Dissertation2009 Trevon

Istituto Universitario
di Studi Superiori
Universit degli Studi

di Pavia
ROSE SCHOOL
ASSESSMENT OF KINEMATIC EFFECTS ON

OFFSHORE PILED FOUNDATIONS
A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Master Degree in
ENGINEERING SEISMOLOGY
by
TREVON JOSEPH
Supervisor: Dr. C.G. Lai
Co-Supervisor: Dr. M. Corigliano
February, 2009
Index
The dissertation entitled Assessment of Kinematic Effects on Offshore Piled Foundations,

by Trevon Joseph, has been approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master
Degree in Engineering Seismology.
Dr. C. Lai _______
___
Dr. M. Corigliano ___
ii
Abstract
ABSTRACT
This document outlines the effects on offshore piles due to kinematic action. The study initiates by
firstly identifying the most advanced methods in the industry of offshore pile design and then
determining if these methods include the consideration of kinematic effects and the effects of its
omission in design. The main engineering document that was determined for offshore design was that
of the American Petroleum Institute code, the API-RP2A (2000). This code though, was found to only
consider the inertial effects of seismic platform foundation design. In another code studied, the
Eurocode, explicit mention is given for the cases of seismic foundation design in that piles are to be
designed for both inertial and kinematic effects. The selected case study was that of the Mango
Platform, situated offshore Trinidad, in the West Indies. Here a comparative analysis was conducted
between the actual pile design method and the effects of the inclusion of kinematic action. The study
has found that it is best to include kinematic effects, and in so doing both the inertial and the kinematic
loads need to be combined. Natural frequencies would thereby play a major role in the determination
of the final loading parameters. It has been found that in general, offshore platforms have a longer
natural period than that of the supporting soil and as such the superposition of the loads will always be
such that the natural period of the ground, Tg < Tb, the natural period of the structure. This being the
case then the superposition of the internal loads will call for the square-root-sum-squares method
(SRSS). Extensive use is made of the KEOPE program that was primarily designed for the study of
piles subjected to kinematic effects and embedded in layered soil. This program makes use of the
beam on a non-linear Winkler foundation (BNWF) approach that uses springs, dashpots and contact
elements and models them in a finite element environment in a seismic free-field ground motion
analysis. It has been determined that if these effects are not considered then the pile is under-designed.
For the platform studied in this thesis, the stresses in the piles increased so that the maximum unity
checks increased from 0.32 to 0.88, a 175% increase in stresses, with the inclusion of the kinematic
loads. It is customary to design piles that will allow initially low values of unity checks so as to add
extra levels of safety to the design and for the longevity of the platform.
Keywords: offshore piles; kinematic action; natural period; SRSS; KEOPE; non-linear; BNWF.
iii
Acknowledgements
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Special thanks to:

-
Dr. Carlo Lai (dissertation supervisor) and Dr. Mirko Corigliano (dissertation cosupervisor) of the European Centre for Training and Research in Earthquake
Engineering (EU Centre), Italy
Carlos Cedeo, Elisa DeFreitas and Riaz Khan of the Atkins Trinidad Ltd., Trinidad
Keith Wilson and Antoinette Seaton-Clarke of British Petroleum of Trinidad and

Tobago (bpTT), Trinidad
Frank Puskar Energo Engineering Ltd., Texas
Bob Gilbert University of Texas, Texas
Tommy Laurendine University of Houston, Texas
Bob Bea University of California, Berkley, California
Robert May WS Atkins Geotechnical, Epson , Surrey
Marshal Pounds, Jacob Chacko, Amalia Giannakou Fugro, Houston, Texas
My Family.
God.
iv
Index
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
ABSTRACT................................................................................................................................... iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ........................................................................................................... iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................ v
LIST OF FIGURES ..................................................................................................................... viii
LIST OF TABLES ....................................................................................................................... xiii
MOTIVATION ............................................................................................................................. xv
1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................. 1
GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES ....................................................... 6

2.1
Platform Types................................................................................................................ 6
2.1.1
Jacket Type Platforms............................................................................................. 6
2.1.2
Tension Leg Platforms ............................................................................................ 8
2.1.3
Gravity Platforms.................................................................................................... 8
2.1.4
Jackups .................................................................................................................... 9
2.1.5
FPSOs .................................................................................................................... 9
2.2
2.2.1
Wind...................................................................................................................... 12
2.2.2
Wave Action ......................................................................................................... 13
2.2.3
Current Loading .................................................................................................... 15
2.3
3
Offshore Design Criteria............................................................................................... 11
Seabed Instability.......................................................................................................... 15
LITERATURE REVIEW OF DESIGN OF OFFSHORE PILED FOUNDATIONS .......... 18

v
Index
3.1
Codes Seismic Design Criteria .................................................................................. 18
3.1.1
API-RP2A ............................................................................................................. 18
3.1.2
Eurocode/ISO........................................................................................................ 22
3.2
Piles............................................................................................................................... 28
3.2.1
Static Pile Analysis ............................................................................................... 28
3.2.2
Dynamic Pile Analysis.......................................................................................... 42
3.2.3
Carbonate Soils ..................................................................................................... 60
3.2.4
Grouted vs. Ungrouted Piles ................................................................................. 60
3.2.5
Comparison of API-RP2A with other Codes for Offshore Pile Design ............... 62
3.3
Engineering Seismology Aspects.................................................................................. 67
3.3.1
Seismic Analysis ................................................................................................... 67
3.3.2
Dynamic Soil Properties ....................................................................................... 74
3.4
Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction (SSPSI)........................................................... 75
3.4.1
BEM ...................................................................................................................... 76
3.4.2
FEM ...................................................................................................................... 76
3.4.3
BNWF ................................................................................................................... 76
3.4.4
Thin layer element method ................................................................................... 81
3.5
Kinematic vs. Inertial Effects ....................................................................................... 85
3.5.1
Kinematic Effects.................................................................................................. 86
3.5.2
Inertial Effects....................................................................................................... 87
3.5.3
Superposition of these Effects .............................................................................. 87
3.5.4
Pile-to-pile Interaction .......................................................................................... 90
CASE STUDY MANGO PLATFORM OFFSHORE TRINIDAD................................... 91

4.1
Platform Loading .......................................................................................................... 93
4.2
Geotechnical Characterization ...................................................................................... 97
4.3
Program Used by Consultant SACS ........................................................................ 107
4.4
Foundation Design ...................................................................................................... 109
4.4.1
Capacity of Piles ................................................................................................. 109
4.4.2
Final Design ........................................................................................................ 110

vi
Index
4.5
Seismic Analysis ......................................................................................................... 111
4.5.1
Seismic Sources .................................................................................................. 111
4.5.2
Strength Level Earthquake.................................................................................. 114
4.5.3
Ductility Level Earthquake ................................................................................. 117
4.6
Comparison Program KEOPE ................................................................................. 120
4.6.1
Outline................................................................................................................. 120
4.6.2
Input .................................................................................................................... 122
4.6.3
Output ................................................................................................................. 134
4.6.4
Results................................................................................................................. 135
4.6.5
Combination of Results....................................................................................... 143
DISCUSSION OF RESULTS............................................................................................. 154
CONCLUSIONS................................................................................................................. 160
REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 162

Appendix..................................................................................................................................... 166
vii
Index
LIST OF FIGURES
Page
Figure 1-1. Map showing the locations worldwide of the locations of oil platforms [Dean,
(2006)].................................................................................................................................1
Figure 1-2. Map showing the locations of high seismicity worldwide,......................................2
Figure 1-3. Example Jacket Structures .......................................................................................3
Figure 2-1. Schematic of a jacket type platform with skirt piles being hammered into place
[Dean, (2006)].....................................................................................................................7
Figure 2-2. Topside module being placed on installed jacket [www.offshoreman.com]. ..........7
Figure 2-3 Typical examples of a Gravity-Type platform [Ehlers, (1982)]. ..............................8
Figure 2-4. Jackup platform in different stages of operation [McClelland et al, (1982)]...........9
Figure 2-5. FPSO type of offshore installation. [Dean, (2006)]. ..............................................10
Figure 2-6. Examples of designs for deeper water structures [Dean, (2006)]. .........................10
Figure 2-7. Loads on offshore platform foundations [Dean, (2008)]. ......................................11
Figure 2-8. Effect of wave loading and layered soil movement on ..........................................16
Figure 2-9. Effect of wave loading and layered soil movement on pile ...................................17
Figure 3-1. Standardized seismic acceleration spectrum for 5% damping [API-RP2A]..........21
Figure 3-2. Standardized seismic acceleration spectrum for 5% damping [ISO 19901-2] ......24
Figure 3-3. Defined attenuation curves from site specific study ..............................................24
Figure 3-4. Mean uniform hazard spectral accelerations [ISO 19901-2]. ................................25
Figure 3-5. Uniform Hazard Spectrum [ISO 19901-2].............................................................25
Figure 3-6. Derivation of the slope aR of the seismic hazard curve for T=Tdom [ISO 19901-2].
...........................................................................................................................................26
viii
Index
Figure 3-7. Derivation of spectral accelerations and probabilities for ALE and ELE [ISO
19901-2]............................................................................................................................27
Figure 3-8. Schematic of a Laterally Loaded Pile Response, [Randolph et al, (2005)]. ..........33
Figure 3-9. Schematic of a Laterally Loaded Pile Response, [Randolph et al, (2005)]. ..........34
Figure 3-10. Damage to pile by ground displacement, [Niigata, (1964)].................................35
Figure 3-11. Bridge with failed approaches but with ...............................................................35
Figure 3-12. Distortion of pile by foundation by lateral soil displacement, [Finn & Thavaraj,
2001]. ................................................................................................................................36
Figure 3-13. Pilesoil relative displacements in fully liquefiable soil [MCEER/ATC, (2003)]
...........................................................................................................................................37
Figure 3-14. Pilesoil displacements with non-liquefiable crust [after MCEER/ATC (2003)].
...........................................................................................................................................37
Figure 3-15. Maximum moments along the pile; pile head free to rotate [Finn (1999)]..........37
Figure 3-16. Displacements of pile and free field in liquefiable soil, [Finn (1999)]................38
Figure 3-17. Displacements of pile and free field with non-liquefiable soil above liquefiable
layer, [Finn (1999)]...........................................................................................................38
Figure 3-18. Bending-Moments of pile and free field in liquefiable soil, [Finn (1999)]. ........39
Figure 3-19. Bending-Moments of pile and free field with non-liquefiable soil above
liquefiable layer, [Finn (1999)].........................................................................................39
Figure 3-20. External area used in the calculation of skin-friction...........................................42
Figure 3-21. Recommended t-z curves, notice that the peak shear stress for clay ...................43
Figure 3-22. Recommended q-z curve, notice that the peak shear stress for clay, [API-RP2A].
...........................................................................................................................................44
Figure 3-23. The p-y curves for (a) soft clays (b) stiff clays (c) sand layers, [El Naggar et al.
(2005)]...............................................................................................................................46
Figure 3-24. Schematic of Dynamic p-y Analysis Model [Boulanger et al. 1999] ..................47
Figure 3-25. How piles are to be analyzed, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)]. ...........................48
Figure 3-26. Determination of stiffness from a generated static p-y curve to result ................50
Figure 3-27. Trend of decreasing stiffness with increased displacement, [El Naggar &
Bentley, (2000)]. ...............................................................................................................53
Figure 3-28. Comparison between [a] Analytical model and the use of static p-y data ...........53
Figure 3-29. p-y curves for single and a pile in a group. ..........................................................54
Figure 3-30. t-z curves for single and a pile in a group. ...........................................................54
ix
Index
Figure 3-31. Dynamic Winkler computational .........................................................................55

Figure 3-32. The load-displacement curves for a 12-pile group, Mostafa and Naggar [2002].57
Figure 3-33. Quasi-3D model of soil-pile response, [Finn 1999].............................................59
Figure 3-34. Positions of connection types for grouted and ungrouted scenarios [adapted from
Honarvar et al, (2005)]......................................................................................................60
Figure 3-35. Frame strength and stiffness degradation in working load cycles [Honarvar et al,
(2008)]...............................................................................................................................62
Figure 3-36. Bending-Moments of pile and free field with non-liquefiable soil above
liquefiable layer, [Lehane et al. (2005a)]..........................................................................65
Figure 3-37. Simplified model of transmission of earthquake hypocenter to an offshore
platform [Dean, (2007)]. ...................................................................................................67
Figure 3-38. Probability Curve displaying effect on PS V for a 0.4sec period, [Crouse (1992)].
...........................................................................................................................................70
Figure 3-39. Probability Curve displaying effect on PSV for a 4.0sec period, [Crouse (1992)].
...........................................................................................................................................71
Figure 3-40. PSHA primary results, [Crouse (1992)]...............................................................72
Figure 3-41. PSHA final result, [Crouse (1992)]......................................................................72
Figure 3-42. Computed 1971 Holiday Inn Platform ..............................................................73
Figure 3-43. Typical cyclic response for a ductile soil, [Dean, (2008)]. ..................................75
Figure 3-44. Typical variations of shear modulus ratio G/Gmax and damping..........................75
Figure 3-45. Schematic of the beam on a non-linear Winkler foundation model for ...............77
Figure 3-46. Stress-Strain model used by Iwan [1976] and Mroz [1967]. ...............................80
Figure 3-47. Displacement response of a vertical wall in submerged soil, [Nogami & Kazama
(2001)]...............................................................................................................................82
Figure 3-48. The effect of water level on amplitude and frequency on a soil column, [Nogami
& Kazama (2001)]. ...........................................................................................................82
Figure 3-49. The effect of fluid on the Love-waves in a soil column [Nogami and Kazama,
(2001)]...............................................................................................................................83
Figure 3-50. Components of inertial and kinematic effects, [Ceci et Forcolin, (2007)]...........86
Figure 3-51. Combination of inertial and kinematic effects .....................................................89
Figure 3-52. Schematic of the pile-to-pile interaction between piles and the wave interference
through the differing layers from a head loaded active pile to the passive pile [Mylonakis
et al. (1997)]......................................................................................................................90
x
Index
Figure 4-1. Model of Mango Platform, [MSL (2007)]. ............................................................93

Figure 4-2. Wave Directions for operating condition and ........................................................96
Figure 4-3. Wave Directions for the Operating retroflecting current condition .......................97
Figure 4-4. Undrained Shear Strength, [MSL (2007)]..............................................................98
Figure 4-5. Unit Weight Profile, [MSL (2007)]. ......................................................................98
Figure 4-6. Undrained Shear Strength, [MSL (2007)]..............................................................99
Figure 4-7. Unit Weight Profile, [MSL (2007)]. ......................................................................99
Figure 4-8. Borehole-Log at the Mango Platform Site, [Capital Signal, (2005)]...................101
Figure 4-9. Terms and Symbols used in the Borehole-Log for the ........................................102
Figure 4-10. Relationship between N-value and S- wave velocity, [Inazaki, (2006)]............104
Figure 4-11. Comparison of the Ohta and Goto (1978) and the Inazaki (2006).....................105
Figure 4-12. Relationship between P-wave and S-wave velocity, [Miller & Stewart, (1991)].
.........................................................................................................................................106
Figure 4-13. The SACS System [EDI, (2007)].......................................................................109
Figure 4-14. Ultimate Pile Capacity for a 48in (1.2m) open pile as per the API-RP2A [MSL,
(2007)].............................................................................................................................110
Figure 4-15. Platform orientation and pile batter, [MSL (2007)]. ..........................................111
Figure 4-16. Present day plate structure of the Caribbean region. Directions and .................112
Figure 4-17. Reference vs. Soil Amplified Uniform Response Spectra for ...........................114
Figure 4-18. Seismic Response Spectra for SLE, [MSL (2007)]. ..........................................115
Figure 4-19. Seismic Response Spectra for DLE, [MSL, (2007)]..........................................118
Figure 4-20. USFOS model of Mango Platform, [MSL (2007)]. ...........................................119
Figure 4-21. Details of beam element, [Ceci & Forcolin (2007)]. .........................................121
Figure 4-22. Discretized model of pile in foundation, [Ceci & Forcolin (2007)]. .................121
Figure 4-23. Interface element of pile to soil, [Ceci & Forcolin (2007)]. ..............................121
Figure 4-24. Horizontal and Vertical Response Spectrum for the Strength Level Earthquake
.........................................................................................................................................122
Figure 4-25 Dataset 1..............................................................................................................123
Figure 4-26. Dataset 2.............................................................................................................123
Figure 4-27. Dataset 3.............................................................................................................123
Figure 4-28. Dataset 4.............................................................................................................123
Figure 4-29. Dataset 5.............................................................................................................124
Figure 4-30. Dataset 6.............................................................................................................124
xi
Index
Figure 4-31. Dataset 7.............................................................................................................124

Figure 4-32. Seismic input parameters window of the KEOPE Program...............................125
Figure 4-33. Site characterization input into KEOPE Program..............................................128
Figure 4-34. Shear Modulus and damping ratio for clay, [Ceci et al, (2006)]........................130
Figure 4-35. Shear Modulus and damping ratio for sand, [Ceci et al, (2006)].......................130
Figure 4-36. Shear Modulus and damping ratio for clay, [Ceci et al, (2006)]........................131
Figure 4-37. Pile characterization input into KEOPE Program..............................................134
Figure 4-38. Main Window of the KEOPE Program after running the analysis. ...................135
Figure 4-39. Bending Moment vs. Depth for Inertial Loading...............................................139
Figure 4-40. Shear Force vs. Depth for Inertial Loading........................................................139
Figure 4-41. Axial Force vs. Depth for Inertial Loading........................................................139
Figure 4-42. Determined internal pile forces, bending moment vs. depth .............................142
Figure 4-43. Determined internal pile forces, shear force vs. depth.......................................142
Figure 4-44. Transfer Functions from Linear and Non-Linear Approaches...........................143
Figure 4-45. Combined internal pile forces - bending moment, for the SPA pile group from
the kinematic analysis. ....................................................................................................146
Figure 4-46. Combined internal pile forces shear force, for the SPA pile group from the
kinematic analysis...........................................................................................................146
Figure 4-47. Combined internal pile forces - bending moment, for the SPB pile group from
the kinematic analysis. ....................................................................................................148
Figure 4-48. Combined internal pile forces shear force, for the SPB pile group from the
kinematic analysis...........................................................................................................148
Figure 4-49. Comparison of the new and old bending stresses. .............................................152
Figure 4-50. Comparison of the new and old shear stresses...................................................152
Figure 4-51. Comparison of the new and old axial stresses. ..................................................152
Figure 4-52. Comparison of the new and old combined stresses. ..........................................152
Figure 4-53. Comparison of the new and old bending stresses unity checks. ........................153
Figure 4-54. Comparison of the new and old shear stresses unity checks..............................153
Figure 4-55. Comparison of the new and old axial stresses unity checks. .............................153
Figure 4-56. Comparison of the new and old combined stresses unity checks. .....................153
xii
Index
LIST OF TABLES
Page
Table 3-1 Determination of exposure level [API-RP2A] ........................................................ 20

Table 3-2. Determination of exposure level [ISO 19901-2] .................................................... 22
Table 3-3. Site Seismic Zone [ISO 19901-2]........................................................................... 23
Table 3-4. Seismic Risk Category [ISO 19901-2] ................................................................... 23
Table 3-5. Target annual probability of failure [ISO 19901-2]. .............................................. 25
Table 3-6. Correction Factor, Cc [ISO 19901-2]. .................................................................... 26
Table 3-7. Representative values of seismic reserve capacity, Cr [ISO 19901-2]................... 27
Table 3-8 Pile Design Parameters [ISO 19901-2, (2004)]....................................................... 29
Table 3-9 p-y curves for short-term static load [API-RP2A]................................................... 45
Table 3-10 Dynamic p-y curve parameter constants for a range of soil types......................... 52
Table 4-1. Mango Platform Platform Weights, [MSL (2007)]. ............................................ 92
Table 4-2. Operating conditions, [MSL (2007)]. ..................................................................... 94
Table 4-3. 100-year return period storm condition, [MSL (2007)]. ........................................ 94
Table 4-4. Operating retroflecting current condition, [MSL (2007)]. ..................................... 95
Table 4-5. 100-year return period retroflecting current condition, [MSL (2007)]. ................. 95
Table 4-6. 1000-Year Return Period Storm Condition............................................................ 95
Table 4-7 Mango Platform - Summary Soil Stratigraphy, [MSL (2007)]. .............................. 97
Table 4-8 Calculation Tables for Ohta and Goto method for Shear Wave Velocity of soil.. 103
Table 4-9 Values of Vs and Vp for the Mango Platform Site................................................. 107
Table 4-10. Ultimate Pile Capacity for a 48in (1.2m) open pile as per the API-RP2A [MSL,
(2007)]............................................................................................................................ 110
xiii
Index
Table 4-11. Ordinates of the SLE spectrum, [MSL (2007)]. ................................................. 115
Table 4-12. Load Combination for pile checks during seismic analysis, [MSL, (2007)]...... 116
Table 4-13. Pile unity check ratios, [MSL, (2007)]. .............................................................. 116
Table 4-14. Pile factor of safety, [MSL, (2007)]. .................................................................. 117
Table 4-15. Ordinates of the DLE spectrum, [MSL, (2007)]. ............................................... 117
Table 4-16. Load Factor Results, [MSL (2007)]. .................................................................. 120
Table 4-17. Time-History Responses compatible with the Reference Spectrum. ................. 123
Table 4-18. Input Parameters of Site Characterization for the KEOPE Program.................. 127
Table 4-19. Pile Input Parameters for the KEOPE Program.................................................. 133
Table 4-20. Inertial Pile Forces SPA [MSL Engineering, (2007)] ..................................... 137
Table 4-21. Inertial Pile Forces SPB [MSL Engineering, (2007)] ..................................... 138
Table 4-22. Internal pile forces determined from the KEOPE Program for the seven datasets.
........................................................................................................................................ 141
Table 4-23. Internal pile forces determined from the KEOPE Program for the seven datasets
........................................................................................................................................ 145
........................................................................................................................................ 147
Table 4-25. Original set of maximum pile stresses from the inertial analysis....................... 150
Table 4-26. New set of maximum pile stresses after combination from the kinematic analysis.
........................................................................................................................................ 151
xiv
Motivation
MOTIVATION
As growth and development continue new sources of energy need to be found and the trend for the
last number of years is to look beyond the shores for fossil fuels. Within this new region though
some different and in some cases larger forces arise compared to onshore forces and these must be
designed against. These offshore forces include wave loading, currents, boat impacts, seismic forces
and wind. Under the category of offshore installations are artificial islands, oil platform jackets,
compliant towers, tension leg platforms and floating production vessels, these are primarily
associated with the search and production of hydrocarbons. Other offshore structures include wind
and wave turbines.
This paper shall specifically focus on the seismic design of offshore piled foundations looking at the
most up-to-date methods, considering all the forces that impact on these piles and how they are
accounted for in design. For the seismic design of offshore structures this study shall focus on the
effects of kinematic and inertial loading on the piles to these structures. Kinematic effects are as a
result of seismic soil loading on the piles. Inertial effects result from seismic action on the platform
and the loading of the platform on the foundation piles and the interaction between the piles and the
soil. A brief focus shall also be on the other types of loading that are used in offshore design.
In many instances, especially for those platforms that are to be placed in regions that are not
seismically active, storm loadings are the critical loads. It has been acknowledged though that
seismic loading is considered to be one of the most critical loading and the effects of seismicity are
of paramount importance. Sub-soil layer differential motion increases the stresses in the piles.
Structural damage is caused by the vertically propagating shear-waves travelling along the platform
and cause increased stress to the platform joints and members.
xv
Index
There has been much emphasis on platform design for wave action, but seismic action is also a load
to be considered. It is true though that most of the failures that occur offshore are as a result of
extreme storm conditions especially in the Gulf of Mexico, USA and in the North Sea. But in
regions such as offshore California, USA, and in the Caribbean Sea, which are seismic regions it is
mandatory that seismic loads are considered in design. It is thought by the author though, that not
enough emphasis is placed on this load in offshore design worldwide and in the event of failure by
these loads the environmental effects can be devastating. As such, a greater understanding is sought
of the seismic phenomenon and its impact on platforms. Also, one of the main leaders in platform
design recommendations, the API-RP2A, does not include considerations for the kinematic effects
in piles from seismic loading and the effects of such an omission, on a specific case will be studied.
xvi
Chapter 1: Introduction
1 INTRODUCTION
This study of offshore, piles and seismicity begins by looking into what is the offshore industry and
where this industry is prominent. It begins by an introduction into the locations worldwide where
offshore installations exist. From Figure 1-1, these regions can be seen to span the entire globe
along the borders of each continent. The most prominent locations are California and the Gulf of
Mexico in the United States, Mexico, Columbia, Venezuela, Trinidad and Tobago, Brazil, the North
Sea, Nigeria, the United Arab Emirates, Indonesia, Russia and Australia.
Figure 1-1. Map showing the locations worldwide of the locations of oil platforms [Dean, (2006)].
Figure 1-2 provides a map of the regions of the globe that are prone to seismic action. Overlaying
the two maps it can be intuitively concluded that those regions of the world where there exists
offshore installations in seismic areas, then these platforms are to be designed to resist earthquake
forces.
1
Figure 1-2. Map showing the locations of high seismicity worldwide,

the dots represent the locations of seismic events, [Bolt, (1988)].
The offshore structures themselves vary depending on purpose and location. The various types
range from simple jacket structures to large floating, production, storage and operating vessels.
These are to be designed to be as efficient and environmentally safe as possible. These shall all be
expanded on in later sections.
With a focus on offshore piles, these vary in strength, configuration and lengths. They vary in type
but are basically designed to be either compression piles or tension piles. In the jacket type
platform, its simplest configuration, a pile is hammered through each of its four legs. For larger
platforms additional skirt piles may be used around each of the legs through sleeves that are
attached to the legs.
As an example, in Figure 1-3, the North Rankine A Platform in the North-Western side of Australia
lies in 125m of water and has 8 piles at the base of each of its legs and its flare boom is supported
by a tripod type jacket with 2 piles per corner. The flare boom support structure also has additional
guys and box anchors that were added to compensate for the low shaft capacity of the driven piles
[Randolph, M et al. 2005].
These piles are designed to support not only the dead weight of the structure but, to an extent, also
the significant environmental loads to which these platforms are subjected relative to their onshore
counterparts. It was deemed economically unfeasible to design these piles to be depended on solely
to take the environmental loading which are normally cyclic in nature. And as such the guys were
installed to aid in this effort.
Figure 1-3. Example Jacket Structures

the North Rankine A Platform [Randolph, M et al. 2005]
The objective of seismic design is to seek a balance between the cost and efficiency of the structure
in dealing with earthquakes. From the perspective of the structural engineer, he is able to design a
structure that will be impervious to damage from a large earthquake but as this is not efficient one
has to consider the small probability of occurrence of these phenomenon and factor this probability
into the design. He cannot also design a structure without considering the fact that an earthquake
can or cannot occur within the platforms life, the value of the structure, the effect on the
environment and the financial loss if failure was to occur.
Now the code from the American Petroleum Institute [API-RP2A] is to be considered the industry
leader in offshore design recommendations. The last published code was the API-RP2A
Recommended Practice for the Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms
Working Stress Design [API-RP2A] which was published in 2000. Quite a bit of research has been
done over the last 8 years but the API-RP2A has not yet been updated. Newer codes have been
published that focus on offshore design such as the ISO and the Eurocodes. Other recommendations
have been published by such bodies as Fugro International, the University of Western Australia, the
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute and Imperial College, but these may focus on one aspect of
platform design instead of the entire platform as does the API-RP2A, ISO and Eurocodes. This
latter group also focuses on the design basis of platform that includes the procedures that are to be
followed to ensure proper design and safety requirements are met. These outlines are very vast and
thorough and cover all the areas of design that would apply to offshore. Some areas are more
extensively covered than others and it depends on the code. Specifically referring to that which
would affect the foundation design coupled with seismic factors would be the main focus of this
thesis. Also, many researchers worldwide have contributed to the development of this area of
engineering and their work is included in this thesis.
As a result of seismic action, which can be considered to be the propagation of S-waves, differing
phenomenon occurs that would directly affect a platform. Among these are soil liquefaction,
platform induced vibration, submarine slides and tsunamis. The location of the platforms with
respect to the location of faults should also be investigated along with the type of ground motion
that is to be expected. For seismically active regions a thorough site-specific investigation is be
done for each site and from this the expected value of seismic risk can be evaluated.
This study shall be initiated by an overview of the current key elements of platform design with
specific reference to the platform loads that will eventually be transferred to the plies and
effectively the soil. Efforts were made to have this literature review based on a number of recent
publications and codes some of which have not yet found themselves into offshore design offices
and some of which are the more popular methods of foundation design. With respect to proximity,
offshore piles can be designed, as in onshore piles as being single or group piles. Group piles are
normally those that find themselves at the bases of the main legs of the jacket type platform in
groups of skirt piles. Single pile design is normally attributed to the individual piles that are driven
through the main legs of the platforms.
4
This study shall be broken a series of sections. The first of these shall be a general review of the
different types of offshore structures. The next shall be that of a literature review focused on the
different codes and recommendations of offshore pile design. Introduced here shall be the
guidelines set out by the American code the API-RP2A and the Eurocode/ISO code and a
comparison is made here of their different methods of hazard determination. The engineering
seismology aspects of the detailed seismic hazard assessment shall also be expanded upon. Static
and dynamic design of single and group piles, carbonate soils and how they impact on pile design,
and the effects of grouting on piles, shall also be discussed.
Mention is made of the very important aspect of soil-structure-interaction. A selection of the

various types of pile design shall be discussed with a focus on the main methods of SSI methods
that are used to model seismic response. These shall be the direct approaches of boundary element
method (BEM) and the finite element method (FEM). The other two that will be discussed are those
of the beam on a non-linear Winkler foundation (BNWF) and the thin-layered method. These latter
two are most used in the industry and as such shall be expanded upon considerably.
The effects of kinematic loading shall be discussed in the next section. This type of loading is as a
result of seismicity on platform piles. This is a dynamic analysis and can only be conducted by way
of a time-history analysis. This is a separate analysis to that of the inertial loading. Inertial loading
results from the loading on the piles from the motion of the superstructure due to seismic action.
This is usually conducted by way of a response spectrum analysis and is classified as a static
analysis. The effects of kinematic action shall be looked into with great detail for this loading type
has been found to be ignored in many offshore designs causing the possible under-design of piles.
The difficulty lies in the determination of accurate time-histories that would be applicable to the
site.
The next chapter of this study shall focus on the case study of the Mango Platform off the Southeastern coast of Trinidad in the West Indies. Here an investigation into the seismic design is done
specifically with respect to the consideration of the kinematic effects on the platform and the effects
of the omission of loading. Consideration is given here to the recommendations of Eurocode 8: Part
5, Section 5.4.2. which specifically indicates that both kinematic and inertial loadings are to be
conducted on piles, but this is not indicated in the API-RP2A. A comparison of the results of
omitting this loading will be performed and its effects on the integrity of the platform.
5
Chapter 2: GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
2 GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

This chapter is designated to introduce the reader to the realm of offshore structures, their types and
functions. These offshore installations vary in type as they would each be designed on a basis of
purpose and location. Also to be looked at is the basis of design of these platforms. The seismic
design bases are dealt with in detail later section 3.1 with the analysis and comparison of the
applicable design codes. Here the various types of offshore platforms shall be looked at and their
structural design requirements shall be outlined. Also, as the main focus of the thesis shall be on the
seismic design of platforms with a specific focus on offshore piles primarily for jacket type
structures.
2.1 Platform Types

2.1.1 Jacket Type Platforms
These types of platforms are the most basic of types. These are called jacket type platforms as they
require that the actual platform be held in place (pinned) to the ocean floor by piles that are driven
from the surface of the water through the legs of the structure itself. The actual jacket itself after
approved design is constructed onshore and transported to the offshore site where it is then carefully
placed on a prepared seafloor location. The piles are then hammered into place. This platform type
is typical for smaller operations, but as the scope increases, so does the platform size. Larger
platforms require greater support from the ocean floor and at times it may be more economical to
introduce a series of pile groups at the base of the platforms to foster this. These piles are termed
skirt piles and are positioned from the surface by way of an extended hammer length as shown in
Figure 2-1. Upon proper leveling of the platform jacket structure the topside portion is placed atop
by the use of some of the worlds largest cranes positioned on large barges as depicted in Figure
2-2.
6
Figure 2-1. Schematic of a jacket type platform with skirt piles being hammered into place [Dean, (2006)].
Figure 2-2. Topside module being placed on installed jacket [www.offshoreman.com].
2.1.2 Tension Leg Platforms

Tension-leg platforms are those which consist of a buoyant hull which is attached to large diameter
piles [e.g. 3m in some cases] by steel pipes or tendons. These piles are permanently in tension and
calls for difficulty in design as their initial embedment depths are constantly being reduced and
hence their capacities. Also these piles are subjected to strain softening which is caused by the
smoothening of the soil during shearing resulting in reduced resistance during continued shearing.
This process continues as the platform is continuously being subjected to cyclic environmental
loads, namely wave loading, which would escalate during earthquake loading. An example of this
type of platform can be seen in Figure 2-6.
2.1.3 Gravity Platforms

