This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
© Copyright 2011 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
ISSN 0976 – 4399
1 2 1 1 Mohamad Ahangar , Khosro Bargi , Hesam Sharifian , Morteza Safarnezhad 1 Ph.D. student, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran 2 Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, College of Engineering, University of Tehran email@example.com
Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles
ABSTRACT The response of pile supported fixed offshore jackets is very sensitive under earthquake loadings. These structures shall be able to undergo the seismic loadings without any failure. To reach this purposes the dynamic analysis should be considered because of some factors like soil nonlinearity, energy dissipation, nonlinear behavior of foundations, discontinuity condition at pile soil interfaces and etc. the noticeable part of dynamic response of fixed offshore jackets is nonlinear behavior of piles. In this paper, innovative and newest approaches in nonlinear analysis together with ABAQUS modeling to be used to extract the useful conclusions related to dynamic nonlinear response of fixed offshore jackets. Keywords: Pile, nonlinear dynamic response, interaction, seismic behavior 1. Introduction The recent development of offshore industries (in particular the exploration and production of oil and gas) leads to growing demand for realistic predictions of offshore platforms behavior. Earthquake design of offshore platforms in seismic active areas is one of the most important parts in offshore platforms design. Evaluation of the pilesoilstructure interaction due to earthquake induced ground accelerations is an important step in seismic design of both the structure and piles. ‘Dynamic response will be defined as those characteristics of the structural system that can not be attributed to notime varying or static response. Inertial, damping and kinematics effects developed by loadings that have significant variations in time will be include in dynamic response. Dynamic response of offshore platforms due to earthquake excitations (and all cyclic loadings) would be inherently on nonlinear behavior because of the following reasons: 1 Nonlinear behavior of the soil at a wide range of shear strain (Soil behavior would be 4 linear only at very small shear strains of approximately less than 10 %). 2 PileSoil interaction, which is affected by different nonlinear behavior of interface elements (Gapping and Cavein effect) for different type of the soils (clay and sand). 3 The seismic loading rates, which potentially could cause significant stresses and nonlinear material behavior of piles and superstructure. Dynamic response of piles in offshore platforms is a function of the characteristics of the loading, dynamic pilesoil interaction behavior and dynamic characteristics of the piles structural system. In recent years the interaction problem during earthquake loadings has received considerable attention and studies indicate the nature of ground motion input and the
Received on July 2011 published on September2011
Yegian and Wright (1973).Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. Hesam Sharifian. Trochanis et al. Trochanis (1991) showed that the response of laterally loaded piles predicted using a ABAQUS formulation agreed well with static load test data and nonlinear three dimensional FEM. The main advantage of such approaches is the capability of performing the SSPSI analysis of pile in a fully coupled manner. The finite and boundary element methods potentially provides the most powerful tools for conducting Seismic SoilPileStructure Interaction (SSPSI) analyses. Penzien (1970) and Novak (1974). pile. In seismic loadings. Tajimi (1966) used a linear viscoelastic stratum of the KelvinVoigt type to model the soil and in his analysis of the horizontal response he neglected the vertical component of the soil motion. "free field" ground motion time histories are usually computed in a separate site response analysis and then applied to soilpile spring supports in ABAQUS models. In both FEM and BFM the soil is treated as a continuum media. Khosro Bargi. but they have not yet been fully realized as a practical accepted method mainly due to their presumed excessive computational costs and their complexity for common pile dynamic response analysis. A singular disadvantage of a ABAQUS mode is the two dimensional simplification of the soilpile contact. ABAQUS models are the most versatile. which ignores the radial ad threedimensional components of interaction. Faruque and Dessail (1982). Boulanger et al (1999) showed that the results of seismic response of piles using ABAQUS modeling agreed well with centrifuge experimental tests. Parmelee (1964) and Penzien (1970) employed a nonlinear discrete model and a static theory to describe e the dynamic elastic stress and displacements of fields. superstructure and soilpilesuperstructure interfaces are modeled simultaneously together. Novak (1974) assumed linearity and an elastic soil layer composed of independent infinitesimally thin horizontal layers extending to infinity. In ABAQUS method the pile is modeled as a series of a discrete beamcolumn members resting on a series of springs and dashpots indicating the nonlinear dynamic behavior of soils. economical and popular methods that can account for various complicated conditions in a simple manner. The earliest systematic theoretical studies of dynamic soil pile interaction are due to Parmelee et al (1964). Morteza Safarnezhad mechanism of pile soil interaction play an important role in determination of platform design loads. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 261 . Basic components criteria in a ABAQUS models for dynamic response analysis of offshore piles are adopted in this paper. Recently investigators have begun to develop numerical methods in which all the soil. Angelides and Rosset (1980). make both of these methods impractical for seismic response analysis of offshore platforms. without resorting to independent calculations of site or superstructure response. The Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foundation (ABAQUS) method is a dimplified approach that can account for nonlinear SoilPileStructure Interaction (SPSI) and has proven useful in professional engineering and research practices. Discritization of a three dimensional continuum media and generation for a multitude of degrees of freedom in FEM and deriving of complex Green functions for complicated media in BEM. Kaynia and Kausel (1982) and Sen et al (1985) implemented Boundary Element Method (BEM) for dynamic response analysis of piles. Tajimi (1966). (1988) and Wu(1997) used finite Element Method (FEM) whereas Sanches (1982). Randolph (1981).
