PETRONAS TECHNICAL STANDARDS

DESIGN AND ENGINEERING PRACTICE

REPORT (SM)

PRACTICE FOR THE DYNAMIC

ANALYSIS OF FIXED OFFSHORE
PLATFORMS FOR EXTREME STORM
CONDITIONS

PTS 20.061
JANUARY 1987
 PREFACE

PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) publications reflect the views, at the time of publication,
of PETRONAS OPUs/Divisions.

They are based on the experience acquired during the involvement with the design, construction,
operation and maintenance of processing units and facilities. Where appropriate they are based
on, or reference is made to, national and international standards and codes of practice.

The objective is to set the recommended standard for good technical practice to be applied by
PETRONAS' OPUs in oil and gas production facilities, refineries, gas processing plants, chemical
plants, marketing facilities or any other such facility, and thereby to achieve maximum technical
and economic benefit from standardisation.

The information set forth in these publications is provided to users for their consideration and
decision to implement. This is of particular importance where PTS may not cover every
requirement or diversity of condition at each locality. The system of PTS is expected to be
sufficiently flexible to allow individual operating units to adapt the information set forth in PTS to
their own environment and requirements.

When Contractors or Manufacturers/Suppliers use PTS they shall be solely responsible for the
quality of work and the attainment of the required design and engineering standards. In
particular, for those requirements not specifically covered, the Principal will expect them to follow
those design and engineering practices which will achieve the same level of integrity as reflected
in the PTS. If in doubt, the Contractor or Manufacturer/Supplier shall, without detracting from his
own responsibility, consult the Principal or its technical advisor.

The right to use PTS rests with three categories of users :

1) PETRONAS and its affiliates.

2) Other parties who are authorised to use PTS subject to appropriate contractual
arrangements.
3) Contractors/subcontractors and Manufacturers/Suppliers under a contract with
users referred to under 1) and 2) which requires that tenders for projects,
materials supplied or - generally - work performed on behalf of the said users
comply with the relevant standards.

Subject to any particular terms and conditions as may be set forth in specific agreements with
users, PETRONAS disclaims any liability of whatsoever nature for any damage (including injury
or death) suffered by any company or person whomsoever as a result of or in connection with the
use, application or implementation of any PTS, combination of PTS or any part thereof. The
benefit of this disclaimer shall inure in all respects to PETRONAS and/or any company affiliated
to PETRONAS that may issue PTS or require the use of PTS.

Without prejudice to any specific terms in respect of confidentiality under relevant contractual
arrangements, PTS shall not, without the prior written consent of PETRONAS, be disclosed by
users to any company or person whomsoever and the PTS shall be used exclusively for the
purpose they have been provided to the user. They shall be returned after use, including any
copies which shall only be made by users with the express prior written consent of PETRONAS.
The copyright of PTS vests in PETRONAS. Users shall arrange for PTS to be held in safe
custody and PETRONAS may at any time require information satisfactory to PETRONAS in order
to ascertain how users implement this requirement.
Report EP 87-0170

Title : PRACTICE FOR THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF FIXED OFFSHORE PLATFORMS FOR
E EXTREME STROM CONDITIONS

By : EPD / 112

Date : May 1987

This report presents the currently held technical opinion regarding the subject of the above title, and is
endorsed as a Practice by SIPM-EP.

SIPM-EP/11, as custodian, will either update/revise the document as appropriate or withdraw its
status as an endorsed Practice. Any questions relating indicator is given below.

Reporter : Name : I.M. Hines Signature

Reference indicator : EPD / 112

Date : January 1987

Reviewer : Name : G. Moeyes Signature

Reference indicator : EPD / 112

Date : January 1987

Custodian : Name : J.H. Vugts Signature

Reference indicator : EPD / 11

Date : January 1987

LIST OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY

1. INTRODUCTION

2. APPROACHES TO DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2.1 Some fundamental problems
2.2 Random time domain simulations
2.3 Frequency domain solutions and spectral methods
2.4 Applications and tools

3. RECENT EXTREME EVENT ANALYSIS CASE HISTORIES

3.1 Introduction
3.2 Concept screening using frequency domain tools
3.2.1 Background
3.2.2 Estimation of short-term cyclic loading components
3.2.3 Static loading components due to wind current and self-weight
3.2.4 Overall assessment
3.3 Member sizing for the extreme storm including dynamics
3.3.1 Background
3.3.2 Pseudo-dynamic design procedures
3.3.3 Assessment

4. RECOMMENDATIONS
4.1 Some general conclusions and a short-term recommended approach
4.2 Longer term developments
4.3 Final comments

5. REFERENCES

FIGURES

APPENDIX A - Static plus mass inertia 'Pseudo dynamic' analysis procedure

SUMMARY

This document provides a review of the existing experience and procedures available within the
industry in general, and PETRONAS in particular, for the prediction of the extreme storm dynamic
response of conventional, bottom supported offshore platforms. The report focuses upon the analysis
and design requirements for steel spaceframe towers or jacket structures.

Advantages and disadvantages of the various methods are discussed with respect to their application
in different stages of the design process, and recommendations for the most useful techniques at
present are made. Further developments are proposed, with particular reference to the computing
facilities available in PETRONAS.
1. INTRODUCTION

Over the past ten years or so the fixed platform concept has slowly been pushed into deeper and
more hostile environments. Designers of conventional, deepwater fixed platforms have had to cope
with the increased flexibility of these structures and to develop analysis and design procedures which
account for the resulting dynamic amplification of the applied loading which is associated with the
mass inertia forces. In these structures the influence of structural dynamic response is evident both in
terms of the amplification of the extreme storm design loadings and the increase of cyclic fatigue
damage associated with dynamic response to less severe, but more frequently occurring, everyday
sea states. The extent of dynamic response is associated with the relationships between the
structure's fundamental modes and the frequency content of the applied loading. Design and analysis
procedures for deepwater structures which respond dynamically must account for the random nature
of the excitation and the response in an appropriate manner.

At the present time, there are relatively few structures which have been designed using dynamic,
structural analysis tools. Even for those structures where dynamic response has been considered,
there are often major differences in the methods used; at present there is little in the way of a single
common approach. As a result, available experience is very limited and the state of the art is still
under continuous development.

This document provides a review of the existing experience and procedures available within the
industry in general, and PETRONAS in particular, for the prediction of the extreme storm dynamic
response of conventional, bottom supported offshore platforms. The report focuses upon the analysis
and design requirements and experiences for steel spaceframe towers or jacket structures; these
structures have provided the initial stimulus for work in this area. However, much of the general
discussion on analysis philosophy and analytical methods is also applicable to inertia dominated
compliant structures which may represent a future generation of deepwater bottom supported
platforms.

The first section of the report summarises some fundamental problems which need to be faced when
evaluating dynamic response for extreme storm conditions and presents the various options which are
currently available. This is followed by a review of some recent analysis experiences which will be
used to highlight the benefits and the deficiencies of some of the various options. A recommended
procedure is then outlined to provide an approach which is considered to be suitable for analysis and
design requirements for the foreseeable (short term) future. The main emphasis here is on a
procedure which can most readily fit within the framework of existing design codes of practice
developed for shallow water structures (e.g. API or DNV), thus enabling an otherwise conventional
design to be carried out. Finally, some recommendations for future development work in this area are
outlined. These try to anticipate the outcome of ongoing, longer-term efforts geared to the
development of a design approach which is better suited to the probabilistic nature of the random
wave environment.

2. APPROACHES TO DYNAMIC ANALYSIS

2.1 Some fundamental problems

In formulating analysis and design procedures capable of predicting the response of a flexible
deepwater platform under the influence of extreme storm environmental loading, a number of inter-
related problem areas need to be addressed:

i) The geometry, stiffness, mass and damping characteristics of the structure and its foundation.

ii) Adequate numerical procedures capable of solving the dynamic response equations with the
required accuracy.

iii) The magnitude and spatial distribution of the wave and current loadings and their relationship to
the structure's natural frequencies.
iv) Procedures to represent and analyse the force mechanisms, and the interaction between the
structure and the surrounding fluid.

v) An analysis and design framework within which to combine the results of dynamic response
predictions with those of the other load conditions which occur throughout the platform life.