These platform types rely on their weight to counteract the effects of design loading. These
platforms consist of a large base that is usually used as a storage area for extracted hydrocarbons.
These platforms are relatively bulky and require a large amount of concrete to be constructed. These
are very prominent in the colder climates where ice loading plays a major factor in design (Figure
2-3).
Figure 2-3 Typical examples of a Gravity-Type platform [Ehlers, (1982)].
2.1.4 Jackups
These are the type of platforms that are used in situations where temporary installations are
required. This type of platform can also be used in cases of drilling where the original structure is
unable to support the total additional loading that comes with drilling. This may be due to the
deterioration of the platform over time. It may be seen in some instances that the temporary use of a
jackup may be more cost effective than the remedial works to the platform to bring it to a state of
readiness for drilling. This type of platform is also used in cases where drilling to find oil is
necessary and no permanent structure is needed. These platform types are quite mobile and exist in
different stages of operation. While being transported, usually via tow, its legs are in the air. Upon
reaching the site it is necessary to lower the legs to the seabed and then loads are applied to the legs
to position them to the necessary depth. This stage is called preloading. The preload is then
removed once the required depth is achieved and then drilling commences. A pictorial
representation of the different operations can be viewed in Figure 2-4.
Figure 2-4. Jackup platform in different stages of operation [McClelland et al, (1982)].
2.1.5 FPSOs
These Floating, Production, Storage and Operating type platforms are specifically designed for
deepwater installations. These consist of a large boat that is fixed to a specific location offshore and
held in place by anchors. The FPSO is capable of drilling for hydrocarbons, processing the
extractions and the storage of the different hydrocarbon levels before transportation to an onshore
facility, (see Figure 2-5).
9
Figure 2-5. FPSO type of offshore installation. [Dean, (2006)].
The water depth on a location offshore where hydrocarbons are found plays a significant role in
determining the type of platform to be installed. Figure 2-6 gives an idea of the typical depth and
examples of the different types of platforms that can be used.
Figure 2-6. Examples of designs for deeper water structures [Dean, (2006)].
10
2.2 Offshore Design Criteria

There are various types of loading to which offshore installations are normally designed to
withstand in addition to seismic loading. These are incident on the installation generally as a
combination of the different loads that are of greater magnitude and complexity than onshore
structures, see Figure 2-7. The main supporting element of these are eventually the foundations, and
as such usually have to withstand the vertical loads from:
the self-weight of the structure - V
any associated moment with the eccentric loading of the platform - MV
lateral loads on platforms due to wind and currents LB & LC,
the moment that is associated with these lateral loadings MB & MC
cyclic loading due to waves - LW
cyclic moment due to waves - MW
seismic loads E
Figure 2-7. Loads on offshore platform

foundations [Dean, (2008)].
These loads are predominantly resisted by the soil-pile-structure interaction. The loads are
transferred to the foundation through the load path for effective loading situations, although it is
understood that in limit state design there will be the presence of redundant members to cater for
emergencies, these loads eventually arise as tension, compression, bending moments, torsion and
shear forces in the piles. The capacities of the piles are determined from rational equations that have
been developed by researchers and the most popular of these are prescribed in the American
11
Petroleum Institute Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed
Offshore Platforms Working Stress Design, 21st Edition, December 2000, hereby referred to as
the API-RP2A.
There is great complexity in the application of wind, wave and current loads on a platform. This
complexity is due to the incidence of these loads not all directly along a single path of the platform.
As such, these are applied in many different angles specified by a metocean study for a specific site.
These angles are then applied relative to True North. To aid in the understanding of the angles of
loading for these platforms for these loads, reference is made to Figure 4-2 and Figure 4-3 which act
as schematics that are used to determine these angles. The metocean criteria for the site would
normally indicate the angular range from True North that the load is to be applied and usually four
angles within this range are applied for the specific load type. For the case of wind, a wind speed at
a certain height is usually found and applied at the different angles. For the case of waves a specific
wave height is stipulated and for the case of current loading, the speeds along a current profile is
given. In addition to this, for the different loading cases for the different operating cases, these wind
speeds would vary. These operating cases are usually: the normal operating case; the 100-year
design storm case; the 100-year extreme storm case; and the 10-year extreme storm case.
2.2.1 Wind
Wind loading is impacted upon the various components of the platform that would include the
members, the equipment, the facilities etc. These winds include steady forces and gust forces that
are to be rationally applied to the structure such as being made to act at a specific height and at a
specific duration such as one hour [API-RP2A]. It is to be noted that for conventional steel
structures the wind forces contribute usually less than 10% of the total global load. But in deeper
waters where compliant structures are found, it is found that the waves contribute a much larger
percentage. This is especially the case where the frequency of the wind is near to the natural
frequency of the platform so as to cause resonance. The wind force as determined by API-RP2A is
calculated by the following relationship:
(2.1)
where,
F = wind force [N],
12
= mass density of air [1.2kg/m],

u = wind speed [m/s],
CS = Shape coefficient,
A = area [m]
Now this force, LB from Figure 2-7, is assumed to act at a certain height above the water level and
in so doing creates a moment [MB] that is transferred to the piles.
2.2.2 Wave Action

Wave loading plays a large role in the design of platforms and is normally, in non-seismic zones,
the critical design load. It is difficult to determine the exact result of wave loading due to the
extreme randomness of the phenomenon. It is known that waves can be incident on a platform from
all directions especially during design storms. In addition to this, waves also affect the soil at the
base of the platforms especially if it is loose to medium dense material. The waves also contribute
to the creation of vortices around platform legs and at their base where it leads to scouring which
reduces the capacity of the pile unless it is designed against such.
Now the strength of a wave is calculated by its height, which is measured from the crest to the
trough. The waves impose a cyclic and buoyant force on the platforms and these are to be resisted
by the foundation piles. The effect of these waves on the platform is determined by the use of the
Morrisons equation:
(2.2)
where
F = hydrodynamic force vector per unit length acting normal to the axis of the member [N/m],
FD = drag force per unit length of the member [N/m],
FI = inertial force per unit length [N/m],
Cd = drag coefficient,
w = density of water,
U = component of velocity vector due to wave [m/s],
|U| = absolute value of U [m/sec],
13
Cm = inertia coefficient,
U
= component of local acceleration vector of the water.
t
The wave crest should be positioned in such a manner, where upon incidence on the platform will
achieve the maximum overturning moments and shear forces. The stresses in members are due to
local hydrodynamic loadings and the stresses transferred from the other areas of the structure. Local
hydrodynamic loading not only includes the drag and inertia forces from the dynamic action of the
waves but also lift forces, axial Froude-Krylov forces [forces induced by the unsteady pressure field
generated by undisturbed waves], buoyancy and weight [API-RP2A]. Also included in this list is
that for members that are at the mean storm water level, will also be impacted by vertical slam
forces from wave action. These slam and buoyancy forces have a great impact on stresses. These
forces would all be supported by the piles.
In wave studies that have been done by Sumer et al. [1992], it has been proven that the effects of lee
wake vortices and the horseshoe vortex are primarily responsible for local scouring at the base of
platform legs. Further research [Carreiras et al. (2000)] has led to the upgrade of the initial
relationship. It has been determined that the depth of local scouring is related to the KeuleganCarpenter number, which is a function of the stroke of the horizontal excursion, 2 and the diameter
of the pile, D.
KC =
(2.3)
This parameter is then included in the equation for the local scour:
S
= 1.3 1 e 0.06 ( KC 6 )
D
(2.4)
where,
S = the depth of local scour,
D = diameter of the pile.
14
Now, if the bearing stress of the pile weight coupled with the additional loading exceeds the bearing
stress of the soil below the tip and the shaft friction along the pile then the pile would move
downwards until a new bearing capacity is found that would be make greater the support forces. As
such the removal of soil around the perimeter of the pile may induce settlement. Also determined
from the study was that the roughness of the legs increased the level of scour.
2.2.3 Current Loading

Current loading is the vector sum of tidal currents, the circulatory currents and the storm generated
currents. The magnitude of these is most dependent on the location of the platform for the strengths
of the vectors increase with proximity to the shoreline. In platform design, the strength and
direction and profile of the current is important also for the consideration of deposits of inland and
oceanic material, and for the placement of berthing and docking equipment for boats. There is also
current loading that is associated with wave loading. To calculate the current force on members, for
no wave conditions, we use Equation 3.1 with
u
= 0.
t
2.3 Seabed Instability

Seabed instability refers to the movement of the layers of the seabed due to the effect of the wave
pressures, earthquakes, soil self-weight, hydrates, shallow gas, faults and other geologic processes.
Under-compacted soils can be subjected to lateral movement during earthquakes and also to waveinduced motion if wave loading is strong. This movement affects the platforms foundation by
adding additional stresses to the leg and pile members. Rapid sedimentation is to also be looked at
in the consideration of the seabed for pile and platform design as this would influence capacity.
Geological studies that employ historical rates of deposition are to be looked at to determine the rate
of loading. The effects are also greater if the adhesion between layers is low and the displacement
of the platform increases dramatically when the thickness of the sliding layer increases. Earthquake
induced forces can induce failure on seafloor slopes that are otherwise stable under the current selfweight and wave loading [API-RP2A].
The effect of seabed instability is more critical to the effect of platform base and the pile response
along the shaft than the metocean parameters of severe winds, waves and currents on the platform.
15
These latter parameters are more critical to platform member response and developed stresses. The
combination of metocean and seabed instability is of critical importance to foundation design. This
is evident in Figure 2-8 where a prescribed soil movement of 0.5m is analyzed separately and
together with metocean loading and the results compared, on the effect on the top nodal response.
As can be seen also, for the case of the metocean loading only, the displacement is greater than for
seabed instability only. The combination of the loads leads to the most critical loading.
Figure 2-8. Effect of wave loading and layered soil movement on

top nodal tower response, [Mostapha and Naggar, (2005)].
Reports were published [Mostapha and Naggar, (2005)] on tests that were carried out to determine
the effects of seabed instability. Using dynamic soil parameters, the soil resistance was modeled and
the effect on platforms was evaluated. It was determined that the thickness of the sliding layer is
more critical than the non-linear pushover analysis established displacements. Also that the correct
bending moment calculated along a pile and the displacement that the pile head achieves is largely
dependent on the end fixity and the inclusion of the vertical loading in the pile.
Figure 2-9 displays that the most crucial loading is also that of the combination of both seabed
instability and metocean loading for both the bending moment and displacements of the platform
base. Also, as seen in this case, the larger loading is observed for the seabed instability than for
metocean. These prescribed instabilities are understood to be that of assumed displacements during
earthquakes.
When the thickness of the soil layer is relatively small [limiting thickness], then the failure of piles
is more by flow failure, where the soil flows pass the pile. But when the soil layer is large longpile failure mode is more dominant, where the maximum bending moment in the pile reaches the
16
yield moment of the pile before flow failure, translation of the pile or its rotation begins. The lateral
displacement of a layer of soil induces bending moments below the thicknesses of the mobile layers
and the locations of these maximum moments are critical in pile design as they would determine the
thickness of piles at these positions. It is common that in offshore design of piles and members,
much effort is undertaken to produce the most efficient design. This is due to issues of weight,
installation and transportation that all affect the cost of these structures.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2-9. Effect of wave loading and layered soil movement on pile
(a) displacement (b) bending moment, [Mostapha and Naggar, (2005)].
17
Chapter 3: LITERATURE REVIEW OF DESIGN OF OFFSHORE PILED FOUNDATIONS
3 LITERATURE REVIEW OF DESIGN OF OFFSHORE PILED

FOUNDATIONS
Here shall be detailed the most current in design procedures in the offshore industry for the design
of piled foundations with an emphasis on seismic design.
3.1 Codes Seismic Design Criteria

The API-RP2A has outlined specific guidelines that are to be used in the planning, design and
construction of offshore platforms and their peripherals, including foundation and additional
constructs that aid in support. Another series of codes of similar design are those of the Eurocode 8,
Eurocode 5, (International Organization for Standardization) ISO 19901-2:2004, ISO 19901-4:2003
and ISO 19902:2007, all accepted as British Codes, incorporated under the European Committee for
Standardization (CEN). For the purposes of this study the aforementioned shall be referred to as the
Eurocode unless specifically stated. Both of these codes, the API-RP2A and the Eurocode/ISO,
have addressed the seismic design of the platforms and their components and they shall be
individually looked at.
3.1.1 API-RP2A
The latest version of this code was published in 2000 but the recommendations are still heavily
implemented in offshore design. On the issue of the earthquake guidelines the code advocates that
the design should be based on the historic seismicity of an area. This is the basis of ground motion
prediction and as such is to be adhered to. Before installation, the area is to be investigated for
seismicity and geologic processes that will cause ground motion. The seismic design of the platform
is to be based on the level of expected ground motion, the risk involved and the damage that is
18
deemed acceptable to the platform depending on its intended operation. The siting of platforms in
direct proximity of faults is to be avoided, but if this cannot be then the platform is to be designed to
be able to withstand the predicted ground motion.
The first step in the determination of the seismic level is to determine the exposure category
intended for the platform. These are based on the consideration of life safety and consequences of
failure. Life safety relates to the presence of human life that is to be present on platforms during an
event, and the consequences of failure relates to the expected damage to operation and environment
in the event of failure. The latter relates to such areas as the impact on the environment and the cost
of platform down-time to all interested parties. For life-safety there exists three categories: mannednonevacuated, manned-evacuated, and unmanned. For consequences of failure there are also three
categories: high consequences of failure, medium consequences of failure, and low consequences of
failure.
Manned-nonevacuated (L-1) platforms refer to those that must have a human presence onboard at
all times even at times when a design natural event is expected, for these there will be permanent
living quarters that will be included in the original design. A manned-evacuated (L-2) platform
will be freed from all human presence in the expectation of a design natural event, as these would
also contain living quarters. And an unmanned (L-3) platform is one in which no living quarters
exists for human accommodation.
High consequences of failure (L-1) is refered to major platforms that will cause large impacts on
the environment and the profit of the operator. These platforms are considered those that do not
possess the ability to shut off valves in the event of a design loading and which has wells that would
be able to flow freely upon rupture, also these platforms are in depths of water greater than 122m.
The closing of valves is normally impractical in some cases, such as with those that are in the
vicinity of seismic faults, where no prediction is given. For medium consequences of failure (L-2)
platforms, these refer to those that do posses wells that would flow freely under rupture but can be
closed off in wake of predicted design loading. The low consequences of failure (L-3) category
refers to minimal platforms where production is also shut in during design events and valves are
closed, also these platforms are in water depths of less than 30m.
19
With respect to seismicity it is then necessary to determine the type of zone to which the platform
would fall. This would be either seismically active zones or areas of low seismicity. Platforms that
are designed to withstand earthquake forces are to fulfill two requirements, strength requirements
and ductility requirements. Strength requirements are to ensure that the platform has sufficient
strength to withstand the design earthquake (in this case that which will most likely not be exceeded
throughout the life of the platform), and not suffer any significant structural damage. Ductility
requirements are to ensure that if the design earthquake is exceeded, and structural damage is
caused then the platform will not collapse totally but rather possess sufficient reserve capacity.
When the area intended for the platform installation is known to produce earthquakes a specific site
study is to be done to determine the level of ground motion expected. This detailed site study is
done by way of a Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment (PSHA) and Deterministic Seismic
Hazard Assessment (DSHA) which shall be addressed later, although the API-RP2A does give a
thorough overview of the most important concepts of the methods. For the areas of low seismicity
the critical loading, as seen in the Gulf of Mexico, is storm or other environmental loading. Now the
API-RP2A has produced charts (see appendix) that give guidelines on the level of earthquake in
which to design. Zones 1 and 2 are described as zones of low seismic activity and 3-5 are of high
seismicity and the detailed site studies are to be done. Table 3-1 below displays the typical values of
the zone, Z, to the ratio of horizontal ground acceleration to gravitational acceleration, G, to be used
for the purpose of preliminary designs and in the simplified procedure. This approach is the
response spectrum approach and incorporates the use of Figure 3-1.
Table 3-1 Determination of exposure level [API-RP2A]
20
Figure 3-1. Standardized seismic acceleration spectrum for 5% damping [API-RP2A]
It is required that all platforms be designed for a Strength Level Earthquake (SLE). For this design,
it is to be ensured that serviceability requirements are met and that adequate ductility has been
provided in the structure. The return interval of these earthquakes is normally in the range 100 to
500 years.
Platforms are also further required to be designed for a Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE). Here,
having displayed adequate ductility for the SLE, it is to be displayed that during a large event the
21
platform would have sufficient reserve capacity to prevent collapse, (limit state design). The return
interval of these earthquakes is normally in the range 1,000 to 10,000 years.
The API-RP2A was found to give a thorough overview of the methodology behind the
determination of the factors that influence the seismic hazard assessment process, but no detailed
design methods are provided.
3.1.2 Eurocode/ISO
The latest version of this code that addresses seismicity was published in 2004. This code is
published by the British Standards Institute and in incorporated in both the Eurocode 8 and
International Organization for Standardization, ISO 19901-2 (Seismic design procedures and
criteria) and ISO 19902 (Fixed Offshore Steel Structures). The ISO code has been found to be the
most recent of all the codes with ISO 19902 (Petroleum and natural gas industries Fixed steel
offshore structures) being published in 2007.
The methods for the determination of the exposure level and life safety in the ISO are the same as
for the API-RP2A in that it is also categorized. It is again dependent on the presence of manpower
on the platform, this is displayed in Table 3-2.
Table 3-2. Determination of exposure level [ISO 19901-2]
Also, as the case of the API-RP2A, identified is two levels of earthquakes that need to be addressed
during platform seismic design. These are the Extreme Level Earthquake and the Abnormal Level
Earthquake. Here, two methods are identified for the determination of the design ground response,
the simplified method and a detailed method. The ISO has proven to give a better outline of the
procedure of seismic design than the API-RP2A, and as such is more user friendly. This is done by
22
use of the seismic hazard charts (see appendix for an excerpt from the ISO code for offshore North
America) for a 1.0s and 0.2s oscillator. The ISO has displayed also that it is designed to be used
internationally as the spectral accelerations that are outlined in this document are for countries and
locations around the world that produce petroleum and natural gas. The API-RP2A is only focused
on American territory. The first step, in this approach, is to determine the exposure level for the site.
The site seismic zone is then determined from Table 3-3.
Table 3-3. Site Seismic Zone [ISO 19901-2]
The sites seismic risk category, SRC, is then determined depending on the exposure level, Table
3-4.
Table 3-4. Seismic Risk Category [ISO 19901-2]
If the site is deemed to be SRC 1 then there is no need to conduct a seismic evaluation and for SRC
2 the simplified method is used. This simplified method uses a standard procedure that calls for the
adaptation of a standardized seismic hazard graph, Figure 3-2. In the case of SRC 3 either the
simplified or the detailed method may be used at this point but the simplified method calls for the
use of seismic hazard maps, but depending on the seismic risk category this method may produce a
conservative design that is greater than that of the detailed design and in these cases it is best to use
the detailed method. The detailed method is also used for the case of SRC 4.
23
Figure 3-2. Standardized seismic acceleration spectrum for 5% damping [ISO 19901-2]
Use of the detailed method of the ISO refers to clause 8. This would include a site specific study
that is done via a PSHA and a DSHA to determine the seismic hazard attenuation curves. The
curves (Figure 3-3) are used in the
consideration of the randomness of the
attenuation of seismic waves that would
travel
from
the
sources
to
site,
specifically these would be for spectral

accelerations, Sa, over a range of periods,
T1TN. The summation over individual
Figure 3-3. Defined attenuation curves from site specific study
for spectral accelerations at periods T1 TN [ ISO 19901-2].
probabilities
would
from
provide
different
the
total
sources
annual
probability of exceedance for a given

level of peak ground acceleration (PGA) or spectral acceleration (SA), (Figure 3-4). Spectral
response varies with the natural period of the oscillator and as such a family of curves are produced.
These curves are used to construct the uniform hazard spectrum (Figure 3-5), where all the points
24
are defined for one annual probability of exceedance. There exists an inverse relationship between
the return period of a uniform hazard spectrum and the targeted annual probability of exceedance.
Figure 3-4. Mean uniform hazard spectral

accelerations [ISO 19901-2].
Figure 3-5. Uniform Hazard Spectrum [ISO 19901-2].
The seismic action procedure follows after the determination of the Uniform Hazard Spectra for the
site. The exposure level of the platform is used to find the targeted annual probability of failure, Pf,
from Table 3-5. The ALE spectral accelerations are found from the derived hazard curve for the site
and the value of Pf.
Table 3-5. Target annual probability of failure [ISO 19901-2].
The dominant modal period of the structure to be designed, Tdom, shall correspond to a probability
distribution of the parameter, Sa. As in figure 8, the site specific mean uniform hazard spectral
accelerations is plotted but on a logarithmic scale, for Tdom. The new plot, figure 10, is now used to
determine the site-specific spectral acceleration at Pf, Sa,Pf (Tdom). The procedure that follows is that
the slope of the tangent at Pf, termed aR, defined as the ratio of the spectral accelerations
25
corresponding to two probabilities that are on either side of Pf and which are one order of
magnitude apart, P1 & P2, as seen in Figure 3-6.
Figure 3-6. Derivation of the slope aR of the seismic hazard curve for T=Tdom [ISO 19901-2].
A correction factor, Cc, is then applied to aR to account for the uncertainties that are not depicted in
the seismic hazard curve. The values of Cc are found in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Correction Factor, Cc [ISO 19901-2].
The value for the ALE spectral acceleration is determined by the application of the correction
factor, Cc to Sa,Pf(Tdom), the site specific spectral acceleration at the required Pf and the dominant
structural period, Tdom, using the following relationship:
S a , ALE (Tdom ) = Cc S a ,Pf (Tdom )
(3.1)
For some structures the reserve capacity and ductility are known, the ELE can be determined from
the following relationship:
S a , ELE (Tdom ) =
S a , ALE (Tdom )
Cr
(3.2)
26
where, Cr is the seismic reserve capacity. These values are to be computed as best as possible
during the initial design stages to be able to be applied to this stage before the final design is made.
ISO19902 provides some guidelines for these factors as displayed in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Representative values of seismic reserve capacity, Cr [ISO 19901-2].
The ALE and the ELE are then directly read off the logarithmic seismic hazard curve, and the
results are as displayed in Figure 3-7.
Figure 3-7. Derivation of spectral accelerations and probabilities for ALE and ELE [ISO 19901-2].
27
The effects of the local soil at the platform and a dynamic site response analysis is performed, using
linear or non-linear soil properties and the results are used to modify the result.
The effects of seismicity include seafloor slip, liquefaction of a layer of supporting stratum,
tsunamis and ground-motion that would inherently affect the stresses in the platform. The intention
would be to obtain a code that would give direction as to exactly what is the necessary procedure in
obtaining as accurate as possible a prediction of the seismic motion on a given site. Seismic actions
for a site are predicted by a thorough investigation of the subsurface of the soils. The investigation
is to include the determination of liquefiable potential of the soil, the presence of submarine slides
that can be triggered by earthquakes, the proximity of the site to seismogenic faults, the
characteristics of the ground motion expected through-out the life of the structure, and the intended
risk for the type of platform intended.
3.2 Piles
This section shall focus on the actual piling aspect of offshore installations. The aim here is to
identify the state-of-the-art methods of seismic pile design that have been developed.
3.2.1 Static Pile Analysis

There has been a great deal of research done in the area of axial capacity of offshore piling. The
basis of development has been the use of the Cone Penetration Test [CPT] in the determination of
methods of design. This is predominantly used as it is readily available and easy to manipulate. In
light of this though many of the developed methods are still empirically based due to studies done
on tests in the centrifuge. This data is still to be extrapolated from smaller diameter piles to model
the response of actual piles in actual design scenarios. More of these studies have been done, as
before mentioned, further to that of the API-RP2A.
3.2.1.1 Static Single

3.2.1.1.1
Ultimate Capacity
As per the API-RP2A, the governing equation for the ultimate static capacity, Qd, of offshore piles
is determined by the following equation:
28
(3.3)
where,
Qf = skin friction resistance (kN),
Qp = total end bearing (kN),
f = unit skin friction (kPa),
As = side surface area of pile (m),
q = end unit bearing capacity (kPa),
Ap = gross end area of pile (m).
3.2.1.1.2
End Bearing Resistance
For the API-RP2A and ISO guidelines it has been adopted the following equation for the limited
bearing pressure, qbu.
qbu = N q 'vo qbu max
(3.4)
Where the value of Nq is taken to vary from 12 to 50 and this depends on the grain size and the
relative density of the material. The different values for the sand and silt and other appropriate pile
parameters are provided in Table 3-8. The limiting values for qbu are also provided.
Table 3-8 Pile Design Parameters [ISO 19901-2, (2004)]
The cone penetrometer is to be seen as a model pile. But due to its small size adjustments are to be
made to the cone so as to have its penetration resistance values simulate the effect that a much
larger penetrator would have. The adjustments are allowed by way of an adjustment factor that is to
29
be applied to the raw values of qu. The reasoning behind this lies in the displacement of an actual
pile to mobilise the full cone resistance and the embedment depth of the pile in the bearing layer.
Of importance here is the ability of a pile to act as plugged or unplugged. Under static loading open
ended piles will act as plugged, but drive as unplugged. This is in comparison to dynamic piling
which increases the inertial effect on the soil within the pile and results in open-ended driving.
During static loading the soil within the pile would move with the pile. Data from tests on piles
has led to the following equation for limiting bearing pressure for piles in sand from Jardine and
Chow, 1996. This method is known as the Marine Technology Directorate approach (MTD).
(3.5)
where,
d = diameter of the pile,
dcone = diameter of the CPT cone,
= area ratio.
This relationship is for piles of diameter less than 0.02(Dr 30)m.
This MTD approach was found to produce very conservative results for typical offshore piles of
diameter >2m and = 0.1. In a recent report to the API-RP2A, Fugro in a 2004 report has
recommended the following equation for the bearing capacity of driven open-ended piles. This
equation models the cone penetration test as a miniature pile and applies a fraction of its
resistance to determine the pile capacity.
(3.6)
where,
qbu = limiting bearing pressure,
qc = cone penetration value,
DR = displacement ratio of the pile,
pa = atmospheric pressure (100kPa).
30
3.2.1.1.3
Shaft Resistance in Sand
The API-RP2A method for the shaft friction, s, is determined by the following equation:
s = K 'vo tan s max
(3.7)
where,
= interface friction angle
vo = effective overburden stress (kPa).
The value of K is taken to be 0.7 0.8 for open ended piles loaded in compression, and 0.5 0.7 for
piles loaded in tension, with the lower end being applicable to loose deposits and the upper end for
dense conditions [ISO]. The limiting values for s are provided in Table 3-8. It can be seen that the
interface friction angle is strongly affected by the ratio of the grain size to the roughness of the pile
and therefore increases with decreasing grain size. This is opposite to what was initially thought to
occur.
Also determined is that the horizontal stress at large cycles is low as this stress is found to decrease
with continued cycles. This leads to a loss of strength as the number of blows increase. Hence it is
found that the less the number of blows used in pile driving to install a pile to a required depth, the
greater will be the capacity of the pile. Also found is that if further blows are applied to a pile
during its final diameters of installation then this may prove counterproductive, leading to as much
gain in bearing capacity as lost in friction fatigue.
In the report to API-RP2A in 2004, Fugro has suggested another method for the calculation of the
shaft friction:
(3.8)
where,
deq = is the diameter of a solid pile of equivalent steel area (m).
For open-ended piles lower maximum stresses are expected, due to the radial stress changes
imposed during pile installation will be reduced. But for closed-ended piles this is not the case as
31
higher radial stresses are induced. This was considered in further work in 2005 by White, who
produced the following equation:
(3.9)
3.2.1.1.4
Shaft Resistance in Clay
Calculations done on clay are normally in terms of the friction ratio, , but in recent developments,
it has been displayed that it is not the friction ratio of the clay that matters in the determination of
the value of , but rather the degree of over-consolidation. The API-RP2A guidelines for the value
of though was determined to be:
(3.10)
where,
su = cohesion (kPa),
Later work on this method, in 2003 by Randolph developed more on this method and purported the
following equation for the stress ratio:
(3.11)
where,
R = yield stress ratio/apparent over-consolidation ratio,
St = the sensitivity.
This is to be used in conjunction with equation 8 to determine the shaft friction and is effective for
piles with area ratios of 0.1 and deq ~ 0.32d.
3.2.1.1.5
Lateral Response
The lateral response of piles in offshore design is almost universally quantified using a load transfer
approach, with the interaction between pile and soil modeled by non-linear P-y curves relating
lateral force, P, per unit length down the pile to the lateral deflection, y, [Randolph et al, 2005]. It
has been determined that with increased slenderness, more lateral resistance is needed from the soil.
32
In seismic cases, liquefaction will occur and this lateral resistance will be removed. The pile will
buckle in the direction of least resistance. Hence piles are to be made thicker or wider at these
locations.
The critical design issue in pile design is the maximum bending moment rather than the lateral
displacement, although at times the latter may also be critical. This is hence applicable to the top
portion of the pile in the uppermost soil layers as this is where the maximum moment and the
maximum displacement will occur. So as to produce an optimal design, it is best to determine the
exact location of the maximum moment and design this location of the pile adequately. Also
necessity is that due to the fact that the top layer is usually in motion, it may not be in full contact
with the soil in this region. As such it is customary to ignore this region when determining the axial
capacity of the pile. As seen in Figure 3-8, this depth is usually 5 to 15 times the diameter of the
pile.
Figure 3-8. Schematic of a Laterally Loaded Pile Response, [Randolph et al, (2005)].
For the API-RP2A and ISO codes, there method is based on the work by Matlock in [1970] and
ONeil & Murchison [1983] where the limiting lateral resistance in clay is determined by:
(3.12)
The upper limit of this equation is only achieved at a critical depth several diameters below the
seafloor.
For sands, the following equation is based on the work of ONeil & Murchison [1983] and this has
been incorporated into the API-RP2A:
33
(3.13)
where,
Pr = the reference soil resistance as per the API-RP2A & ISO,
A = 0.9 for cyclic loading,
k = depth gradient of the initial subgrade reaction modulus,
P
= 45MPa/m fir dense soil (nominally ~40) and halving with each 5 increase.
y y =0
The shape of the P-y curves in clay as recommended by the ISO 2004 is as follows:
yr = 2.5 50 d
(3.14)
where,
Pu = limiting lateral resistance,
50 = strain at 50% peak stress in an unconsolidated undrained test, (0.005-0.001)
Figure 3-9. Schematic of a Laterally Loaded Pile Response,

