This article was downloaded by: [Selcuk Universitesi]

On: 10 February 2015, At: 18:13

Publisher: Taylor & Francis
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer
House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Ships and Offshore Structures

Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Nonlinear dynamic analysis of TLP surge motion

using homotopy perturbation method
a b
Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour & Rahim Shoghi
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Center of Excellence in Hydrodynamics and
Dynamics of Marine Vehicles, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
Published online: 29 May 2014.

Click for updates

To cite this article: Mohammad Reza Tabeshpour & Rahim Shoghi (2014) Nonlinear dynamic analysis of TLP surge motion
using homotopy perturbation method, Ships and Offshore Structures, 9:6, 569-577, DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2014.912045

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.912045

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of
the Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied
upon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall
not be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other
liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Ships and Offshore Structures, 2014
Vol. 9, No. 6, 569–577, http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2014.912045

Nonlinear dynamic analysis of TLP surge motion using homotopy perturbation method
Mohammad Reza Tabeshpoura,∗ and Rahim Shoghib
a
Mechanical Engineering Department, Center of Excellence in Hydrodynamics and Dynamics of Marine Vehicles, Sharif University
of Technology, Tehran, Iran; b Faculty of Civil Engineering, Tabriz University, Tabriz, Iran
(Received 28 June 2013; accepted 2 April 2014)

Tension leg platforms (TLPs) are well-known structures for oil exploitation in deep water. One of the current issues in
compliant structures in the sea is variation in frequency and structural response due to a nonlinear parameter in the equation
of motion. Variation of frequency is important in fatigue life study of tethers. A perturbation method is used in contrast to the
traditional methods. This method does not require a small parameter for finding surge motion of TLP. In this paper, homotopy
perturbation method (HPM) is used to solve a highly nonlinear differential equation of surge motion. Calculated responses
by HPM are compared with those obtained from both linear and nonlinear equations of motion. Numerical method is used
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015

for solving nonlinear equation of motion and ordinary differential method is used for linear equation of motion. It is very
useful for a design engineer to have a deep view of nonlinear vibration behaviour of systems which are naturally nonlinear
like TLP.
Keywords: tension leg platform; frequency domain analysis; surge motion; nonlinear vibration; perturbation

1. Introduction tural behaviour of a TLP and to determine the effect of

Tension leg platforms (TLPs) are well-known structures
for oil exploitation in deep water and are becoming in-
creasingly popular for oil drilling at very deep water sites.
In these structures the maximum motion amplitude belongs
to surge motion. A dynamic analysis of TLP model under
wave is presented. Finding nonlinear equation of surge mo-
tion that contains geometrical nonlinear term, according to
available methods to solve nonlinear equations the surge
motion equation should be solved with a large parameter in
time domain. When the surge motion amplitude of TLP is
small, we have weak nonlinear equation of motion in surge
direction. Many close form methods are available to solve
this nonlinear equation. Rising the motion amplitude due
to wave force, the traditional methods are not applicable to
solve motion equation with a high nonlinear term. In this
paper, perturbation method presented by He (1999) is used
to solve a nonlinear motion equation of TLP. In contrast to
the traditional methods presented by Kevorkian and Cole
(1981), this technique does not require a small parameter
for finding surge motion of TLP. Therefore, the obtained re-
sults are valid not only for small parameter, but also for very
large value of perturbation parameter. This effect is more
important when the amplitude of vibration is large. This
effect is also important in fatigue life study of tethers. The
structural model used in this paper is simple. Many studies
have been carried out by Ahmad (1996), Jain (1997) and
Chandrasekaran and Jain (2002) to understand the struc-
several parameters on the dynamic response and average
life time of the structure. Dynamic response of TLP tethers
subjected to axial load at the top of the legs is presented by
Golafshani et al. (2007). Several complicated factors, such
as foundation effect, buoyancy and simulated ocean wave
load are considered.
The analytical solutions of the tether response of a TLP
were presented for a continuous model, considering the
buoyancy and the effect of added mass fluctuation under
the load simulated as an ocean wave. A first-order pertur-
bation method was used to solve the differential equation,
approximately. The effect of added mass fluctuation on the
heave motion of a TLP subjected to axial load at the top of
the leg has been investigated by Tabeshpour et al. (2006). A
coupled hydroelastic stochastic time domain analysis was
performed to estimate the dynamic behaviour of a tension
leg spar (TLS) wind turbine by Karimirad et al. (2011). The
hydrodynamic and structural models were described. The
code-to-code comparisons indicated that the motion and
tension responses are in good agreement. A time-domain
analysis of TLP under linear wave via a linearised pertur-
bation technique is presented by Tabeshpour and Shoghi
(2011). The dynamic behaviour of TLPs under distinctly
high sea waves in the presence of both horizontal and verti-
cal seismic excitations is examined and the method of anal-
ysis is discussed by Chandrasekaran and Gaurav (2008).
The obtained numerical results also verify the fact that