Of these problem areas, and accepting the difficulties associated with an adequate representation of
the damping mechanisms and the foundation, the first area probably poses the least difficulty, and
can be dealt with adequately using presently available modelling and analysis techniques. As a result
it will not be considered further here. The second area has been addressed in detail in Reference 1
and the conclusions and recommendations of this study do not need to be repeated. It suffices to say
that adequate dynamic analysis methods do exist which are compatible with all levels of the design
cycle; from preliminary concept screening to detailed member design and fatigue analysis.

The third, fourth and fifth areas remain more problematic and these will form the basis for much of the
discussion which follows.

It is now widely recognised that the offshore environment represents a true random process. Despite
this, most offshore structures have been, and are still being designed using regular wave
(deterministic) static analysis procedures. This approach is well supported by many years of
satisfactory service in which relatively few structural failures have occurred for shallow water
structures which are relatively stiff and respond quasi-statically to the ocean environment. In the
context of the overall design procedure used, the deterministic design wave approach has served the
industry rather well.

Early, first generation dynamic analyses for deepwater offshore structures were also based upon
deterministic procedures (e.g. preliminary analyses of Shell Oil's Cognac platform, Reference 2). The
dynamic response was evaluated using time domain numerical simulations of the platform response
when loaded by an infinite train of periodic design waves of fixed height and period.

Whilst this approach represents a plausible and practical extension to existing design practice, it
suffers from a number of fundamental flaws:

i) Using this procedure, design sea state energy isassociated with a single discrete wave
frequency. As a result, the frequency content of the applied loading is also artificially lumped at a
number of specific frequencies; in the first instance, at the frequency of the deterministic wave
but this component may also be supplemented by one or more higher harmonic contributions.
The higher harmonics originate from several sources: from the non-linear velocity squared drag
forces associated with the Morison force formulation, both with or without current; from the use of
non-linear wave theories (such as Stokes 5th); or from free surface loading effects associated
with the changing position and shape of the wave surface. Realistic relationships between the
frequency content of the applied loading and the structure's natural frequency (or frequencies)
are, therefore, not represented correctly.

ii) The non-linear elements in the procedure referred to above introduce higher harmonic
components at discrete multiples of the fundamental wave frequency which may be tuned to the
structure's natural frequencies and, therefore, can excite the platform in a resonant mode,
causing substantially larger (and artificial) dynamic amplification effects.

These problems are highlighted in Figure 2.1, taken from Reference 2, which shows results of some
time domain dynamic analyses of a single degree-of- freedom structure when subjected to regular
Stokes 5th design waves and an equivalent random sea with the same probability of occurrence. The
single degree-of- freedom model was first loaded with the total force time history of the regular
deterministic Stokes 5th wave used for the design of the Cognac platform. Simulations were then
made using the random wave force history as developed from the corresponding storm wave
spectrum.

The figure shows the resulting dynamic amplification factor of base shear as a function of the
structure natural period. The Stokes 5th wave used has a period of 11.5 seconds and the SDOF
system is seen to resonate with the second harmonic of the Stokes wave at 5.75 seconds and with
the third harmonic at 3.8 seconds. The fundamental harmonic resonance (at 11.5 seconds) is not
shown, since it is outside the structure period range of interest.
Conversely the random simulation results (obtained by averaging the results of 20 separate
simulations) show a much smoother variation with the structure period. This is much more
representative of the actual broader band frequency content of a real sea, even in design storm
conditions.

As a result of the shortcomings illustrated in the above discussion, dynamic analysis using periodic
regular wave loading is considered to be unreliable. Methods which account for the actual
relationships between the frequency content of random seas and the fundamental mode natural
frequencies of the structure are required.

Two possible types of solution enable the random nature of the environment to be represented. These
are the stochastic approach, usually based upon linearised, frequency domain spectral analysis
techniques, or the use of random time domain simulations. Both approaches are discussed briefly in
the following sections, where attention is focused upon the basic features of the problem formulation
and the treatment of non-linear effects.

2.2 Random time domain simulations

For a multi-member, steel space frame offshore platform the principal sources of non-linearity result
from the wave loading (usually predicted using the Morison equation) soil characteristics and
damping. The non-linearity within the velocity squared drag component of the Morison equation, is
further complicated by the influence of free surface inundation effects. Further uncertainty surrounds
questions about how, and under what circumstances, the relative motion of the structure may
influence both the applied loading and the system damping.

Accepting the basic Morison force formulation, it is now considered that solutions based upon random
time domain solutions represent the most realistic representation of the response of an offshore
platform in a real sea. The procedure involves a number of discrete steps which are shown
schematically in Figure 2.2 and summarised here:

i) Develop time histories of wave surface elevation and water particle kinematics either from
measured wave data or using inverse Fourier transformations from specified storm wave spectra.
This information is used to develop time histories of the applied hydrodynamic loading.

ii) Using the applied loading history perform- numerical time domain integration of the equations of
motion in order to develop timehistories of the structural response include all the non-linear
components of both the loading and the dynamic system.

iii) Statistical analysis of the resulting time histories.

These solutions are able to incorporate system non- linearities, such as those outlined above,
explicitly without the need for simplification or linearisation of the components. This is achieved at a
penalty of computational cost which depends upon the length and number of simulations required and
the size and complexity of the platform model. The method carries an additional penalty in terms of
the difficulties associated with the interpretation and application of the results. In modelling the
random environment it is assumed that the wave surface elevation is a stationary, ergodic, Gaussian
process. As a result of system non-linearities, the response is certainly non- Gaussian but it is also
possible that it may not be stationary in a statistical sense as well. Therefore, a single realisation of
the non-linear structural response only represents one of a theoretically infinite number of such
realisations. In order to develop confidence in the short term statistical characteristics of the response
it is necessary to carry out a number of such simulations. Information on the extreme values, which
represent the tails of the peak response distributions, can only be obtained reliably by performing a
very large number of simulations, or by performing extrapolations based upon existing or assumed
extreme value distributions, e.g. the Weibull distribution.
2.3 Frequency domain solutions and spectral methods

For loading and response problems that can be appropriately linearised, conventional spectral
analysis procedures provide a convenient and efficient means to incorporate the random wave
environment. In this context a linear spectral analysis (Reference 3) is now well established as the
final design, state of the art industry standard for examination of the potential for cyclic fatigue
damage. The frequency domain spectral approach, as shown schematically in Figure 2.3, can also
readily incorporate the influence of structural dynamic response.

Simplified, first order screening tools have been developed within SIPM during the past few
years, as a means to carry out a preliminary examination of the fatigue behaviour of steel spaceframe
structures (References 4, 5). The procedures retain the fundamental benefits of a dynamic, spectral
fatigue analysis, without incurring the high cost associated with a detailed 3-D analysis. These tools
have proved to be invaluable in preliminary concept screening studies; some recent applications are
documented in References 4 and 6.

For the prediction of extreme responses the linearised spectral method has a number of obvious
limitations. These are associated with the difficulty of incorporating the non-linear effects and also, as
with the time domain approach, in the extrapolation of short term statistics to predict the peak
response levels. As stated previously, due to non-linearities in the system, the resulting response is
actually non- Gaussian. The fact that the linearisation procedures adopted in the problem formulation
make the response as modelled truly Gaussian, does not change this basic characteristic of the
response. In this sense the linear model does not reflect the actual situation. In design storm
conditions the influence of non-linear drag components and free surface effects are more significant
than in the fatigue environment. The choice of the linearisation procedure is, therefore, of critical
importance.

Procedures based upon a sea state dependent, statistical linearisation of the drag loading, as
developed by Borgman (Reference 7) and implemented by Malhotra and Penzien (Reference 8), are
considered to be the most consistent of those available at the present time. However, these methods
do not enable the influence of variations in the free surface wetted area to be taken into account. Free
surface effects are known to be of major importance in defining both the local and global force
distributions on the structure during extreme event conditions (Reference 9). Furthermore, most of the
existing applications of the Borgman approach (e.g. in SIPM's FREERISE program, Reference 10)
are restricted to first order expansions of the original Morison drag force formulation. The full
linearised wave force expansion contains higher order terms which require convolutions of the wave
velocity spectra. This introduces higher order components in the wave force spectrum in the vicinity of
three times the principal wave frequency of the storm. These terms are relatively unimportant for
structures which respond quasi-statically. However, they may be significant for flexible structures
which respond dynamically since these higher harmonic components may coincide with the
fundamental mode natural frequencies and could excite the structure in a resonant manner.

