Full Hussein Algusab Thesis

Dynamic Analysis of Offshore
Structures Using Finite Element

Method

A THESIS SUBMITTED
TO THE COLLEGE OF ENGINEERING
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF BASRAH
AS A FULFILLMENT OF THE PARTIAL
REQUIRMENTS
FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN CIVIL ENGINEERING

By
Hussein Ali Hussein
(B.Sc. Civil Engineering)

March
4141 2003

To My Family,
My Masterly,
And My Brothers
with Love and
Respect.
Acknowledgment

I wish to express my gratitude to Prof. Dr. Anis A. Mohamad
Ali and Assistant Prof. Mr. Mohamad J. K. Essa for their
supervision, advice and support and continuous encouragement
throughout the research work.
Also I am indebted to my family, especially to my parents for
their encouragement, care and patience.
I would like to thank Dr. Assad Saleem the Dean of
Engineering College and Dr. Nabeel Abdul razzaq Jasim the Head
of Civil Engineering Department at the University of Basrah for
the facilities that they offered.

Special thanks due to all members of the staff of civil
engineering Department in Basrah University, previous and
present for their learning, care with love and respect.

Also thanks due to Dr. A. M. Al-khadimey, Dr. Sabih H.
Muhoder, Dr. A. H. Ghailan, Mr. Mugtabba Al-Mudhaffer, Mr.
Samoel M. Al-Salihy, Mr. Abbas O. Dawood, Mr. Saffa K. Geaaz,
Mr. David A. M. Jawad and Mr. Alla A. Lattif for their help.

Hussein Ali Hussein

Abstract

In the present work the three dimensional analysis of offshore structures
are carried out to find the dynamic response of Jacket offshore platforms. A
new exact stiffness matrix is used to model the pile element to consider the
effect of soil-structure interaction. The superstructure members are modeled as
three-dimensional beam element. The dynamic analysis of offshore structures
under the effect of wave loads and ship's berthing impact loads is considered in
the analysis. Newmark direct integration technique is used to solve the dynamic
equilibrium equations by using ANSYS software program. Morison's equation
and Airy's linear wave theory are employed to calculate the wave loads. Added
mass effects also considered in the analysis to account for non-linear inertia term
in Morison's equation. The non-linear drag coefficient effect is neglected in the
analysis. Free and forced vibration analyses are carried out for two case studies.
The first case is an actual jacket platform, which is analyzed to wave loads only,
and the second is Al-Amaya Berthing dolphin, which is, analyzed to wave forces
and ship's berthing impact loads. General oriented wave propagation is used in
the analysis of offshore platform and different sea states are considered in the
analysis.

List of Symbols
English Symbols
A
Cross sectional area of the beam element, system matrix (A=M
-1
.K),
integration constant.
A
Integration constant.
[A] Matrix defined in Eq. (A-3-12).
A
out
Solid cylinder cross-sectional area.
a Water particle acceleration, wave amplitude.
a
i
Vector of integration constants in Eq. (A-3-13).
a1, a2 Mass and stiffness coefficients in Raylaigh damping formula.
{a
n
(s)} Water particle acceleration field vector along the element.
A
p
Bearing area.
A
s
Area under shear force (V).
a(s) Water particle acceleration field along the element.
a
x,
a
y
Components of water particle acceleration in the global x and y
directions respectively.
B Integration constant.
B
Integration constant.
[B] Strain-displacement matrix.
c dashpots constant
C
d
Drag coefficient.
C
m
Inertia coefficient.
c
x
, c
y
, c
z
Cosine directions in x, y, and z-directions respectively.
C
1
, C
2
, C
3
,
C
4

Integration constants in Eq. (A-3-8).
c )
L
x .
cos(

c
) cos(
ch )
L
x .
cosh(

h c
) cosh(
[C] Damping matrix of the structure.
D Diameter of pile.
[d] Linear operator matrix.
[D] Property matrix.
E Elastic modulus of the element.
E
s
Elastic modulus of the soil.
F
n
Normal hydrodynamic force.
f
xi
, f
yi
, f
zi

Components of hydrodynamic force vector at node i in the global x, y
and z directions respectively.
F
x
(s),
F
y
(s), F
z
(s)
Hydrodynamic force components in x, y, and z-direction
{f
e
} Nodal hydrodynamic force vector.
F
*
Generalized force in dynamic equilibrium equation.
{F
i
} Vector of nodal loads in Eq. (A-3-14)
{F(t)} Force vector of the structure.
{f
w
(s)} Hydrodynamic force field vector along the element.
G Modulus of torsional rigidity.
G
s
Shear Modulus of Soil.
g Acceleration of the gravity
[G] Square matrix defined in eq. (A-3-13).
H Water wave height.
h Water depth.
i
1
I Unit matrix, Second moment of area.
I
x
, I
y
, I
z

Second moment of area of the element cross section in the x, y and z
J Polar moment of inertia.
k Wave number, Stiffness of foundation.
k1, k2, k3,
k4
Partitions of element stiffness matrix.
k
n
Normal subgrade reaction.
k
s
Modulus of shear subgrade reaction.
k

Modulus of torsional subgrade reaction.
[K
e
] Element stiffness matrix for beam or pile element.
[K] Stiffness matrix of the structure.
K
*
Generalized dynamic stiffness matrix in Newmark integration for
dynamic problems.
k Springs Constant.
k
11
,,k
44
Stiffness coefficients.
L Water wave length, or element length.
M Mass of one D. O. F. foundation.
[M
e
] Element mass matrix.
M(x) Bending moment along the pile.
[M] Mass matrix of the structure.
[N] Shape function matrix.
N1,,N6 Shape functions.
P Applied normal load, Perimeter of the pile.
P
=2..R
3
q Pressure reaction due to applied normal load.
{q} Nodal displacement vector.
R
Pile radius.

s )
L
x .
sin(

s
) sin(
sh )
L
x .
sinh(

h s
) sinh(
s Local coordinate varies along the frame element.
[S] Normalization matrix.
S Unit directional vector along the frame element.
S
1
,

S
2
, S
3

Components of the unit directional vector in the global x, y and z
T Water wave period.
T(x) Torsional moment.
T1,,T10 Elements in stiffness matrix for pile element.
t Time.
[T] Transformation matrix.
u, v, w,
Displacement at x, y, and z directions, and torsional rotation
respectively.
u
i,
v
i
, w
i
Nodal displacement at node i in the local x, y, and z-directions.
u
j,
v
j
, w
j
Nodal displacement at node j in the local x, y, and z-directions.
u , u , u

Global vectors of structure acceleration, velocity and displacement
respectively.
{u
e
} Vector of nodal displacements.
, u
n

n
u ,
n
u
Structural acceleration, velocity, and displacement in Morison's
equation.
t
u ,
t
u ,
t
u
Structural nodal acceleration, velocity, and displacement at time t.
t t
u

,
t t
u

,
t t
u

Structural nodal acceleration, velocity, and displacement at time t+t.
u
o,
u
L
Nodal displacements at distance (0, L) respectively.
{u }, {u },
{u }
Vector of acceleration, velocity, and displacement of the structure.
) s ( v
n
,
) s ( v
n

Velocity and acceleration of fluid particles.
[V] Square matrix defined in Eq. (A-3-12).
V Applied transverse shear force.
v Tangential Displacement.
v(x) Shear deformation along pile element.
{(s)} Water particle velocity field vector along the element.
V(x) Shear force along the pile.
{V
n
(s)} Hydrodynamic acceleration vector
v
x,
v
z
Components of water particle velocity in the global x and z directions
respectively.
w
p
Deflection under area (A
p
).
x, y, z Local coordinates system.
x, y, z, r
Horizontal, vertical, and radial distance of any points on the cross
section of the element from its center respectively.

y(x) Deflection of pile.
S
L
Wave length to legs spacing

Angle of wave inclination, parameter in Newmark integration
technique, =
J . G
P . k
.
=
A . E
p . k
s

Parameter in Newmark integration technique.
(x) Strain at pile material.
{} Element strain vector.
Normalized coordinate variable.
1
Damping ratio for first two modes of vibration.
Elevation of water above the mean water level.
Torsional angle of rotation.
(x) Angle of rotation along pile length.
x
,
y
,
z
Angle of direction cosines in x, y, and z-directions respectively.
xi,
yi,
zi
Nodal rotation at node i.
xj,
yj,
zj
Nodal rotation at node j.
i
Eigenvalues for free vibration analysis.
Poisson's ratio.
Density of element material.
f
Density of fluid.
(x) Stress at pile material.
s
Shear stress tangent to pile length.
Shear stress along pile perimeter.

Velocity potential.

Natural circular frequency, net pressure under elastic beam(pile)
(difference between resisted and applied pressure).
1
Fundamental natural frequency.
Circular frequency of the water wave.

Abbreviation

ADINA Automatic Dynamic Incremental Non-linear
Analysis.
ASCE American Society for Civil Engineers
ASME American Society for Mechanical Engineers
ANSYS ANalysis of engineering SYStems
B.Cs. Boundary Conditions
B.M. Bending Moment
B.Sc. Bachelor of Science
CPU Central Processing Unit
dir. direction
D.O.F. Degrees Of Freedom
2D two Dimensions
3D three Dimensions
Eq. Equation
Eqs. Equations
F.E. Finite Element
FORTRAN FORmula TRANslation computer language
Fig. Figure
Figs. Figures
J Journal
Ltd. Limited
MATHCAD MATHematical Computer Aided Design
Max. maximum
M.D.O.F. Multi Degrees Of Freedom
M.Sc. Master degree in Science
NASTRAN NAsa STructural ANalysis
No. Number
Ph.D. Doctor of Philosophy degree
Ref. Reference
S.D.O.M. Single Degree Of Freedom
S.F. Shear Force
STAAD III STructural Analysis And Design in III dimensions
V Volume
w.r.t. with respect to

Contents

CHAPTER ONE :Introduction
1
1-1 Introduction 2
1-2 Dynamic Analysis Requirements 3
1-3 Aim of Study 4
1-4 Layout of the Thesis 5
CHAPTER TWO :Literature Review 6
2-1 Introduction 7
2-2 Analysis of offshore structures 7
2-3 Soil-Structure Interaction 11
2-4 Summary 17

CHAPTER THREE :Soil-Structure Interaction 18
3-1 Introduction 19
3-2 Dynamic Behaviour of Piles 19
3-3 Modeling of Soil-Pile system 20
3-4 Winkler Model 21
3-4-1 Normal Reaction Modulus

22
3-4-2 Shear Reaction Modulus 23
3-4-3 Torsion Reaction Modulus

24
CHAPTER FOUR: Modeling and Mathematical Formulation 27
4-1 Finite Element Formulations 28
4-1-2 Element Stiffness Matrix 29
4-1-3 Stiffness of Three Dimensional Beam Element 29
4-1-4 Element Stiffness matrix for a Pile 34
4-1-5 Element Mass Matrix 36
4-1-5-1 Consistent Mass Approximation 36
4-1-5-2 Lumped Mass Approximation 37

4-1-5-3 Effect of Added Mass Formulation 37
4-1-6 Element Damping Matrix 37
4-1-7 Transformation Matrix 38
4-1-8 Element Force Vector 39
4-2 Hydrodynamic of Water Waves 42
4-2-1 Airy Linear Wave Theory 45
4-3 Fender Impact Forces 47
4-4 Dynamic Analysis 48
4-4-1 Free Vibration Analysis 29
4-4-2 Forced Vibration Analysis 50
CHAPTER FIVE :Applications, Results and Discussion 52
5-1 Introduction 53
5-2 Case Study (1): Jacket Platform Type 53
5-2-1 Soil-Structure Interaction 53
5-2-4 Results and Discussion 63
5-3 Case Study (2): Al-Amaya Berthing Dolphin 63
5-3-1 Soil-Structure Interaction 63
CHAPTER SIX :Conclusions and Recommendations 106
6-1 Conclusions 107
6-2 Recommendations 109

Chapter One

Introduction
Chapter One Introduction
2
Introduction
1-1 General:

The term offshore is usually taken to mean that part of the ocean where
the present mud line is below the level of the lowest astronomical tide [1].
There are two basic types of structures, these are gravity and pile
supported structures, the choice of the material depends on the type of the
structure, but in general steel is used for pilesupported structures, where as
concrete for gravity structures, although a combination of steel and concrete
structures has been considered [1].
In a pilesupported offshore structure which is also called a jacket
platform, cylindrical tubular members are commonly used in offshore structure
and represent the most important components in these structures for various
reasons, such as they minimize hydrodynamic force, have high torsional rigidity,
offer large local strength against impact loading, minimize the outside surface
subject to corrosion, and have the same large buckling strength in all directions,
both locally and overall [2].
The jacket types are open structures so that some environmental loads
are acts on it which is vary very widely at different locations in the ocean and
varies with time, in general these forces are wave, impact, wind, currents and
earthquake loads.
Many aims we have takes from installation of fixed offshore platforms,
the major use is for drilling and production activities of oil and gas beneath the
sea floor, the second use for military applications and defense purposes and to
provide navigational aid to ships instead of light ships which is proved to be
more economic, to derive power from the sea, and for mans living and working
space on the planet by providing room for process plant sites.

3

1-2: Dynamic Analysis Requirements:
One of the main loading for which offshore structures are designed is
caused by extreme water waves generated during intense, rare storms. The
dominant periods of such waves are typically much longer than the fundamental
periods of the most fixed offshore structures and, therefore, static analysis are
usually sufficient to for obtaining the design response of these structures to
extreme waves [3].
The development of oil and gas industry and moving into deeper water,
however, taller platforms with larger natural periods (small natural frequencies)
are built that respond more dynamically to extreme water waves. Prediction of
the dynamic response of such structures in extreme sea states is, therefore,
a primary design consideration [4].

In offshore structures two different approaches that are available for the
dynamic analysis, these are deterministic and probabilistic, if the time record of
the fluid motion is used to calculate time-force curve due to waves and the
corresponding time-displacement relation, the loading is called prescribed
dynamic loading, and the analysis is the deterministic analysis. On the other
hand, if the fluid motion and the structure are treated as random processes, the
loading is known as a random dynamic loading and the analysis is defined as
a probabilistic analysis [5].
In the analysis of offshore structures, to find the forces on the platforms
by either deterministic and probabilistic approach two stages are required to
estimate the nodal loads of the nodes in the super structure of jacket platforms,
the first is to find velocity and acceleration of fluid, the second stage is to use
the well known Morisons equation to find nodal loads on nodal points of the
structure, the Morisons equation is a semi empirical equation developed by
4
Morison (1950) which defines the nodal loads on a cylindrical members as
a sum of drag and inertia forces as illustrated later in chapter four.

1-3: Aims of study:

The dynamic analysis of offshore jacket platform is used to find the
response to both wave and impact loads under the effect of soil-structure
interaction.
The soil-structure interaction are considered by considering a new exact
stiffness matrix to model the piles as a beam resting on an elastic media by using
exact displacement method [6] with some ordinary beam elements to consider
superstructure, the ANSYS software program is used to analyze the structure by
using these two major types of elements. The stiffness, mass, damping matrix
that are used for piles are determined by using MATHCAD software, the
stiffness matrix for the exact displacement method that is model the piles [6] are
checked by using MATHCAD, some subroutines of Fortran program are used to
reformatted the stiffness, mass, and damping to use as input in (ANSYS)
program, in addition a FORTRAN program are developed to calculate wave
loads by Airy wave theory and Morisons equation.
The study contains two models, the first one is actual jacket tower,
which is analyzed to a free and forced vibration with the parameters that effect
it's response to dynamic loads. The second model is AL-AMAYA berthing
dolphin, which is analyzed for both free vibration and forced vibration due to
wave loads and impact ship loads for three different velocities. The reason to
choose both models is that the comparison are performed to show the effect of
isolated Winkler model and infinite continuos Winkler model that adopted in the
present study.

1-4 Layout of the thesis:
5
This thesis contains six chapters with appendix.
The first chapter contains introduction to the dynamic analysis of
offshore structures, which describe general definition to the problem.
The second chapter illustrate the previous researches in the analysis of
offshore structures, and soil-structure interaction.
The third chapter defines the static and dynamic behavior of
soil-structure interaction and modeling of the soil-pile system.
The fourth chapter deals with modeling and mathematical formulation
for finite element descritization and distribution of wave loads on nodal points in
the embedded superstructure in fluid medium.
In chapter five the applications, results, and discussion are views while
the sixth chapter illustrate the main conclusions and recommendations for future
work.
In addition the appendix at the end of the thesis illustrate the derivation
of three-dimensional representation of stiffness matrix of the pile material.