∗
Corresponding author. Email: tabeshpour@sharif.edu


C 2014 Taylor & Francis
 570 M.R. Tabeshpour and R. Shoghi

TLPs built in deeper sea locations show significantly lesser  

x<<l0
response to the combined wave and earthquake loading. T (x) = At E l02 + x 2 − l0 / l0 −−−−→ T (x)
Simulation techniques for complicated offshore structures
are presented by Tan and Cheng (2006). Conducting a non- = 0.5At Ex 2 / l02 , (1)
linear finite element analysis (FEA) on semisubmersible
 x<<l0
offshore platform, results provided accurate prediction of sin θ = x l02 + x 2 −−−−→ sin θ ≈ x/ l0 , (2)
stress and deformation that are vital for the designers to
build up confidence on sufficient structural strength and
high assembly quality.
where
In this paper, homotopy perturbation method (HPM)
response is compared with those obtained from both linear
and nonlinear equations of motion. A numerical method of x displacement in the surge direction,
modified Euler method (MEM) is used to solve a nonlinear θ angle between the initial and the displaced posi-
equation of motion, which is acceptable for solving non- tion of the tether,
linear problems and linear equation of motion solved by l0 initial length of each tether,
ordinary differential method. In this paper, calculations are E Young’s modulus of the tether,
carried out in MATLAB. T (x) increase in the initial pre-tension due to the arbi-
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015

trary displacement,
Fs tension of tendon,
Fwave wave force,
2. Equation of motion
n number of tendon and
A structural model of a TLP as a moored structure is shown At cross-sectional area of tether.
in Figure 1a. Since the buoyancy of the TLP exceeds its
weight, the vertical equilibrium of the platform requires
taut moorings connecting the upper structure to the seabed. The equation of motion in surge direction under wave
The extra buoyancy over the platform weight ensures that takes the following form:
the tendons are always kept in tension.
T0 is initial pre-tension in each tether. By giving an arbi- 
trary displacement, x, in the surge direction (see Figure 1b), Fx = Mst ẍ, (3a)
the increase in the initial pre-tension in each leg is given by
the following equations: Mst ẍ + cẋ + Fs sin(θ ) = Fwave . (3b)

Figure 1 (a) TLP as a moored structure. (b) TLP by given arbitrary displacement.
 Ships and Offshore Structures 571

Substituting Equations (1) and (2) into Equation (3b), Finally, the limit approximate response of Equation (4)
one obtains: is obtained as follows:
  
At E x 2 x
Mst ẍ + cẋ + nT0 + n = Fwave . (3c) x(t) = lim ν(t) = ν0 (t) + ν1 (t) + ν2 (t) + · · · (9)
2 l0
2 l 0 p→1

Considering structural damping, c, to be equal to zero,

Equation (9) indicates better accordance response of
one obtains
HPM and MEM, considering more terms as final response
    in Equation (9). Therefore, the homotopy perturbation func-
nT0 nAt E tion can be written as
Mst ẍ + x+ x 3 = F cos( t), (3d)
l0 2 l03
Mst ẍ + k1 x + k3 x 3 = F cos( t), (3e) H (ν, p) = L(ν) − L(x0 )+pL(x0 ) + p [N (ν)−f (r)] = 0,
(10)
(i.e. k1 = nT0 / l0 and k3 = nAt E/(2 l03 )), where Mst , k1 and
k3 are structural mass, linear and nonlinear stiffen param-
eter, respectively. F and  are the amplitude of inten- where f (r) is a known analytic function that is equal to
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015

