Ringing and Double Frequency

H. Nedergaard
LICengineering A/S,
DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
Response of a Tripod
The dynamic behavior o f a tripod steel jacket installed in 65 m water depth in the
North Sea has been investigated. The analysis method is a time-domain simulation
J. Tychsen o f the platform exposed to irregular sea. Similar to monotower platforms, the so-
Maersk Olie & Gas AS, called ' 'ringing" phenomenon caused by higher-order harmonics in the wave loading
DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark
is detected. Further, the analysis discovered another dynamic feature, "double fre-
quency response," caused by the interaction between the spatial distribution of the
S. Lyngesen wave load and the shape o f first vibrational mode. The dynamic response showed
that the top o f the platform vibrates notably more in first mode than found by a
LlCengineering A/S,
Ostergade 4, quasi-static analysis with incorporation o f standard dynamic amplification factors.
DK-6700 Esbjerg, Denmark However, the resulting extreme stress level and accumulated fatigue damage are
found quite similar and the consequences to human comfort small The basis for this
finding is the fact that first mode contributes very little to the stress level in
critical points.

Introduction
Transient resonant responses of tension leg platforms (TLP)
and fixed platforms have been identified in analysis, model
tanks, and in actual sea environments, (see, e.g., Fames et al.,
1994). The transient response is denoted ringing and may not
be fully uncovered for TLPs; but with respect to monotower
platforms it is more generally agreed that the phenomenon oc-
curs due to the nonlinearities in the hydrodynamic loading. With
nonlinearities is meant the loading which deviates from pure
sinusoidal loading at given wave frequencies, the most im-
portant contributions being the quadratic drag loading combined
with the effect of hydrodynamic loading to instantaneous water
level (see Karunakaran et al., 1994).
Ringing is seen as a decaying vibration in the first bending
mode of the tower after passage of a wave, although the wave
period is far longer than the first eigen period. The ringing
analysis has been included in the design of the Draugen platform
in order to avoid expected cracking in the monotower shaft (see
Nygaard et al., 1994).
The ringing detected for monotowers has been the initiator
for the present study, i.e., ringing of a tripod platform. See Fig.
1 for a sketch of the platform, definitions, etc. The platform is
above elev. ( - ) 9 m consisting of a single column with an
outer diameter of 3.2 m and with a first eigen period of around
3 s. The platform is installed on 65 m water depth in the Danish
sector of the North Sea, an area with relative harsh wave envi-
ronment. An argument for investigation of the ringing phenome-
non for the tripod was that--compared to a monotower--the
first bending mode of a tripod is relatively more "active" in
the wave zone due to the restraining substructure. Thus, larger
nonlinear effects could be expected.
The dynamic behavior of the platform was investigated by a
time-domain response model and the results were compared
with standard quasi-static design verification analysis. Quasi-
static response analysis is defined as the analysis where the
inertia and damping terms are omitted.
Method for Response Analysis
Time Domain Response Analysis. When calculating the
dynamic response, the modal analysis approach is adopted. The
Contributed by the OMAE Division and presented at the 15th International
Symposium and Exhibit on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, Florence,
Italy, June 16-20, 1996, of THE AMERICANSOCIETY(OF MECHANICALENGINEERS.
Manuscript received by the OMAE Division, June 1996; revised manuscript re-
ceived October 1, 1996. Associate Technical Editor: C. Ertekin.
basis of this method relies on the fact that any deflection can
be expressed as a sum of orthogonal eigen functions (mode
shapes )
N
r(t) = ~ qbiYi(t) (1)
i=1
The amplitude factors and its time variation are found from the
N differential equations
]i + 2~i~i~)i + ~i2yi Fhyd,i(t) (2)
mg ,i
The generalized force and mass are defined by
Fhyd.i(t) = q~rFhyd(t)
mg.i = 4aTM(ai (3)
We have N coupled differential equations because of the cou-
pling through the hydrodynamic force vector, Fhyd(t), which is
based on the relative motions in-between the structure and wa-
ter. Therefore, the N differential equations are solved by an
iterative scheme.
When Yi (t) is determined, the total deflection, stresses, etc.,
can be derived in the time domain, based on the mode shapes
and their derivatives. The modal analysis reduces the number
of equations to be solved in the time domain when compared
with the full matrix system from which the eigen values and
eigen functions are calculated. However, in order to calculate
the stress correctly (second derivative of the eigen function),
a large number of eigen functions have to be included. For the
present, quite simple structure, the 40 lowest eigen functions
were investigated and the 20 lowest were used in the analysis.
The modal analysis yields important detailed information with
respect to which frequencies and modes may cause undesirable
behavior of the structure. By use of this knowledge of the basic
dynamic nature of the system, redesigning in order to avoid
these problems is far easier.
The quasi-static response can easily be derived from Eq. (2)
as
Yi,stat(t) = Fhyd'i ( t ) (4)
mg,ita.)i2
in which the generalized hydrodynamic loading is calculated
without inclusion of the relative motion, i.e., Fhyd,i ( t ) is calcu-
lated from pure wave kinematics.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 1997, Vol. 119 / 79
Copyright © 1997 by ASME
Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use
 HoLspot
Centre Column