[Randolph et al, (2005)].
34
When compared to other methods of analysis, such as Barton, 1982 and Parsad & Chari 1999, for
the lateral displacement in sand, the API-RP2A/ISO method has been shown to be relatively nonconservative, as the adoption of Pu = K p ' zd provides a good fit to experimental data, (Figure
2
3-9).
Further testing has revealed that for offshore piles, under cyclic loading, the axial capacity is
reduced to 60% of the static capacity. Also, for tests conducted under cyclic loading, the static
capacity on pile groups of 2, reduced to 29% of their static capacity.
3.2.1.1.6
Lateral Spreading
Another aspect of lateral response is that of lateral spreading. This is as a result of liquefaction
which is the build up of pore-water pressure in loose to medium dense sand due to rapid loading
causing the almost weightless motion of the soil layers. Figure 3-10 indicates the effect of lateral
spreading on a concrete pile. This hinge was formed at the location of the maximum bending
moment and is usually at the boundary between the liquefiable and non-liquefiable soil layers. The
problem with the piles was that they were designed to control settlement only and not be subjected
to bending moments and shear forces. Figure 3-11 displays a bridge that has piles that have been
designed for and subjected to bending moments and shears during an earthquake. This was as a
result of the Nihon-Kai-Chubu, 1983 earthquake.
Figure 3-10. Damage to pile by ground

displacement, [Niigata, (1964)].
Figure 3-11. Bridge with failed approaches but with

well-designed piles, [Nihon-Kai-Chubu, (1983)].
35
In the design for lateral spread due to liquefaction, these motions are predicted by empirical
equations derived from past earthquakes developed in Japan by Hamada et al, [1986] and in the
USA by Youd et al [1999]. Figure 3-12 displays schematically what occurs during an earthquake
so as to cause the onset of lateral spreading.
Bardet et [2002] have developed a version of the modeling of post-liquefaction lateral displacement
on a regional level. Bradenberg et al. [2005] have developed another method based on centrifuge
tests and these tests have displayed that the load transfer are based on displacements. The
displacements are assumed to vary linearly from the top to the bottom of the upper liquefied layer.
In the analyses that are performed the constant K is sometimes assumed as zero in a liquefiable
layer.
The first set of layers in a soil profile are crucial in
the determination of the stiffness of the pile tip and
this would influence the maximum bending moment.
This also affects the stability of the platform by
reducing the displacement i.e. if the stiffness is high.
The studies that are done at the Multidisciplinary
Centre
for
Earthquake
Engineering
research
(MCEER) have produced another method of dealing

with the designs of piled foundations in liquefiable
deposits. It is proposed that if there is a soil profile
with a liquefiable layer and a pile is to be driven
Figure 3-12. Distortion of pile by foundation by
lateral soil displacement, [Finn & Thavaraj,
2001].
through it. If there is no non-liquefiable layer above

it then during liquefaction the soil will flow past the
pile and exert a passive pressure on it, Figure 3-13. If
there is a non-liquefiable layer, then the layer will either grip the foundation and force it to follow
the flow with the soil or, the soil will flow past the pile, Figure 3-14. If in either case of soil flow,
the pile cannot address the problem of flow, be-it because of structural incapacity, then it is required
that retrofit be done to the piles or passive or active piles be added.
36
Figure 3-13. Pilesoil relative displacements in fully liquefiable soil [MCEER/ATC, (2003)]
.
Figure 3-14. Pilesoil displacements with non-liquefiable crust [after MCEER/ATC (2003)].
Studies have shown that liquefaction causes major redistribution of the moments within a pile.
Without liquefaction, the position of the maximum bending moment can be seen to be near to the
top of the pile. As displayed in Figure 3-15, for centrifugal tests performed by Finn [1999]. Upon
the onset of liquefaction, under a dynamic analysis, this would cause the lowering of the position of
maximum bending moment in piles.
Figure 3-15. Maximum moments along the

pile; pile head free to rotate [Finn (1999)]
37
This analysis results in a lowering of the position of the maximum bending moment to the location
of the interface between the soil layers that liquefy and that which does not liquefying. This only
occurs though if the pile head is not fixed against rotation. If it is fixed in rotation, then the
maximum bending moment occurs at the pile head with or without liquefaction. The base moment
of the structure is not affected in this case. The bending in the pile is rather due to the combined
efforts of the base shear of the structure, the interaction between pile and soil, and to some extent
the changes in soil properties due to the seismic motion of the particles. In a pseudo-static analysis,
the base is assumed to be rigid, hence the base moment and shears are applied to the calculation of
the foundation bending moment. The displacements are more than twice as large when the pile caps
are free to rotate. The maximum pile head displacement is usually the most critical in design.
Hence when modeling the pile cap it is best to get as accurate a model as possible and to consider
that the maximum displacement may occur at the interface of the differing soil layers. The next set
of diagrams (Figure 3-16, Figure 3-17, Figure 3-18, Figure 3-19), also from centrifugal tests
performed by Finn [1999], displays the effects of the free field motion and compares it to the
motion of a pile in a soil that is in a liquefiable soil and one that has a non-liquefiable layer above a
liquefiable layer. It is seen that the effects on displacement and bending moments are considerably
greater (by a factor of 2) when there exists a non-liquefiable layer above the liquefiable layer.
Figure 3-16. Displacements of pile and free field in

liquefiable soil, [Finn (1999)].
Figure 3-17. Displacements of pile and free field with

non-liquefiable soil above liquefiable layer, [Finn
(1999)].
38
Figure 3-18. Bending-Moments of pile and free field in

liquefiable soil, [Finn (1999)].
Figure 3-19. Bending-Moments of pile and free field

with non-liquefiable soil above liquefiable layer, [Finn
(1999)].
Hence, analyses that neglect the kinematic effects therefore significantly underestimate the bending
moments and shearing forces in foundation piles.
The influence of the pile cap stiffness on the system frequency is related to the relative stiffness of
the structure to the foundation. An effect estimated by a period shift in the first mode frequency.
The extent to which this occurs depends on the ratio of the system frequency with stiff foundation
to system frequency with flexible foundation. One-third to three-quarters of the platform mass is to
be attributed to the hydrodynamic load from the presence of water in its elements. This water
affects the total mass of the structure and its frequency, by affecting the damping of the structure,
[Bea 1992]. When excited the structure will have significant loading passed onto it. Depending on
the degree of excitation, leads to the degree of damping that results. This damping is as a result of
the operations of the design of the structure (steel elements), the presence of the water within the
elements and the interaction of these with the foundation.
The soil modulus is highly strain dependent. Hence the shear strain caused by the seismic loading
can severely reduce the soil stiffness. The Langrangian function is for large strain non-linear
analysis and is used to model the dynamics of a system. The formula for small strain shear moduli,
Gmax can be estimated from the equation below, which was proposed by Sees and Idriss [1970].
(3.15)
39
where,
kmax is a constant which depends on the relative density of the soil,
m is the initial mean effective stress and,
Pa is the atmospheric pressure.
3.2.1.1.7
Buckling
Piles are subjected to buckling below the mudline. Although even soft soils are capable of adding
some resistance to the pile, upon addition of significant axial load, the increase in p- effects make
the pile more susceptible to deformation. The best method of analysis for this occurrence is to
model the pile as a beam-column on an inelastic foundation (discussed later in detail). When such a
method is used the following API-RP2A check is to be made.
(3.16)
where,
fa = absolute value of acting axial stress
Fxc = critical buckling stress,
fbx = bending tensile stress, x-direction,
fby = bending tensile stress, y-direction,
Fb = allowable bending stress.
Buckling will be attributed to the failure of the soil primarily, than any other factors, as such it is
best to investigate the effects of the causes of buckling and what can be done to prevent it. This
leads to an investigation into pile performance in liquefiable soils. In equation 3.16, the API-RP2A
safely assumes a combination of the effect of axial loading and bending that will cause buckling. In
the implementation of these, one is to ensure that maximum values are used so as to cater for the
worst case scenario. It is understood that liquefaction may occur, but the soil may be stationary,
then the axial load only will be acting on the pile. Also, depending on whether or not there is lateral
movement then this will create large bending moments in the pile near to the interface of the
different layers and these can create plastic hinges which will reduce the axial capacity of the piles.
40
Further analysis of the reasons for buckling leads to the observation of its parameters. These
parameters are:
-
the effective length, Leff, which depends on the embedded depth in the non-liquefiable layer,
the locations of these layers with respect to the location of the liquefying layers, and the pile
cap resistance,
the minimum radius of gyration, rmin, which depends on the cross-section of the pile,
the slenderness ratio of the pile, Leff/rmin,
Eulers critical buckling load, Pcr,
and the axial stress, .
From observations by Bhattacharya et al. [2004], it can be concluded that in the design of piles in
offshore seismic cases where the soil is susceptible to liquefaction, these should be designed as
efficient short columns. This depends on the location and the axial load which will dictate the value
of the slenderness ratio that will lead to failure. As such, designs should consist of piles with high
stiffnesses (larger moduli) resulting in less piles becoming necessary.
3.2.1.2 Static Group
When piles are placed together they act as a unit rather than individual piles if their proximity is
close enough. As per the API-RP2A piles are to be analyzed for grouping effects if they are within
8 pile diameters of each other. For piles in groups, as seen in Figure 3-20, the total area encased by
the piles is to be considered when calculating skin friction. As such the capacity of a pile group is
dependent on:
-
the skin friction of the entire enclosed area by the piles
the bearing capacity of the cross-sectional area of the soil only that is enclosed by the piles
the bearing capacity of the area of the piles by the plugged or coring cases whichever is the
lesser value.
41
Figure 3-20. External area used in the calculation of skin-friction.
Also, when conducting analyses, the lesser of the group capacity or of the sum of the individual pile
capacities is used.
3.2.2 Dynamic Pile Analysis

During cyclic loading the capacity of piles are reduced to 60% of the initial static capacity. The
response of the soil to dynamic/cyclic loading is also non-linear. The soil moduli decreases with
strain and leads to a decrease in soil stiffness. This leads to greater displacements during loading.
3.2.2.1 Dynamic Parameters
Dynamic soil parameters are determined from the p-y, t-z, q-z curves. These parameters display
more than sufficient information on the soil so that its behavior when loaded can be predicted. The
latter two of these parameters are the components of settlement and are used in the prediction of
such. The static soil parameters cannot be used in the design of offshore piles as this would lead to
an over-estimation of the period of the structure and as such a substantially over-estimated design.
The foundation flexibility increases with period. Dynamic soil factors reduce stresses at tower base
and along pile shafts. The curves for use in offshore installations have been published in the APIRP2A from empirical computations.
42
3.2.2.1.1
t-z
The t-z curves establish a relationship between the net skin-friction, t, and the pile displacement, z,
of the surrounding soil. The API-RP2A has produced Figure 3-21 as the industry standard for t-z
graphs. The response of the pile is generally governed by the loading type, loading rate, loading
direction, soil type, axial pile stiffness and other parameters, [API-RP2A]. If the pile is stiff, it will
exhibit less tendency to rely on the surrounding soil for resistance, but rather transfer most of its
loading to the tip.
Figure 3-21. Recommended t-z curves, notice that the peak shear stress for clay
is at 1% of the diameter but for sands the peak stress is at a deflection of 0.1inches, [API-RP2A]
3.2.2.1.2
q-z
The q-z curves represent the relationship between the end-bearing force and the pile tip
displacement into the ground immediately below the tip. The value of q is computed by the product
of the cross-sectional area of the pile and the end bearing stress. Figure 3-22 is the API-RP2A
industry base for the q-z relationship for piles. Large pile tip motion is normally required to
mobilize the full end bearing resistance of a pile, and it is proven that 10% of the pile diameter is to
be embedded into the soil layer for full bearing resistance in clay or sandy soil. If the pile is
flexible, then the surrounding soil will play a large part in determining the axial capacity of the pile.
43
The pile will be subjected to larger bending moments and these will be resisted by the soil. This will
affect the settlement of the pile.
Figure 3-22. Recommended q-z curve, notice that the peak shear stress for clay, [API-RP2A].
The t-z and q-z curves have been proven to be too complex for analytical solution and hence a
numerical solution must be sought.
3.2.2.1.3
p-y
The previous have been for the vertical loading of piles. But piles are also laterally loaded and this
calls for the use of the load-deflection curves to predict their behavior. The platforms would cause
bending moments in piles. The soil is to be tested at various levels to determine what level of
loading it can accept safely. This is displayed in the form of curves. These curves vary significantly
for clays and sands. Clays behave as plastic materials, and exhibit non-linear stress-strain
relationships, when laterally loaded and as such the p-y curves should be based on the results of
laboratory tests. The same would be applicable to stiff clays. The below table is applicable to soft
clays in the absence of reliable laboratory data.
44
Table 3-9 p-y curves for short-term static load [API-RP2A]
where,
p = actual lateral resistance (kPa),
y = actual lateral deflection (mm),
yc = 2.5cD (mm),
c = strain which occurs at half of the maximum stress on laboratory undrained compression tests of
undisturbed samples.
The precedence upon which this lies is as a result of research that has been done by many teams,
some of which have been mentioned earlier. Matlock [1970] performed a series of static and cyclic
lateral loading tests on a series of piles in soft clays and developed relationships for the generation
of p-y curves. Then Reese and Welsh [1975] did the same type of studies on piles in stiff clays to
generate p-y curves. The same occurred with ONeil and Murchison [1983] for sand. The results
were the generation of the p-y curves that are recommended by API-RP2A, Figure 3-23. These
graphs are then used by other researchers and designers as a basis for further work on the modeling
of soils and foundations.
45
Figure 3-23. The p-y curves for (a) soft clays (b) stiff clays (c) sand layers, [El Naggar et al. (2005)]
3.2.2.2
Dynamic Single
In dynamic analysis, the interaction of the pile-soil-structure is considered. This is the primary
benefit of the use of dynamic analysis as it is able to incorporate all of these so as to produce one
result. These analyses are normally produced by way of 2D or 3D models of a soil and structure
continuum by the use of a numerical modeling method. Among these methods would include finite
element modeling, finite difference modeling, the thin layered element method and the dynamic
beam on a non-linear Winkler foundation (dynamic p-y, Figure 3-24). This latter method has been
used considerably in the past in applications of seismicity and offshore problems [Matlock et al.
46
(1978), Kagawa and Kraft (1980), Novak and Sheta (1980), and Nogami et al. (1992)]. This method
has been proven also to be far less complex than the finite element and finite difference methods
and still exhibit accuracy, [Boulanger et al. (1999)]. The thin layered element method has been
developed by E. Kausel, [1981] and is applicable to dynamic soil structure analysis of axisymmetric structure in submerged soil and as such is a powerful method for computations of
dynamic loading of piles, sand and dynamic loading in the offshore environment. This shall be
elaborated upon later.
Figure 3-24. Schematic of Dynamic p-y Analysis

Model [Boulanger et al. 1999]
If linearity is assumed in a program then it cannot be used for seismic analyses. Among the reasons
are that for cohesive soils, these programs do not account for gapping in the soil-pile interface and
permanent deformations. This observation is suggested by Naggar and Novak [1996] to be critical
in the dynamic analysis of piles under rapid loading as it would affect considerably the initial
capacity of the pile if it was assumed that under loading the soil and pile would continuously be in
contact. This team then produced a method of analysis that predicted the response of a single pile
and piles in a group accounting for non-linearity using a hyperbolic stress-strain relationship with
slippage and gapping considered. Also, this method accounted for propagation of waves from the
pile and dissipation of energy.
Pile design, in general, uses p-y curves to predict pile response under static loading, and this method
is simple and produces accurate results. Developing upon this is a new method that is intended to
utilize existing or developed cyclic or static p-y curves to represent the non-linear behavior of the
soil that is in contact with the pile [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)]. From these the model would
47
utilize unit load transfer curves in the time domain and incorporate material and radiation damping
to generate dynamic p-y curves. One must analyze the dynamic p-y data in the time domain so as to
have the ability to account for the variation in damping with the displacement level.
Figure 3-25. How piles are to be analyzed, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)].
For this model the piles are modeled with near-field and far-field springs as seen in Figure 3-25. In
modeling soil with the use of springs and dashpots, the real part is the stiffness [spring] and the
imaginary part is the damping [dashpot]. These springs are intended to be able to model fully what
actually happens in the soil. The inner field is modeled with a non-linear spring to represent the
stiffness of the soil and a dashpot is used to simulate the hysteretic damping of the soil. In this
method the assumptions are:
-
that the inner field is a homogeneous, visco-elastic [exhibit time dependent strain], isotropic,
massless, medium,
the pile is rigid and circular,
there is no gapping between the pile and the soil [even though there is gapping],
the conditions are that of plane strain [i.e. no cylindrical coordinates are used],
displacements are small.
48
Stiffness of spring is determined by the equation by Navak & Sheta [1980]:
(3.17)
where,
r0 = pile radius,
r1 = outer radius of the inner zone,
= Poissons ratio of the soil stratum.
For the far field the model assumes linear springs in parallel with a dashpot which models primarily
radiation damping. The soil reactions are governed by the expressions from Novak [1978], that
determines the complex stiffnesses of the soil by the equation for K,
(3.18)
where,
a0 =
r1
Vs
is the dimensionless frequency,
= frequency of loading,
Vs = shear wave velocity of the soil layer,
i = an imaginary unit,
D = material damping constant of the soil layer.
This is further simplified to:

(3.19)
where, the above stiffness considers both the spring and the dashpot, and both terms are dependent
on the shear wave velocity of the soil.
49
The gapping is catered for by the use of the springs that are released when there exists a tensile
force on one side of the pile in the plane strain analysis, during dynamic lateral loading. This results
in permanent deformation of the soil. These gaps are predominant in offshore analyses and after
earthquake loading in clays. In sands however, gapping is hardly ever found.
The p-y curves represent the actual motion of a soil under pile loading, hence the motions of the
outer and inner zones combined. The total stiffness is derived from the combination of the nonlinear motion of the near field, kpy, determined from the p-y curves [Matlock (1970), Reese and
Welch (1975), and Reese et al. (1975)] and the linear motion of the far field, kL, is determined from
the equation,
(3.20)
and the two components are linked together by the relationship
(3.21)
Damping plays a part in both the near and far fields, and the following relationship is applied as a
dashpot to both the near and far fields. This adds to the total effect of the loading as can be seen in
Figure 3-26.
(3.22)
Figure 3-26. Determination of stiffness from a generated static p-y curve to result
in a dynamic p-y curve with the inclusion of damping, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)].
50
There exists different methods of computation of the p-y curves for sands and clays. The procedure
for the p-y relationship for clay was developed for both above and below the water-table by
Matlock 1970 and Bushan 1979, respectively. The relationship is based on the following equation:
(3.23)
the tangential stiffness constant is given by a time step using the equation:
(3.24)
The procedure identified here for sands is that of the method developed by Bushan and Haley
[1980] and Bushan et al [1981]. The soil resistance can be modeled by the relationship:
(3.25)
Now here, k is a constant that depends on the lateral displacement y. k decreases as y increases and
relates the secant modulus of the soil to the depth x. For Figure 3-25, the motion in the inner field
(1) and outer field (2) nodes are governed by the time history analysis equations:
(3.26)
Important to note is that since sands do not experience gapping during dynamic loading due to their
caving-in properties, the elements in a sand model stay connected to the pile model unlike in the
clay model where the elements are disjointed from the pile under sufficient loading.
P-y curve points are only for a specific depth and not for along the depth of the pile. The soil
resistance to pile motion increases as the frequency of loading of the pile increases. These curves
exhibit the property that the lateral resistance of the soil increases as the frequency increases. In
general these curves are of three regions; the first region is associated with the increase in soil
resistance as the velocity of the soil increases to a maximum; the second has approximately the
same slope as the first region and is as a result of the velocity and damping reaching a maximum;
and final stage is one that tends to zero as plastic deformations are formed. The following
relationship links the static p-y curve reactions, Ps, to the dynamic p-y curve reactions, Pd, at depth
x, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)].
51
(3.27)
d = pile diameter (m),
y = lateral pile deflection at depth x.
The other constants are to be derived from Table 3-10. Its accuracy is less for very stiff soils and
increases with frequency greater than 4Hz.
Table 3-10 Dynamic p-y curve parameter constants for a range of soil types
(d = 0.25; L/d = 40; 0.015 < a0 < 0.225, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)].
For most structural dynamics software, the dynamic components of the soil are modeled with the py data. But if this is the static p-y data then it does not contain the effects of velocity dependent
damping forces. As such, Equation 3.27 can be used to mitigate these effects and result in better
prediction of dynamic behavior. From methods that are developed, it is possible to see that the
stiffness does decrease with increased displacement due to soil non-linearity, as seen in Figure 3-27.
The effects of using the static p-y curves were compared to the use of dynamic p-y curves using a
2D analytical model developed by a finite element program ANSYS [Ansys Inc. 1996] and the
results are displayed in Figure 3-28. Here it can be seen that there is much agreement between the
dynamic p-y data model and the 2D analytical model but there is much disparity between this 2D
analytical model and the static p-y data model.
52
Figure 3-27. Trend of decreasing stiffness with increased displacement, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)].
Figure 3-28. Comparison between [a] Analytical model and the use of static p-y data
[b] Analytical model and the use of dynamic p-y data, [El Naggar & Bentley, (2000)].
When we compare the effects of pile groups and single piles on the p-y and t-z curves, we obtain
Figure 3-29 and Figure 3-30 respectively. The pile in a group is clearly able to withstand more
lateral loading and the maximum resistance to motion takes a greater depth to be achieved than
when isolated.
53
Figure 3-29. p-y curves for single and a pile in a group.
3.2.2.3
Figure 3-30. t-z curves for single and a pile in a group.
Dynamic Group
For a proper performance based design to be done, all necessary components of the buildingfoundation-soil that significantly affect the seismic demand and response of the structure must be
considered in the analysis. In most onshore developments it is normally assumed that the foundation
of a structure normally lies on a fixed base. This method is incorrect when dealing with critical
structures or with those with large periods as in such cases in offshore environments. In such cases
the interaction of all components must be considered. Foundation flexibility can have a positive
effect on a structure and in so doing be able to reduce the ductility demand. This would lead to more
efficient designs and huge cost savings especially in cases of retrofitting. One of the biggest
problems are that commercial software that is available today is not geared towards the coupling of
the foundation response and the structural response as one fully coupled system as this normally
takes a great deal of time and effort.
In the pile-structure interaction, the inertial effects with the superstructure may cause greater nonlinear behavior leading to reduced frequencies. The lower the stiffness the greater the control on
frequency. The flexibility of the foundation reduces the overall frequency of the structure. Pile-soil
interaction effects are stronger near to the surface of a soil column. The variation of shear moduli
and damping ratio with shear strain are still determined by the original Seed and Idriss [1970]
method for sand. p and q multipliers are to be used to account for the pile-soil-pile interaction
(group effects).
Testing of piles in centrifuges have displayed that the greater the spacing to diameter ratio of the
piles, the greater the efficiency of the pile group. For example, the situations with s/d = 3, = 73%
54
and for s/d = 5, = 90%. This justifies the recommendation of the API-RP2A that piles with s/d
ratios of less than 8 are to be analyzed as groups.
For analysis of piles in groups the p-multiplier is used. This multiplier, as the name indicates, is
applied to p values of the p-y curves for a single pile so as to simulate the effects of the pile in a
group. Elastic response analysis has displayed that the static effects of a pile in a group is more
reliably determined by an analysis of the single pile in the group than the actual group itself. The
dynamic stiffness of piles is largely affected by pile group interaction. When conducting a seismic
analysis of a pile, it is best to do this by means of a p-y analysis, thereby incorporating a dynamic
formulation of the problem, by a Winkler non-linear computational method. This would be better
than that of a pseudo-static approach as now factors that would have previously been ignored in this
method of analysis would be incorporated. The schematic for this type of analysis is shown in
Figure 3-31. The near field springs are represented by the non-linear p-y curves. This is basically
the same model as that of El Naggar & Bentley, [2000].
Figure 3-31. Dynamic Winkler computational

non-linear model for pile analysis [Finn (2005)]
It has been found that the results from static analysis performed on pile groups cannot be relied
upon heavily to account for group effects in the dynamic environment. Also, many analyses that are
done do not account for the effect of a rotational pile cap and as such will not produce reliable
results when modeling group piles. This would directly affect the bending moment, the shear force
and displacement dramatically and no coherence in the results will be found.
55
The frequencies of different pile groups for the same super-structure will be similar as the
frequency is dependent on the combined stiffness of super-structure and foundation. But in some
instances the foundation frequency may dominate.
In the design of structures it is customary to overdesign the members so as to increase their strength
as a type of safety factor. Also this is done so as to create locations of plastic hinge formation and in
so doing absorb some of the effects of the earthquake forces. This increase in the nominal strength
of structures must be considered in the design of piles. This is important especially in the case of
intent for the location of the hinge in the pile or in the column. For the case of offshore structures
though, due to the great environmental damage that would occur if failure was to occur, platforms
are usually designed to be ductile with some measure of redundancy to ensure safety during seismic
loading.
Extensive work was done by Mostafa & Naggar [2002] on p-multipliers applied to groups. It was
determined that these values are dependent on:
-
the spacing between the piles
the ratio of pile spacing to pile diameter [s/d]
soil type
peak amplitude of loading
angle between the lines connecting the twp piles
direction of loading
The method proposed builds on the work from Naggar and Bentley [2000] for dynamic analysis of
single piles. The p-multipliers do not represent the dynamic loading conditions by the wave, wind,
ship impact or earthquake events. We refer again to Figure 3-25, from the previous chapter. The
method of analysis is once again considered for the single pile so as to arrive at the dynamic
analysis of one pile. From before the equations of stiffness are determined for the inner zone using
Equation 3.24 to Equation 3.26. The same assumptions for gapping are made with the springs being
made to release during tension in cohesive soils and a no-release situation in non-cohesive soils.
56
Figure 3-32. The load-displacement curves for a 12-pile group, [Mostafa and Naggar, (2002)].
Tests that were performed by the group of Mostafa and Naggar [2002] on group piles led to results
as seen in Figure 3-32. As the loading increased, the efficiency of the pile group to absorb the
energy of the loading increased.
The p-multipliers are determined when piles have reached their maximum displacement which
represents the most critical case in dynamic loading. p-multipliers are applied to the p-values of the
p-y curves. They range in value from 0 to 1. Tests on these multipliers [Mostafa and Naggar,
(2002)] have revealed the following properties:
-
As the spacing increases the p-multiplier increases in value, tending to 1. Hence the group
effect decreases as spacing increases.
As the displacement of a pile increases (y/d), the p-multiplier also decreases. This means
that during a dynamic event, the greater the loading, the more the piles in a group act as
individual piles. This may be due to the soil deformations that occur around individual piles
as the displacement increases.
The p-multipliers for piles that are embedded at 90 to each other are lower than their in line
counterparts, i.e. at 0, and that this is most prominent at low values of s/d. This is because
of the increased non-linearity along the loading direction and that for closely spaced piles
57
the p-multipliers should be taken for each pile individually and not the average value
depending on the row.
-
Also observed is that the denser the soils for piles at 90 to each other, display also smaller
p-multiplier values. This is said to be attributed to the out of phase pile vibration and the
small spacing between the piles relative to the length of the traveling wave. It is known that
the interaction between the waves between the piles are very varied and leads to constructive
or destructive interference [Kaynia and Kausel, 1982]. This depends on pile spacing,
frequency of loading and the characteristics of the pile soil system.
Weighted average values of p-multipliers can be used in cases of many soil layers by first
computing a value for each layer.
Fixed headed pile groups display higher p-multiplier values than pin headed piles. As such
the pin-headed piles have a greater effect on the group interaction than do the fixed-headed
piles.
Concrete and steel piles were also compared. It has been seen that the p-multipliers for steel
are much lower than those for concrete at low s/d ratios. This indicates that the interaction
effects between piles increases as the rigidity of the pile-soil interface increases (represented
by the Ep/Es).
In stiff clay, the p-multipliers for concrete piles are less than those for steel piles. The values
do depend on the frequency of loading and when the value of y/d > 0.007.
For piles with larger diameters the p-multiplier effects are decreased compared to smaller
diameter piles.
The p-multipliers also increase with pile length. Hence the shorter the pile, the greater the
influence of the p-multiplier. This is because the greatest influence of p-multipliers is for the
top layers (6-10 pile diameters), hence the larger the percentage of pile installed in such a
layer, the smaller the effect of the p-multipliers. The contribution of the top layers diminish
as the length of pile increases.
In the case of a free length of pile, i.e. a length of pile unsupported due to scour for
example in offshore piles, this would lower the p-multipliers for close proximity piles.
The type of pile driving also affects the p-values. For small s/d values the bored piles have
smaller p-multiplier values than the driven piles. This is because driven piles have the
property of compacting the soil and as such in bored piles there is a reduced rigidity between
the pile and the soil.
58
When studied in clay, the s/d factor does not play an important role in the determination of
the values of the p-multipliers. The frequency of the loading does play an important role
though.
p-multipliers are larger for the pined head condition in clays than the fixed head condition.
Piles are not normally analyzed in 3D for the amount of time that is required for this process.
Seismic analysis is normally done by way of assuming that input motions are horizontally polarized
shear waves propagating vertically. Hence, the important parameters used in seismic analysis are
the shear stresses in the vertical and horizontal planes and the normal stresses in the direction of
shaking. Dynamic response is governed by shear waves in the x-y and y-z planes and compression
waves in the direction of shaking, the y-direction. Deformations in the vertical directions and
normal to the direction of shaking are ignored [Curras et al (2001)]. Figure 3-33 displays the
general schematic of a 3D Finite Element Analysis.
Figure 3-33. Quasi-3D model of soil-pile response, [Finn 1999].
59
3.2.3 Carbonate Soils

These soils have the ability to display high CPT values due to their local bond, but loose this bond
quickly under rapid loading, especially during piling. This is important as carbonate soils possess
variable bonds ranging from highly cemented to lightly cemented with many void spaces. It is of
fundamental importance therefore that when conducting a CPT soil samples are to be taken and
tested. This is important in frontier areas and also such areas that are known for the presence of
carbonates. Foundation behavior is adversely affected when carbonate content is greater than 1520%.
3.2.4 Grouted vs. Ungrouted Piles

When piles are to be designed, they are to be connected to the structure. Based on the type of
connection will dictate behavior under loading and stiffness. It is understood that in the jacket type
structure the piles are driven through the main legs of the platform. The contact between pile and
platform leg is not flush and this is where the type of connection materializes. The options available
to inhibit pile-structure structure interaction are a grouted connection, whereby grout is injected
between the pile and the platform leg, and the ungrouted model whereby connection joints and shim
plates are used at specific points along the pile. The grouted method usually leads to a fixed
continuous connection if it completely fills the space and is therefore modeled as such. The
ungrouted method will not produce a fixed connection, and the creation of shear keys is adopted.
Figure 3-34. Positions of connection types for grouted and

ungrouted scenarios [adapted from Honarvar et al, (2008)].
60
For the positions where shim plates are situated, these produce confinements that do not allow
rotation and lateral movement, but the piles are allowed to move vertically, see Figure 3-34 (red
squares). The pile and jacket connections are normally welded together to create a fixed connection
at the position where the pile ends and the topside deck begins (red circles). For the grouted case the
leg members are effectively held in position by the grout to the pile and no slippage or movement is
considered relative to the composite section.
The response of the platform is affected by the grouting. The grouted pile-structure system is
subjected to more loading than the ungrouted system due to its increased stiffness. As a result of
this, the system is less flexible and results in larger loading being applied to the system as a whole
(Figure 3-35b) resulting in greater axial forces in the bracing members which leads to their
degradation. This leads to the understanding that ungrouted systems are better at absorbing energy,
but grouted systems are more efficient up until the failure of the connections/members. These can of
course be designed so as to be more resistant to loading, such as by the inclusion of joint cans. For
frames that do not possess sufficient member resistance failure will occur in less cycles for the
grouted case. This is applicable to the design of offshore structures, as the design of the pilestructure connection may be good but, if the members and their connections are not adequate,
failure would occur during seismicity.
From tests run by Honarvar et al. [2008], on scaled grouted and ungrouted pile-platform models,
this degradation can be easily seen, Figure 3-35, from the reduction in applied loading necessary for
a specific displacement. These tests are cyclic in nature and as can also be seen from these graphs,
from a dissipation of energy perspective, the ungrouted system seems to be better at the reduction of
seismic energy. This trend is visible up to the position where upon crushing of the grout, the two
systems would act similarly.
61
(a) ungrouted
(b) grouted
Figure 3-35. Frame strength and stiffness degradation in working load cycles [Honarvar et al, (2008)].
3.2.5 Comparison of API-RP2A with other Codes for Offshore Pile Design
The main design code for offshore installations is that of the API-RP2A. This code was released in
2000 but since then significant improvements have been developed in the field and such this code
needs to be updated. But since this has not yet occurred, other codes have been developed by other
bodies, such as:
1. University of Western Australia [UWA 2005]
2. Norwegian Geotechnical Institute [NGI 2004]
3. Imperial College [ICP 2005]
4. FUGRO [FUGRO 2004]
To prove the worth of their methods in determining pile capacity, a series of pile tests have been run
by Lehane et al. [2005] to compare each method, though specifically in sand. One of the main
findings in the results is that the API-RP2A method has been proven to under-predict the capacities
of the piles and also leads to a situation of non-conservatism upon increase of pile length or aspect
ratio (L/D). The CPT method of analyzing data was also studied and it was found that the methods
of formulations, in the codes, of the predictions of pile capacity by the use of the cone varied and
led to inaccurate results.
The results have shown that the ICP-05 method provides the lowest coefficient of variability for
calculated to measured capacities [Qc/Qm] of 0.32, if equal weighting is given to each pile test.
When the capacities are analyzed separately differing trends are also seen. As an example the NGI04 code leads to results that are best for open-ended piles in compression while, Fugro-05 and ICP-
62
05 are best for open ended piles in tension. This specifically relates to the lowest probability that is
achieved by the tests. For the tests performed the below was found:
-
API-RP2A: closed-ended piles in compression
Fugro-04: closed-ended piles in tension
ICP-05 & NGI-04: open-ended piles in compression
ICP-05 & Fugro-04: open-ended piles in tension
It was reported that the API-RP2A code produced the lowest probability of failure for closed-ended
piles in compression due to the fact that the method severely under-predicts the capacity of the
database piles to a certain degree in this regard. For predictions of a closed-ended pile in tension,
the API-RP2A probably of failure is larger than the other 3 methods. It was also found that the ICP05 method under-predicts the pile base capacity when considering only pile annular end bearing and
becomes non-conservative for tension capacity as the aspect ratio increases.
The effort made by Lehane et al. [2005], was done specifically for the advocation of the UWA-05
method for piles in sand. It was found that for closed-ended piles the modes of penetration and the
cone penetration test are similar and hence these results should to be closely related. The difference
in size is to be accounted for in determining the exact values of pile penetration resistance, (qb0.1)
from cone penetration resistance, (qc). This would call for appropriate scaling methods such as the
Dutch averaging technique, [Van Mierlo and Kopejan (1952), Schmertmann (1978)] which applies
to the end bearing and should be employed to calculate qc. The values obtained for qb0.1 for driven
piles are less than qc because the displacement of 10% of the diameter of the pile is insufficient to
mobilize the ultimate bearing strength of the pile, qc. As per UWA-05, for the end-bearing capacity
of a closed-ended pile in sand the following is used (note that the ratio of actual pile resistance to
CPT resistance is taken as 60%):
Qb = qb 0.1
qb 0.1
= 0.6
qc
D2
(3.28)
For the case of open ended piles, the capacity is dependent in the flow of soil around the tip. This
effect is accounted for by the use of the final filling ratio [FFR], measured at the last stages of
installation. When the FFR approaches zero, the pile status moves from an open-ended to closedended pile with the same diameter. The displacement of the soil in the vicinity of the base is most
63
effectively described by the area ratio Arb. This ratio considers the FFR and the diameter to
thickness ratio. The equation as per UWA-05, for the end-bearing capacity of an open-ended pile is
[considering sand]:
(3.29)
It is known that the last 10D of pile penetration has the most friction. The shaft friction that can
develop along a pile is directly proportional to the degree of soil displaced during pile installation.
This degree of displacement is directly related to the displacement obtained when the pile tip was at
a level in the soil and whether or not the pile was, at this time open-ended or closed-ended. This is
checked using the area ratio, Ars.
Friction fatigue is a very important consideration when studying piles. At a horizontal plane, the
achieved radial stress when the pile tip is at this position decreases as the pile tip is driven further
into the soil. This would affect the overall stresses, f, of the pile shaft. The degree of friction
fatigue is directly related to the method of installation of the pile. This is less for jacked piles and
more for hammered piles. The degree of radial stress loss also depends on the stiffness of the soil,
[4G/D]. Hence as D, increases, the radial stress decreases. It is important here to minimize the effect
of hammering the pile such that it does not affect, to a high degree the capacity of the pile.
Now the number of hammer blows is directly proportional to the pile slenderness ratio. This
suggests that f is to be considered a function of h/D. This is also proven by measurements from
Lehane et al. [2005a]. In the ICP-05 the method proposed is that f is proportional to [h/D]-c, where
c is 0.38, based on tests that were not an exact replication of the installation method in practice for
jacked piles. The jacking of piles in the offshore environment reduces the effect of shear strain and
hence reduces the effect on the soil modulus allowing greater capacity. As this was not taken into
consideration the equations proposed by ICP-05, Fugro-04 and NGI-04 were found to under-predict
the capacity of the offshore piles and as such higher values of c are to be considered.
64
Figure 3-36. Bending-Moments of pile and free field with nonliquefiable soil above liquefiable layer, [Lehane et al. (2005a)].
f varies proportionately with tan vc, where vc is the constant volume interface friction angle
between the pile and the sand. This value increases as the roughness normalized by the mean
effective particle size D50 increases. In the absence of specific laboratory measurements, UWA-05
suggests that the following graph be used, Figure 3-36. This is the same as that suggested by ICP-05
but with a maximum value of 0.55 used to cater for the changes in surface roughness during
installation, Lehane et al. 2005b.
65
Now, the equation as per UWA-05, for the shaft capacity of a pile in sand is as follows:
(3.30)
where,
cv = constant volume interface friction angle,
'rf = radial effective stress at failure,
'rc = radial effective stress after installation and equalization,
'rd = change in radial stress due to loading stress path (dilation),
f / fc = 1 for compression and 0.75 for tension,
G/qc = 185qc1N-0.75 with qc1N=(qc/pa)/('v0/pa)0.5
pa = a reference stress equal to 100 kPa
'v0 = in situ vertical effective stress
r = dilation (assumed for analyses=0.02mm, as for ICP-05)
These equations are applicable to offshore piling by allowing IFR = 1.
The results of testing for open and closed piles subjected to compression and tension are
summarised as follows [Lehane et al. (2005a)]:
-
For the direction of loading UWA-05 produced values that had a measured to calculated
capacity of 0.97 and the lowest coefficient of variation, COV of 0.29, compared to the
COVs of 0.32, 0.38, 0.43 and 0.6 for ICP-05, Fugro-04, NGI-04 and API-RP2A
respectively.
66
UWA-05 and ICP-05 had the same COV for Qc/Qm for closed ended piles in compression.
UWA-05 has a COV of 0.19 for Qc/Qm and ICP-05 has a value of 0.25 for open-ended piles
in compression.
No apparent bias in the UWA-05 method for Qc/Qm with pile length, diameter, pile aspect
ratio and average sand relative density.
3.3 Engineering Seismology Aspects

