This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

# EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007

)

**Introduction to the Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures– An Overview
**

N. Haritos

The University of Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper provides a broad overview of some of the key factors in the analysis and design of offshore structures to be considered by an engineer uninitiated in the field of offshore engineering. Topics covered range from water wave theories, structure-fluid interaction in waves to the prediction of extreme values of response from spectral modeling approaches. The interested reader can then explore these topics in greater detail through a number of key references listed in the text. 1 INTRODUCTION The analysis, design and construction of offshore structures is arguably one of the most demanding sets of tasks faced by the engineering profession. Over and above the usual conditions and situations met by land-based structures, offshore structures have the added complication of being placed in an ocean environment where hydrodynamic interaction effects and dynamic response become major considerations in their design. In addition, the range of possible design solutions, such as: ship-like Floating Production Systems, (FPSs), and Tension Leg Platform (TLP) deep water designs; the more traditional jacket and jack-up (space truss like) oil rigs; and the large member sized gravity-style offshore platforms themselves (see Fig. 1), pose their own peculiar demands in terms of hydrodynamic loading effects, foundation support conditions and character of the dynamic response of not only the structure itself but also of the riser systems for oil extraction adopted by them. Invariably, non-linearities in the description of the hydrodynamic loading characteristics of the structure-fluid interaction and in the associated structural response can assume importance and need be addressed. Access to specialist modelling software is often required to be able to do so. This paper provides a broad overview of some of the key factors in the analysis and design of offshore structures to be considered by an engineer uninitiated in the field of offshore engineering. Reference is made to a number of publications in which further detail and extension of treatment can be explored by the interested reader, as needed.

Figure1: Sample offshore structure designs

55

with extreme values of principal interest to the LFRD approach used for offshore structure design. H. Consequently. 1987. 9. This influence is referred to as the “shoaling effect”. t ) and is given by: η ( x.1. Chap. 1981. the influence of the ocean bottom topology on the water particle kinematics is considered negligible. (the kinematics of the water particles) stems from a number of sources including slowly varying currents from the effect of the tides and from local thermal influences and oscillatory motion from wave activity that is normally wind-generated. the water of concern is the salty ocean. (Nigam & Narayanan. 2005). (Chakrabarti. though not mutually exclusive. phase and direction. 2) and circular frequency ω = 2π / T in which T represents the period of the wave. consistent with the conditions at the site of interest. which assumes significant importance to the field of coastal engineering.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) 2 OFFSHORE ENGINEERING BASICS A basic understanding of a number of key subject areas is essential to an engineer likely to be involved in the design of offshore structures. of the wave C is given by L/T or ω/κ. Figure 2: Definition diagram for an Airy wave The alongwave u ( x. or speed. t ) = aω cosh (κ (z + h )) cos(κx − ωt ) sinh (κh ) aω sinh (κ ( z + h )) sin (κx − ωt ) sinh (κh ) (2) v ( x. t ) = (3) pendent). is given by 2a. by way of an introduction to the general field of offshore engineering and the design of offshore structures. it becomes instructive to develop an understanding of the key features of Airy wave theory not only in its context as the simplest of all regular wave theories but also in terms of its role in modelling the character of irregular ocean sea states. removing an otherwise potential complication to the description of the hydrodynamics of offshore structures in such deep water environments. is denoted by η ( x. and the crest to trough waveheight. 1994). themselves would be very much site dependent. 2. would include: • Hydrodynamics • Structural dynamics • Advanced structural analysis techniques • Statistics of extremes amongst others. For so-called deep water conditions (where the depth of water exceeds half the wavelength of the longest waves of interest). (Nigam & Narayanan: Chap. (Dean & Dalrymple.1 Airy Wave Theory The surface elevation of an Airy wave of amplitude a. we provide an overview of some of the key elements of these topic areas. The celerity. associated with the statistics of the climatic condition of the site of interest. (Sarpkaya & Isaacson. A number of regular wave theories have been developed to describe the water particle kinematics associated with ocean waves of varying degrees of complexity and levels of acceptance by the offshore engineering community. t ) water particle velocities in an Airy wave at position z measured from the Mean Water level (MWL) in depth of water h are given by: u ( x. 1994).1 Hydrodynamics Hydrodynamics is concerned with the study of water in motion. wavelength. 1991). The characteristics of currents and waves. In the context of an offshore environment. via: κ to circular frequency ω (as these are not indeω 2 = gκ tanh (κh ) (4) The dispersion relationship relates wave number . t ) = a cos(κx − ωt ) (1) where wave number κ = 2π / L in which L represents the wavelength (see Fig. 2004). Graff. Its motion. DNS-OS-101. Chakrabarti. 2. 1991). at any instance of time t and horizontal position x in the direction of travel of the wave. t ) and vertical v( x. (Dean & Dalrymple. Stokes second and other higher order theories. 9. amongst others. The topology of the ocean bottom also has an influence on the water particle kinematics as the water depth changes from deeper to shallower conditions. These subject areas. These would include linear or Airy wave theory. In the following sections. Stream56 Function and Cnoidal wave theories. The rather confused irregular sea state associated with storm conditions in an ocean environment is often modelled as a superposition of a number of Airy wavelets of varying amplitude. 1981.