Chapter Two

Literature Review

Chapter Two Literature Review
6

Literature Review
2-1 Introduction:
The analysis of offshore structure contains some topics, these are the
modeling of this structure by which the real structure is to be simplified to a
simple mathematical model, and environmental loads that may occur during life
of services. Many researches have been carried out in the previous decades
dealing with soil structure interaction, wave loading, and fluidstructure
interaction and some methods are introduced to simplify the real structures.
2-3 Analysis of Offshore Structures:

In 1980 Fish et al [7] used a simplified offshore model to find the
implied hydrodynamic damping which can be used instead of fluid- structure
interaction and adding non-linear solution by using Morison`s equation. Two
types of waves are considered, these are the regular waves and random waves.
Their work is divided into two parts. In the first part the fluid-structure
interaction is taken into account, while in the second part these non-linear terms
are neglected. It was found that when the viscous structural damping is
increased, then the implied hydrodynamic damping is decreased, also that the
implied damping may be ignored for random waves.
In 1981 Starvos [4] used random wave and mode superposition method
in the analysis when the offshore platform is subjected to extreme waves. In the
first stage the relative velocities were taken into account between the fluid and
the structure to account for fluid-structure interaction. In the second stage, the
relative velocities are neglected and the equivalent damping ratio is used to
represent the hydrodynamic damping. It is found that the value of damping ratio
(2.5%, 2.8%) is sufficient to including the neglecting non-linear terms of fluid
structure interaction.
7
In 1981 Heins et al [8] analyzed some types of Dolphins to ship impact.
They developed a FORTRAN (IV) program to idealize the ship dolphin as a
S.D.O.F. system. The dolphin-soil system was represented by elastic spring, the
mass of the system is the ship mass. The cellular caisson, pile cluster, and
separated piles with cap, as well as the failure criteria of soil, pile material are
all including in the analysis. It was concluded that the determination of the
dynamic response of dolphins, pile clusters, or platforms, when subjected to
vessel impact has been achieved by a computer oriented technique. The method
involves computation of equivalent spring constant, representing the dolphins,
clusters, or platforms. Then the response of the system simulated as S.D.O.F.
spring-mass was examined. The actions obtained from this model are then
applied to the three dimensional model at various time intervals. The resulting
response of three-dimensional model including soil-structure interaction gives
the resulting stresses and deformations in the dolphin system.
In 1984 Ragab et al [9] discussed the dynamic behavior of fixed
offshore framed structures by using Wittrick and Williams algorithm to solve
the nonlinear eigen value problem. The three dimensional frame was modeled
into two dimensional and considering the added mass and containing water in
tubular sections in addition to the structural mass and lumped mass.
Approximations are considered with axial and shear deformations and rotary
inertia. The results of the study indicate that the first two frequencies obtained
from the non-linear and linear eigen value solutions are agree close, and the
effect of non-linear eigen value solution is significant for the higher frequencies
which is differ from linear eigen value analysis. Also they concluded that the
effect of axial force on free vibration analysis is most pronounced for slender
members of the frame models in which, the effects of shear deformation and
rotary inertia can be neglected.
In 1988 Madhjit and Sanha [10] used a two dimensional offshore frame
instead of three dimension one. The free and forced vibrations of offshore
8
structures are studied using both consistent and lumped mass approximation for
mass idealization. Two different idealization are used to represent an offshore
platform, these are truss and frame models. The effect shear of deformation and
rotary inertia on natural frequencies were considered and mode shapes of the
system. The dynamic response has been obtained by modal analysis in
conjunction with Newmarks numerical technique. The wave loading were
obtained by using Morison`s equation and linear wave theory to find
hydrodynamic loading. Also they are studying the contribution of each first six
modes in the response of the entire structure. They found that the natural
frequencies for first two modes have agreed very well with truss and frame
model for both consistent and lumped mass approximation. The difference
increase with higher modes and the effect of shear deformation and combined
shear deformation and rotary inertia has marginal effect and that the deck
response of truss is greater than that for frame model.
In 1998 Kareem et al [11] investigated the response of jacket platform
type by using Guassian and non-Guassian random wave loading sea state. The
frequency domain solution is used in the analysis of jacket platform in deep
water. Both linear and non- linear theories are used with Morison`s equation to
find the dynamic wave load effects. It was concluded that linearization of drag
force yield an underestimation desk response in random waves, furthermore, the
desk displacement response in non-linear random waves more that in linear
random waves. Also they found that in addition to the wave profile and drag
force effects a platform (leg-spacing) has an important parameter that influence
the deck motion.

In 2000 Al-Jasim [12] developed a FORTRAN computer program to
find the response of template offshore structures by using Newmarks direct
integration method, time domain solution of mode superposition, and frequency
domain solution. Nodal loads were found by Morison`s equation with airy linear
01
wave theory and fifth order Stokes non-linear theory. Three case studies are
investigated, the hydrodynamic loading effects on a cylinder embedded in fluid
mass, idealized jacket platform type, and Al-Amaya berthing dolphin. The effect
of wave loading on the first two cases, and the impact of ship berthing on the
berthing structure (dolphin) of Al-Amaya berthing dolphin are considered. The
soil-structure interaction is included by using the p-y and t-z curves to represent
the nor-linear behavior of spring, which represent the piles. It was concluded
that the linearized Morison`s equation, gives a high response deflection as a
compared with non- linear form. Also the variation when using Airy`s wave
theory versus Stocks theory are small compared to the computational effort as
in case of linearized Morison`s equation in frequency domain versus direct non
linear time integration analysis, further the fender are very important part of
structure, and its type will influence the capacity of dolphin.
In 2002 Al-Salih [3] used a STAAD III software program to find the
dynamic response of offshore platform by using finite element method including
soil- structure interaction. He used two models to performs the free and forced
vibration for different soil-stiffness, different distribution to soil stiffness
through different soil. These varieties in stiffness are constant, linear, non- linear
distribution. He calculates the dynamic desk response for different distributions
of soils to the wave forces and response for wave and impact loads to Al-Amaya
berthing dolphin. The piles are modeled as a beam- elements supported by
a nodal springs at different stiffness. He found that the dynamic response is very
sensitive to soil-structure interaction, stiffness distribution, and the depth of pile
embeddment. The influence of stiffness values is important for natural
frequency especially for bending and axial mode. Also, it was concluded that the
effect of wave load on the berthing dolphin is greater than the impact load.
In 2002 Raid and Abbas [13] studied the free and forced vibration of
submarine pipelines under the action of wave forces. They studied the response
of two and three-dimensional analysis of pipelines under the action of wave
00
forces during construction. They included the effects of the added mass in free
and forced vibration using both lumped and consistent mass approximation.
They used a modal superposition method, and NASTRAN software program to
check their analysis. They found that the added mass has a considerable effect
on magnitude and shape of time history for two and three-dimensional analysis.
In 2002 Abbas [2] studying free and forced vibration analysis of
submarine pipelines and fixed offshore framed structures subjected to dynamic
wave forces by using the finite element method. Wave forces are obtained by
Morisons equation and Airy linear wave theory. The effect of the surrounding
fluid added mass is studied for free and forced vibrations with both lumped and
consistent mass formulations are used. The natural frequencies and mode shapes
are obtained by Jakobi method and the dynamic responses are carried out by
mode superposition technique. The results of the computer program are checked
against NASTRAN computer program and good results are obtained.
2-3 Soil-Structure Interaction:

In 1973 Rosset et al [14] used a modal analysis to represent dynamic
soil-structure interaction, the structure was represented by discrete masses
connected by springs and dashpots, the soil replaced by two springs and
corresponding dashpots, one set corresponding to swaying and the other to
rocking. A rule for equivalent frictional critical damping by weighted modal
damping is obtained, the damping is considered to be viscous which is
frequency dependent and hysteretic which is frequency independent and
replaced them by equivalent damping which is in viscous nature. Only the
viscous damping type can be used in time domain analysis. They found that
damping associated with swaying is essentially viscous, while the damping
associated with rocking is primarily hysteritic. . To determine the validity of the
suggested rule, several typical cases were analyzed. For each case, three
01
different analysis were performed, one in the frequency domain using the actual
damping matrices C
V
and C
H
, providing what will be refereed to as exact
solution. In the second analysis normal modes were assumed neglecting in effect
the off-diagonal terms of matrices Q
T
C
v
Q and Q
T
C
H
Q viscous and hysteretic
damping terms were kept, however, separate, and the solution was again
obtained in the frequency domain. This solution is referred to as modal
superposition in the frequency domain. In the third analysis a modal solution
obtained by using equivalent damping ratio and considering all the modal
damping to be viscous. This is referred to as modal superposition in the time
domain. The third type of analysis is the one which would be used in practice.
Comparisons of the results for the first and second analysis shows the error
introduced by assuming normal modes. Comparison of the second and third
analysis shows the additional error introduced by replacing hysteretic modal
damping by viscous modal damping. Comparison of the first and third solution
indicates the overall error resulting from use of weighted modal damping.

In 1974 Shalash [15] used interface element to model soil- structure
interaction by a non-linear analysis technique and non-linear iterative method
to represent the stress-strain curves of soil and concrete and non-linear behavior
of interfaces between them by using finite element method. Plane strain or plane
stress problems were solved including buried structure, footings, piles, sheet
piles, retaining walls and embankments. Joint element is used to represent the
interface behavior between soil and structural element. He found that the
Poisson's ratio plays a major role in the analysis and, error will occur when it is
used as a constant, the values of subgrade reaction is not constant in the field but
vary toward the end of the footing. Better result have been obtained when a
non-linear analysis is used by finite element method that consider non-linear
behavior of strain- stress curve with high number of increments.
02
In 1976 Fukashi and John [16] introduced a new three dimensional
stiffness matrix that includes the four moduli of subgrade reaction by deriving a
stiffness depending on shape functions which defines simple bending theory to
obtain the stiffness matrix for pile element by using a direct finite derivation
depending on strain energy stored in the foundation element. They verified their
results for the case of lateral load on a pile with isolated springs modeling and
with an analytic solution. A closer result is obtained by suggested stiffness
matrix with exact solution as compared with isolated spring which gives slower
convergence with exact response depends on number of used elements. Further
more they considered the shape of member in their study to consider different
degrees of freedom by a dimensionless parameter which depends on the shape of
the element and depth of pile embeddment which is compatible with the
ordinary beam element which allows more accurate representation of boundary
conditions.
In 1983 Feng and Cook [17] introduced a modified two parameter
Winkler foundation which is proved to be more accurate than one parameter
(that in present study) and simpler than semi-infinite elastic continuum
foundation model. They used both the cubic shape function and exact method
(for displacements) to derive the stiffness matrix of this two parameter model
and comparison between them are done to verify the validity of the cubic shape
function model. The results of this study indicates that a fine mesh size is
needed to match the results of two parameter models with cubic shape function
for both deflections, rotations, and bending moments, also a very fine element is
needed to get accurate transverse shear forces. Beams can be analyzed by one
parameter Winkler model if the second parameter is small compared to the first
one, but not in the case of high value of the second one (it is close to
I . E . 4
,in
this case and the error will be appreciable).
03
Also in 1983 Van Laethem et al [18] used a combined finite element and
boundary element method to represent soil-structure interaction in two and three
dimensional analysis, the region near the applied load which behaves as non-
linear is modeled as a finite element while the far end is represented by a
boundary element, which is used to model the elastic behavior of far field, the
boundary element method is the fast, and accurate technique to represent such
problems especially for the case of infinite medium. It will be divided into finite
elements around the foundation with the far field will be represented by a
boundary element which coincide with the outer surface of the finite element
mesh. A good result was obtaining as compared with the analytic solution of
circular load that solved by theory of elasticity [19].
In 1985 Musharraf Uz-Zaman et al [20] developed a simple thin layer
element used in a finite element procedure to simulate the various modes of
deformation (four modes) in dynamic soil- structure interaction. They derived
constitutive relations that define the behavior of interface by decomposing it into
its normal and shear components. The soil is modeled as an elastic-plastic (strain
hardening) while structure being elastic linear. Numerical procedure is used to
predict behavior of a model structure tested in the field, and the influence of
interface behavior on displacements, velocities, and accelerations is delineated.
Much verification was used to insure the validity of the model and with other
types of interface element (e.g. [21]). This element proved to be more accurate
and economical.
In 1989 Chen and Krauthammer [22] used the finite element and finite
difference approaches to represent soil- structure interaction with substructuring
for solving seismically induced non-linear soil-structure interaction problems.
The substructuring is achieved by employing a super-degree of freedom instead
of the structure, combined with an explicit finite difference code, and the results
interface conditions are then used as input for analyzing the structure alone with
04
ADINA program. The resulting demonstrate that the combined approach is
efficient and economic, as compared to the pure finite element analysis.
In 1990 Saieel [23] introduced an explicit integral finite element method
for determining load-settlement history of axially loaded skin friction piles in
linear range. The method is based on exact analytical solution of the differential
equation governing the behavior of skin friction piles. A fourth order polynomial
is used to fit the soil resistance distribution along element length. The least
squares method is used to obtain the fit. The governing differential equation is
developed using the concept of subgrade reaction. This differential equation is
solved by the method of Frobenius[24], from which exact shape function and
stiffness matrix is performed, for the pile element. Load-settlement relation
ships were obtained by the incremental iterative method with tangent stiffness.
Comparisons are made with other available data to show the accuracy and
efficiency of this exact stiffness method and its results.

In 1997 Essa and Al-Janabi [25] studied the dynamic behavior of plane
frames partially embedded in Winkler elastic foundation to obtain the dynamic
response of framed structures considering the foundation-structure interaction,
they developed a FORTRAN finite element program to solve the dynamic
equilibrium equation. They considered the frame as a beam element with axial
force supported by elastic foundation of Winkler type having normal and
tangential moduli of subgrade reactions, which is assumed to be constant and
linearly varying with the length of element through the different soil depth
considering also the end bearing effects of the elastic foundation. Two cases are
studied, which is blast loading and lateral sudden force resulting from the impact
of a ship of an offshore platform. Both direct Newmark integration scheme and
modal superposition technique are used to find the effect of soil-structure
interaction on the dynamic response of a structure which is appeared to be
05
sensitive to the foundation model and will decrease the time step required for
stability and accuracy.

In 1999 Abdul-Sattar [26] proposed a finite element program to consider
the dynamic Soil-structure interaction of the underground structures (buried and
tunnel). The (step by step integration) technique is used to solve the dynamic
equilibrium equation, two types of loading are used these are earthquake,
loading and nuclear blast loading, he took in into account the effect of noise in
the solution of F. E., and used a spatial filter to control this noise. He considered
both granular and cohesion soils and used both elastic and plastic (bounding
surface) model to represent the soil whereas concrete was represented by
dynamic elastic model. Linear analysis gives good results as compared with
non-linear solution (by using bounding surface model). The dynamic analysis
may be used as a first approximate estimation but can not give actual behaviour
under dynamic loads.

2-4 Summary:

From the literature that are discussed in this chapter, we can arrive to
some information that is helpful in the dynamic structural analysis of offshore
structures as: -
06
1- Many wave theories in addition with Morisons equation are used to
calculate the wave loads on structural members (as in chapter four), these are
in common Airy linear theory and Stokes non-linear theory.
2- Soil-structure interaction is essential parameter to find the static and
dynamic response of such structures.
3- Both soil-structure interaction and fluid-structure interaction have
a non-linear behaviour, therefore, some simplified approaches are used to
linearize them. The materials are linearised especially for soil since it appears
to be highly non-linear in behaviour.

Chapter three

SoilStructure
Interaction

ChapterThree Soil-Structure Interaction
91
Soil-Structure Interaction
3-1:Introduction:
The response of structure- foundation systems subjected to static or
dynamic loadings is influenced significantly by the behavior of contact junctions
between the structural element and the surrounding soil enclosed them, these
junctions represent the interface between the response of the soil-structure which
transmit the load and the deformations, which is called soil-structure interaction.
There are many types of problems that go into the definition of soil-
structure interaction, such as footing, dams, buried, and retaining structures, etc.
these types of problems are very complicated in some features such that the
non-linear behavior of materials especially for soil. The behavior of the interface
points is also non-linearity, therefore, the non-linear analysis are used to control
these problems. But in some cases a linear solution is acceptable to use which
simplify the calculations and reduce CPU time, which usually occurs in the safe
side.
In offshore structure, dynamic soil-structure interaction is very important
factor that affects the total response of structural system and cannot be
significantly ignored. The flexibility of the structure will be increased when
considering the effect of piles flexibility.