Here an overview shall be provided into the determination of the seismic design parameters for
platforms and how these are to be determined for a particular site. A general schematic is provided
in Figure 3-37 of the effects of earthquakes in the vicinity of platforms.
Figure 3-37. Simplified model of transmission of earthquake hypocenter to an offshore platform [Dean, (2007)].
3.3.1 Seismic Analysis

In the seismic design of platforms the general requirement is that the platform be designed safely
and economically. The API-RP2A recommends that the platform be capable of withstanding certain
specified basic loadings for serviceability and also extreme loadings which may cause failure to the
platform itself, (limit state design). For serviceability requirements a Strength Level Earthquake
[SLE] is designed and for limit state design a Ductility Level Earthquake is designed. In the ISO
19901-2 (2004) these parameters are referred to as Extreme Level Earthquake and Abnormal Level
Earthquake, respectively (see section 3.1.2). The platform is considered to be a danger to the
environment and as such they are to be designed to ensure that in the event of a major earthquake,
67
significant damage will not occur. To determine the seismic design parameters a number of nonseismic parameters are also to be considered, as previously mentioned. But before this is done a
detailed seismic hazard assessment of the site must be done to arrive at the appropriate design
spectra.
3.3.1.1 PSHA
As outlined in section 3.1, when a detailed Probabilistic Seismic Hazard Assessment is to be done
for a site additional studies are to be done. This assessment is carried out using parameters that are
established and compounded into appropriate ground motion attenuation relationships. For PSHAs
the site is tested to determine the probability of earthquakes from nearby sources affecting the site.
The site is to be investigated for seismicity by carefully examining historical events and the
locations of earthquake causing faults. Fault movement can occur as a result of plate tectonics,
removal of fluids from deep reservoirs or long term creep related to large scale sedimentation or
erosion. This analysis is to be done so as to arrive at a design ground response in an accurate and
defendable manner and in so doing be able to determine if the site is prone to such phenomenon as
ground failure, liquefaction, and fault rupture. The following parameters are to be considered for a
detailed PSHA:
-
Location, size and type of faults in the vicinity of the platform,
Distance from faults,
Maximum magnitude earthquake that can be produced,
Historical earthquakes,
Seismogenic width and slip rate of faults,
Simulations for the inclusion of uncertainty in input parameters [aleatory and epistemic],
Deaggregation of results and identification of the magnitude and site-to-source distance to

determine the worst case scenario of loading.
In conducting a PSHA it is not required to look at a single source but rather the site as a whole. This
is required as each site differs as in some cases there can exist a single line source or a series of
sources. In the latter case the site is to be considered as an aerial source. The next step would be to
define a recurrence interval for each source. Usually this takes the form of a Guttenberg-Richter
recurrence interval equation which would express the logarithm of the number of expected annual
68
earthquakes to a linear function of earthquake magnitude. The recurrence interval can also be in the
form of an equation that is based on the properties of the seismic source and the generation of
similar size earthquakes. For PSHAs the largest problem that is usually faced is the selection of the
appropriate regression model to be used for the site. Following this, the attenuation of the
earthquake is to be studied and a relationship made. This would depend on the location of the
platform with respect to the source, the soil parameters and geology, and the magnitude of the
earthquake. When combined these parameters produce a hazard curve which is a cumulative
probabilistic distribution function of the ground motion.
3.3.1.2 DSHA
A Deterministic Seismic Hazard Assessment is carried out by considering a single event of a

specified magnitude and distance from a site. These assessments are carried out by:
-
characteristics of an earthquake source and its relation relative to a site,
accurate approximation of the maximum magnitude earthquake that this source can produce,
a method of representing the attenuation of strong ground motion with distance from the
source to the site.
Depending on the site, many sources may be found, as such for each of these a DSHA must be done
and the maximum effect on the site is to be established. The DSHA does not have a return period
attached to it, but the site itself will have sources to which are attributed return periods. The DSHA
are done so as to complement the PSHA results.
3.3.1.3 Example Procedure
An overview of the general procedure shall be given here for an arbitrary site, but will display the
general observations as considerations to be made when performing a site hazard analysis. The
studies that are normally done on the effects of seismicity on platforms would include local effects,
with smaller seismic levels, and regional effects from faults such as those in subduction zones. If we
were to refer to Figure 3-37, there exists a fault that upon rupturing would produce ground motions
that would affect the platform. Platforms are not normally placed in the direct vicinity of faults
(within 10km), but they are affected by these faults when earthquakes occur. Platforms are usually
placed at large distances away from large faults such as subduction zones, but not away from local
seismicity. If the platform was in the general vicinity of the fault, say 20km, local effects would be
69
observed. If the platform was far away from the fault, say >200km, regional effects would be
observed. This scenario can be related to the San Andreas Fault, and the platforms that are offshore
California.
Now, if a PSHA is performed for pseudovelocity (PSV) at each oscillator period for a wide period
range from 0.4 to 4.0secs, the result is that at very low periods the PSV is dominated by the local
source effects, see Figure 3-38. This occurs as the local faults are much closer to the platform and
the short period (high frequency) waves attenuate less than those from a distant earthquake, even if
from a strong magnitude event.
Figure 3-38. Probability Curve displaying effect on PS V for a 0.4sec period, [Crouse (1992)].
On the contrary, for larger periods, the PSV is dominated by the regional effects, such as a
subduction zone. This fault, if producing a high energy event will produce waves that will travel
further with longer periods. From Figure 3-38 and
Figure 3-39, uniform probability spectra are derived. As an example, Figure 3-40, is an extraction of
a 200-year return period from the previous figures. From the figure one can see that the regional
effects are more dominant at longer periods but less so for shorter periods, and that the case is
opposite for the local effects. Offshore platforms have large natural periods and as such will be
70
adversely affected by large magnitude earthquakes which also have large periods and last for
several minutes.
Figure 3-39. Probability Curve displaying effect on PSV for a 4.0sec period, [Crouse (1992)].
These are among some of the primary steps that are to be considered when doing a PSHA, as many
other parameters are to be considered. The reasoning is that, the time-history of real earthquakes for
the seafloor are very rare, and as such interpolations are to be done based on existing terrestrial
occurrences. Other factors come into play at this point, such as geotechnical considerations,
geological considerations and regulatory factors. Geotechnical factors are due to the effect of the
soil stratum below the platform that may inhibit further accelerations. Also, the local geology of the
site may inhibit basin effects or low anelastic attenuation. Studies into basin effects have shown that
the more centralized the site, with respect to the basin, the greater the acceleration of the motions.
The sites which are closer to the edges of basins have displayed shorter durations.
Added to these factors is that no matter how many attempts are made, there still exists
imperfections in these processes due to lack of knowledge and the randomness of these events,
namely the epistemic and aleatory uncertainties. The final response spectrum will take the shape of
71
Figure 3-41 for a long period platform, for horizontal motion. For the construction of the final
response, the presence of basin effects will raise the level of the spectrum and due to the platform
being more susceptible to response from the larger magnitude earthquakes, the higher periods
would be given greater emphasis.
Figure 3-40. PSHA primary results, [Crouse (1992)].
Figure 3-41. PSHA final result, [Crouse (1992)].
72
Vertical motions would be affected by the P-waves. The horizontal shaking would produce shear
waves which are not transmitted through water. But water does transmit compressional waves,
which will be the vertically propagating P-waves. As mentioned earlier, we are to use the
earthquake strong motion data that has been acquired from terrestrial locations and apply them to
offshore sites. In offshore circumstances there exists a water column that will transmit the P-waves
in two directions, firstly the incident wave that reaches the water surface and then the reflected
wave back to the seafloor, [Crouse (1992)].
This process will affect the vertical component of the terrestrial data when applied to offshore
situations. The result can be the total destructive interference of the waves at the seafloor at certain
frequencies, i.e. the natural frequency of the water column. It is possible though to interpolate the
onshore response to the offshore response by way of the transfer functions. This would require
knowledge of the P-wave velocity, the water density, the soil density, soil profile and bedrock
information and the water depth. The results of this is normally the reduction of the frequencies. A
reduction of the higher frequencies is noted for shallow waters such as 100m, but for larger depths
such as 300m, where the fundamental frequency of the water is approximately 1Hz, a reduction of
the smaller frequencies is observed. Figure 3-42 shows a case of a reduction in the higher
frequencies in shallow water (122m) for an offshore platform computed from onshore results.
Figure 3-42. Computed 1971 Holiday Inn Platform

vertical component, [Crouse and Quilter (1991)].
73
For the task of the probabilistic seismic hazard assessment of an offshore platform there is a
requirement for the input of many technical sources ranging from seismology, geotechnics, geology
and structural engineering and from non technical sources that deal with the regulatory issues.
3.3.2 Dynamic Soil Properties

If there is a need to perform a seismic design, certain soil properties must be obtained initially.
These properties are arrived at only from dynamic testing. Dynamic testing provides the cyclic
response diagram, as displayed in Figure 3-43, and this is used to compute the dynamic properties
of the soil which are the secant shear modulus, Gsec, and the damping ratio, . The secant shear
modulus is determined from the slope of the line that joins the points A and B in the cyclic
response, and is a measure of the slope of the hysteresis loop. And the damping ratio is related to
the area within the hysteresis loop, which is a measure of energy dissipation. Both of these
properties are dependent on the stress level and the strain amplitude. For low strain amplitudes a
cylindrical sample is subjected to subsequently decreasing torques. Resonance occurs when the
cyclic torque amplitude [frequency] is a minimum. The damping and the secant modulus of the soil
are related by the following equation:
WD
1 Aloop
=
4WS 2 G sec c2
(3.31)
where,
WD = dissipated energy,
WS = maximum strain energy,
Aloop = area of the hysteresis loop,
c = peak strain.
74
Figure 3-43. Typical cyclic response for a ductile soil, [Dean, (2008)].
Figure 3-44. Typical variations of shear modulus ratio G/Gmax and damping
with cyclic strain amplitude, depending on plasticity index, [Kramer 1996].
The shear modulus of soil decreases with increasing cyclic torque [strain] amplitude which is
equivalent to the increasing magnitude of the earthquake. Hence for larger earthquakes, which have
long durations, the soil gets softer. Also, the damping of a soil increases with the increasing cyclic
strain amplitude and as such during a large earthquake the soil would dissipate more energy, see
Figure 3-44 [Kramer 1996].
3.4 Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction (SSPSI)

The most up-to-date methods of numerical modeling are investigated here. These methods are used
to model the piles in cases of Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction analyses and be able to treat
75
the soil as a continuum medium. The aim of these methods is to be able to model all the
components simultaneously without having to resort to independent calculations of site and
superstructure response. Considerable studies have been done to investigate the nature of the input
ground motion and its effect on pile-structure interaction so as to better model the response. In this
section, focus shall be placed on the Beam on a Non-Linear Winkler Foundation (BNWF) and the
Thin Layer Element Method (TLEM) of soil-structure-interaction. These are numerical methods
that are used to model seismic response analysis of pile-supported offshore structures. The initial
two methods, the Boundary Element Method and the Finite Element Method of soil-structureinteraction are direct approaches and the BNWF and the TLEM are newer and more efficient
methods for computations. The latter two shall be expanded upon in more comprehensive detail as
it was believed that these are more applicable to latest advances in offshore pile design.
3.4.1 BEM
The Boundary Element Method is used in advanced analyses. This method is not normally used in
design offices due to its large computational cost and complexity in the analysis of common piles
for dynamic response. This method has been used to develop numerical methods by Sanchez
[1982], Kaynia and Kausel [1982], and Sen et al. [1985].
3.4.2 FEM
Finite Element Modeling is an important part of pile design as stated earlier as it necessary to have
the soil-foundation-structure model analyzed simultaneously. This method also has a large
computational cost and complexity in the analysis of common piles for dynamic response, but is
more prominent than the BEM. This method has also been used to develop numerical methods by
Yegian and Wright [1973], Angelides and Roesset [1980], Randolph [1981], Faruque and Desai
[1982], Trochanis et al. [1988, 1991], Wu and Finn [1997], and Bentley and El Naggar [2000].
Topside design requires knowledge of the period of the legs of the platform and these must be done
in harmony. Topside design is also dependent on the size of the leg members (to expand).
3.4.3 BNWF
The Beam on a non-linear Winkler Foundation is a simpler method for use than the BEM and the
FEM due to its simplicity and ease of use in the modeling of SSPSI. For piles that have been
76
subjected to lateral loads, the BNWF method has been used by Matlock et al. [1978], Novak et al.
[1978], Kagawa and Kraft [1980], Nogami et al. [1992], Makris and Gazetas [1992], El Naggar and
Novak [1995, 1996], and El Naggar and Bentley [2000]. Many developments have been made with
the use of this method. The use of p-y data has been included to model the stiffness of soil from site
investigation along with dashpots from empirical data to simulate energy dissipation from the
natural soil damping and the radiation of waves. In other cases, as mentioned earlier by El Naggar
and Bentley [2000], was introduced the inclusion of dynamic p-y curves for the dynamic lateral
response of piles using the BNWF method. In other cases the BNWF has been used to model the
non-linear dynamic response analysis of offshore piles.
Figure 3-45. Schematic of the beam on a non-linear Winkler foundation model for
non-linear dynamic response of offshore platforms, [El Naggar et al, (2005)].
77
In this method the pile is modeled as a series of beam column elements resting on a series of springs
and dashpots that represent the non-linear response of the soil. When modeling a site, it is
customary to perform a kinematic response analysis to determine the free-field ground motion time
history as the input parameters for the section of the program that will model the response of the
soil-structure interaction. The free field analysis produces an output that acts as the input parameters
for the soil springs and dashpots that are modeled as the input forces incident on the piles at various
levels of the soil. The BNWF can be used to model the variation with depth of the soil properties,
the non-linear soil behavior, the non-linear soil behavior at pile-soil interfaces, energy dissipation
through radiation and hysteretic damping. One of the disadvantages of this BNWF method is that it
only models in two-dimensions and as such cannot model exactly the actual response of the piles
exactly from the input of the parameters along the entire face of the pile, [El Naggar et al. (2005)],
Figure 3-45 identifies the general schematic of the BNWF for application to offshore designs.
For the modeling of piles in the BNWF the pile and the surrounding soil are divided into a number
of discrete layers. At the centres of these layers are placed nodes that contain information on the
stiffness, damping and mass of the pile and soil, and the response of the interaction of the soil-pile
is modeled from these positions. The stiffness of the pile is modeled by breaking the pile into small
segments in each layer to form the mass matrix. Collectively the mass matrix of all these segments
are placed together to form the global structural stiffness matrix of the pile system. The individual
masses of the segments are lumped at the nodes. The Rayleigh approach is used to evaluate the
material damping of the pile segments by the following relationship:
[C ] = [M ] + [K ]
(3.32)
where,
C = the material damping matrix of the pile foundation system,
M = the mass matrix of the pile foundation system,
K = the stiffness matrix of the pile foundation system,
& = damping constants.
The damping ratio for the nth mode of the system is:
n =
+
2 n
2
(3.33)
where,
n = the material damping matrix of the pile foundation system,
78
n = the material damping ratio of the whole system for the nth mode of vibration.
The dynamic coefficients and are determined from specific damping ratios for the ith and jth
modes of vibration:
=
=
2i j
i + j
2
i + j
(3.34)
(3.35)
where,
i & j = the natural frequency of the ith and jth modes of vibration respectively,
= the assumed material damping ratio for all the vibration modes of the structure, which is
necessary to ensure that reasonable values for all damping ratios that affect significantly the
response [El Naggar et al. (2005)].
For the modeling of soil in the BNWF, the soil reaction to seismic loading comprises of damping
and stiffness components. In offshore design, it is customary to use the p-y curves to determine the
stiffness parameters of the soil. The p-y curves that are used here are the same as those that are
generated from API-RP2A and can be viewed in Figure 3-23, for soft clays, stiff clays and sand.
In terms of energy damping, there exists two types in seismic-soil-structure studies, namely near
field and far field damping that are of different types and strengths. For the near field there is the
existence of radiation (geometric) damping, and for the far field there is material (hysteretic)
damping. The BNWF also accounts for the damping of the pile as a result of the formation of gaps
along the pile that are a result of the plasticity of the soil. When modeling the BNWF it is up to the
designer as to exactly how to model this effect into the framework, specifically in terms of the
addition of different dashpot types and their arrangement. The coefficient of damping for the
dashpot is determined by the following relationship by Berger [1977]:
cL = 4 Bvs
(3.36)
where,
B = pile diameter,
vs = soil shear wave velocity.
79
This relationship is based on the assumption that a vibrating pile will generate p-waves in the
direction of the incident p-waves and SH-waves perpendicular to the direction of the p-wave
vibration.
The time histories for a site are computed by site response analysis techniques. These are the input
parameters in computation of the free-field excitations. These excitations are the motion of the
bedrock and affect the soil above them, the motion is input to the nodes of the BNWF model. The
visco-elastic [exhibiting time dependent strain] Kelvin-Voigt model used to simulate the soil stressstrain relationship during earthquake loading:
= G +
(3.37)
where,
= shear stress of the soil,
= shear strain,
G = soil modulus,
= viscosity.
Further added to this method is the stiffness of the springs and the damping ratio. Many models can
be used but one of the most popular is that of Iwan [1967] and Mroz [1967] who have purported a
series of different stiffness constants (Ki) and increasing sliding resistances (Ri), where
R1<R2<<Rn (figure 50).
Figure 3-46. Stress-Strain model used by Iwan [1976] and Mroz [1967].
The relation of the stress increment (d) and the strain increment (d) is given by:
d
= Hi
d
(3.38)
where Hi, the tangential shear modulus is given by:
80
H i = K j 1
j =1
(3.39)
for Ri-1 < < Ri

Hi is related to the secant modulus by:
G Gi i
H i = i +1 i +1
i +1 i
(3.40)
for i = 2,,n-1 and Hn = 0.

And the damping ratio i at a shear strain i can be expressed as:
i =
2 2 Ai
1
2
Gi i
(3.41)
for i = 2,,n
where Ai is the area under the stress-strain curve for a loading from 0 to i.
3.4.4 Thin layer element method

Some advocators of the thin layer element method [by E. Kausel, (1981)] have purported that is an
efficient method of analysis of fluid filled porous medium than that of the Finite Element Method
and is capable of the analysis of inhomogeneous layers, [Toyoaki Nogami (1997)]. This method is
also capable of predicting the responses of the soil-foundation interaction.
From tests conducted on the behavior of submerged soil, it has been found that as the soil
permeability increases, the amplitude of motion of the soil increases, see Figure 3-47. As there is
the condition of free drainage at the surface of the soil this leads to further complexity on the
relative motion of the fluid particles and the associated pressures. This results in the pore fluid
being stiffer that the soil skeleton as the latter is more dependent on the permeability, [Nogami et
Kazama (2001)].
81
Figure 3-47. Displacement response of a vertical wall in submerged soil, [Nogami & Kazama (2001)].
When subjected to a lateral harmonic motion at the surface of the soil, peaks in frequency occur at
the fundamental natural frequency of the soil column. The tests that were performed have resulted
in a higher response generated when there is when there is no water present in the soil, (dry case).
When the water is present it leads to a reduction in the response of the soil. In that it reduces the
amplification. This effect is even greater when the soil is founded below the water level. In Figure
3-48, Cases A, B and C are respectively for a dry soil column case, a submerged soil with water
level at ground surface, and submerged soil with water level above ground surface. Harmonic
motion is used to represent the incidence of S-waves as these are not affected by the presence of
fluid within the soil column whereas P-waves are highly affected. In dry soil it has been found that
when the frequency of a wave is below the natural frequency of a soil column, the waves are not
progressive. When the soil is submerged [and undrained] the pore fluid stiffness tends to increase
the P-wave velocity. These studies were based on a plane strain response, compared to a threedimensional approach that utilizes cylindrical coordinates.
Figure 3-48. The effect of water level on amplitude and frequency on a soil column, [Nogami & Kazama (2001)].
82
For the analysis of piles in the offshore environment, it is necessary to find a way of modeling a pile
combined with the presence of soil, water and any additional loading to which it may be subjected.
The thin layered approach to modeling the dynamic response of offshore piles is used to model
waves in a three-dimensional soil medium. When modeling cylindrical waves near to the surface of
the earth, two wave types are to be recognized, Rayleigh waves and Love waves. Rayleigh waves
are formed by the combination of P-waves and SV-waves whereas Love waves are formed from the
effects of SH-waves. These waves are perpendicular to each other and are generated
simultaneously. These two wave types can only be studied in a cylindrical coordinate environment
and not in a plane-strain system as a result of this. The first mode of the Rayleigh waves are mainly
S-wave based. The pore fluid in a soil column is shown to reduce considerably the dynamic effects
of the Love waves, see Figure 3-49.
Figure 3-49. The effect of fluid on the Love-waves in a soil column [Nogami and Kazama, (2001)].
The increase in water level above the ground surface reduces the fundamental frequency and
amplitude of the soil column. As such, when a dynamic analysis of a soil submerged in water is to
be done it is required that that the fluid above be modeled also. The total stresses can be computed
along a pile that is embedded in a fluid-saturated porous soil medium and subjected to a harmonic
motion at the ground surface using cylindrical plane strain conditions.
When there exists fluid in a soil mass, it results in the increase in the soil stiffness and couples fluid
motions with the soil skeleton motion. These are influenced by the rate of diffusion of fluid from
the soil, the boundary conditions and the stress-rate. This coupling rate between soil and fluid is
most predominant for soils with high permeabilities. When the permeability is low, the wave that is
transmitted to the fluid is distinctly different to the wave that is transmitted to the soil skeleton, and
decays rapidly with distance. The higher the pore fluid motions relative to the soil motion the higher
the damping rate.
83
Winkler models based on cylindrical plane strain conditions can produce reasonable dynamic pile
responses for piles in single phase media. Pore fluid and soil skeleton coupling effects in transient
motions can also be well reproduced by Winkler models.
Using Cartesian coordinates the effect of loading can be determined by the thin layer element
method on the level of displacements, the stresses and the pore pressures. The following are the
expressions for displacements, Equation 3.42, the stresses and pore-pressures, Equation 3.43, and
the nodal forces acting along the cylindrical surface, Equation 3.44.
(3.42)
where,
U and W are the vectors expressing the displacements of the medium in the horizontally
propagating wave field.
(3.43)
where,
j is the vector containing the stresses in the middle of the j-th layer,
j is the vector containing the pore-pressures in the middle of the j-th layer.
84
(3.44)
where,
P = is the force acting along the cylindrical surface.
3.5 Kinematic vs. Inertial Effects

In this section we shall look at the comparison of kinematic effects to inertial effects. Many
experiments have been performed and from these the effects of these differential loading types have
been determined. The analysis that was conducted by the consultant considered only the inertial
effects of the platform and did not consider the kinematic effects in the seismic analysis. The
comparison that is done in this study shall determine if there exists any flaws in the design as a
result of this omission.
In platform design, use is made highly of the API-RP2A which does not make mention of a
difference between kinematic and inertial loading. As per the Eurocode 8: Part 5, Section 5.4.2, it is
stated that piles are to be designed to resist:
a) inertial effects from the superstructure that are give rise to such forces as the design normal
force on the horizontal base, the design horizontal shear force, and the design actions in
terms of moments.
b) Kinematic forces arising from the deformation of the surrounding soil from the passage of
seismic waves.
When performing these analyses, it is best to evaluate the effects of kinematic and inertial actions
separately and then apply the principle of superposition to determine the real effects on the piles.
85
The schematic below, Figure 3-50, displays the movement of piles with respect to earth movement
and is displayed for the cases of the inertial and kinematic response.
Figure 3-50. Components of inertial and kinematic effects, [Ceci et Forcolin, (2007)]
3.5.1 Kinematic Effects

For the kinematic analysis the motion of the soil is considered only. It can be seen, Figure 3-50, that
soil movement is relative to the earth and the earth pulls the pile. This loading originates from the
surface of the outcropping rock, with the propagation of vertical S-waves through the soil, then
incident on the piles. Effects that are not to be ignored range from the damping that is generated
from the oscillating piles and the rotational component of the motion of the head of the single pile
or the pile-group cap.
This kinematic interaction effect, also known as the wave scattering effect involves the response
of base motion to a specified earthquake loading which does not consider the presence of the
surface mass but rather, sets this equal to zero. It is customary for this procedure that two
independent analysis steps are followed. The first of these are the analysis of the free-field soil
response with the propagation of vertical S-waves. The second of these would be the analysis that
would include the interaction of a pile or pile group with the surrounding soil to this free-field soil
response.
In general it has been found that kinematic interaction between pile and soil has two main
consequences. The first is that it filters out low-period components of motion while inducing a
rotational component in the pile head. The second is that it induces bending moments, shear forces
86
and axial loads in the piles. This bending is significant at two places: at the top of the fixed head
piles and at the interfaces of soil layers with sharply differing stiffnesses.
The kinematic force not only includes the horizontal subgrade reaction on the piles (the p-y effect)
but also the earth pressure that acts on the embedded part of the foundation. It is commonly known
that the p-y effect is normally considered in design and as such kinematic effects are usually
restricted to the latter component.
3.5.2 Inertial Effects

For the inertial effects, one must consider only the effect of the superstructure as a result of the
seismic motion and not the effects of the soil below the pile but rather the reaction of the pile being
resisted by the soil. For the case of the inertial interaction of the piles in the soil, Figure 3-50, the
structure can be seen to move the piles relative to them, but as they are still embedded in the earth
they move relative to the earth also. As a result of this they would tend to affect the soil that is
closer to the surface.
The analysis procedure that is to be followed for inertial effects include the computation of the
dynamic impedances (springs and dashpots) at the pile head or pile caps associated with the
swaying, rocking and cross-swaying-rocking motion of the foundation. Also to be considered is the
analysis of the dynamic response of the structure supported on these springs and dashpots, subjected
to the kinematic pile-head motion.
3.5.3 Superposition of these Effects

Now the effect of superstructure motion results in lateral loading of the piles but this loading
attenuates very rapidly with depth (and they practically disappear below the active pile length,
which is of the order of 10 pile diameters below the surface). As such, effects of shear strain
induced in the soil due to inertial interaction may only be significant near to the ground surface. In
contrast to this, the vertically propagating S-waves induce displacements, curvatures and shear
strains at much greater depths and these may be deemed critical. As such, the superposition of these
two effects is necessary as this is to be considered a critical loading case in design. This is
applicable also in regions when non-linear soil behavior is expected, but generally the effects of
each are usually only catered for in linear soils.
87
This procedure is carried out by the use of a number of developed methods some of which have
been identified before, (see section 3.4). These include the use of finite elements, boundary
elements, BNWF, semi-analytical and analytical solutions, and a variety of simplified methods. The
BNWF method has proven to be one of the more popular methods for seismic pile analysis as it is
able to account for the motion of the pile in both the near and far fields, for the differing stiffnesses
of the soil, and the modeling of the damping of the soil. Also this method has proven to be quite
versatile in catering for approximately moderate levels of soil non-linearity in the soil surrounding
the pile.
In other tests that were done to study the effects of kinematic an inertial interaction, by the use of
shake tables other properties were found. These tests produced that if the natural period of the
superstructure, Tb, was less than that of the ground, Tg, the ground displacement tended to be inphase with the inertial force from the superstructure, increasing the shear force transmitted to the
pile, (the ground displacement represents the kinematic loading). In contrast, if Tb was greater than
Tg, then the ground displacement tends to be out-of-phase with the inertial force, restraining the pile
stress from increasing. Of great importance is the fact that the maximum moment is determined
differently relative to the periods. It is assumed that the maximum moment is determined from the
summation of the two stresses caused by the kinematic and inertial effects if Tb < Tg, if the
kinematic and inertial forces are in phase. Or the square root of the sum of the squares (SRSS) of
the two, if Tb > Tg and, if the kinematic and inertial forces are out of phase, see Figure 3-51,
[Tokimatsu et al, (2005)]. One of the easiest methods to determine this is by the peaks of a set of
Fourier spectra that together show the spectra of the ground displacement and the superstructure. If
they are in phase then the peaks would be at the same value of period.
88
Figure 3-51. Combination of inertial and kinematic effects

in pile stresses, [Tokimatsu et al. (2005)]
The inertial force plays an important role, as was determined on tests conducted on loaded piles.
The bending moment from a condition of no supported superstructure on the piles is half that of a
situation with a superstructure, indicating that the inertial force from the superstructure increases the
bending. Also, if the period of the foundation is larger than that of the period of the structure, the
bending moments are also larger (kinematic effects). In contrast, if the period of the foundation is
less than the period of the structure, then the bending moments are less and in some cases almost as
equal to the bending moments in cases without a superstructure.
Most of the inertial force is transmitted to the shear force in the pile in conditions where the Tb < Tg,
leading to these increased bending moments. Here it is also found that the earth pressure is out-ofphase with the inertial force and does not contribute towards reducing the shear force transmitted to
the pile. But for conditions where Tb > Tg, it is found that the earth pressure is in-phase with and
acts against the inertial force, reducing the shear stress in the piles.
In cases of soil liquefaction, it has been found that the accelerations of both the foundations and
superstructure are much less than that for shaking in non-liquefiable soils. Also, after liquefaction,
the bending moments in the piles become larger than those in non-liquefiable soils. It has also been
found that when the soil liquefies, its period increases and it becomes larger than that of the
supported structure. As such, this leads to the increased bending moments and shear forces in the
piles, as the soil displacement and inertial forces are now in phase.
89
3.5.4 Pile-to-pile Interaction

The dynamic interaction of a group of piles in any mode of vibration cannot be determined by the
analysis of each pile and then summing the results. Rather it is to be realized that the piles
themselves interact with the other piles and in so doing add further loading to the pile group. This
occurrence is normally observed in seismic loading. This interaction is purely frequency dependent
and is caused by the waves that are emitted from the individual piles and interact with the
neighbouring piles. This pile-to-pile interaction has been studied and it has been found that this
interaction is critical only for inertial type seismic-loading, head-loaded piles [Makris et Grazetas,
(1992)]. From a kinematic loading perspective this effect can be ignored.
Figure 3-52. Schematic of the pile-to-pile interaction between piles and the wave interference through the
differing layers from a head loaded active pile to the passive pile [Mylonakis et al. (1997)].
To determine this interaction clearly, models have been developed from boundary element type
methods, that are used to account for the effects of the radial waves that emanate from a single pile,
and after some level of attenuation impact on surrounding piles. The soil layering also has effects
on this phenomenon. The stiffer a layer, the less the effects, as these layers do not allow much
motion initially and hence would produce less deformation. In Figure 3-52, the interaction of Pile 1
at a specified distance, from Pile 2 is displayed and it is seen that the differing layers result in
different loading to the piles. For effective analyses of these problems it is of crucial importance
that the soil-pile-structure interaction are closely observed.
90
Chapter 4: CASE STUDY MANGO PLATFORM OFFSHORE TRINIDAD
4 CASE STUDY MANGO PLATFORM OFFSHORE TRINIDAD

The case study chosen is that of the Mango Platform situated offshore the Southwestern end of
Trinidad in the West Indies [X (Easting) = 770,670m and Y (Northing) = 1,106,273m]. The aim of
this study will be to compare the results of the inclusion of the kinematic effects, calculated by the
KEOPE Program, on the internal forces of the piles and determine if the designed piles are suitable.
This is a British Petroleum Trinidad and Tobago (bpTT) platform that was designed and installed in
2007 and is sited for the production of natural gas. This platform stands in 240ft (73.15m) of water
and was designed for seismicity as this is an active seismic zone [Appendix 3]. The structural
design itself was carried out by a sub-contractor of bpTT, MSL Engineering Ltd. (now Atkins
Trinidad Ltd.). This platform was designed primarily with the use of the API-RP2A WSD 21st
Edition. Other documents of importance were the AISC WSD 9th Edition, the Structural Design
Basis, which outlines the clients specific requirements, the metocean criteria, the borehole
information from the geotechnical engineering consultant, and the seismic hazard study conducted
by Energo Consultants Ltd. This was then passed onto MSL-ATKINS. This platform was designed
in Imperial measurements but units shall be converted to meet the necessary criteria.
In terms of the geometry of the platform, it consists of a topsides deck structure, jacket, piles,
foundation and miscellaneous platform components as see in Figure 4-1. The topsides deck is
attached to the jacket at El. (+) 21ft (6.4m) and possesses a sump deck, cellar deck, a main deck and
a helideck. The jacket has four legs of nominal diameter 4.5ft (1.37m) with thru-leg piles and
extends from El. (+) 18.5ft (5.64m) to () 245ft (74.68m). There are horizontal tubular members at
El. (+) 15ft (4.57m), El. () 35ft (10.67m), El. () 95ft (28.96m), El. () 160ft (48.77m) and El. ()
240ft (73.15m), these succeed to divide the structure into four bays. The faces of each of these bays
are crossed-braced with tubular members, as are the horizontal bays.
91
The piles of the platform extend from the pile cut-off elevation to a vertical penetration of 190ft
(57.9m) to a depth of El. () 430ft (131.06m). These piles are divided into three (3) parts, namely
P1, P2 and P3. P1 is the longest at a length of 315ft (96m), while P2 and P3 are each 80ft (24.38m).
All of these piles have thicknesses of 2in (51mm). At the tip of the pile there is a pile shoe of 5ft
(1.52m) that is 2.25in (57mm) thick.
Table 4-1, provides a breakdown of the weights that are intended for the platform and were used in
the design.
Description
Deck Structure Weight
Equipment Dry Load
Piping Dry Weight
Elec/Inst/Bulk/HVAC
Equipment Operating Load
Total Topsides Weight
Deck Weight Report (kips)

1030.3
472.4
282.3
22.0
307.0
2114.0
Deck Weight Report (kN)

4584.6
2102.1
1256.2
97.9
1366.1
9406.8
Description
Jacket Weight Report (kips) Jacket Weight Report (kN)
Jacket Weight (includes piles
above the mudline but excludes
2971.0
13220.2
conductor weights)
Total Jacket Weight
2971.0
13220.2
Table 4-1. Mango Platform Platform Weights, [MSL (2007)].
92
Figure 4-1. Model of Mango Platform, [MSL (2007)].
4.1 Platform Loading

The environmental loading of the platform consisted of an in place linear static analysis of the
platform considering four primary loading conditions:
-
Operating condition, Table 4-2.
100-year return period storm condition, Table 4-3.