t ) = aω eκz sin (κx − ωt ) original description and that of a numbers of other authors in this field) Le Mahaute (1969) provided a chart detailing applicability of various wave theories using wave steepness versus depth parameter in his description. viz: where ω = 2πf. 2005). t ) = aω eκz cos(κx − ωt ) v( x. Alternatively. 1991). Pierson and Moskowitz (1964). equation (10) can be expressed as: αg 2 − β ⎜ ⎟ S (ω ) = 5 e ⎝ ω ⎠ ω ⎛ ωo ⎞ 4 (10) Sη ( f ) = 0.0005 e f5 4 −5 ⎛ f p ⎞ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ f ⎟ 4⎝ ⎠ (11) . (corresponding to the height of the anemometers on the weather ships used by Pierson and Moskowitz). with Le Mahaute’s 57 Figure 3: Applicability of Wave Theories 2. 1981). is considered small (in fact negligible) in comparison to water depth h in the derivation of Airy wave theory. The alongwave acceleration u ( x. reproduced here in Figure 3. (The symbol for depth of water is taken as d instead of h to be consistent. (This is essentially achieved by replacing “z” with “ z /(1 + η / h) ” in the Airy wave equations presented above). β = 0. κh >π . For deep water conditions. The most notable of these include second and higher order (eg fifth order) Stokes waves. ω o = g/U19. t ) = sin (κx − ωt ) (5) sinh (κh ) It should be noted here that wave amplitude.5 and U19.74 . Chakrabarti (2005) refers to alternative concepts and some second order modifications for achieving “stretching” corrections to basic Airy wave theory results. as implied in its name. t ) = aω 2eκz sin (κx − ωt ) This would imply that the elliptical orbits of the water particles associated with the general Airy wave description in Equations (2) and (3).1 × 10-3. α = 8. and Cnoidal wave theory (Dean & Dalrymple. can nonetheless be used for this purpose. waves based upon Fenton’s stream function theory (Rienecker & Fenton. The introduction of the so-called “stretch” theory by Wheeler (1970). a. (Chakrabarti.8 m/s2). tend to exhibit frequency-dependent characteristics that conform to an identifiable spectral description. to map these results into the finite region of their extent from the sea bottom to their current position of wave elevation. t ) is given by the time derivative of Equation (2) as: aω 2 cosh (κ ( z + h )) u ( x. though not commonly adopted. would reduce to circular orbits in deep water conditions as implied by Equations (6) and (7).5 is the wind speed at a height of 19.) (6) (7) (8) (9) ω 2 = gκ u ( x. 2.2 Higher order and stretch wave theories A number of “finite amplitude” wave theories have been proposed that seek to improve on the restriction of the ‘negligible wave amplitude compared with water depth’ assumption in the definition of Airy waves.5 m above the sea surface. proposed a spectral description for a fully-developed sea state from data captured in the North Atlantic ocean. uses the results of Airy wave theory under the negligible amplitude assumption as a basis. Equations (2) to (5) can be approximated to: u ( x. f is the wave frequency in Hertz.3 Irregular Sea States Ocean waves are predominantly generated by wind and although they appear to be irregular in character.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.

