Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Azadeh Ajamy
e-mail: azadeh_ajamy@yahoo.com
Civil Engineering Faculty,
K. N. Toosi University of Technology,
Tehran 15875-4416, Iran
Fixed offshore platforms in seismic active areas may be subjected to strong ground
motions, causing the platform to undergo deformation well into the inelastic range. In
this paper, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of jacket type offshore platforms subjected to earthquake was performed in order to study the linear and nonlinear dynamic
behavior of this type of structures. IDA is a parametric analysis method that has been
recently presented to estimate structural performance under seismic loads. By using
incremental dynamic analysis of jacket type offshore platforms, the assessment of demand
and capacity can be carried out. The method was used to predict nonlinear behavior of
three newly designed jacket type offshore platforms subjected to strong ground motions.
The engineering demand parameters of the platforms in terms of story drifts and intermediate elevation maximum displacement for different records were compared. This
method was used for the performance calculations (immediate occupancy, collapse prevention, and global dynamic instability) needed for performance-based earthquake engineering of the above mentioned platforms. Two different behaviors were observed for the
third platform in the X and Y directions. Particular attention has to be paid for the
seismic design of this kind of platform. The results of jacket type offshore platforms
incremental dynamic analysis shows that the method is a valuable tool for studying
dynamic behavior in a nonlinear range of deformation. Because of high uncertainty in
the nonlinear behavior of this type of structures, it is recommended to use this method for
the assessment and requalification of existing jacket type offshore platforms subjected to
earthquake. DOI: 10.1115/1.4000395
Keywords: incremental dynamic analysis, IDA, jacket type offshore platform, performance limit states, nonlinear dynamic behavior
Introduction
IDA
A practical and accurate approach for prediction of seismic demands and limit-state capacity is the IDA, which is state of the art
in structural dynamics and seismic response. Recently, Vamvatsikos and Cornell 4 from Stanford University have proposed this
method. A fundamental step in IDA is to perform a series of
nonlinear dynamic analysis of structure under a suite of multiple
scaled ground motion records. Indeed, each record is scaled to
several intensity levels so that it covers the whole range from
elastic to nonlinear, and finally, collapse of the structures 4. Ob-
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
A series of nonlinear dynamic analyses were carried out to investigate the seismic behavior of three newly designed jacket type
platforms in the Persian Gulf. Applying IDA to determine the
performance of a jacket platform requires several steps. First, a
proper nonlinear structural model needs to be formed, and a series
of records must be compiled. Then, for each record, the scaling
levels must be selected, the dynamic analysis performed, and the
results postprocessed. Building upon this foundation, several topics of practical interests will be discussed, showing in detail the
reasons behind the choices made in examples and in the advantages or disadvantages of each.
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
No.
Event
Station
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
Soilb
90
285
255
270
285
85
270
140
90
0
360
90
282
230
180
0
360
45
165
90
C,D
C,D
-,D
B,D
B,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
-,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
-,D
C,D
C,D
-,D
-,D
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
Rd
km
PGA
g
28.2
32.6
25.8
21.4
22.3
23.6
28.8
21.9
15.1
28.8
28.8
24.4
28.7
21.9
15.1
16.9
24.4
31.7
25.8
16.9
0.159
0.147
0.279
0.244
0.179
0.309
0.207
0.117
0.074
0.371
0.209
0.18
0.254
0.139
0.11
0.37
0.2
0.042
0.269
0.638
Component.
USGS, geomatrix soil class.
c
Moment magnitude.
d
Closest distance to fault rupture.
b
The mass of the jacket structural members in the dynamic analysis was simulated on the basis of consistent mass
assumption.
The mass of decks and all nonstructural items, such as conductors, mud mats, boat landing, walkways, ballasting system, grouting system, caissons, and riser, was considered together with the
relevant internal and added-mass. The mass of nonstructural items
was lumped to the nearest jacket structural nodes.
Uniform damping of 5% has been taken into account for all
mode shapes of the structure 3% for structural damping and 2%
for hydrodynamic damping.
Additional hysteretic damping in the structure to represent the
energy dissipated due to plastic deformation of structural members was considered.
IDA of the sample platforms were performed subjected to
earthquake time histories considering P-delta effects. In the IDA,
no environmental load was assumed to act along with the seismic
load. During the nonlinear analysis, the platform deck was assumed to remain elastic. Each routine involves a modal analysis
to determine natural frequencies, a static analysis for structural
state determination in gravity loads, and a series of nonlinear dynamic time history analysis to determine structural capacity and
demand.
3.2 Record Used in the Analysis. The seismic excitation that
was used in this paper was defined by a set of 20 recorded large
magnitude with moderate distance to fault ruptures largemagnitude-small-distant LMSR 6.5 Mw 6.9, 15 km R
32 km 9. These accelerograms have been recorded on firm
soil and bearing no marks of directivity. A set of twenty ground
motion records were reported in PEER database; the list in Table
1 was selected. In the table, employed ground motion events and
relevant recording stations are listed in the second and third columns. The parameter on the fourth column represents the component and USGS Geomatrix class are presented in the next column. Moment magnitude M, closest distance to fault rupture
R, and PGA are presented in the last three columns, respectively.