93
Operating retroflecting current condition, Table 4-4.
100-year return period retroflecting current condition, Table 4-5.
In addition to the above, for the Ultimate Strength Analysis a 1000-year return period storm is also
considered, Table 4-6. The following tables correspond to the primary loading conditions
respectively.
Description
Water Depth (Mean Low Water)
Tidal Condition
Maximum Wave Height (Hmax)
Wave Period Assiciated with Hmax
Wave Directions
Wind Speed (1hr @ 10m)
Wind Direction
Current Profile
Current Direction
Values
240 ft
5 ft
29.9 ft
10.3 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
41.4 mph
Aligned with wave
Surface
1.64 fps
()100'-0"
1.64 fps
()200'-0"
1.48 fps
Mudline
1.31 fps
Aligned with wave
Values
73.15 m
1.52 m
9.11 m
10.3 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
18.5 m/s
Aligned with wave
Surface
0.5 m/s
()100'-0"
0.5 m/s
()200'-0"
0.45 m/s
Mudline
0.4 m/s
Aligned with wave
Table 4-2. Operating conditions, [MSL (2007)].
Description
Tidal Condition
Wave Directions
Wind Direction
Current Profile
Current Direction
Values
240 ft
7 ft
44.0 ft
10.9 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
65.5 mph
Aligned with wave
Surface
2.13 fps
()100'-0"
2.13 fps
()200'-0"
1.97 fps
Mudline
1.8 fps
Aligned with wave
Values
73.15 m
2.13 m
13.41 m
10.9 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
29.28 m/s
Aligned with wave
Surface
0.65 m/s
()100'-0"
0.65 m/s
()200'-0"
0.6 m/s
Mudline
0.55 m/s
Aligned with wave
Table 4-3. 100-year return period storm condition, [MSL (2007)].
94

Description
Tidal Condition
Wave Directions
Wind Direction
Current Profile
Current Direction
Values
240 ft
5 ft
10.5 ft
7.1 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
18.0 mph
Aligned with wave
Surface
6.33 fps
()100'-0"
6.33 fps
()200'-0"
5.81 fps
Mudline
3.94 fps
Aligned with wave
Values
73.15 m
1.52 m
3.2 m
7.1 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
8.05 m/s
Aligned with wave
Surface
1.93 m/s
()100'-0"
1.93 m/s
()200'-0"
1.77 m/s
Mudline
1.2 m/s
Aligned with wave
Table 4-4. Operating retroflecting current condition, [MSL (2007)].
Description
Tidal Condition
Wave Directions
Wind Direction
Current Profile
Current Direction
Values
240 ft
5 ft
10.5 ft
7.1 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
18.0 mph
Aligned with wave
Surface
6.82 fps
()100'-0"
6.82 fps
()200'-0"
6.33 fps
Mudline
4.33 fps
Aligned with wave
Values
73.15 m
1.52 m
3.2 m
7.1 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
8.05 m/s
Aligned with wave
Surface
2.07 m/s
()100'-0"
2.07 m/s
()200'-0"
1.93 m/s
Mudline
1.32 m/s
Aligned with wave
Table 4-5. 100-year return period retroflecting current condition, [MSL (2007)].
Description
Tidal Condition
Wave Directions
Wind Direction
Current Profile
Current Direction
Values
240 ft
2 ft
58.7 ft
11.8 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
87.3 mph
Aligned with wave
Surface
1.4 fps
()100'-0"
1.4 fps
()200'-0"
1.29 fps
Mudline
1.18 fps
Aligned with wave
Values
73.15 m
0.61 m
17.9 m
11.8 seconds
105, 126, 144, 155
39.0 m/s
Aligned with wave
Surface
0.43 m/s
()100'-0"
0.43 m/s
()200'-0"
0.39 m/s
Mudline
0.36 m/s
Aligned with wave
Table 4-6. 1000-Year Return Period Storm Condition, [MSL (2007)].
95
In the design of platforms one of the crucial loading parameters is the direction of wave loading, on
piles. For this analysis it is necessary that the waves be incident on the platform from differing
directions so as to achieve the condition of critical loading direction. Also, from differing directions
it will be found differing overloaded members in both the superstructure and the piles. As such, the
following diagrams were produced for the in-place linear static analysis. Figure 4-2, displays the
loading conditions for the operating condition and the 100-year return period storm condition, and
Figure 4-3 displays the loading conditions for the operating retroflecting current condition and the
100-year return period retroflecting current condition. For clarity, true north of the platform is 15
anticlockwise from platform north. Then by making platform north relative to true north
(subtracting 15 ) the metocean criteria bounds the extreme wind between 40 and 90 clockwise
from true north. This range is then divided into three equal parts and the resulting four angular
loadings for extreme storm winds are incident on the platform. The same principle is applied to the
retroflecting current storm condition.
Figure 4-2. Wave Directions for operating condition and

the 100-year return period storm condition, [MSL (2007)].
96
Figure 4-3. Wave Directions for the Operating retroflecting current condition
and the 100-year return period retroflecting current condition, [MSL (2007)].
4.2 Geotechnical Characterization

The soil investigation was conducted by Capital Signal Co. Ltd. and comprised of a single borehole
to a depth of 300ft (91.44m) below the mudline. From the results of the study, Table 4-7 gives a
summary of the stratigraphy of the soil. It is to be noted that no CPT data was recorded at the site,
although SPT data was recorded and the dynamic properties of the soil determined from these
values using empirical methods.
Layer
I
Top of Layer
(below mudline)
0 ft
(0 m)
II
70 ft
III
IV
110 ft
291 ft
Bottom of Layer
Description
(below mudline)
70 ft (21.3 m) Very Soft to Firm Clay
Interlayered Medium Dense to Dense Silty
(21.3 m) 110 ft (33.5 m) Fine Sand and Sandy Silt with many Clay
seams
(33.5 m) 300 ft (91.4 m) Dense to very Dense Fine to Medium Sand
(88.7 m) 300 ft (91.4 m) Dense Grey Silt
Table 4-7 Mango Platform - Summary Soil Stratigraphy, [MSL (2007)].
97
Figure 4-4. Undrained Shear Strength, [MSL (2007)].
Figure 4-5. Unit Weight Profile, [MSL (2007)].
As the undrained shear strength and density was provided in imperial units, this was converted into
metric and is displayed for comparison, respectively in Figure 4-6 and Figure 4-7.
98
Figure 4-6. Undrained Shear Strength, [MSL (2007)].
Figure 4-7. Unit Weight Profile, [MSL (2007)].
Figure 4-4 to Figure 4-7 display the undrained shear strength, the angle of shearing resistance, and
the unit weight profile of the soil. These were determined from soil testing both offshore and
onshore by the geotechnical consultants and then published in the geotechnical report. The same
data was then re-published in reports by the structural consultants.
From Figure 4-4, in the upper clay layer, there exists an undrained shear strength of 0.2ksf (9.6kPa)
that extends to a depth of 35ft (10.7m) to 0.35ksf (16.8kPa). Extending further to a depth of 70ft
(21.3m) the undrained shear strength increases to 0.65ksf (31.1kPa) which then ceases as the layer
changes to the first predominantly sandy layer with an angle of shearing resistance of 25. The first
sandy layer extends to a depth of 110ft (33.5m) and then another sandy layer exists to a depth of
291ft (88.7m) with an angle of shearing resistance of 25. There then exists a layer of firm clay with
a final shear strength of 2ksf (95.8kPa).
99
Now, for the unit weight profile, Figure 4-5, the soil starts off at a unit weight of 40lb/ft
(251kN/m) in the clay layer. This extends to a depth of 40ft (12.2m) after which a gradual increase
in observed until 70ft to a unit weight of 55lb/ft (346kN/m) which is maintained in the first sandy
layer to a depth of 110ft (33.5m) . In the following sandy layer this value displays an abrupt change
to a constant 65lb/ft (409kN/m) and then another abrupt change to 70lb/ft (346kN/m) in the
dense clay layer at 291ft (88.7m). The density here was provided in terms of submerged density and
this was converted to wet unit mass (bulk density) so as to carry out further computations.
The dynamic parameters were calculated by the methods stipulated in the API-RP2A. These were
the p-y curves, the t-z curves and the q-z curves. These original curves determined by the
geotechnical consultant are attached to this thesis in the appendix [6-9].
The borehole log is provided in Figure 4-8 for the one borehole drilled for this site and the
explanations of the terms and symbols are provided in Figure 4-9. Use will be made of the SPT
values from this figure along with the other soil parameters for further static or dynamic analyses of
the soil. From this data, and with the use of empirical relations, dynamic properties were
determined.
There are different methods to determine the values of shear wave and compression wave velocities
in soils. These are all dependent though on the available data that was recorded at the site. As for
this site SPT values were recorded, the Vs and Vp values shall be determined from these. Here a
comparison was made between the methods of Ohta and Gota [1978] and Inazaki [2006]. Ohta and
Goto have indicated the following relationship for use with SPT values:
Gmax = 20,000( N 1 )60
0.333
( ' m )0.5
(4.1)
where,
Gmax is the maximum shear modulus in imperial units,
(N1)60 is the normalized blow count corresponding to an effective overburden pressure of 100kPa
and also considers 60% of the efficiency of the hammer and,
m is the mean principal effective stress, [m = (1 + 2 + 3)/3].
100
Figure 4-8. Borehole-Log at the Mango Platform Site, [Capital Signal, (2005)]
101
Figure 4-9. Terms and Symbols used in the Borehole-Log for the
Mango Platform Site, [Capital Signal, (2005)]
102
NSTP
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
6
6
6
6
6
6
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
44
9
9
9
9
Depth
(ft)
0.0
6.6
13.1
19.7
26.2
32.8
39.4
45.9
52.5
59.1
65.6
72.2
78.7
85.3
91.9
98.4
105.0
111.6
118.1
124.7
131.2
137.8
144.4
150.9
157.5
164.1
170.6
177.2
183.7
190.3
196.9
203.4
210.0
216.5
223.1
229.7
236.2
242.8
249.4
255.9
262.5
269.0
275.6
282.2
288.7
295.3
301.9
308.4
315.0
Submerged Bulk Density

'0(kN/m) '0(lb/ft)
Density [lb/ft]
[kg/m]
40.0
1640.7
0.0
0.0
40.0
1640.7
12.9
270.3
40.0
1640.7
25.9
540.5
40.0
1640.7
38.8
810.8
40.0
1640.7
51.8
1081.0
40.0
1640.7
64.7
1351.3
42.5
1680.8
78.5
1637.9
45.0
1720.8
93.0
1941.0
47.5
1760.9
108.3
2260.4
50.0
1800.9
124.4
2596.3
52.5
1841.0
141.2
2948.6
55.0
1881.0
158.9
3317.2
55.0
1881.0
176.5
3685.9
55.0
1881.0
194.2
4054.6
55.0
1881.0
211.9
4423.3
55.0
1881.0
229.5
4791.9
55.0
1881.0
247.2
5160.6
65.0
2041.2
268.0
5594.9
65.0
2041.2
288.8
6029.2
65.0
2041.2
309.6
6463.5
65.0
2041.2
330.4
6897.8
65.0
2041.2
351.2
7332.1
65.0
2041.2
372.0
7766.4
65.0
2041.2
392.8
8200.7
65.0
2041.2
413.6
8635.0
65.0
2041.2
434.4
9069.2
65.0
2041.2
455.2
9503.5
65.0
2041.2
476.0
9937.8
65.0
2041.2
496.8
10372.1
65.0
2041.2
517.6
10806.4
65.0
2041.2
538.4
11240.7
65.0
2041.2
559.2
11675.0
65.0
2041.2
580.0
12109.3
65.0
2041.2
600.8
12543.6
65.0
2041.2
621.6
12977.9
65.0
2041.2
642.4
13412.2
65.0
2041.2
663.2
13846.5
65.0
2041.2
684.0
14280.7
65.0
2041.2
704.8
14715.0
65.0
2041.2
725.6
15149.3
65.0
2041.2
746.4
15583.6
65.0
2041.2
767.2
16017.9
65.0
2041.2
788.0
16452.2
65.0
2041.2
808.8
16886.5
65.0
2041.2
829.6
17320.8
55.0
1881.0
847.3
17689.5
55.0
1881.0
864.9
18058.1
55.0
1881.0
882.6
18426.8
55.0
1881.0
900.2
18795.5
CN
Cr
CS
(N1)60
Gmax
Vs (ft/s)
Vs [m/s]
1.5
2.8
2.0
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.1
1.0
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.8
0.8
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.6
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.5
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.4
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
0.3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.2
1.80
3.34
2.36
1.93
1.67
1.49
1.35
1.24
1.15
1.08
1.01
5.71
5.42
5.17
4.95
4.75
4.58
32.25
31.07
30.01
29.05
28.18
27.38
26.64
25.96
25.33
24.75
24.20
23.69
23.21
22.76
22.33
21.92
21.54
21.18
20.83
20.50
20.19
19.89
19.60
19.33
19.06
18.81
18.57
18.33
3.71
3.67
3.64
3.60
0
491044
618748
708338
779664
839899
895554
947721
997124
1044272
1089536
2057927
2131541
2200398
2265198
2326492
2384717
4756475
4876553
4990995
5100420
5205345
5306205
5403372
5497168
5587870
5675721
5760936
5843703
5924192
6002552
6078920
6153417
6226154
6297232
6366741
6434766
6501383
6566664
6630672
6693469
6755110
6815647
6875128
6933598
4116254
4144669
4172699
4200357
0.00
110.80
124.37
133.07
139.61
144.91
145.16
145.12
144.89
144.52
144.06
193.43
196.86
200.02
202.94
205.67
208.23
270.51
273.90
277.10
280.12
282.99
285.72
288.32
290.81
293.20
295.50
297.71
299.84
301.90
303.89
305.81
307.68
309.49
311.26
312.97
314.64
316.26
317.85
319.39
320.90
322.37
323.81
325.22
326.60
273.57
274.51
275.44
276.35
0
34
38
41
43
44
44
44
44
44
44
59
60
61
62
63
63
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
89
90
91
91
92
93
93
94
94
95
95
96
96
97
97
98
98
99
99
100
83
84
84
84
Table 4-8 Calculation Tables for Ohta and Goto method for Shear Wave Velocity of soil.
Upon determination of Gmax, the shear wave velocity is easily determined from:
vs =
Gmax
(4.2)
103
Table 4-8 displays the values that were used in the computation for the values using the Ohta and
Goto method.
For the Inazaki method, Figure 4-10 provides the main graph for the method. This is a graph of the
SPT values versus the corresponding shear wave velocity for the soil. The equation of
N = 1.6 10 6 Vs
2.9
(4.3)
is the direct relationship for this graph and as such values for this analysis were determined directly
from here.
Figure 4-10. Relationship between N-value and S- wave velocity, [Inazaki, (2006)].
Figure 4-11 shows the comparison of the results.
104
Vs (m/s)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0
Inazaki
10
Ohta
20
Depth (m)
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Figure 4-11. Comparison of the Ohta and Goto (1978) and the Inazaki (2006)
methods for determination of Vs of soil.
From observation of the graphs towards greater depths the Ohta and Goto relationships have proven
to not be applicable. This is due to the fact that the relationship relies on the CN values for the
computation of (N1)60. That is the relationship of:
(N1 )60 = N SPT
ER
C N Cr C S
60
(4.4)
where,
CN is the normalization with respect to o,
Cr is the correction due to rod length,
Cd is the correction due to borehole diameter and,
Cs is the correction for the sampler aspect.
Cr and Cd are taken to be 1.0 and Cs is taken to be 1.2. The value of CN depends primarily on the
depth to which the normalization is required, as seen in the following equation.
CN =
100
'0
(4.5)
As such, the larger the effective overburdened pressure, the smaller the value of CN. In this case we
have extreme depths and as such the values of CN would become increasingly low and heavily
105
weigh on the (N1)60 values. This leads to a large margin of error, as seen in Figure 4-11, between the
methods of Ohta and Goto and that of Inazaki. Also to be noted is that at the first set of readings
near to the surface the values from Ohta and Goto, in other circumstances such as onshore
applications, produce good results but in this case the soil in the topmost layers of the soil profile is
of a relatively low compaction and as such produce low results. These values near to the surface
would normally be corresponding to higher values of CN that would produce good results from the
use of this method. As a result of this, the results from the use of the Ohta and Goto method could
not be relied upon and use was made of the results of Inazaki method for the determination of the
Vs values.
From Figure 4-12, the values of Vp were evaluated based on these values of Vs. This is based on the
method of Miller and Stewart (1991) and by the use of the following relationship:
V p = 1076 + 1.25Vs
(4.6)
With the application of this method, Table 4-9 presents the values of Vs and Vp for the site.
Figure 4-12. Relationship between P-wave and S-wave velocity, [Miller & Stewart, (1991)].
106
Depth (m) Vs [m/s]

0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
185
185
185
185
185
185
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
Vp [m/s]
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1307
1307
1307
1307
1307
1307
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
Depth (m) Vs [m/s]

50
52
54
56
58
60
62
64
66
68
70
72
74
76
78
80
82
84
86
88
90
92
94
96
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
213
213
213
213
Vp [m/s]
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1342
1342
1342
1342
Table 4-9 Values of Vs and Vp for the Mango Platform Site.
4.3 Program Used by Consultant SACS

Structural Analysis Computer Systems (SACS) is a finite elements structural analysis suite of
programs specifically designed for the offshore and civil engineering industries. This program
models structures in a 3D finite element environment with the available options of performing an
inertial or kinematic analysis. For this case study an inertial calculation was performed.
Within SACS is a fully integrated suite of programs that each accept an individual set of input
parameters by the user. These are then combined during the analysis. This integration is made
possible by the use of the finite elements which analyze simultaneously individual programs that:
-
analyze the soil and perform soil-structure interaction calculations (PSI)
analyze the piles (PILE)
analyze the structure (SACS IV)
include the seastate (wave and current) parameters (SEASTATE)

107
response spectrum input for the design earthquake (Dynamic Response),
combine the loading (COMBINE)
perform dynamic calculations (DYNPAC), etc.
Figure 4-23 lists in more detail the other programs in the SACS program in a flow diagram clearly
identifying the flow pattern within the program.
This program includes calculations for the API-RP2A 21st Edition and AISC seismic codes. Figure
4-1 is the SACS model of the platform. For offshore installations, the structural elements are
modeled with the use of finite elements by the program PRECEDE, which accounts for the
geometry, the materials, the section properties, and the necessary loadings are applied in a 3D
environment so as to clearly identify the effects of each of the impacting loads. The soil, the piles
and the seismic input are modeled in separate programs and then included in the analysis. The
program used to model the piles and the soil is the non-linear soil, pile and structure interaction
program (PSI) which accepts input of P-Y, T-Z and Q-Z data and models the connections of the soil
and the piles as springs. The Isolated 3D Pile analysis program (PILE) is used to analyze the effects
on the piles in the soil for the loading from the above platform. This program uses the information
from the PSI program and the Common Solution File Utility Program (COMBINE) is used to
combine the results of the static and dynamic analyses and determines the worst case scenarios from
earthquake response. The General Dynamic Response and Earthquake Analysis program (Dynamic
Response) is used to determine the dynamic response of the structure to dynamic loading. This
program can operate in both the time and frequency domains and as such can accept as input the
time history and the response spectrum plots.
108
Figure 4-13. The SACS System [EDI, (2007)]
4.4 Foundation Design

4.4.1 Capacity of Piles
A preliminary design was performed by the soil investigation team who made calculations based on
the requirements of the API-RP2A. This resulted in the determination of the static axial capacities
of piles of different diameters in tension and compression, (Table 4-10 and Figure 4-14).
109
Depth (ft) Depth (m)

0
35
70
110
120
172
280
290
300
0.0
10.7
21.3
33.5
36.6
52.4
85.3
88.4
91.4
Tension
(kips)
0
143
286
898
1147
2443
5134.6
5383.8
5633
Capacity
Tension
Compression
(MN)
(MN)
0.00
0
0.64
163
1.27
408
4.00
1673
5.10
2408
10.87
4980
22.85
7673
23.96
5714
25.07
5918
Tension
(MN)
0.00
0.73
1.82
7.44
10.71
22.16
34.14
25.43
26.33
Table 4-10. Ultimate Pile Capacity for a 48in (1.2m) open pile as per the API-RP2A [MSL, (2007)].
0.0
5.0
10.0
Capacity (MN)
15.0
20.0
25.0
30.0
35.0
40.0
0.0
10.0
20.0
Tension (MN)
Compression (MN)
Depth (m)
30.0
40.0
50.0
60.0
70.0
80.0
90.0
100.0
Figure 4-14. Ultimate Pile Capacity for a 48in (1.2m) open pile as per the API-RP2A [MSL, (2007)].
4.4.2 Final Design

For the final design drawing, see the attached image in the appendix [13]. This is the final design
that was fabricated and installed. The design consisted of three sections of piles that were to be
assembled and installed offshore. There were to be 4 piles, one at each corner of the platform. Of
the three sections, there was one longest section of length 315 (96m) and two smaller lengths of
80 (24.4m). Each of the piles were to be battered as shown in Figure 4-15.
110
Figure 4-15. Platform orientation and pile batter, [MSL (2007)].
4.5 Seismic Analysis

The seismic study was carried out by Energo Engineering Co. Ltd. for the offshore platform
location. This was done separately for the client bpTT and the study handed over to the structural
consultants to extract the required information.
The seismic analysis that was performed by the consultant was that of a response spectrum analysis
according to the requirements of the API-RP2A for both a Strength Level Earthquake (SLE) and a
Ductility Level Earthquake (DLE). In the first section an outline will be given of some of the major
seismic sources in the area. All of these would be considered in a study to produce a seismotectonic
model of the region which would then be considered in the seismic hazard analysis for the site. As
the actual report was not provided by the consultant (Energo Engineering) or client (bpTT) only
generalizations can be made. The SLE and DLE will be then be outlined in subsequent sections.
4.5.1 Seismic Sources

The arrow in Figure 4-16 identifies the location of the Mango Site. This location is subject to a
number of earthquake causing faults. This diagram also identifies the general plate structure of the
Caribbean region.
111
Figure 4-16. Present day plate structure of the Caribbean region. Directions and
plate motion relative to a fixed Caribbean plate are from DeMets et al. [1994],
Dixon et al. [1998] and Weber et al. [2002], [URS, 2(003)].
The first of these faults is the Lesser Antilles Subduction Zone which extends over 800km in a N-S
direction. The subduction zone is caused by the easterly migration of the Caribbean Plate over the
Atlantic plate. In the vicinity of the site the Lesser Antilles Subduction Zone terminates against the
South American plate and at this location the depth of the subduction slab is inferred to lie in the
vicinity of 30-50km. This location however has not been known to produce excessively large
earthquakes and is considered to be one of the lowest active subduction zones worldwide.
Another fault system in the area is that of the El Pilar-North Coast Fault Zone. This is a
predominantly east-west trending strike-slip faults that extends over a length of 600km and extends
from the Carioca Trench to a location east of Trinidad. This is the fault that allows motion between
the Caribbean plate and the South American plate in the vicinity of Venezuela. This fault is popular
in that it separates the Northern Range of Trinidad and the Cordillera de la Costa of Venezuela,
from Cretaceous and Cenozoic rocks to the south [URS, (2003)]. Observations of the
geomorphology of the fault suggest that the El Pilar Fault is an active fault and is capable of
producing large earthquakes.
112
The Warm Springs-Central Range-Scorpion Fault Zone consists of several distinct faults of
differing lengths, orientation and structural style. This fault is NW-SE in orientation and stretches
from the west of Trinidad to the east across the central region. As a result of this fault in the central
region of Trinidad there is the Central Range, a group of hills similar to the Northern Range but not
as large. The Scorpion Fault lies just east of the Warm Springs Fault, offshore Trinidad and
stretches for approximately 60km in a north-easterly direction. The Scorpion Fault is a steeply
dipping strike-slip fault that is irregular in length. These faults are considered to be currently active.
The Los Bajos Fault extends across southwestern Trinidad from Point Liguore to Negra Point. This
fault is shown to have a series of bends that have been grouped into two segments for analysis
purposes of approximately a 50km length for the northern segment and 25km for the southeast
segment.
The El Soldado fault is a thrust fault in the southwestern region of the Los Bajos fault zone. Again
here the fault is divided into two sections of length 50km for the northwest segment and 35km
attributed to the southeastern segment.
As previously indicated, the actual seismic report was not provided, and only generalizations can be
made. The two stages of the hazard model are: the identification of the seismic sources which
specify the temporal, spatial and magnitude distribution of the earthquake occurrences; then there is
the ground-motion attenuation models that determine the distribution of the ground motions
available at a site, this has been explained in section 3.3. Figure 4-17 displays the Uniform Hazard
Spectra of 5% Damped Horizontal Acceleration for both ELE (SLE) and ALE (DLE), see section
3.1, with reference to the bedrock. Also indicated in the diagram are the spectra for amplification
from the soil for the Mango Platform Site provided by the seismic consultant.
113
Figure 4-17. Reference vs. Soil Amplified Uniform Response Spectra for
ALE and ELE, [Energo Engineering, (2003)]
4.5.2 Strength Level Earthquake

4.5.2.1 Outline
The Strength Level Earthquake was determined by bpTT and provided to the structural engineering
consultant. The following table provides the ordinates of the 200-year return period response
spectrum for the SLE analysis of the Mango Platform and Figure 4-18 delineates the spectrum.
114
Table 4-11. Ordinates of the SLE spectrum, [MSL (2007)].
Figure 4-18. Seismic Response Spectra for SLE, [MSL (2007)].
The SACS Response Spectrum Analysis consists of various procedures. The first is the generation
of equivalent foundation super-elements, it then combines the foundation model of soil and piles to
generate a linear pile-soil interaction which is needed for the modal response. Superimposed upon
this model is the seismic design spectra which would then result in the response spectrum analysis.
A dynamic response spectrum analyses were performed to extract these mode shapes and to obtain
the mass and stiffness matrices. The program generates 4 seismic load cases that are each to be
combined with the static dead loads from the platform itself. These combinations were:
-
element check with seismic axial stress in tension,
element check with seismic axial stress in compression,
joint check with seismic axial stress in tension,
joint check with seismic axial stress in compression.

115
The latter two were doubled as per recommendations by the API-RP2A. With respect to pile design,
the SACS program also generates two equivalent static load cases to simulate earthquake loads, i.e.
seismic stress in tension and seismic stress in compression, and combines them with the dead load
of the structure to determine the pile unity checks and the factor of safety calculations. The response
spectrum analysis directly produces the acceleration of the structure and from this the displacements
and velocities are derived. The first 80 modes that were produced from the analysis were combined
using the complete quadratic combination method (CQC). Member, joints and pile checks were
then performed from the resulting load combinations. These checks were all performed based on the
criteria outlined in the API-RP2A.
4.5.2.2 Results
The pile axial and bending stresses were checked using the requirements of the API-RP2A. As
displayed in the tables below, the unity checks are well below the critical value for the SLE
analysis. These unity checks are based on the ratio of the capacity of the pile on the demand on the
pile. Table 4-12 displays the load combinations that are referred to in Table 4-13 which gives the
pile unity check ratios and Table 4-14 that displays the pile factors of safety.
Description
A load combination giving the total gravity loads
Equivalent seismic load with seismic stress in tension
Equivalent seismic load with seismic stress in compression
Load Combinations
SLE1
SLE2
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.0
1.0
Table 4-12. Load Combination for pile checks during seismic analysis, [MSL, (2007)].
Pile
No.
Load
Comb
B1
A1
B2
A2
SLE2
SLE1
SLE2
SLE1
Pile Head Forces

Axial
Lateral Moment
(MN)
(MN)
(kN-m)
-4.39
0.81
3658
-5.82
0.60
2548
-8.01
0.81
3788
-4.77
0.89
4134
Axial
(N/mm)
-23.51
-31.23
-42.95
-25.58
Stresses at Maximum Unity Check

FBY
FBZ
Shear
(N/mm) (N/mm) (N/mm)
69.71
-5.93
8.96
-48.68
-2.21
6.55
72.19
-5.86
9.17
-79.01
2.00
9.79
Comb
(N/mm)
-93.49
-79.91
-115.35
-104.59
Max.
Unity
Check
0.226
0.200
0.287
0.252
Table 4-13. Pile unity check ratios, [MSL, (2007)].
116
Pile Pentration
Capacity
No.
(m)
(kips)
B1
58.80
-5287
A1
58.80
-5287
B2
58.37
-5266
A2
58.37
-5266
Compression
Load
Load
(kips)
Case
-986
SLE2
-1309
SLE1
-1800
SLE2
-1285
SLE1
Safety
Factor
5.36
4.04
2.93
4.1
Capacity
(kips)
3174.90
3174.90
3150.80
3150.80
Tension
Load
Load
(kips)
Case
0.00
SLE1
0.00
SLE1
0.00
SLE1
0.00
SLE1
Safety
Factor
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
Table 4-14. Pile factor of safety, [MSL, (2007)].
4.5.3 Ductility Level Earthquake

4.5.3.1 Outline
The Ductility Level Earthquake was determined by bpTT and provided to the structural engineering
consultant. Table 4-15 provides the ordinates of the 3000-year return period response spectrum for
the DLE analysis of the Mango Platform. This is followed by the actual DLE Seismic Response
Spectrum in Figure 4-19.
Table 4-15. Ordinates of the DLE spectrum, [MSL, (2007)].
117
Figure 4-19. Seismic Response Spectra for DLE, [MSL, (2007)].
The procedure for the analysis performed here is almost the same as that of the SLE. The input of
the seismic response spectra of Figure 4-19 is used to carry out the frequency domain response
spectrum analysis to derive the load cases to conduct the member and joint checks. This leads to the
formation of the load cases of seismic stress in tension and seismic stress in compression. These are
used to conduct a pushover analysis of the platform which is an analysis whereby an increasing load
is applied to the platform until failure. The maximum load at which failure finally occurs is
recorded. In this analysis, the two load cases of the eequivalent seismic load with seismic stress in
compression and the seismic stress in tension are used together with the total platform gravity load
and the platform operating load. The latter two are applied in steps of 1.0 whereas the DLE loads
and the seismic loads for compression and tension are applied progressively until failure. The
structural consultants utilized another program, USFOS, in order to carry out this DLE analysis.
This program is regarded as a leader in non-linear and dynamic analysis of offshore structures
aimed specifically at ultimate strength and progressive collapse analyses.
The pushover analysis is performed on the substructure and foundation for the dead and live loads,
and the DLE loads. Figure 4-20 displays the model used in the USFOS program. The rings around
the pile represent the axial capacity of the soil at this depth.
118
Figure 4-20. USFOS model of Mango Platform, [MSL (2007)].
The analysis determines if the platform would have enough capacity to withstand an extreme level
earthquake, with this in mind the structural consultant made use of the residual capacity of the steel.
As such, the analysis was done initially with the strength of the steel at 36ksi (248N/mm)and 50ksi
(344N/mm), and then the yield strength of the steel was used, i.e. for the 36ksi (248N/mm) steel,
its yield strength of 42ksi (290N/mm) was used.
4.5.3.2 Results
The following table indicates the load factors for the ratio of the base shear at collapse to the base
shear at an equivalent DLE earthquake level for the 3000-year return period response spectrum
analysis.
119
Equivalent DLE Loads

Seismic Stress in Tension
(Case 1)
Seismic Stress in
Compression (Case 1)
DLE Base
Shear (MN)
248N/mm & 344N/mm steel

Base Shear at
Collapse (MN) Load Factor
290N/mm & 344N/mm steel

Base Shear at
Collapse (MN) Load Factor
10.26
20.23
1.97
20.61
2.01
10.26
19.25
1.88
19.42
1.89
Table 4-16. Load Factor Results, [MSL (2007)].
From the analysis it was determined that the minimum load factor is 1.88 against the load applied
by the 3000-year return period earthquake. This means that the platform can sustain 188% of the
3000-year return period earthquake. For further clarity on the meaning of the results, at a point
when the load factor is 1.0, meaning that 100% of a 3000-year return period is incident on the
platform, no failure of its structural components, joints or members, will occur.
4.6 Comparison Program KEOPE

4.6.1 Outline
A Computer Program for Kinematic Effect On Piles during Earthquakes in Layered Soil Deposits,
(KEOPE), was developed by the Politecnico di Milano Dipartmento di Ingegneria Strutturale. It
is designed to calculate the Kinematic Effect on Piles during Earthquakes in Layered Soil Deposits.
It is composed of two sub programs that accept input from the user and the output is combined
within KEOPE. These sub-programs are StratiSH, which computes the response in the stratified
layers due to propagating SH-waves and CASING that computes the deformation of the pile due to
the horizontal and vertical subgrade reaction acting on the pile. One of the main features of KEOPE
is that it accepts as input the time history response of an earthquake of a specific site and determines
the kinematic effects on piles driven in this soil.
The response spectrum analysis carried out by the original project is determined by the
superposition of modal response and is only applicable to linear systems. This method of analysis is
that of the inertial type, (see Section 3.5), and is a static analysis. This is in comparison to timehistory analyses which are of the kinematic type and is a dynamic analysis.
KEOPE calculates the curvature of the pile by the use of the finite difference method based on the
input of the seismic loading and soil properties. KEOPE allows the input of differing soil layers and
120
properties and the computation of the soil displacement for the propagation of both P and S waves.
The finite difference approximation of acceleration is based on the following equation for the
motion of the piles in the soil:
(4.7)
The program discretizes the pile into a series of nodes each of which is attached to an interface
element. Figure 4-22 shows a typical pile that is discretized into a series of small beam elements
(Figure 4-21). Each of the nodes of these elements are connected an interface element constituted
by a spring and dashpot in parallel (Kelvin-Voigt element).
Figure 4-21. Details of beam element, [Ceci & Forcolin