3-2 Dynamic Behaviour of Piles :

When a pile vibrates, its stiffness is modified and damping is generated
through interaction of the pile with the surrounding soil. These phenomena are
very complex and least understood. The variation of stiffness and damping is
strongly dependent on the frequency [27]. In some cases an extra mass has been
added to represent part of the soil [28].
For slender pile, the dynamic stiffness of soil-pile system increased with
frequency, but for rigid pile the stiffness decreases with the frequency. The
damping is increased with decreasing frequency and increased with pile length
02
in most cases. Pile stiffness at low frequencies does not differ much from static
stiffness [29].
For regular piles with slenderness ratio (H/R) larger than (25), the
stiffness can be considered independent of the slenderness ratio, frequency, and
of the pile tip conditions [27]. Internal dissipation of energy in the soil can be
represented by hysteretic (frequency independent) damping through use of
complex moduli E
s
(1+2i) and G
s
(1+2i) where is the desired damping ratio
[27]. Generally, the damping of the soil spring (especially for the sway
condition) is larger than the damping in the structure, moreover the damping in
some parts of the system is viscous in nature, while in other parts the damping is
more nearly hystestic.
The viscous damping can be represented by a dashpot with a resistance
proportional to the velocity. The physical characteristics of viscous damping is
the viscosity coefficient or dashpot constant c. The fraction of critical damping
) M . k 2 /( c for 1-D.O.F. system depends not only on the dashpot constant but
also of the mass, M, and the spring constant k. Thus the same dashpot would
produce different values of for two systems with different masses but the same
stiffness. Hysteretic damping can be observed in most engineering materials
including soil, which exhibit a hysteritic stress-strain diagrams when strained
cyclically. In each cycle, energy is dissipated. This energy is a function of
amplitude but experiments show that it is to a large extends independent on
frequency. In reference [14, 29], it is found that this damping is most suitably
modeled.
3-3 Modeling of Soil-Pile System: -
Most of jacket platforms which is made usually by a steel structural
sections that supported by a number of piles or pile groups which transmit the
environmental loads to soil strata. In the analysis of offshore platform the piles
have an important influence on the behavior and response of these structures to
static or dynamic loading [3, 32].
09
Many modeling techniques have been discussed in literature, multi
physical models were defined [30] to represent the response of beams or piles
embedded in a soil medium, these models are used in offshore structures to
represent soil-structure interaction, some of these models are: -

1-Nonlinear soil springs by p-y and t-z curve method [12, 31].
2-Nonlinear soil spring considering the strata dependent shear modulus [23, 32].
3-Linear springs with elastic deformation [3, 31, 32].
4-Three dimensional analysis of the pile- embedded in soil medium [1, 15, 20].
Piles are structural members, which can be taken as a beam, or column
according to the loading conditions. When a pile supports a large loading axial,
bending, shear and torsion, for each of the loading cases, the pile will undergo
the loads and transmitted them in a some manner to soil enclosed. By
considering the pile as a beam on elastic foundation, this foundation is modeled
by an infinite number of springs, which represents the soil resistance to pile
loading [30].

3-4 Winkler Model:
This foundation model has been used for a century [17]. It assumes that
the foundation applies a reaction (from soil medium) normal to the beam, which
is directly proportional to the deflection under the beam that is:

q=k
n
.y(x).(3-1)
where:
y (x): deflection(m).
x : Length of beam /or pile(m).
k
n
: Winkler foundation modulus (N/ m
2
/ m).

This model is a simple model to represent soil-foundation interaction.
00
To improve the Winkler model, some authors assumed interactions
between the springs and added a second parameter to represent the interaction
between them and this will be more accurate than the classical Winkler model
[16, 17, 30].
1-Filonenko-Borodich model.
2-Pasternak model.
3-Generalized model.
4-Vlasov model.
These four models are mathematically equivalent, but they differ in
defining the second parameter.
Piles will be considered as a beam on an elastic foundation, this
foundation subjected to shear force, bending moments, axial force and
torsional moments which is resisted by pile material and soil surrounding
to the pile which will reduce the effect of these forces on pile material.
One parameter beam on an elastic foundation with a constant modulus of
subgrade reaction (for clay) or linearly varying modulus (for sand) can
model this contribution. An exact stiffness matrix for three-dimensional
beam on elastic foundation Fig. (3-1). which is simple to model and
accurate in results[17]. The beam may be embedded in the elastic medium
as in the case of pile and, in addition, the pile may offer resistance to
shear and torsion as well as normal reaction. The properties of the
foundation are described by three reaction moduli are defined
subsequently here in [16].
3-4-1:Normal Reaction Modulus:

If the distributed load acts normally on part of elastic half space
and a unit displacement occurs in the direction of loading, the normal
reaction modulus K
n
of the material is defined as the force per unit area,
which causes unit displacement. Referring to Fig. (3-2-a) a rigid plate area
(A
p
) is placed on the elastic material and a normal load P is applied. Fig.
02
(3-2-a) and the plate deflection w
p
. The normal reaction modulus k
n
is
then (p/A
p
/w
p
) in Newtons per cubic meter. This modulus can be
evaluated experimentally by plate bearing test or full scale pile test, some
others gives a correlation formulas for the normal modulus [31, 33] of
subgrade reaction, the relation chosen is:-
) 1 (
2

D
Es
k
n
(3-2) D: diameter of pile.
E
s
: Elastic modulus of soil. : Poissons ratio.

This formula (3-2) is used for lateral loads on piles, where as the
stiffness of the normal reaction for end bearing is half of the value in
Eq.(3-2).
3-4-2:Shear Reaction Modulus:
Now if a distributed load acts tangentially on part of an elastic half
space and a unit displacement occurs in the direction of loading the shear
modulus of subgrade reaction of the material is defined as the force per
unit area which cause unit displacement.For example in Fig. (3-2-b). A
rigid plate area(A
s
), as adhere to the elastic material and a concentrated
shear force. V, is applied producing a movement of the plate v. The shear
reaction modulus k
s
, is taken as (V/As/v) in Newtons per cubicmeters, this
modulus can be evaluated as 20% from the normal modulus [33] or taken
as one eighth of the normal one [31] i .e.

) - 8D(1
Es
ks
2
(3-3)
The shear stress that resists the applied axial load on the pile
perimeter from soil material can be represented in the same manner for
the case of normal load, that is:
where:
) ( . x w k
s s
..(3-4)
k
s
: Shear reaction modulus of soil. ,: Poissons ratio.
02

D: Diameter of pile. ,E
s
: Elastic modulus of soil.

3-4-3 Torsion Reaction Modulus:
If a distributed twisting moment acts on part of an elastic material
extending to infinity and unit rotation occurs in the direction of loading
the torsion reaction modulus of the material is defined as the moment per
unit area which causes unit rotation. Referring to. Fig.(3-2-c) if a rigid
cylinder of surface area. A
t
, adheres to the elastic material and a twisting
moment, T, is applied producing a rotation of the cylinder. The torsion
reaction modulus then (T/A
t
/) in Newtons per cubic meter. This torsion
modulus can be found as [31].
R
G . 2
k
s
..(3-5)
G
s
: shear modulus for soil. k
: Torsion reaction modulus.

R: radius of pile.
The shear stress that resists the applied torque on the pile
perimeter from soil material can be represented by:
) x ( . k

..(3-6)

To represent the pile embeddment in a half space which is
subjected to axial, bending, shear and torsion, the use of superposition of
each of above degree of freedom to fully represents of three dimensional
beam element embedded in an elastic half space by using a finite number
of element embedded in soil, each one capable to resist the forces a above.
This representation can be done by solving the governing differential
equations which represents each degree of freedom by considering the
normal modulus which effect on the bending and shear response in the
beam with their interaction for the pile material embedded in a soil, as
02
well as the shear reaction modulus which effect on the response of the
axial resistance of the pile material, and at last the torsion reaction
modulus which increase the resistance of pile material to torsional loads.
This derivation is shown in detail at the appendix for each
bending, axial, and torsion.

Axial

Torque

Moment

Side friction

Lateral Load

Soil
medium

Lateral
(normal)
reaction stress

Shear reaction
stress

Pile tip or end
bearing

Fig. (3-1): Typical pile subjected to multi types of probable loads
and their actual resistance.
Torsional friction
resestance

02

Contact area
(Ap)

P

Contact area
(As)

Contact area (At)

S

(b) Shear reaction
modulus (k
s
)

(a) Normal
reaction modulus
(k
n
)

Elastic
material

T

(c) Torsion
reaction
modulus (k
)

Fig. (3-2): Moduli of Elastic Reaction for Multi
Degree of Freedom.

Chapter four

Modeling
and
Mathematical
Formulation
Chapter Four Modeling and Mathematical Formulations

82
Modeling and Mathematical Formulation
4-1: Finite Element Formulations:
The basic idea in the Finite element method is to find the solution of
a complicated problem by replacing it into a simpler one. Therefore, only
approximate solution can be obtained rather than the exact one, but in our scope
an exact solution can be obtained for each individual element according to
assumptions to simplify the physical phenomena of soil-structure interaction.
In the finite element method, the actual continuum or body of matter
likes solid, liquid, etc. is represented as an assemblage of subdivision called
F.Es. These elements are considered to be interconnected at specified joints
which are called nodes or nodal points. These nodes usually lie on the element
boundaries where adjacent elements are considered to be connected. Since the
actual variation of the field variable (like, displacement, stressetc.) inside the
continuum is not known, it is assumed that the variation of the field variable
inside a finite element can be approximated by simple function [35].
There are three methods used to solve the finite element problems to
give a best solution for the governing differential equation for the physical
problem as: -
1- Direct (physical) methods.
2- Variational methods.
3- Weighted residual methods.
Both ordinary three-dimensional beam element or three-dimensional
beam embedded in a soil will be used with exact formulation for each type of
element to find the exact stiffness for each element as well as consistent, lumped
mass approximation is found for each beam element type.
The essential physical properties for any linearly elastic structural system are
subjected to dynamic loads are its mass, elastic properties (stiffness), its
energy loss mechanism, or damping, and the external sources of excitation

82
or loading. Therefore, for any linear system, the dynamic equilibrium equation
of an offshore structure modeled as a system with a finite number of degrees of
freedom may be written as: -
[M] {u"} + [C] {u'} +[K] {u} = {F (t)}.(4-1).
Then, in order to evaluate the dynamic response of an offshore structure,
the mass [M], damping [C], and stiffness [K] matrices of the entire structure and
the load vector must be determined. This is conveniently made by considering
only a typical finite beam element, which can be generalized for all the elements
of the offshore structure under study.
4-1-2: Element stiffness matrix: -
In the modeling of the platforms, two types of elements are used. The
first type is a simple beam, which is used to model superstructure, while the
second is the beam rested or embedded in an elastic medium, which is used to
represent the piles of the platform.
4-1-3: Stiffness of Three-dimensional Beam Element: -
A three-dimensional model for a beam is shown in Fig. (4-1) with six
degrees of freedom at each node. The nodal displacement of the beam is: -
{q} = [u
i
v
i
w
i

xi

yi

zi
u
j
v
j
w
j

xj

yj

zj
]..(4-2)
where: u
i,
v
i,
w
i,
u
j
v
j,
and w
j
represents translation at x, y, and z directions
at node i,j respectively while
xi,

yi,

zi,

xj,

yj,
and
zj
are rotations about x, y,
and z axes at node i, j respectively.


03

Fig. (4-1): Notations for Nodal Displacements and Rotations
at Space Beam Element (Ref. [35]).

Let the generic displacement at any point within the element be
expressed as the column vector {u
e
}: -
{u
e
} =[ u v w ]
T
(4-3)
Where u, v, w, : Displacements in x, y, z, and torsional rotations
respectively.
These displacements can be expressed in terms of the nodal
displacements by assumed shape functions as follows: -
{u
e
} = [N] {q} (4-4)
In which [N] is the shape function matrix for the beam element and it is
given by [35].

[N]=
(
(
(
(
0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0
0 6 0 5 0 0 0 3 0 2 0 0
6 0 0 0 5 0 3 0 0 0 2 0
0 0 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 1
N N
N N N N
N N N N
N N
(4-5)
where:
v
i

x
j

L

z

y

v
j

u
j

w
j

y
i

Area

z
j

y
j

x

z
i

w
i
x
i

u
i


03
, =1 1 N
3 2
2 3 1 2 N , + , =
2
) 1 ( L 3 N , , =
, = 4 N
3 2
2 3 5 N , , = ) ( L 6 N
2
, , , =
and
L
x
= , where: x: Distance from right end of the pile (m).
, : Normalized Coordinate system.

In the structural analysis, the finite element stiffness is more easily to
be derived by invoking one of the most widely used two approaches, principle of
minimum potential energy and principle of virtual work. Both approaches give
virtually the same results.
The strain-displacement relationships are obtained by differentiation of
the displacements as: -
{}=[d] {u
e
}..(4-6)
where: {}: vector of nodal strains.
[d]: linear operator matrix (strain-displacement transforming matrix).
{u
e
}:vector of nodal deformations.
The linear operation matrix considers the axial, flexural, and torsional
displacements effects separately. By applying the principles of simple bending
theory and the superposition techniques, matrix [d] for the beam element can be
given as [36].

[d]=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
dx
d
r
dx
d
z
dx
d
y
dx
d
. 0 0 0
0 . 0 0
0 0 . 0
0 0 0
2
2
2
2
(4-7)

08
In which x, y, z, and r are the vertical, horizontal and radial distances of
any points on the cross section of the element from its center respectively.
Now, substituting eqns. (4-4) in (4-6) then: -
{ } c =[B] {q}(4-8)
where: [B] =[d] [N].(4-9)
Now, stiffness matrix for space beam element can be obtained by
applying the principle of virtual work [35], then:-
[K
e
]= dV B D B
T
}
] ][ [ ] [ .(4-10)
In which [D], is the property matrix and is given as :-

[D]=
(
(
(
(
G
E
E
E
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
(4-11)
The resulting element stiffness matrix in local coordinates system is
given as: -
[K
e
]=
(
4 3
2 1
k k
k k
.(4-12)
where:

00
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
L
EI 4
0 0 0
L
EI 6
0
0
L
EI 4
0
L
EI 6
0 0
0 0
L
GJ
0 0 0
0
L
EI 6
0
L
EI 12
0 0
L
EI 6
0 0 0
L
EI 12
0
0 0 0 0 0
L
EA
k
z
2
z
y
2
y
2
y
3
y
2
z
3
z
1

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
L
EI 2
0 0 0
L
EI 6
0
0
L
EI 2
0
L
EI 6
0 0
0 0
L
GJ
0 0 0
0
L
EI 6
0
L
EI 12
0 0
L
EI 6
0 0 0
L
EI 12
0
0 0 0 0 0
L
EA
k
z
2
z
y
2
y
2
y
3
y
2
z
3
z
2

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
L
EI 2
0 0 0
L
EI 6
0
0
L
EI 2
0
L
EI 6
0 0
0 0
L
GJ
0 0 0
0
L
EI 6
0
L
EI 12
0 0
L
EI 6
0 0 0
L
EI 12
0
0 0 0 0 0
L
EA
k
z
2
z
y
2
y
2
y
3
y
2
z
3
z
3


03
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
=
L
EI 4
0 0 0
L
EI 6
0
0
L
EI 4
0
L
EI 6
0 0
0 0
L
GJ
0 0 0
0
L
EI 6
0
L
EI 12
0 0
L
EI 6
0 0 0
L
EI 12
0
0 0 0 0 0
L
EA
k
z
2
z
y
2
y
2
y
3
y
2
z
3
z
4

4-1-4 : Element stiffness matrix for a pile: -
Piles are discritized to a number of finite lengths which represents space
beam on elastic foundation including effects of soil-structure interaction. Each
element of length (1m) embedded in soil medium, the element stiffness can be
derived by solving the governing differential equation for each axial, bending,
and torsion problems separately and then using the superposition technique to
collect these stiffnesses to get the overall stiffness matrix for whole element.
This can be done by giving the stiffness matrix for the loading cases lateral,
axial, and torsional loading in two dimensions, and then extends to three
dimensions by the same way that is used in simple bending theory [37]. The
derivation of all loading cases is shown in the appendix, the resulting stiffness
matrix is: -

03
[K
e
]=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

1 5 2 6
1 5 2 6
8 10
5 3 6 4
5 3 6 4
7 9
2 6 1 5
2 6 1 5
10 8
6 4 5 3
6 4 5 3
9 7
T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0
0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0
0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0
0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0
T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0
0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 T
T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0
0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0
0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0
0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0
T 0 0 0 T 0 T 0 0 0 T 0
0 0 0 0 0 T 0 0 0 0 0 T
(4-13)
where: - T
1
=
)) ( sin ) ( (sinh L
)) cos( ) sin( ) sinh( ) (cosh( EI 2
2 2
| |
| | | | |
=
L
EI 4
at | =0.00
T
2
=
)) cos( ) sinh( ) sin( ) (cosh( EI 2
2 2
| |
| | | | |
=
L
EI 2
at | =0.00
T
3
=
)) cosh( ) sinh( ) sin( ) (cos( EI 4
2 2 3
3
| |
| | + | | |
=
3
L
EI 12
at | =0.00
T
4
=
2 2 3
3
| |
| | + | | |
=
3
L
EI 12
at | =0.00
T
5
=
)) cos( ) ( sin ) ( (sinh EI 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
| |
| | + | |
=
2
L
EI 6
at | =0.00
T
6
=
)) sin( ). (sinh( EI 4
2 2 2
2
| |
| | |
=
2
L
EI 6
at | =0.00

T
7
=E.A..coth (.L) T
8
=G.J..coth (. L)
T
9
=- E.A.
) . sinh( L |
|
T
10
=-G.J.
) . sinh( L o
o

where all other Greek symbols are defined in the appendix.


03
4-1-5: Element mass matrix: -
In the finite element analysis for dynamical systems the inertia force is
the most important factor that affects the behavior of the structural system (these
inertia force as shown in eq. (4-1) is the product of nodal masses and
acceleration of the nodal D.O.F.. There are two kinds of mass representation for
the structure, consistent and lumped mass approximation.
In offshore structures, some of members are submerged in sea, these
members displace some fluid masses, this phenomena will increase the inertia
force of the structures as well as it will affect the hydrodynamic damping of the
structural system [38, 7, 12, 39].