sity and frequency of wave force, respectively. Defining zero in free vibration and x0 is an initial approximation
k3 /Mst = ε, k1 /Mst = ωn2 and F /Mst = f, the equation of of Equation (4), which satisfies the boundary conditions.
motion can be written as follows: Assume that the initial approximation of Equation (5) is
given as follows:
ẍ + ωn2 x + εx 3 = f cos(t), (4)
x0 = A cos(α t), (11)
where ε and ωn is the perturbation parameter and lin-
ear system frequency respectively. HPM is used to solve
Equation (4), which is advantageous to traditional clas- where α(ε) is an unknown constant under the condition
sic perturbation methods and the initial approximation can α(0) = ωn . Substituting Equations (8) and (11) into Equa-
be freely selected with possible unknown constants. The tion (10), we obtain the coefficients of the various powers,
obtained approximates are valid not only for small param- p, as follows:
eters, but also for very large value of perturbation param-
eters. This method is also applicable for most of nonlinear
equations in engineering. This is notable that obtaining an- L(ν0 ) = L(x0 ), ν0 (0) = A, ν̇0 (0) = 0, (12)
alytical solution would help better physical understanding
of the issue. L(ν1 ) + L(x0 ) + εν03 = 0, ν1 (0) = ν̇1 (0) = 0 (13a)

3. Free vibration or
A brief review of HPM is presented as follows.
Free vibration equation of motion is given as L(ν1 ) = −L(x0 ) − εν03 , ν1 (0) = 0, ν̇1 (0) = 0 (13b)

ẍ + ωn2 x + εx 3 = 0, x(0) = A, x(0) = 0. (5)

The solution of Equation (12), subjected to the initial
The HPM divides motion equation into two parts: the conditions ν0 (0) = A and ν̇0 (0) = 0, is given as
first part, L(x), is linear, while the second part, N (x), is
nonlinear. Thus, these can be rewritten as follows: ν0 = x0 = A cos(α t). (14)

L(x) = ẍ + ωn2 x, (6) Substituting Equation (14) into the right-hand side of
Equation (13b), one obtains
N (x) = ε x . 3
(7)
 
A solution in the form of an infinite series of the per- 3 2
ν̈1 + ωn2 ν1 = −A ωn2 − α + εA cos(αt)
2
turbation parameter p is assumed as follows: 4
εA3
ν(t) = ν0 (t) + pν1 (t) + p ν2 (t) + · · · 2
(8) − cos(3α t), ν1 (0) = ν̇1 (0) = 0. (15)
4
 572 M.R. Tabeshpour and R. Shoghi

Response of Equation (15) is given as follows: The solution of Equation (21), subjected to the initial
conditions, is given as follows:
εA3
ν1 (t) = f
(α 2 − ωn2 )(9α 2 − ωn2 ) ν0 = x0 = (cos t − cos αt). (23)
 α 2 − 2
× 6α 2 cos(αt) + (α 2 − ωn2 ) cos3 (αt)

+ (ωn2 − 7α 2 ) cos(ωn t) + A (cos(ωn t) − cos(αt)) . Substituting Equation (23) into Equation (22), one ob-
(16) tains

In order to eliminate the secular term which may occur Lν1 = H1 cos t + H2 cos αt − H3 cos 3t
in the next iteration, set the coefficient of cos(ωn t) equal to + H3 cos 3αt − H4 cos θ1 t − H4 cos θ2 t
zero. Consequently, α is obtained as follows: + H4 cos θ3 t + H4 cos θ4 t, ν1 (0) = ν̇1 (0) = 0,
 (24)
1
α= 20ωn2 +14εA2
6 where
 0.5
+ 2 64ωn4 +104ωn2 εA2 +49ε2 A4 . H1 = 2 R − ωn2 R − 9R 3 ε/4 + f, (25a)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015

(17) H2 = −α 2 R + ωn2 R + 9R 3 ε/4, (25b)

It is observed in nonlinear systems that the amount of H3 = R 3 ε/4, (25c)

response frequency (α or ωp that are originated frequency
from nonlinear equation), depends on initial conditions and H4 = 3H3 , (25d)
perturbation parameter. If ε = 0 in Equation (17), then
α = ωn . If approximation of the first order is sufficient, R = f/(α 2 − 2 ), (25e)
substituting Equation (17) into Equations (14) and (16), the
response according to Equation (9) is given as follows: θ1 = (2α − ), (25f)

−A θ2 = (2α + ), (25g)

x(t) = A cos(α) +
4ωn2 − 40α 2 ωn2 + 36α 4
  
3εA2 ω2 θ3 = (2 − α), (25h)
× 36 α 2 − − ωn2 α 2 − n cos(αt)
4 9
θ4 = (2 + α). (25i)
− εA2 (α 2 − ωn2 ) cos(3αt) . (18)
Homogenous and particular responses of Equation (24)
and their coefficients, respectively, are given as follows:
4. Forced vibration
(h)
Forced vibration equation of motion is given as follows: ν1 = C1 sin ωn t + C2 cos ωn t, (25j)
(p)
ẍ + ωn2 x + εx 3 = f cos(t), x(0) = ẋ(0) = 0, (19) ν1 = r1 cos t + r2 cos αt + r3 cos 3t + r4 cos 3αt
+ r5 cos θ1 t + r6 cos θ2 t + r7 cos θ3 t + r8 cos θ4 t,
where x0 is an initial approximation of Equation (19), which
(25k)
satisfies the boundary conditions and is given as follows:

f r1 = H1 / ωn2 − 2 , (26a)
x0 = 2 (cos t − cos αt). (20)
α − 2
r2 = H2 / ωn2 − α 2 , (26b)
Substituting Equations (8) and (20), and arranging the
coefficients of the various powers of p, one obtains r3 = −H3 / ωn2 − 92 , (26c)

r4 = H3 / ωn2 − 9α 2 , (26d)
L(ν0 ) = L(x0 ), ν0 (0) = ν̇0 (0) = 0, (21)
r5 = −H4 / ωn2 − θ12 , (26e)
L(ν1 ) + L(x0 ) + εν03 = f cos(t), ν1 (0) = ν̇1 (0) = 0.
(22) r6 = −H4 / ωn2 − θ22 , (26f)
 Ships and Offshore Structures 573

r7 = H4 / ωn2 − θ32 , (26g) R3ε 3R 3 ε

+ cos 3αt − cos θ1 t
4 ωn2 − 9α 2 4 ωn2 − θ12
r8 = H4 / ωn2 − θ42 . (26h)
3R 3 ε 3R 3 ε
− cos θ2 t + cos θ3 t
4 ωn2 − θ22 4 ωn2 − θ32
The solution of Equation (24), subjected to the initial
conditions ν1 (0) = 0 and ν̇1 (0) = 0, is given as follows: 3R 3 ε
+ cos θ4 t. (30)
4 ωn2 − θ42
(h) (p)
ν1 = ν1 + ν1 = C1 sin ωn t + C2 cos ωn t + r1 cos t
If approximation of the first order is sufficient, substi-
+ r2 cos αt + r3 cos 3t + r4 cos 3αt + r5 cos θ1 t tuting α obtained from Equation (29) into Equations (23)
+ r6 cos θ2 t + r7 cos θ3 t + r8 cos θ4 t, (27) and (27), the response according to Equation (9) is given as
follows:

where f
x(t) = (cos t − cos αt)
α2 − 2
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015

2 R − ωn2 R − (9R 3 ε/4) + f

C1 = 0, (28a) + cos t
ωn2 − 2
C2 = −(r1 + r2 + r3 + r4 + r5 + r6 + r7 + r8 ). (28b) −α 2 R + ωn2 R + (9R 3 /4)
+ cos αt
ωn2 − α 2
Finding the response of Equation (24) in order to elimi- R 3 ε cos 3t R 3 ε cos 3αt
nate the secular term which may occur in the next iteration, − +
4 ωn2 − 92 4 ωn2 − 9α 2
set the coefficient of cos(ωn t) equal to zero. Consequently,
α is obtained as follows: 3R 3 ε 3R 3 ε
− cos θ1 t − cos θ2 t
4 ωn − θ1
2 2
4 ωn2 − θ22
r1 + r2 + r3 + r4 + r5 + r6 + r7 + r8 = 0 (29a) 3R 3 ε 3R 3 ε
+ cos θ3 t + cos θ4 t.
4 ωn2 − θ32 4 ωn2 − θ42
or (31)

2 R − ωn2 R − (9R 3 ε/4) + f −α 2 R + ωn2 R+(9R 3 /4) Table 1 indicates the frequency variation of assumed
+
ωn2 − 2 ωn2 − α 2 data in free vibration.
Figure 2 represents an increasing amount of perturbed
R3ε R3ε 3R 3 ε frequency parallel to increasing amounts of the initial mo-
− + −
4(ωn2 − 92 ) 4 ωn2 − 9α 2 4(ωn2 − θ12 ) tion amplitude.
Figure 3 represents an increasing amount of perturbed
3R 3 ε 3R 3 ε 3R 3 ε
− + + = 0. frequency parallel to increasing amounts of the perturbation
4 ωn2 − θ22 4 ωn2 − θ32 4 ωn2 − θ42 parameter.
(29b)

Table 1. Perturbed frequency in free vibration, (ωn = 1).

Substituting Equations (26) and (28) into Equation (27),
the response according to Equation (9) is given as follows: ε A α

0.01 1 1.0037
2 R − ωn2 R − (9R 3 ε/4) + f 2 1.0149
ν1 = cos t 3 1.0333
ωn2 − 2
0.05 1 1.0186
−α 2 R + ωn2 R + (9R 3 /4) 2 1.0728
+ cos αt 3 1.1580
ωn2 − α 2 0.1 1 1.0369
R3ε 2 1.1414
− cos 3t 3 1.2984
4 ωn2 − 92
 574 M.R. Tabeshpour and R. Shoghi
Figure 2. Perturbed frequency variations versus initial motion
amplitude, A.
5. The modified Euler method
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015
The numerical method of MEM is used to solve a non-
linear equation of motion, which is acceptable for solving
linear and nonlinear differential equations. Euler method is
rarely used but it is known as a starting point towards fur-
ther examination of the methods of this class. The graphic
presentation of Euler method and modified Euler method is
shown in Figures 4 and 5. There is a known point of coor-
dinates (xm ,ym ) lying on the wanted curve. A curve with a
slope drawn through this point is given as follows:
ym = f (xm , ym ). (32)
We can assume that ym+1 equals to the ordinate at the
crossing point of L1 and the straight line x = xm+1 = xm +
h. The equation of the straight line L1 is given as follows:
y = ym + ym (x − xm ). (33)
Figure 3. Perturbed frequency variations versus perturb param-
eter, ε.
Figure 4. Geometric presentation of Euler method.
If xm+1 − xm = h, then we have
ym+1 = ym + hf (xm , ym ). (34)
The error in x = xm+1 is designated in the figure by e.
The last formula assigns the Euler method. Its characteristic
is the large error from disruption and instability in some
cases, i.e. a small error from rounding increases with the
increase of x. The MEM is based on finding the average
value of the slopes of the tangent lines in the points (xm ,
ym ) and (xm + h, ym + hym ). Graphically the method is
presented as follows.
The slope of the straight line L is given as
1 
(xm , ym , h) = f (xm , ym ) + f (xm + h, ym + hym ) ,
2
(35)
where ym = f (xm , ym ). The equation for L is assigned as
follows:
y = ym + (x − xm ) (xm , y m , h), (36)
ym+1 = ym + h (xm , y m , h). (37)
Figure 5. Geometric presentation of the MEM.
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 6. FFT of displacement in free vibration. (This figure is
available in colour online.)
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015
The last equations express the MEM.
A numerical study has been carried out to understand
the effect of perturbation parameter, ε. It is supposed that
ωn = 1, perturbation parameter ε = 0.5 and the initial con-
dition A = 1 in free vibration, Equation (5). Verification
of obtained responses from HPM is carried out by the nu-
merical results from MEM. The following figures represent
acceptable accordance between achieved result of HPM
and numerical method, and difference between those and
ordinary differential method in amplitude and frequency
content.
Figure 6 demonstrates the displacement amplitude ver-
sus frequency for obtained result of HPM against obtained
results of the numerical method and the ordinary differen-
tial method for free vibration.
The maximum values of motion amplitude in three
methods are approximately the same. The frequency of lin-
ear system is equal to 1 rad/s. Obtained frequencies in free
vibration equation of motion are 1.17 and 1.19 rad/s in HPM
and MEM, respectively. Obtained frequencies in HPM and
ordinary differential method are 1.68% and 15.96% less
than the numerical method, respectively. Achieved values
represent good accordance between results of HPM and
numerical method.
Figure 7. FFT of velocities in free vibration.
575
Figure 8. FFT of velocities in free vibration. (This figure is
available in colour online.)
By production amplitude in its corresponding frequency
in a preliminary fast Fourier transform (FFT) diagram, one
can obtain an amplitude in that frequency in derivative FFT
which is represented in Figure 7.
Figure 8 shows the velocities amplitude versus fre-
quency for obtained result of HPM against obtained results
of numerical method and ordinary differential method for
free vibration.
The maximum velocity amplitudes obtained from HPM
and ordinary differential method are 2.6% and 13.04% less
than the amplitude of velocity obtained from numerical
method. In addition, obtained frequencies in HPM and or-
dinary differential method are 1.68% and 15.96% less than
the numerical method, respectively. Achieved values repre-
sent good accordance between results of HPM and numer-
ical method. The difference of amplitude between ordinary
differential method and other methods is due to consid-
ering perturbed frequency, ωp , in those methods. Consid-
ering displacement FFT, ADis i (ωi ), velocity amplitudes in
FFT of velocity, AVi el (ωi ), could be estimated in dominant
frequency, ωp = 1.17, as follow:
Peak
AVi el (ωi ) = ωi ADis −−→ AVi el (ωi )
i (ωi ) −
= 1.17 × 0.97 = 1.13 m/s.
 576 M.R. Tabeshpour and R. Shoghi
Figure 9. FFT of acceleration in free vibration. (This figure is
available in colour online.)
Figure 9 demonstrates the acceleration amplitude ver-
sus frequency for obtained result of HPM against obtained
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015
results of numerical method and ordinary differential
method for free vibration.
The maximum acceleration amplitudes obtained from
HPM and ordinary differential method are 2.96% and
25.92% less than the acceleration amplitude obtained
from numerical method. In addition, obtained frequen-
cies in HPM and ordinary differential method are 1.68%
and 15.96% less than the numerical method, respectively.
Achieved values represent good accordance between results
of HPM and numerical method. Acceleration amplitudes in
FFT of acceleration, AAcc
i (ωi ), could be estimated in dom-
inant frequency, ωp = 1.17, as follow:
Peak
AAcc V el
−−→ AAcc
i (ωi ) = ωi Ai (ωi ) − i (ωi )
= 1.17 × 1.13 = 1.32 m/s 2
Considering ωn = 1, ε = 0.5, f = 1,  = 2 in forced
vibration, Equation (19), motion subjected to the initial
condition as x(0) = x(0) = 0 is surveyed. Subjected to the
initial condition as x(0) = ẋ(0) = 0 motion is surveyed.
Figure 10 shows the displacement amplitude versus fre-
quency for obtained result of HPM against obtained results
Figure 10. FFT of displacement in forced vibration. (This figure
is available in colour online.)
Figure 11. FFT of velocity in forced vibration. (This figure is
available in colour online.)
of numerical method and ordinary differential method for
forced vibration.
The maximum displacement amplitudes obtained from
HPM and ordinary differential method in perturbed fre-
quency are 3.03% more and 3.03% less than the displace-
ment amplitude obtained from numerical method. In addi-
tion, obtained frequencies in HPM and ordinary differential
method are 1.9% more and 4.76% less than the numerical
method, respectively. Achieved values represent good ac-
cordance between results of HPM and numerical method.
The maximum displacement amplitudes obtained from
HPM and ordinary differential method in excited frequency
are 2.94% and 8.82% less than the displacement amplitude
obtained from numerical method, respectively.
Figure 11 demonstrates the velocity amplitude versus
frequency for obtained result of HPM against obtained re-
sults of numerical method and ordinary differential method
for forced vibration.
The maximum velocity amplitudes obtained from HPM
and ordinary differential method in perturbed frequency are
2.85% more and 5.71% less than the velocity amplitude
obtained from numerical method. In addition, obtained fre-