Khosro Bargi. Soil Model In ABAQUS hypothesis there are two different methods of solid modeling as follows: 1 hyperbolic stressstrain approach 2 PY curves approach 4. Behavior of these interface elements in compression and tension are quite different and therefore the pilesoil interface elements together with springs. According to different behavior of cohesive and cohesion less soils. energy dissipation through radiation and hysteretic damping and soil strength degradation due to cyclic loads. Figure 1 shows the general view of an ABAQUS model and its main components in dynamic nonlinear response analysis of offshore platforms. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 262 . Stiffness matrix of beam column elements are used to model to the structural stiffness matrix of each pile segment. Pile Modeling The pile and surrounding soil layers are subdivided into a couple of discrete segments with pile nodes corresponding to soil nodes at the same elevation. Nogami 1992). These gaps in cohesive soils (clay) will not be filled with the soils again and it means that there would be a gap development (permanent displacement of soil nodes) during earthquake excitations in clay soils (Matlock 1978. the soil nonlinearity and relative movement at the pilesoil interface will strongly affect the pile behavior.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. These structural stiffness matrices of the pile segments will be assembled to build the global structural stiffness matrix of the whole pile. dashpots and masses (if any) are usually modeled separately on each side of the pile. there should be different type of interface elements. Model Description All above studies indicate that when a pile is subjected to highlevel lateral loading. It is clear that each ABAQUS model shall include particular pilesoil interface elements to account for such relative movements. Morteza Safarnezhad 2. 4. nonlinear behavior of pile soil interfaces. Hesam Sharifian. When the tensile stress is detected in soil springs.1 PileSoil Interface One of the main sources in nonlinear dynamic response of piles is the relative movement of the soil and pile at interfaces. these interface elements should detach pile nodes from the soil nodes and it means that a gap will be created between pile and the soil. Nonlinear soil behavior. Any model to be used for dynamic response analysis of piles should allow for variation of soil properties with depth. It is clear that for nonlinear dynamic response analysis of piles based on ABAQUS assumptions. each model should contain the following items: 1 Pile modeling 2 Soil stiffness and Damping modeling 3 PileSoil interface modeling 4 Free field excitations 3. During earthquake excitation all the components of a ABAQUS mode (representing the pile and surrounding soils) will be subjected to free field ground motions.
2 and 3 respectively International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 263 . Morteza Safarnezhad Figure 1: General View of ABAQUS models for nonlinear dynamic response analysis of offshore platforms There would be cavein behavior in cohesion less soils (sand) resulting in backfilling of sand particles around the pile. the soil reactions and the pile oil interface elements will be modeled separately on both side of the piles.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. General views of soil reaction versus pile deflections for cohesive and cohesionless soils (indicating gapping and cave in behaviors) are shown in figs. It means that any developed gap in sand will be simultaneously filled with backfilled soil again and no permanent gaps will be developed. Considering different soil behavior in compression and tension (gapping in clay layers and cavein in sand layers). (ElNaggar 2000). Hesam Sharifian. Khosro Bargi.
dynamic ground International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 264 .Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. Morteza Safarnezhad Figure 2: Typical Soil reactionPile deflection Behavior for cohesive soils (Gapping) soils (Cavein) Figure 3: Typical soil reactionPile deflection Behavior for cohesionless 4. In these kinematic loadings. springs. These ABAQUS models (including pile. Kinematic loadings are an important part in dynamic response of piles due to seismic excitations in ABAQUS hypothesis. Hesam Sharifian. Khosro Bargi.2 Free Field Excitations Earthquake induced loading on buried structures can be separated into two basic loading conditions of kinematic and inertial. dashpots and pilesoil interface elements) only deal with inertial loadings due to earthquake excitations.