4-1-5-1: Consistent mass approximation:

The consistent mass matrix for space beam element in local coordinate
system without added mass is [40]:

[M]=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(

2
2
2 2
2
4
0 4
0 0
140
0 22 0 156
22 0 0 0 156
0 0 0 0 0 140
3 0 0 0 13 0 4
0 3 0 13 0 0 0 4
0 0
70
0 0 0 0 0
140
0 13 0 54 0 0 0 22 0 156
13 0 0 0 54 0 22 0 0 0 156
0 0 0 0 0 70 0 0 0 0 0 140
420
L
L
A
J
L
L
L L L
L L L
A
J
A
J
L L
L L
L
(4-14)

Symmetric

03
3-1-5-2: Lumped mass approximation:
The diagonal lumped mass matrix without added mass is shown below,
the-off diagonal terms is due to the acceleration of any mass point only .The
point mass will be associated with each translation degree of freedom at any
nodal points, whereas the mass associated with any rotational degree of freedom
will be zero because of the assumption that the mass is lumped in points that
have no rotational inertia. [41].
2
L . A .
M

= 1 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 (4-15)

4-1-5-3: Effect of Added Mass Formulation:
The modification on the above matrices is achieved by only adding the
term of added mass which is equal to the volume of the member submerged in
fluid material (water) which is equal to
f
. A
out
where:-
A
out
=
2
.
4
D
t

:
f
Mass density of fluid (Sea water density), D: Outer diameter.

Thus, the mass matrix (lumped or consistent) inclusion of added mass
effect is [12, 13]:
[M
e
] =[. A. +
f
. A
out
(c
m
-1)]. [M]..(4-16)

Where [M] as above for lumped or consistent mass matrix.

4-1-6: Element damping matrix:
Damping is the force, which dissipate energy of any physical system
undergoing motion. The mechanism of this energy transform motion or
dissipatation is quite complex and is not completely understood yet, the damping

02
force is proportional to the magnitude of velocity, this type of damping called
viscous damping [42]:
The element damping matrix can be represented by the Reylaigh
damping formula [42, 43, 44, 45, 46] which may be proportional to the mass
matrix or proportional to stiffness matrix or in general:
[C]=a
1
. [M]+ a
2
. [K] (4-17)
where: a
1
, a
2
are arbitrary proportionality factors.
[M], [K]: are the element mass and stiffness matrix respectively.
2
. a
. 2
a
1 2
1
1
1
e
+
e
= , (4-18-a)
2
. a
. 2
a
2 2
2
1
1
e
+
e
= , .(4-18-b)
1
, : Damping ratio.
2 1
,e e : Fundamental frequency (first two modes) of natural frequency.
4-1-7: Transformation matrix:
In finite element descrtization, there are two coordinate system to locate
the descrtized element, local and global coordinate system, the matrix that
transform the stiffness, mass, and damping from local to global coordinate
system for each element is called transformation matrix.
The stiffness, mass, and damping matrix in the form [42]: -
[K]
g
=[T]
T
[K] [T](4-19-a)
[M]
g
=[T]
T
[M] [T](4-19-b)
[C]
g
=[T]
T
[C] [ T](4-19-c)
where [M]
g
, [C]
g
,[K]
g
are global stiffness ,mass , damping matrix,
[M]

, [C],[K]

are local stiffness ,mass , damping matrix.
[T]: Transformation matrix, which takes the form [35]:

02
[T]=
(
(
(
(
] [ ] 0 [ ] 0 [ ] 0 [
] 0 [ ] [ ] 0 [ ] 0 [
] 0 [ ] 0 [ ] [ ] 0 [
] 0 [ ] 0 [ ] 0 [ ] [
1
1
1
1
T
T
T
T
.(4-20)
where: [T
1
]=
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
+ +
+
+
2 2 2 2
2 2
2 2
2 2
0
. .
y x
X
y x
z
y x
y z
y x
y x
y x
z y x
C C
C
C C
C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C
C C C

C
x
= cos
x
u =
L
x x
1 2

C
y
= cos
y
u =
L
y y
1 2

C
z
= cos
z
u =
L
z z
1 2

L=
2
1 2
2
1 2
2
1 2
) ( ) ( ) ( z z y y x x + +

4-1-8: Element Force Vector:-
For an offshore platform the most important loads are the hydrodynamic
loading and impact loads which are included in this study. These hydrodynamic
forces are governed by sea waves while impacts are usually occurs during
berthing of ships.
To formulate the hydrodynamic load vector F
W
, consider the single,
uniform, cylindrical member (i) between nodes I and J as shown in Fig. (4-3),
these forces are found by the well known Morison the semi empirical formula
(Eq.(4-21)) also it represent the load exerted on a vertical cylinder , which
X
Y
Z
y
z
x
Local coordinate system.
Fig.(4-2) : Local and Global
Coordinate Systems.
Global coordinate system.

33
assumes that the total force on an object in the waves is the sum of drag and
inertia force components. This assumption (introduced by Morison) takes the
drag term as a function of velocity and inertia force as a function of acceleration
[1, 38, 39] so that: -
) u v ( ). u v .( C . D . u . D . ) C ( v . C . D . Fn
n n n n d n m n m
' ' + ' ' ' =
t
2
1
4
1
4
2 2
..(4-21-a)
which can be simplified to: -

) v ( ). v .( C . D . v . C . D . Fn
n n d n m

t
2
1
4
2
+ ' = (4-21-b)

where: F
n
: nodal hydrodynamic force normal to the cylinder.
D: Outer diameter of cylinder. : Sea water density.
C
d
: Drag coefficient.
n
v' : Water particle acceleration.
C
m
: Inertia coefficient. v
n
: Water particle velocity.
n
u' : Structural velocity.
n
u ' ' : Structural acceleration.

s

ds
S
L
D
J
I
.
u
n
(s)
.
u(s)
Y
X
Z
GLOBAL
COORDINATES
Fig. (4-3): - Water Particle Velocities Along Member i.
MEMBER i

33
Equation (4-21-b) neglect the non-linear terms of drag coefficient [12,
13] while it considers the added mass concept instead of non-linear terms of
inertia force [7], water particle velocity and acceleration can be evaluated by
potential velocity computed from wave theories, absolute value of velocity is
needed to preserve the sign variation force.
Generalizing one dimensional form of Morison's equation to the three
dimensional from of the hydrodynamic force per unit length along the beam
element at location (s) measured from its end to the nearest node given as [1]:
{F(s)}=.
2
D .
4
t
.C
m
. {
n
v' (s)}+
2
.D. C
d
.{
n
v (s)}.{ ) s ( v
n
}..(4-22)
In which the hydrodynamic force per unit length vector is given as:
{F
w
(s)}=
(
(
(
) s ( F
) s ( F
) s ( F
z
y
x
..(4-23)
and the normal water particle velocity and acceleration vectors are given
as:
{V
n
(s)}=[s]{u(s)} and {a
n
(s)}=[s]{a(s)}(4-24)
In which:
[s]=I-
T
S . S =
(
(
(

2
3 3 2 3 1
3 2
2
2 2 1
3 1 2 1
2
1
S 1 S S S S
S S S 1 S S
S S S S S 1
.(4-25)
where: I: is the (3x3) identity matrix, s : is the unit directional vector
along the member and s
1
, s
2
, and s
3
are direction cosines in x, y, and z directions
respectively [1] and:
{V(s)}=
(
(
(
) s ( v
) s ( v
) s ( v
z
y
x
..(4-26-a)

38
{a(s)}=
(
(
(
) s ( a
) s ( a
) s ( a
z
y
x
..(4-26-b)
These velocity and acceleration components are derived in detail in
next section.
Now, to calculate the load vector in global coordinates system, the
element is divided into two parts by using equation (4-22) which distribute the
wave effects on beam element equally to the end nodes as nodal forces,
therefore, the element of hydrodynamic load vector {F
e
} corresponding to the
element nodal displacement vector {q} can be expressed as follows: -
{
e
f }= [F
x1
F
y1
F
z1
0 0 0

F
x2
F
y2
F
z2
0 0 0

]
T.
(4-27)

4-2:Hydrodynamics of Water Waves:
All waves theories obey some form of wave equation in which the
dependent variable depends on physical phenomenon, and the boundary
conditions [3]. In general, the wave equation and the boundary conditions may
be linear or non-linear. There are many theories that describe wave motion, the
non-linear theories including Gerstner and Stokes theories while Airy linear
theory is the common linear wave theory.
Stokes theory assumes that wave motion properties such as velocity
potential () can be represented by a series of small perturbations. The linear
Airy wave theory can be used when the wave height to wave length
50
1
)
L
( s
as
given in Ref. [39].
It is always assumed that the water waves are represented as two
dimensional plane waves, that they propagate over a smooth horizontal bed in
water of constant undisturbed depth (h). It is also assumed that the wave
maintains a permanent form, that there is no underlying current and that the free
surface is uncontaminated. The fluid (water) is taken to be incompressible and

30
inviscid and the flow to be irrotational [38]. Fig. (4-4) indicates the general form
of the xz-plane wave train conforming to these assumptions. Here the wave is
progressive in the positive x direction, and the z-axis measures positive upwards
from the mean water level, the wave height H, the wave length L, wave period
T, and q the elevation of the water above the mean water level.
The surface must satisfy the special linear form of the wave equation of
Laplace solution to obtain the velocity potential () and is subjected to the
above conditions and linearized boundary conditions.

2
2
2
2
Z X c
| c
+
c
| c
=0..(4-28)

To solve Eq. (4-28) some B.Cs. must be satisfied [3, 38, 39] : -
1-At the sea surface.
(a) The velocity of a particle must be tangential to the surface, the kinematics
conditions is:-
Direction of
Propagation
Z
X
L
a
H
a
h
Sea bed
Sea
level
Celerity
Fig. (4-4): Definition of Airy Wave theory.


33

0
z x x t
=
c
| c
c
q c
c
| c
+
c
q c
at z=q ------------ (4-29-1)

(b) The pressure is zero and the energy equation must be satisfied, the dynamic
conditions is:-

( ) t f
z x 2
1
g
t
2 2
=
(
|
.
|
\
|
c
| c
+
|
.
|
\
|
c
| c
+ q +
c
| c
at z=q ------------ (4-29-2)

2- At the sea floor where the vertical velocity is zero, that is:

0
z
=
c
| c
at z=-h ------------ (4-29-3)

The components of water particle velocity can be given as [25]:

x
x
c
| c
= v
------------- (4-30-1-a)

z
z
c
| c
= v
------------- (4-30-1-b)

Whereas, the components of the local particle acceleration, which are only taken
into account in the computation of the hydrodynamic force; given as:

t
a
x
x
c
v c
=

------------ (4-30-2)
t
a
z
z
c
v c
=

The major problem in solving for | arises from the boundary conditions
to be applied at the air-water interface, q(t), which is itself part of the solution

33
sought. Therefore, there are several solutions in common use. These are linear
wave theory in deep water, Stokes higher order wave theories, stream potential
function theory, and Cnodial theories in shallower water [47].
In present study only the linear (Airy) wave theory is considered to
compute the characteristics of water particles and the hydrodynamic forces.

To find velocities and acceleration that are used in Morisons equation,
Laplace equation must be solved by considering the B. Cs. at the sea surface
(t), which is itself-part of the solution sought, therefore, different wave theories
are used as mentioned.
The linear wave theory (Airy theory) is used only to find velocities and
acceleration at different depths, locations, and time.
4-2-1: Airy linear wave theory:
In this theory the essential idea or restriction is that the wave height H
must be much smaller than depth d, that is (H>>, d). The linear wave theory for
two dimensional, free, periodic, waves is developed by linearising the equations
that define the free surface boundary conditions. With these and the bottom B.
Cs., the periodic velocity potential is sought that satisfies the requirements of
irrotational flow. The free surface B. Cs. may now is applied directly at the still
water level [38].
Therefore, the free surface B. Cs. as expressed in Eq. (4-29-1) and
Eq.,(4-29-2) are reduced to:-
0
t z
=
c
q c
c
| c
at z=0 .(4-31-a)
q +
c
| c
. g
t
=0 at z=0.(4-31-b)
By using separation of variables and B. Cs. (Eq. (4-31-a, b)) the velocity
potential ( | ) can be found as [39]: -

33
+ t
= | kx sin( .
) h . k sin(
)] h z ( k cos[
.
T . k
H .
.t ) (4-32)
In which k: wave number (k=
t . 2
), T: wave period,: wave circular frequency
(=
T
. 2 t
), h: depth of water H: wave height.
Now, it is simple to obtain the velocities and accelerations as: -
V
x
=
x c
| c
= ) t . kx cos( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H .
O
+ t
(4-33-a)

V
z
=
z c
| c
= ) t . kx sin( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k sinh[
.
T
H .
O
+ t
.(4-33-b)
a
x
=
t
v
x
c
c
= ) t . kx sin( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H . . 2
x t
2
2 2
O
+ t
=
c c
| c
.(4-34-a)
a
z
=
t
v
z
c
c
= ) t . kx sin( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H . . 2
z t
2
2 2
O
+ t
=
c c
| c
..(4-33-b)
In general, for three-dimensional flow, with arbitrary wave direction ()
with respect to x-axis fig. (4-5), the component of flow in y-direction must be
considered and the expressions for velocity potential and wave velocities and
accelerations become [13].

Fig. (4-5) : Wave Direction Flow in (x-y Plane ) (Horizontal Plane) .

Y
X
Waves dir.

33

)] t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k sin[(
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
kT
H .
O o + o
+ t
= | ..(4-35)

V
x
= o O o + o
+ t
cos ]. t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k cos[( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H .
(4-36-a)
V
y
= o O o + o
+ t
sin )]. t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k cos[( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H . . 2
(4-36-b)
V
z
= )] t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k sin[( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k sinh[
.
T
H .
O o + o
+ t
(4-36-c)
a
x
= o O o + o
+ t
cos )]. t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k sin[( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H .
2
2
(4-37-a)
a
y
= o O o + o
+ t
sin )]. t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k sin[( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H .
2
2
(4-37-b)
a
z
= )] t . ) cos . x sin . y ( k cos[( .
) kh sinh(
)] h z ( k cosh[
.
T
H .
2
2
O o + o
+ t
(4-37-c)

These velocities and accelerations in Eq., (4-36), Eq., (4-37) are used in
Morisons equation to calculate load vectors of hydrodynamic loading by using
linear Airy wave theory after they are transformed from global coordinates for
each member of the offshore platform.

4-3: Fender Impact Forces: -
In addition to the wave forces, offshore platforms are subjected to impact
forces due to ships berthing on the structure called berthing dolphins, these
structures are used to prevent the ship and/or dolphin from damage during
mooring , energy absorption devices are used which is called fenders [3].
During ships berthing, loads will be generated between the ship and the
berthing structure from the moment at which contact is first made until the ship

32
is finally brought to rest. The magnitude of the loads will depend on the berthing
energy (kinematics energy of the ship) and the fendering system. It is always
possible that catastrophic impacts may occur from ships drifting out of the
control [12].
Berthing reactions are a function of the berthing energy and the
deformation characteristics of the fendering system [12].
1- Contact pressure on the ship hull are kept within acceptable limits.
2-Direct contact between hull and berthing structure is presented.
3-The capacity of fender is not exceeded.
For the purpose of analysis and design of berthing structure, it is usually
assumed that the reaction force of fender may only be found for a given
deflection, however, the time of berthing -deflection rate of fendering system is
the controlling factor in evaluating the time- reaction force relation [48].
For the berthing dolphins of Khaur Al-Amaya berth no. 8, Bridgeston
C2000H cell type fenders are used.
The load (reaction force)- time relationships for this type of fender are
plotted by Al-Jasim [12] depending on deflectiontime relationships and the
deflection-reaction force charts which is given in the handbook of Bridgeston
corporation for this type of fender [50] for three cases of berthing velocities
[12].

4- 4: dynamic analysis: -
In offshore structures the applied loads (environmental loads) are
generally have a dynamic nature, to study the behavior of these structures free
vibration and forced vibration must be considered in order to understand the
actual (as possible) behavior and response.