2 0. Table I Wind speed profile parameters Terrain Rough Sea Grassland Suburb α 0. the mean wind speed at level z above the surface. including those for rough seas. U 19. which leads to a more slowly varying mean wind profile with height and to lower levels of turbulence intensity than encountered on land. η3. (Note that the variance of a random process can be directly obtained from the area under its spectral density variation.28 zG (m) 250 300 400 City centre 0.15 0. from the P-M spectral description quoted above). (Figure 5 provides a diagrammatic representation of this mean wind speed variation).05 0. η2. and φn is a random phase angle between 0 and 2π. n =0 N / 2 ⎛ 2.5 . (Equation (12) offers a convenient approach towards numerically simulating sea states conforming to a desired spectral variation via the Fast Fourier Transform. Table I compares values for key descriptive parameters. and V(t) is wind speed at the location of the bluff body. The distinction here is that an open sea presents a lower category of roughness to the free58 where ρ a is the density of air (1. hence the basis for the relationship for 2 σ η ≈ 0. is given by the power law profile ⎛ z U ( z) = U G ⎜ ⎜z ⎝ G ⎛ z ⎞ ⎟ = U ref ⎜ ⎟ ⎜z ⎠ ⎝ ref α An irregular sea state can be considered to be composed of a Fourier Series of Airy wavelets conforming to a nominated spectral description. FW (t ) .S ( f ) ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ η sin⎜ η (t ) = ∑ ⎜ − φn ⎟ ⎟ where α is the power law exponent and “ref” refers to a reference point typically chosen to correspond to 10m. 3.16 0. Then wave height η (t ) can be expressed as (12) ⎜ T ⎝ T ⎠⎟ ⎠ ⎝ where η(t) is represented by a series of points (η1. ….5 . α and zG. for different terrain conditions. As a consequence. (the size 1 ρ a C D AV 2 (t ) 2 (14) . such as the P-M spectral variation. Such sea state descriptions can then be adopted in numerical studies that take into account non-linear characteristics and features that would otherwise not be considered for convenience).dt here represents the time length of record. A is the exposed area of the bluff body.2 Wave Loads The wave loads experienced by offshore structural elements depend upon their geometry.25 Frequency (Hertz) Figure 4: Sample Pierson-Moskowitz Wave Spectra For free-stream wind speed.1 U = 12m/s Figure 5: Variation of mean wind speed with height U = 10m/s 0.5 .1 Wind Loads Wind loads on offshore structures can be evaluated using modelling approaches adopted for land-based structures but for conditions pertaining to ocean environments. at gradient height.021U 19. is the frequency in Hertz at peak wave energy in the spectrum and where 2 H s = 4σ η = 0.005U 19.5 . 100 U = 20m/s stream wind. U (z ) .EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) in which fp = 1. CD is the drag coefficient associated with the bluff body shape/geometry. exerted on a bluff body (eg such as the exposed frontal deck area of an offshore oil rig). 500m 400m 300m 250m 80 Spectral Density 60 40 U = 16m/s U = 18m/s 20 0 0 0. wind speed values at the same height above still water level (for offshore conditions) as those above ground level (for land-based structures) for nominal storm conditions. Figure 4 depicts sample plots of the Pierson-Moskowitz (P-M) spectrum for a selection of wind speed values. zG (the height outside the influence of roughness on the free-stream velocity). UG.12 0.40 500 ⎞ ⎟ ≤ UG ⎟ ⎠ α (13) The drag force. by turbulent wind pressure effects can be evaluated from FW (t ) = 3 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS ON OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 3.2 kg/m3). tend to be stronger and lead to higher wind loads.37/ U 19. ηM) at a regular time step of dt for M points where T = M.

derived from these results provide an indication of the variation of these force coefficients with respect to KC and Re.0 1. t ) . drag force progressively dominates. t ) KC = u mT Re . for 10 < KC < 20 both inertia and drag force components are significant and for KC > 20. viz: f ( z.0 1.3 2.0 2.4 0.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 40 50 100 150 200 Figure 7: Inertia flow parameters CD 3. t ) represent the inertia and drag force contributions in which CM and CD represent the inertia and drag force coefficients.4 0. D/L > 0.0 force KC coefficient dependence on Re x 10-3 0. The drag force coefficient is also influenced by roughness on the cylinder. It is found that for KC < 10.2. but the increase in roughness generally leads to an increase in drag coefficient. t ) and f D ( z . the hydrodynamic conditions and whether the structural system is compliant or rigid. t ) = (π / 4)ρ C M D 2 u ( z. and that both values generally lie in the range 0.1 Morison’s Equation The alongwave or in-line force per unit length acting on the submerged section of a rigid vertical surface-piercing cylinder. Figures 7 and 8. t ) u ( z . t ) = 0. Sarpkaya’s (1976) original tests conducted on instrumented horizontal test cylinders in a U-tube with a controlled oscillating water column remain to be the most comprehensive exploration of Morison force coefficients in the published literature. t ) + f D ( z. structural elements are subject to loading in the Morison regime. KC. As a rule of thumb. (see Fig.5 0.2) undergo loading in the diffraction regime. Structural elements that are large enough to deflect the impinging wave (diameter to wavelength ratio. from the interaction of the wave kinematics at position z from the MWL. Appendix I provides a derivation of the 59 . so its importance to offshore engineering cannot be understated. β= D KC (16) (15) where f I ( z . t ) = f I ( z. (Marine growth is particularly troublesome in this regard as it not only increases the effective diameter of a cylinder. where um = the maximum alongwave water particle velocity. respectively. inertia forces progressively dominate. and vice versa. ρ is the density of sea water and D is the cylinder diameter.5 1. whereas smaller. 3. 6).5 ρ C D D u ( z . is given by Morison’s equation. CM 3.3 2. KeuleganCarpenter number. viz: The Morison equation has formed the basis for design of a large proportion of the world’s offshore platforms .a significant infrastructure asset base.0.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) of these elements relative to the wavelength and their orientation to the wave propagation). Re.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 40 50 100 150 200 Figure 6: Wave Loading on a Surface-Piercing BottomMounted Cylinder Figure 8: Drag flow parameters force KC coefficient dependence on Force coefficients CM and CD are found to be dependent upon Reynold’s number.0 2. CD). more slender. and the β parameter. it can be stated that CM decreases as CD increases.5 1.8 to 2.5 0.0 Re x 10-3 0. f ( z .