A non-linear spectral formulation which incorporates these terms, and which includes the influence of
current, is described by Eatock Taylor and Rajagopalan in References 11, 12, 13. These papers
contain results of some analyses for a flexible, multi-member, steel spaceframe structure. Linear and
non-linear spectral formulations are compared with random time domain simulations in terms of the
resulting second order response statistics (e.g. standard deviations of response). These results
demonstrate the significant influence of the higher harmonic components and indicate that the non-
linear stochastic approach may represent a suitable alternative to random time domain simulations for
the prediction of short term statistics. This approach is discussed further in section 4.2.

Hybrid time/frequency domain analysis has been proposed by Kan and Petroukas (Reference 24) as
a method for overcoming some of the limitations of the linearised spectral approach. The method still
relies upon the use of a transfer function and spectral analysis techniques to determine the short term
statistical responses. However, in this case, the transfer functions are determined from a random
wave, time domain analysis, with transformation into the frequency domain being achieved via Fouler
transforms. The procedure used is outlined in Figure 2.4. The hybrid approach, was originally
proposed as a means to include non-linear effects within the scope of a spectral fatigue analysis, but
applications for the extreme storm condition also appear feasible.
As with random time domain solutions, difficulties remain, however, in predicting the extreme
response levels experienced during the design storm condition. These are the values which are
ultimately required in order to perform actual structural sizing operations which are consistent with
existing design practice. In order to facilitate predictions of the peak response values using the results
from a linearised frequency domain analysis, use. has been made of the probabilistic description of
Morison type wave force loading when acting on a single vertical pile (References 14 and 15). For a
linear Gaussian model the Most Probable Maximum (MPM) value is approximately 3.7 times the
Standard Deviation (SD) value, assuming 1000 peaks which corresponds approximately to a three-
hour storm. However, if the process is non-linear and hence non-Gaussian (i.e. as a result of drag
loading) the ratio of the MPM and SD of wave force may be significantly higher (as high as 8.6 in a
totally drag dominant, non-Gaussian system). For most practical situations a mixture of linear and
non-linear contributions are evident in the loading and the actual MPM/SD ratio will be somewhere
within this range. It should further be noted that the mix and, therefore, the degree of non-Gaussianity
will vary from one location in the structure to another and from one response variable to the next.

Using this information, some approximate methods have been proposed, to enable solutions to be
obtained in the frequency domain. These are engineering approximations to enable the most probable
maximum loading and response values to be estimated for situations (and response parameters)
other than the single vertical pile, waves only problem (i.e. no current) for which the distributions were
originally developed. This is achieved by making assumptions regarding the nature of the peak
distributions. It is postulated that the probabilistic descriptions of the response variables in the
amplitude domain may be directly related to those of the Morison wave force formulation for a single
vertical pile. This implies that the probability distributions derived for the Morison wave force
formulation for a single vertical pile, are also applicable to other response parameters (e.g. member
forces and stresses) and to more complex structures comprising a large number of individual, spatially
distributed and non-vertical loading elements. It must be stressed that these procedures remain
engineering postulates which attempt to incorporate the effects of the non-Gaussian nature of the
response on the resulting statistical distributions. It is almost certain that such postulates are not valid.
However, at present there is no theoretical or experimental evidence available to resolve the matter
and by lack of a better model the approach described above is pragmatically adopted. They do
provide a practical framework for the interpretation of the frequency domain results, however, there is
clearly very little experience with the consequences of applying these methods in order to perform
design member sizing.

2.4 Applications and tools

Examination of extreme storm dynamic response may be required at a number of different stages
during the development of a platform concept and using different levels of sophistication and detail.
The tools need to be related to the needs of the analysis or design phase and there is obviously a
clear distinction between the requirements for concept screening exercises, for design development,
for design verification in accordance with existing design codes, or for ultimate strength analyses
which fall outside the regular codes of practice.

Concept screening exercises, and parameter or feasibility studies are most usefully performed using
simplified models which concentrate on the overall response characteristics of the structure, i.e.
natural frequencies and mode shapes, global responses such as base shear and overturning
moments together with associated dynamic amplification factors. Fundamental mode response
characteristics can be adequately represented using relatively simple, lumped parameter stick
models. These models enable sensitivity studies to be performed quickly and at very low cost
compared to equivalent full 3D models. They can also be coupled to waveload generation routines in
either the time domain (e.g. the MARIANTO program, Reference 16) or the frequency domain (e.g.
the FREERISE package, Reference 10). These programs predict dynamic and static level shear force
and overturning moment distributions, thereby enabling the development of level dynamic
amplification factors based upon the short term response statistics for random wave storm loading
conditions.
The packages referred to above are unable to predict individual member loadings which have to be
estimated separately using the level shear and moment response characteristics. This shortcoming
prompted the development of a concept screening tool for simple steel spaceframe structures (the
TRUSSFRAME program see References 4, 5) which operates in the frequency domain. It makes use
of dynamic response characteristics from a stick model, base shear and overturning moment transfer
functions, and a simplified pin jointed (truss frame) description of the structure to estimate individual
axial stress transfer functions for leg and brace elements. The calculations are performed assuming
response to be dominated by overall frame action; i.e. local loading and response effects are ignored.
The package was originally developed with fatigue screening in mind, but in principal it can also be
applied to extreme event response predictions. Such an application is described in section 3.2.

Requirements for design tools are somewhat more demanding than those of concept screening tools
for parametric exercises. Design tools must translate the results of the dynamic response predictions
into the absolute requirements in terms of member sizes and total steel weight. The influence of
dynamic response in the extreme storm must be combined with the effects of the other storm loadings
on the platform (i.e. topsides loading, self-weight, buoyancy, wind loads, etc.) both in terms of their
global and local effects. It is also suggested that provided the effects of structure flexibility are
considered from an early stage in concept development, dynamic components of the extreme storm
loading are unlikely to govern the bulk of the steel in the structure, even in the deepest of
waterdepths. This is in contrast to fatigue loading conditions where resonant dynamic behaviour may
in some cases be fully controlling. Other in-place loadings such as self weight, quasi-static wave
forces, and also those associated with the fabrication, load out, launch, hydrostatic forces, etc. also
impact steel weight significantly. Collectively, these loads are likely to have a more important role in
total weight growth than the dynamic loads taken in isolation; e.g. in the Cognac platform, the
influence of dynamic loads increased the total steel weight by an estimated 25% and this includes
contributions from fatigue. This relatively low weight growth resulted from a strong awareness of
dynamic response effects and careful attention to the inter- relationships between platform dynamic
characteristics, wave loading and dynamic response.

These experiences demonstrate the importance of a reliable assessment of dynamic response and
the need to incorporate these effects at a very early stage in the design development. However, they
also suggest the need for a balanced approach to the design. The procedures used must incorporate
the key features of the dynamic response problem, but they must also fit within the framework of an
integrated design approach, which also recognises the significance of the other load conditions in a
consistent manner.

Full 3-D, random wave, time domain analysis tools are now available (e.g. Shell Oil's DYNAL III
package, Reference 17) which enable the random wave environment and dynamic response
influences to be represented explicitly for any design storm condition and for large structures. These
packages are able to generate corresponding time histories of individual member loadings. However,
these tools are computationally expensive for large structures and furthermore a single random
simulation results in only one of an infinite number of possible response histories, each including one
possible extreme for each individual response. Selecting appropriate values for design member sizing
is, therefore, complicated by the requirement for an appropriate procedure to deal with the extreme
response statistics and a consistent design framework within which to apply these. In the first instance
it appears preferable and logical to try to relate a design procedure incorporating random wave
loading and dynamic response effects to that of the existing approach for shallower water offshore
platforms which have been designed in accordance with deterministic procedures. However, use of
the Morison formulation within the framework of the linear random directional wave model implies the
use of different wave force coefficients to those which are normally applied for deterministic wave
analyses (see Reference 18). Resulting force levels from the random wave model may also be higher
with corresponding increases in individual member loading.

Given this situation, it is questionable whether it is appropriate to apply the individual member forces
obtained from a detailed, random wave analyses within the context of the existing codes of practice
such as the API code. Design tools should recognise that the industry, and the codes of practice
commonly applied (API, DNV), incorporate safety factors which are intended for use with a specific
set of load and strength definitions and which combine to produce an overall level of safety and
reliability. To date, these methods have evolved an accepted approach which is based upon
experience using the regular wave, deterministic design philosophy for structures which respond
quasi-statically. Safety factors in the working stress philosophy account for many items that the
engineer does not consider explicitly during each design; e.g. at present these codes do not consider
the influence of structural dynamics other than via an overall factor of safety.