(2007)].
Figure 4-22. Discretized model of pile in

foundation, [Ceci & Forcolin (2007)].
Figure 4-23. Interface element of pile to soil, [Ceci &

Forcolin (2007)].
The KEOPE program shall be used in this study to determine the kinematic effects on the piles due
to a SLE level earthquake incident upon it.
121
4.6.2 Input
This section shall outline the procedure and input values that will be used for the kinematic analysis
using the KEOPE program. The input for this program has three sections, namely the seismic
excitation, the pile characteristics and the soil characteristics.
4.6.2.1 Seismic Input
As indicated in previous Sections 4.5.2 and 4.5.3, the seismic consultants produced response spectra
for use in the design of the offshore platform, for both the SLE and the DLE loading parameters.
This was analyzed and found that it did not correspond to outcropping rock properties but rather to
soft soil. This was accurate as the structural engineering consultant was interested only in the
response spectra at this level. But for this study a kinematic analysis is to be done and the response
of the bedrock was required. This horizontal and vertical response spectra is indicated in Figure
4-24. The vertical response spectrum though for this study was indicated to not be critical at this
point and as such analyses were only done on the horizontal bedrock motion. Also, as only the SLE
data was provided by the engineering consultant, analyses will only be done for this level
earthquake.
Reference Extreme Level Earthquake
5% Damped Horizontal Acceleration (g)
1.0000
0.0100
0.1000
1.0000
10.0000
0.1000
Horizontal
Vertical
0.0100
0.0010
Period (s)
Figure 4-24. Horizontal and Vertical Response Spectrum for the Strength Level Earthquake
for the Outcropping Rock, [adapted from Energo Engineering (2005)].
122
Now from the horizontal spectrum the time-history responses that would be compatible to result in
the reference spectrum were selected. This procedure was done at the European Centre for Training
and Research in Earthquake Engineering (EU Centre), Italy. The following table indicates the
listing of the various time-history responses that are compatible to the reference spectrum. These
are identified in the figures immediately following this table.
File Name
Dataset
000365xa.cor
000287xa.cor
000642ya.cor
000234ya.cor
000156ya.cor
0072x.txt
1091y.txt
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Magnitude
(Mw)
5.9
6.5
5.6
6.2
6.68
6.61
6.69
Source
European Stron Motion Database (ESMD)
Next Genertation Attenuation Models (NGA)
Next Genertation Attenuation Models (NGA)
Epic. Distance
Scaling Factor
(km)
15
3
23
2.18
23
4.47
32
3.85
4
2.01
24.19
1.55
38.07
2.14
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
-1
A cceleratio n (g )
A cceleration (g)
Table 4-17. Time-History Responses compatible with the Reference Spectrum.
2
1
0
0
10
20
30
50
60
70
80
-2
-2
-3
-3
Period (s)
Period (s)
Figure 4-25 Dataset 1
Figure 4-26. Dataset 2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
-1
-2
30
35
40
A c c e le ra tio n (g )
A cceleratio n (g )
40
-1
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
-1
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
Period (s)
Period (s)
123
A c c e le ra tio n (g )
A cceleration (g)
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
-1
-2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
-1
-2
-3
-3
-4
-4
Period (s)
Period (s)
A c c ele ra tio n (g )
3
2
1
0
0
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
-1
-2
-3
Period (s)
These were input into the KEOPE program and the bending moments, shear forces and axial loads
were then determined. Figure 4-32 gives an example of the display screen of the seismic input
parameters window.
124
Figure 4-32. Seismic input parameters window of the KEOPE Program.
4.6.2.2 Soil Parameters Input
The soil properties from the geotechnical report were adapted to be input into the KEOPE program.
The following assumptions were made:
The number of layers was made to be 48,
The type of excitation was indicated to be that of outcropping,
The maximum number of iterations was set at 8,
The ratio of the effective and maximum shear strain was set at 65%.
The data from Section 4.2 was used to input parameters into the KEOPE program for the
characterization of the site. Figure 4-33 gives an image of the KEOPE screen for the Mango
platform site analysis. The equation for the quality factor for the shear (S-) wave velocity is:
Qs =
1
2 s
(4.8)
125
And that for the compression (P-) wave velocity is:

Qp =
1
2
(4.9)
where,
s and are the damping ratios respectively for S and P waves.
For the determination of the quality factors (input into the 4th and 6th columns of the Site
Characterization Input of the KEOPE Program) the damping of the layers were taken to be 3% and
as such the quality factor would be 17. The lithology of the soil profile was also to be input into this
part of the program. Using the programs terminology, with:
0 Linear-Elastic Material
5 Clay
6 Sand
7 Rock
Table 4-18 displays the table input of the parameters for the Site Characteristics for the KEOPE
Program and Figure 4-33 displays the actual screen with the parameters input.
The program also computes the transfer function for the given soil column at this stage of the
analysis and this is also indicated here in Figure 4-33.
126
Spacing
[m]
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
Submerged
Density
[Mg/m]
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.64
0.68
0.72
0.76
0.80
0.84
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
1.04
0.88
0.88
0.88
0.88
Vs [m/s]
Qs
Vp [m/s]
Qp
Lithology
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
185
185
185
185
185
185
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
368
213
213
213
213
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1201
1307
1307
1307
1307
1307
1307
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1535
1342
1342
1342
1342
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
17
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
5
5
5
5
Table 4-18. Input Parameters of Site Characterization for the KEOPE Program.
127
Figure 4-33. Site characterization input into KEOPE Program.
4.6.2.3 Pile Parameters Input
For this analysis, the pile as displayed in the appendix [13] is modeled. One of the limitations of the
KEOPE program is that it does not accept angled piles and as such the batter of the platform piles
could not be accounted for. As such these piles were modeled as vertical piles of 190ft (58m)
penetration.
The following sets of equations were used in the determination of parameters for input into the
program. The equation to be used in the determination of Poissons ratio,
K0
1 + K0
(4.10)
K 0 = 1 sin
(4.11)
=
K0 was determined for sands by,
K0 was determined for clays by,
128
K 0 = 0.19 + 0.233 log( PI )
(4.12)
[Lui and Evett, (2001)]. The moment of inertia of the section of the pipe pile was determined by:
4
4
1 D d
M =
4 2 2
(4.13)
where, D and d, is the outer and inner diameters respectively. The head of the pile is modeled as
being fixed as its motion is confined by the base of the offshore structure. When modeling the
type of embedment of the node in KEOPE the terminology of the program is as follows:
1 Fixed
0 Free
The shear modulus reduction curve is determined from the equations of Ishibashi and Zhang [1993]
in the form of the following:
( )(
G
= K ( , PI ) m'
Gmax
m , PI ) m0
(4.14)
where,
is the wet unit mass,
PI is the plasticity index,
m is the mean principal effective stress [m = (1 + 2 + 3 )/3],
0.000102 + n(PI ) 0.492
K ( , PI ) = 0.51 + tanh ln
0.000556 0.4
exp 0.0145PI 1.3

m( , PI ) m0 = 0.2721 tanh ln
0.0
6
1.404
3.37 10 PI
n(PI ) =
6
1.976
7.0 10 PI
2.7 10 6 PI 1.115
for PI = 0
for 0 < PI 15
for 15 < PI 70
for PI > 70
(4.15)
(4.16)
(4.17)
The shear modulus reduction, G/Gmax and damping ratio, , vary with the range of cyclic shear
strain that is used in the analysis. The KEOPE program makes use of the curves of G/Gmax and
damping ratio versus shear strain from the EERA Program, a computer program for the Equivalent
129
linear Earthquake Response Analysis for layered soil deposits (see Figure 4-34, Figure 4-35 and
Figure 4-36) for use in its computations.
Figure 4-34. Shear Modulus and damping ratio for clay, [Ceci et al, (2006)]
Figure 4-35. Shear Modulus and damping ratio for sand, [Ceci et al, (2006)]
130
Figure 4-36. Shear Modulus and damping ratio for clay, [Ceci et al, (2006)]
Damping, , is computed by the following equation:
G
1 + exp 0.0145 PI 1.3
0.586
= 0.333
2
Gmax
G
1.547
+ 1
Gmax
(4.18)
Kh represents the elastic constant of the spring in the direction transverse to the pile, and is defined
by the following equation:
K h = 1.2 Es
(4.19)
where, Es is the elastic modulus of the steel.
Kv represents the rigidity of the spring at the nodes in the vertical direction, and is defined by the
following equation:
K v = 0.6 E s 1 + 0.5 a0
(4.20)
where,
a0 =
2fD
Vs
(4.21)
where,
f is the fundamental frequency and,
D is the external diameter of the pile.
131
Also required for input into this section of the KEOPE Program is that of Cv and Ch. These
parameters represent the damping of the iteration elements in both the vertical and horizontal
directions respectively.
C h 6a00.25 sVs D + 2
kh
2f
(4.22)
and
Cv a00.25 sVs D
(4.23)
where,
s is the submerged unit mass.
Table 4-19 indicates the parameters for input of the Pile Characteristics window. The first 6
columns are required as Pile Parameter Characteristics and the next 4 are required as Iteration
Parameter Characteristics, (see Figure 4-37).
132
Depth [m]
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
CSA [m]
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
0.18608536
momento[m 4]
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
0.031808859
Steel Modulus [Pa]

210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
210000000000
[kg/m]
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
7850
Joint
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Kv [Pa]
13263442.7
13263442.7
8504588.6
8256875.8
9431788.9
7017219.8
6614672.4
9011492.8
9864410.2
10736491.1
13114343.1
27037618.5
27037618.5
24893169.0
17295630.4
17295630.4
24893169.0
84038743.3
64590904.9
72679426.2
64590904.9
64590904.9
68580545.1
76892097.0
76892097.0
64590904.9
64590904.9
64590904.9
53235436.5
64590904.9
Kh [Pa]
23225787.1
23225787.1
14892495.7
14458722.6
16516128.3
12287944.9
11583039.0
15780142.3
17273697.1
18800809.2
22964696.8
48957760.0
48957760.0
45074746.4
31317674.0
31317674.0
45074746.4
156476533.5
120265493.0
135325972.5
120265493.0
120265493.0
127694031.9
143169784.9
143169784.9
120265493.0
120265493.0
120265493.0
99122098.2
120265493.0
Cv [Pa]
460230.4
460230.4
460230.4
460230.4
460230.4
460230.4
488994.8
517759.2
546523.6
575288.0
604052.4
1364307.3
1364307.3
1364307.3
1364307.3
1364307.3
1364307.3
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
3805726.8
Ch [Pa]
1193053.3
1225584.6
1177206.7
1151948.7
1122436.3
1110251.6
1180050.1
1181372.8
1293177.7
1363038.4
1536900.7
3666594.0
3630426.9
3801513.3
3401266.7
3368726.1
3476101.4
10083920.5
9368840.1
9565409.9
9254605.1
9202865.3
9270649.1
9458577.0
9406755.0
9023339.6
8984024.3
8946539.7
8622000.6
8876465.6
Table 4-19. Pile Input Parameters for the KEOPE Program.
133
Figure 4-37. Pile characterization input into KEOPE Program.
4.6.3 Output
After the input parameters have been put in the analysis can be run. The output provides specific
indication of the kinematic effects on the piles in term of bending moments, shears and
displacements. An animation is also provided of the displaced pile motion. Figure 4-38 indicates the
main window of the KEOPE program after the input parameters have been accepted by the
program.
134
Figure 4-38. Main Window of the KEOPE Program after running the analysis.
4.6.4 Results
The procedure to be followed so as to best determine the effects of kinematic loading would be as
follows:
Identify the original internal forces in pile groups SPA and SPB from the inertial analysis.
Determine with KEOPE the internal loads in the pile from each of the seven accelerograms.
Identify the transfer function of the soil column.
Combine these internal loads from KEOPE with the original internal forces using the
appropriate method, (SRSS in this case) for the both pile groups.
Identify the maximum set of internal forces and the corresponding accelerogram.
Use these internal forces as the design forces to be considered.
The loading of section 4.1 was applied to the platform via the SACS Program and produced the
internal forces of the bending moments, shear forces and axial loads. These values are displayed in
135
Table 4-20 and Table 4-21. These would be forces that were found as a result of the inertial loading
on the piles. These results are plotted in Figure 4-39, Figure 4-40, and Figure 4-41 to show the
actual variation of Bending Moment (BM), Shear Forces (SF) and Axial Loads (AX) with depth
respectively. There are two sets of results displayed, those of pile group SPA and SPB. All of the
piles were constructed to be the same length but the penetrations are to be different due to the
unequal angles of offset from vertical. From Figure 4-15 the penetration of group SPA, piles A1 and
B1, are to be 192.87 (58.79m) and the penetration of group SPB, piles A2 and B2, are to be
191.49 (58.37m).
136
Depth (m) BM (Nm)

0.00
0.58
1.19
1.77
2.35
2.93
3.54
4.11
4.69
5.30
5.88
6.46
7.07
7.65
8.23
8.81
9.42
10.00
10.58
11.19
11.77
12.34
12.92
13.53
14.11
14.69
15.30
15.88
16.46
17.07
17.65
18.23
18.81
19.42
19.99
20.57
21.18
21.76
22.34
22.92
23.53
24.11
24.69
25.30
25.88
26.46
27.07
27.65
28.22
28.80
29.41
3659212.7
3168058.1
2681209.7
2203312.7
1737045.8
810095.5
492567.4
189585.5
108321.7
378978.9
635530.8
874315.4
1093659.9
1292784.6
1978260.4
2221057.4
2438672.7
2631117.7
2798426.3
2941016.6
3058267.2
3149861.3
3215968.8
3256815.4
3272638.7
3263653.3
3230108.0
3172206.1
3090784.0
2986757.2
2861007.4
2714302.9
2547717.7
2362709.7
2160567.2
1944059.6
1717978.8
1486224.2
1237584.0
987949.1
753855.0
545744.9
32799.4
10499.9
38507.1
54398.2
61032.7
61010.0
56545.6
49459.1
41129.2
SF (N)
AX (N)
836106.4
832546.6
821867.2
804958.2
784489.4
550878.0
529519.2
505490.6
479682.1
451648.8
421835.5
389797.4
355979.3
320826.4
435629.7
392467.2
349304.7
306587.2
263869.7
221152.1
177989.7
134382.2
91219.7
48502.2
7119.6
36487.9
77870.5
118363.1
157520.8
195343.6
231831.5
266539.5
299022.6
329280.9
355979.3
376448.1
389352.4
408486.3
423615.4
411156.1
376003.2
327056.0
88994.8
60516.5
37377.8
19133.9
5784.7
4004.8
9789.4
12904.3
14239.2
4387000.1
4390559.9
4396344.5
4398569.4
4398569.4
5826491.4
5821596.7
5815812.1
5808692.5
5800682.9
5791338.5
5781104.1
5769979.7
5757520.5
4343392.6
4333158.2
4322033.9
4310464.5
4298005.3
4284656.0
4270861.8
4255732.7
4240158.6
4224139.6
4206785.6
4188986.6
4170297.7
4151163.8
4131584.9
4110671.1
4089757.4
4067953.6
4045704.9
4022566.3
3999427.6
3975399.0
3951370.4
3920667.2
3883289.4
3845021.6
3806308.8
3766706.1
4947222.5
4894270.6
4840428.7
4785696.9
4730075.2
4673118.5
4615716.8
4557425.2
4498688.6
SPA
Depth (m)
BM (Nm)
SF (N)
AX (N)
29.99
30.57
31.18
31.76
32.34
32.92
33.53
34.11
34.69
35.30
35.87
36.45
37.06
37.64
38.22
38.80
39.41
39.99
40.57
41.18
41.76
42.34
42.95
43.53
44.10
44.68
45.29
45.87
46.45
47.06
47.64
48.22
48.80
49.41
49.99
50.57
51.18
51.76
52.33
52.94
53.52
54.10
54.68
55.29
55.87
56.45
57.06
57.64
58.22
58.80
32607.3
24582.6
17473.4
11517.1
6770.1
3176.0
610.3
1073.7
2068.3
2543.0
2633.4
2486.5
2181.4
1819.7
1435.4
1085.0
768.6
508.6
293.9
146.9
33.9
45.2
90.4
101.7
113.0
101.7
90.4
45.2
56.5
45.2
33.9
22.6
11.3
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
14239.2
12904.3
11124.4
8899.5
7119.6
5339.7
3559.8
2224.9
1334.9
445.0
0.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
4440397.0
4379880.5
4319364.0
4259292.5
4199666.0
4141374.4
4083972.7
4013666.8
3930901.6
3849916.3
3770265.9
3691950.5
3614969.9
3539324.3
3465458.6
3392482.9
3321287.0
3250981.1
3182010.1
3113929.1
3047627.9
2982216.7
2917695.5
2854509.1
2792657.7
2731696.3
2671624.8
2612888.2
2554596.6
2497639.9
2442018.1
2386841.3
2333444.4
2280937.5
2229320.5
2179038.4
2130091.2
2082034.0
2034866.8
1989034.4
1944092.0
1900039.6
1856877.1
1814604.6
1773666.9
1733174.3
1693571.6
1655748.8
1618815.9
800508.5
Table 4-20. Inertial Pile Forces SPA [MSL Engineering, (2007)]
137
Depth (m) BM (Nm)

0.00
0.58
1.16
1.74
2.35
2.93
3.51
4.08
4.66
5.24
5.82
6.43
7.01
7.59
8.17
8.75
9.33
9.94
10.52
11.09
11.67
12.25
12.83
13.41
14.02
14.60
15.18
15.76
16.34
16.92
17.50
18.11
18.68
19.26
19.84
20.42
21.00
21.58
22.19
22.77
23.35
23.93
24.51
25.09
25.69
26.27
26.85
27.43
28.01
28.59
29.17
3788082.1
3290021.7
2795046.9
2308311.5
1832415.0
1369245.0
921276.6
492522.2
123003.4
347795.7
715099.3
1065573.6
1393217.2
1696255.7
1973965.6
2226222.6
2452936.3
2654106.7
2829756.4
2980100.2
3104708.5
3203129.3
3275520.8
3343063.6
3338723.5
3309292.2
3255007.0
3176557.5
3074915.5
2950985.3
2805592.0
2639662.3
2454755.9
2252195.3
2252195.3
2034105.3
1805436.3
1570302.4
1315423.2
1057040.4
812819.3
594119.0
407155.6
254167.1
134464.0
45378.9
17055.2
57144.6
79545.9
88542.6
87966.1
SF (N)
AX (N)
854350.4
851680.5
841446.1
825427.0
805848.2
783154.5
757346.0
728422.7
696384.5
661676.6
624298.7
584251.1
541978.5
498371.0
454763.6
410711.1
366658.7
323051.2
279443.8
235391.3
190893.9
146396.5
101899.1
53396.9
14239.2
28923.3
71640.8
113913.4
154406.0
193118.8
230941.6
266539.5
300357.5
331950.7
360429.1
382677.8
397361.9
419610.6
439634.5
430735.0
396472.0
347524.8
291458.1
233611.4
178879.6
129932.5
87659.9
53396.9
26698.4
7119.6
6229.6
8008199.7
8011314.5
8014874.3
8013984.3
8009979.6
8004639.9
7997520.3
7989065.8
7979276.4
7968152.0
7955692.7
7941898.5
7926324.4
7909860.4
7892506.4
7873372.5
7853348.7
7831989.9
7809741.2
7786157.6
7761239.0
7735430.5
7708287.1
7680253.7
7650885.4
7620627.2
7650885.4
7620627.2
7589034.0
7556105.9
7522732.9
7488024.9
7452427.0
7415494.1
7377671.3
7338958.6
7299355.9
7258863.2
7217480.6
7166308.6
7104012.2
7040825.9
6975859.7
6907333.6
6703980.5
6632784.6
6561143.8
6487723.0
6413857.3
6338656.7
6263011.1
SPB
Depth (m)
BM (Nm)
SF (N)
AX (N)
29.78
30.36
30.94
31.52
32.10
32.67
33.25
33.86
34.44
35.02
35.60
36.18
36.76
37.34
37.95
38.53
39.11
39.68
40.26
40.84
41.42
42.03
42.61
43.19
43.77
44.35
44.93
45.54
46.12
46.70
47.27
47.85
48.43
49.01
49.62
50.20
50.78
51.36
51.94
52.52
53.10
53.71
54.28
54.86
55.44
56.02
56.60
57.18
57.79
58.37
81071.7
70515.3
58297.5
45921.4
34347.8
24209.6
15766.8
9109.7
4114.1
599.0
1706.7
3040.3
3650.7
3752.4
3515.0
3085.5
2565.6
2034.4
1525.8
1085.0
712.0
418.2
203.4
45.2
56.5
124.3
146.9
158.2
146.9
135.6
113.0
90.4
67.8
45.2
33.9
22.6
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
11.3
11.3
11.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
15129.1
19578.9
20913.8
20468.8
18688.9
16019.1
12904.3
9789.4
7119.6
4894.7
3114.8
1779.9
445.0
0.0
445.0
889.9
889.9
889.9
889.9
889.9
445.0
445.0
445.0
445.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
6186030.6
6108605.1
6029844.6
5951084.2
5872768.8
5795343.3
5719252.7
5626698.1
5517234.4
5409105.7
5302756.9
5197743.0
5094064.0
4991720.0
4891155.8
4791481.6
4693587.3
4597027.9
4502248.4
4409693.8
4318029.1
4228589.3
4140484.4
4053714.5
3968724.4
3885514.2
3803194.0
3722653.7
3643448.3
3565577.8
3489042.3
3413841.6
3339975.9
3267445.1
3196249.3
3125943.4
3056972.4
2988891.3
2922145.2
2856734.0
2792212.8
2728581.5
2665840.1
2604433.7
2543917.2
2484735.6
2425999.0
2368597.4
2312975.6
1142693.6
Table 4-21. Inertial Pile Forces SPB [MSL Engineering, (2007)]
138
Bending Moment (Nm)

0
500000 1000000 1500000 2000000 2500000 3000000 3500000 4000000
0.0
10.0
Depth (m)
20.0
30.0
40.0
SPA
50.0
SPB
60.0
70.0
Figure 4-39. Bending Moment vs. Depth for Inertial Loading

Shear Force (N)
0
100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000 900000
0.0
10.0
Depth (m)
20.0
30.0
SPA
40.0
SPB
50.0
60.0
70.0
Figure 4-40. Shear Force vs. Depth for Inertial Loading

Axial Force (N)
0
1000000 2000000 3000000 4000000 5000000 6000000 7000000 8000000 9000000
0.0
10.0
Depth (m)
20.0
30.0
40.0
SPA
50.0
SPB
60.0
70.0
Figure 4-41. Axial Force vs. Depth for Inertial Loading
139
From the seven accelerograms from Figure 4-25 to Figure 4-31, these were input into the KEOPE
program along with the other parameters outlined in previous sections. Table 4-22 indicates the
output of the internal forces of the piles from the KEOPE program.
When the KEOPE analysis was run, it was found that the values of the axial forces were nil. This
was as a result of when using the KEOPE program vertical accelerograms were not provided and as
such no increase in the axial loads were found from this kinematic analysis. As such, only the axial
load values from the original analysis were used.
140
Dataset 1
Depth (m) BM (Nm) SF (N)
1100538 22181
0
1060181 69794
2
4
856104 145416
6
656610 192568
8
501606 209579
10
593283 185792
12
696796 121878
14
846344 115030
16
799956 127246
607885 150480
18
691186 151962
20
22
799107
92827
24
711309
71981
26
592009 105733
28
434286 107215
30
258753 117514
32
309690 107020
34
462207
34933
323589
83811
36
128963
76299
38
40
59015
36243
42
45762
8756
44
41786
4739
46
41727
5888
48
42405
4459
50
41725
3663
52
40075
4308
32932
6150
54
17795
8233
56
58
0
8898
Dataset 2
BM (Nm) SF (N)
2359309 12216
2363082 40276
2366981 85600
2323935 115634
2231842 135956
2104202 193285
1859362 255037
1497873 304896
1059586 332262
1079788 330507
1187316 310617
1622200 202550
1734695 121318
1661892 170849
1588676 319750
2102320 463505
2973549 459043
3549926 154403
2388995 644645
972209 557178
162191 272006
158626
72454
169224
15509
126984
30278
98252
21973
88746
10244
81556
7490
63719
12400
32775
15930
0
16388
Dataset 3
BM (Nm) SF (N)
1834589 21746
1803795 73369
1631400 160233
1384532 220436
1158765 255719
914198 256941
718979 221894
876728 216115
1048892 210532
1123795 185938
1241156 141820
1354530 100592
1280542 131660
1054444 160218
689093 235397
462738 304051
723244 299487
1174584 66024
851721 206799
357614 198705
91762
99319
97675
28307
93099
8290
79570
12847
68714
11136
61867
8293
56181
8412
42202
9079
21910
10550
0
10955
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N)
1511361 23715 2727598 12075 1079834 17505
1470674 78195 2736026 38056 1044824 55672
1235206 165119 2772323 74837
857146 111998
911218 217160 2795283 93565
602182 136900
653844 239537 2786682 133237 466153 140650
680076 228372 2734625 164235 420333 125827
740690 184070 2617493 174605 416243 106350
829249 137795 2699512 184318 439176
89534
941709 153184 2954835 228881 456213
99812
922365 176060 3364318 268166 498473 115746
867809 160225 3880375 298630 512117
98804
917453 101433 4401062 292870 581802
55829
886655
90399 4583702 336139 546734
70661
775000
96250 3631754 960239 458810
74356
558563 194308 1924539 1680252 324859
92219
391556 301169 3854892 2250611 185102 108471
798550 319992 8207180 2167355 217550 100845
1327590 62675 11779078 192479 338395
29807
991458 223978 8606664 1989175 247391
59943
439609 224622 3835842 1946559 102573
58959
110808 116088 850934 1042968 54954
29492
88728
34596
405052 333590
45157
8981
86731
8371
502859
25052
37569
5495
69476
13890
314650
93718
30768
5997
69213
10453
152441
74861
33302
5518
70772
7332
133695
36787
39944
5171
67718
6022
136954
10427
40612
4157
52613
10262
111318
19734
32841
5968
26979
13153
58232
27830
17956
8210
0
13490
0
29116
0
8978
Dataset 7
BM (Nm) SF (N)
580997
13131
555574
41909
437580
83832
328483 100334
266635 100282
315169
84494
414705
66660
418392
48977
365325
65642
315145
80242
317547
74496
387048
49463
372165
37817
298347
48333
221726
47749
158961
49680
149702
45505
209330
18691
147574
37410
64213
32728
31954
15773
31405
4770
32002
3392
31492
3541
29142
3963
27389
3512
24321
3785
18600
4166
9825
4650
0
4913
Table 4-22. Internal pile forces determined from the KEOPE Program for the seven datasets.
141
Bending Moment (Nm)

2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000 10000000 12000000
10
10
20
20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Shear Force (N)
30
40
50
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
60
Figure 4-42. Determined internal pile forces, bending moment vs. depth
from kinematic analysis.
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
30
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
40
50
60
Figure 4-43. Determined internal pile forces, shear force vs. depth
from kinematic analysis.
142
4.6.5 Combination of Results

The results of the internal forces need to be added together with a method as described in section
3.5.3. The fundamental structural vibration mode is found to have a period of 3.03 seconds with
90.3% of the modal mass in the X-direction. The second fundamental structural vibration mode is
found to have a period of 2.25 seconds with 93.6% of the modal mass in the Y-direction. The third
fundamental structural vibration mode is found to have a period of 1.53 seconds, this mode is in the
vertical Z-direction.
The fundamental period of the soil column is found from the transfer function graphs. Extracting
from the KEOPE analysis, Figure 4-44 is determined. From this graph it is found that the
fundamental period of vibration, from the non-linear approach is 0.92 seconds and that from the
linear approach is 1.12. The average of these gives the fundamental period of 1.02 seconds.
3.5
Amplification Factor
2.5
Non-Linear
Linear
1.5
0.5
0
0
10
Frequency
15
20
25
Figure 4-44. Transfer Functions from Linear and Non-Linear Approaches.
As such, the natural frequency of the soil is less than the natural frequency of the structure, (Tg <
Tb). From discussions in section 3.5.3 - Superposition of the Effects (of Kinematic and Inertial
Analyses) and taking the kinematic and inertial forces to be out of phase, then these two are to be
combined by the Square Root the Sum of the Squares (SRSS) method. The results of the
143
combinations of the pile forces with that of kinematic effects on the piles as determined by KEOPE
are included for the SPA pile group in Table 4-23 with the bending moments and shear forces
displayed in Figure 4-45 and Figure 4-46 respectively. Then for the SPB pile group the tabular
results are displayed in Table 4-24 and then diagrammatically in Figure 4-47 and Figure 4-48.
Hence, to obtain the most critical effect on the pile, the maximum values were extracted from these
analyses and a final working set of forces were determined and these are to be used in further
calculations. This was found to be those resulting from the effect of the accelerogram of dataset 5
on pile group SPB. From this final set of design forces, the stresses along the pile will be calculated
and these stresses will be compared against the stresses from the original design stresses.
144
Depth (m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
AX (N)
4387000
4398569
5816959
5789264
4904043
4310413
4264730
4210149
4147110
4076502
3999215
3905353
3774207
4828853
4637967
4439594
4234598
4026671
3753357
3493764
3249762
3020249
2803825
2600045
2407741
2228209
2062083
1907799
1764566
1632642
Dataset 1
BM (Nm) SF (N)
3821128 836401
2278119 799804
891761 530570
948095 457812
1778688 442846
2698007 358328
3172849 201383
3377336 116022
3255171 179406
2837692 294311
2266610 387224
1598436 424948
921071 343943
593488 110919
438178 107480
260786 118371
309837 107330
462208
35020
323600
83811
128973
76301
59017
36245
45762
8756
41786
4739
41727
5888
42405
4459
41725
3663
40075
4308
32932
6150
17795
8233
0
8898
Dataset 2
BM (Nm) SF (N)
4353869 836196
3106445 797770
2380109 517384
2422483 431139
2809491 413126
3369707 362269
3610910 301239
3596349 305272
3328503 355518
2974712 416184
2463636 472581
2132594 461509
1830731 357538
1662419 174106
1589744 319839
2102571 463723
2973564 459115
3549926 154423
2388997 644645
972210 557178
162192 272006
158626
72454
169224
15509
126984
30278
98252
21973
88746
10244
81556
7490
63719
12400
32775
15930
0
16388
Dataset 3
BM (Nm) SF (N)
4093355 836389
2705461 800124
1650390 534821
1544240 470214
2062731 466456
2786219 399873
3177794 273748
3385078 216645
3325114 245599
2990968 313923
2490030 383358
1936796 426711
1407906 361178
1055275 163687
691553 235518
463878 304383
723307 299598
1174584 66070
851725 206799
357617 198705
91763
99320
97675
28307
93099
8290
79570
12847
68714
11136
61867
8293
56181
8412
42202
9079
21910
10550
0
10955
Dataset 4
BM (Nm) SF (N)
3959047 836443
2495742 800581
1260181 536305
1139327 468688
1827467 457785
2718411 382144
3182776 244096
3373093 138624
3292874 198646
2921255 308175
2326559 390541
1660767 426910
1062341 348263
776130 101920
561595 194454
392903 301504
798607 320096
1327591 62724
991461 223978
439611 224622
110809 116089
88728
34596
86731
8371
69476
13890
69213
10453
70772
7332
67718
6022
52613
10262
26979
13153
0
13490
Dataset 5
BM (Nm) SF (N)
4563949 836194
3398777 797661
2783540 515713
2877734 425751
3267678 412239
3795449 347639
4053728 237040
4239984 184939
4322876 261499
4359083 368630
4440393 464790
4613651 507678
4620902 475504
3631995 960824
1925422 1680269
3855029 2250656
8207186 2167371
11779078 192494
8606664 1989175
3835842 1946559
850934 1042968
405052 333590
502859
25052
314650
93718
152441
74861
133695
36787
136954
10427
111318
19734
58232
27830
0
29116
Dataset 6
BM (Nm) SF (N)
3815217 836290
2271013 798695
892761 522401
911247 437323
1769017 414695
2665321 331229
3123252 192383
3298936 90805
3188156 161113
2816283 278158
2218569 369611
1501639 418426
800831 343669
460716
81562
330044
92528
187934 109399
217759 101175
338397
29909
247404
59943
102585
58960
54956
29495
45157
8981
37569
5495
30768
5997
33302
5518
39944
5171
40612
4157
32841
5968
17956
8210
0
8978
Dataset 7
BM (Nm) SF (N)
3705050 836210
2091532 797854
503785 517095
758716 427290
1727199 402797
2650771 317835
3123047 173622
3296233 51264
3176424 142492
2789675 265356
2181884 363868
1437439 417625
693483 338446
301271
58819
229256
48342
162250
51675
150007
46232
209332
18854
147597
37410
64232
32731
31958
15779
31405
4770
32003
3392
31492
3541
29142
3963
27389
3512
24321
3785
18600
4166
9825
4650
0
4913
combined via the SRSS method to the original forces for the SPA pile group,
145
Bending Moment (Nm)