becomes: π π f ( z.D. exceeds 0. J1 and Y1 represent Bessel functions of the first and second kinds of 1st order.(C M − 1). is normally necessary to investigate diffraction forces on structures of arbitrary shape. (typically ~0. The lift force per unit length. t ) 2 Figure 9: Lift force coefficient dependence on flow parameters Consider the structure concerned to be of the form of the surface-piercing cylinder depicted in Figure 6. fL.2 and can be evaluated by integrating the pressure distribution derived from the time derivative of the incident and diffracted wave potentials. given by: 60 . This is usually associated with drag significant to drag dominant conditions (KC > 15) and at a frequency associated with the vortex street which is a multiple of the wave frequency for these conditions.D 2 u ( z. the resultant vortex-induced vibrations give rise to the socalled “lock-in” mechanism which is identified as a form of resonance). (′) denotes differentiation with respect to radius r. can be defined via 1 (18) ρ CL DU m U m 2 where CL is the Lift force coefficient that is dependent upon the flow conditions.3 Transverse (Lift) wave loads Transverse or lift wave forces can occur on offshore structures as a result of alternating vortex formation in the flow field of the wave. The vortex shedding frequency. when the vortex shedding frequency n coincides with the member natural frequency of oscillation. (MacCamy & Fuchs.5 Effect of compliancy (relative motion) In the situation where a structure is compliant (ie not rigid) and its displacement in the alongwave direction at position z from the free surface at time t is given by x(z. [ 2 (κ a )+Y1′ 2 (κ a )] 2 . t ) 4 4 (22) 1 + ρ . t ) = ρ . α =tan −1⎜ ⎜ − 1 3. (It should be noted here. (eg WAMIT.5 x 105). and which is defined by nD NS = (17) Um where Um is the maximum alongwave water particle velocity and D is the transverse dimension of the member under consideration (eg diameter of the cylinder). 3.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) Morison wave loads for a surface-piercing cylinder for small amplitude Airy waves and illustrates key features of the properties of the inertia and drag force components.D 2 x( z.2 for a circular cylinder in the range 2. It should be noted that specialist software based upon panel methods. also provide a comprehensive exploration of the lift force coefficient. from which the results depicted in Figure 9 have been obtained. t ) − x( z. Consider the displacement at the MWL to be xo(t) and the primary mode shape of response of the cylinder to be ψ(z).C M . Sarpkaya’s (1976) original tests conducted on instrumented horizontal test cylinders in a U-tube with a controlled oscillating water column.C D . with ψ(0) = 1. Again.t). D/L. SESAM). fL = 3. respectively.4 Diffraction wave forces Diffraction wave forces on a vertical surfacepiercing cylinder (such as in Fig. whose value is dependent upon the structural member shape and Re. that in the case of flexible structural members. t ) − ρ . Results obtained for the diffraction force F(t) and overturning moment M(t) are given by: F (t ) = M (t ) = 2ρ g H κ 2ρ g H κ 2 2 A(κ a )tanh (κ h )cos(ω t −α ) A(κ a ). then the form of Morison’s equation modified under the “relative velocity” formulation.(u ( z. n. t ) ) u ( z . t ) − x( z . (19) [κ h tanh(κ h ) + sec h(κ h )−1]cos(ωt −α ) where ′ A(κ a )= J1 (20) ⎛ J ′ (κ a ) ⎞ 1 ⎟ (21) ′ Y1 (κ a ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ in which a is the radius of the cylinder (D/2). is determined by the Strouhal number. then the cylinder motion can be considered to satisfy that obtained from the equation of a single-degree-offreedom (SDOF) oscillator. Integrating the first moment of the pressure distribution allows evaluation of the overturning moment effect about the base. 1954).5 x 102 < Re < 2. NS. 6) occur when the diameter to wavelength ratio of the incident wave.