32
4-4-1:Free vibration analysis: -
In a free vibration usually the damping matrix is neglected, force vector,
and support motion, the analysis of the structure in free motion provides the
most important dynamic properties of the structure which are natural frequencies
and the corresponding modal shapes, therefore, Eq., of free vibration are: -
[M] {u }+[K]{u}=0( 4-38)
At first the problem is formulated by the stiffness method for the free
vibration of the undamped system. The equations of motion expressed in matrix
form as in Eq., (4-38) when there is no ambiguity, we will dispense with the
brackets and braces and use capital letters and simply write the matrix eqs. as(4-
38).
If we premultiply the above Eq. (4-38) by M
-1
we obtain the following
terms:
[M]
-1
.[M]=[I] ([I] unit matrix)
[M]
-1
.[K]=[A] ([A] system matrix)
[I]. [ u ]+[A].[u]=0(4-39)
The matrix A is referred to as the system matrix of the dynamic matrix,
since the dynamic properties of the system are defined by this matrix. The
matrix A=M
-1
K is generally not symmetric, by assuming a harmonic motion
x . u = where
2
e = , then Eq., (4-39) becomes:
[A-
i
.I]{u}=0.(4-40)
The characteristic equation of the system is the determinant equated to
zero, or |A-
i
.I|=0 ..( 4-41)
The roots
i
of the chararcerestic equation, are called eigen values, and
natural frequencies of the system are determined from them by the relationship:
i
=
i
2
(4-42)

33
By substituting
i
into the matrix Eq. (4-39), we obtain the corresponding
mode shape u
i
which is called the eigenvector. Thus for an n-degrees of freedom
system, there will be (n) eigenvalues and (n) eigenvectors [44].
ANSYS program used method of subspace iterative method, this method
requires in addition to the Jackobi method, Ritz reduction functions and iterative
procedure as detailed in [1, 49].
4-4-2: Forced Vibration Analysis:
To understand the response of offshore structures subjected to a load

in
dynamic nature, as waves, impact earthquake, etc., forced vibration analysis
will be used to get the response of the platforms to these forces.
There are different methods to solve the equilibrium Eq. (4-1) as
frequency domain solution, mode superposition, direct integration method,
etc.. These are Newmarks implicit, most flexible step-by-step integration
methods in time domain, which is presented by Newmark [1, 43, 49]. This
method is based on the following expressions for the velocity and displacement
at the end of the time interval.

t t t t t t
u t u ) 1 ( t u u
A + A +
o A + o A + = .(4-43)
u
t+t
=u
t
+t
2
t
) t ( u A + ( o
2
1
)
t t
2
t
u ) t ( u
A +
o A + .(4-44)
Where , are selected to produce the desired accuracy and stability. One
of the most widely used methods is the constant average acceleration method
when (=0.5, =0.25) which is a conditionally stable method without numerical
damping.
This method is called an (implicit integration method) since it satisfies
the equilibrium Eq. of motion at time t+t, or:
M
t t t t t t t t
F Ku u C u
A A A A + + + +
= + + (4-45)

33
This Eq. can be solved by iteration; however Eq. (4-43),(4-44),and(4-45)
can be combined into a step by step algorithm which involves the solution of a
set of Eqs. . Each time step is of the form:
K
*
.U

t+t
=F
*
.(4-46)
Since K
*
not a function of time it can be triangularized only once at the
beginning of the calculation. A computer solution time for this type of algorithm
is basically proportional to the number of time steps required.

Chapter Five

Applications,
Results,
and
Discussion
Chapter Five Applications, Results, and Discussion
35
Applications, Results, and Discussion

5-1: Introduction:
The dynamic response of two models of offshore platform, jacket type
platform and Al-Amaya berthing dolphin subjected to the wave forces and
impact loads from ship berthing is discussed. Finite element method is used for
both spatial and temporal coordinate systems considering the effect of soil-
structure interaction.
5-2: Case Study (1): Jacket Platform Type.
In this case study the fixed jacket offshore platform described in [3, 32]
as shown in Fig. (5-1) is adopted, the frame descritized into (178) beam
elements for superstructure, and (240) beam elements embedded in elastic soil
which are used to model the four piles embedded to a depth of (60m) below
mudline in the sea bed that support the platform. For piles, the stiffness, mass,
and damping matrices are derived and evaluated using MATHCAD software.
A FORTRAN program is developed to find the wave forces at each
node in the superstructure that is embedded in the fluid medium. The forces on
each member are calculated and then distributed on the nodes for x, y, and z-
directions.
The deck mass is modeled using lumped the mass in five nodes that
forms the pyramid [32, 3]. This model is the same model that adopted by
Al-Salihy [3] which is takes the Winkler model with isolated springs at nodal
points only to represent the soil resistance which takes into account normal and
tangential modulus of subgrade reaction in three directions for each node. The
dimensions of the platform are shown in the appendix.

35
5-2-1 SoilStructure Interaction:
As mentioned previously, the new stiffness matrix to represent the
interaction between the piles and soil is used. The soil is assumed as clay soil
with constant modulus of subgrade reaction taking the modulus of elasticity as
(45 MPa), and Poissons ratio as (0.3). The stiffness coefficients are calculated
using MATHCAD software from exact stiffness matrix. The mass and damping
coefficients are used as input in the ANSYS program to investigate the free and
forced vibration analysis.
5.2.2. Free Vibration Analysis:
Free vibration analysis is carried out taking into account the length of
pile embeddment in the soil, and end condition of the pile, which is spring,
hinged, and fixed, modeling of inertia forces (consistent and lumped mass
approximation), and the effect of added mass.
Table (5-1) compares the fundamental four modes of natural frequencies
of present work for spring pile tip with different mass types with that reported
by Al-Salihy [3]. Al-Salihy used isolated springs to represent the soil-structure
interaction. The tabulated data shows that the results obtained by the present
work are higher than that given by Al-Salihy for sway, bending, and axial modes
due to stiffer model adopted in present study. But the values of natural
frequencies are close in torsion mode. This is because the pile legs of the
structure prevents the superstructure from rotation and no effect of the torsional
stiffness of piles at different length of piles on the torsional stiffness of the entire
structure.
The mode shapes of free vibration for fundamental sway, torsion,
bending, and axial modes are shown in Fig. (5-2).

33

Mode
Present Work
Al-Salihy
Ref.(3)
Consistent
Added
Consistent
Lumped
Added
Lumped
Sway 0.37653 0.36676 0.37661 0.36667 0.207
Torsion 0.72951 0.70892 0.72783 0.70892 0.725
Bending 1.5164 1.4316 1.5149 1.4316 1.845
Axial 1.5311 1.4806 1.5349 1.4803 0.940

Fig. (5-3) shows the variation of sway mode frequency with pile
embeddment length (ranged between 8-80 m) for different pile tip support and
considering multi types of mass representations. These figures indicates that the
natural frequency increases with increasing the pile embeddment length when
the pile tip is modeled as a spring. But it decreases when the pile tip is fixed or
hinged for different mass approximations. It is shown that there is a limiting
value for the pile embeddment length after which there is no change in the value
of the natural frequency for different pile tip condition and mass representation.
The increase of the pile length will increase the flexibility of the entire structure
in case of fixed and hinged support. In addition the results of hinge support case
are close to the fixed support case for all mass representations and at all lengths
of piles. Moreover, the rates of change of frequency w. r. t. the pile length for
spring pile tip is greater than that for hinge or fixed support. It is also shown that
the natural frequency for sway mode be the same for different types of mass
approximations. The inclusion of added mass will decrease the natural
frequency due to increasing of the total mass by (2.6%) for consistent mass
approximation and (2.63%) for lumped mass approximation in the fundamental
sway mode and so on.
Table (5-1): Natural Frequencies for Basic Modes of Vibration for
Different Models.
35
Fig. (5-4) shows the variation of natural frequency for torsional mode
with pile length. It is shown that the natural frequency does not vary with the
pile embeddment length when the embeddment pile length is greater than (20m)
for different pile end conditions and for all cases of mass representations. When
the length is less than (20m), the frequency decreases with pile length in the case
of fixed support and increases in the case of spring and hinged supports. This is
because that the short pile gives more rigidity to the entire structure in the case
of fixed support. But in the case of spring or hinge supports, the rigidity of
structure is less for the same soil stiffness, therefore, the natural frequency
decreases when the pile length increases.
For the bending mode, Fig. (5-5) shows that the embeddment pile length
beyond which the variation in natural frequency can be neglected is (20 m)
when the fluid added mass is neglected and (30 m) when the fluid added mass is
considered. In fixed pile tip, the frequency decreases when the pile embeddment
length increases. For both spring and hinge pile tip conditions, the increasing of
the pile embeddment cause an increase in the frequency.
Fig. (5-6) shows the variation of axial mode frequency with pile
embeddment pile length. The curves shows a similar behavior for the variation
of natural frequency with pile embeddment with that of sway mode. The
increasing of pile embeddment length cause increasing in the value of natural
frequency for the case of spring pile tip for different mass representations. While
for other end conditions, the value of natural frequency decreases when the pile
embeddment length increases. The variation in the value of natural frequency is
diminished when the pile embeddment length is greater than (60m) for all cases
of pile end conditions.
5-2-3. Forced Vibration Analysis:
Many parameters were studied in the forced vibration analysis of
offshore jacket platform with soilstructure interaction subjected to wave
loading only. These are the mass representation, added mass effects,
35
embeddment pile length, pile tip conditions, direction of wave propagation w.r.t.
the structure, and wave length to legs spacing ratio.
To study the action of wave forces on the dynamic behavior of the
offshore platform model shown in Fig. (5-1), the following wave parameters
have been considered [3]:
Wave height = 21 m
Wave period = 12 sec
Wave length = 225 m
Water depth = 115 m
Water density = 1025 kg/m
3
The assumed value of the viscous damping ratio is (5%) for all modes of
vibration considering that (2%) as hydrodynamic damping, whereas the
remaining (3%) simulates energy dissipation from sources other than
hydrodynamics which is called structural damping [3,12]. The inertia coefficient
(C
m
) and drag coefficient (C
d
) are taken as (2.0) and (0.8) respectively.
Fig. (5-7) show the force-time curve for node (A) as shown in Fig. (5-1)
due to wave loads in three directions using Morisons equation {Eq.(4-21)}.
Fig. (5-8) and Fig. (5-9) that (for the case of consistent mass
approximation with added water mass, and spring support for pile tip) the
dynamic response for both the bending moment at deck level and axial force in
seabed level (member CD) respectively. It is shown that the two curves have a
similar behavior and both of them reached a steady state condition after one
period of time only (24 sec). Fig. (5-10) shows a comparison of the deck
displacement obtained in the present work with that of isolated springs model
adopted by Al-Salihy [3]. It is shown a significant difference in the value of the
amplitude of vibration between the two models. It is expected model gives less
amplitude than that results from the isolated springs model because of
considering the exact stiffness coefficient for soil-structure interaction.
35
The parameters which are adopted in the forced vibration analysis of
case study (1) are:-
Consistent and Lumped Mass Approximations:
The masses of the structural element (super structure and piling system)
are represented by consistent and lumped mass approximations. For both types
of representations, the effect of displaced mass of sea water are considered for
the members embedded in sea water to represent the volume of fluid displaced
by the submerged members.
It can be shown in Fig. (5-11) that there is no large difference in the
displacement of deck for different mass models. However there is a little
difference when the submerged water mass is added to the structural mass but
this difference is small when compared to maximum dynamic amplitude.
Embedded Pile Length:
Fig. (5-12) shows the variation of the max. amplitude of vibration for the
deck supported by piles with different lengths (5-80 m). It can be seen that there
is a decreasing in the deck displacement with increasing the pile length for
spring support, while, the deck displacement will increase when the pile tip is
fixed. The pile tip effect can be neglected when the depth of pile is greater than
(80 m). In the case of fixed support the increasing of pile length will increase the
flexibility of the structure and hence decrease the natural frequency. This is due
to the increase of the slenderness ratio of the whole structure in the case of the
fixed pile tip. In the case of spring support the increases of pile length will
increase the whole stiffness of the whole structure and hence decrease the deck
displacement.
Modeling of Boundary Conditions at Pile Tip:
Fig. (5-13) shows the Max. deck displacement for different types of pile
tip conditions. Three types of pile end conditions are considered, these are
35
spring, hinge, and fixed support for normal length of piles (60m). The mass is
modeled using consistent mass model including the added fluid mass. It is
shown for this length that there is no large difference in the time history curves
and the value of amplitude of deck with different end conditions. Fig. (5-14)
shows the deflected shape of the pile. It is shown that the lateral deformation of
the pile is diminished after one third of the pile length. The end condition of the
pile does not effected the lateral deflection of the pile for this length of pile (60
m).
Direction of Wave Propagation:
At offshore structures the random wind directions will cause wave loads
act at different directions on the structure. The three dimensional wave theories
are quite complex, therefore, for a plane wave propagation the two-
dimensional wave theories are commonly used. In present study an extension for
two dimensional wave theories are used to contain arbitrary wave directions
with respect to the structure direction by using an angle (). Due to symmetry of
the structure, angle () will be ranged between (0-45
o
). For each increment
(7.5
o
) of the angle (), the dynamic analysis is performed for the structure to
show the variation of wave effects with different wave directions.
Fig. (5-15) shows the variation of maximum amplitude of deck at x and
y-directions with the angle (). It shows that the value of deck displacement in
y-direction is very small as compared to deck displacement in x-direction at
(=0). Fig. (5-16) shows the variation of deck rotation with the angle (). The
figure shows that there is no rotation about the x-axis when the value of (=0).
For the same value of the angle () the rotation about the y-axis is maximum.
The torsional rotation (z) of the entire structure concentrated at the top level of
deck are maximum when (=22.5
o
). Fig. (5-17) shows the variation of axial
force at the deck and sea bed with the angle (). Fig. (5-18) shows the variation
of bending moment with the angle (). It is shown that the maximum values of
axial forces are when the angle () is zero, while the maximum value of bending
56
moment are when the angle (=45
o
). This is due to load distribution as a result
to wave inclination.
Ratio of Wave Length to Legs Spacing:
In most actual sea states, waves occur at random nature with multi
values of frequencies and wave lengths. In present work one period and one
wave length is used. Fig. (5-19) shows the wave profile for some patterns of
wave length as a ratio to the spacing between two adjacent platform legs (
S
L
)
which plays a significant role in the dynamic response of the whole structure.
The dynamic analysis for some special patterns of wave length to the legs
spacing ratio (
S
L
=1,4/3,5/6,2,3,4) are performed.
Table (5-2) shows for each ratio of wave length to legs spacing the wave
characteristic of the sea state and the wave height of (5 m) is adopted. The
natural period of platform is about (T=2.7 sec) which is less than the wave
period for all cases. This values are obtained for each (
S
L
) ratio by using the
following equations and using spacing between each two adjacent piles (25m)
(Ref. [39]).
Wave Length (L) = ( S / L )*25 (5-1)
Wave Number (k) = L / 2 (5-2)
Wave Period (T) = ) kd tanh( g /( ) L 2 ( (5-3)
Wave Celerity (C) = T / L (5-4)
Wave Frequency (f) = 2 / ) kd tanh( gk (5-5)

56

Wave
Length to
Legs
Spacing
(L/S)
Wave
Length
(L)(m)
Wave
Number
(k)
Wave
Period
(sec.)
Wave
Celerity(C)
(m/sec.)
Wave
Frequency
(Hz)
1 25 0.251 4.002 6.247 1.57
4/3 33.333 0.188 4.622 7.212 1.359
5/6 41.667 0.151 5.175 8.051 1.214
2 50 0.126 5.688 8.79 1.105
3 75 0.084 7.139 10.505 0.88
4 100 0.063 8.597 11.632 0.731

Fig. (5-20) shows the deck response, for (
S
L
=1). It is shown that the
steady state response is reached after four periods. While for the case of (
S
L
=2),
two periods are sufficient to reach a steady state response as shown in Fig. (5-
21). Fig. (5-22) shows that three periods are necessary to reach the steady state
response for the case of (
S
L
=4). In Fig. (5-23), (
S
L
=
3
4
) six periods are required
to reach a steady state response and various shapes in each time period. This
variety is due to the various conditions of the loading cases where one leg may
be reached the maximum load and the others will have zero load. For the ratio
( 3
S
L
) the amplitude of vibration increases with time until it reaches a steady
state response after nine period as shown in Fig. (5-24). Fig. (5-25) shows that
Table (5-2): Wave Characteristics for Different Wave Length to Legs
Spacing (L/S).
56
when (
3
5
S
L
) the deck response reaches a steady state condition after five
periods. The maximum amplitude for this case will occur at (t=21 sec).
From the previous figures (5-20) to (5-25) it can be seen that for each
case the shape of these figures differ from each other, due to dynamic behavior
of the structural system as well as to the load patterns, see Fig. (5-19).
Fig. (5-26) shows the variation of the maximum amplitude of vibration in
x-direction with (
S
L
), it shows that the range of (1<
S
L
<4) will give minimum
dynamic amplitude is obtained and acts between the values of (
S
L
=3 to 4) and
the maximum amplitude will occur between (
S
L
=3 to 4).
Fig. (5-27) shows the maximum deck displacement in y, and
z-directions. It shows that the variation in z-direction is similar to that in x-axis
{see Fig. (5-26)} but the displacement in ydirection is increased with the
increase of the specified values of (
S
L
). In addition Fig. (5-28) shows the
rotation about x, and y axes. It is shown that the rotation
y
-varies in the same
way for that in the x, and z-translation (u
x
, u
z)
. While the rotation
x
is increased
with increasing )
S
L
( . The value of
x
are very small compared with
y,
this is due
to the small values of deck displacement in y-direction compared to
displacement in x-direction. Fig. (5-29) shows the maximum amplitude of A .F.
at the deck and sea bed and Fig. (5-30) shows the maximum amplitude of B. M.
at the deck and sea bed for the specific change in (
S
L
).

55
5-3: Case Study (2):Al-Amaya Berthing Dolphin:
The second model adopted in this work is the berthing dolphin structure
in berth No. 8 of Khor Al-Amaya oil terminal as shown in Fig. (5-31). Wave
loads and impact loads have been considered, the effect of added mass is
considered for the case of wave loads only.
5-3-1:Soil-Structure Interaction:
As shown in Fig. (5-31), the berthing dolphin is supported by eight steel
piles, which are driven to a depth of (44 m) below the mudline in the soil from
sea bed. There are no data available about the soil properties. Therefore, it will
be assumed that the soil is clayey or sandy soil having a modulus of elasticity
(45 MPa) and Poissons ratio (0.3). The clayey soil has a constant modulus of
subgrade reaction with depth. While the linear distribution is used for sandy soil
beginning from zero at the sea bed level to its maximum value (as calculated
from Eq. (3-2) at pile tip.