In such type of calculations. Summary and Conclusion Dynamic soil reaction and pile head response to harmonic loads for both the PY and hyperbolic approaches in ABAQUS models were compared by ElNaggar and Bentley (2000). In seismic loadings because of the different wave polarities in the near field and far filed. The undrained shear strength of the clay was s assumed to be 25 kPa. free field motions may be calculated by any desired wave propagation method such as equivalent linear (used in SHAKE91 software) or nonlinear procedures. A pile with the outside diameter of d = 0. Fen et al (1991) performed and extensive parametric study using an equivalent linear approach to develop dimensionless graphs for pile head deflections versus the free field response. the free field motions are uncoupled from the pile ABAQUS models. A parabolic soil profile with the ratio of E p / E = 1000 at the pile base was assumed. Fig 6 shows the International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 265 . Wang (1998) used SHAKE for free field motion analysis and showed an acceptable agreement between calculated results and the recorded results in centrifuge tests. Figure 4: The model used by ElNaggar and Bentley (2000) for comparing PY curve and hyperbolic approaches Figure 5 shows the displacement time history of the pile head for a harmonic load with single amplitude equal to 10 kN at a frequency of 2 Hz applied at the pile head. Bentley (2000) performed a full three dimensional transient nonlinear dynamic analysis (3 D wave propagation) and compared the results with equivalent linear 1D methods. 5.5 m . Results of such free field calculation (acceleration or displacement time histories at different soil layers) will be used as the input excitation at support nodes of the ABAQUS models. SHAKE (Schanbel et al 1972) is still commonly used after 30 years of its release and it is a reference computer program in geotechnical earthquake engineering. Hesam Sharifian. In dynamic response analysis of piles. Markis and Gazetas (1992) applied free field accelerations to a one dimensional ABAQUS model.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. Morteza Safarnezhad motions of the soil layers in free field due to earthquake excitations at bed rock should be determined. length of l=15 m and an elastic modulus ( E p ) equal to 35 GPa was used (as shown in Fig. uncoupling the nonlinear pilesoil interaction in near field from the free field responses would be a reasonable approximation. 4). In SHAKE it is assumed that the cyclic soil behavior can be simulated using an equivalent linear model representing the soil stress strain response based on KelvinVoigt model. Khosro Bargi.
0 m depth for harmonic displacement with single amplitude equal to 0. The water table was at the ground surface. Centrifuge tests were performed on samples of normally consolidated San Francisco Bay 3 3 Mud (density of about 1700 kg/m ) with a crust of dense sand (density of about 2100 kg/m ) on the surface of clay. Khosro Bargi.0 m depth) for a harmonic displacement of a single amplitude equal to 0. Figure 5: Pile head response due to harmonic load with single amplitude equal to 10 kN at a frequency of 2 Hz. In Figures 5.03 d (0.015 m) at a frequency of 2 Hz applied at the pile head. Morteza Safarnezhad calculated dynamic soil reaction (at 1. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 266 . Employing the same definition used for static PY curves. 6 it is seen that hyperbolic and PY curve models show very similar responses at the pile head displacement and soil reactions respectively and both stabilize after approximately five cycles. Several implementations of Dynamic PY methods (different configuration of nonlinear springs and dashpots in Parallel and Series Radiation Damping) together with free field effects were compared with Centrifuge model tests (performed at University of California. which are now used in earthquake analysis of offshore platforms. Figure 6: Calculated Dynamic soil reaction at 1. dynamic PY curves (which are frequency depended) can be established to relate the pile deflections to the corresponding dynamic soil reactions at any depth below the ground surface. General configuration. These dynamic PY curves can be implemented in equivalent static analyses. ElNaggar and Bentley (2000) also showed that dynamic soil reactions are in general larger than the static reactions because of the contribution from damping.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. Davis) by Wang et al. Hesam Sharifian. (1998).03d at a frequency of 2 Hz.
Comparing the response spectra for Cases A and B (in Figs. Hesam Sharifian. A scale factor N = 50 was used in this model and so all dimensions shown in Fig. In Fig. 8 a. Figure 7: Configuration of Centrifuge model test (Wang et al 1998) Table – 1 shows the conditions and methods in two different numerical cases used by Wang et al (1998) for simulation of the centrifuge model test results. 7. x ult Case B Series Linear (Matlock) Recorded and calculated spectral accelerations for above cases are shown in Figs. this model represents a superstructure mass of 1. version 1.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. Khosro Bargi. 8 b it is seen that the peak acceleration for the pile head and frequency content for both locations (superstructure and pile head) are well predicted and only the peak acceleration for superstructure is predicted dynamic response of the pile at pile head and superstructure responses) is seen in CASE B which series radiation damping is used. 7 should be factored by a scale factor of 50 in prototype units. x ult Linear (Matlock) Piecewise 4 B r v s 1 P . Morteza Safarnezhad dimension and instrumentations of this model are shown in Fig. 8 a. Santa Cruz during the 1989 Loma Prieta Earthquake was used to excite the base of the centrifuge mode. b respectively.44 ton and pile head mass of 1. 8a it is seen that only the peak acceleration for superstructure is predicted well by the results of CASE A meanwhile the peak acceleration for the pile head and frequency content for both locations (superstructure and pile head) are not well predicted. In prototype terms.12 ton supported by a 317 mm diameter steel pipe having a wall thickness of 10 mm. All ABAQUS modeling and nonlinear analysis carried out using DRAIN2D (Dynamic Response Analysis of Inelastic 2D structures. More explanations about centrifuge modeling tests and scaling laws could be referred to Kutter (1992). 1972) which uses the equivalent linear procedure for nonlinear soil behavior Table 1: Input information for numerical cases Damping Model Case A Parallel Damping Coefficient 4 B r v s PY Curves Generation PY Strength Piecewise 1 P . b) it is concluded that International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 267 .10Prakash & Powell 1993). In Fig. Dynamic motions of the free field (which are used as the input excitations of the supports in ABAQUS model) carried out using SHAKE (Schnabel et al.
“Dynamic analysis for laterally loaded piles and dynamic py curves”. pp 11661183. (2000). Huston. 2. (1970). International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 268 . Khosro Bargi. and Bentley. H. Therefore parallel radiation damping results in a more rapid reduction in bending moments with depth than is calculated using series radiation damping. 6. Hesam Sharifian. nd Proceeding of the 2 Offshore Technology Conference. Tex. 1. It should be noted that peak moment at the ground surface depends primarily on the superstructure acceleration and coincidence of the natural period of the system and predominant period of the shaking. J. M.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. K. Figure 8a: Acceleration response spectra (Calculated in Case A) Figure 8b: Acceleration response spectra (Calculated in Case B) The highest peak moment in CASE a is about 29% more that CASE B meanwhile the location of the highest peak moment in CASE A (close to ground surface) is quite different that CASE B (about 2 m below ground surface). References 1. Morteza Safarnezhad parallel radiation damping acted to restrict the lateral movement of the pile head and therefore resulted in a stiffer system (higher frequency content) than for the series radiation damping. Matlok. Parallel radiation damping is likely to produce a stiffer system than series radiation damping and it allows forces to bypass the hysteretic system through a parallel dashpot.. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. pp 577588. 37. H. “Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft clay”. ElNaggar.
ASEC. R8203. and Roesset. “Dynamic pile soil pile interaction”. A. Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics. F. “Seismic effects on structures supported on piles extending through deep sensitive clays”. (1964). C. K. of Civil Engineering. S. ElNaggar. J. “Nonlinear dynamic stiffness of piles”.. 110(1). Rep.. (2000). (1992). Dept. Kaynia. MIT.. (2000). pp 2040. and Novak. Fen.. M. L. Scheffey. Res. and EiNaggar. (1992). University of California. and Ahmed. “Nonlinear Analysis for dynamic lateral pile rssponse”. and Novak. (1980). M. H. B. 14(3). and Kraft. 7. M. M. Inst. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. 1336. ASCE. E. M.. D. R. G. J. Gazetas.C. (1982).. Hesam Sharifian. (1994). (1995). Rec.. American Petroleum institute. A. “Nonlinear lateral interaction in pile dynamics”. 8. 13.. G. Canadian Geotechnical Journal. C. R.. Journal of Geotech. M. 5. 120 (2). 12. and Novak. pp 899918. (1991). 11. Gazetas. M.Dynamic nonlinear behavior of fixed offshore jacket piles Mohamad Ahangar. Khosro Bargi. “Nonlinear model for dynamic axial pile response”. Journal of Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering. M. Cambridge. R. 4. 14. Bentley.. M. “Dynamic centrifuge modeling of geotechnical structures”. 21 ed. 106(8). Penzien.. designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms”. E. Transportation Research Board. “Seismic PY Responses of Flexible Piles”.. pp 2430.. Geotech. Res. J. G. H. and Kausel. 14(4). ASCE 117(12). A. Gazetas. SEM 642.. L. API Recommended Practice 2A st (RP2A). pp 308329. Kaynia. 10.. ElNaggar. pp 13681382. K. Massachusetts Inst. 37. “Kinematic response of singl piles and pile groups”. International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2 Issue 1 2011 269 .” Rpt. (1980). ElNaggar. J. Research report R 8013. G. 9. Washington. pp 4755. D. Berkeley. pp 233244. Eng. Eng. ASCE. Seed. C.. “Recommended practice for planning. “Numerical analysis of kinematic response of single piles”. pp 145 162. Cambridge. Markis. pp 141157. H. 21. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. H. and Thiers. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering. American Petroleum Institute. of Technology. (1984) “Horizontal response of piles in layered soils”. and Doprby. 18601879. 15. Transp. T. Lateral ans seismic response. Massachusetts. 6. Washington. Eng. Angelides. Morteza Safarnezhad 3. H. Part II.. D. (1996). Kausel. Kagawa. Kutter B. Parmele. “Dynamic Stiffness and Seismic Response of Pile Groups.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.