t ) dz −h 0 (23) 2 xo + 2ω o (ζ o + ζ H )xo + ω o xo = where the integration has been taken to the MWL in lieu of η(t). 1989). Coefficients m.t) is substituted into equation (23) above. then ⎛ z⎞ (33) Ψ ( z ) = ⎜1 + ⎟ ⎝ h⎠ and FI(t) can be shown to be obtainable via the expression given by (Haritos. N ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ cos⎜ − φn ⎟ ⎟ ⎝ T ⎠⎟ ⎠ (32) (u ( z. The term ζH in equation (29) is the contribution to damping due to hydrodynamic drag interaction viz m' = ∫ 0 π 4 ζH ∫ ≈ 0 −h β u ( z . Then u ( z .EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) mxo (t ) + cxo (t ) + kxo (t ) ≈ ∫ Ψ ( z ) f ( z . equation (25) can be further simplified to: 61 . t ) Ψ ( z ) dz which is interpreted as the level of equivalent drag force at the MWL in the case of rigid support conditions (negligible dynamic response). ⎜ sinh(κ n h) ⎝ 2 Sη ( f ) T and ζo is the critical damping ratio of the structure in otherwise still water conditions.Ψ ( z ). analogous expressions can be derived for added mass effects and radiation damping due to structure-fluid interaction effects). viscous damping and restraint stiffness of the cylinder at the MWL. In the case of Ψ ( z ) xo (t ) small compared to u(z. This is an important result as it suggests that for all intensive purposes a body of fluid surrounding the cylinder appears to be “attached” to it in its inertial response. t ) can be obtained from the expression u ( z. t ) − xo (t )Ψ ( z ) ≈ u ( z .1 Inertia Force F (t ) + FD (t ) 2 xo + 2ω oζ o xo + ω o xo = I m + m' where (25) FI (t ) = ∫ and 0 −h α u ( z . as an approximation. t ) x o (t ) Ψ ( z ) (28) Under these circumstances. t ) u ( z . c.(u ( z. t ) = N /2 FD (t ) = ∫ 0 −h β . t ) u ( z . as in Figure 10.t) produces nonlinearities that normally have only a minor effect on the character of the response (Haritos.t) an approximation that can be made for this interactive term is of the form: 1 in which α = ρ C M D and β = ρ C D D .dz ∑ n =0 (27) 2 ⎛ − ω n cosh (κ n ( z + h) ) ⎜ . u ( z. and at x = 0. t ) − xo (t )Ψ ( z ) ) u ( z.t) via u(x. t ) − xo (t )Ψ ( z ) . Equation (23) can be re-cast in the form (In the case of large diameter compliant cylinder in the diffraction forcing regime. t ) Ψ 2 ( z ) dz −h ρ C A D 2 Ψ 2 ( z ) dz (24) (m + m')ωo (31) in which CA (= CM – 1) is the “added mass” coefficient. the so-called “added mass” term is identified for the cylinder viz: where FI (t ) + F ' D (t ) (29) m + m' (30) F ' D (t ) = ∫ 0 −h β u ( z. When equation (22) for f(z. and hence the coining of the label “added mass” effect. Consider an irregular sea state composed of a Fourier Series of Airy wavelets conforming to a P-M spectral description. In the case of Ψ(z) being a power law profile.z. (Note that allowing for forcing to be considered at x(z. t ) − 2 u ( z . ωo 4 2 is the natural circular frequency of the first mode 2 π in which κn satisfies the dispersion relationship of equation (4). t ) − xo (t )Ψ ( z ) ). t ) Ψ ( z ) dz (26) Since the inertia force term FI(t) in equation (29) is linear it generally poses little difficulty in modelling under a variety of hydrodynamic conditions. 4 RESPONSE TO IRREGULAR SEA STATES 4. and k represent the equivalent mass. 1986)).

Sη ( f ) T ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ − φn ⎟ ⎟ cos⎜ ⎝ T ⎠⎟ ⎠ (34) σx σxs 3 2 1 0 1 4 ζ% 2 5 10 where: ⎞ N ⎛ N −1 ⎜1 − I N (κ n h) = I 0 (κ n h) − I N −2 (κ n h) ⎟. the linearised approximation to u ( z . according to Lipsett (1985). 5 EXTREME VALUES In the case of random vibrations associated with linear systems. t ) ≈ . N = 0 (35) . N ≥ 2 ⎜ ⎟ κnh ⎝ κ nh ⎠ I 0 (κ n h) = tanh(κ n h) I1 (κ n h) = I 0 (κ n h) − ⎞ 1 ⎛ 1 ⎜1 − ⎟ κ n h ⎜ cosh(κ n h) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ . use can be made of upcrossing theory 62 Figure 10: Compliant vertical surface-piercing cylinder Figure 11 presents the variations in I N (κ n h) for a range of power exponents N in mode shape Ψ(z). so that 8 (36) u ( z.σ ( z ) π u where σu(z) is the standard deviation in water particle velocity and where current is taken as zero-valued for all z. can be used in the case u(z.8 N= I N(κh) N = 0 1 0. This approximation can be used to simplify the expressions for both ζH in equation (31) and FD(t) in equation (30) and to thereby obtain closedform solutions in the case of nominated Ψ(z) variations. t ) attributed to Borgman (1967). that response levels are controlled by both damping and the amount of relative energy available near 'resonance' for a dynamically responding cylinder in an irregular sea state.2 N= 2 N= 4 κh 0 2 4 6 8 10 Figure 11: Variation of IN(κh) for varying N It is observed that all variations for I N (κ n h) are asymptotic to 1 and that I0(π) is close to this value to the order of accuracy associated with the “deep water” limit of Airy waves (ie κh = π) but for N>0. It is clear from direct observation of Figure 12. N =1 100 2 4 8 fo fp 16 Figure 12: Influence of Dynamic Properties on Response (Inertia dominant forcing in deep water) N The levels are quoted as the ratio of the standard deviation in the response of a cylinder exhibiting a natural frequency of fo to that of a near weightless cylinder with the same stiffness for which fo approaches infinity. The result for N = 0 is consistent with the derivation for the inertia force component acting on a rigid cylinder due to an Airy wave made in Appendix I. IN(κh) ≈ 1 for κh >> π. Figure 12 depicts the results obtained for the response of a vertical cylinder in deep water conditions (IN(κh) = 1) for inertia only forcing in unidirectional P-M waves. n =0 N /2 5 2.t) Gaussian in a random sea state.0 0. this linearization can lead to significant errors in the modelling of both the non-linear drag force and the prediction of the resultant response. the effect of higher order mode shapes (N > 0) is to reduce the level of inertia forcing of each Airy wavelet in an irregular sea state. . 4.4 0. 1. This approximation would seem reasonable for determination of ζH for “stiff” structures.6 0. In general.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) FI (t ) = π 4 ρgC M D 2 ∑ (I N (κ n h). but in situations when the drag force FD(t) is considered dominant.2 Drag force Whilst it is possible to deal with the u|u| term for drag force numerically.