2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
10000000
12000000
10
10
20
20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
Shear Force (N)
30
40
50
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
60
Figure 4-45. Combined internal pile forces - bending moment, for the SPA pile
group from the kinematic analysis.
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
30
40
50
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
60
Figure 4-46. Combined internal pile forces shear force, for the SPA pile group
from the kinematic analysis.
146
Depth (m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
AX (N)
8008200
8012259
7990297
7951658
7897560
7829550
7746704
7651888
7607434
7494010
7367141
7230341
7032614
6666440
6415276
6156479
5885675
5600856
5230340
4882137
4545468
4233273
3935574
3659346
3395169
3150292
2915133
2696704
2487008
1888771
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm)
SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N) BM (Nm) SF (N)
3944711 854638 4462724 854438 4208953 854627 4078453 854679 4667907
854436 3938985 854530 3832378 854451
2355367 819967 3163531 817984 2770821 820279 2566448 820725 3451030
817878 2348495 818886 2175416 818066
1020237 746926 2431165 737618 1723204 749951 1354143 751010 2827320
736446 1021111 741145 706714 737415
1048636 642138 2463570 623402 1607928 651038 1224263 649937 2912406
619688 1015444 627695 881138 620746
1958423 512293 2926590 486831 2219583 532835 2002830 525261 3368888
486079 1949644 488163 1911781 478098
2738413 368529 3402144 372362 2825363 409040 2758518 391725 3824277
358145 2706215 342238 2691886 329293
3236048 205803 3666566 304211 3240896 277015 3245782 247755 4103382
240806 3187434 197005 3187234 178729
3444468 116080 3659465 305294 3452060 216676 3440308 138672 4293650
184975 3367631 90879 3364984 51394
3234592 182500 3308380 357090 3304971 247868 3272533 201445 4307401
263631 3167142 164551 3155332 146368
2736643 300754 2878478 420765 2895274 319971 2823199 314334 4293988
373793 2714437 284966 2686822 272484
2299226 396737 2493676 480407 2519756 392964 2358346 399975 4457130
472745 2251880 379566 2215748 373976
1607347 443241 2139281 478406 1944156 444932 1669345 445123 4616746
523086 1511121 436993 1447342 436225
911820 347964 1826095 361409 1401871 365010 1054331 352236 4619067
478422
790173 347694 681148 342532
598439 186038 1664193 229390 1058068 221586 779923 180817 3632807
972363
467077 170175 310911 160520
441433 110614 1590644 320906 693620 236964 564138 196204 1926165 1680472 334354
96150
235418
54958
269979 118712 2103731 463810 469108 304516 399064 301638 3855662 2250674 200495 109768 176647
52452
311804 108690 2973770 459435 724152 300087 799372 320554 8207260 2167438 220550 102616 154030
49306
462275
36113 3549935 154674 1174610 66656 1327614 63341 11779080 192696
338488
31182
209480
20815
323600
83840 2388997 644649 851725 206811 991461 223988 8606664 1989176 247405
59984
147598
37474
129010
76301
972215 557178 357631 198705 439622 224622 3835844 1946559 102632
58960
64307
32732
59041
36253
162201 272007
91779
99323
110822 116092 850936
1042968
54982
29505
32003
15798
45764
8767
158627
72455
97676
28311
88729
34599
405052
333590
45159
8992
31408
4791
41786
4739
169224
15509
93099
8290
86731
8371
502859
25052
37569
5495
32003
3392
41727
5888
126984
30278
79570
12847
69476
13890
314650
93718
30769
5997
31492
3541
42405
4459
98252
21973
68714
11136
69213
10453
152441
74861
33302
5518
29143
3963
41725
3663
88746
10244
61867
8293
70772
7332
133695
36787
39944
5171
27389
3512
40075
4308
81556
7490
56181
8412
67718
6022
136954
10427
40612
4157
24321
3785
32932
6150
63719
12400
42202
9079
52613
10262
111318
19734
32841
5968
18600
4166
17795
8233
32775
15930
21910
10550
26979
13153
58232
27830
17956
8210
9825
4650
0
8898
0
16388
0
10955
0
13490
0
29116
0
8978
0
4913
combined via the SRSS method to the original forces for the SPB pile group,
147
Shear Force (N)
Bending Moment (Nm)

0
2000000
4000000
6000000
8000000
0
10000000
12000000
500000
1000000
1500000
2000000
2500000
10
10
20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
20
30
40
50
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
60
Figure 4-47. Combined internal pile forces - bending moment, for the SPB pile
group from the kinematic analysis.
30
40
50
Dataset 1
Dataset 2
Dataset 3
Dataset 4
Dataset 5
Dataset 6
Dataset 7
60
Figure 4-48. Combined internal pile forces shear force, for the SPB pile group
from the kinematic analysis.
148
The first set of stresses will be the bending stress,

fb =
My
I
(4.24)
and the allowable bending stress is determined by:

Fb = 0.7 Fy
(4.25)
where,
M is the bending moment,
y is the distance from the centroid to the outermost fibres,
I is the moment of inertia of the pile and,
Fy is the yield stress of the steel, (344N/mm).
The shear stress is determined from
V
0.5 A
(4.26)
and the allowable shear stress

Fv = 0.4 Fy
(4.27)
where,
V is the shear stress and,
A is the cross-sectional area of the pile.
The compressive stress is determined from the axial load on the pile by
F
A
(4.28)
Fc = 0.6 Fy
(4.29)
fc =
and the allowable compressive stress
where,
F is the axial load.
The combined stresses are the summation of fv and fc.
149
The allowable combined stress is taken as follows:

fb
f
+ c 1
Fb Fc
(4.30)
The original stresses from the inertial analysis are displayed in Table 4-25 and the new stresses are
displayed in Table 4-26. These are viewed in graphs in from Figure 4-49 through to Figure 4-52.
Unity checks are determined from the ratio of the actual stress divided by the allowable stress.
Depth
BM (Nm)
(m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
3788082
2103276
554949
817620
1893096
2673373
3160139
3338872
3134112
2668275
2192875
1394630
570487
87491
79116
77043
36255
7930
2626
3476
1758
434
84
149
85
27
0
11
0
0
SF (N)
AX (N)
854350
816992
732634
612584
467462
318268
165833
15575
130823
260401
366481
433412
340438
153071
27211
16828
18982
9159
2194
485
890
445
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
8008200
8012259
7990297
7951658
7897560
7829550
7746704
7651888
7607434
7494010
7367141
7230341
7032614
6666440
6415276
6156479
5885675
5600856
5230340
4882137
4545468
4233273
3935574
3659346
3395169
3150292
2915133
2696704
2487008
1888771
Bending
Stress
(MPa)
65.6
36.4
9.6
14.2
32.8
46.3
54.7
57.8
54.3
46.2
38.0
24.1
9.9
1.5
1.4
1.3
0.6
0.1
0.0
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Unity
Check
0.27
0.15
0.04
0.06
0.14
0.19
0.23
0.24
0.23
0.19
0.16
0.10
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Shear
Stress
(MPa)
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.1
0.8
0.4
0.0
0.3
0.6
0.9
1.0
0.8
0.4
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Unity
Check
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Axial
Stress
(MPa)
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.4
8.0
7.7
7.4
7.1
6.7
6.3
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.3
Unity
Check
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Combined Axial &

Unity
Bending Stress
Check
(MPa)
75.2
0.32
46.0
0.20
19.2
0.09
23.7
0.11
42.3
0.18
55.7
0.24
64.0
0.27
67.0
0.28
63.4
0.27
55.2
0.24
46.8
0.20
32.8
0.14
18.3
0.08
9.5
0.05
9.1
0.04
8.7
0.04
7.7
0.04
6.9
0.03
6.3
0.03
5.9
0.03
5.5
0.03
5.1
0.02
4.7
0.02
4.4
0.02
4.1
0.02
3.8
0.02
3.5
0.02
3.2
0.02
3.0
0.01
2.3
0.01
Table 4-25. Original set of maximum pile stresses from the inertial analysis.
150
Depth
BM (Nm)
(m)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
22
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
46
48
50
52
54
56
58
4667907
3451030
2827320
2912406
3368888
3824277
4103382
4293650
4307401
4293988
4457130
4616746
4619067
3632807
1926165
3855662
8207260
11779080
8606664
3835844
850936
405052
502859
314650
152441
133695
136954
111318
58232
0
SF (N)
AX (N)
854436
817878
736446
619688
486079
358145
240806
184975
263631
373793
472745
523086
478422
972363
1680472
2250674
2167438
192696
1989176
1946559
1042968
333590
25052
93718
74861
36787
10427
19734
27830
29116
8008200
8012259
7990297
7951658
7897560
7829550
7746704
7651888
7607434
7494010
7367141
7230341
7032614
6666440
6415276
6156479
5885675
5600856
5230340
4882137
4545468
4233273
3935574
3659346
3395169
3150292
2915133
2696704
2487008
1888771
Bending
Stress
(MPa)
80.8
59.7
48.9
50.4
58.3
66.2
71.0
74.3
74.6
74.3
77.2
79.9
80.0
62.9
33.3
66.8
142.1
203.9
149.0
66.4
14.7
7.0
8.7
5.4
2.6
2.3
2.4
1.9
1.0
0.0
Unity
Check
0.34
0.25
0.20
0.21
0.24
0.27
0.30
0.31
0.31
0.31
0.32
0.33
0.33
0.26
0.14
0.28
0.59
0.85
0.62
0.28
0.06
0.03
0.04
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
Shear
Stress
(MPa)
2.1
2.0
1.8
1.5
1.2
0.9
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.9
1.1
1.3
1.2
2.3
4.0
5.4
5.2
0.5
4.8
4.7
2.5
0.8
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.1
0.0
0.0
0.1
0.1
Unity
Check
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.04
0.00
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
Axial
Stress
(MPa)
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.6
9.5
9.4
9.3
9.2
9.1
9.0
8.9
8.7
8.4
8.0
7.7
7.4
7.1
6.7
6.3
5.9
5.5
5.1
4.7
4.4
4.1
3.8
3.5
3.2
3.0
2.3
Unity
Check
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.05
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.04
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.03
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.02
0.01
0.01
Combined Axial &

Unity
Bending Stress
Check
(MPa)
90.4
0.38
69.4
0.29
58.5
0.25
60.0
0.26
67.8
0.29
75.6
0.32
80.3
0.34
83.5
0.35
83.7
0.35
83.3
0.35
86.0
0.36
88.6
0.37
88.4
0.37
70.9
0.30
41.1
0.18
74.2
0.31
149.2
0.62
210.7
0.88
155.3
0.65
72.3
0.30
20.2
0.09
12.1
0.05
13.4
0.06
9.8
0.04
6.7
0.03
6.1
0.03
5.9
0.03
5.2
0.02
4.0
0.02
2.3
0.01
Table 4-26. New set of maximum pile stresses after combination from the kinematic analysis.
151
Bending Stress (MPa)

0.0
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
Shear Stress (MPa)

250.0
0.0
2.0
10
10
20
20
30
40
6.0
30
40
original stress
50
original stress
50
new stress
new stress
60
60
Figure 4-49. Comparison of the new and old bending

stresses.
Figure 4-50. Comparison of the new and old shear

stresses.
Combined Stress (MPa)
Axial Stress (MPa)

0.0
5.0
10.0
0.0
15.0
10
10
20
20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
4.0
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
30
50.0
100.0
150.0
200.0
250.0
30
40
40
50
50
original stress
new stress
original stress
new stress
60
60
Figure 4-51. Comparison of the new and old axial

stresses.
Figure 4-52. Comparison of the new and old combined

stresses.
152
Bending Stress Unity Check

0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
Shear Stress Unity Check

1.00
0.00
0.20
0.40
10
10
20
20
30
40
1.00
30
original UC
original UC
50
new UC
new UC
60
60
Figure 4-53. Comparison of the new and old bending

stresses unity checks.
Figure 4-54. Comparison of the new and old shear

Combined Stress Unity Check
Axial Stress Unity Check

0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
0.00
1.00
10
10
20
20
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
0.80
40
50
0.00
0.60
Depth (m)
Depth (m)
30
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
30
40
40
50
50
original UC
new UC
original UC
new UC
60
60
Figure 4-55. Comparison of the new and old axial

Figure 4-56. Comparison of the new and old combined

153
Chapter 5: DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
5 DISCUSSION OF RESULTS
The study focused on the design of offshore platforms with a focus on the design of pile members
and an interest in the kinematic loading on these. It has been found that there are a number of other
parameters that influence the design of these piles and these were looked at in some detail. It has
been found that offshore seismic design is prominent in parts of the world that are prone to
seismicity. The level of risk associated with the area in which the platform is to be placed
determines the strength of earthquake to which the platform is to be designed. Also, the expected
level of environmental or human risk associated with the platforms use also determines the strength
of earthquake that the platform is to be designed.
The one main code that is used in the offshore industry that considers all of these factors and
prepares a clearly defined design basis is that of the API-RP2A. This code serves as a series of
guidelines and recommendations and as an introduction into the actual procedure of what is really
expected to be done. It was found that this is not a strict design code as for example the American
Institute for Steel Construction (AISC) code or the British Standards (BS). Another code that
outlines these guidelines is that of the ISO/Eurocode.
The ISO 19901-2 (2004) in comparison with the API-RP2A code on the topic of seismic design,
(section 3.1) was found to produce almost the same result. This was due to the fact that they are
based on more or less the same principles although their methodologies were different. It has been
stated though, that the ISO 19901-2 (2004) code covers a larger range than that of the API-RP2A
code [Chang et al. (2005)]. These authors have also indicated that the ISO 19901-2 (2004) provides
an enhanced response spectra to cover four ranges of period (0-4 seconds) in contrast to the APIRP2A that covers only three ranges of period (0-3seconds). This difference, though, is rather small.
154
The actual design is done via finite elements or any other method of numerical modeling that is well
integrated into computer software that can be freely manipulated by a competent structural
engineer. These software would incorporate the recommendations of specified codes such as the
API-RP2A and also adhere to the strict design criteria as outlined in actual design codes such as the
AISC or the BS.
For this study, focus was placed on the use of the jacket-type platform for the analysis of the piles.
There are other pile types though that are also interesting, such as those of the tension leg platforms
whose piles are constantly in tension and are subjected to cyclic loading. These are large diameter
piles and their embedment depth is constantly being reduced and subjected to strain softening which
is caused by the smoothening of the soil around the piles. This is also an area of concern for in the
occurrence of earthquakes this would further exacerbate the situation. This is an area that will
require further research.
In terms of loading, the study identified a number of sources but focused on the loading on piles and
how they interact with each other upon being loaded. Wave loading was identified as usually the
most critical in offshore design (2.2.2). Additional loads were those of current loading (2.2.3) and
wind loading (2.2.1). The latter were identified to be included in the analysis as these can act
together and in so doing affect the magnitude of the largest load that can be incident on the
platform. Wave pressure was seen to have an impact on the stability of the seafloor and as such on
the capacity of the piles. These were often influenced by the degree of loading from the imposed
waves.
The capacities of piles and how they were determined were examined using the most up-to-date
methods in the offshore industry. The guidelines identified in the API were used here and it was
found that these methods were used throughout the industry and that they were incorporated into
structural computer software. Although the API was published in 2000, many of its methods are
still applicable, such as in the determination of dynamic pile response by the use of the p-y, q-z and
t-z charts. Of course newer methods developed, and some of these are identified in the study (3.2).
The effects of earthquakes on pile design were looked at in great detail. From the study, it was
found that offshore platforms are prone to the effects of liquefaction that can lead to the buckling of
155
pile members. This phenomenon leads to a situation of zero resistance from the piles and hence
these piles would now act as columns. With respect to lateral spreading, this can have devastating
effects on the piles and subsequently on the platform itself. As mentioned, section 3.2.1.1.6,
earthquake triggered spreading, shifts the location of the maximum bending moment to the location
nearer to the location of the highest impedance contrast. These are to be ensured that they are
sufficiently designed to cater for such eventualities.
After researching a number of papers, the API-RP2A has been found to not have been adequate
with respect to liquefaction of soils. It has been only mentioned in section 1.3.7.b of the code that
studies should be done at the site to include liquefaction analysis. A multitude of studies have been
performed over the years since the inception of this code in 1991, but with the release of its updated
version it has failed to identify sufficient methodologies to analyze this phenomenon along with its
subsequent effects such as loss of capacity and lateral spreading, section 3.2. These would both
target the piles of the platform that can lead to a settlement and increases bending and shears in the
legs.
For seismic design, with specific reference to kinematic action, it is customary that piles are
designed for the lateral shaking that will be caused by the vertical propagation of the S-waves, with
shaking normal to the direction of propagation of the waves. The compressive P-waves will
propagate vertically in the soil but will only affect the water below the platform and increase the
wave loading. This water above the soil profile will aim to reduce its magnification during cyclic
loading and as such assists in stability, but this does not happen to a great extent. The near-field and
far-field effects are to be catered for in the occurrence of earthquakes and their effects on platform
piles (section 3.2).
For group effects it has been found that consideration of these effects is only important with the
type of loading. From latter discussions it is found that group effects are only considered important
for inertial loading but for kinematic loading, these effects are inconsequential. This is as a result of
the waves that are reflected off the piles being important from pile-head loading (inertial loads),
kinematic loads originate from below and as such the group effects can be overlooked. For inertial
loading though, it is important to consider group effects as the loading is shared and can, in most
cases, reduce the level of the load incident on a single pile, (section 3.2.2.3). The p-multipliers are
used to simulate the effects on a single pile that is in a group. These multipliers are applied to the p156
values of the p-y curves to simulate the group effects. A considerable number of tests have been run
to verify the use of these p-multipliers and they have been deemed accurate.
The design of the foundation is not done in isolation from the rest of the platform but is rather done
in collaboration with the design of the other structural members and loaded simultaneously. This
means that the model is loaded as one complete unit and the stresses and effects on all members and
joints are determined. This is done so as to allow an optimal design.
The ISO and API-RP2A have indicated guidelines for the seismic analysis of a site. These are
elaborated upon in section 3.1 of this thesis. Guidelines are indicated for PSHAs and these can be
both of a detailed nature or a simplified nature. DSHA are done and these are done to compliment
the PSHA.
As per the Eurocode/ISO (see 3.1.2), the kinematic effects are to be looked at in addition to the
inertial effects of pile design. The API-RP2A does not specify the inclusion of the kinematic
loading to the design of piles. This omission can lead to consequences such as lower internal forces
in piles than that which actually exists during earthquakes. And if these are greater than the inertial
effects then it can lead to an increase in the design stresses in the piles. This has larger effects later
on when the reserve strength of the platform is to be considered.
In the design of platforms, if considering the effects of kinematic and inertial loads, then it has been
observed that the natural frequencies play a major role in the determination of the final loading
parameters. It has been found that platforms usually have a longer period than that of smaller
onshore structures and as such the superposition of the loads will always be as a result of Tg<Tb.
And if this is the case then the combination will be as a result of the SRSS for the internal loads. It
is to be noted that inertial loading produces higher forces at the top of the pile nearer to the surface
and at locations where there is a large impedance contrast. The kinematic method produces larger
loads at the lower ends of the pile and further amplifies the effect of the impedance contrast on a
larger scale depending on the magnitude of the loading.
With this in mind it is important that the designer observe carefully the internal pile forces at the
base of the pile, for it is customary in some cases to reduce the size of the pile at lower levels. In the
157
case study of this thesis, there was no need for a re-evaluation of the loading as the dimensions of
the pile were the same below the level of the mudline, for which the maximum bending moment
and shear force to which the piles were designed were largest at the top. It is rational to conclude
that the size of the pile is dependent on the size of the main legs of the platform and as such will not
only produce a desired fit within the legs but there is the added advantage of the greater bearing
capacity and lower internal stresses of these larger members.
With respect to the case study, we see the effects of kinematic forces on the driven pile from the
results in section 4.6.4 and 4.6.5. Initially a comparison was made between the inertial effects on
the different pile groups, SPA and SPB. It is found that these forces generated by the piles are very
close but the SPB group did generate marginally larger bending moments and shear forces (Figure
4-39 and Figure 4-40). The difference in axial forces though is much larger as is seen in Figure 4-41
where there is a difference of 8.0MN for the SPB piles and 5.8MN for the SPB piles for the
maximum axial load gives a 2.2MN difference. From observation of the bending moment and shear
force diagrams, it is clear that as a result of inertial loading, the greater loading is near to the top of
the pile. The maximum bending and shear forces are at the tip of the pile and the second greater
loading is near to the location of a change in soil properties (impedance contrast). The axial load
follows the same pattern but with a generally reducing stress towards the bottom of the pile.
From observations of the kinematic results we see that these trends are reversed (Figure 4-42 and
Figure 4-42). The greater of the internal loads are more towards the base of the pile. This makes
sense as the kinematic loading is from earthquake loading that originates from the bottom up.
Inertial loading originates from the effects of the earthquake on the structure and this motion on the
piles. At times as previously discussed, the inertial loading may not be the most critical loading and
the maximum load effects are deeper along the pile.
The fundamental period of the soil column was found to be 1.02 seconds and that of the platform
was 3.03 seconds. The SRSS method was used here to superpose the effects. Figure 4-45 to Figure
4-48 display the effects of the superposition. This clearly shows that when the forces are combined
the critical loading is more towards the end of the pile at a level that was not considered during
design by the structural designer. The maximum bending moment that the pile was designed was
that of 3.8MNm and a 0.9MN shear force. After the combination of the forces, these values increase
to 11.8MNm and 2.3MN respectively. From a comparison of the unity checks it is found that the
158
original maximum unity check is 0.27 for bending, 0.01 for shear, 0.05 for axial and 0.32 for
combined stresses. This set of unity checks increased to 0.85 for bending, 0.04 for shear, 0.05 for
axial and 0.88 for combined stresses. This means that the factor of safety for the pile has decreased
from 3.13 to 1.14. It is customary for the factor of safety for foundations to be greater than 3 for
safety and reduction of capacity with time. This analysis has proven that with the inclusion of the
kinematic loading, the maximum pile unity check of combined stresses has increased by 175%. This
means that the pile is not currently under-designed but in terms of structural integrity, the life of the
piles has decreased. In the event of damage to the platform or the piles, the stresses will increase
and the possibility of failure will be heightened. This has automatically reduced the structural
reliability of the platform and its reserve strength.
As such, since the current unity check of the pile is less than unity, the design, given the initial
assumptions, is currently deemed marginally safe, but should be re-designed to reduce these
stresses. We see that with the inclusion of the kinematic loads, the pile design is to be reconsidered
and a larger pile designed to allow lower stresses and prolonged pile life. It cannot be ignored that
with greater information passed onto the designer, safer designs can be produced by the simple
inclusion of these kinematic loads. Optimization of the design is also to be looked at here as this can
lead the designer to create the most efficient solution as a clearer idea of the loading expected on the
platform is realized.
159
Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS
6 CONCLUSIONS
This research has established that the recommendations of API-RP2A act as a basis for the design
of offshore piles foundations but for more detailed design, which is normal practice, more intrinsic
design methods are considered. Also, much of what is required is modeled into advanced programs
and analyses carried out. Industry practices need to be very detailed due to the huge cost attached to
the construction of these structures and the impact on the environment if failure was to occur. As
such, a more thorough inclusion of all environmental effects need to be considered in seismic
design.
For each platform in a seismic zone, a site specific study is to be conducted to carry out a detailed
seismic platform design. When this is done, time-histories can be extracted from the response
spectra and dynamic seismic analyses carried out. Without these time histories extracted, then only
static analyses can be conducted with the available response spectra available.
The dynamic analysis results from the kinematic loading on the piles of the platform. The static
analysis results from the inertial loading on the platform. Inertial loading produces larger effects at
the top of the pile nearer to the surface and are a result of the platforms motion on the piles from
seismic action. From this study the kinematic loading seems to produce larger loads, especially at
the lower ends of the pile, and these are a result of the soil acting on the pile as a result of seismic
action. When these are combined, this can lead to a situation of larger effects on the pile than that
which originally existed.
160
Chapter 6: CONCLUSIONS
Platforms usually have a longer period than that of smaller onshore structures and as such the
superposition of the loads will always be as a result of Tg<Tb. As this is the case then the
combination will always be as a result of the SRSS for the internal loads.
The kinematic loading was omitted in the original analysis in the case study and as a result,
produced lower stresses than will actually be present during an earthquake. This study has shown
that kinematic loading increases the stresses in the piles by considerable amounts that cannot be
ignored in design.
From the case study, on the Mango Platform, the company that designed the foundation did not
consider the effects of kinematic loading, but the piles are still relatively safe. The maximum unity
checks of the stresses of 0.88 means that the piles have a factor of safety of 1.14. This does not
mean failure of the piles but it is usually customary that foundations have large factors of safety
usually greater than 3. This is not only for safety reasons in the event of failure but also to cater for
degradation of capacity with time from cyclic loading or from depreciation of the material.
161
References
REFERENCES
American Petroleum Institute (API-RP2A), [2000]. API-RP2A recommended practice for
planning, designing, and constructing fixed offshore platforms, API-RP2A Recommended Practice
2A [RP 2A], 17th edition, Washington D.C.
MSL Engineering for Fluor Daniel South America, Ltd. [2007] BP Mango Field Development Mango Jacket Detailed Design Report, Appendix B Foundation, CH407R012 Revision C
February 2007.
MSL Engineering for Fluor Daniel South America, Ltd. [2006] BP Mango Field Development
Structural Drawings Jacket Pile Details, CH407, 63861-200 Revision 10, November 29, 2006.
Bhattacharya, S., Bolton, M.D [2003] Pile instability during Earthquake Liquefaction, ASCE
Engineering Conference Seattle, [July 2002].
Bhattacharya, S., Madabhushi, S. P. G., Bolton, M. D., [2004] An alternative mechanism of pile
failure in liquefiable deposits during earthquakes, Gotechnique 54, No. 3: 203-213.
Bolt, B.A. [1993] Earthquakes, WH Freeman
Bond, A. J. [1989], Behavior of displacement piles in over-consolidated clays, PhD thesis,
Imperial College [UK].
Boulanger, R.W., Curras, C. J., Kutter, B. L., Wilson, D. W., Abghari, A.,[1999] Seismic SoilPile-Structure Interaction Experiments And Analyses, Journal Of Geotechnical And GeoEnvironmental Engineering, Vol. 125, No. 9, ASCE, ISSN 1090-0241/99/0009-07500759
Capital Signal Company Ltd. BP Trinidad and Tobago LLC [2005], Geotechnical Site
Investigation at the proposed Mango Platform Site Offshore Southeast Coast Trinidad, W.I., Final
Static Report, Draft.
Carreiras, J., Antunes do Carmo, J. [2002] Settlement of Vertical Piles Exposed to Waves,
Coastal Engineering, An International Journal for Coastal, Harbour and Offshore Engineers,
47/355-365.
162
References
Ceci, F., Forcolin, E., Lai, C.G., Paolucci, R., [2005/2006] Azione Cinematiche su Pali di
Fondazione Durante un Terremoto, Politecnico di Milano, Italia Corso di Laurea Specialistica in
Ingegneria per lAmbiente e il Territorio, Tesi di Laurea.
Ceci, F., Forcolin, E. [2007] A Computer Program for Kinematic Effect On Piles during
Earthquakes in Layered Soil Deposits (KEOPE), Politecnico di Milano-Dipartimento di Ingegneria
Strutturale, Italia.
Chang, B., Abraham, M., Peng, B.F. [2005] Comparison of ISO and API-RP2A Seismic Design
Guidelines Using 3 Existing Offshore Platforms, Offshore Technology Conference 2005, OTC
17285, Houston, Texas.
Crouse, C. B., [1992], Estimation of Ground Motion for Design Or Reassessment of Offshore
Platforms, Proceedings of the International Workshop on Seismic Design and Reassessment of
Offshore Structures, December 7-9, 1992.
Curras C.J., Boulanger, R.W., Kutter, B.L., Wilson, D.W. [2001] Dynamic Experiments and
Analysis of a Pile-Group-Supported Structure, Journal of. Geotechnical And Geo-Environmental
Engineering, ASCE, Issue No.1090-0241/01/0007, pp 585-596.
Dean, R.. [2005/6], CVNG 3006 Environmental Geotechnics, Module 1: Offshore Foundation
Engineering, Lecture Notes, University of the West Indies, Trinidad.
Dean, R.. [2007/8], CVNG 3017 Offshore Geotechnical Engineering Part 1, Lecture Notes,
University of the West Indies, Trinidad.
Dean, R., [2007/8], CVNG 3017 Offshore Geotechnical Engineering, Part 2, Lecture Notes,
University of the West Indies.
El Naggar, M.H., Bentley, K.J., [2000] Dynamic Analysis for Laterally Loaded Piles and Dynamic
p-y Curves. Canada Geotechnical Journal; Vol. 37, No. 1, pp 1166-1183.
El Naggar, M.H., Shayanfar, M.A., Kimiaei, M., Aghakouchak, A. A. [2005] Simplified BNWF
model for Nonlinear Seismic Response Analysis of Offshore Piles with Nonlinear Input Ground
Motion Analysis, Canada Geotechnical Journal; Vol. 42, No. 1, pp 365-380.
Energo Engineering Co. Ltd. and bpTT, [2005] Seismic Hazard Analysis and Development of
Seismic Design Parameters for the Mango Offshore Platform Site, Trinidad.
Engineering Dynamics Incorporated [2008], Structural Analysis Computer Systems (SACS),
Version 5.2.
Engineering Dynamics Incorporated [2007], Structural Analysis Computer Systems (SACS)
Brochure.
Finn L.W.D and Thavaraj, T [2001], Deep Foundations in Liquefiable Soils: Case Histories,
Centrifuge Tests and Methods of Analysis. Proceedings: Fourth International Conference on
Recent Advances in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics and Symposium in
honour of Professor W.D.Liam Finn, San Diego, California, March 26-31, 2001.
163
References
Honarvar, M.R., Bahaari, M.R., Asgarian, B., Alanjari, P. [2008] Cyclic inelastic behavior and
analytical modeling of pile-leg interaction in jacket type offshore platforms, Applied Ocean
Research; Vol. 29, No. 1, pp 167-179.
International Organization for Standardization [2004] ISO 19901-2 Petroleum and Natural Gas
Industries Specific Requirements for offshore structures Part 2, Seismic Design Procedures and
Criteria. International Standards Office, British Standards Institute, London.
International Organization for Standardization [2004] ISO 2004 Draft International Standard for
the Design of Fixed Steel Offshore Platforms. ISO/DIS 19902, International Standards Office,
British Standards Institute, London.
Inazaki, T. [2005] Relationship between S-Wave Velocity and Geotechnical Properties of Alluvial
Sediments, Individual Study, Public Works Research Institute, Tsukuba, Japan.
International Organisation for Standardisation: ISO 19901-4 Petroleum and Natural Gas Industries
Specific Requirements for offshore structures Part 4: Geotechnical and Foundation Design
Considerations, 2003.
Kausel, E., [1981] An explicit solution for the Greens functions for dynamic loads in layered
media, MIT Research Report R81-13, Department if Civil Engineering, MIT, Cambridge, MA,
02139.
Kramer, S., [1996] Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering, Prentice Hall International Series in
Civil and Engineering Mechanics, New Jersey, USA.
Lehane, B. M., Schneider, J. A., Xu, X., [2005] The UWA-05 method of prediction of axial
capacity of driven piles in sand, Individual Study, University of Western Australia, Perth.
Lui, C., Evett, J. [2001] Soils and Foundations (5th Edition), Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River,
New Jersey, Columbus, Ohio.
Mostafa, Y. E., El Naggar, M. H. [2003] Response of Fixed Offshore Platfroms to Wave and
Current Loading including soil-structure interaction. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering;
Vol. 24, 0267-7261, No. 1, pp 357-368
Mylonakis, G., Nikolaou, A., Gazetas, G. [1997] Soil-Pile-Bridge Seismic Interaction: Kinematic
and Inertial Effects. Part 1: Soft Soil, Earthquake Engineering and Structural Dynamics; Vol. 26,
No. 1, pp 337-359.
Nogami, T., Igarashi, A. [2001] Rayleigh Waves in Offshore Environment. Final report to
Sandia National Laboratory MMS, Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California,
San Diego, La Jolla 92093.
Nogami, T., Kazama, M. [1997] Thin layer element method for dynamic soil-structure-interaction
analysis of axi-symmetric structure in submerged soil. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake
Engineering; Vol. 16: 0267-7261/97, pp 337-351.
164
References
Nogami, T., Kazama, M., [2001] Effect of Offshore Environment on Dynamic Response of Pile
Foundations Final report to MMS, Dept. of Interior. by Scripps Institution of Oceanography,
University of California, San Diego, La Jolla 92093 and Port and Harbor Research Institute, Japan
Ministry of Transport, Yokosuka, Japan.
Randolph, M., Cassidy, M., Gourvenec, S., Erbrich, C., [2005] Challenges in Offshore
Engineering, Individual Study, Centre for Offshore Foundation Systems & Advanced GeoMechanics, University of Western Australia.
Strandgaard, T., Vandenbulcke, L. [2002] Driving Monopiles into Glacial Till IBCs Wind Power
Europe.
Tokimatsu, K., Suzuki, H., and Sato, M. [2005] Effects of Inertial and Kinematic interaction on
seismic behavior of pile with embedded foundation, Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering;
Vol. 25, pp 753-762.
URS Corporation and BHP Billiton [2003], Seismic Hazard Analysis and Development of Seismic
Design Parameters for the Aripo Offshore Platform Site, Trinidad. URS Corporation, 1501 4th
Avenue, Suite 1400, Seattle, WA 98101, URS Job No. 33755692
165
Appendix
Appendix
1. Seismic Hazard Maps [ISO 19901-2]
2. Seismic Hazard Maps from [API-RP2A]
3. Seismic Hazard Maps for the Caribbean, [UWI Seismic Research Unit]
4. Summary for Borehole log 1 [Capital Signal Company Ltd.]
5. Summary for Borehole log [Capital Signal Company Ltd.]
6. T-Z Curve [Capital Signal Company Ltd.]
7. Q-Z Curve [Capital Signal Company Ltd.]
8. P-Y Curve data [Capital Signal Company Ltd.]
9. P-Y Curve [Capital Signal Company Ltd.]
10. Pile Group Summary SPA [MSL Engineering]
11. Pile Group Summary SPB [MSL Engineering]
12. Pile Head Forces [MSL Engineering]
13. Final Pile Design [MSL Engineering]
166
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE FOR PLANNING, DESIGNING AND CONSTRUCTING FIXED OFFSHORE PLATFORMSWORKING STRESS DESIGN
2
2
1
2
4
1
3
4
2
Alaska
2
Hawaii
0
1
1
2
4
3
5
2
3
4
4
5
5
Figure C2.3.6-1Seismic Risk of United States Coastal Waters
149
UWI, Seismic Research Unit
Report No. 2005-484-3

SOIL TYPES
Clay
Sand
Silt
Claystone
Silty Clay
Silty Sand
Sandy Silt
Coral
Sandy Clay
Clayey Sand
Clayey Silt
STRENGTH OF COHESIVE SOILS
DENSITY OF GRANULAR SOILS
Descriptive Term
Undrained Shear
Strength, KSF
Descriptive Term
Relative Density*, %
Very Soft
Less than 0.25
Very Loose
Less than 15
Soft
0.25 to 0.50
Loose
15 to 35
Firm
0.50 to 1.00
Medium Dense
35 to 65
Stiff
1.00 to 2.00
Dense
65 to 85
Very Stiff
2.00 to 4.00
Very Dense
Greater than 85
Hard
Greater than 4.00
* Estimated from sampler driving records

DEFINITION OF TERMS CHARACTERIZING SOIL
Symbol
Term
Definition of Term
MC
LL, PL
SUW
TV
PP
MV
UU
-200
Sieve
Carb
Pocket
Moisture Content, presented as percent by weight.