Hots

(b)
Fig. 1 (a) The tripo d platform, definition of hot spots; and (b) beam model used in the analysis. The platform is shown with a topside, which is
lighter than the actual topside used in the analysis.

T h e h y d r o d y n a m i c loading is b a s e d o n a realization o f a w a v e level. T h e m e t h o d is called the m o d i f i e d W h e e l e r stretching,

s p e c t r u m ( s u r f a c e e l e v a t i o n ) in traditional m a n n e r
A~
'r/(t) = ~ ~/2Snn(wi)Awi cos (kix - wit - #2i) (5)
i=1
T h e w a v e k i n e m a t i c s are b a s e d on the physical point o f view
that a free h i g h - w a v e f r e q u e n c y c o m p o n e n t riding on top o f a
l o w - f r e q u e n c y w a v e with a horizontal e x t e n s i o n m u c h l o n g e r
than the short w a v e will p r o p a g a t e a c c o r d i n g to the total water
( s e e G u d m e s t a d ; 1990). Directional s p r e a d i n g is n e g l e c t e d .
B a s e d on the w a v e kinematics, the f o r c e s are d e r i v e d by use
o f M o r i s o n ' s equation with inclusion o f relative m o t i o n
Fhyo(t) = pACMt~(t)
+ ½ pDCD(U(t) -- ,~(t))" l u ( t ) -- f ( t ) l (6)
In t h e e i g e n m o d e calculations, the a d d e d m a s s is included;

Nomenclature

4,1 = ith m o d e s h a p e ( v e c t o r ) mg.i = g e n e r a l i z e d m a s s D = diameter

Yi ( t ) = a m p l i t u d e factor ( s c a l a r ) M = m a s s matrix, including h y d r o - A = c r o s s - s e c t i o n a l area
r ( t ) = deflection ( v e c t o r ) dynamic mass Co = drag coefficient
N = no. o f e i g e n m o d e s or w a v e Fhyd(t) = f o r c e v e c t o r CM = inertia coefficient
components S,,( OJi ) = w a v e s p e c t r u m
Indices and s y m b o l s
t = time x = coordinate
/3i = m o d a l d a m p i n g (relative to (I)i = r a n d o m p h a s e i = m o d e no., w a v e l e t no.
critical) ~7(t) = w a v e elevation T = transposed
wl = cyclic f r e q u e n c y ki = w a v e no. stat = static
Fhyo.i ( t ) = h y d r o d y n a m i c force, general- u(t) = w a t e r velocity (vector) = first t i m e derivative
ized p = water density = s e c o n d time derivative

80 / Vol. 119, MAY 1997 T r a n s a c t i o n s of the ASME

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Table 1 Basic parameters of the structure u s e d in the Wav___e o_____________________n
P r op a g a t i (i)
analysis
Topside mass 710 tons (topside type B) ~ ...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
I
Substructure mass 1272 tons (excluding piles)
Airgap (MSL to cellar deck) 24 m
Center column diameter 3.2 m Velocity X\
Water depth 65 m
100 yr wave
Wave Wave \
Height 24.5 m Crest ~r~ueg h ~ ~ ~_~_~
Period 15.4 s
No. of elements in finite element model 64
Structural damping 1.5 percent
First beam mode frequency 0.33 Hz Fig. 3 Schematic first beam mode and velocity profile below wave crest
Second beam mode frequency 0.74 Hz and wave trough