η(f).577 ⎞ ⎟. (xo)max. φlag(f)) which apply to the Fourier components of a random time varying quantity (such as a waveheight trace.1 Extreme Wave Forces Use can be made of the dispersion relationship of equation (4) in conjunction with the separate descriptions above for Inertia and Drag force. that is linearly related to η(t). is diagrammatically depicted in Figure14. to produce a modified resultant time varying quantity.η ( f ) and H FD .2 Extreme Response Values The concepts above can be applied to the dynamically responding surface-piercing cylinder to estimate the peak response at MWL. Ny. Sη(f). 63 Figure 13: Diagrammatic description of spectral modelling of Morison wave loading The area under the total force spectrum equals the 2 variance. It can be shown (Newland. 1994). under consideration. 5. and hence the total force spectrum for the surface-piercing cylinder of Figure 6.η ( f ). If y(t) is a narrow-banded process (ie energy is concentrated at a peak frequency. via 2 S y ( f ) = H y . The spectrum for y. H2FI.Sη ( f ) 1 =e ν oT so that 1⎛ y − ⎜ max 2⎜ σ y ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 (40) (38) y max = 2 ln(ν oT ) . the rate of upcrossings at level y. This peak load value may reasonably be expected to be of the order 3σ FT . (Nigam & Narayanan. as follows y (t ) = N /2 crossings of the zero mean.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) in combination with spectral modelling of the processes involved to develop a basis for prediction of peak response values. νo would correspond to the rate of up- level y. 1975) that upcrossings for such a trace would satisfy νy = Ny/T). νy.η(f) = σ ∫ 0 SFD(f) 2 Ft which can be determined from the spectral description.η(f) Sη(f) X = + = Because the value of ymax itself shows a statistical variation. σ FT . An additional stage is required for this purpose. A diagrammatic illustration of the concept is provided in Figure 13.η ( f n ) .η ( f ) respectively. conforming to say a P-M spectrum) at frequency f.σ y (41) 5. which in terms of a spectral modelling approach. Davenport (1964) has suggested a small correction to equation (41) for the value of E(ymax) so that ⎛ 0. divided by the time length of trace. fp). (37) ⎛ ⎛ 2πnt ⎞ ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ − φ lag ( f n ) ⎟ + bn sin ⎜ − φ lag ( f n ) ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ a n cos⎜ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎝ T ⎠⎠ ⎝ The concept of a “peak value” in a time period of T would correspond to a y value with an upcrossing count of 1 so that ymax can be estimated from A 'zero-lag' filter would be one for which φlag(fn) = 0 for all frequencies fn. y(t). For a Normally distributed trace y(t) with zero 2 mean and variance σ y . T (ie ν y Ny = =e ν o No 1⎛ y − ⎜ 2⎜ σ y ⎝ ⎞ ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ 2 (39) ∑ n =1 H y . then νo ≈ fp. A linear filter has the characteristics described by (Hy.σ y (42) y max = ⎜ 2 ln(ν oT ) + ⎜ 2 ln(ν oT ) ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ Now the rate of “zero” upcrossings is given by: SFI(f) SFtot(f) ⎛ σ ( y) ⎞ ⎜ ⎜ σ ( y) ⎟ ⎟ ⎠ = νo = ⎝ 2π ∞ ∫f 0 ∞ 2 S y ( f ) df (43) S y ( f ) df σ η2 X H2FD. can be obtained from the spectrum of waveheight. equates to the count of upcrossings at . knowledge of which may be used to estimate peak Morison loading of the vertical surface-piercing cylinder. given by Sy(f). to obtain the associated relationships for H FI . η(t). but a more precise estimation is offered through the use of upcrossing theory. namely the linear transformation from Morison forcing to dynamic excitation via the description of equation (29).