Liquid and Plastic Limits, presented as percent by weight.
Submerged Unit Weight, presented as lbs. per cu. ft.
Torvane shear strength estimate, presented as kips per sq. ft.
Pocket Penetrometer shear strength estimate, presented as kips per sq. ft.
Miniature Vane shear strength measurement, presented as kips per sq. ft.
Triaxial shear strength measurement, presented as kips per sq. ft.
Material passing -200 sieve, presented as percent by weight.
-200 with a complete curve based on an ASTM nest of sieves.
Carbonate content, presented as percent by weight.
Inclusions of different textured material that is smaller than the diameter of the
sample.
Inclusions less than 1/8 inch thick extending through the sample.
Inclusions 1/8 to 3 inches thick extending through the sample.
Inclusions greater than 3 inches thick extending through the sample.
Sample composed of alternating partings and seams of different soil types.
Sample composed of alternating layers of different soil types.
Sample composed of pockets of different soil types with no evidence of laminated
or layered structure.
Cohesive soils that exhibit a loose knit or flaked structure.
Containing appreciable quantities of calcium carbonate.
Containing more than 50 percent calcium carbonate.
Containing appreciable quantities of ferrous oxide.
Parting
Seam
Layer
Laminated
Interlayered
Intermixed
Flocculated
Calcareous
Carbonate
Ferrous
TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON THE LOGS AND PLATES

BPTT Mango Platform Site
Offshore Southeast Coast of Trinidad, W.I.
CAPITAL SIGNAL
PLATE 2
PENETRATION
CURVE POINTS
BELOW
MUDLINE
(ft)
0.0
1.0
5.0
10.0
35.0
70.0
70.0
102.0
110.0
110.0
300.0
(and below)
NOTES:
t
z
t
z
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.02
0.08
0.00
0.15
0.03
0.15
0.00
0.27
0.05
0.27
0.00
0.38
0.06
0.38
0.00
0.48
0.07
0.48
0.00
0.96
0.07
0.96
0.00
48.00
0.07
48.00
t
z
t
z
t
z
t
z
t
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.03
0.08
0.05
0.08
0.11
0.08
0.20
0.08
0.27
0.05
0.15
0.08
0.15
0.18
0.15
0.33
0.15
0.45
0.08
0.27
0.12
0.27
0.26
0.27
0.49
0.27
0.67
0.10
0.38
0.14
0.38
0.32
0.38
0.59
0.38
0.80
0.11
0.48
0.16
0.48
0.35
0.48
0.65
0.48
0.89
0.11
0.96
0.16
0.96
0.35
0.96
0.65
0.96
0.89
0.11
48.00
0.16
48.00
0.35
48.00
0.65
48.00
0.89
z
t
z
t
z
t
z
t
z
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0
0.00
0.08
0.42
0.08
0.42
0.08
0.60
0.08
0.60
0.08
0.15
0.70
0.15
0.70
0.15
1.00
0.15
1.00
0.15
0.27
1.05
0.27
1.05
0.27
1.50
0.27
1.50
0.27
0.38
1.26
0.38
1.26
0.38
1.80
0.38
1.80
0.38
0.48
1.40
0.48
1.40
0.48
2.00
0.48
2.00
0.48
0.96
1.40
0.96
1.40
0.96
2.00
0.96
2.00
0.96
48.00
1.40
48.00
1.40
48.00
2.00
48.00
2.00
48.00
1. "t" is mobilized soil-pile adhesion in ksf.

2. "z" is axial pile displacement in inches.
3. Data for tension and compression coincide.
AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER DATA (T-Z)

API RP 2A (2000) Method
48-in.-Diameter Steel Pipe Pile
Borehole MG-BH-01, Mango Field
Offshore Southeast Coast Trinidad, West Indies
2005-484
PLATE 8b
PENETRATION
CURVE POINTS
BELOW
MUDLINE
(ft)
Q
z
Q
z
0.0
0.00
0.0
0.00
177.6
0.10
188.5
0.10
355.3
0.62
377.0
0.62
532.9
2.02
565.5
2.02
639.5
3.50
678.6
3.50
710.6
4.80
754.0
4.80
710.6
48.00
754.0
48.00
110.0
Q
z
0.0
0.00
188.5
0.10
377.0
0.62
565.5
2.02
678.6
3.50
754.0
4.80
754.0
48.00
122.0
Q
z
0.0
0.00
304.4
0.10
608.9
0.62
913.3
2.02
1096.0
3.50
1217.7
4.80
1217.7
48.00
174.0
Q
z
0.0
0.00
628.3
0.10
1256.6
0.62
1885.0
2.02
2261.9
3.50
2513.3
4.80
2513.3
48.00
279.0
291.0
Q
z
Q
0.0
0.00
0
628.3
0.10
56.5
1256.6
0.62
113.1
1885.0
2.02
169.6
2261.9
3.50
203.6
2513.3
4.80
226.2
2513.3
48.00
226.2
300.0
(and below)
z
Q
z
0.00
0.0
0.00
0.10
56.5
0.10
0.62
113.1
0.62
2.02
169.6
2.02
3.50
203.6
3.50
4.80
226.2
4.80
48.00
226.2
48.00
100.0
106.0
NOTES:
1. "Q" is mobilized soil- tip resistance in kips.

2. "z" is axial pile displacement in inches.
3. Data for compression only.
AXIAL LOAD TRANSFER DATA (Q-Z)

2005-484
PLATE 9b
50 [%]
Date:
Very Soft to Firm Clay
Drawn by:
50
= 25; k = 60 lb/in3
Medium Dense to Dense Silty

Sand to Sandy Silt
150
Date:
200
250
Checked by:
Depth Below Mudline, [ft]
100
300
= 35; k = 120 lb/in3
Medium Dense to Very

Dense Sand
350
SOIL PARAMETERS (i.e.; 50, k values) FOR P-Y ANALYSES
Borehole MG-BH-01
Mango Field
2005-484
PLATE 10
PENETRATION
BELOW
MUDLINE
(feet)
CURVE POINTS
1
0.0
29
40
54
74
100
144
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
4.0
45
61
83
113
153
221
46
46
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
8.0
12.0
16.0
19.0
23.0
35.0
70.0
70.0
62
84
114
154
210
302
119
119
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
79
107
146
198
269
387
220
220
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
97
132
179
243
330
476
348
348
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
112
152
206
279
379
545
461
461
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
131
178
242
328
446
642
637
637
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
36.000
60.000
155
210
285
387
525
756
756
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
60.000
287
390
529
718
975
1404
1404
0.000
0.061
0.154
0.384
0.960
2.400
7.200
60.000
2397
4664
8444
12571
14303
14409
14409
0.000
0.048
0.096
0.192
0.384
0.800
1.800
60.000
110.0
3772
7373
13545
20850
24465
24760
24760
(and below)
0.000
0.048
0.096
0.192
0.384
0.800
1.800
60.000
1.2
Shape of P-Y Curves
p/pmax
0.8
0.6
mudline
0.4
0.2
8-ft
23 to 70-ft
70-ft and below
0
0.00
NOTES:
10.00
20.00
y [in]
30.00
40.00
1. "p" is soil resistance in pounds per inch.

2. "y" is lateral deflection in inches.
LATERAL SOIL RESISTANCE - PILE DEFLECTION DATA (P-Y)

2005-484
PLATE 11b
&$ -30"

#'001021+*
& &$""&&#&"114& 4022,"1/(.)(/*& ".*
55" &55
#'&
#&$"55555#"!"$5555555555"&&#555555555555555""5555555555"$$&&
!%"# &&%"# &&"&$%3"&#&#
""&#&"&&&3""&&#""""#$&"$"$
!&#4
232/3*22230/+2322-.)/0/+-3+1*+3)4)*-3)1231.4/3.113/241/3-,020"02300,
13)/3,,)230/-2322-*20*2/2311*+314)*,3+*3+*4/3.1130)410302020"02302/3)/3-/0230/02322,2+0/+003,1*.3+4)**32+3./4/3.0130*4123*-020"0231*.
-3*/3/*)2300)2322,0)1).).3/1*23)4)**3-,3114/3.0130-4)3-/020"0231,/
+3+/30.12300,2322,.+1-/,*3)1+,3/4)**3-.3*04/3.013004*30.020"0231./
)3,13+/0230),2322.2,+1,+3-10/3*41/2)3.030-4.3-/23*,4,3+*010"12310.
113,13,/+230)/2322.10./-*3111)3241/2*3/13/+4.3-/23*04-3*)010"123112
1/3-13-.1230*)2322.1-1,++3.11/3,41/2+3223-/4.3-023+)4-32-010"1232)+
1-3.13..-230*,2322.1-)-*3.12+3*41/2-3.23/24.3-023+-4.3*0010"1232)/
1+3.13/.)230*02322.1///-/311213-41/2/3,132-4.3-123+24-3-,010"123121)3/130-.230+*2322.2*-,0/32).3*41/213-13+,4.3-223,,4,30+010"12311,
0130131,2230+-2322.21++/-3+*+3,410))3003.04.3-223,14,3)0010"12310,
0/30132,*230+12322/)0),+,3.*232410),3+/32/4.3.)23--4+3-0010"1231/,
0-3123)+*230,*2322/*111./*30+031410)/3)/3-*4.3.*23-24*32,010"1231..
0+3213+2+231))2322,1)1+-2/31)+3)4)+,31-3.*4/3/*23,*4*3*,020"0231-0
0*3)13-,,231),2322,221),-13/**304)+/3*,31,4/3/+23,14)3-/020"0231,/
/23)13.0)231).2322-+)01-+,3++*3-4)+13/,3+,4/3/,23-.412310020"0231+0
/03*130)*231)12322---0/0+)3.,*3)4),*3++30)4/3/-23.*4123,-020"0231*2
/.3+131+0231**2322-/20.+-)3+-)3/4),-3)+3+,4/3/.23.1411312020"0231*+
/,3+132-0231*,2322-2.0,2013/.)3+4),03)*31-4/3//23/.4113.)020"0231)/
/*3,23)/)231*/2322.+,0+2-*3+.2324)-)3**3.*4/3/0230*4113*2020"0231)*
.23-23*/0231*22322..+0+*,)31/2304)-,3.*3+/4/3/1230141032.020"023020
.03.23+/0231+*2322.1*0*.-.32023-4)-03)*3)04/3/2231.410301020"02302..3.23,/*231+-2322/**0**1-3.123)4).)3/)32/4/30*232*4103/1020"02302,
.,3/23--0231+/2322/-*0*)--3.13,4).-3.)32+4/30+23214103/.020"02302,
.*3023.+/231+22322/0*0**+-3)*304).13.)32-4/30,232,4103/1020"02302,
-23023.22231,+23220)*0*-+)311+3-4)/+30*3),4/30.2310410302020"02302.
-03123//-231,-23220,*0*2,,3*0,3,4)/03)*3+)4/30/231*410320020"023021
-.32230+,231,023220.20+/.,3./-3.4)0*3-*3-+4/301230-4113+*020"0231)+
-,322300.231,223220100,.0,32./3)4)0/3**30*4/30223/24113.*020"0231)/
-+3)231+*231-+23221*-0-/1/3.-0314)1)31+3)/4/31*23/,411311020"0231*+
-)3*231/*231--23221-)0.21-3.-)3)4)1.30+3-/4/31,23.14123,)020"0231*2
,13+2312.231-023221/-00-.13-,+304)2)30+32,4/31-23.,412301020"0231+0
,/3+232+,231-2232211002)2.3,+.324)2.32,3--4/31/23-14)3,*020"0231,.
,-3,232-0231.+23222)11)11,31*2324*)*3*-3))4/31123--4)312020"0231-,+3-232/.231.-23222+01+0223-*.3,4*)/3.-3/)4/32)23-)4*3.*020"0231.,)3-2321)231.023222--1-02230*+3-4***32.3+,4/32+23,14+3*.020"0231/+13.2322*231.223222.11/1.)3+)13*4**131.3104/32-23,.4+31+020"02310.
+/3/23222231/+232220*12).)3*)-304*+03+/3./4/32023,,4,3.-020"02311/
+-302322-231/-232221**+.131)03.4*,.3103+.403))23,.4-3+/020"023120
++302322*231//2322212,,,)3)*.3-4*--3.032)403),23-*4-32-020"0232)1
+)312322)231/2232222..*0*3,+/3-4*.,3-13-1403)/23-14.3..020"0232*1
*1322322-231+2232222.0)2300232411113*232)4/3*-231.4/3).010"1232++
*/322322.231,+232222.)03)1/3,412))3)232/4/3*1232)4/3*/010"1232+*.3)2322/231,.232222./.23+*3.412*+3*23114/3+,232,4/3*+010"1232+-
PDF created with pdfFactory trial version www.pdffactory.com
&$ -30"

#'001021+*
& &$""&&#&"114& 4022,"1/(.)(/*& ".)
55" &55
#'&
#&$"55555#"!"$5555555555"&&#555555555555555""5555555555"$$&&
!%"# &&%"# &&"&$%3"&#&#
""&#&"&&&3""&&#""""#$&"$"$
!&#4
*,3*23220231,1232222/.*13/.3/412+-3-231-4/3+0232/4/3*+010"1232+**3*23220231-*232222/-.23213/412,/32231+4/3,*23214/3*-010"1232+)23+23221231--2322220-/)3*23)412-230231+4/3,/23214/3*2010"1232+.
)03,23221231-02322220-223/030412/+3/231,4/3-)23204/3+-010"1232+/
).3-23222231.)2322221./+3,03)4120.30231.4/3-.23204/3,*010"1232+0
),3-23222231.,2322221/,/3)/30412113223114/3-223204/3,1010"1232+2
)*3.23222231./23222210**3-/304))+3+232)4/3.-23204/3-.010"1232,)
1223/23222231.1232222201+3-03)4)*.3/232+4/3.123204/3.+010"1232,*
1203/23222231/*23222221-.3,03-4)+23+232-4/3/,23204/3.1010"1232,+
12.3023222231/-23222221213)0324)-+30232/4/3/123214/3/.010"1232,12,3123222231//2322222-)3)13,4)./3*23204/30+23214/30*010"1232,.
12*3223222231/223222220*311304)/23+23214/30023214/30/010"1232,/
11232232222310+2322222-3.23*4)1+3*23224/31*23214/31*010"1232,0
1113)232222310-2322222)3-23-4)203223224/31023224/310010"1232,1
11/3*232222310/23222221*3/23/4**/3.23214/32,23224/32,010"1232,2
11-3*23222231022322222003-2314*,-302321403))23224/322010"1232-)
11+3+232222311*23222220/3/2324*.+3/2321403)/2322403).010"1232-*
11)3,232222311-232222200322314*0)3+2321403*+2322403**010"1232-,
1013,232222311/23222221)3/2314*103.2321403*12322403*0010"1232-10/3-232222311123222221,312314+)-3.2321403+-2322403+,010"1232-.
10-3.232222312)2322222103+2314++*3*2322403,)2322403+2010"1232-/
10+3/232222312+2322222)3,2314+,03.2322403,.2322403,.010"1232-0
10)3/232222312-2322222,3*2314+.,3.2322403-*2322403-*010"1232-1
1/130232222312/2322222.3-2314+/23,2322403-/2322403-/010"1232-2
1//312322223121232222203,2314+1-312322403.+2322403.+010"1232.)
1/-3123222232))232222213/2314,))3*2322403.02322403.0010"1232.+
1/+3223222232)+232222223/2324,*.3)2322403/+2322403/+010"1232.,
1/*3)23222232)-232222223.2324,+2302322403/02322403/0010"1232.1.23)23222232)/232222223*2324,--3+23224030+23224030+010"1232..
1.03*23222232)1232222223)2324,.13-232240300232240300010"1232..
1..3+23222232*)23222221322324,0+3,23224031+23224031+010"1232./
1.,3,23222232**232222223)2324,1/3)232240310232240310010"1232.0
1.*3,23222232*,232222223*2324,223.23224032*23224032*010"1232.1
1-23-23222232*.232222223+2324-*+3023224032/23224032/010"1232.2
1-03.23222232*/232222223-2324-+.312322413))2322413))010"1232/)
1-.3.23222232*1232222223.2324-,13/2322413).2322413).010"1232/*
1-,3/23222232*2232222223/2324-.*3*2322413)22322413)2010"1232/+
1-*3023222232+*23222222302324-/,3.2322413*,2322413*,010"1232/,
1,23123222232++23222222312324-0.3.2322413*12322413*1010"1232/,
1,03123222232+-23222222312324-103,2322413++2322413++010"1232/1,.3223222232+.23222222322324-21322322413+/2322413+/010"1232/.
1,-3)23222232+023222222322324.*)3+2322413,)2322413,)010"1232//
1,+3)23222232+123222222322324.+*3+2322413,,2322413,,010"1232/0
1,)3*23222232+223222222322324.,+3)2322413,02322413,0010"1232/0
1+13+23222232,)23222222322324.-+3/2322413-*2322413-*010"1232/1
&$ -30"

#'001021+*
& &$""&&#&"114& 4022,"1/(.)(/*& "-2
55" &55
#'&
#&$"55555#"!"$5555555555"&&#555555555555555""5555555555"$$&&
!%"# &&%"# &&"&$%3"&#&#
""&#&"&&&3""&&#""""#$&"$"$
!&#4
1+/3+23222232,+23222222322324..+322322413--2322413--010"1232/2
1+-3,23222232,,23222222322324./,3)2322413-12322413-1010"1232/2
1++3-23222232,-23222222322324.0+322322413.*2322413.*010"12320)
1+)3.23222232,.23222222322324.1+3/2322413..2322413..010"12320*
1*13.23222232,/23222222322324.2+3*2322413.12322413.1010"12320*
1*/3/23222232,123222222322324/)*3,2322413/*2322413/*010"12320+
1*-3023222232,223222222322324/*)3-2322413/-2322413/-010"12320,
1*+3023222232-)23222222322324/*23,2322413/02322413/0010"12320,
1*)3123222232-*23222222322324/+03123224131-23224131-010"12320/
1)13223222232-+23222222322324/,/3*232241310232241310010"123200
1)03)23222232-+232222223223241+)3)2322423-,2322423-,010"123211
&$ -30"

#'001021+*
& &$""&&#&"114& 4022,"1/(.)(/*& "-1
55" &55
#'%
#&$"55555#"!"$5555555555"&&#555555555555555""5555555555"$$&&
!%"# &&%"# &&"&$%3"&#&#
""&#&"&&&3""&&#""""#$&"$"$
!&#4
232/3*-123./+2322--0//-1)3)1)03241+))3+123-24,30/13//41,3+/02*"0230*+
13)/3+0223./02322-*-0)12)301)13.41*223.)3104,30/13/041-3/-02*"0230,/3*/3-*/23.0+2322,100.+0)3*1*)3141*2130+3+-4,30/13/141/3)*02*"0230..
-3+/3./)23.002322,/,02.0/3/1*-3-41*2132,3.24,30/130*4103,/02*"02300/
+3+/30)123.1+2322,-.1,0103+1*13141*2231-32*4,30/130-4113/102*"023020
)3,/31/*23.102322,,)1011.3+1+,3241+)*3)/3*24,300130041232002*"0231*0
113-03)*/23.2+2322,+)*1-1301+23041+)+3/03--4,300131*4*3++02*"0231,0
1/3.03*0,23.202322,*,./-+3+1,/3+41+)-3.13/+4,301131/4+3-*02*"0231./
1-3/03,,*23/)+2322,**12**3/1-,3-41+)/3023/.4,302132*4,3--02*"02310+
1+3003-1223/)02322,*+/2++301.*3+41+)23+23),4,302132/4+31,02*"0231/+
1)3103/-/23/*+2322,*0,/0+321.23/41+*+3)13)*4,31)23)+4*31+02*"0231-0
0131031)+23/*02322,+.).0+3)1/13/41+*.3*03)-4,31*23)14)31/02*"0231,+
0/32032./23/+*2322,,/10/0,3*1013*41+*13//3*,4,31,23*.41232/02*"0231*1
0.3)13*)023/+/2322,.*1-22*321103241+++3,.3+24,31-23+*4123*-02*"0231).
0,3*13+.-23/,*2322,/01+.,-311203041++/3+-3.+4,31.23+14113,102*"02302,
0*3+13,2023/,/2322,101),)+32)03/41+,)3.,31+4,31023,.41030)02*"02301+
/23,13.,/23/-*2322-)101+203)*03.41+,.3),3*24,31123-+4103)102*"02300,
/03,13//223/-/2322-,*0/.*03*+03,41+,231+3/,4,32)23-241/3.-02*"0230//.3-1302/23/.*2322-./0-2/,3),03*41+--31+3*-4,32+23./41/3)002*"0230.0
/,3.132*123/..2322-1,0,/,+31-03)41+.)3**30,4,32-23/+41.3/002*"0230.*
/*3/23),-23//)2322.**0+.,)3,.03)41+..30*3,14,32/23/241.3,.02*"0230-/
.23023*-+23//.2322.-)0*/.23./03)41+/*3.*3**4,321230/41.3)202*"0230-+
.03123+-.23/0)2322./20*)*23)003)41+/03/)32*4-3))231,41-32+02*"0230,2
..3223,-)23/0-2322/))0)/)03)1/3241+0,32)3014-3)+232)41-31*02*"0230,0
.,3223-+123/022322/,)0)-+*3-/3041+1)3.)30+4-3)-232041-30002*"0230,0
.+3)23.)223/1-2322//*0)-.231,3-41+103,)30,4-3)/232-41-31*02*"0230,1
.)3*23.1-23/112322/2*0)0+)3+1,3141+2-3-)31+4-3)2231141-32*02*"0230,2
-13+23/.*23/2,23220+*0*+))3.0-3,41,)*31)3204-3**231*41.3)202*"0230-+
-/3,230**23/2123220.*0*12-3//.3+41,)23,*3*14-3*-230.41.3,,02*"0230-/
--3-230/.230)+23220020+02,32./3.41,*03**3-04-3*023/241.3/-02*"0230.*
-+3.231*+230)023221)00,12)3--13)41,+.3**31*4-3+)23/,41/3)*02*"0230.0
-)3.231.-230*+23221,,0.*0/31-)3)41,,,3-+3+*4-3++23.141/3-.02*"0230/,13/23112230*/23221.10//--32,+3-41,-*32+3/04-3+.23.+41/32-02*"02300+
,/30232*1230+*232211*01+1)32+.3,41,.)3/,3*14-3+123-04103-102*"02301)
,-31232-,230+.23222),1))0,3**13241,.23.,30.4-3,*23-,4113)002*"02302)
,+32232/,230,)23222++1+))+30*,3241,/13/-3,.4-3,.23,241130*02*"0231))
,*3)23201230,-23222-)1-)+.32*)3/41,0032-3214-3,123,04123,002*"0231*)
+23*2322)230,223222..1/*)/3,).3/41,123-.3/-4-3-+23,-4)3)/02*"0231+*
+03*23221230-,23222/211,/*3-)*3*41-),3-/3,-4-3-023,*4)31+02*"0231,,
+.3+2322-230-0232221))/-03.),3*41-*03/03)/4-3.+23,+4*3.102*"0231-/
+,3,2322*230.+2322211+1)13,*)3141-,+3+030-4-3.023,04+3,*02*"0231.0
+*3-23212230./232222.-0-,3,+*3141--03*13,-4-3/+23-.4+32002*"0231/1
*23.23212230/)2322222/,203.,-3-41-/+3+131/4-3/023.-4,3.-02*"023100
*03/23212230/-232222/00.*3*-03-41-003/23+24-30+23/,4-3)+02*"02311.
*.3/2322)230/2232222-11*)3+.23041-2,3,23/+4-301230*4-3-)02*"02312*
&$ -30"

#'001021+*
& &$""&&#&"114& 4022,"1/(.)(/*& "-0
55" &55
#'%
#&$"55555#"!"$5555555555"&&#555555555555555""5555555555"$$&&
!%"# &&%"# &&"&$%3"&#&#
""&#&"&&&3""&&#""""#$&"$"$
!&#4
*,302322+2300,232222,.213-0)3041.)23,231/4-31,23024-30*02*"02312/
**312322,23000232222,1-23)1)3+41.+.3-232-4-312231.4-31-02*"023121
)2322322-2301*232222,-2-3,103241.-*32231,4-32.232*4-30202*"023121
)13)2322/2301.232222-+2/3*,3241..13.23004.3))232.4-30102*"023121
)/3*2322023012232222.+*/3.13,41.0.3-230-4.3)/23214-31+02*"023122
)-3+232202302+232222/++*3/13.41.2+3-230.4.3*+23214-31102*"0232))
)+3+232212302/232222/+1+3//3.41/)23023004.3*123204-32/02*"0232)*
))3,23222231))2322220,0/3).3.41/+03*23024.3+-232/4.3)-02*"0232),
1213-23222231)-2322221-1-3*.3+41/--31231,4.3,)232/4.3*-02*"0232).
12/3.23222231)12322221.2,3/.3,41//+3.231/4.3,/232/4.3+-02*"0232)/
12-3/23222231**2322222/2/3).3041/1)3*23124.3-+232/4.3,,02*"0232)1
12+3023222231*.232222201.30/3,41/203.232+4.3-123204.3-+02*"0232*)
12)3123222231*123222221/)3-03)410*-3/232.4.3.-23204.3.)02*"0232**
1113123222231++2322222*23,030410,.3-232/4.3/+23204.3.202*"0232*,
11/3223222231+.2322222/,3.13,410/)3)23214.30)23214.3/202*"0232*.
11.3)23222231+22322222-3/1314101-3,23224.30123214.30102*"0232*0
11,3*23222231,+23222221-3123+411)13+23224.31023224.31/02*"0232*1
11*3+23222231,.23222220,3)23.411,*3123214.32.23224.32-02*"0232+)
1023,23222231,12322222/03/231411..3*23214/3),23224/3)+02*"0232+*
1003-23222231-*2322222//30232411013*23214/3**23224/3*)02*"0232+,
10.3-23222231--2322222/131231412))3023214/3*223224/3*102*"0232+10,3.23222231-023222220+3/230412+,3*23214/3+/23224/3+/02*"0232+/
10*3/23222231.)2322222003+230412-.3*23214/3,-23224/3,,02*"0232+0
1/23023222231.,23222221*32230412//3123214/3-+23224/3-*02*"0232+2
1/03123222231./23222221/3-230412113*23224/3-223224/3-102*"0232,)
1/.3223222231.22322222)3,2304))13223224/3./23224/3./02*"0232,+
1/-3)23222231/*2322222,3/2314)+23.23224/3/,23224/3/,02*"0232,,
1/+3)23222231/-2322222/3+2314)-23/23224/30)23224/30)02*"0232,.
1/)3*23222231/0232222213*2314)/23-23224/30023224/30002*"0232,/
1.13+23222231/2232222223.2314)113223224/31-23224/31-02*"0232,0
1./3,232222310+232222223-2324*)13)23224/32)23224/32)02*"0232,1
1.-3-232222310-23222221312324*+/3023224/32023224/32002*"0232-)
1.+3.232222310/232222213/2324*-.3+2322403),2322403),02*"0232-*
1.)3.2322223102232222213.2324*/,3,2322403*)2322403)202*"0232-+
1-13/232222311*232222213/2324*1*3*2322403*/2322403*/02*"0232-,
1-/30232222311,23222221302324*213/2322403++2322403++02*"0232-.
1--31232222311.23222221322324+*.312322403+12322403+102*"0232-/
1-+322322223111232222223*2324+,+302322403,-2322403,-02*"0232-0
1-*3)232222312)232222223,2324+-23,2322403,22322403,202*"0232-1
1,23*232222312+232222223.2324+/.3/2322403-.2322403-.02*"0232-2
1,03*232222312-232222223/2324+1*3/2322403.)2322403.)02*"0232.)
1,.3+232222312/23222222302324+203-2322403./2322403./02*"0232.*
1,,3,232222312123222222312324,*+322322403/*2322403/*02*"0232.+
1,*3-232222312223222222322324,+13+2322403/02322403/002*"0232.,
1+23.23222232)*23222222322324,-,3+23224030+23224030+02*"0232.-
&$ -30"

#'001021+*
& &$""&&#&"114& 4022,"1/(.)(/*& "-/
55" &55
#'%
#&$"55555#"!"$5555555555"&&#555555555555555""5555555555"$$&&
!%"# &&%"# &&"&$%3"&#&#
""&#&"&&&3""&&#""""#$&"$"$
!&#4
1+03/23222232),23222222322324,.03223224030023224030002*"0232..
1+.3023222232).23222222312324,0+3-23224031+23224031+02*"0232./
1+,3023222232)/23222222312324,1/3023224031023224031002*"0232.0
1+*3123222232)123222222312324-))3123224032+23224032+02*"0232.1
1*23223222232*)23222222322324-*-3/23224032/23224032/02*"0232.2
1*13)23222232**23222222322324-+13+2322413)*2322413)*02*"0232/)
1*/3*23222232*,23222222322324--*3.2322413)/2322413)/02*"0232/*
1*-3+23222232*-23222222322324-.-302322413*)2322413*)02*"0232/+
1*+3,23222232*/23222222322324-/03/2322413,-2322413,-02*"0232/0
1*)3,23222232*023222222322324-1)3*2322413,12322413,102*"0232/0
1)13-23222232*1232222223223240-,3*2322423+)2322423+)02*"02321,

Dissertation2009 Trevon

Încărcat de

Informații document

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

Dissertation2009 Trevon

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Istituto Universitario

Universit degli Studi

ASSESSMENT OF KINEMATIC EFFECTS ON

A Dissertation Submitted in Partial

The dissertation entitled Assessment of Kinematic Effects on Offshore Piled Foundations,

Dr. C. Lai _______

Dr. M. Corigliano ___

Special thanks to:

Keith Wilson and Antoinette Seaton-Clarke of British Petroleum of Trinidad and

Frank Puskar Energo Engineering Ltd., Texas

Bob Gilbert University of Texas, Texas

Tommy Laurendine University of Houston, Texas

Bob Bea University of California, Berkley, California

Robert May WS Atkins Geotechnical, Epson , Surrey

Marshal Pounds, Jacob Chacko, Amalia Giannakou Fugro, Houston, Texas

GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES ....................................................... 6

Jacket Type Platforms............................................................................................. 6

Tension Leg Platforms ............................................................................................ 8

Wave Action ......................................................................................................... 13

Current Loading .................................................................................................... 15

Offshore Design Criteria............................................................................................... 11

LITERATURE REVIEW OF DESIGN OF OFFSHORE PILED FOUNDATIONS .......... 18

Codes Seismic Design Criteria .................................................................................. 18

Static Pile Analysis ............................................................................................... 28

Dynamic Pile Analysis.......................................................................................... 42

Carbonate Soils ..................................................................................................... 60

Grouted vs. Ungrouted Piles ................................................................................. 60

Engineering Seismology Aspects.................................................................................. 67

Seismic Analysis ................................................................................................... 67

Dynamic Soil Properties ....................................................................................... 74

Seismic Soil-Pile-Structure Interaction (SSPSI)........................................................... 75

Thin layer element method ................................................................................... 81

Kinematic vs. Inertial Effects ....................................................................................... 85

Superposition of these Effects .............................................................................. 87

Pile-to-pile Interaction .......................................................................................... 90

CASE STUDY MANGO PLATFORM OFFSHORE TRINIDAD................................... 91

Platform Loading .......................................................................................................... 93

Geotechnical Characterization ...................................................................................... 97

Program Used by Consultant SACS ........................................................................ 107

Foundation Design ...................................................................................................... 109

Capacity of Piles ................................................................................................. 109

Final Design ........................................................................................................ 110

Seismic Analysis ......................................................................................................... 111

Seismic Sources .................................................................................................. 111

Strength Level Earthquake.................................................................................. 114

Ductility Level Earthquake ................................................................................. 117

Comparison Program KEOPE ................................................................................. 120

Input .................................................................................................................... 122

Output ................................................................................................................. 134

Combination of Results....................................................................................... 143

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS............................................................................................. 154

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................... 162

Figure 3-31. Dynamic Winkler computational .........................................................................55

Figure 4-1. Model of Mango Platform, [MSL (2007)]. ............................................................93

Figure 4-31. Dataset 7.............................................................................................................124

Table 3-1 Determination of exposure level [API-RP2A] ........................................................ 20

Figure 1-2. Map showing the locations of high seismicity worldwide,

Figure 1-3. Example Jacket Structures

Mention is made of the very important aspect of soil-structure-interaction. A selection of the

Chapter 2: GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

2 GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

2.1 Platform Types

Chapter 2: GENERAL REVIEW OF OFFSHORE STRUCTURES

Figure 2-2. Topside module being placed on installed jacket [www.offshoreman.com].