section, the free vibration of the tower, and the influence of current on the
response are investigated. To do so, the wave velocities are set to zero. To find the

T 2
Fluid properties
Property Value
Mean water level 350 m
Drag coefficient 06 to 10
Inertia coefficient 12 to 16
Lift coefficient 08 to 12
Water density 1025 kg/m3
Wave frequency 003 to 1 rad/s
Significant wave height 0 to 15 m
Current velocity 2 m/s
Structural damping 002
92 . - .

Figure 5. Free vibration of the tower.

fundamental frequency, the tower response to non-zero initial conditions with zero
damping is found. Figure 5 describes the response of the tower for u (t=0)=0001 rad/s
in the time and frequency domain. From the figure it can be seen that the fundamental
frequency is vn=017701 rad/s=0028 Hz. Calculating the frequency analytically using
equation (67) yields vn=017704 rad/s=0028 Hz,

X
u
1 Mgb
vn= . (67)
2p Jeff

Adding damping to the system (drag, friction or viscous) causes a decay in the response
as can be seen from Figure 6. A typical decay for each damping mechanism is clearly seen:
hyperbolic decay, proportional to ua 1 /t, for drag damping, linear decay, proportional to
(ua2 t), for Coulomb damping, and exponential decay, u exp (a3 t), for viscous
damping. a1 , a2 , a3 are the decay constants for each damping mechanism. The response for
the first two damping mechanisms consists of the fundamental frequency and its odd
multipliers, as can be seen from the frequency domain figures. The reason for the odd
multipliers is the fact that the drag and the Coulomb friction forces are non-linear and

Figure 6. Time and frequency domain curves for damped free vibration: (a, b) CD=1; (c, d) m=01; (e, f) z=02.
 93

Figure 7. Damped, free vibration in the presence of current; , Uc=1 m/s; , Uc=2 m/s.

anti-symmetric. On the other hand the response for viscous damping is linear and therefore
only the fundamental frequency is seen.
Figure 7 shows the damped, free vibration of the tower in the presence of current. The
figure demonstrates that the higher the current velocity, the faster the decay to equilibrium.
This is because one of the terms in the drag fluid force is proportional to (2CD Uc cos a)u
which is similar to linear viscous damping.
The influence of the current velocity on the equilibrium position is found from the steady
state solution. Figure 8 describes the tower position in the presence of current velocities
of Uc=1 and 2 m/s, with drag (CD=1) and with friction damping (m=01). In both cases
a=0. Setting u =0 and u =0 in the non-linear governing equation and solving for u with
Uc=1, 2 m/s leads to the following equilibrium positions: u(Uc=1)=00035 rad and
u(Uc=2)=00141 rad, with simulations leading to the same results. As can be seen, the
deflection angle for Uc=2 m/s is four times the deflection angle for Uc=1 m/s, and the
reason is that the equilibrium position is proportional to Uc cos a =Uc cos a =.

4.1.2. Response in the presence of waves

In this section, the towers response to deterministic waves and current is investigated.
Current direction, and super/subharmonic wave excitation is analyzed.
The influence of the angle between the current and the wave propagation, a, on the
response is investigated next. Figure 9 shows the response of the tower for a=0, 45
(Figure (a)) and 135, 180 (Figure (b)). Here, the wave height is H=1 m, v=01 rad/s
and Uc=15 m/s. From the figure it is seen that the steady state response for a and 180a

Figure 8. Tower equilibrium position in the presence of currents with (a) drag only, CD=1; (b) friction only,
m=01; , Uc=1 m/s; , Uc=2 m/s.
94 . - .

Figure 9. Influence of current direction: (a) ----, a=0; - - -, a=180; (b) ----, a=45; - - -, a=135.

Figure 10. Response in (a) time and (b) frequency domain for current direction a=90.

has the same magnitude but opposite sign, and for a=90 the equilibrium position is zero.
This is because the steady state response is proportional to Uc cos a =Uc cos a =. For a$0,
the response has two frequencies, v and 2v, due to the vortex shedding model used in
the analysis; see equation (46).
The highest response is achieved when a=90, as can be seen when comparing Figures
9 and 10. The reason is that an additional lift (transverse) force is added when the angle
is not zero, and this force is maximum for a=90. From the frequency domain response,
the two excitation frequencies are clearly seen, v=0016 Hz and 2v=0032 Hz.
The response due to resonance wave excitation; superharmonics, harmonic and
subharmonics is analyzed. Figure 11 shows the towers response to wave excitation at

Figure 11. Undamped response to subharmonic excitation v=2vn : (a) time domain and (b) frequency
response.
 95

Figure 12. Undamped response to subharmonic excitation v=2vn with current velocity Uc=2 m/s. (a) Time
domain and (b) frequency response.

about twice its fundamental frequency, the subharmonics. Here the wave height is
H=10 m, the current velocity and all damping forces are set to zero. The
figure demonstrates beating with high amplitudes, u104 rad, implying an unstable
region. The frequency response includes the excitation frequency v=0056 Hz, the
fundamental frequency v=0028 Hz and its multipliers. This is due to the system
non-linearity, where subharmonics cause a response at the exciting frequency as well as
in the fundamental frequency.
The subharmonic response in the presence of current is shown in Figure 12. Comparing
Figures 11 and 12 it is seen that the highest response is for zero current velocity. For
Uc=2 m/s, the response is much smaller. The reason is that the excitation frequency
depends on the current velocity as shown by equation (68). For Uc=0 m/s, the excitation
frequency is exactly twice the fundamental frequency thus causing the highest response.
The exciting frequency and the current velocity are related by
v=v0 (1+v0 Uc /g). (68)
Adding drag, CD=06, to the system reduces the amplitude of the towers response and
eliminates the beating phenomenon, as can be seen from Figure 13 (time domain). In the
frequency domain the exciting frequency, the fundamental frequency and its multipliers
are as seen in Figure 11. The difference is that the amplitude of the fundamental frequency
v=0028 Hz is lower due to the damping effect of the drag force.
The response due to wave excitation at about the fundamental frequency and in the
absence of damping is shown in Figure 14. The response is much higher than for
subharmonic excitation. The beating phenomenon is clearly seen and the system jumps
between two amplitudes. The frequency domain curve shows the fundamental frequency
v=0028 Hz as well as its multipliers.

Figure 13. Damped response to subharmonic excitation v=2vn with CD=06; (a) Time domain and (b)
frequency response.
96 . - .

Figure 14. Undamped response to harmonic excitation v=vn . (a) Time domain and (b) frequency response.

Figure 15. Undamped response to harmonic excitation v=vn for current velocity Uc=2 m/s. (a) Time domain
and (b) frequency response.

Again, in the presence of current, the excitation frequency is modified and resulting in
different response amplitudes, as can be seen in Figure 15. Here, the response is higher
in the presence of a current velocity, Uc=2 m/s, but the difference is not large when
compared to Figure 12, since the region of instability around the fundamental frequency
is wider than the one about the second harmonic and it can be seen the beating frequency
(envelope frequency) has changed due to the modified excitation frequency.
Damping with CD=06 has a stabilizing effect on the system. The amplitude is lower
and the beating disappears as can be seen in Figure 16.
Similar results are found when the excitation frequency is about one half of the
fundamental frequency (superharmonic excitation), as can be seen from Figures 17, 18
and 19.

Figure 16. Damped response to harmonic excitation v=vn with CD=06. (a) Time domain and (b) frequency
response.

Figure 17. Undamped response to superharmonic excitation v=vn /2. (a) Time domain and (b) frequency
response.
 97

Figure 18. Undamped response to superharmonic excitation v=vn /2 with current velocity Uc=2 m/s. (a) Time
domain and (b) frequency response.

Figure 19. Damped response to superharmonic excitation v=vn /2 with CD=06. (a) Time domain and (b)
frequency response.

4.1.3. Quasiperiodic and chaotic behavior

The response of the tower to an arbitrary frequency is investigated next. From a
frequency sweep it is found that the response is mostly quasi-periodic, except for certain
frequencies in which the response is chaotic. Figure 20 shows the time domain response,

Figure 20. Quasi-periodic response: (a) time domain, (b) phase plane and (c) Poincare map.
98 . - .

Figure 21. Chaotic response: (a) Time domain, (b) phase plane and (c) Poincare map.

phase plane and Poincare map, for wave excitation v=006 rad/s, H=10 m. The damping
moments, initial conditions and current velocity are set to zero. From the phase plane the
response looks chaotic but the Poincare map shows that the response is in fact
quasi-periodic.
A chaotic region is shown in Figure 21 where the response to a wave frequency of
v=003 rad/s is shown. From the Poincare map it is clearly seen that the response is
chaotic since the points are scattered in an erratic fashion, unlike the quasi-periodic case.
Figure 22 shows the Poincare map of the same response as in Figure 21 with additional
damping of CD=02. The adjacent figure is a magnification of the response about zero.
It describes a characteristic response of a chaotic region with damping in which the points
are highly organized, as described by Moon [20].
The influence of initial conditions is shown in Figure 23. The left figure shows a Poincare
map of a chaotic response with zero initial conditions. The right figure is also a Poincare
map but with the following initial conditions: u(t=0)=05 rad, u (t=0)=005 rad/s. It is
clearly seen in the latter case that the chaotic response has become quasi-periodic with
larger deflection.