If the random nature of the wave environment and the subsequent dynamic response are
incorporated explicitly, then it appears logical that some fundamental revisions to the existing codes of
practice may be necessary. Ultimately, the overall quality and realism of the deterministic and random
wave model approaches need to be compared and any appropriate code revisions should incorporate
safety factors which produce a consistent level of overall safety and reliability. Such revisions are
presently being considered within the context of the API's proposed Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD, Reference 19). This is attempting to develop probability based design guidelines for
offshore structures and to rationalise the overall safety for fixed platforms including those which
respond dynamically. The approach is based upon use of partial safety factors in which the
uncertainties in the individual component load and strength elements are quantified. Such an explicit
representation allows for a more consistent adjustment of the safety factors in the event of
improvements in the understanding, and hence the representation of any single element of the whole
design process. On this basis, explicit representation of the random nature of the wave environment
and the dynamic response may justify a reduction in the safety factors associated with these
individual components. The first draft proposal for the LRFD design code employing the partial factor
philosophy was submitted to the industry for comment during the latter part of 1986.

Given the present state of flux in the LRFD approach, the observed discrepancies in load levels
predicted by the random and deterministic wave force models and the difficulties of generating and
interpreting the random wave design event loads for a large structure, a number of simple dynamic
analysis procedures have been developed to cope with the design requirements of the first generation
of deepwater platforms. These are an attempt to represent the key features of global dynamic
response behaviour within the context of established deterministic wave design practice. The link
between the random dynamic response and the quasi-static design event forces is achieved by
making use of global dynamic amplification factors. These amplification factors are developed using
random dynamic analyses which preserve the relative frequency content of the wave environment
and the structure's natural modes.

In the simplest approach, quasi-static design event wave forces are determined with the use of a
conventional deterministic wave force analysis. The resulting cyclic component of the applied loading
is then factored by a constant, global dynamic amplification factor which has been determined from an
appropriate random wave analysis. The member analysis and design are then performed in a
deterministic manner using the existing design codes. This approach has the disadvantage that the
applied dynamic loading is assumed to have the same distribution over the height of the structure as
the quasi-static wave forces.

A refinement to this procedure is the use of a separate inertia force loadset which is intended to
represent the distribution of mass inertia forces over the height of the structure in a more consistent
manner. A set of mass inertia forces are developed in accordance with the mass distribution and the
natural mode shape(s) over the height of the structure. These forces are applied at the main plan
levels in proportion to the mass distribution, in order to achieve target dynamic level shear and/or
overturning moment values. The resulting mass inertia force distribution is then treated as a normal
static extra loadset and combined with the deterministic design wave loads in order to generate global
level shear and overturning loads which are consistent with the required dynamic amplification effects.
The procedure and the key assumptions involved will be described in more detail in section 3.3.

The use of either of the above approaches eliminates the difficulties associated with use of the
individual member forces from a random wave analysis in an absolute sense. Random wave analyses
in either the frequency or time domain are used to determine the appropriate global (level shear and
moment) dynamic amplification factors. These amplification factors can in principle be generated for
any response variable. However, the DAF's are applied within the framework of a deterministic wave
analysis, which is limited to designing individual members for the forces which correspond to the peak
global forces such as the maximum base shear and overturning moment. As a result it is consistent to
limit the random analyses and the prediction of the associated DAF's to those of the global responses
only. In this case, it is both technically feasible and economic to use simplified random, time domain
analysis tools (e.g. the DYNSCRN program, Reference 20) to simulate global response parameters
which can be used to evaluate the required dynamic amplification factors.
3. RECENT EXTREME EVENT ANALYSIS CASE HISTORIES

3.1 Introduction

In the previous section some general features of extreme event analysis and design problems were
discussed and the available tools introduced. This section contains some case histories which
illustrate the practical application of the general methods, procedures and computer programs which
have been used within PETRONAS to examine extreme event dynamic analysis and design
problems.

3.2 Concept screening using frequency domain tools

3.2.1 Background

In May 1984 SIPM EP/23.1 embarked on an engineering study to examine the in-place behaviour of a
number of steel spaceframe structures within the context of the Troll field development. The study
was essentially a concept screening exercise in which a large number of different structural concepts
were developed and compared on the basis of their in-situ behaviour, and with particular emphasis on
fatigue performance. This emphasis reflected the results of a number of earlier, deepwater, fixed
platform studies which indicated the potentially controlling influence of cyclic fatigue damage for
deepwater structures in a North Sea environment. Recognising the influence of structural dynamics,
and with the fatigue analysis objectives clearly in mind, it was decided to use simplified, frequency
domain concept screening tools throughout the study (i.e. the TRUSSFRAME and FREERISE
programs References 5, 10). Previous studies had shown these to yield reliable assessments of cyclic
fatigue damage due to frame action resulting from global static and dynamic loading. A more limited
evaluation of the extreme event loading and response was also carried out as part of the study. The
cyclic components of extreme event loading were also estimated making use of the same frequency
domain analysis tools. The case history of how this extreme event analysis was performed is an
interesting 'how it was done story' which is documented in full detail in section 9 of Reference 6. The
key features of the procedure will be repeated here for completeness but the main objective in the
present discussion is to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the approach within the context of
the discussion contained in section 2.

In order to estimate the total combined loading in the extreme storm condition it is necessary to
consider the combined effects of the cyclic loading in the design storm and the effects of mean static
loads arising from wind, current and structure self weight forces.

3.2.2 Estimation of short term cyclic loading components

The short term responses under the design storm condition (i.e. standard deviations of base shear,
overturning moment and individual leg and brace axial forces) were developed using the
TRUSSFRAME program (Reference 5). Basic input for TRUSSFRAME comprised the following items.

i) Transfer functions of global wave force excitation (base shear and overturning moment) for the
prescribed storm condition, including the influence of steady current. These were established for
the three principal wave directions; two orthogonal primary axes and a single worst case diagonal
direction which was intended to maximise leg loads. A simplified, distributed vertical member
wave force idealisation of the structure was used. This was achieved using the computer
program FREERISE (Reference 10) which incorporates a first order statistical linearisation of the
drag forces using the approach developed by Borgman (Reference 7).

ii) The fundamental mode dynamic characteristics of the structure in each of the principal
orthogonal directions. This includes the mass distribution of the structure, natural frequencies
and mode shapes for the fundamental modes and the corresponding generalised masses in the
natural modes considered. This information was generated using simple stick beam model
representations of the structure within the FREERISE computer program. For the forced
response calculations performed using the mode acceleration method) a percentage of critical
modal damping must also be supplied.
iii) A geometrical description of the structur expressed in terms of a 2-D pin jointed truss frame. The
description defines the number of bays and leg members in each truss, the main frame leg and
brace geometry and the leg and brace member sizes.

An overview of the method used in the TRUSSFRAME program is shown in Figure 3.1. Full details of
the method are contained in References 4 and 5.

The TRUSSFRAME analysis generates axial stress transfer functions due to overall frame action
responses for brace and leg members. These can be processed using the appropriate design storm
spectra to estimate the short term statistics of response (standard deviation values, etc.) using
conventional spectral analysis techniques. The TRUSSFRAME method was originally developed with
fatigue analysis in mind and in this respect suffers from a number of limitations when applied for
extreme storm conditions, which are as follows:

i) Free surface wave force effects cannot be included directly and must be estimated separately
afterwards. This is not a major concern for fatigue analysis but these effects may be significant
for the design storm condition.

ii) At each wave frequency the applied wave force is represented by a point load. This results in the
shear force and overturning moment distributions shown in Figure 3.1. The approximation is quite
acceptable for the dynamic fatigue problem where the short wave, higher frequency loading in
the region of the resonant frequency usually controls. However, it results in load distributions
which are inappropriate for the extreme storm condition where the low frequency contributions
are important and results in overestimates of the applied loading in the bays of the structure
directly below the centre of application of the point load. Furthermore, the point load
approximation yields incomplete transfer functions for members in the higher bays. At low
frequencies the point of application of the applied force is sufficiently far below the surface to be
below the upper bay levels. As a result the truss frame solution cannot be applied to estimate the
member load and stress levels above the location at which the point load is applied. Finally, since
the applied loading only represents global forces the approximation ignores any additional effects
due to direct wave loading on members (see (iv) below). A fuller description of these limitations in
the context of the extreme storm analysis is contained in sections 8.5 and 9.5.1 of Reference 6.

iii) The approach is limited to a 2-D frame only. For a non-symmetric structure, separate analyses
are required for each orthogonal direction. Oblique wave directions, which are usually controlling
for outer leg members cannot be handled directly, other than for a symmetric structure having
identical normal mode characteristics in each of the two principal planes. This problem is even
more acute for a non-symmetric structure having different natural mode characteristics in each of
the principal orthogonal planes. It requires separate FREERISE and TRUSSFRAME models for
each direction and necessitates external combination and manipulation of the results for the
principal orthogonal directions, in order to generate appropriate response transfer functions for
the leg and brace members under diagonal loading conditions.

iv) Member loads are based only on frame action with no influence from local loading effects. Fixed
end moments are also ignored in line with the pin jointed truss assumptions.

v) The basic pin jointed truss equations are only applicable to certain structural geometries. Brace
configuration must be of a simple X-brace type. The equations are also only valid for structures
which have supports beneath each of the legs. As such the method is unsuitable for the corner
cluster pile type of structure having interior trusses (e.g. for launch) and with no direct reaction
points under the interior legs (see Figure 3.1).