5-3-2: Free Vibration Analysis:
The free vibration analysis is performed by considering the soil as a clay
in the first application and sand in the second application including the effect of
added mass by using consistent mass approximation only. Table (5-3) shows the
natural frequencies for different cases adopted in this research and the results of
isolated springs model reported by Al-Salihy [3]. It is clear that the frequencies
obtained by the isolated springs model are less than the frequencies that is
obtained in the present study for different cases. Fig. (5-32) shows respectively,
the sway, torsion, bending, and axial mode shapes of the structure. Fig. (5-33)
shows the effect of embeddment pile length on the natural frequency for the
fundamental sway mode. It shows that for all cases, the frequency increases with
the increase of the pile length for spring support and decreases when the pile tip
is fixed (for end bearing piles). The effect of pile tip on natural frequency can be
55
neglected if the embeddment pile length will be greater than (50m). Fig. (5-34)
shows the variation of torsion mode frequency with pile embeddment length. It
is shown that the effect of pile tip on natural frequency can be neglected when
the length of embeddment is (30m) for sand without added mass. While for the
other cases the embeddment pile length does not affect on the frequency when
the pile embeddment length is more than (40m). For bending mode as shown in
Fig. (5-35) an embeddment length of (50m) is required to neglect the effect of
end condition of the pile tip. For the axial mode Fig. (5-36), the embeddment
pile length required to equalize the natural frequency for spring and fixed
support is greater than (50m). Fig. (5-37) shows the effect of type of soil and
consideration of added mass on the natural frequency for the four major modes
with spring pile tip support. It shows an increase of frequency with the increase
of embeddment pile length for all modes of vibration. It is shown that the soil
type has no effect on the frequency for torsion mode only. But there is a noticed
difference in the values of natural frequencies with soil type for the other modes.
Fig. (5-38) shows that the type of soil has no effect on the natural frequency for
torsion mode in the fixed pile tip, while the added mass reduces the natural
frequency. This is because that the pile legs of the dolphin prevents the
superstructure from rotation and no effect to the torsional stiffness of piles at
different length of piles on the torsional stiffness of the entire structure.

53

Mode
Number
Natural Frequency (Hz)
Present Study
Al-salihy
Clayey
Soil
Sandy
Soil
Clayey
Soil with
Added
Mass
Sandy
Soil with
Added
Mass
1 4.1476 3.9421 3.0356 2.8771 2.816
2
5.5215 5.5363 4.1313 2.9057 3.097
3
8.7067 8.1487 6.9439 4.1378 5.485
4
11.204 11.179 7.0671 6.5372 7.104
5
12.706 11.731 8.8534 8.8797 8.798
6
13.559 12.389 10.782 10.508 9.106
5-3-3 : Forced vibration Analysis :
Two types of loading are considered in the dynamic analysis of the
berthing dolphin, these are wave loads and the berthing impact loads.
Wave Loads:
To find the dynamic response of the dolphin structure to wave loads the
following data are used for the wave characteristics that collected from the
information related to the Arabian Gulf [3]:
Wave height = 11 m Wave period = 13 sec
Wave length = 261 m Water depth = 21.4 m
Water density = 1025 kg/m
3
Inertia coefficient (C
m
) = 1.45

Drag coefficient (C
d
) = 0.35
Other data are detailed in the appendix.
Table (5-3) : Natural Frequencies for Basic Modes of Vibration for
Different Models.

55
Fig. (5-39) shows the time history of fluid and structural velocities at
(Node B). This curve illustrates that the non-linear drag force can be linearized
(by neglecting the structural velocity compared to fluid velocity) without an
immerse error for the first (1 sec) and very little above (1 sec) time of calculated
responses, this error is overrided by the addition of hydrodynamic damping (2%)
to the structural damping.
Fig. (5-40) shows the maximum deck displacement of Al-Amaya
berthing dolphin for the wave loads only. It is shown that the amplitude of
vibration for the case of isolated springs model (adopted by Al-Salihy [3]) is
more than the value resulted in the present work. It is also shown that the
numerical solution in the adopted model is more stable especially in the first
four seconds. Fig. (5-41) shows the max. deck displacement for the assumed
types of soil including added mass effect. The amplitude of deck displacement
for sandy soil is more than that in the clayey soil because of the linear
distribution of subgrade reaction. It is shown at first (2 sec.) the fluctuation due
to free vibration effect. Fig. (5-42) shows the deck response without added mass.
Fig. (5-43) shows the effect of added mass on deck response for clayey
soil. It shows that the added mass cause an increase in the displacement due to
the including of inertia force. For sandy soil, the effect of considering the added
masses does not appear as shown in fig. (5-44).
Fig. (5-45) shows the variation of maximum bending moment at the
level of the deck for clayey and sandy soils with and without considering added
masses. It is shown that the type of soil and the considering of the added masses
do not affect the values of Bending moment. The same behavior is shown in Fig.
(5-46) for the response of axial force at sea bed level. Fig. (5-47) illustrates the
lateral deflected shape of the pile with length for the clayey and sandy soils
including added mass effects. It can be seen that the inclusion of added mass
increases the displacement of piles for both clayey and sandy soils. Also the pile
displacement in the case of sandy soil is more than the displacement in the case
55
of clayey soil. In Fig. (5-48) it is clear that for the clayey soil the axial
deformation is more than the deformations in the case of sandy soil. The axial
deformation for both sandy and clayey soils increased with the increase of the
total mass by considering added mass.
Berthing Impact Loads:
The berthing dolphin was designed to withstand the impact loads that
come from the ship berthing by providing the dolphin C2000H rubber type cell
fender. The fender rubber grade is selected to develop a reaction force on the
structure to 1397.4 kN and 1484.7 kN and to absorb an energy equal to 1397.4
kN.m and 1227.4 kN.m corresponding to a related deflection in the fendering
system equal to 52.5% and 55% respectively [34, 3].
The load-time curve for the three different velocities is shown in
Fig. (5-49) which is plotted by Al-Jasim [12] due to impact loads. Fig. (5-50)
shows the deck response for clayey soil for each case of the three velocities. It
can be seen that the duration time (the time required to reach zero load) increase,
the time history curve will be smoother because the structure at that time reaches
a steady state. This is clear also for sandy soil in Fig. (5-51) which has larger
amplitude than that for clayey soil due to the linear distribution of subgrade
reaction used for sandy soil.
Fig. (5-52) shows a comparison for the maximum deck displacement
resulted from the present work (clayey and sandy soils) with the isolated springs
model adopted by Al-Salihy [3] for velocity (1)(which has a duration time 12
sec and rising time (2.5 sec)). It is clear that the deck displacement for the
clayey soil response is less than the displacement for sandy soil case and both of
them have amplitude for deck displacement less than the isolated springs model.
Figs. (5-53), and (5-54) show the max. deck displacement for velocities (2) and
(3) respectively. They show that the deck displacement for clay soil is less than
the deck displacement for sandy soil as mentioned above.
55
It can be seen from the figures mentioned above that the efficiency of the
fendering system selected to absorb the energy of ship's impact on the dolphin
and that the response of the structure to impact loading is approximately similar
to static response. This is because that the reaction force has a relatively large
rising time (2.5 sec) and that the increase of rising time will decrease the
dynamic effect of the loads.

Applications, Results, And Discussion Chapter Five

96

Fig. (5-1): Geometry and Dimensions of Jacket Platform.
60m
115m
20m
5m

Deck

W.L.

Mud
Line

Node A

Member AB

Member CD
E
Steel
= 200 Gpa

Stees
= 0.3
E
Soil
= 45 Gpa

Soil
= 0.3
Chapter Five Applications, Results, And Discussion
70

Fig. (5-2): Fundamental Mode shapes of Jacket Platform.
Sway Mode

Torsion Mode
71

Axial Mode

Fig. (5-2): Continued.

Bending Mode
Chapter five Applications, Results, and Discussion
27

0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.44
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
(a):Consistent Mass with Added
Mass
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.44
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
(b):Consistent Mass
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.44
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
(c):Lumped Mass with Added
Mass
(D):Lumped Mass
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.24
0.28
0.32
0.36
0.40
0.44
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
Figure (5-3): Variation of Sway Mode Natural Frequency with Pile
Embeddment Length.

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

27

0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.726
0.728
0.730
0.732
0.734
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Fixed
Hinge
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.724
0.726
0.728
0.730
0.732
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Fixed
Hinge
Spring
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.724
0.726
0.728
0.730
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Fixed
Hinge
Spring
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
0.704
0.706
0.708
0.710
0.712
0.714
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Hinge
Spring
Fixed
(a):Consistent Mass with
Added Mass

(b):Consistent Mass

(d):Lumped Mass

Mass

Figure (5-4): Variation of Torsion Mode Natural Frequency with Pile
Embeddment Length.

Fixed
Hinge
Spring

Spring
Fixed
Hinge

Hinge
Spring
Fixed

Fixed
Hinge
Spring

27

0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.51
1.51
1.52
1.52
1.52
1.52
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.41
1.42
1.43
1.44
1.45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Fixed
Spring
Hinge
(a):Consistent Mass with Added
Mass

(b):Consistent Mass

0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.51
1.51
1.51
1.52
1.52
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Fixed
Hinge
Spring
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.41
1.42
1.43
1.44
1.45
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Fixed
Hinge
spring
Mass

(d):Lumped Mass

Figure (5-5): Variation of Bending Mode Natural Frequency with Pile
Embeddment Length.

Fixed
Spring
Hinge

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Fixed
Hinge
Spring

Fixed
Hinge
Spring

27

0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
(a):Consistent Mass with
Added Mass
(b):Consistent Mass
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Piles (m)
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
(d):Lumped Mass

Mass

Figure (5-6): Variation of Axial Mode Natural Frequency with Pile
Embeddment Length.

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

Spring
Hinge
Fixed

76

0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Time (sec)
-200.0
0.0
200.0
N
o
d
a
l

L
o
a
d
s

(
k
N
)
FX
FY
FZ
Fig. (5-7): Wave Forces at Node (A) for case Study (1).
77

Fig. (5-9): Time Variation for the Maximum Axial Force at the
Level of Sea Bed Due to Wave Forces.

Fig. (5-8) : Time Variation for the Maximum Bending Moment at
the level of Deck due to Wave Forces.

A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
N
)

B
e
n
d
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
N
.
m
)


0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
-0.08
-0.07
-0.06
-0.05
-0.04
-0.03
-0.02
-0.01
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
.
Added Consistent
Added Lumped
Lumped Mass
Consistent Mass
Time (sec.)
Fig.(5-12) : Effect of Pile Embeddment Length on Maximum Deck
Displacement.
Fig. (5-11) : Time Variation of Maximum Deck Displacement for Different
Representations of Masses.
0 20 40 60 80
Length of Pile (m)
50.00
90.00
130.00
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

A
m
p
l
i
t
u
d
e

(
m
m
)
Spring
Fixed
79
80

Fig.(5-13) : Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement for
Different Types of End Support Conditions.
-0.002
-0.0015
-0.001
-0.0005
0
M
a
x
.

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
.
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Embeded Length of Piles (m).
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
Figure (5-14): Lateral Deformation of the Pile for Different End
Conditions.

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time (sec.)
-0.06
-0.02
0.02
0.06
-0.08
-0.04
0.00
0.04
0.08

M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
.
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)

81

0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 45
Angle (Degrees)
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
X-Direction
Y-Direction
0.00E+00
1.00E-04
2.00E-04
3.00E-04
4.00E-04
5.00E-04
6.00E-04
7.00E-04
0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 45 52.5
Angle (Degrees)
D
e
c
k

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n
s

(
R
a
d
.
)
Rotation-X-Dir.
Rotation-Y-Dir.
Rotation-Z-Dir.
190
240
290
340
390
440
490
0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 45 52.5
Angle (Degrees)
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e
t

(
k
N
)
A.F. at Deck.
A.F. at Sea Bed.

Fig. (5-15) : Variation of Max. Deck Displacement with Angle () in

x and y- directions.
.
Fig. (5-16) : Variation of Deck Rotations with Angle () about x,y
and z-directions.
.
Fig. (5-17) : Variation of Axial Force with Angle ().

82

7000
7100
7200
7300
7400
7500
7600
0 7.5 15 22.5 30 37.5 45
Angle (Radians)
B
e
n
d
i
n
g

M
o
m
e
n
t

(
k
N
.
m
)

Fig. (5-18) : Maximum Dynamic Response B.M. at Deck for
Different Values of Load Inclination () (Consistent Mass with
Added Mass Approximation).

(L/S)=1

(L/S)=2

(L/S)=4

(L/S)=4/3

(L/S)=5/3

(L/S)=3

Fig. (5-19): Wave Patterns on each pair of Legs.

(Degrees)
83

Fig. (5-21) : : Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement for
(L/S=2).

(sec.)
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

Fig. (5-20) : Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement for
(L/S=1).

(sec.)
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

84

Fig. (5-22) : : Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement for
(L/S=4).

(sec.)
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

12.0
10.0
8.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0
-2.0
-4.0
-6.0
-8.0

Fig.(5-23) : : Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement
for (L/S=4/3).

(sec.)
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

86

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5
Wave Length to Pile Spasing Ratio (L/S)
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5
Wave Length to Legs Spacing Ratio (L/S)
M
a
x
.
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

x

1
0
^
-
Displacement
in y-Direction
Displacement
in X-direction
0.000000
0.000005
0.000010
0.000015
0.000020
0.000025
0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5
D
e
c
k

R
o
t
a
t
i
o
n

(
r
a
d
.
)
Rot. about x-dir. (rad)
Rot. about y-dir. (rad)
Fig. (5-26) : Effect of the Ratio (L/S) on the Max. Deck Displacement at
X-Direction.

Fig. (5-27): Effect of the Ratio (L/S) on the Max. Deck Displacement at
Y, and Z-Directions.

Fig. (5-28) : Effect of the Ratio (L/S) on the Max. Deck Rotation about X,
and Y-Directions.

M
a
x
.

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

x

1
0
-
3

Rot. about x-axis (rad.)
Rot. about y-axis (rad.)

- y in
87

0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5
M
a
x
.

A
.
F
.

(
k
N
)
Sea Bed
Deck
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.75 1.5 2.25 3 3.75 4.5
M
a
x
.

B
.
M
.

(
k
N
.
m
)
Sea Bed
Deck
Fig. (5-29) : Effect of the Ratio (L/S) on the Max. Axial Force.

Fig. (5-30): Effect of the Ratio (L/S) on the Max. Bending Moment.
88

Fig.(5-31) : Geometry of Al-Amaya Berthing Dolphin.
10.44 10.44

11.714 m

1.274 m

20.88 m

1.274 m

15.944 m 7.62 m

10.44 m 10.44 m
7.62 m

10.87 m

10.87 m

11.714 m

11.714 m

11.714 m

10.44 m 7.62 m
4.57 m
2.13 m
7.31 m

7.62 m
7.62 m

44 m
3.0 7.62 7.62

11.714 m

11.714 m

7.62 m 15.944 m
Direction of Ships
Berthing
11.714 m 11.714 m
Node B
E
Steel
= 200 Gpa

Stees
= 0.3
E
Soil
= 45 Gpa

Soil
= 0.3
89

Fig.(5-32): Fundamental Mode Shapes of Al-Amaya Berthing
Dolphin.

SWAY MODE

TORSION MODE

90

Fig. (5-32): Continued.

AXIAL MODE

BENDING MODE

91

Fig. (5-33): Variation of Fundamental Sway Mode with Pile Length
Embeddment.
10 20 30 40 50 60
Embedded Length of Pile (m)
2.60
2.80
3.00
3.20
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(a):Clay with Added Mass.
Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
3.60
3.80
4.00
4.20
4.40
F
r
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(c): Clay without Added
Mass.
Fixed
(d):Sand without Added
Mass.
10 20 30 40 50 60
3.50
3.70
3.90
4.10
4.30
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
Embedde Length of Pile (m)
2.50
2.70
2.90
3.10
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(b):Sand with Added
Mass.
Fixed

Fixed
spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring
92

Fig.(5-34): Variation of Torsional Mode Frequency with Pile length
Embeddment.
(a):Sand with Added
Mass
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
4.04
4.06
4.08
4.10
4.12
4.14
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
Fixed
(c):Sand without Added
Mass
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
5.36
5.40
5.44
5.48
5.52
5.56
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge Fixed
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
Embedded Length of Pile(m)
5.48
5.50
5.52
5.54
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(d):Clay without Added
Mass
Fixed
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60
4.10
4.11
4.12
4.13
4.14
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(b):Clay with Added Mass
Fixed

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring
93

Fig.(5-35): Variation of Bending Mode Frequency with Pile length
Embeddment.

10 20 30 40 50 60
7.70
7.90
8.10
8.30
8.50
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(d):Sand without Added
Mass
10 20 30 40 50 60
8.10
8.30
8.50
8.70
8.90
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(c):Clay without Added
Mass
Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(a):Clay with Added
Mass
Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Hinge
Spring
(b):Sand with Added Mass
Fixed

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

94

Fig. (5-36): Variation of Axial Mode Frequency with Pile length
Embeddment.