quencies in HPM and ordinary differential method are 1.9%
more and 7.4% less than the numerical method, respectively.
Achieved values represent good accordance between results
of HPM and numerical method.
The maximum velocity amplitudes obtained from HPM
and ordinary differential method in excited frequency are
4.34% and 8.69% less than the velocity amplitude obtained
from numerical method, respectively.
Figure 12 shows the acceleration amplitude versus fre-
quency for obtained result of HPM against obtained results
of numerical method and ordinary differential method for
forced vibration.
The maximum acceleration amplitudes obtained from
HPM and ordinary differential method in perturbed fre-
quency are 2.63% more and 13.15% less than the acceler-
ation amplitude obtained from numerical method. In addi-
tion, obtained frequencies in HPM and ordinary differential
 Ships and Offshore Structures
Figure 12. FFT of acceleration in forced vibration. (This figure
is available in colour online.)
method are 0.92% and 7.4% less than the numerical method,
respectively. Achieved values represent good accordance
Downloaded by [Selcuk Universitesi] at 18:13 10 February 2015
between results of HPM and numerical method.
The maximum acceleration amplitudes obtained from
HPM and ordinary differential method in excited frequency
are 5.03% and 9.35% less than the acceleration amplitude
obtained from numerical method, respectively.
6. Conclusions
A deep view of nonlinear vibration of systems which are
naturally nonlinear like TLP is a useful tool for a design.
Dominance on nonlinear behaviour and level of its effect
would assist a design engineer to have a proper viewpoint
in design and check in primary design. It would also result
in simple calculation of nonlinear problems. It is observed
that the response and frequency of surge motion obtained
from a nonlinear equation depend on initial condition
and perturbation parameter. One of the current issues in
compliant structures in the sea is variation in frequency
and structural response. Considering these variations is
important in fatigue life study of tethers. In this paper,
577
a dynamic analysis of TLP model under simplified wave
load is presented. Due to using HPM, the frequency and
response of perturbation are valid for large ε and can be
calculated analytically.
Results demonstrate that responses obtained from HPM
have good accordance with numerical results. In this paper,
damping is assumed to be equal to zero and one can consider
damping effect in equation of motion in free and forced
vibration and use HPM.
References
Ahmad S. 1996. Stochastic TLP response under long crested ran-
dom sea. Comput Struct. 61:975–993.
Chandrasekaran S, Gaurav. 2008. Offshore triangular tension leg
platform earthquake motion analysis under distinctly high sea
waves. SAOS. 3:173–184.
Chandrasekaran S, Jain AK. 2002. Dynamic behavior of square
and triangular offshore tension leg platform under regular
wave loads. Ocean Eng. 29:279–313.
Golafshani AA, Tabeshpour MR, Seif MS. 2007. First order per-
turbation solution for axial vibration of tension leg platforms.
Sci Iranica. 14:414–423.
He JH. 1999. Homotopy perturbation technique. Comput Method
Appl Mech. 178:257–262.
Jain AK. 1997. Nonlinear coupled response of offshore tension
leg platforms to regular wave forces. Ocean Eng. 24:577–
592.
Kevorkian J, Cole JD. 1981. Perturbation methods in applied
mathematics. New York (NY): Springer.
Karimirad M, Meissonnier Q, Gao Z, Moan T. 2011. Hydroelastic
code-to-code comparison for a tension leg spar-type floating
wind turbine. Marine Struct. 24:412–435.
Tabeshpour MR, Golafshani AA, Seif MS. 2006. Second-order
perturbation added mass fluctuation on vertical vibration of
tension leg platforms. Marine Struct. 19:271–283.
Tabeshpour MR, Shoghi R. 2011. Time domain analysis of TLP
under linear wave via linearized perturbation technique. The
13th Marine Industries Conference; Tehran, Iran.
Tan XM, Cheng QH. 2006. Offshore triangular tension leg plat-
form earthquake motion analysis under distinctly high sea
waves. SAOS. 1:127–134.