Arab J Sci Eng
DOI 10.1007/s13369-017-2534-y
RESEARCH ARTICLE - MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Frequency Domain Long-Term Efficiency of Viscous Damper
in Jacket Platforms Under Random Wave Load
Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour1 · Hossein Janbazi Rokni2
Received: 5 December 2016 / Accepted: 10 April 2017
© King Fahd University of Petroleum & Minerals 2017
Abstract Various types of controlling mechanisms have
been investigated to decrease vibrations of different struc-
tures, and in many cases, the reliability has been increased
with respect to conventional methods of structural optimiza-
tion. Among them, using passive viscous damper is one of
the useful methods to control structure response due to envi-
ronmental loads. Hence, in this study, the effect of viscous
damper on vibration control of jacket platform (case study
oil platform SPD2 and Resalat) exposed to wave loads is
investigated, and with the sea state, long-term performance
of damper to reduce the structural response is introduced
for the first time the more suitable than the responses in an
especial case. To keep up this purpose, the platform is mod-
eled by finite element method, and wave spectra are radiated
to it. Spectral analysis is adopted to investigate the struc-
tural response of the jacket platform equipped with viscous
dampers, and also, conventional arrangements of dampers
are analyzed to acquire optimal one. Then, the economically
optimal arrangement of damper is determined. The novelty of
this paper is that the results based on the sea states recorded
in the long term help one find the optimal arrangement of
damper.
Keywords Jacket · Long term · Viscous damper · Wave
B Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour
tabeshpour@sharif.edu
Hossein Janbazi Rokni
h_janbazi@yahoo.com
1 Mechanical Engineering Department, Center of Excellence in
Hydrodynamics and Dynamics of Marine Vehicles, Sharif
University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
2 Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
1 Introduction
Using controlling mechanisms to optimize the performance
of existing platforms by improving vibrational behavior may
be an effective solution that eliminates expensive structural
repair operations and strengthening of components under sea
loads. Since offshore platforms are subjected to repetitive
wind and wave loads during their lifetime, fatigue damage is
considerably important. The design experiences of fixed off-
shore platforms show that in regions with low seismic risk
like Persian Gulf that the intensity of waves in critical sea
states is not far from normal states, fatigue damage is a deter-
minative factor, and therefore, reducing structural response,
e.g., amplitude of displacement by controlling methods, has
a considerable effect on increasing the lifetime of the struc-
ture. The average lifetime of offshore platforms is about
25 years, and many of the structures in the aforementioned
region have exceeded their design lifetime, and since from
economical point of view, the continuation of activity of
a platform is often preferred to install a new one; it again
emphasizes on importance of using controlling mechanisms
to decrease structural response. The first investigation on the
subject dealt with controlling vibrations of offshore platforms
was performed by Vandiver and Mitone [1]. They indicated
that liquid sloshing in tanks located on topside of the plat-
forms has a significant effect on the period and damping
characteristics of platform. Their analysis shows that storage
tanks with low frequency placed on topside offshore plat-
form increases dynamic response of platform. In addition,
by choosing correct geometry for these tanks the jacket plat-
form response could be reduced and these liquid storage tanks
can behave as a damper [1]. Lee and Reddy suggested that
sloshing of liquid has energy absorbing characteristics that
can be used to decrease dynamic response of the jacket plat-
form. They used finite element method to model the platform
123
 Arab J Sci Eng