Generalized Force therefore, it is not seen in the foregoing expression. The hydro-
dynamic damping is taken directly into account in correct qua-
Nondimensional Surface Elevation dratic manner by using the relative motion concept of Eq. (6).
(kN)
As pointed out by Utne et al. (1995), Morison's equation
20- may not describe the wave loading at the wave crest correctly
because the wave run-up in front of the cylinder and other
effects such as possible spraying in connection with breaking
waves are not modeled. However, the main platform column
o has a diameter of only 3.2 m, which has to be compared with
the extreme wave heights of 20-25 m and the important waves
of 7 - 1 0 m with respect to fatigue life. Thus, it is judged that
the omission of these features will not have a governing effect
] I I I
on the final conclusions.
4 2 12 16 Basic parameters of the platform and the finite element model
Time ( s ) are enclosed in Table 1. The structural model is based on a
(A consistent mass matrix and the wave loading is applied as dis-
crete loads at the elements. The number of discrete load points
Relative FFT Analysis of can be varied from element to element, and thus any required
Energy Generalized Force
resolution of wave loading near the surface can be obtained.
1.o-
Since the important loading is mainly in the drag-dominated
range, no correction to the inertia coefficient CM for very low
Keulegan-Carpenter number has been done. The drag coeffi-
cient has been determined based on the roughness, appurte-

I
nances, and the actual Keulegan-Carpenter number.
The eigen modes fall generally in pairs due to the symmetry
of the spatial model; however, in the following, the first pair
of modes is denoted beam mode 1, the second beam mode 2,
etc. (an analogy with a console beam).
i i i i
2 4 B 8
Period (s) Results
(b) General Dynamic Behavior. The nature of the dynamics
of the tripod platform was initially investigated by calculating
Fig. 2 (a) Generalized force for mode I when exPosed to regular waves,
and (b) its spectral content the so-called generalized force, the folding of the load vector
with the eigen mode vector, see Eq. (3). When calculating the

............. Dynamic
Deflection
(m) Static
.OB-] Nondimensional Surface Elevation - .08

l ~, ~,~, ' ,, , ~, ~, ~, ,

•o4-A ~ ~ , , , , ~', , ,~ ', ~ ~ I ~ :~' ' ~ ~~ ,~ ! ~ ' ~ ~' ~' ,~ ~ "! A ~ ~ ' ,~ " f- .04

, ',j ,,j ,j ,,~: ,,,j ~j; ,,j ',j

-.04 L_-.04
100 ltO ' l~o ' ,~o ' l~o ' 260
Time (s)
Fig. 4 Topside response to regular wave period of 12.2 s

J o u r n a l of O f f s h o r e M e c h a n i c s a n d A r c t i c E n g i n e e r i n g M A Y 1997, Vol. 119 / 81

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Static The explanation for this "strange" double frequency behav-
Dynamic ior is found by observing Fig. 3. Under the wave crest, the
hydrodynamic load in the top is most important and the general-
1 ized force becomes positive. At the trough, where the force is
normally negative, the generalized force also becomes positive
.5 due to the negative, now dominating part, of the mode shape.
T Consequently, the generalized force, which drives the dynamics
0
in the first mode; has an important energy content with half of
-.5 the wave period; in other words, significant double frequency
response can be expected.
-1 • The ringing response originates from the higher-order compo-
nents in the wave load. The mechanism is illustrated in Fig. 5,
where a single degree of freedom system is exposed to loading
with a base frequency one-fourth of the system frequency, fl.
For the base case, almost n o difference between the dynamic

1l
and static responses can be found, but as soon as the load
is squared in order to model the drag loading, large dynamic
~ ~ Quadratic amplification is found. The last case is meant to include higher-
order terms such as calculation of wave loading up to the actual
"~ o surface, which is modeled by the cubic load. Large dynamic
amplifications with a typical "ringing" decay period is seen.
An example of topside response to a regular wave train is
1 depicted in Fig. 4. It is seen that the static response is with
double frequency. The topside response is governed by the gen-
eralized force corresponding to the first beam mode, which, as
previously explained, has a double frequency content. Further,
the ringing phenomenon is seen in the dynamic response.
Based on these considerations, ringing and double frequency

11
"7" .5

'i
A Cubic
response behavior of the platform in the form of significant
vibration in first beam mode can be expected. As an example,
irregular time-series of topside deflections can be seen in Figs.
6 - 7 . Generally, there is far more response when full dynamic
calculation is performed compared with static solution, and fur-
therm0re, after each peak the typical ringing decay response
-1 can be seen.
0 3 6 9
Extreme Response. A simulation of a 100-yr storm re-
sponse was carried out, and wefocused on the extreme values
Time-f1 (-)
of deflection and stresses at critical nodes. Figure 7 shows the
Fig. 5 Dynamic and static responses to a harmonic pulse of a single- simulation where the platform is exposed to a 20-m wave with
degree-of-freedom system a period of approx. 15 s. It can be seen from the figure that the
topside deflection, when dynamic effects is included, exceeds
the static response at the extreme by 30 percent and typical
generalized force for first beam mode in a regular wave train ringing can be seen. However, when looking at the imposed
of period 8 s, it was found that the energy in the forcing of first stresses, practically the same stress level is reached at the ex-
mode was distributed at both 4 and 8 s, see Fig. 2. treme. The explanation for these results is that although there

Topside Deflection (m)

o.o 0.05

0'O---~r~P~ 00

0.1o.-
] l F
i,. I o.o
I I I I I I I I i I
200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Time (s)
Fig. 6 An example of time series, comparison of dynamic and quasi-static responses

82 / Vol 119, M A Y 1997 T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e A S M E

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Wave Elevation (m) single-degree-of-freedom system (SDOF). Further, it is as-
iS-
sumed that the wave loading is purely sinusoidal with wave
frequency and that a steady-state condition is reached.
10-
Without the knowledge of the stress contribution from differ-
5-
ent modes, the considerable vibrations in first mode coul~l be
expected to give significant fatigue damage. In order to investi-
0
gate this, response i n several wave-time series was calculatdd.
The fatigue damage was for the derived stress time series calcu-
-5-
lated by use of the rainflow counting method (see, e.g., Almar-
N~ess, 1985), and subsequently, the Palmgren-Miner sum was
-tO
calculated.
In order to compare the two methods for the calculation of
Topside Deflection (m) fatigue damage, the results of the time-domain fatigue analysis
were expressed as a "fictive" DAF factor, see Eq. (7). This
factor is defined as the constant number the quasi-static stress
time-series, Eq. (4), shall be multiplied with in order to give
.05 AA A Dynamic the same:fatigue damage as the full dynamic analysis, Eq. (2).
Due to this definition, both the increase in stress due to dynamics
00/A. _^A AAA and the growth in number of vibrational cycles were accounted
Vvvvvvv , for.
-05 ~

AO Fictive DAF = ( Damagedynamic~(1/4.1) (7)

\ Damagequasi-static/
.05

In Fig. 9, the fictive DAF for the four analyzed time series
is plotted as a function of the mean wave period together with
the DAF based on the SDOF system (deterministic analysis).
As it can be seen, the fictive DAF is smaller or equal to the
Stress in HoLspot #1 DAF from the SDOF system; only for the center column the
result is opposite. However, for the center column this has no
practical impact since the accumulated fatigue-damage is very
small at this location. It can be seen from the figure that when
defining the fictive DAF based on the fatigue damage due to
first mode only, the fictive DAF exceeds the DAF from the
SDOF method. This finding is explained by the fact that al-
though there is a considerable amplification in the first mode
( 1 . 5 - 3 ) , it has only very little effect upon the total fatigue
damage due to small imposed stress. It is remarkable that the
DAF based on the SDOF method seems to quantify the dynam-
ics correctly in the sense that the fatigue damage compares well.
It shall be taken as a coincidence that the poor description of
the dynamics in the quasi-static fatigue calculation does not
i I i i ¢ influence the result and is due to the fact that the actual structure
?70 7flO 790 800 '810 820 830
responds nearly statically with respect to stresses. However,
Time (s)
this finding is not universal as for other structures; the first
Fig. 7 Extreme response, topside deflection and hot-spot stress beam mode may be governing with respect to both deflections
and stresses.

are considerable vibrations in first beam mode, the stress arising
from this mode is very small. Figure 8 presents a snapshot of
the platform deflection, decomposed into first and second beam
mode and the total deflection. Nearly all the deflection originates
from the two first beam modes, but since the normalized stresses
are far higher for the second and higher beam modes compared
to the first, they contribute mainly to the stresses. The maximum
mode shape stress is for same maximum deflection 12 times
higher for the second beam mode when compared with the first.
For the third mode compared to the first, the ratio is 15. The
first beam mode only contributes to the small ripples in the
stress signal (Fig. 7).
Accumulated Fatigue Damage. In the design verification,
both deterministic fatigue and linear spectral fatigue analyses
were performed. The two methods yielded very similar results;
therefore, in this work, only comparisons with the deterministic
fatigue analysis are presented. The analysis consists of calculat-
ing the stress ranges for a large series of single waves by step-
ping these waves through the platform model by a quasi-static
method. Dynamic effects were introduced by use of a dynamic
amplification factor (DAF), which is calculated assuming a
Conclusion
The nonlinear dynamic behavior of the tripod platform causes
significant vibrations at topside with the lowest natural fre-
quency, but this does n o t influence the extreme stress and mini-
mum fatigue life significantly when compared with traditional
methods. This is due to the lowest modes not causing significant
stress in the highest utilized nodes.
The standard deterministic fatigue analysis gives "correct"
results for the three selected hot spots. This is due to the fact
that the stresses at these points are governed by higher modes
which respond nearly statically (stiffness controls the re-
sponse).
Linear spectral response analysis, which is commonly used
for platform design, does not include the wave kinematics up
to actual surface. Neglecting this may cause significant errors
both in the total dynamic behavior and fatigue damage at some
locations (see, e.g., Madsen and Jensen, 1989).
Although the tripod is found to vibrate significantly more
than in the quasi-static analysis, the vibration is not at all that
severe; consequently, the influence to human comfort is small
(see Fig. 10).

Journal of Offshore M e c h a n i c s and Arctic Engineering M A Y 1997, Vol. 119 / 83

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 \ %
/',
,
,i
I
/ ~ /~ %%i I
I

+ m
!
I
It y

i
l l
%
%
%
"4

yI ~ tl xl ;
I

Fig. 8 Deflection snapshot decomposed into first and second beam modes and total deflection

Discussion and R e c o m m e n d a t i o n s ted. However, increased stress in first mode due to a stiff sub-
structure may then be anticipated and the ringing response may
It shall be highlighted that the conclusion of nonlinear dy-
then play a significant role.
namic behavior not affecting the predicted minimum fatigue
The conclusion is drawn correctly; however, one major factor
life for the actual tripod platform cannot be transferred directly
in the analysis is linked with considerable uncertainties. This
to other tripod platform types. If a stiffer substructure had been
is the wave loading in the near-surface area, and especially
designed, the double frequency behavior might have been omit-
in the crest. Numerical models and model tests do not yield
satisfactory results at present, perhaps due to various scale ef-
DAF DAF fects, correlation effects, and the need for precise data for cali-
bration. Therefore, measurement of the actual wave kinematics
in the crest together with force measurements are essential for
progress in this area.
With respect to practical methods for response analysis of
SDOF slender marine structures, which due to nonlinearities respond
All M o d e s in a non-Gaussian manner, two general types of methods are
Wave period (s) Wave period (s)
- Mode I only found:
DAF DAF
• Methods extending the linear spectral method to include
the nonlinearities; see, e.g., Brouwers and Verbeek
(1983), which includes the nonlinear drag, and Madsen
and Jensen (1989), which further includes the effect of
second-order wave theory.
• Methods improving the DAF factor for use in quasi-static
o {5 o t5
Wsve period (s) Wave period (s) response analysis; see, e.g., Nedergaard et al. (1992),
which proposes a DAF based on few time-domain simula-
Fig. 9 Dynamic amplification factor (fictive DAF based on damage) as tions, or Baatrup and Jensen ( 1991 ), presenting a stochas-
a function of wave period
tic method for extracting a DAF from a series of quasi-
static response calculations of a steel jacket.
Acceleration
o5- 7 ( m / s ~ ) " Acknowledgment
|
04[ ISO 6897Acceptance],eve] DUC, consisting of Shell, A. P. Moiler, and Texaco, as well
as DUC's operator Mmrsk Olie & Gas AS, are gratefully ac-
. 6 3 - 1 knowledged for releasing the data and their support for the
present reanalysis. Also, their willingness to introduce new and
,02 Calculated Accelerations more accurate methods, especially in the area of hydrodynamic
loading on platforms, is appreciated.
.Of-

O- References
O 2 4 6 8 10 Almar-Nmss, A.; 1985, Fatigue Handbook, Offshore Steel Structures, Tapir
Significant Wave Height (m) Publishers, pp. 204-206.
Baatrup J., and Juncher Jensen, J., 1991, "Dynamic Analysis of Offshore
Fig. 10 Rmsof acceleration as a function of significant wave height and Jacket Platform Subjected to Non-Gaussian Wave Loads," Proceedings of the
the acceptance level of ISO6897 8th International Symposium on Offshore Engineering, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.