10 20 30 40 50 60
6.60
6.70
6.80
6.90
7.00
7.10
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(a):Clay with Added
Mass
Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
9.20
10.20
11.20
12.20
13.20
14.20
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(d):Sand without Added Mass
Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
10.00
11.00
12.00
13.00
14.00
15.00
16.00
F
r
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Spring
Hinge
(c):Clay without Added
Mass
Fixed
10 20 30 40 50 60
6.20
6.30
6.40
6.50
6.60
6.70
F
r
e
q
u
a
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Hinge
Spring
(b):Sand with Added
Mass
Fixed

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring

Fixed
Spring
95

Fig.(5-37): Natural Frequency of Different Soils With Different Mass
Representation for Multi Types of Modes(Spring Support).

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
2.400
2.800
3.200
3.600
4.000
4.400
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Clay
Add Sand
Clay
Sand
(b):Sway Mode

(a):Torsion Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
4.000
4.400
4.800
5.200
5.600
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Sand
Add Clay
Sand
Clay
(d):Axial Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
6
8
10
12
14
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Clay
Add Sand
Clay
Sand
(c):Bending Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
6.000
7.000
8.000
9.000
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Clay
Add Sand
Clay
Sand

96

Fig.(5-38): Natural Frequency of Different Soils With Different
Mass Representation for Multi Types of Modes(Fixed Support).

(a):Sway
Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
2.800
3.200
3.600
4.000
4.400
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Clay
Sand
Clay
Add Sand
(b):Torsion
Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
4.000
4.400
4.800
5.200
5.600
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Sand
Sand
Clay
Sand
(c):Bending Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
6.500
7.000
7.500
8.000
8.500
9.000
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Clay
Add Sand
Clay
Sand
(d):Axial Mode

15 25 35 45 55
10 20 30 40 50 60
Length of Piles (m)
8
10
12
14
16
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y

(
H
z
)
Add Clay
Add Sand
Clay
Sand
Add Clay
97

Fig. (5-39): Time History Curves for Structural Velocity and Fluid Velocity
at Specified Node Near the Sea Bed. .

1 3 5 7 9 11 13
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
Time (sec)
-6
-2
2
6
-8
-4
0
4
8
V
e
l
o
c
i
t
y

(
m
/
s
e
c
)
Fluid
Structural
3 8 13 18 23
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-0.25
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
0.25
0.30
0.35
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Present Work
Isolated Springs
Fig. (5-40): Time Variation of Deck Displacement for
Different Models of Soil-Structure Interaction.
98

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
Fig.(5-41): Maximum Deck Response of Al-Amaya Berthing Dolphins to
Wave Loads Considering Added Mass.
Wave Loads without Added Mass.

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-0.20
-0.10
0.00
0.10
0.20
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
99

Wave Loads for Sandy Soils.

Wave Loads for Clayey Soils.

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-0.175
-0.125
-0.075
-0.025
0.025
0.075
0.125
0.175
M
a
x
.
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Add Mass
No Add Mass
3 8 13 18 23
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-0.20
-0.15
-0.10
-0.05
0.00
0.05
0.10
0.15
0.20
M
a
x
.

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
No Add Mass
Add Mass
100

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-1.2E+7
-8.0E+6
-4.0E+6
0.0E+0
4.0E+6
8.0E+6
1.2E+7
1.6E+7
2.0E+7
M
a
x
.

B
.
M
.

a
t

D
e
c
k

(
N
.
m
)
Clay
Sand
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-1.2E+7
-8.0E+6
-4.0E+6
0.0E+0
4.0E+6
8.0E+6
1.2E+7
1.6E+7
2.0E+7
M
a
x
.

B
.
M
.

a
t

D
e
c
k

(
N
.
m
)
Clay
Sand
No Added Mass

Added Mass

0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-1.2E+7
-8.0E+6
-4.0E+6
0.0E+0
4.0E+6
8.0E+6
1.2E+7
1.6E+7
2.0E+7
M
a
x
.

B
.
M
.

a
t

D
e
c
k

(
N
.
m
)
Added Mass
No Added Mass
0 5 10 15 20 25
Time (sec)
-1.2E+7
-8.0E+6
-4.0E+6
0.0E+0
4.0E+6
8.0E+6
1.2E+7
1.6E+7
2.0E+7
M
a
x
.

B
.
M
.

a
t

D
e
c
k

(
N
.
m
)
Added Mass
No Added Mass
Clayey Soil

Sandy Soil

Fig. (4-45): Time History for Bending Moments at Deck.

101

Added Mass
No Added Mass
Clayey Soil Sandy Soil
Fig. (5-46): Time History for Axial Force at Sea Bed.
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec)
-4.0E+7
-3.0E+7
-2.0E+7
-1.0E+7
0.0E+0
1.0E+7
2.0E+7
3.0E+7
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Clay
Sand
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec)
-4.0E+7
-3.0E+7
-2.0E+7
-1.0E+7
0.0E+0
1.0E+7
2.0E+7
3.0E+7
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Clay
Sand
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec)
-4.0E+7
-3.0E+7
-2.0E+7
-1.0E+7
0.0E+0
1.0E+7
2.0E+7
3.0E+7
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Added Mass
No Add Mass
0 5 10 15 20 25
time (sec)
-4.0E+7
-3.0E+7
-2.0E+7
-1.0E+7
0.0E+0
1.0E+7
2.0E+7
3.0E+7
A
x
i
a
l

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Added Mass
No Add Mass
102

5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of piles (m)
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
0.009
S
e
a

B
e
d

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
Added Mass
No Added Mass
5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of piles (m)
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.007
S
e
a

B
e
d

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
Clayey Soil
5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of piles (m)
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
S
e
a

B
e
d

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Add Mass
No Add
5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of piles (m)
-0.001
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.007
0.008
S
e
a

B
e
d

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
)
Add Mass
No Add
Sandy Soil
Fig.(5-47):Lateral Deflected Shapes for Piles in X-Direction for Different
Soils.
Added Mass

No Added Mass

Added Mass

No Added Mass

Clay

Sand

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

L
a
t
e
r
a
l

P
i
l
e

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

Clay

Sand

9.0
8.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-1.0
-
1.0
L
a
t
e
r
a
l

P
i
l
e

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

8.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-1.0

L
a
t
e
r
a
l

P
i
l
e

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)
8.0
7.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
-1.0

L
a
t
e
r
a
l

P
i
l
e

D
e
f
l
e
c
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

103

Sandy Soil

5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of Pile (m)
0.000
0.002
0.004
0.006
A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
i
l
e
s

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of Pile (m)
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
i
l
e
s

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
Clayey Soil

5 15 25 35 45
0 10 20 30 40
Length of Pile (m)
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
i
l
e
s

(
m
)
Add Mass
No Add Mass
0 10 20 30 40
Length of Pile (m)
0.000
0.001
0.002
0.003
0.004
0.005
0.006
0.007
A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

P
i
l
e
s

(
m
)
Added Mass
No Add Mass
No Added Mass

Added Mass

Fig.(5-48):Deflected Shapes for Piles at Different Soils Including Added
Mass Effects for Axial Deformation.

Clay

Sand

Clay

Sand

No Added Mass

Added Mass

No Added Mass

Added Mass

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

7.0
6.0
5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0

A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

5.0
4.0
3.0
2.0
1.0
0.0
6.0
4.0
2.0
0.0

A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

A
x
i
a
l

D
e
f
o
r
m
a
t
i
o
n

(
m
m
)

104

2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Time (sec)
-0.006
0.000
0.006
0.012
0.018
0.024
0.030
0.036
0.042
0.048
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Velocity1
Velocity2
Velocity3
Fig.(5-50):Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement from Impact Loads
(Clayey Soils).

2 6 10 14 18 22 26 30 34 38 42 46
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48
Time (sec)
-0.006
0.000
0.006
0.012
0.018
0.024
0.030
0.036
0.042
0.048
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Velocity1
Velocity2
Velocity3
Fig.(5-49):Time-Force Relation to Impact Loads (Three Velocities) Ref.(12).

0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 3
Ti me

( sec)
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
R
e
a
c
t
i
o
n

F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)
Vel ocit y

1
Vel ocit y

2
Vel ocit y

3
(Sandy Soils).
Time (sec)
(s
ec
)
Duration time
Rising time
Velocity (1)
Velocity (2)
Velocity (3)
Velocity (1)
Velocity (2)
Velocity (3)
Velocity (1)
Velocity (2)
Velocity (3)
1400
1200
1000
800
600
400
200
0
48
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
-6
F
o
r
c
e

(
k
N
)

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

48
42
36
30
24
18
12
6
0
-6
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

105

Fig.(5-52):Time Variation of Max. Deck Displacement Due to Impact Loads
(Velocity 1).
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20
Time (sec)
-0.005
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
Isolated Springs
0 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36
Time (sec)
0.000
0.010
0.020
0.030
0.040
D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
(Velocity 2).
(Velocity 3).
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Time (sec)
0.000
0.005
0.010
0.015
0.020
0.025
0.030
0.035
0.040
0.045
0.050
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
)
Clay
Sand
Clay
Sand
Isolated Springs
(Ref. [3])
Present Work
Clay
Sand
Clay
Sand
60
45
40
36
30
26
20
16
6
0
-6
D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

40
30
20
10
0
60
45
40
36
30
26
20
16
6
0

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

D
e
c
k

D
i
s
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t

(
m
m
)

Chapter Six

Conclusions
and
Recommendations

Chapter Six Conclusions and Recommendations

701
Conclusions and Recommendations
6-1: Conclusions:
From the present work some concluding remarks can be drawn as:
1- A new stiffness matrix is used to find the dynamic response of offshore
structures, which is stiffer than isolated spring's model to model the piles.
2- Considering the added mass in the analysis reduce the natural frequency
of the structure and increase the amplitude of vibration in Al-Amaya berthing
dolphin.
3- Consistent and lumped mass approximations give the same results in free
and forced vibration analysis for first ten modes.
4- Boundary conditions and length of piles have an important effect on the
response of deck displacement and then on the entire structure. This effect
will vanish, as the pile length is increased until to a specified length where
the increasing of pile length does not change the response for all types of
restrained in pile tip.
5- For different values of pile lengths, when the pile tip is fixed or hinged the
deck displacement is decreased with increasing pile length, while it
increased when the pile tip is a spring.
6- Wave characteristics which is represented by the ratio of wave length to
legs spacing has important effect on behavior and response of the offshore
structure, the best ratio of (
S
L
) between (1.667 to 2) may be used to obtain
the economic design.
7- Load inclination () with respect to the structure has a significant effect
on forces and deformations in the structure. At (=0) Deck displacement

701
and Axial Force at sea bed are maximum while Bending Moment at the
deck are minimum.
8- No large errors occur if the non-linear drag term in Morison's equation is
linearized by neglecting the structural velocity, it is small in comparison
to fluid velocity.
9- Natural frequency for different values of pile length and boundary
conditions are sensitive for sway and an axial modes, and less effect for
bending and torsion modes.
10- For a deflected shape of a pile the displacement variation and then
bending moment and shear force can be ignored after one third of pile
length from mud line level.
11- The added mass will increase the deck displacement in clay soil and
has no effect on sandy soil.
12- Dynamic analysis for berthing dolphin is not necessary for the ships
impact loads but it will be important for wave loads.
13- The increase of duration time of impact load and rising time will
increase the decay due to damping effect and decrease the fluctuation.


701
6-2: Recommendation:
It is recommended to take into account the following points in the future
studies of this subject: -
1- The evaluation of dynamic response due to combined effect of
hydrodynamic loading with earthquakes or wind effects which is important in
many cases.
2- The use of two parameters elastic foundation to model the pile behavior or
other suggested models to represent the soil-structure interaction.
3- Carrying out the dynamic analysis by random vibration approach as a
motion of the water particles in the ocean has stochastic characteristic and
thus the wave forces can be represented with stochastic process.
4- A comprehensive comparison study between different wave theories to
show the regions of validity of each one and then to select the most
appropriate and simplest one.

References

111
References

1) Zienkiewicz O. C., Lewis R. W., and Stagg K. G., "Numerical
Methods in Offshore Engineering". John Wiley and Sons, 1978.
2) Al-AAnezi A. O. W. "Dynamic Analysis of Submarine Pipelines and
Fixed Offshore Framed Structures under the action of wave forces". M.Sc.
Thesis, Baghdad University, 2002.
3) Al-Salihy S. M. S. "Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Structures by using
Finite Element Method". M. Sc. Thesis, Basrah University, 2002.
4) Stavros A. A., "Dynamic Response of Offshore Platforms to Extreme
Waves Including Fluid-Structure Interaction". Engineering Structures,
Vol. 4, No. 7, 1982.
5) Clough R. W., and Penzien J., "Dynamics of Structures". McGraw-
Hill, Inc., 1975.
6) Wang C. K. "Intermediate structural analysis", McGraw-Hill, New
York, (1983).
7) Fish P. R., Dean R. B., and Heaf N. J., "Fluid-Structure Interaction in
Morisons Equation f Design of Offshore Structures". J. of Engineering
Structures, vol. 2, No. 1, 1980.
8) Heins C. P. and Chiu L. Y. B., "Dynamic analysis of the Dolphins
subjected to Ship impact, Computers and Structures", June 1981.
9) Ragab A. and Chung C. Fu. "Non-linear Free Vibration of Fixed
Offshore Framed Structures". J. of Computer and Structures V.22 No. 6
1985.
10) Madhujit M. and Sinha S. K., "Modeling of Fixed Offshore Tower in
Dynamic Analysis". Journal of the Ocean Engineering, vol. 15, No. 6,
1988.

111
References
11) Kareem A., Hsieh C. C. and Tognarelli M. A., "Frequency Domain
Analysis of Offshore Platform in Non-Gaussian Seas". Journal of
Engineering Mechanics, June 1998.
12) Al-Jasim S. A. J., "Dynamic Analysis of Offshore Template Structures
with Soil-Structure Interaction". Ph.D. Thesis, University of Basrah, 2000.
13) Othman R. A. and Dawood A.O. "Two and Three-Dimensional
Dynamic Analysis of Submarine Pipelines Under the Action of Wave
Forces". Proceedings of the Second Minia International Conference for
advanced Trends in Engineering, 7-9 April 2002, Minia- Egypt.
14) Rosset J. M., Robert V. W. Ricardo D. "Modal Analysis for Structures
with Foundation Interaction". J. of Structural Division V. 99 No. S. T. 3
March 1973 ASCE.
15) Shalash K. T. "Soil-Structure Interaction by the Finite Element
Method". M.Sc. Thesis, Baghdad University, 1974.
16) Fukashi M. and John E. G., "Matrix Analysis of Structural-Foundation
Interaction". Journal of the Structural Division, vol. 102, No. S T 1, 1976.
17) Feng Z. and Cook R. D., "Beam Elements on Two Parameters Elastic
Foundations. Journal of Engineering Mechanics", vol. 109, No. 6, 1983.
18) Lathem V. E., Back .H. Wynendaele H. Swings, and S. Vos, "The Use
of Boundary Elements to Represent the Far Field in Soil-Structure
Interaction", Fourth International Symposium on Offshore Engineering,
Brazil, 1983.
19) Timoshenko s., and Goodier J. N., "Theory of Elasticity", McGraw-
Hill, New York, 1975.
20) Uz-Zaman Md. M and Desai C. S. and Drum E. C. "Interface Model
for Dynamic Soil-Structure Interaction". J. of Geotechnical engineering V.
110 No. 9 September.

111
References
21) Goodman R. E., Taylor R. L. and Brekke T. L. "A model for the
Mechanics of Jointed Rock". J. of Soil Mechanics and Foundation
Division ASCE V.94 No. SM3. May 1968.
22) Chen Y. Krauthmmer T. "A Combined ADINA Finite Difference
Approach with Substructuring for Solving Seismically Induced Non-linear
Soil-Structure Interaction Problems". J. of Computers and Structures V.32
No. .
23) Haitham M. S. "Non-linear Analysis of Axially Loaded Piles". J. of
Engineering and Technology. University of Technology, Baghdad-
Iraq.
24) Wylie C. G., "Advanced Engineering Mathematics". McGraw Hill
Book Company Kogakusha, Ltd. third edition.
25) Essa M. J. K. and Al-Janabi A. S. I., "Dynamic Analysis of Plane
Frames Partially Embedded in Winkler Elastic Foundation".,
Al-MUHANDIS Iraqi Journal J. No. 130, 1997.
26) Abdul-Sattar W. "Dynamic Analysis of Underground Structures by
Finite Element Method". M.Sc. Thesis. Baghdad University 1999.
27) Blaney G. W., Kausel E. and Rosset J. M., "Dynamic stiffness of piles,
Numerical Methods In Geomechanics", International Conference. Vol. III
edited by Desai C. S. 1979.
28) Mauricio A. S., Rosset J. M. and Whitman R. V. "Dynamic Soil-
Structure Interaction". J. of Structural Division, ASCE, V. 98 No. ST7.
July 1972.
29) Novak M. "Vertical Vibration of Floating Piles", J. of Engineering
Mechanics Division ASCE V. 103, No. EM1. February 1977.
30) Kerr A. D. "Elastic and Viscoelastic Foundation Models". J. of
Applied Mechanics ASME September 19, 1963, Paper No. 64-APM-40.