equipped with liquid damper placed on topside deck and pro- where {u̇} and {ü} are time-dependent flow velocity and
posed methods to set the frequency of damper [2]. Patil and acceleration, respectively; [A P ] and [V P ] are area and vol-
Jangid investigated the response of offshore jacket platforms ume matrix of the platform’s members, respectively; Cd is
installed with energy dissipation devices such as viscoelas- coefficient of drag force; Ca is coefficient of added mass; and
tic, viscous and friction dampers under wave loading. One Cm = (1 + Ca ) is coefficient of inertial force.
of the results of their investigation is that dampers have very Combining equation (1) and (2):
appropriate influence on dissipation of energy acting on the
platform [3]. Lee et al. equipped a floating offshore platform [ M̄]{ẍ} + [C]{ẋ} + [K ]{x}
with a Tuned Liquid Column Damper (TLCD) and concluded = ([K m ]{ü} + [K d ]{|u̇ − ẋ| (u̇ − ẋ)}) (3)
that wave-induced vibrations could be reduced by this cost-
benefit damper [4].Yue et al have suggested a Tuned Mass where
damper, which can reduce vibrations caused by the ice in the
platforms [5]. Golafshani and Gholizad dealt with the fea- [ M̄] = [M] + ρ(Cm − 1)[V P ] (4)
sibility study on the application and evaluation of vibration
[K m ] = ρCm [V P ] (5)
controlling algorithms related to fatigue due to waves acting
on template steel platforms and found the effectiveness of [K d ] = 0.5ρCd [A P ] (6)
mass damper and rotational friction damper [6,7]. Tabesh-
pour and Komachi studied the effect of friction damper on The second term on the right-hand side of Eq. (3) is nonlinear
controlling of earthquake-induced vibrations in a jacket plat- involving |u̇ − ẋ|(u̇ − ẋ).
form and indicated that this damper is highly practical in Using the Kryloff method, the nonlinear term can be lin-
controlling vibrations [8]. earized by expressing as follows [10]:
In this research, two existing platforms (SPD2 and Resalat
located in Persian Gulf) are modeled using MATLAB and {V̇r } = {(u̇ − ẋ)} (7)
the structural response with and without viscous damper is [ M̄]{ẍ} + [C̄]{ẋ} + [K ]{x} = ([K m ]{ü} + [Ce ]{u̇}) (8)
analyzed and the effect of passive controlling systems in
reduction displacements in different levels of platform is where
shown. The results in this study were obtained on one com-
puter Celeron (R) 2.19 GHz and 2 Gb RAM. [C̄] = [C] + [E][Ce ] (9)
It is an important result that one can decide on the optimum 
8
arrangement of dampers not only based on the responses in [Ce ] = [K d ][σV̇r V̇r ] (10)
π
short term, but also in long term, and all sea sates are consid-
ered in calculation, and therefore, the maximum fatigue life V̇r is relative velocity, [Ce ] is a diagonal matrix and σV̇r is
time will be achieved. the root-mean-square (RMS) values of relative velocity. The
right-hand side of Eq. (8) indicates the wave force as follows:

2 Equation of Motion { f } = [K m ]{ü} + [Ce ]{u̇} (11)

The equation of motion of a system under external force is
expressed in the following matrix form:
3 Spectral Analysis of Wave Force
[M]{ẍ} + [C]{ẋ} + [K ]{x} = { f } (1)
In this study, the modified JONSWAP wave height spectrum
where {x} = [x1 , x2 , . . . , x N
]T isthe displacement vector of which is provided by Mazaheri and Ghaderi for Persian Gulf
size N × 1; xi is the lateral displacement of the platform at waves is used and expressed as follows [11]:
level, i (i = 1 to N ); ẋ, ẍ are horizontal velocity and accel-  
eration of platform, respectively; [M], [C] and [K ] are the αg 2 5  ω p −4
Shh (ω) = exp −
mass, damping and stiffness matrix of the structural system (2π ) 4 ω
γ exp[−(ω p −ω)
2 /2σ 2 ω2 ]
of size N × N ; and { f } is the excitation force vector arising (12)
from wave loading and is calculated according to Morison’s
equation [9]: where Shh (ω) is wave spectrum based on frequency; g is
gravity acceleration; ω and ω p are frequency and maximum
{ f } = 0.5Cd [A P ]{|u̇ − ẋ| (u̇ − ẋ)} frequency wave, respectively; and σ is a constant calculated
+ ρCm [V P ]{ü} − ρ(Cm − 1)[V P ]{ẍ} (2) as follows [11]:

123
Arab J Sci Eng


0.07, f < fp 1 where [H (iω)] is the complex frequency response function
σ = ω= (13)
0.09, f ≥ fp f matrix of dimension N × N . The PSDF matrix of the dis-
placement vector {x} can be given as:
and the constants γ and α are peak resonant coefficient and
Philips constant, respectively, and are determined according [Sx x (ω)] = [H (iω)]∗ [Sff (ω)][H (iω)]T (21)
to Eq. (14) [11]:
According to Eq. (21), [H (iω)]∗ is the complex conjugate of
γ = 7.5Hs0.34 f p the frequency response function matrix. The area under the
α= 4.5Hs2 f p4 (14) power spectral density function curve of [Sx x (ω)] gives the
mean square value of the response (E[x 2 ]).
HS is significant wave height.
According to Eq. (11), the power spectral density function
(PSDF) is calculated as follows: 4 Description Case Study

4.1 SPD2 Platform

[Sff (ω)] = [K m ][Sü ü (ω)][K m ]T
+ [Ce ][Su̇ u̇ (ω)][Ce ]T (15) SPD2 is a wellhead jacket platform with six legs that has
been installed in Iranian territory in Persian Gulf (first phase
The terms [Sü ü ] and [Su̇ u̇ ] represent the PSDFs of fluid veloc- of South Pars gas field). The gas field is located 105 km
ity and acceleration, respectively, and can be obtained as south of Asalooye, and water depth in this region is 60–70 m.
follows [12]: The facilities of this phase include two wellhead platforms
SPD1 and SPD2, an accommodation platform SPQ1, produc-
[Su̇ u̇ (ω)] = {TV }Shh (ω){TV }T (16) tion platform SPP1, torches and connecting bridges. Since
[Sü ü (ω)] = ω [Su̇ u̇ (ω)]
2
(17) 2001, the structural equipment of the project has been used
to extract hydrocarbon resources.
where According to records, half of the lifetime of these plat-
forms is passed and this is the best reason to carry out
 
cosh k(d + z j ) reassessments. The SPD2 is installed in water depth of
{TV } = TV j = ω ( j = 1, . . . , N ) (18)
sinh kd approximately 65.7 m. The platform is fixed to the sea bot-
tom using six piles and the gap between the pile and inner
In the above equation, d is the total depth of the sea bed and z face of the leg is filled by grout. The natural period of the
is the elevation of the sea surface (positive upward as shown SPD2 is approximately 1.62 s (Figs. 2, 3).
in Fig. 1).
By solving the equation of motion (Eq. 8), we have: 4.2 Resalat Platform

{ f (ω)} Resalat oil field is located in the Persian Gulf and at a distance
{x} =
([K ] − ω2 [ M̄] + iω[C̄]) of about 80 km from Lavan Island at a depth of 67 m of water.
= [H (iω)]{ f (ω)} (19) Resalat platform has four legs and installed in water depth of
1 approximately 65.7 m. Figures 4 and 5 show views of Resalat
[H (iω)] = (20) platform. For reducing computation time of the problem and
[K ] − ω2 [ M̄] + iω[C̄]
also symmetry of Resalat platform, 2D model of the platform
is provided. The natural period of the Resalat Platform is
approximately 1.54 s.

5 Modeling and Analysis

2D model consists of mass and spring with one degree of

freedom in horizontal direction. Determining mass and stiff-
ness of the structure is conducted in a way that the period and
kinetic energy of each vibration mode of shear model be sim-
ilar to real structure characteristics. The platform response is
Fig. 1 Parameters of wave [13] considered linear in this analysis, and the damping behavior

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

-10

-20
-20 -10 0 10 20

Fig. 2 Three-dimensional view of SPD2 Fig. 3 Two-dimensional view of SPD2 (developed in MATLAB)

is illustrated by Rayleigh model in proportion to the mass and

stiffness of the structure. As described before, the considered
platform is modeled as a shear structure (Fig. 6).

6 Wave Loading

Based on the sea states of Persian Gulf, JONSWAP spectrum

is preferred and the values of wave height and period with
100 year return period are considered (Hs = 5.83 m and
T p = 7.10 s) to use the results of the structural response.
The drag and inertia coefficients (C D and C M ) are considered
0.7 and 2, respectively. The variation of the PSDF of the sea
wave elevation according to JONSWAP spectrum is shown
in Fig. 7.

7 Added Damper
Fig. 4 2D model of Resalat platform
In this study, linear viscous damper is considered. This
damper consists of steel piston rods with a hole in its head.
Cylinder is filled with a viscous fluid, such as silicone gel [C T ] = [C] + [Ce ] + [Cd ] (22)
[13]:
By adding damper to the structure, damping matrix will where [C T ] is modified damping matrix of platform; [C] is
be changed according to the following equation: the structural damping matrix; [Cd ] is the added damping

123
Arab J Sci Eng

matrix due to damper; and [Ce ] is the nonlinear drag force 8 Sensitivity Analysis of Viscous Damper
inserted to platform. Thus, the equation of motion given in Configuration
Eq. (8) changes to the following new form:
In this section, by considering some conventional config-
urations of dampers, it is intended to acquire the optimal
[ M̄]{ẍ} + [C T ]{ẋ} + [K ]{x} = { f } (23)
placement of viscous damper in the platforms under wave
loading. Figure 8 shows the variation of the PSDF of top-level
Damping matrix caused by adding damper can be obtained displacement against frequency of the considered platform
with the following formula [14]: equipped with viscous dampers. The PSDF of displacement
in uncontrolled case, i.e., without viscous damper, has two
N peaks. The first peak has occurred in the central frequency
ξd T i=1 Ki
Cd = (24)
π n d cos θi
2
40

where K i is the lateral stiffness of ith level, T is natural period 35

PSDF of sea elevation m2 sec/rad)

of structure; ξd , n d and θi are equivalent damping ratio, num-
30
ber of added dampers and inclination angle of damper at ith
level, respectively. 25

20

15

10

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 7 PSDF of sea wave elevation (JONSWAP spectrum)

Fig. 5 3D model of Resalat platform Fig. 8 Fluid viscous damper [15]

Fig. 6 Equivalent shear model

of SPD2 and Resalat

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad)

PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad) PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad) PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad) PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad) PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad)
-3 -3
x 10 x 10
2 2
without damper without damper
with dampers with dampers
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)
-3 -3

PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad) PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad) PSDF of top floor displacement(m2 sec/rad)
x 10 x 10
2 2
without damper without damper
with dampers with dampers
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)
-3 -3
x 10 x 10
2 2
without damper without damper
with dampers with dampers

1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)
-3 -3
x 10 x 10
2 2
without damper without damper
with dampers with dampers
1.5 1.5

1 1

0.5 0.5

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency (rad/sec) Frequency (rad/sec)
-3
x 10
2
without damper
with dampers
1.5

0.5

0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
Frequency (rad/sec)

Fig. 9 Variation of the PSDF of deck displacement with and without damper (SPD2 platform)

123
Arab J Sci Eng

Fig. 10 Variation of the PSDF Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

0.01 Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)
of deck displacement with and Uncontrolled
0.01
Uncontrolled
without damper (Resalat controlled
controlled

2
2
0.008
platform) 0.008

0.006 0.006

0.004 0.004

0.002 0.002

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Frequenc(rad/sec) Frequenc(rad/sec)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)
0.01 0.01
Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
controlled controlled

2
2
0.008 0.008

0.006 0.006

0.004 0.004

0.002 0.002

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Frequenc(rad/sec) Frequenc(rad/sec)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

Wave Loading(Resalat Platform) Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)

0.01 0.01
Uncontrolled Uncontrolled
controlled controlled
2

2
0.008 0.008

0.006 0.006

0.004 0.004

0.002 0.002

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Frequenc(rad/sec) Frequenc(rad/sec)

Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

0.01 Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)

Uncontrolled 0.01
controlled Uncontrolled
2

controlled
2

0.008
0.008

0.006
0.006

0.004
0.004

0.002 0.002

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Frequenc(rad/sec) Frequenc(rad/sec)

Wave Loading(Resalat Platform)

PSDF of top floor displacement (m .sec/rad)

0.01
Uncontrolled
controlled
2

0.008

0.006

0.004

0.002

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6
Frequenc(rad/sec)

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

Table 1 Efficiency of damper in deck for different arrangements (SPD2 platform)

Case Damper arrange- RMS Deck displacement(m) Reduction in dis- Efficiency with respect to
ment in span placement (%) coupled damper (%)

Without damper With damper

1 2 0.0311 0.0257 17.4 17.4

2 3 0.0311 0.019 38.9 38.9
3 4 0.0311 0.021 33 33
4 5 0.0311 0.024 22.7 22.7
5 2, 3 0.0311 0.0195 37.4 18.7
6 3, 4 0.0311 0.0178 42.8 21.4
7 4, 5 0.0311 0.0201 35.5 17.7
8 2, 3, 4 0.0311 0.0188 39.5 13.1
9 3, 4, 5 0.0311 0.0186 40.2 13.4

Table 2 Efficiency of damper in deck for different arrangements (Resalat platform)

Case Damper arrange- RMS Deck displacement (m) Reduction in dis- Efficiency with respect to
ment in span placement (%) coupled damper (%)

Without damper With damper

1 2 0.0844 0.057 32 17.4

2 3 0.0844 0.0472 44 38.9
3 4 0.0844 0.0461 45 33
4 5 0.0844 0.046 45 22.7
5 2, 3 0.0844 0.0386 54 27
6 3, 4 0.0844 0.0349 59 29.5
7 4, 5 0.0844 0.0339 60 30
8 2, 3, 4 0.0844 0.0389 54 27
9 3, 4, 5 0.0844 0.0357 58 29
Reduction of Displacement (%)
Reduction of Displacement (%)

45 40
40
35
35
30
30
25
25
20 20
15 15
10 10
5 5
0 0
case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 case 9 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 case 9
case of viscous damper case of viscous damper

Fig. 11 Efficiency of dampers in deck (Hs = 5.83 m, Tp = 7.1 s) (SPD2 Fig. 12 Economic analysis of dampers in deck (Hs = 5.83 m,
platform) Tp = 7.1 s) (SPD2 platform)

of the exciting wave, and the other peak has occurred in fun-
damental natural frequency of the platform.
It is clear in Figs. 9 and 10 that adding viscous dampers
to the platform does not change the first peak of the PSDF.
As previously mentioned, this peak is related to wave excita-
tion. But adding the dampers reduces the second peak related
to natural period of the structure significantly. So it is con-
cluded that by adding dampers in the frequencies that cause
resonance in the structure, the displacement could be consid-
erably decreased. Also, by increasing the number of dampers
in the structure, the response in the top level decreases. There
is a significant reduction in the PSDF of deck displacement

123
Arab J Sci Eng

Fig. 13 Efficiency of dampers 45

in all stories for different cases

Reduction of Displacement (%)

40
of dampers (Hs = 5.83 m,
Tp = 7.1 s) (SPD2 platform) 35

30
1st level
25
2nd level
20
3rd level
15 4th level
10 5th level

0
case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 case 9
case of viscous damper

Table 3 Long-term performance of dampers in deck level (SPD2 platform)

Case Long-term performance Long-term performance Figure of dampers
of dampers (%) with respect to coupled
damper (%)

1 27.8 27.8

2 53.2 53.2

3 47.05 47.05

4 35 35

5 55.7 27.8

6 63.6 31.8

123
 Arab J Sci Eng

Table 3 continued
Case Long-term performance Long-term performance Figure of dampers
of dampers (%) with respect to coupled
damper (%)

7 54.1 27.05

8 60.3 30.1

9 61.6 20.5

Reduction of Displacement for top

Reduction of Displacement for top

60.00
70.00
60.00 50.00

50.00 40.00
story (%)
level (%)

40.00 30.00
30.00
20.00
20.00
10.00
10.00
0.00 0.00
case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 case 9 case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 case 9
case of viscous damper case of viscous damper

Fig. 14 Long-term performance of dampers in deck level (SPD2 plat- Fig. 15 Economic analysis (long-term condition) of dampers in deck
form) level (SPD2 platform)

nificant role in increasing the efficiency and consequently the

that verifies the great efficiency of viscous dampers in reduc-
ing the response of jacket platform.
As it is shown in Figs. 9 and 10, nine conventional con-
figurations of dampers in a specific sea state are investigated
(Hs = 5.83 m and T p = 7.10 s). Tables 1 and 2 show a com-
parative analyses of these configurations. In one column, the
reduction in displacement is presented. Another column of
Table 1 is dedicated to the efficiency with respect to coupled
dampers which also examines the performance of dampers
economically.
The reduction in displacement of top level of the platform
in cases 6, 8 and 9 is more than other cases (Fig. 11); while
in cases 2, 3 and 4, the efficiency of the dampers is more
economical (Fig. 12). Thus, it can be concluded that just by
increasing the number of dampers, the efficiency and reduc-
tion in the structural response will not be increased. Hence,
the arrangement and configuration of the dampers has a sig-
lifetime of the structure. More details are shown in Figs. 11
and 12.
There is another method to evaluate the response of struc-
ture equipped with dampers. Figure 13 shows the reduction
in displacement in each level for different cases. According
to the chart below, you can compare response of deck level
to another level.
As shown in Fig. 13, reduced response values at lower
level are lower than to deck level. So we can conclude the
damper performance is better in higher elevation.
9 Long-term Performance of Viscous Dampers
Sea state in a specific area is one of the most important factors
in designing offshore structures. These parameters are based

123
Arab J Sci Eng
Fig. 16 Long-term
performance of dampers in all
Reduction of Displacement (%)
stories (SPD2 platform)
on field observations and analyses of the measured data. This
can include water surface level and wave period.
Given that the design of a structure must consider envi-
ronmental characteristics, in order to design viscous damper,
it should be considered how the long-term performance of
damper affects on reducing vibration and the fatigue life of
the structure. So besides studying short-term efficiency of
damper, the long-term performance should also be examined.
In this part, the actual data in the SPD2 platform have
been used. In order to evaluate the long-term performance of
damper, at first damping efficiency should be calculated for
each sea state:
RMS-RMSdamper
Damping Efficiency = × 100
RMS
In this formula, RMS and RMSdamper represent the standard
deviation of deck-level spectrum of displacement without
and with dampers, respectively. The RMS value is equal to
the square root of the area under the spectrum of displace-
ment. By multiplying the value of damping efficiency in the
probability of any sea state, one can calculate the probabilis-
tic damping performance of damper in each sea state and
then sum of all probabilistic damping performance in each
sea state, and the long-term performance of damper in all sea
states is obtained.
Probabilistic Efficiency Damper
= Damping Efficiency × Probability of each sea state
Long-term Efficiency of Damper

NumberofSeaState
= Probabilistic Efficiency Damper
1 may be different in each level. Thus, achieving optimal
According to the sea states, long-term performance of
dampers in different cases is investigated.
70.00
60.00
50.00
1st level
40.00
2nd level
30.00 3rd level
20.00 4th level
5th level
10.00
0.00
case 1 case 2 case 3 case 4 case 5 case 6 case 7 case 8 case 9
case of viscous damper
According to the results in Table 3, it can be seen that
the long-term efficiency of damper considering all sea states
is different from the condition that is only a special case of
irregular wave. With regard to Fig. 14, cases of 6, 7 and 8
may be a better arrangement of the viscous damper to reduce
the structural response under wave load, and according to
Fig. 15 in cases 2, 3 and 4 the long-term performance of the
dampers is more economical. In Table 3, the performance
of dampers was calculated only at the deck level. Therefore,
Fig. 16 shows the long-term performance of dampers in all
stories.
10 Conclusion
(25)
In this analysis, the response of offshore jacket platforms
equipped with passive control devices (specifically viscous
dampers) under wave loading is studied. To deal with this
issue, two existing template platforms located in Persian
Gulf are considered. The uni-directional random wave load-
ing is expressed by the JONSWAP spectrum. Based on
the results of this study, added dampers contribute to the
reduction of structural response. The PSDF of the deck dis-
placement has two peaks; one due to wave excitation and
the other due to fundamental natural frequency. Adding
viscous damper affects the second peak and reduces the
structural response considerably. So it is concluded that by
adding dampers in the frequencies that cause resonance in the
structure, the displacement of the platform could be consider-
ably decreased. Different arrangements of viscous dampers
(26) show that just by increasing the number of dampers, their
effect in structural response will not be increased and the
geometry of the arrangement is important. Also, the perfor-
(27) mance and efficiency of dampers in various arrangements
configuration of damper in the jacket platform is restricted
to considering the performance of damper in different
levels.
123

Since, in one area, different sea states occur with various
probabilities, ignoring these effects can lead to inefficient
and uneconomical design of control system. So in this study,
several different configurations of viscous dampers investi-
gated in long term of sea states. The results showed that the
performance of dampers may change if we consider only a
specific wave state.
References
1. Vandiver, J.K.; Mitone, S.: Effect of liquid storage tanks on the
dynamic response of offshore platforms. Appl. Ocean Res. 1(2),
67–74 (1979)
2. Lee, S.; Reddy, D.: Frequency tuning of offshore platforms by
liquid sloshing. Appl. Ocean Res. 4(4), 226–23 (1982)
3. Patil, K.C.; Jungid, R.S.: Passive control of offshore jacket plat-
forms. Ocean Eng. 32, 1933–1949 (2005)
4. Lee, H.; Wong, S.H.; Lee, R.S.: Response mitigation on the offshore
floating platform system with tuned liquid column damper. Ocean
Eng. 33(8), 1118–1142 (2006)
5. Yue, Q.; et al.: Mitigating ice-induced jacket platform vibrations
utilizing a TMD system. Cold Reg. Sci. Technol. 56(2), 84–89
(2009)
123
Arab J Sci Eng
6. Golafshani, A.A.; Gholizad, A.: Friction damper for vibration con-
trol in offshore steel jacket platforms. J. Constr. Steel Res. 65(1),
180–187 (2009)
7. Golafshani, A.A.; Gholizad, A.: Passive devices for wave induced
vibration control in offshore steel jacket platforms. Sci. Iran. 16(6),
443–456 (2009)
8. Komachi, Y.; Tabeshpour, M.R.; Golafshani, A.A.; Mualla, I.H.:
Retrofit of Ressalat jacket platform (Persian Gulf) using friction
damper device. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. A 12(9), 680–691 (2011)
9. LotfollahiYaghin, M.A.; Ahmadi, H.: Dynamic of Offshore Struc-
ture. Tabriz University of Iran, Tabriz (2011)
10. Penzien, J.; Kaul, M.K.: Stochastic response of offshore towers to
random sea waves and strong motion earthquakes. Comput. Struct.
2(5), 733–756 (1972)
11. Mazaheri, S.; Ghaderi, Z.: Shallow water wave characteristics in
Persian Gulf. J. Coast. Res. 64, 572–575 (2011)
12. Clough, R.W.; Penzien, J.: Dynamic of Structures. McGraw-Hill,
New York (1993)
13. Dawson, T.H.: Offshore Structure Engineering. Prentice-Hall,
Englewood Cliffs (1983)
14. Garcia, L.D.: A simple method for the design optimal damper con-
figurations in MDOF structures. Earthq. Spectra 17(3), 387–398
(2001)
15. Soong, T.T.; Dargush, G.F.: Passive Energy Dissipation Systems in
Structural Engineering. Wiley (1997)