4.2.
In this section the tower response to random wave height excitation is investigated. The
wave height distribution is generally expressed in the form of a power spectral density. For
simulation of the response in the time domain, the wave height power spectrum is

Figure 22. Influence of damping on the chaotic response: (a) full phase plane, (b) magnification around zero.
 99

Figure 23. Influence of initial condition on the chaotic response. (a) Chaotic motion with zero initial conditions,
(b) quasi-periodic motion with non-zero initial conditions.

transformed into a time history. This is accomplished using a method by Borgman [15],
and Wilson [17].
The wave elevation h( y, t) can be expressed as

h( y, t)=12 H cos (kyvt+e). (69)

The Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum for the wave height is

4
Sh (v)=(A0 /v 5 ) eB/v , (70)

where A0 and B are constants defined by

A0=81103g 2, B=311/Hs2 , (71)

where Hs is the significant wave height. Using Borgmans method, the wave elevation
h( y, t) can be approximated by

N
h ( y, t)=a s cos (kn yvn t+en ), (72)
n=1

where the amplitude a, is constant and given by

a 2=A0 /4BN. (73)

Figure 24. Influence of different wave heights on the tower response: (a) Hs=4, (b) Hs=9, (c) Hs=15.
100 . - .
The partition frequencies vn are
vn=(B/[ln (N/n)+B/F 4 ])025 , n=1, 2, . . . , N, (74)
with F being the upper limit frequency in the Pierson-Moskowitz spectra.
The wave loading on the tower is a function of wave velocity and acceleration which
in these numerical studies have to be expressed as functions of the approximate wave
elevation. Thus, in the expressions for wave velocity and acceleration, the following
substitutions are made:
H c zA0 /4BN , v c vn , k c kn , n=1, 2, . . . , N. (75)
For example, the horizontal velocity and acceleration will become
N
A0 cosh kn x
u= s vn cos (kn x tan uvn t),
n=1
4BN sinh kn d

0 1
N
A0 kn x cosh kn x
u= s v vn+u sin (kn x tan uvn t). (76)
n=1
4BN n cos2 u sinh kn d

Next, the influences on the response of different significant wave heights, damping (drag,
viscous and Coulomb) mechanisms, and different current velocities are investigated.

4.2.1. Effect of significant wave height

Figure 24 compares the tower response for three different significant wave heights:
Hs=4, 9, 15 m. It can be seen from the figure that lower significant wave height results
in lower response. The reasons are: the larger the significant wave height the higher the
input; as Hs increases, the mean wave frequency approaches the fundamental frequency
of the tower.
To emphasize this second reason, the tower fundamental frequency is changed to about
vn=08 rad/s and the responses due to Hs=4, 9 m are calculated and shown in Figure 25,
from which it can be seen that the response for Hs=4 m beats, almost as in harmonic
excitation, and is higher than the response for Hs=9 m although the spectral peak is seven
times smaller.

4.2.2. Effect of current

The influence of current velocity on the random response is shown in Figure 26 for the
case of collinear wave and current i.e., a=0. Here the significant wave height is Hs=9 m
and the drag coefficient is CD=02. It is seen that the higher the current velocity the smaller
the response. The reason is that current in the direction of the waves propagation tends
to lower the wave height (see Isaacson [18]).

Figure 25. Influence of significant wave height with vn=08 rad/s. (a) Hs=4, (b) Hs=9.
 101

Figure 26. Influence of current on the random response for a=0. (a) Uc=0 (m/s), (b) Uc=1 (m/s), (c) Uc=3
(m/s).

4.2.3. Effect of damping

Different damping mechanisms have different effects on the towers response. Figure 27
shows the separate influence of drag, viscous, and Coulomb damping on the response. The
significant wave height is Hs=9 m and the damping constants are CD=06, z=002,
m=01, respectively. As can be seen from the figure, although all damping mechanisms
cause the transient response to vanish after about 25 seconds, the steady state response
in the presence of Coulomb damping m is almost one order of magnitude lower.

5. DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The non-linear differential equation of motion for an articulated tower submerged in
the ocean is derived including Coulomb and viscous damping. Geometric as well as force
non-linearities are included in the derivation. The fluid forces, drag, inertia and lift due
to waves and current, are determined at the instantaneous position of the tower, adding

Figure 27. Influence of different damping mechanisms on the response: (a) CD=06, (b) z=002, (c) m=01.
102 . - .
to the non-linearities of the equation. The equation is solved numerically using ACSL
for deterministic and random wave loading.
The equilibrium position (u =u =0) depends on the current velocity and direction,
Uc cos a =Uc cos a =, and in the absence of drag the equilibrium position is u=0. The
currents direction affects the response greatly. For the same current velocity, the highest
response is when the direction is perpendicular to the wave propagation, since the lift force
is then maximum.
The response of the tower to harmonic wave excitation at its natural frequency, and
half and twice its natural frequency demonstrates beating, where the amplitude varies
between two extremes. This beating is due to the non-linear behavior of the system.
Coulomb damping reduces the beating phenomenon and the response amplitude, so it has
a stabilizing effect on the system.
The system response depends on the wave frequency and amplitude. For most
frequencies the response is quasi-periodic, but there are certain frequencies at which the
system exhibits chaotic behavior.
To solve the equation for random wave loading, the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum that
describes the wave height distribution was first transformed into a time history. The
equation was solved for three significant wave heights. For significant wave heights of 9
and 15 m, the response was larger than that for 4 m, since in the former the towers natural
frequency is closer to the frequencies where most of the energy is located. Damping of
any kind (drag, friction and viscous) stabilizes the system with the greatest effect due to
friction damping. Notice that in order to reduce stresses in the structure, the friction
moment has to be low enough so that the tower can comply with the wave loading. Current
velocity tends to lower the response as long as aQ90, because it lowers the wave height.
A more realistic model having two angular-degrees-of-freedom is being analyzed at the
present time. The response due to wave, current (collinear and otherwise), vortex shedding
loading and earth rotation is investigated and results will be published in the near future.
Work is also proceeding on an elastic articulated tower.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This work was supported by the Office of Naval Research Grant no. N00014-93-1-0763.
The authors are grateful for this support from ONR and thank Program Manager Dr T.
Swean for his interest in our work.

REFERENCES
1. S. K. C and D. C. C 1979 Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Division, ASCE 105, 281292. Motion analysis of articulated tower.
2. S. K. C and D. C. C 1980 Journal of the Waterway, Port, Coastal and Ocean
Division, ASCE 107, 6577. Transverse motion of articulated tower.
3. R. K. J and C. L. K 1981 Journal of Energy Resources Technology 103, 4147. Dynamic
response of a double articulated offshore loading structure to non-collinear waves and current.
4. J. M. T. T, A. R. B and R. C 1984 Journal of Energy Resources
Technology 106, 191198. Stochastic and chaotic motions of compliant offshore structures and
articulated mooring towers.
5. H. S. C and J. Y. K. L 1991 Applied Ocean Research 12, 6374. Non-linear behaviour of
an articulated offshore loading platform.
6. L. L. S and J. M. N 1992 Ocean Engineering 19, 120. Response characteristics
of multi-articulated offshore towers.
7. O. G, C. S. Y and R. T. H 1992 International Journal of Offshore and Polar
Engineering 2, 6166. Analysis of non-linear response of an articulated tower.
 103
8. P. K. M and A. S. G 1983 Ocean Engineering 10, 471479. Stochastic stability of
tethered buoyant platforms.
9. T. K. D and A. K. J 1990 Computers and Structures 34, 137144. Response of articulated
tower platforms to random wind and wave forces.
10. A. K. J and T. K. D 1991 Journal of Engineering for Industry 113, 238240. Non-linear
behavior of an articulated tower in a random sea.
11. S. Y. H, A. M and R. S 1983 Journal of Energy Resources
Technology 105, 205211. Non-linear dynamic analysis of guyed tower platforms.
12. J. F. W and G. O 1984 Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurements and Control 106,
311318. Optimal cable configuration for passive dynamic control and compliant tower.
13. H. B. K and A. H 1987 Symposium of Non-linear Stochastic Dynamic
Engineering Systems 351360. Non-linear random vibrations of compliant offshore platforms.
14. M. G and L. E 1993 Ocean Engineering 20, 113133. The bilinear oscillator:
the response of an articulated mooring tower driven by irregular seas.
15. L. E. B 1969 Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE 95, 557583. Ocean
wave simulation for engineering design.
16. ACSL 1992 Advanced Continuous Simulation Language. Mitchell and Gauthier Associates
(MGA).
17. J. F. W 1984 Dynamics of Offshore Structures. New York: John Wiley.
18. M. I 1988 Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering 15, 937947. Wave and current forces
on a fixed offshore structure.
19. K. Y. R. B 1989 A Study of Vortex-Induced Vibration. PhD thesis, Princeton University.
20. F. C. M 1992 Chaotic and Fractal Dynamics: An Introduction for Applied Scientists and
Engineers. New York: John Wiley.