The TRUSSFRAME program generates the short term axial stress responses for leg and brace
members. Design level most probable maximum stresses were extrapolated assuming the peak force
distributions of the Morison force on a single vertical pile as described in section 2.2. This was
achieved by making use of the standard deviations of the drag only and inertia only components of
loading on the platform (see Reference 15), as predicted from a FREERISE, vertical member wave
force model of each structure. The influence of free surface effects was estimated in a crude manner
based upon the changes in the wave surface elevation during the passage of the deterministic design
wave.
3.2.3 Static loading components due to wind, current and self-weight

The influence of wind and current forces were also evaluated using the TRUSSFRAME program using
simple point loads. The wind loads were estimated by hand whilst current loads were determined
separately using the FREERISE wave force model. Resulting stress level predictions are, therefore,
subject to some of the same approximations and difficulties discussed in section 3.2.2.

The influence of topside loading, structure weight and buoyancy were also estimated. Simplified
methods and hand calculations were employed to evaluate the submerged weight distributions and
the resulting frame action influences on the foundation and the leg and brace axial stress levels. For
the Troll structures the influence of these components was found to represent up to 50% of the
maximum combined leg stress and up to 30% of the maximum axial brace stress for the design storm
condition. Whilst these values reflect the particularly demanding topsides requirements of the Troll
field it should be emphasised that these relative contributions are not unusually high for deepwater
structures.

3.2.4 Overall assessment

The use of the above procedure for extreme event analysis required use of a large number of
simplifying assumptions and the application of a variety of separate analysis programs with transfer or
manual manipulation of data between the various steps. A number of structure specific 'fixes' were
also applied to the TRUSSFRAME program to enable the basic stress transfer functions to be
developed for the asymmetric structures having more than four legs. Whilst all these manipulations
were and are possible, and have the advantage of increasing understanding of the basic load and
response phenomena, the fragmented nature of the analysis is costly in terms of the inconvenience
and the associated time required for implementation. The procedures used are also difficult to work
into a general analysis framework which retains the simplicity, and hence the attraction, of the original
TRUSSFRAME approach but which also includes the important features of the extreme event
dynamic analysis problem. Limitations in the point load applied force distribution assumed in
TRUSSFRAME imply that the method cannot be applied over the full height of the structure. For the
Troll structures in 340 metres waterdepth, full transfer functions, including the important low frequency
branch, were only generated over approximately the bottom 170 metres of the structure, i.e. the lower
half in this case. These difficulties need to be considered in the light of the comments made regarding
the potential influence of structural dynamics on total steel weight and the requirement to size the
entire structure in an acceptable manner, and not just the lower bay members for which the
TRUSSFRAME method remains appropriate for extreme storm conditions.

On the basis of these experiences it is necessary to conclude that the existing frequency domain tools
are not well suited to extreme event design assessments which are to be used for detailed member
sizing operations. They are, however, suitable for parametric evaluations which are restricted to
examination of the global response characteristics of the structure. Isolated members in the lower
bays of the structure can be examined in somewhat more detail and can provide insight into the
overall frame action response.

The FREERISE and TRUSSFRAME programs both offer the potential to develop the forced response
characteristics of lumped parameter stick models. For such applications it is the author's opinion that
the FREERISE option is the most attractive of the two. The reasons for this personal preference are
that the FREERISE program includes a more accurate definition of the applied loading over the height
of the structure and that the forced response is developed within a single model, without the need for
a lot of data transfer between separate programs. Wave force excitation transfer functions, including
current and the frequency characteristics resulting from the spatial separation of waveloading
elements, are combined with the dynamic characteristics within a single model. Level shear and
moment distributions are also determined over the full height of the structure. If required these may
then be used to estimate individual leg and brace stresses by hand, without the need to run a
separate TRUSSFRAME analysis. It should be emphasised that these reservations are geared to the
specific requirements of extreme event analysis; the attractiveness and benefits of the application of
TRUSSFRAME for fatigue analysis have already been mentioned and are fully documented in
References 4, 21.
3.3 Member sizing for the extreme storm including dynamics

3.3.1 Background

The tools outlined in section 3.2 are not readily employed within the framework of a complete
structure design. As described in section 2.4 ultimate weapons based upon the use of random
directional wave models are also insufficiently mature or lack the design code framework for direct
application. In these circumstances it is necessary to resort to the more approximate methods
described in section 2.4 which are largely based upon the regular wave deterministic approach but
which attempt to deal with the mass inertia forces from dynamic response in a reasonable manner.
These methods have been applied successfully to the detailed design of Shell Oil's existing Cognac
and Eureka structures in the Gulf of Mexico (References 2 and 18) and for the forthcoming Bullwinkle
platform for 1400 ft waterdepth. The same approach was used in a design study for a deepwater
structure in the northern North Sea, performed by Earl & Wright, London, within the context of a Joint
Industry Project (Reference 21).

The method will be illustrated with reference to a recent application within SIPM for the
conceptual design of a slimline structure for 200 m waterdepth (Reference 22). This structure had
fundamental mode periods in the range of 4.2 to 4.9 seconds and dynamic response in the extreme
storm was expected to be significant.

3.3.2 Pseudo-dynamic design procedures

Global dynamic response effects were determined by performing forced response analyses for the
design storm, including current, using a simplified stick model frequency domain analysis. This was
done using the FREERISE program which incorporates a distributed vertical member wave force
model of the structure, thereby enabling spatial separation effects in the wave force transfer functions
to be incorporated. The FREERISE models were used to establish dynamic amplification factors of
base shear and overturning moment based upon the standard deviations of the global responses; i.e.
the ratios of the standard deviations of the dynamic and static base shears and overturning moments.
Wave forces under a regular (deterministic) design wave were established for the wave crest position
corresponding to maximum base shear as in a conventional design wave analysis. This established
the target design level static loading. A set of mass inertia forces were created in order to develop the
required dynamic amplification of base shear and overturning moment. This inertia loadset reflects the
mass distribution and the natural mode shape(s) over the height of the structure and represents the
additional base shear and overturning moment components necessary to achieve the required
dynamic amplification of these quantities. These were established by making use of the fundamental
bending modes and lumped mass distribution of the structure. The inertia loadsets were developed in
proportion to the lumped mass and mode shape distributions over the height of the structure for the
end-on and broadside wave directions. The inertia loads were applied as additional static loadsets
within an otherwise conventional, deterministic, storm wave structural analysis. For oblique directions
the components of the diagonal wave loading were determined in each of the end-on and broadside
directions. They are assumed to excite the orthogonal fundamental modes simultaneously (in-phase)
and the appropriate inertia loadsets were generated accordingly. The basic steps in the method are
described in more detail in Appendix A.

Since the inertial loadsets are proportional to the fundamental bending modes of the structure in each
of the principal directions, the approach is a reasonable representation of the extreme wave dynamic
response. Apart from the basic dependence upon the quasi-static design level forces, the method is
based upon two principal assumptions.

i) That the mass inertia forces resulting from dynamic response are in-phase with the applied
loading.

ii) That the mass inertia forces from each of the modes used are in-phase with each other.
The first assumption appears reasonable given that the structure's fundamental mode natural
frequencies are much higher than, and well separated from those of the predominant wave energy.
Resulting dynamic response is not resonant in nature and dynamic forces correspond to the mass
inertia forces associated with the motion of the structure when excited at frequencies lower than those
of the fundamental modes. This assumption was also checked within the framework of the Troll
spaceframe structure studies as described in section 9.4.2 of Reference 6 and found to be very
reasonable.