Actually, these records were used by Vamvatsikos and Cornell 4
for the performance study of steel frames. For each of the records,
12 levels of intensity have been used for this evaluation. For each
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering
of the platforms, the 5% damped spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure SaT1, was used as the control
parameter for the ground motion intensity.
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Platform P2 periods
sec
Platform P3 periods
sec
Mode No.
SACS
OPENSEES
SACS
OPENSEES
SACS
OPENSEES
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
2.43
2.2
1.43
0.8
0.68
0.63
0.54
0.43
0.4
0.39
2.35
2.04
1.33
0.77
0.74
0.62
0.53
0.35
0.39
0.38
2.83
2.62
1.62
0.74
0.71
0.43
0.37
0.36
0.33
0.32
2.89
2.7
1.67
0.77
0.68
0.42
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.31
3.11
2.47
1.49
0.71
0.54
0.51
0.43
0.32
0.3
0.23
3.05
2.44
1.45
0.77
0.54
0.5
0.45
0.32
0.29
0.26
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 7 IDA curves of peak interstory drifts for each floor for record No. 1
will be needed to cover the full range of responses. Some representative results are shown in Figs. 911 for platform P1. In these
figures, the maximum displacement response values versus the
different intensity levels have been plotted. As it is evident, there
are different limit states in each floor. These differences depend on
records duration, the maximum peak ground acceleration of the
record, and other parameters such as nonlinear dynamic characteristics of the structures. In order to be able to do the performance calculations needed for PBEE, it is necessary to define
limit states on the IDA curves. For our case study, it was chosen to
demonstrate three: immediate occupancy IO, collapse prevention CP, and global dynamic instability GI. It is equally easy to
calculate the IM values for the IO limit state for each floor. The IO
limit-state values were observed at 0.23 m for the first floor, 0.38
m for the second floor, and 0.46 m for the top framing level. The
abovementioned values correspond to SaT1 ; 5% 0.25 g. By
defining the collapse preventation and global dynamic instability
Fig. 8 IDA curve of interstory drift in top framing level for record No. 2
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 12 The summary of the IDA curves and corresponding limit-state capacities into their 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles in the top framing level of
platform P1
Fig. 13 IDA curve of interstory drift in top framing level for record No. 2
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 14 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels subjected to record No. 5
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 19 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 8 in
direction X
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 20 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 8 in
direction Y
Fig. 21 IDA curves of peak interstory drifts for each floor for record No. 6 in direction X
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 22 IDA curves of peak interstory drifts for each floor for record No. 6 in direction Y
C
Finally, the 16%, 50%, and 84% fractile values of DM DM16%
,
C
C
C
C
DM50%
, and DM84%
, respectively and IM IM16%
, IM50%
, and
C
IM84%
, respectively have been calculated for each limit-state, as
depicted graphically in Figs. 27 and 28.
The IO limit-state value was defined at 0.3 m in the third floor
that corresponds to SaT1 ; 5% in the range of 0.080.18 g in the
analysis of direction X. The above value was displayed 0.5 m and
SaT1 ; 5% in the range of 0.080.12 g in direction Y.
Conclusion
employed to address jacket type offshore platform responses subjected to strong ground motions. The IDA results are useful data
for dynamic linear and nonlinear behavior of this type of structures. This method is a valuable tool for the seismic study of new
design platform, as well as existing platform assessments. Both
demand and capacity of this type of structures subjected to strong
ground motion may be estimated using IDA. This method was
used for the performance calculations IO, CP, and GI needed for
PBEE of the three newly designed jacket type offshore platforms.
Two different behaviors were observed for the third platform in
the X and Y directions. Particular attention has to be paid for the
seismic design of this kind of platform. The procedure used in this
paper may be extended to deal with other loading sources e.g.,
metocean loading.
Fig. 23 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 3 in
direction X
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 24 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 3 in
direction Y
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 27 The summary of the IDA curves and corresponding limit-state capacities into their 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles in the third floor of platform
P3-X
Fig. 28 The summary of the IDA curves and corresponding limit-state capacities into their 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles in the third floor of platform
P3-Y
Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor C.
Allin Cornell from Stanford University for reviewing the paper
and providing valuable comments and fruitful suggestions.
References
1 API, 2000, Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD) for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, 21st ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
2 Bozorgnia, Y., and Bertero, V., 2004, Earthquake Engineering, CRC, Boca
Raton, FL.
3 Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A., 2002b, Direct Estimation of the Seismic
Demand and Capacity of Oscillators With Multi-Linear Static Pushovers
Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Proceedings of the Seventh U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Boston, MA, Paper
No. 354.
Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm