Fluid-structure interaction in

Morison's equation for the

design of offshore structures
P. R. Fish, R. B. Dean a n d N. J. H e a l
Atkins Research and Development, Woodcote Grove, Ashley Road, Epsom, Surrey, UK

(Received February1979; revised July 1979)

A simplified model of a steel jacket structure is used in a nonlinear time

history dynamic analysis with a view to examining the influence of inter-
action damping. It is found that, for certain combinations of wave and
structural parameters, the response amplitudes are significantly dependent
on the inclusion of relative velocity and acceleration terms in Morison's
equation. Thus, it is possible to estimate, from the mathematical model,
values of hydrodynamic damping which are required for the dynamic
analysis of an offshore structure by methods which ignore fluid-structure
interaction.
After a brief literature review, the theory of Morison's equation is
discussed. A computer program, PLATDYN, is then described which com-
putes the dynamic response of a structure in various sea states. The method
of representing the full structure by a reduced number of members is
explained before the results of the analysis are presented. Finally, a proce-
dure is proposed which provides an economic method of including the
effects of interaction damping in the design of offshore structures.

Introduction of such analysis and model experiments with several different

Recent research on fluid.structure interaction
Recent reports by Moe and Verley 1'2 give a detailed
practical and theoretic.al analysis of the hydrodynamic drag
experienced by a single cylinder in steady and oscillatory
flows. The conclusion is that the hydrodynamic damping
may be seriously overestimated in oscillatory flows if the
drag coefficient is the same as that used for steady flows.
Brebbia s presents a useful review of the subject, from which
it is clear that little progress has been achieved in the under-
standing of the effect of fluid-structure interaction on the
design of entire offshore structures. However, four examples
of recent work will be described briefly.
Malhotra and Penzien 4 apply random wave loading to a
deep water three-leg tower and adopt an 'equivalent linearisa.
tion technique' in which the nonlinear drag terms are replaced
with a linear matrix plus an error vector. The Krylov and
Bogliubov s method is then used to minimise the error terms.
Paulling 6 also allows for fluid motion relative to the structure
but linearises the system of equations by defining an 'equiva-
lent linear drag coefficient' such that the linear drag force
dissipates the same energy per cycle of periodic motion as
the nonlinear drag force which is being approximated.
Reasonably good agreement is obtained between the results
platform configurations.
More recently, Bell et al. 7 have attempted a case study of
typical gravity platform in 140 m of water and have con-
sidered in particular the effect of drag forces, wave-current
interaction, and the relative importance of soil stiffness. The
first of these is shown to be unimportant, while the other
considerations are shown to be crucial in the determination
of the dynamic response of the platform.
Lastly, Taudin s proposes a low-cost iteration procedure,
avoiding a step-by-step solution in the time domain, in order
to Fred response curves to a large variety of wave periods and
heights. The method is shown to be of great practical value
in the fatigue estimation of a fixed jacket and in determining
the response of a flexible stinger under tow.
Theory of MoHson "sequation
Considering for simplicity one degreeof freedom (x-trans-
lation), the responseof a structure consistingof N bodies*
* In this paper, the term 'body' refers equally to a single member of a
lattice structure and to a main platform leg. When the body dimen-
don is a large fraction of the wave length (D/L > 0.2), there is =
significantvariation of the pressure g~adlent across the w/dth of the
body and the incident wave is therefore diffracted. In the present
analysis, we are solely concerned with body sizes for which D/L < 0.2.

0141-0296/80/010015-12/$02.00
1980IPC BusinessPress Eng. Struct., 1980,Vol. 2, January 15
Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. Ft. Fish et aL
may be described by N dynamic equations as follows:
[MIni + [Clk + [K]x =F (1)
where: [M] is the mass matrix of the structure including
enclosed water and marine growth mass; [C] is the matrix
due to structural and soil damping; and [K] is the matrix due
to structural and soil stiffness.
The force vector F.aceounts for the hydrodynamic forces
acting on each of the N bodies. Mofison et al. 9 proposed
that the force exerted by a flowing fluid on a rigid cylinder
of incremental length dS may be represented with reasonable
accuracy by the sum of a drag and an inertia force:
dE = ~CDpDU 2 ds + C m p a U ds (2)
then:
0 at all points in the wave profile.
where 77is the instantaneous water level at the axis of the
body.
The drag and inertia coefficients Co and CM must be
determined from experience or experiment. Selection of the
correct coefficients is dependent on Reynolds number, sur-
face roughness and the ratio of orbit radius to diameter
(Iversen's modulus) and, strictly, must be considered as vary-
ing along the member and with time. However, they are
normally specified as an average for a particular member,
and this value is used at every calculation point within the
wave since the determination of time dependent coefficients
is too complex. These time-averaged coefficients give a
reasonable description of the time variation of the force,
except when there is significant response due to vortex-
shedding. The latter may occur in waves for which the
Keulegan-Carpenter number (Um=x T/D) is in the range
6_29.1, 2
Morison's equation in design practice
Now that the offshore jacket type of platforms are
designed for waters of increasing depth, their dynamic
characteristics become progressively more important. Soil
and structural damping are then of less importance than the
hydrodynamic damping due to the fluid in which the struc-
ture is immersed. It is essential for safety reasons that damp-
ing is not over estimated and wasteful in terms of construc-
tion materials if damping is underestimated.
Therefore, if the structure is responding to water waves
then in a dynamic analysis using Morison's equation, hydro-
dynamic damping may be included by one of two methods.
Method A Equation (2) is used with relative terms for
velocity and acceleration as follows:
dE= ~C~pD(U- ~)IU- ~IdS + pAO dS
Drag Froude-
force Kdlov
force
+ (cm - }) . A ( t ) - ~) dS
Inertia
force (3)
which accounts for fluid-structure forces and their inter-
action as follows:
(i) A drag force dependent on the relative velocity between
water particles and each body.
16 Eng.Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January
(ii) An inertia force (known as the Froude-Krylov force)
due to the undisturbed pressure field around each body.
(iii) An inertia force dependent on the relative acceleration
between the water particles and each body. This force is due
to the disturbed pressure field around each body and repre-
sents the force due to the time varying 'added hydrodynamic
mass' of the body.
In this method, it is normally assumed that CM and CD are
equal to the values applicable on a rigid, stationary cylinder.
Method B The non4nteractive form of Morison's
equation (2) is used to represent the fluid force, while the
structural side of equation (1)is modified as follows:
[M+(Cm-1)pVlx+[C]x+[K]x=r (4)
where: (Cm - 1) p V represents the added hydrodynamic
mass of the displaced fluid, which is assumed to be constant
Method A, which employs equations (1) and (3), is the
normal approach adopted for research studies, 1'2' lo
especially when the structure is very responsive. However,
due to the nonlinearity in the drag term, the equations are
often linearised as described above.4'6
Method B, based on equations (2) and (4), facilitates a
less costly solution procedure and is, therefore, the method
adopted by most commercially available programs for the
dynamic analysis of offshore platforms, etc. 11
If fiuid-structure interaction is important under any parti-
cular set of conditions, then it is to be expected that the
amplitudes of rotation and displacement predicted by
methods A and B will be different.
As a consequence of the amplitude comparison, it is
possible to deduce how much extra damping should be used
in method B in order to simulate the effects of hydro-
dynamic damping and so obtain the 'correct' amplitude as
predicted by method A. This extra damping is called the
'implied hydrodynamic damping in waves' and is very signi-
ficant for certain combinations of structural parameters and
sea state.
The vital question to be answered, therefore, is: Under
what conditions does a difference in amplitude occur which
is significant with regard to the design of offshore structures?
This question will be answered as far as possible in this
paper, but the range of conditions investigated has been
limited for practical reasons.
C o m p u t e r program P L A T D Y N
Description o f program
As part of the present study of fluid structure interaction,
the program PLATDYN (PLATform DYNamics) was deve-
loped to analyse the dynamic response of fixed, tethered and
floating structures. The program calculates the response of a
flexible fLxed structure by simulating it as a rigid body
mounted on a number of springs and dashpots, whose stiff-
ness and damping are chosen to match the actual stiffness
and damping characteristics of the entire soil-structure
system.
The action of waves and currents is included by specifying
a particular sea.state which may consist either of purely
regular waves, or of random waves to simulate a JONSWAP
spectrum. A current is added vectorially to the wave4nduced
particle velocity before calculation of the hydrodynamic
forces. The initial displacement and velocity conditions of
 Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et aL

the centre of gravity may be defined. The ensuing motion of time-history analysis, defining 'truth values' of displace-
the structure is then computed by PLATDYN in the time ment. The version of PLATDYN using Morison's equation
domain, using a modified second order Runge-Kutta method in this form will be called PLATDYN 'A'. The other method,
applied to equations (1) and (3) in up to six degrees of given by equations (2) and (4), ignores :}2 in the drag term,
freedom and taking into account all the externally applied and the added hydrodynamic inertia is included in the mass
forces arising from hydrostatic and hydrodynamic considera- matrix instead of there being (correctly) a time-dependent
tions and from any mooring cables, springs and dashpots. inertia force on the right-hand side governed by mass coeffi-
The hydrodynamic forces are derived by application of cients CM. Version PLATDYN 'B' incorporates the latter
Morison's equation, using linear wave theory, to elemental method. Using the one program PLATDYN, with minor
parts of each constituent body in the structure. The true changes for both analyses, provided a consistent solution in
immersed volume and draft of each element is calculated at which the differences in answers could be directly attributed
each time step when evaluating the fluid-induced forces. to the effects of fluid-structure interaction.
The wave-induced components are calculated from the
particle velocity and acceleration of an undisturbed wave at Structure f o r analysis
the centre of the submerged volume allowing for the inclina-
tion of the body axis to the vertical. Reduction to simpler structure
The wave.induced forces include the drag component The structure chosen for analysis is the EEC phase 111
normal to the body axis and skin friction drag, each calcu- reference structure (see Figure 1) which stands in 156 m of
lated from the relative velocity of the body and fluid. For water. The sensitivity of this structure has been analysed by
inertia governed forces, the Froude-Krylov force due to the Lamb.12 Due to the complexity and expense that would be
acceleration of the water around the body and the pressure involved in analysing the full structure on PLATDYN, a
force due to the relative acceleration of body and fluid are simple two-dimensional reduction to 33 equivalent zones
computed. The dependence of the inertia-governed forces on was carried out in the x - z plane (see Figure 2), using a
the relative acceleration of the body and fluid, and vice- program called ASASMASS. This calculates the added mass
versa, requires an iterative approach to the dynamic equili- of fluid for each zone of the structure in the three mutually
brium of the force vectors. perpendicular directions of the global axis system and hence
PLATDYN facilitates specification of the structure in determines the added mass, the total area presented to the
three dimensions (the vertical axis is modified to obtain true fluid and the displaced volume for any desired number of
values of wave particle motion above the mean water level). zones. Each zone consists of one vertical cylinder defined by
The response of the structure in any or all of its six degrees its length, diameter, mass and coefficients CD and CM. The
of freedom (surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch and yaw) may be cylinder represents a number of different kinds of real
analysed allowing for any coupling effects. Chosen degrees members at various inclinations in the same physical zone of
of freedom are dynamically coupled by inserting appropriate the reference structure and it must be statically and dynamic-
off-diagonal terms into the mass, stiffness and damping
matrices.
Each body comprising the structure for analysis is des-
cribed by its external dimensions, and by three drag coeffi- Z
cients and three mass coefficients applicable to Morison's
equation. Further, if the effect of wave radiation damping is
to be included (large bodies only), then three surface wave
damping coefficients must be specified.
Finally, the number of elements into which each body is
subdivided may be varied. Increasing the number of elements ion
will afford a more representative distribution of the hydro-
dynamic forces on the structure but will have the disadvan-
tage of requiring more computing time.
Several tests were run on PLATDYN, using the reduced
EEC structure (see section on structure for analysis), in order
to verify that, under restricted conditions, the program pro-
duced results in agreement with hand calculations. For
example, the structure was displaced in still water in which
hydrodynamic drag was eliminated by defining the drag Co-
efficients as zero. The computed frequency agreed exactly
with the theoretical value. The integration parameters were
varied in order to optimise numerical accuracy against com-
puting time. The time step was fixed at 0.1 s and an iteration
accuracy of 1% was sufficient to calculate displacements
accurate to the nearest 1 ram.

Modification to PLA TD YN
Two methods of applying Morison's equation were given
in the previous section; equations (1) and (3) were the fully-
interactive method including the nonlinear ~2 term and it is
assumed that the solution to this equation gives the 'correct' Figure 1 EEC phase III reference structure

Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January 17

Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equatioti for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et al.
Z Dew k~ad~ satisfied for every zone (of def'med length L):
~ p C D x A x ( U - ~) I U - ~ I
= %pCo~rDrL(U - ~) I U - :kl (5)
~ P C D z A z ( W -- ~) IW - ~1

V',-PCD~.[--~--) (I¢' -- ~) IW -- ~I (6)

pVLr= p ( ~ ) LU (simriarly for l4/) (7)

max(O- = (cMx,- 1) p I--X-) zCU- (8)

/ rtDr2 \
maz(~V - e) = (CMzr-- 1) p ~ - - - ~ ) L(I¢ - •) (9)

Where the subscript 'r' denotes the reduced reference struc.

Figure 2 Reduced representation of the EEC phase III reference
structure
ally equivalent to the combined effect of all the real members
in that zone.
ASASMASS runs were made on the reference structure in
order to determine m, max, mAz~ Ax, Az, and V for each
zone. The final results are given in Table 1. The following
points deserve special mention:
(i) Marine growth: A maximum marine growth thickness
of 0.1 m was assumed to exist on all members between 10 m
below the mean water level to 2 m above. At other depths
the growth profde is as shown in Figure 3. The effect of
marine growth on the drag and inertia properties appears in
the areas presented to water in each zone of the structure.
(ii) Deck superstructure: The total mass of the superstruc-
ture is 25.49 Gg (103 tonne) and is distributed between
ture.
However, there are problems in that the reduced struc-
ture cannot deal properly with inclined members, which have
no inertia force in the direction of their inclination. Also
inclined members and legs give rise to phase differences at
short wavelength excitation. Therefore, the behaviour of the
reduced structure will not be identical to the full lattice
structure but is sufficiently close for the purpose of the
present study: namely, to examine the difference between
methods A and B of analysis.
As indicated in the equations above, fluid particle veloci-
ties and accelerations are the same for the actual and the
simplified structures. This is possible because the program
PLATDYN calculates the hydrodynamic forces at the body
axis. Therefore the reduced structure can include bodies
with large dimensions which need not satisfy the condition
under which Morison's equation is valid, namely: D/L < 0.2.
This implies that it is not necessary to scale the equations
applied to the model and so the program constants, namely
p and g, may be set to real values.
Inspection of the above equations indicates that it is
simplest to use the same displaced volume for the reduced
structure as calculated by ASASMASS for the reference
structure. The model parameters may then be derived from
the following equations:
D [4V~
, = 1 (io)
CDxA x
CDx,- (11)
z),z
- -

modules as shown in Table 2.

(iii) Idealisation of reference structure: In order to obtain co=A,
correct values for presented areas and added hydrodynamic CD,, - (l 2)
masses, some idealisations were made to parts of the refer- P'/L
ence structure. For example, the conductor tubes, leg pries,
and risers consisted of groups of several tubes which were CMxr = 1 + max (13)
pV
replaced by single tubes to give equivalent presented areas.
Corrections then had to be made to the displaced volumes
CMzr = 1 + maz (14)
and added masses of these zones. pV
where it is assumed that the drag coefficient was taken to
Dynamic similarity be 0.7 normal to each member axis for the actual structure.
The reduced reference structure will be dynamically A short routine was written to evaluate these parameters for
equivalent to the actual reference structure if the drag force, each zone of the reduced structure and the results are pre-
the Froude-Krilov force, and the inertia force given by sented in Table 1.
Morison's equation are equivalent for both structures. This The response of the reduced structure is restricted to two
will be approximately true if the following equations are degrees of freedom at the centre of mass: x, translation and

18 Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January

 Fluid.structure interaction in Morison'$ equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et aL

Table I ASASMASS analysis of reference structure. 10.1 m marine growth thickness at Mean Water Level)

Displaced Structu rel Presented Presented Added Added

Member and Length volume mass area X area Z mass X mass Z
zone number (m) (m 3) {Gg) (m =) (m 2) (Gg) (Gg)

D 1 23 549 0.251 586 0 0.149 0

2 24 614 0.202 642 0 0,352 0
3 124 4008 0,464 3180 0 1.830 0
B 4 22.9 ~' 771 0.613 690 383 0.190 0.051
5 0.2 181 0.236 157 228 0.116 0.187
6 23.8 546 0.622 438 237 0.849 0.316
7 0,2 174 0.179 160 227 0.117 0.366
8 21.8 496 0.579 536 324 0.543 0.240
9 0.2 177 0.151 167 230 0.1 29 0.182
10 21.8 577 0.618 590 3 76 0.566 0.285
11 0.2 164 0.156 177 239 0.137 0.189
12 23.9 669 0,673 658 4.5 0.650 0.325
13 56.0 1950 2.280 1950 1650 1.692 1.222
A 14 22.9 582 0.472 248 246 0.065 0.027
15 0.2 263 0.371 221 332 0.175 0.271
16 23.8 489 0.389 228 146 0.569 0,1 71
17 0.2 240 0.3 25 209 345 0.149 0.253
18 21.8 456 0.349 237 119 0.506 0.079
19 0.2 191 0.187 176 290 0.141 0.204
20 21.8 449 0.347 225 128 0.434 0.090
21 0.2 208 0.205 188 309 0.149 0.222
22 23.9 550 0.395 284 158 0.523 0.111
23 56.0 4652 2.130 2000 208 8.620 1.227
C 24 22.9 514 0.337 406 193 0.095 0.022
25 0.2 115 0.143 99.4 151 0.071 0.119
26 23,8 489 0.401 337 146 0.565 0.168
27 0.2 112 0.134 98.4 155 0,064 0.116
28 21.8 623 0.391 334 127 0.546 0.095
29 0.2 112 0.106 100 160 " 0.061 0.115
30 21.8 616 0.388 322 136 0.434 0.078
31 0.2 129 0.124 111 177 0.070 0.132
32 23.9 560 0.395 291 158 0.529 0.111
33 56.0 4440 1.850 1790 1280 8.400 0.984
Totals - 26676 41.953 - - 29.486 7.958
(including
deck mass)

Table 2 Distribution of deck superstructure

Depth, ~} 0.93
+2--
3.28 2.75 4.26

3.76 Mass in Gg
-- ---~o- ~
3.56 2.46 3.72

0.77

C 9 A

These masses, whose centroids are located a distance Zabove bottom

deck level (15m above MWL), are considered to be shared by the
three members of the reduced reference structure thus:

Member Mass (Gg) Height, Z (m)

A 5.46 34.9
B 13.19 21.5
C 6.84 25.4
-l:~,x X X \ \\ Mannc
I I I I gr°wth
O 25 50 75 IOO thickness,
(ram) (No mass is carried by the conductors -- member D)
Figure 3 Assumed variation with depth of marine growth on reference
structure This Is illustrated in Figure 2

Eng. Struct., 1980, V o l . 2, January 19

Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish or aL
rotation in the x - z plane. Having calculated the submerged
volume of each zone of the reduced structure, it is analysed
hydrostatically to determine the constant forces and
moments which must be applied to the plane frame to keep ,SWL
it in vertical equilibrium on the sea-bed. - - °

Determination o f stiffness and damping

The system of horizontal and vertical springs and dash-
pots attached to the bottom corners of the platform is illus.
trated in Figure 2. The complete dynamic analysis of a two
degree-of.freedom platform on springs was derived for this
study, but only the salient features are mentioned below.
From the system of springs supporting the platform, it is
required to derive a stiffness matrix for equation (1). For
two degrees of freedom, the matrix equation is:

[M]=[ KH K'23 I X ] (15)

LK21 K22J
where F is the externally applied forces of moment M.
A harmonic response is assumed:
Figure 5 Mode shape of displaced structure showing location of centre
x = X sin (cont + ¢) (16) of mass
and
0 --- 0 sin (cont + ¢) (17) where
where X]$ is the mode shape for the natural frequency con.
The analysis proceeds by calculating the forces on each ~= [2(X)(Ho - Lo) - (l~ fin2 "q + l~ fin2 a2)] (20)
element comprising the structure and then summing over all
elements. and the lengths Ii, 12 and/3 and angles a I and ~ are geometric
As the structure is nonflexible, the motion of each properties defined by the position of the centre of mass as
element m t is roughly equivalent to the motion of a mass on shown in Figure 5.
a light rod in a fluid whose pivot is being vibrated horizont. The components of the stiffness matrix are now readily
ally, as shown in Figure 4. Only the inertial accelerations on derived from kH and k, by a simple geometric analysis:
a general element m i are shown. K11 = 2kH
Strictly, the elements should be of incremental size but,
in practice, each zone of the reference structure was con- K12 '= --kH(ll sin al +/2 sin %)
sidered as one element when running PLATDYN. This was K21 =K12 (21)
to ensure that versions A and B of PLATDYN would be com-
patible, apart from the effects of fluid-structure interaction. K22 = kn(l~ ~n 2 el + 12 sin2 a2)
For simplicity, the horizontal springs have equal stiffness + kv(l~ cos2 al + l~ cos2 a2)
kn and the vertical springs stiffness kv. Ignoring terms in O,
Equation (21) shows that there is strong coupling between
which are incompatible with a harmonic solution because
the two degrees of freedom.
they would render the equations nonlinear, and assuming 0
Each item in equations (18) to (20) may be calculated
is small, we Fred that:
from the data for the reference structure given in Tables 1
zi(mi + mAxi) co2n(XlO) and 3. Two terms which should be in equation (19) have
- Zl(ml + mAxt) ri sin fl~o 2 been ignored: the rotational inertia Ici and the rotational
kn = (18) added inertia I c m for each zone. These quantities were not
2(X/0) - 2(Ho - Lo) evaluated for the real structure and their values for the
and
reduced structure would not necessarily be the same. There-
kv = ~'! {(mi + maxl sin2 fli + mAzt cos 2 ill) (r~coXn} fore the terms were dropped, although an estimate of the
~q{(ml + maxt) rt fin flico2n}(X/O) + kn~ error involved indicated that absolute values of displacement
(19) may be in error by up to 20%. This is quite acceptable, as
l 2 COS2 al + 1] COS2 a2
only the differences in amplitude computed by versions A
CJvt and B of PLATDYN are required for present purposes.
The damping ratio for the soil-structure system is given
x } 0 by:
~ r. l/
C
~"= 2~ (22)
If the one dimensional condition is assumed:
//i * -~o K
:!/I ¢02n= - - (23)
M
Figure 4 Motion of s general element mi then a damping matrix may be obtained from one of the

20 Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January

 Fluid.structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish er aL
Table3 Data for PLATDYN analysis of reduced structure

Member and Length Diameter CDx CDz CMx CMz

zone number (m) (m)

D 1 23 8.4 4.9 0 1.3 1.0

2 24 5.7 3.3 0 1.6 1.0
3 124 6.4 2.8 0 1.4 1.0
B 4 22.9 10.0 4.9 3.4 1.2 1.1
5 0.2 33.9 16.2 0.2 1.6 2.0
6 23.8 5.4 2.4 7.2 2.5 1.6
7 0.2 33.3 16.8 0.2 1.7 3.0
8 21.8 5.4 3.2 10.0 2.1 1.5
9 0.2 33.6 17.4 0.2 1.7 2.0
10 21.8 5.8 3.3 9.9 2.0 1.5
11 0.2 34.2 18.1 0.2 1.7 2.0
12 23.9 6.0 3.2 0.1 1.9 1.5
13 56.0 6.7 3.7 33.4 1.8 1.6
A 14 22.9 8.7 2.0 2.9 1.1 1.0
15 0.2 40.9 18.9 0.2 1.6 2.0
16 23.8 5.1 1.3 5.0 2.1 1.3
17 0.2 39,1 18.7 0 1.6 2.0
18 21.8 5.2 1.5 4.0 2.1 1.2
19 0.2 34.9 17.7 0.2 1.7 2.0
20 21.8 5.1 1.4 4.4 1.9 1.2
21 0.2 36.4 18.2 0.2 1.7 2.0
22 23.9 5.4 1.5 1.9 1.2 1.2
23 56.0 10.8 2.4 1.8 2.8 1.3
C 24 22.9 8.1 3.5 2.6 1.9 1.0
25 0.2 27.1 12.9 0.2 1.6 2.0
26 23.8 5.1 1.9 5.0 2.1 1.3
27 0.2 26.7 12.9 0.2 1.6 2.0
28 21,8 6.0 1.8 3.1 1.9 1.1
29 0.2 26.7 13.1 0.2 1.5 2.0
30 21,8 6.0 1.7 3.4 1.7 1.1
31 0.2 28.7 13.6 0.2 1.5 2.0
32 23.9 5.4 1.6 4.8 1°9 1.2
33 56,0 10.0 2.2 11.3 2.8 1.2

following equations:
COnS
[cl = Ira]
ff
[CI : [K]
~Onff
where the logarithmic decrement 8 = 2hi'.
Mass proportional damping may or may not contain the
added mass effects of the entrained water. For the reduced
reference structure, the latter equation was therefore used.
The damping components so obtained were between I0 and
30 times greater than those suggested by equation (24).
Also, stiffness proportional damping was seen to enhance
the relative importance of damping in the rotational degree-
of.freedom as compared to the translational degree-of-
freedom.
The relation of the mode shape to the displacement of the
the structure can be derived from Figure .5 and is given by:
•X X I ( H0 -- Lo) + )`2Lo
0 )-1 - ),2
Assuming that 7t ~ 72 "" 0.~ ),,/),2 represents the struc-
tural flexibility in relation to the soft flexibility, it was
estimated that a value of 40 is reasonable for the EEC
reference structure.
C a l c u l a t i o n s a n d discussion
Once the new program PLATDYN had been validated, a
number of 'production runs' were conducted for specified
sea states and structural properties. The full details of the
input data for versions A and B are given in Tables 4 to 7.
(24) The runs are numbered 1 to 11, but a total of 18 production
runs were in fact performed as, in most cases, versions A and
B were used for each run.
(25)
Hydrodynamic damping in still water - runs 1, 2
The base springs kH and kv were calculated using equa-
tions (18) and (19) to give natural periods in the sway mode
Ts= 2.165 s (Run 1) and 4.33 s (Run 2). The soft damping
matrix [C] was set to zero so that the only, contribution to
damping was due to the hydrodynamic x ' d r a g force term
in Modson's equation. In still water, the response of the
reduced structure was found to be very sensitive to the
choice of initial displacements. If the run was started w h e n
the structure was not exactly in its mode shape, then the
ensuing motion would be erratic. Therefore, the structure
was given an initial deck level displacement of 0.4 m and a
mud level displacement of 0.01 m.
The logarithmic decrement was determined by computing
(26) the ratio of successive amplitudes in each period of response.
Both runs 1 and 2 gave a hydrodynamic damping value of
0.5% critical. As an example, F/gure 6 shows the time his-
tory o f run 2 for versions A and B, the latter being of course
steady-state in the complete absence of damping.
Implied hydrodynamic damping in waves
The purposes of running versions A and B of PLATDYN
was to generate some values for the 'implied hydrodynamic
damping in waves'. Essentially, version A represents calcu-

Eng. Struct., 1980, V o l . 2, January 21

Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation f o r offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et al.

Table 4 Production runs using program PLATDYN versions A and B

Computed
Wave Wave Wave Nat. period Nat. freq. Soil hydrodynamic
Run Sea length, height, period, of struc, of strut. damping % damping
no. state L, (m] H, (m] Tw, (s) Ts, (s) Ns, Hz critical CH % crit.

1 Still -- - -- 2.165 0.462 0 0.5

water
2 Still - - - 4.330 0.231 0 0.5
water
3 Regular 30 3.0 4.33 4.330 0.231 1 --
4 Regular 7.5 0.75 2.165 4.330 0.231 1 0
5 Regular 30 3.0 4.33 4.330 0.231 1 1.1 --1.4
6 Regular 30 3.0 4.33 4.330 0.231 3 1.1 --1.4
7 Regular 30 3.0 4.33 4.330 0.231 5 1.1--1.4
8 Design 240 24 12.25 4.330 0.231 1 6--12
9 Design 240 24 12.25 4.330 0.231 3 6--12
10 Design 240 24 12. 25 4.330 0.231 5 6-- 12
11 Random -- 3.0 4.33 4.330 0.231 1 0
(Significant) (Zero-crossing)
12 Random -- 3.0 4.33 4.330 0.231 5 0
(Significant) (Zero-crossing)

Table 5 Mass values for PLATDYN production runs lation methods which allow for fluid.structure interaction
in dynamic analysis, while version B is representative of
Mass matrix
those calculation methods in which it is assumed that the
Version MI1 MI2 M22 wave force is not modified by the motion of the structure.
Gg Gg • m Gg • m 2
At least four runs of PLATDYN are necessary in order to
A 42.0 --2304.0 192861.2 obtain one estimate of implied hydrodynamic damping. This
involves the solution of Morison's equation with and with-
B 71.2 --5283.3 535322.0
out fluid.structure interaction for at least two soil damping
values.
There are some difficulties in applying this concept, in
particular:
Table 6 Stiffness values for PLATDYN production runs (a) The implied hydrodynamic damping will depend on
Horizontal Vertical Stiffness matrix
sea state and structural dynamic properties.
springs springs (b) The amplitude difference varies during the response
Run kH kv Ks= K t == K2t K=2
number (GN/m) (GN/m) (GN/m) (GN/red) GN.m/red)
time-history in regular waves and would need to be time-
averaged for random waves.
1 3198.1 3016.7 6396.2 --969668.0 152431992.0
As only a limitedrange of sea states and structural proper-
2--11 799.5 754.2 1599.1 --242415.7 38107798.0 ties have been tested, it is not possible to define all the con-
ditions under which a significant difference in amplitude

Table 7 Soil damping values for PLATDYN production runs

Damping matrix
Run Soil Cll C1= = C=1 C==
number damping GN • s/m GN • s/red GN.m.s/red
~%
P

4 1 44.1 --6679.1 1049951.6

3, 5, 8, 11 1 22.0 --3339.5 524966.6
6, 9 3 44.1 -6684.3 1050769.1
7, 10 5 66.1 -10023,8 1,575735.7
-L@C I I I I t I I I I I
The components of the damping matrix are derived from the stiffness GCX~ 2£X~ 4.C~ bEX~ 8C~ uCX~
matrix using equation (24): Time, (secJ
C , = 21" . K i , C,= = 2~" . K, 2 C22= 2J" Figure 6 Time-history of response of reduced structure when dis-
placed in still water (run 2). (*), version A; (--), version B

22 Eng. S t r u c t . , 1 9 8 0 , V o l . 2, J a n u a r y
 Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation f o r offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et al.

I °,

o•

O.OG t

• °o • =,
•° •,

• •l
• o ,•
• °o •°•
=1.

I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
O.OO I.OO ?-OO 3LOO4.OO SO0 ~O0 7JOO 8.O0 9.O0 IQO0U.O0 I~-O0 13.O0 14.O0 I~OO 16.O0 17.OO 18.O0 19J00 20.O0
TimeJs|
Figure 7 Demonstration of non-monotonic response of reduced structure in regular waves (run 3). Expected evelope of oscillation after long
integration period shown in top right hand corner

occurs. Point (a) means that a further study should therefore
include careful variations in these quantities. Point Co) is
important because of the implication that picking off peak
values o f the response amplitude and using these to deter-
mine 'implied hydrodynamic damping' is not an entirely
satisfactory procedure. A comparison of the r.m.s, of the
displacements obtained from PLATDYN versions A and B
would be more appropriate for both regular and random
wave loads, but to do this would necessitate long runs on
the computer. It was therefore decided to use only the peak
displacements for comparison in this analysis, but the time-
history of response would be studied carefully in each run
performed
Run 3: regular waves Morison's equation contains wave
velocity and acceleration terms in U IUI and U which means
of course that the wave-induced forces will contain two or
more frequency components, depending on the choice of
wave theory used to define the water particle velocities
(HaUam et al.). 7 Therefore the dynamic response of the
structure will not be sinusoidal with constant amplitude and
the effect of this on the time history is shown in Figure 7 in
which a particularly long tun time of 20 seconds was allowed.
Even this was not long enough to show the complete effect
which is similar to a high frequency wave within a low fre-
quency evenlope. The sketch on Figure 7 illustrates this and
raises the problem of deciding at which point in the time
history to compare amplitudes of displacement. Probably
the most significant point is where the maximum amplitude
occurs, but to find this would require in most cases, run
times well in excess of 20 s. As this would be prohibitive in
view of the substantial computing costs involved, it was
decided to compare displacements as predicted by versions
A and B at successive amplitudes (separated by one response
period) just to illustrate the way in which the amplitude
difference between A and B varied during the response time
history.
Run 4: regular waves This run was conducted with a
regular wave length of 7.5 m, and, as the members A, B and
C of the reduced structure were equispaced by 30 m (Figure
2), this meant that the wave peaks occurred simultaneously
on members A, B and C. However, the wave period Tw =
2.165 s was not coincident with the natural period of the
structure Ts = 4.330 s and it was found that, for a soil damp-
ing value of 1%, the difference in the amplitudes of hori-
zontal displacement and rotation, as predicted by PLATDYN
versions A and B, was negligible. This is to be expected as
the wave height is only 0.75 m and the amplitudes of res-
ponse are small enough to subdue the effects of fluid-struc-
ture interaction. It was therefore decided to adjust the wave
period to coincide with the natural period of the structure,
since the effects of damping are most clearly observed at
resonance.
Runs 5, 6, 7: regular waves These runs represent the
resonant condition in which the wavelength was 30 m,
exactly equal to the distance between each of the members
-1.COt I I I I I I I I I t
GO0 2DO 4C0 ~ 8C0 K:K~O
T~m¢. (scc|
Figure 8 Time-history of response of the reduced structure when
exposed to regular waves (run 6). (*), version A; (--), version B

Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January 23

Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et aL

A, B and C of the reduced structure, and the wave period 2£X

and natural period of the structure were equal, Tw = Ts =
4.33 s. The time history of the horizontal displacement is
shown for Run 6 as an example in Figure 8, and the problem D
of the varying response amplitudes, discussed earlier, is
quite apparent. For present purposes, and to avoid the high
cost of long run times, it was sufficient to examine the
amplitudes at the 1st peak and also at the 2rid peak, one
response period later.
On this basis, the results are presented in Figure 9, where
it is seen that the differences in amplitudes between A and
B are greater at the 2nd peak and will probably increase OQO 200 4.C0~J &O0 800 1(3OO
until the envelope peak is reached. The values of 1.1% and Time, (sec)
1.4% for implied hydrodynamic damping are quite small Figure 10 Time-hlstory of response of reduced structure when
but the differences in amplitude indicate that calculation exposed to a typical design wave (run 9). (*), version A, (--), version B
methods which do not allow for fluid structure interaction
(version B) will overestimate the resonant amplitude by
about 10%, thus reducing the predicted fatigue life of a
proposed structure. This may not be as serious as the use
+ Co~er runs
of too much hydrodynamic damping, which would dearly
~._. 12°/o Implied hydrodynomN:
result in the amplitude of response being underestimated ~"~'~,~,~,,,~= Jdomping
by version B by roughly 10% for each 1% of extra damping.
In any event, values of hydrodynamic damping in still water
have been shown to be of no relevance in the context of a
dynamic analysis in waves. A
E
Runs 8, 9, 10: design wave To represent a typical I£-
design wave, the response of the structure was determined
to a solitary wave of height 24 m and length 240 m, which
gives a period of 12.25 s. The wavelength was therefore four
i
i5
£E

OE
~
-
, ~ 6°/o Impliedhydrodynamic
~/donpincj
2nd peok
1.4% Implied hydrodynomic
pin¢j

I I I I I I
0 2 46 8 I0 12
Scxl daring, ~ qo
O15 Figure 11 Hydrodynamic damping in a typical design wave (runs 8,
A 9 and 10). First peak is separated from second peak by one period
o f the response. Wave height, H = 24 m; wave length, L = 240 m;
wave period, Tw = 12.25 s; structures natural period, Ts = 4.33 s
I1% Implied hydrodynamic
,,J
times the distance between members A and C, so that the
c reduced structure lay completely within one quadrant of
III
010 - Ist p e a k '
the wave. The response is entirely transient and, again, it
A would have been desirable to have pursued the time history
i:3 (Run 9 is shown in Figure 10) to near rest, but computing
expense prevented this. Instead, the 1st and 2nd Peaks have
been compared in Figure 11, and a considerable difference
is found between them. In view of the large perturbation
caused by the wave, the calculation procedure will take
longer to stabillse and therefore the 2nd Peak results are of
most significance. Figure 11 indicates that there may be as
much as 12% implied hydrodynamic damping at the first
response peak and 6% at the second peak.
To obtain the value of 12% implied hydrodynamic damp-
I I I I I ing, it was necessary to extrapolate the line through the data
0 I 2 3 4 5
points for version B of PLATDYN. In fact, it is not obvious
sc~ dc~o~ ~O/o
that the lines for A and B should be parallel, and indeed, it
Figure 9 Hydrodynamic damping in regular waves (runs 5, 6, 7).
First peak is separated from second peak by one period of the
is more probable that the lines will converge for higher
response. Wave height, H = 3 m; wave length, L ,= 30 m; wave period, values of damping because the diminishing response would
Tw = 4.33 s; structures natural period, Ts = 4.33 s be reducing the effects of implied hydrodynamic damping.

24 Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January

 Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et aL
0,0
OEX3 J result in predictions of larger displacements and therefore
- Or31_.... , I I I I I I I I
2~O 400 600 8oo K~30
Time. (se:}
Figure 12 Time-history o f response of the reduced structure when
exposed to random waves (run 11)
At the other extreme, where ~ tends to zero, the A line will
always give a finite amplitude at {"= 0, for then only the
interactive terms in the drag force of Morison's equation are
providing the damping. The B line should tend to int'mite
amplitudes in regular waves at resonant frequency as ~"-* ½,
but, at other wave frequencies, the displacement at ~"= 0
will depend on the amplitude of the wave force and the
structural properties.
Figure 11 shows that version B overestimates the displace-
ment by about 15% at the first peak, but by 90% or more
at the second peak where the implied hydrodynamic damp-
ing is actually less because the A and B lines are steeper. But
as the gradient of both the A and B lines is small, the ealcu.
lation is not strongly sensitive to changes in the input damp-
ing ~'. This implies that calculation methods which do not
allow for fluid-structure interaction are not satisfactory for
a design wave dynamic analysis and the input damping may
be increased substantially without the risk of understanding
the displacement.
Run 11: random waves Twenty components were
superimposed to simulate random waves according to the
JONSWAP spectrum. Their periods varied from 2.4 s to 7.9 s
and lengths from 9 m to 98 m, with most components
bunched around the 4.33 s period and 30 m wave length. All
four PLATDYN runs (versions A and B for ~"= 1% and
= 5%) gave virtually identical results. The displacement
time histories for the ~ = 1% runs are shown in Figure 12.
Therefore, damping is not an important parameter in the
dynamic response of the reduced structure in this particular
random sea state and implied hydrodynamic damping may
be ignored. However, further studies are required before the
same result can be concluded for all sea states.
Conclusions
From the limited range of structural and wave conditions
studied in this investigation, it was possible to reach a tenta-
tive conclusion that A-type calculation methods (based on
Morison's equation using the relative velocity and accelera-
tion) will usually predict smaller displacements of steel lattice
structures in the fundamental sway mode than the B-type
methods (which assume that the incident wave force is not
modified by the motion of the structure).
Implications
Most commercial programs for the analysis of wave loading
on complex steel jackets are based on the B-type method
and therefore require additional damping in the [C] matrix
of equation (1) to 'take account of' hydrodynamic damping.
There are two possible consequences of this approach:
(a) An underestimate of the hydrodynamic damping will
suggest a need for greater amounts of steel than may in fact
be necessary.
(b) An overestimate of the hydrodynamic damping will
result in predictions of smaller displacements and could lead
to an overestimate of fatigue life.
It is proposed as a result of the present study that the
concept of 'implied hydrodynamic damping' provides a
suitable technique for adjusting the damping value in B-type
methods to give a more realistic dynamic response.
The procedure is as follows:
(1) Reduce structure to a small number of equivalent
zones giving replication of drag, inertia forces and displaced
volumes, etc.
(2) Carry out time-dependent analysis using an A-type
calculation method on the reduced structure (at low com-
puting cost).
(3) Repeat analysis for the same range of wave conditions
using the B-type calculation method.
(4) Hence obtain values of 'implied hydrodynamic damp-
ing' for use in the full B-type calculation on the complete
structure.
The chief merit of the proposed method is its simplicity
but it is important that further studies should be carried out
to determine the relative importance of the other degrees
of freedom, and different types of wave conditions and strut.
tural properties, in order to establish the method as an impor
tant technique in the design of offshore structures.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was financed, in part, by
the E E C for a report to L.E.A. Offshore Management
Limited. The authors wish to thank the directors of Atkins
Research and Development for permission to publish the
paper.
References
1 Moe,G. and Verley, R. L. P., 'An investigation into the hydro-
dynamic damping of cylinders oscillat~d in steady currents of
various velocities'. Rep. No. STF60 A78049, The Norwegian
Institute of Technology, 1978
2 Verley, R. L. P., 'An experimental investigation into hydro-
dynamic damping in waves', BHRAPro]ectNo. RP 13104, 1978
3 Brebbia,C. A., 'Fluid-structure interaction problems', from
Vibrations of Engineering Structures (ed. Brebbia, C. A. et al)
Computational Mechanics Ltd., Southampton, 1976
4 Malhotra,A. K. and Penzien, J., 'Analysis of tall open struc-
tures subjected to stochastic excitation', Conf. Djm, Waves
Clv. Eng., University of Wales, Swansea, 1970
5 Krilov,N. and Bosoliubov, N., 'Introduction to non-linear
mechanics: approximate asymptotic methods' (Trans. by S.
Lefshetz), Math. Studies, VoL 11, Prineetown UniversityPress,
1967
6 Paulling,J. R., 'Wave induced Forces and Motions of Tubular
Structures', Syrup. Naval Hydrodyn., Pasadena, USA, 1970
7 Bell,K. et aL, 'Analysis of a wave-structure-soilsystem', BOSS
"76, Norwegian Institute of Technology, 1976
8 Taudin, P., 'Dynamic response of flexible offshore structures
to regular waves', Pap. OTC 3160, Offshore Tech. Conf..,
Houston, Texas, 1978
Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January 25
Fluid-structure interaction in Morison's equation for offshore structure design: P. R. Fish et aL
9 Morbon,J. R. et al., "The force exerted by surface waveson K Stiffness matrix (GN]m, GN/rad, GNm/rad)
piles', Pet. Trans.,A/ME, 1950, 189, 149
10 Kirk,C. L. and Jaln, R. IC, Wave induced oscillationsof L Wave length
tendon-leg tinglebuoy mooflog system', Rep. OTC 2494,
OffshoreTechnologyConfezence,Houston, TeXas, 1976 Lo Distance. from centre of mass to deck level (m)
11 H,ll~m,M. G. etaL, 'Dynamic~of marine structures: methods
of calculatingthe dynamic response of fixed structu~s subject M Mass (Gg)
to wave and current action', C~RIA Rep. URS, 1977 MAx Added mass in X-direction (Gg)
12 Lamb,R. S., 'Permanently located offshore structure jacket
sensitivitystudy', Report by W. S. Atkins and Partners for the MAz Added mass in Y-direction (Gg)
Director General of Energy of the EEC.
M Mass matrix (Gg)
rt Distance of zone from centre of gravity (m)
Notation S Wave steepness H/L (-)
A Cross-sectional area of cylinder (m 2) T Period in still water (s)
Ax Area of zone presented to X-direction (m 2) Ts Natural period of structure, 27r/wn (s)
A= Area of zone presented to Z-direction (m 2) Tw Waveperiod (s)
Co Drag coefficient U Water particle velocity in x-direction (m/s)
CDx Drag coefficient in X-direction V Current speed (m/s)
CDz Drag coefficient in Z-direction V Displaced volume, AdS (m 3)
CM Inertia coefficient, (MA + V)/V W Water particle velocity in z-direction (m/s)
CMx Inertia coefficient in X-direction X Amplitude of x-displacement (m)
CMz Inertia coefficient in Z-direction alo~2 Angles defining position of C.G. of reduced structure
CM Centre of mass (rad)
C Damping matrix (GNs/m, GNs/rad, GNms/rad) fll Angle line of length rt makes with horizontal (rad)
D Diameter of member (m) 7172 Angles defining rotation of structure at deck and
mud levels (rad)
dS Element length (m)
Logarithmic decrement
F Force in direction of water velocity and acceleration
(GN) Damping ratio (% critical)
H Wave height (m) T? Instantaneous fluid level at axis of member (m)

He Distance from mud line to deck level (m) 0 Rotation in x - z plane (rad)
0 Amplitude of 0-rotation (rad)
Significant wave height (m)
klk 2 Maximum displacement of structure at deck and
/el Moment of inertia of each zone (Gg. m 2)
mud levels (m)
IaAt Added moment of inertia of each zone (Gg. m 2)
p Density of water
ku Horizontal base spring of reduced structure (GN/m)
con Natural frequency of structure with added mass of
kv Vertical base spring of reduced structure (GN/m) fluid (rad/s)

26 Eng. Struct., 1980, Vol. 2, January