The dynamic response contributions of most fixed offshore platforms are dominated by the
fundamental models). In this case the second assumption is also reasonable and will enable local
loads to be represented reliably. As the influence of the second mode increases, the above
approximation (and hence the individual member forces) becomes more inaccurate due to relative
phase differences between the inertia forces in the selected modes, which are not constant over the
height of the structure.

3.3.3 Assessment

The method described above incorporates several approximations but also has a number of practical
benefits resulting from the fact that it fits within the umbrella of existing static design analysis. The
method enables inertia force effects to be combined with other important global and local loadings
(self weight, topsides etc.) in order to develop the detailed member force picture for design code
checking. On this basis it provides a true design tool rather than an analysis option.

In the applications considered to date in PETRONAS, the global dynamic amplification factors have
been developed using a frequency domain approach and are based upon the standard deviations of
the base shear and overturning moment response levels. The DAF's can also be developed in the
time domain (for random wave loading) using either MARIANTO (Reference 16) or the DYNSCRN
program as developed by SOC (Reference 20) and now available in KSEPL. The MARIANTO
program is a true, single member stick model, originally developed for the analysis of risers; therefore,
it is unable to incorporate the effects of spatially distributed waveforce elements. The DYNSCRN
program incorporates a distributed, vertical member wave force model (similar to FREERISE) which is
defined in terms of a series of lumped volumes and areas which are loaded using the random wave
kinematics model. A modal analysis with static response correction is used to perform the time
domain dynamic analysis. However, the costly stiffness analysis is avoided by making use of modal
response coefficients which are determined from a 'once only' modal analysis of the full structure. The
DYNSCRN program has been used by SOC for all recent deepwater designs and has the advantage
of an explicit representation of non-linear effects due to drag loading and free surface variations. In
Reference 18, Larrabee describes some experience with the package during the analysis of the
Eureka structure. It was found that dynamic amplification factors based upon the standard deviations
of response obtained from a linear (or linearised) Gaussian model were conservative when compared
to the results of time domain simulation analyses, particularly for the higher load and response levels.
He suggests that for the extreme event condition the DAF's should preferably be based upon the
results of random time simulations and should be related to the probabilities of exceedence of peak
dynamic and static forces, i.e.

Dynamic response at probability level p

DAF =
Static response at probability level p

In this definition a maximum dynamic response is not necessarily coupled to a maximum static event
in the same response time history. The method proposed, obviously suffers from some of the
problems (discussed previously) associated with determining the peak response, particularly at low
probability levels, and the need for a significant number of simulations. Given this, and the apparent
conservatism in the alternative estimate from the standard deviation values approach, DAF's based
upon standard deviations of response appear to offer a suitable basis for estimating global dynamic
effects in the short term. However, a more rigorous examination of the probability based definition is
required, to identify whether the conclusions in Reference 18 are applicable in a more general sense.
In this case the peak response definition may offer potential for reductions in the DAF and hence the
total steelweight.
4. RECOMMENDATIONS

4.1 Some general conclusions and a short term recommended approach

Drawing upon the experiences documented in the previous sections, it is possible to draw a number
of general conclusions and to recommend a short term course of action for examining the extreme
event dynamic responses of deepwater fixed platforms. These recommendations assume continued
use of the presently available dynamic analysis tools and programs:

i) Dynamic response analyses using a regular wave deterministic model are inappropriate, due
to the artificial lumping of excitation energy at a single wave frequency and due to the
possible introduction of higher order wave force components associated with the selection of
a particular wave theory.

ii) Frequency domain tools, coupled to stick type dynamic models, provide an efficient means to
predict the global response characteristics of dynamically sensitive structures. Such tools are
a valuable asset during early concept screening exercises, or for carrying out parameter
studies.

However, existing tools such as FREERISE and TRUSSFRAME do not provide a practical
means for design event member sizing operations since they are unable to reflect the
influence of significant free surface effects, are unable to incorporate the influence of the
other platform loadings such as self weight forces directly, ignore the effects of direct wave
loading on members and do not include design code check facilities.

iii) Time domain simulations in random waves represent the ultimate analysis weapon because
of their ability to include an explicit definition of all loading and response non-linearities. These
methods are expensive to develop and to use. However, their most significant drawback is a
relative lack of experience in both their application and with an appropriate statistical
treatment of the design member force time histories. At the present time, these difficulties
prevent use of the full 3-D random analysis tool in an absolute sense within the framework of
the existing design codes. To avoid these problems random time domain analyses are
presently being employed in a relative sense to compare static and dynamic response
predictions for the evaluation of global response dynamic amplification factors.

iv) For in-place design and code checking of conventional bottom supported fixed platforms a
'pseudo-dynamic' analysis, founded upon the existing deterministic, design wave approach,
represents a good short term engineering compromise. The effects of mass inertia forces
should be represented using an additional static loadset which is developed to meet target
dynamic amplification factors for global responses. This procedure is considered appropriate
for structures having fundamental mode natural frequencies which are much higher than the
peak frequency of the design storm event (say, the ratio of the natural frequencies and the
frequency of the peak storm energy should be greater than 2.5 to 3.0). The responses of such
structures remain essentially stiffness dominated and the basic assumptions are satisfied.

Since the method relies upon a reliable estimate of the global dynamic amplification factors
for the design storm this is most correctly achieved using simplified random time domain
tools. However, stick model frequency domain tools may provide reasonable estimates which
are sufficiently accurate for preliminary design purposes.

The pseudo-dynamic method can be employed economically during the preliminary member
sizing and concept development phase, by making use of plane frame 2-D models. These
include most of the geometrical and the local and global loading characteristics of the full 3-D
structure but enable all in-place loadings to be represented and a stiffness analysis to be
completed. This facilitates complete member design at much reduced cost.

v) For in-place design and code checking of structures having a fundamental natural frequency
which is (much) closer to or even lower than the peak frequency of the design storm event the
'pseudo dynamic' analysis method is most probably inadequate. Compliant bottom supported
structures may, for example, fall in this category. There is little or no experience with such
analyses within PETRONAS but under these conditions it is probably necessary to perform a
full 3-D dynamic analysis or a random environment, including direct loading on members and
 all static platform loadings. Time domain simulations are obviously preferred but linearised
frequency domain assessments may provide reliable estimates and may be acceptable if
appropriate tools for the former approach are not available.

A few additional comments are also appropriate in a more general sense. In designing a deepwater
platform it is imperative that the influence of dynamic response is recognised at an early stage in the
design development process. The relationship between the frequency content of the applied loading
and the natural modes of vibration of the structure are the key elements in defining the dynamic
response. In this respect the transfer function of the applied wave loading and the expected range of
natural periods for different foundation conditions provide useful information to guide the designer.
Attempts should be made to reduce the wave force excitation in the vicinity of the expected range of
the fundamental mode natural frequencies. This may be achieved by a careful selection of the
geometry of the structural members and appurtenances in and close to the free surface. Optimisation
exercises have been shown to have a dramatic influence on the fatigue performance of dynamically
sensitive deepwater structures (see Reference 6). The results of such an optimisation are less
dramatic for the extreme storm condition, since amplification of the low frequency loading, which is not
markedly influenced by spatial separation effects, contributes significantly. However, such an
optimisation is still beneficial in reducing the total dynamic loading and hence steel weight of the
structure, see the discussion in section 9.4.2 of Reference 6.

4.2 Longer term developments

Most of the dynamic response investigations carried out in PETRONAS to date have been performed
using simplified, first order frequency domain tools. This choice is easily justified given their
availability, low cost, and ease of use. Furthermore, the need for detailed design of a deepwater
structure has so far not arisen with PETRONAS.

Until quite recently, more accurate random time domain or non-linear frequency domain analysis tools
simply did not exist, were prohibitively expensive, or insufficiently well developed to enable their
widespread application. This situation is changing and any future development work should reflect
this.

Given the potential impact of non-linear components in the extreme storm condition, it is now
accepted that models which reflect these features explicitly are required. A two pronged approach is
suggested which should enable some experience with time domain tools to be obtained, whilst
development work proceeds with alternative frequency domain options.