1964. 1975. of British Columbia. Longman. Design of Offshore Concrete Structures. Graff.dnv. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications. K. A Fourier approximation method for steady water waves. & Isaacson. Fabrication. Sarpkaya. & Narayanan.com/ Wheeler. 1969. Ph. 1976. & Fuchs. A. DNV-OS-C105. Tech Memo No. Newland. 1989. Method for calculating forces produced by irregular waves. 1981. edit W. ICE. J. K. WAMIT. Thesis. New York: Van Nostrand SESAM. The Influence of Modal Characteristics on the Dynamic Response of Compliant Cylinders in Waves. Washington. 1981.L. 1970. pp 683-690. Lipsett. Wave Forces on Piles: a Diffraction Theory.D. U. San Francisco: Elsevier. (Hemisphere). E.S. Chakrabarti. Chakrabarti. 2004. Water Wave Theories. T. R. American Petroleum Institute. S. 2001.W. 93. via H x2. Univ. Recommended Practice for Planning. D. API RP2A.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/PDF_ files/book. Structural Design of Offshore Deep Draught Floating Units. ICE.F(f) X = fo Sx(f) σ 2 Ft σ x2 fo Figure 14: Diagrammatic description of spectral modelling of dynamic response The Transfer Function for response from Morison loading in irregular sea states for the dynamically responding surface-piercing cylinder of Figure 10 is given by Hx. Chakrabarti. Norway. Holand. 1994.F(f). N. I. 1967. R. U. 1983. Hogarth & B. B. Jl WW& Harbors. Conf. pp 253-258. A. 69. http://oceanworld. London: Thomas Telford Ltd. S. . Norway. C. Design in Offshore Structures. No. Proc. Sarpkaya. Vol. 1986. N. Chakrabarti. 2005. Note on the Distribution of the Largest Value of a Random Function with Application to Gust Loading. pp 95-108. OTC 2533. Le Mehaute. DC. Noye. J.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) SFtot(f) H2x. MacCamy. (ed) 1987. REFERENCES API. K.G. General (LFRD Method).D. 10th Aust.com/software/systems/sesam/progr amModules. 28. Computational Techniques & Applications: CTAC-89. W. Houston: Gulf Publishing Company. Applications of Random Vibrations.E. L. Rienecker. New Jersey: World Scientific. ESSA. Texas. WW2. Proc. Spectral Analysis of Ocean Wave Forces on Piling. A. 2002. Fluid Mechs.1954. & Jersin. Handbook of Offshore Engineering. Design of Offshore Steel Structures.tamu. Norway. An Introduction to Random Vibrations and Spectral Analysis.pdf. 187. (eds). Houston.A. II. No. H. ICE. on Mechs. Borgman. Emphasis has been placed on modelling of the hydrodynamic response of a compliant vertical surface-piercing cylinder in the Morison loading regime under uni-directional waves.asp Stewart. J. S. (eg T = 3600 secs for a 1hour storm). pp 359-367. DNV-OS-C106. (LFRD Method). N. March. TR ERL 118POL-3-2. S. 6 CONCLUDING REMARKS This paper has provided an overview of some of the key factors that need be considered in the analysis and design of offshore structures. & Dalrymple. G. T. O. M. Adelaide. Det Norske Veritas. pp 129156.S. http://www. DNV-OS-C101. Introduction to Offshore Structures – Design. 1984. Mechanics of Wave Forces on Offshore Structures. Water Wave Mechanics for Engineers and Scientists. Haritos. Reference has also been made to a number of publications in which further detail and extension of treatment can be explored by the interested reader. Vol. Journal of Petroleum Technology. of Structs. 2 The area under the response spectrum yields σ x and after application of equation (43) to obtain νo. J. New Jersey: World Scientific. R.wamit.J. 2006. Vol.E. 8th Offshore Technology Conference. & Materials. Fluid Structure Interaction in Offshore Engineering. (ed) 2005. & Fenton. 64 Davenport. London: Spon Press. Nonlinear Response of Structures in Regular and Random Waves. 1991. New York: Springer-Verlag.. Army Coastal Engineering Centre. Dean R. Nigam. 1994. S.D. Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publications. extreme value (xo)max can be obtained from equation (42). pp 119-137. 15th Edition. Gudmestad. Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms. Structural Design of TLPS. M. C. T. Installation. Haritos. Department of Commerce. Det Norske Veritas. (LFRD Method). Det Norske Veritas. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Structures. 2000. Vol 104. Proc. for the nominated duration of the irregular sea state under consideration. Canada. An introduction to hydrodynamics and water waves. R. 1985. K.http://www. The Theory and Practice of Hydrodynamics and Vibration. 1981. Introduction to Physical Oceanography. In-line and transverse forces on cylinders in oscillating flow at high Reynold’s number. F ( f ) = where 2 χm ( f ) = (m + m')2 1 2 2 χm ( f ) (44) 2⎞ 2 ⎛⎛ ⎛ f ⎞⎞ ⎟ ⎜⎜ ⎛ f ⎞ ⎞ ⎛ ⎟ ⎜ ⎜1 − ⎜ f ⎟ ⎟ + ⎜ 2ζ tot ⎜ f ⎟ ⎟ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟ ⎜ ⎟⎟ ⎜⎝ ⎝ o ⎠ ⎠ ⎜ ⎝ o ⎠⎠ ⎟ ⎝ ⎝ ⎠ (45) in which fo is the natural frequency of the cylinder and ζtot is the total critical damping ratio (ζtot =ζo +ζH).M. Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Forcing of Buoys in Ocean Waves.