8 4 / Vot. 119, M A Y 1 9 9 7 T r a n s a c t i o n s of t h e A S M E

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use

 Brouwers J. J. H., and Verbeek, P. H. J., 1983, "Expected Fatigue Damage and
Expected Extreme Response for Morison Type Waveloading," Konenklyke/Shell
Exploratie & Produktielaboratorium, Publication 630.
Fames, K.-A., Skjftstad, O., and Hoen, C., 1994, "Time Domain Analysis of
Transient Resonant Response of a Monotower Platform," Proceedings, BOSS 94,
Boston, MA, Vol. 3, pp. 401-412.
Gudmestad, O.T., 1990, " A New Approach for Estimating Irregular Deep
Water Wave Kinematics," Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 12, No. 1, pp. 19-24.
Karunakaran D., Leira B. J., Spidsoe N., and Hoen C., 1994, "Extreme Nonlin-
ear Dynamic Response of a Monotower GBS," Proceedings, BOSS 94, Boston,
MA, Vol. 3, pp. 441-453.
Madsen, A.H., and Jensen, J.J., 1989, "On a Non-linear Stochastic Wave
Theory and Morison's Formulae," Proceedings, OMAE 89, The Hague. Vol. II,
Offshore Mechanics, pp. 45-51.
Nedergaard, H., Ottesen Hansen, N.-E., and Eilersen, C., 1992, "Dynamic
Design of Well Conductor," Proceedings, ISOPE 92, San Francisco, CA, Vo! II,
Marine Risers, pp. 284-295.
Nygaard, M. K., Sheie, G, Sandvik, K., and Bj~erum, R., 1994, "Non-linear
Structural Dynamics of the Draugen Monotower," Proceedings, BOSS 94, Boston,
MA, Vol III, pp. 413-424.
Utne, N., Fause, S., and Tcrum, A., 1995, "Higher Order Wave Load on
and Response of an Articulated Tower," Proceedings, OMAE 95, Copenhagen,
Denmark, Vol I-B, Offshore Technology, pp. 187-198.
International Organisation of Standardization, 1984, ' 'Guidelines for the Evalu-
ation of the Response of Occupants of Fixed Structures, especially Buildings and
Offshore Stmctures, to low Frequency Horizontal Motion (0.063 to 1 Hz),"
International Standard ISO 6897, First Edition.

• The American Society of

Mechanical Engineers

ASME COUPON BOOKS

U s e c o u p o n s to p u r c h a s e aI__!ASME p u b l i c a t i o n s TECHNICAg, PAPERS (PREPRINTS) COUPON BOOK
-- including special publications, c o d e s and CONTAINSIOCouPoNS ORDER NO. C B 0 0 0 1
s t a n d a r d s , and t e c h n i c a l p a p e r s ( p r e p r i n t s ) . $40 ( A S M E MEMBERS) / $80 (NoN-MEMBERS)
U s e c o u p o n s to s a v e m o n e y . T e c h n i c a l papers
cost less when you purchase them with PUBLICATIONS COUPON BOOK
c o u p o n s t One c o u p o n may be r e d e e m e d for one CONTAINS 10 COUPONS( $ 1 0 EACH)
t e c h n i c a l paper. T h a t ' s a s a v i n g s o f $ . 5 0 for
ORDER NO. C B 0 0 0 2
m e m b e r s , $ 1 . 0 0 for n o n - m e m b e r s ( o f f the regu-
lar p r i c e for p r e p r i n t s ) . $ 1 0 0 (MEMBER ~,Z NON- MEMBER)

T..£.LF,,.KD.d.£~ FAX MALt,

800-THE-ASME • 201-882-1717 OR ASME
(800-843-2763) 201-882-5155 22 LAW DRIVE
USA & C A N A D A P.O. BOX 2 3 0 0
95 800-843-2763 FAIRFIELD, NEW JERSEY
MEXICO
infocentral@asme.org 07007-2300
201-882-1167
OUTSIDE NO. AMERICA

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering MAY 1997, Vol. 119 / 85

Downloaded From: http://offshoremechanics.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/ on 01/30/2016 Terms of Use: http://www.asme.org/about-asme/terms-of-use