In the author's opinion a prerequisite for future development work examining the extreme event
problem is a random time domain simulation program. The simplified DYNSCRN dynamic analysis
program is now under evaluation in KSEPL. This program provides an opportunity to develop some
first hand experience with a random time domain simulation program without the need to develop
these facilities from scratch first. It is suggested that the random time domain approach should
provide the reference baseline for future development work and comparisons, simply because it is the
most explicit model presently available and because the tools already exist.
Some experience is necessary in order to establish the potential of the DYNAL/DYNSCRN tools and
to be able to anticipate the usual unwritten difficulties associated with using any new program. In the
first instance a comparison with the use and the results of an existing structure seems most
appropriate. An extreme event dynamic analysis is planned for a jack-up unit, but this work will be
carried out by KSEPL. Given this situation, some in-house analysis seems essential and a
comparison study for one of the Troll structures previously examined in the frequency domain would
seem an ideal candidate. In order to do this, the program needs to be accessible from within
PETRONAS offices and this problem needs to be addressed first and foremost. Comparisons of the
global DAF's obtained from the frequency and time domain models will require a substantial effort but
will provide some essential 'hands-on' user experience and highlight any practical problems with the
programs. Once this experience has been gained, effort could be directed towards the problems
associated with predicting the peak force levels from the resulting simulation time histories. A logical
first step would be to try to fit an existing peak value distribution (such as Weibull) to the data resulting
from one or more simulations and to compare these results with extrapolations made from the
frequency domain solutions.
Some other developments based upon frequency domain approaches are also considered valuable.
These are particularly important if a design or analysis approach based upon the so-called long-term
prediction method, i.e. geared to probability of exceedence of structure responses rather than
environmental criteria (Reference 15), is to be pursued to its logical conclusion.

As mentioned in section 2.3 higher order terms present in the original Borgman drag force
linearisation are presently neglected in the FREERISE implementation. These may be significant for
flexible structures. Eatock Taylor has published several papers (References 10, 11, 12) which
describe frequency domain dynamic analysis tools for 2-D plane frames which include these effects.
The value of these methods and perhaps even the tools themselves, needs to be examined in more
detail than has been possible during the production of this document. For the case of constant wave
force coefficients the Bendat and Piersol wave loading model, which was developed with funding from
EP/23.1 (Reference 23), produces the same wave force spectrum as the higher order Borgman
model. The Bendat and Piersol model thus represents a more general wave force formulation, which
degenerates to the Borgman model for the constant drag coefficient case. During the final stages of
the deepwater platform JIP (Reference 21) the Bendat and Piersol model was coupled to a distributed
vertical member wave force representation of the structure to enable wave forces generated using
random simulations and deterministic waves to be compared (see Reference 25). If this model were
generalised to include the wave loading distribution on an arbitrary multi-member structure and
coupled to a dynamic structural analysis program (such as NASTRAN, SESAM80 or a similar
capability), such a tool might offer an economical and attractive alternative in the frequency domain.
The outstanding difficulties associated with non-linear free surface phenomena would still need to be
addressed separately, but comparisons with time domain solutions would enable quantification of
their significance and a means to calibrate the frequency domain model.

In the first instance it is proposed that the feasibility of incorporating the higher order contributions in
the frequency domain FREERISE program should be investigated. This could be achieved by
generalising the existing first order expansion, or coupling the Bendat and Piersol model to the
program. Results should then be compared with time domain simulations. If this proves feasible and
promising, the next logical step would be to examine the potential for incorporating these wave
loading routines in a true distributed member spaceframe model assuming a 2-D representation.
Clearly, availability of the wave force routines is only part of the problem since these need to be
coupled to an appropriate dynamic analysis capability. A means to incorporate the free surface effects
would also be required and ultimately a facility to account for other static load components would also
be needed to complete the picture. All these potential developments need to be reviewed within the
context of PETRONAS longer term plans for an integrated design and analysis tool which is
intended to be built around a single structural analysis kernel.

4.3 Final comments

The objective of this report was to review existing methods and tools which are available to examine
the extreme event dynamic response of bottom supported offshore platforms. Most of the material
presented is based upon experience gained during the course of a number of conventional fixed
platform studies in which we have been involved over the past few years. In this context it obviously
represents a subjective assessment which is influenced by the personal experiences which resulted
from actually carrying out a number of different analyses and also observing the methods used by
other factions of the industry. An attempt has been made to look outside our present experience and
to anticipate some of the potential development work which may enable weight and cost savings in
any future deepwater fixed platforms. Finally. this note has assembled a collection of some of the
most relevant references which should provide a useful bibliography for a general introduction to the
problems and as a basis for future development activity in this area.
5. REFERENCES
1) I.M. Hines
A COMPARISON OF MODAL SUPERPOSITION AND DIREC SOLUTION TECHNIQUES
FOR THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
SIPM report EP-52648, September 1980.

2) J.A. Ruhl
EXTREME WAVE DYNAMICS OF THE COGNAC PLATFORM
Paper 708, Shell Offshore Engineering Conference,February 1978.

3) J.H. Vugts and R.K. Kinra

PROBABILISTIC FATIGUE ANALYSIS OF FIXED OFFSHORE STRUCTURES OTC 2608,
1976.

4) J.H. Vugts
OFFSHORE STRUCTURES ENGINEERING
Chapter 7, SIPM report EP-60690, August 1984.

5) J.W. v.d. Graaf

TRUSSFRAME ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Users input guide, Version 1, SIPM Internal Note, May 1984.

6) A COMPARISON OF THE IN-PLACE BEHAVIOUR OF STEEL SPACE FRAME

STRUCTURES FOR THE TROLL FIELD (BLOCK 31/2) FOR A/S NORSKE SHELL
Volume 2, SIPM EP/23.1, SIPM EF report EP-62400, August 1985.

7) L.E. Borgman
OCEAN WAVE SIMULATION FOR ENGINEERING DESIGN
Journal of ASCE 95 (WW4), p. 557-583, 1969.

8) A.K. Malhotra and J. Penzien

NON-DETERMINISTIC ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
Journal of ASCE 96 (EM6), 985-1003, 1970.

9) R.D. Larrabee
MEASURED AND PREDICTED COGNAC PLATFORM RESPONS DURING HURRICANE
FREDERIC
SIPM report EP-55873, June 1982.

10) J.W. v.d. Graaf

FREERISE - FREQUENCY DOMAIN RISER ANALYSIS PROGRAM
Users guide, SIPM report EP-57703-2, May 1983.
11) R. Eatock Taylor and A. Rajagopalan
LOAD SPECTRA FOR SLENDER OFFSHORE STRUCTURES IN WAVES AND CURRENT
Earthquake engineering and structural dynamics, Vol. 11, p. 831-842, 1983.

12) R. Eatock Taylor and A. Rajagopalan

DYNAMICS OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES; Part 1 - Perturbation analysis, Journal of sound
and vibration, 82(3). p. 401-431, 1982.

13) A. Rajagopalan and R. Eatock Taylor

DYNAMICS OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES; Part 2 - Stochastic averaging, Journal of sound
and vibration, 83(3). p. 417-431, 1982.

14) M.P. Harper

ANALYSIS OF A MULTI-BORE PRODUCTION RISER IN A NORTHERN NORTH SEA
ENVIRONMENT
SIPM EP report EP-51647, November 1979.

15) R.B. lnglis and J.G.L. Pijftrs

UNIFIED PROBABILISTIC APPROACH TO PREDICTING THE RESPONSE OF OFFSHORE
STRUCTURES INCLUDING THE EXTREME RESPONSE
SIPM EP report EP-61300, October 1984.

16) L. ter Haar and P.H.J. Verbeek

MARIANTO - MARINE RISER ANALYSIS TOOL
KSPEL report RKGR.84.043, April 1984.

17) L.D. Ruthven (Shell Oil Co.)

DYNAL III - A COMPUTER PROGRAM FOR THE DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE
STRUCTURES
Users guide, interim report, SIPM EP report EP-59963, 1984.

18) R.D. Larrabee

EXTREME EVENT WAVE DYNAMICS OF PLATFORM EUREKA
(Shell Oil Co.) BRC 28-81, July 1981.

19) F. Moses
DEVELOPMENT OF PRELIMINARY LOAD AND RESISTANCE DESIGN DOCUMENT FOR
FIXED OFFSHORE PLATFORMS
API PRAC PROJECT 85-22 Final report, January 1986.

20) R.D. Larrabee and K.R. Lucas (Shell Oil Co.)

COMPUTER PROGRAM DYNSCRN - SIMULATED PLATFORM DYNAMICS IN RANDOM
SEAS,
Theory and users manual, BRC 25-80, September 1980.
21) Earl and Wright, London
DEEPWATER FIXED PLATFORM JIP
Phase 2 Final report, SIPM EP report EP-62998, May1985.

22) I.M. Hines, I.J. Bradshaw, A.C.M. v.d. Stap

FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR A SLIMLINE LIFT INSTALLED PLATFORM FOR 200 METRE
NORTHERN NORTH SEA WATERDEPTH
SIPM report EP-86-0088, September 1986.

23 A.G. Bouquet and J.H. Vugts

A NON-LINEAR FREQUENCY DOMAIN DESCRIPTION OF WAVE FORCES ON AN
ELEMENT OF A VERTICAL PILE IN RANDOM SEAS
SIPM report EP-5937, April 1984.

24) D.K.Y. Kan and C. Petrauskas

HYBRID TIME-FREQUENCY DOMAIN FATIGUE ANALYSIS FOR DEEPWATER
PLATFORMS
OTC 3965, OIC Conference 1981.

25) Earl & Wright, London, A.G. Bouquet

DEEPWATER FIXED PLATFORM JIP
Phase 2, Task 15 Report, May 1985.
LIST OF FIGURES

Figure number Figure Title

2.1 Comparisons of a single degree of freedom system dynamic response using

random and deterministic models

2.2 Schematic of random time domain simulation analysis

2.3 Schematic of the spectral analysis procedure

3.1 overview of the method used in the TRUSSFRAME program

Fig. 2.1 Comparisons of dynamic response of a single degree - of - freedom system to deterministic and random waves
Fig. 2.2: Schematic of random time domain simulation analysis

Fig. 2.3: Schematic of frequency domain spectral analysis

Fig. 2.4: Schematic of hybrid time/frequency domain analysis
Fig. 3.1: Overview of the procedure used in the TRUSSFRAME program.
APPENDIX A - STATIC PLUS MASS INERTIA 'PSEUDO DYNAMIC' ANALYSIS PROCEDURE

A.1 Introduction

This appendix describes a simplified dynamic structural analysis procedure suitable for the analysis of
conventional bottom supported fixed structures, under the influence of environmental loading and self
weight forces. The basis for the procedure was first developed by Shell Oil Co. during the
design of the Cognac platform, see Reference 2. It has been refined somewhat, resulting in the
procedure documented here; since then, this procedure has been applied during the detailed design
of several other deepwater fixed platforms (see References 18, 21).

As discussed in section 2.4 of the main text the need for a simplified dynamic analysis procedure
results from the requirement to design a structure rather than simply analyse its dynamic response.
Sophisticated time or frequency domain dynamic analysis tools are now available for predicting the
response of a fixed bottom supported structure to random wave loading (see References 10, 17, 20).
It is hoped that these will subsequently become feasible design tools rather than analysis options.
However, existing experience with such tools is rather limited and problems remain with reliable
predictions of the extreme member force statistics and with their application within the framework of
existing design codes. Given this background, a simplified approach is desirable as a short term
alternative to the implementation of true random wave analysis design tools The simplified approach
should incorporate the essential features of the platform dynamic response, but also fit within the
framework of existing codes of practice which are presently based upon the use of conventional
deterministic wave design procedures. A regular deterministic, quasi-static analysis which is modified
to include the effects of mass inertia forces provides such an option and will be outlined in the next
section.

A.2 Outline of the procedure

The simplified 'pseudo dynamic analysis' described here is essentially a static analysis using a total
applied load which matches predetermined global dynamic force levels. Platform design is usually
based upon the instant of time corresponding to the maximum global platform loading rather than
those of the individual member maxima. On this basis the quasi-static loading from environmental
forces is supplemented by additional static loadsets which are developed so as to match
predetermined dynamic base shear and overturning moment values.

The procedure consists of the following basic steps:

i) Establish the cyclic quasi-static base shear (CBS) and overturning moment (COM)
corresponding to the specified design wave height, period and current for each orthogonal
direction, using a regular design wave method.

ii) Establish the influence of dynamic response in terms of the increases in the cyclic
components of loading due to mass inertia force amplification effects. The effects of dynamic
response should preferably be determined using appropriate random wave dynamic analysis
tools in either the time or frequency domain (e.g. references 5, 20). The dynamic components
are evaluated in terms of the resulting dynamic amplification factors of cyclic base shear and
overturning moment (DAFS, DAFM). The DAF's are determined from the ratios of the short
term response statistics, I.e. standard deviations of static and dynamic base shear and
overturning moment or on the basis of equal probabilities of occurrence of peak static and
dynamic responses as discussed in section 3.3.3 and Reference 18.

The resulting dynamic mass inertia shear force and moment components are then as follows:

INERTIAL SHEAR = (DAFS - I) *CBS (A1)

INERTIAL MOMENT = (DAFM - 1)*COM (A2)

If appropriate dynamic models are not available with which to determine the appropriate
DAF'S, these can be estimated on the basis of experience with previous structures. At the
very early stages of design they may simply be guestimated.
(iii) For each of the principal orthogonal directions, generate a mass inertia loadset, in terms of a
series of lateral point loads acting at each plan level over the height of the structure. The
mass inertia loadsets are proportional to the fundamental bending modes of the structure in
each principal direction.

So that:

V1 = M1 (A1)

V2 = M2 (A2)

Where: Vi = vector of lateral modal forces in mode i

M = system mass matrix

i = mode shape for ith mode

Assuming full participation of each mode the resulting inertial base shear and overturning
moments for mode i, are obtained by summing the contributions from each level as follows:

INERTIAL SHEAR : Vi = ij m j (A5)

j = 1, n
In mode i

INERTIAL MOMENT : Mi = ij h j m j (A6)

j = 1, n
In mode i

Where:
j = plan level subscript
n = total number of lumped masses
i = mode number
mj = lumped mass at level j
hj = height above base to level j
ij = mode shape amplitude for mode i at level j

vi) The dynamic components of the base shear and overturning moment are then developed
from the sum of the modal contributions. Inertial responses in each mode are proportional to
the product of the mass and the mode shapes as shown in Figure A.1. The contributions
from each mode are a function of the modal participation factor i which depend upon the
characteristics of the loading and the mode shape.
The proportionality (or participation) coefficients i for each mode are determined by solving
the following equations, assuming two modes being relevant.

INERTIAL SHEAR = 1 1j m j + 2 2j m j (A7)

J = 1, n j = 1, n

INERTIAL MOMENT = 1 1j h j m j + 2 2j h j m j (A8)

j = 1, n j = 1, n

See figure A.1.

v) Once the proportionality coefficients (1, 2) are established, the mass inertia force loadsets
for each mode and for each principal direction can be obtained by multiplying the mass inertia
loadsets developed in step (iii) above by the appropriate modal participation () values, see
Figure A 1. These can be applied to the structure as static extra loadsets which supplement
all the other environmental and self weight loads. The mass inertia loadset is combined with a
regular wave deterministic analysis to design the structure in the same manner as for
conventional shallow water structures which do not experience dynamic response.

The loadsets used to design the structure are shown in Figure A.1. The above procedure
must be applied to both principal wave approach directions requiring the development of
inertial loadsets for end-on and broadside loadcases using the appropriate mode shapes and
mass distributions, and participation.

For oblique wave directions some further approximations are necessary. Firstly total dynamic
and static force components must be determined in the direction of the wave approach angle
in order to establish the dynamic force contribution or the required dynamic amplification
factor for the oblique direction. The components of the total quasi-static applied loading in
each of the principal directions must also be established. This information can then be used to
estimate the appropriate mass inertia loadsets for each principal direction. A simultaneous
linear combination of the inertia loadsets in both principal directions is used in order to
achieve the target dynamic amplification for the diagonal direction.

The above relationships match the required base shear and overturning moment using two
proportionality constants 1, 2, and two modes. Level shears and moments at any two other
locations tan also be matched in a similar manner. If the dynamic response components are
to be matched at more than two levels (say n) then n modes and n proportionality constants
must be used resulting in a set of n equations similar to A7, A8 above.

.
Figure A1: Development of inertia force loadsets used in pseudo-dynamic analysis