sin(κx-ωt) κ sinh(κh) ⎪ ⎪ -h = .5 0 0. cos (κx .ωt) Drag: o FD (t) = Drag: ⌠ ⌡ -h β u|u|dz ⎛ ⎞ ⎜= ⌠ ƒD (z.ωt)| ⎦ ⎣ sinh2κh β a2g = 2 ⎡ 2 κ h + 1⎤ cos (κx .ωt)| = β a2 ω2 cos (κx .ωt)| sinh2 κh o ⌠ .5 Total 1 Drag 0.5 0. as an alternative approximation FD (t) ≈ β a2g 2 cos(κx-ωt) = α g tanh(κh) .t) = β u|u| . ⌡ cosh2(κ(z + h)) dz -h → FD cos (κx . | cos (κx .8 and (b): FD/FI = 2 65 .5 -1 -1.ωt) (Deep Water) Inertia: α a g tanh(κh) sin (κx . (α = 4 ρ CM D2) FD (t) = β a2 ω2 cos (κx .ωt) |cos (κx .5 1 0.ωt)|cos (κx .5 -1 -1. (β = 2 ρ CD D) a2 g tanh(κh) ⎛sinh(2κh)⎞ ⎤ ⎡ a2 ω2 h + β ⎜sinh2(κh)⎟ ⎥ 4 ⎠⎦ ⎝ ⎣ 2 sinh2(κh) .6 0.ωt) |cos (κx .4 Drag Inertia Total Ftot FI 0 0 -0.ωt)| Inertia: FI (t) ⎛ o ⎞ ⎜= ⌠ ƒI (z.6 0.ωt) | cos (κx . ⌠ 2 (1 + cosh 2(κ(z + h))) dz ⌡ -h Figures I.0⎪ κ ⎪sinh(κh) ⎪ o =⎢β a2g⎤ ⎡ a2g κh + β 2 ⎥ cos(κx-ωt)|cos (κx .t) = α u π .ωt)| sinh2(κh) o 1 .ωt)|cos (κx .t) dz⎟ ⌡ ⎜ ⎟ -h ⎝ ⎠ -h o ω2 ⎪sinh(κ(z + h))⎪ = α a.5 Inertia 2.5 0.ωt) ⎪ .5 -2 -2.ωt)| ⎣sinh2κh ⎦ Hence. t ) .ωt) . sinh2(κh) sinh(2κh)⎞ 1 ⎛ 2 ⎝h + 2κ ⎠ FD (t) = ⎢β 1 ƒD (z. t ) + f D ( z.ωt)|cos (κx . sin(κx .ωt) = α g a sin(κx .t) dz⎟ ⌡ ⎜ ⎟ ⎝ ⎠ -h o β a2g ⎡ 2 κ h ⎤ 2 ⎣sinh2κh + 1⎦ cos (κx . – Base shear on a surface-piercing cylinder from Morison loading f ( z.EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007) Appendix I.2 0. sin(κx .b depict representative variations over one cycle of Airy wave of the Base Shear force acting on a cylinder normalised with respect to FD/FI = 2. t ) = f I ( z.4 0.8 t T 1 (a) (b) Figure I: Morison Base Shear Force components for (a): FD/FI = 0. a . ƒI (z. respectively.ωt)| FD (t) = β a2 ω2 cos (κx .8 t T 1 Ftot 0 FI -0.2 0.5 2 1.ωt)| . by way of illustration. ⌠ α u dz ⌡ = α sinh(κh) ω2 a .ωt) → FI sin (κx .a and I. 1.