111
References
31) Scott R. F., "Foundation Analysis". Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1981.
32) Carpon F. W., Williams, and Symons M. V. "A parametric study of the
free Vibration of an Offshore Structure with Piled Foundations". J-of
Waterway, Port, Coastal and ocean Engineering.
33) Okeaso B. and Abdel-Sayed G. "Coefficients of Soil Reaction for
Buried flexible Conduits". J. of Geotechnical Engineering ASCE V. 110
No. 7 July 1984.
34) Bridgestone Company, "Features of Fender Series". Copy right at
1998. Bridgestone Corporation.
35) Stasa F. L., "Applied Finite Element Analysis for Engineers". CBS
Publishing, 1985.
36) Weaver W. and Johnston P. R., "Finite Element for Structural
Analysis". Printice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
37) Sack R. L. "Structural Analysis", McGraw-Hill Book Company.
38) Dean R. G. and Dalrymple R. A., "Water Wave Mechanics for
Engineers and Scientists". Printice-Hall, Inc., 1984.
39) McCormick M. E. "Ocean Engineering Wave Mechanics", John Wylie
and Sons, New York 1973.
40) Raw S. S., "The Finite Element method in engineering", Pergamon
Press Copyright 1982.
41) Biggs J. M., "Introduction to Structural Dynamics". McGraw-Hill,
Inc., 1964.
42) Paz M., "Structural Dynamics Theory and Computation". Van
Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1980.
43) ANSYS Software User Manual. Copy right 7 1997.
44) Thompson W. T. "Theory of Vibration With Application", Prentice-
Hall, NewJersey 1988.

111
References
45) Ann K. and Gould P. L. "Soil-Structure Interaction Effects on the
seismic response of cooling tower". J. of Earthquake Engineering and
Structural Dynamics. Vol. 18 (1989).
46) Christian J. T. , Rosset J. M. , and Desai C. S. "Numerical Methods in
Geotechnical Engineering". McGraw Company.
47) Sarpakaya T. and Issacom M., "Mechanics of Wave Forces on
Offshore Structures". John Wiely and Sons, 1981.
48) Queen A. D., "Design and Construction of Ports and Marine
Structures". McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1972.
49) Bathe K. J., and Wilson E. L., "Numerical Methods in Finite Element
Analysis". Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1977.
50) South Oil Company, "Unpublished Report on the Structural Analysis for
Berth No.8 of Khor Al-Amaya Oil Terminal", Basrah.

Appendix(A):
Derivation of Exact Stiffness Method:-
The three-dimensional stiffness matrix depends on the exact method that represents the
problem of shear, torsion, axial and bending and then superimposing each stiffness to form the
whole stiffness matrix in three-dimensional case to include the soil-structure interaction.

A-1: Shear and Axial Resistance:
The bar shown in Fig.(A-1) is cut from full size of pile embedded in the soil, it is assumed
that the resistance of the pile friction and /or cohesion of the pile is proportional to the pile
displacement [23, 31, 25] by modulus of subgrade reaction for shear k
s
:

Fx=0

{-F (x)+F (x)+dF (x)}-K
s
.u (x).P(x). dx=0
0 ) x ( u ). x ( F . k
dx
) x ( dF
s
= .(1)
But F(x)=A.(x)
=E.A.(x)
=E.A.
dx
) x ( du

dx
dF(x)
=E.A.
2
2
dx
) x ( u d
(2)
Subs. Eq. 2 into Eq. 1 we get: -
E.A.
2
2
dx
) x ( u d
-K
S
.P.u(x)=0
A . E
P . k
dx
) x ( u d
s
2
2
u(x)=0
Assume that =
A . E
P . k
s

Then:
2
2
dx
) x ( u d
-
2
.u(x)=0 .(A-3)

u(x)=A.e
.x
+B.e
-.x
(A-4)

*To derive the stiffness coefficients, stiffness concept may be used as:-

k
11
: at x=0 u(0)=1(unit displacement), u(L)=0
k
12
: at x=0 u(L)=1(unit displacement), u(0)=0
k
22
: at x=L u(L)=1(unit displacement), u(0)=0
k
21
: at x=L u(0)=1(unit displacement), u(L)=0

u
o
=A+B and B=u
o
-A

F(x)
k
s
.u(x)
x
F + dF
dx
Fig.(A-1):Pile Subjected to Axial
Force.
L L
L
Be Ae u
| |
+ =

L
o
L
L
e ) A u ( Ae u
| |
+ =

L
o
L L
L
e u ) e e ( A u
| | |
+ =

L
L
L L
L
o L
e
e
*
e e
e u u
A
|
|
| |
|
=

L 2
L
L o
e 1
e u u
A
|
|
= .(c)

L 2
L
L o
L 2
L 2
o o
L 2
L
L o
L
e 1
e u u
e 1
e u u
e 1
e u u
u B
|
|
|
|
|
|
=

L 2
L 2
o
L
L
e 1
e u e u
B
|
| |
=

x
L 2
L 2
o
L
2 x
L 2
L
L o
e
e 1
e u e u
e
e 1
e u u
) x ( u
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
.
|
\
|
+
|
|
.
|
\
|
= .(5)

dx
) x ( du
EA ) x ( F =

( ) ( ) | |
x L 2
o
L
L
x L
L o
L 2
e e u e u e e u u
e 1
EA
) x ( F
| | | | |
|

|
= ..(6)
( ) | |
( ) L coth EA
e e
e e
EA
e . e 1
e 1
EA
) 0 ( F k
L L
L L
x L 2
L 2
11
| | =
(
+
| =
|
= =
| |
| |
| |
|

| |
( ) L sinh
EA
2
e e
EA
e
e
*
e 1
e EA 2
e e
e 1
EA
) 0 ( F k
L L
L
L
L 2
L
L L
L 2
12
|
|
=
|
|
.
|
\
|
|
=

|
=

|
= =
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|

( ) ( ) | |
| |
( )
( )
( )
( )
( ) L coth EA
L sinh
L cosh EA
e e
e e EA
e 1
1 e EA
1 e
e 1
EA
e e e e
e 1
EA
k ) L ( F
L L
L L
L 2
L 2
L
L 2
L L L L
L 2
22
| | =
|
| |
=

+ |
=
+ |
=

|
=

|
= =
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| | | |
|

| |
( )
| |
12
L L
L L L
L L 2 L
L 2
21
k
) L sinh(
EA
e e
e e e
EA
e e e 1
e 1
EA
) L ( F k
=
|
|
=
+
|
=
|
= =
| |
| | |
| | |
|

Then the stiffness Matrix will be:

( )
( )
(
(
(
(
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
=
L coth EA
) L sinh(
EA
) L sinh(
EA
L coth EA
k ..(A-1)
Eq. (A-1) represent the soil-structure interaction effects and the contribution of the pile and
surrounding soil resistance to Axial load on pile, for a simple bar, the stiffness matrix is :

(
(
(
=
L
EA
L
EA
L
EA
L
EA
k ..(A-1-1)
Both of equations (A-1), (A-1-1) are symmetric matrix but they differ in presenting of soil-
structure interaction parameter (). If approaches zero, Eq. (A-1) gives Eq. (A-1-1).
A-2: Torsional resistance:
dx P . k ) x ( dT ) x ( T ) x ( T : 0 M
o
u + =
|
=0

0 dx P . k
dx
) x ( dT
= u
|

We have from strength of material approach:

GJ
) x ( Td
d = u

dx
d
GJ ) x ( T
u
=

2
2
) (
dx
d
GJ
dx
x dT u
= .(4-8)

0 P . k
dx
d
GJ
2
2
= u
u
|
..(4-9)

GJ
P k
|
= o (4-10) where: P =2R
3
,R: radius of Pile.

x x
e B e A ) x (
o o
+ = u ..(4-11)

A-2-1: Applying Boundary Conditions:
Boundary conditions of the problem is that for a finite length of pile L,

at x=0, (0)=
1
, at x=L, (L)=
2

1
= B A +
A B
1
u = ..(A-12-a)
L L
2
e B e A
o o
+ = u

T (x) +dT (x)
u
|
. k
T (x)
dx
x
Fig. (A-2): Torsional Bar in Soil
Media.

L
1
L
2
e ) A ( e A
o o
u + = u
L 2
L
2 1
e 1
e
A
o
o
u u
= ..(A-12-b)
L 2
L 2
1
L
2
e 1
e e
B
o
o o
u u
= ..(A-12-c)
x
L 2
L 2
1
L
2 x
L 2
L
2 1
e )
e 1
e e
( e )
e 1
e
( ) x (
o
o
o o
o
o
o
u u
+
u u
= u ..(13)
] e ) e e ( e ) e [(
e 1
GJ
) x ( T
x L
2
L 2
1
x L
2 1
L 2
o o o o o
o
u u u u
o
= ..(14)
The stiffness matrix can be evaluated in the same manner of the previous section,
therefore:

k=
(
(
(
(
o o
o
o
o
o
o o
) L coth( GJ
) L sinh(
GJ
) L sinh(
GJ
) L coth( GJ
.(A-2)
whereas for a simple bar subjected to torsion effect the stiffness matrix.
k=
(
(
(
L
GJ
L
GJ
L
GJ
L
GJ
..(A-2-1)
If ( o) approaches zero Eq. (A-2) will be the same as Eq. (A-2-1).

A-3: Flextural Resistance:
As shown in Fig. (A-3), the resistance of the soil to the lateral loads on beam
rests on soil may be expressed as (k
n
.y(x) ) where k
n
:is the normal modulus of subgrade reaction
then the equation of equilibrium may be presented in the simple bending theory as :-
dV(x)=e(x) =k
n
.y(x)-q(x)=k
n
.y(x)..(A-3-1)
And V(x)=
dx
) x ( dM
.( A-3-2)
And
EI
) x ( M
dx
y(x) d
2
2
= ..(A-3-3)
where the positive directions as shown in Fig.(A-3) above.
Sub. Eq. (A-3-1) into Eq. (4-3-2).

) x ( y . k
dx
y(x) d
n
2
2
= ..(4-3-4)
And
EI
) x ( y . k
)
dx
M(x) d
(
EI
d
dx
y(x) d
n
2
2
4
4
=

0
EI
) x ( y . k
dx
y(x) d
n
4
4
= + (A-3-5)
This is the D.E. for the flexure problem in the case of one parameter beam on elastic
foundation.
The shear and bending moments become:-

V=
3
3
dx
y d
EI - (A-3-6)

2
2
dx
y d
-EI M = (A-3-7)

The general solution of a free field (homogeneous form of a problem)(Eq.(A-3-5)) will be
in the form of exact solution as.
)] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[sin( C )] x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[sin( C
)] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[cos( C )] x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[cos( C ) x ( y
4 3
2 1
| |
+
| |
+
| |
+
| |
=
( A-3-8)
where:
4
n
I . E . 4
D . k
L = | D: Diameter of Pile (or Width of beam).

)]} x
L
sinh( ). x
L
cos( ) x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[sin( C
)] x
L
cosh( ). x
L
cos( ) x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[sin( C
)] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
sin( ) x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[cos( C
)] x
L
cosh( ). x
L
sin( ) x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[cos( C {
L dx
) x ( dy
4
3
2
1
| |
+
| |
+
| |
+
| |
+
| |
| |
+
| |
| | |
=
. (A-3-9)

)]} x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[cos( C )] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[cos( C
)] x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[sin( C )] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[sin( C {
L
. 2
dx
) x ( dy
4 3
2 1
2
2
2
2
| |
+
| |
+
| |
| |
|
=
( A-3-10)

)]} x
L
cosh( ). x
L
sin( ) x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[cos( C
)] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
sin( ) x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[cos( C
)] x
L
cosh( ). x
L
cos( ) x
L
sinh( ). x
L
[sin( C
)] x
L
sinh( ). x
L
cos( ) x
L
cosh( ). x
L
[sin( C {
L
. 2
dx
) x ( dy
4
3
2
1
3
3
3
3
| |
| |
+
| |
| |
+
| |
+
| |
| |
+
| |
|
=
...(A-3-11)

Now, to find the integration constants in terms of nodal normal displacements and nodal
rotations at each node for a finite length (L) as: -

At x=0 y
0
=y(0)=C
1
and ) C C (
L dx
) 0 ( dy
3 2 0
+
|
= = u
At x=L h s . s . C h c . s C h s . c C h c . c C y(L) y
4 3 2 1 L
+ + + = =
And:
)] h s . c h c . s ( C ) h c . c h s . s ( C ) h s . s h c . c ( C ) h c . s h s . c ( C [
L dx
) L ( dy
4 3 2 1 L
+ + + + +
|
= = u

Or in matrix form: -
L
q(x)
M+dM
V(x)
M(x)
V+dV
K
n
.y(x)
Fig. (A-3): Beam on Elastic
Foundation.

(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
+
|
+
|
|
| |
=
(
(
(
(
u
u
4
3
2
1
L
L
0
0
C
C
C
C
] h s . c h c . s [
L
] h c . c h s . s [
L
] h s . s h c . c [
L
] h c . s h s . c [
L
h s . s h c . s h s . c h c . c
0
L L
0
0 0 0 1
y
y

..(A-3-12)

i.e. {y
i
}=[V]{a
i
}

or {a
i
}=[V]
-1
{y
i
}

where [y
i
] : Is the nodal displacement vector, [V]: The square matrix in Eq. (A-3-12), {a
i
}:
Vector of integration constants.
Now, to find the nodal loads depend on exact function (eq. (A-3-8)) as:-

V (x)=
3
3
) ( d
EI -
dx
x y

= )} sh . c ch . s ( C ) ch . c sh . s ( C ) ch . c sh . s ( C ) sh . c ch . s ( C { )
L
( EI . 2
4 3 2 1
3
+ + + + +
|

and M(x)=
2
2
dx
) x ( y d
EI -
= )} ch . c ( C ) sh . c ( C ) ch . s ( C ) sh . s ( C {
L
EI 2
4 3 2 1
2
2
+
|

At: x=0
) C (C
L
2EI V(0) V
3 2
3
3
0

|
= =

and
4
2
2
0
C
L
EI 2 ) 0 ( M M
|
= =

At: x = L
V
L
= V (L)
)} h s . c h c . s ( C ) h c . c h s . s ( C ) h c . c h s . s ( C ) h s . c h c . s ( C {
L
EI 2
4 3 2 1
3
3
+ + + + +
|
=

M
L
= M (L)
} h c . c C h s . c C h c . s C h s . s C {
L
EI 2
4 3 2 1
2
2
+
|
=

In the matrix form: -
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
(
|
+
|
+
|

|
|
|
=
(
(
(
(
4
3
2
1
2
2
L
L
0
0
C
C
C
C
h c . c h s . c h c . s h s . s
) h s . c h c . s (
L
) h c . c h s . s (
L
) h c . c h s . s (
L
) h s . c h c . s (
L
1 0 0 0
0
L L
0
L
EI 2
M
V
M
V

...(A-3-13)

i.e. {F
i
}=[G]{a
i
}
where: {F
i
}: vector of nodal loads.
[G]: Is the square matrix in Eq. (A-13-3) then:

{F
i
}=[G][V]
-1
{a
i
} ..(A-3-14)

The stiffness coefficients in two dimensional beam on elastic foundation in local
coordinate system may be expressed by taking the nodal displacement vector {a
i
} as unity, then the
stiffness matrix may be expressed as :-
[k]=[G][V]
-1

which is yield [6,17]:

(
(
(
(
=
1 5 2 6
5 3 6 4
2 6 1 5
6 4 5 3
T T T T
T T T T
T T T T
T T T T
k (A-3)

where: T
1
=
)) cos( ) sin( ) sinh( ) (cosh( EI 2
2 2
| |
| | | | |
=
L
EI 4
at | =0.00
T
2
=
2 2
| |
| | | | |
=
L
EI 2
at | =0.00
T
3
=
)) cosh( ) sinh( ) sin( ) (cos( EI 4
2 2 3
3
| |
| | + | | |
=
3
L
EI 12
at | =0.00
T
4
=
2 2 3
3
| |
| | + | | |
=
3
L
EI 12
at | =0.00
T
5
=
)) cos( ) ( sin ) ( (sinh EI 2
2 2 2
2 2 2
| |
| | + | |
=
2
L
EI 6
at | =0.00
T
6
=
)) sin( ). (sinh( EI 4
2 2 2
2
| |
| | |
=
2
L
EI 6
at | =0.00
Finally, to get the three dimensional element stiffness matrix for a pile [Eqs. (A-1), (A-2), (A-3)]
will be superimposed to get the stiffness matrix in 3-D. case as shown in Eq. (4-13).

ANSYS

Drag Force) .)

4141 4002

Full Hussein Algusab Thesis

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Full Hussein Algusab Thesis

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Dynamic Analysis of Offshore

Structures Using Finite Element

Shear stress along pile perimeter.

: Torsion reaction modulus.

Mass density of fluid (Sea water density), D: Outer diameter.

Fig. (5-15) : Variation of Max. Deck Displacement with Angle () in

S-ar putea să vă placă și