OFFSHORE TECHNOLOGY CONFERENC-g--

6200 North central ExPressway - aTe 2050

Dallas, Texas 75200

THIS IS A PREPRINT --- SUBJECT TO CORRECTION

Three-Dimensional Stochastic Response of Offshore

Towers to Wave Forces

By

Bent Brown & Root, Inc., and Joseph Penzien, U. of California

Copyrighl
Offshore Technology Conference on behalf of _the American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and
Petroleum Engineers, Inc. (Society of Mining Engineers, The Society and Society of
Petroleum Engineers), Association of Petroleum Geologists, American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, American Society of Civil Engineers, American Society Engineers, Institute
of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Marine Technology Society, Society of Exploration
Geophysicists, and Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers.

This paper was prepared for presentation at the Sixth Annual Offshore Technology Conference
to be held in Houston, Tex., May 6-8, 1974. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of
not more than 300 words. Illustrations may not be copied. Such use of an abstract should contain
conspicuous acknowledgment of where and by whom the paper is presented.

ABSTRACT standard deviations and mean peak values for

A theory has been developed to calculate
the dynamic response of offshore towers to ran-
dom wave forces. Vibrations are considered
simultaneously in the orthogonal horizontal
directions and for rotations about a vertical
axis. A lurnped mass model of the structure is
used in the dynamic analysis. The ocean ,,,aves
are considered to be a zero mean, stationary
and ergodic Gaussian random process specified
by the directional wave spectrum. Linear wave
theory and the Morison equation are used to ob-
tain spectral density for the wave
forces on the structure. Drag forces are lin-
earized. The equations of motion are solved in
the frequency domain using the normal mode su-
perposition approach. Spectral densities are
obtained for the responses in the various modes
in normal coordinates, and mean products of the
responses are obtained by numerical integration
of the corresponding spectral density functions
over the frequency range. These response quan-
tities are then transformed into statistics of
displacements, rotations, shear forces and
bending and twisting
Numerical results for seven deep water
towers having heights of 475, 675, 875 and 1075
feet, are presented. __ These results include
displacements, rotations, shear forces and
twisting and bending moments. They show that
the directional spread of the waves normally
has little effect on the rotational response,
and that the effect of the rotational response
on the overall structural response is small.
INTRODUCTION
The building of structures in the ocean
where hostile sea conditions are common, has
made it desirable to carry out a dynamic analy-
sis of the structure in addition to a static
analysis based upon a 50 or 100 year maximum
wave. This dynamic problem is complicated,
since ocean waves are not deterministic in na-
ture. ThUS, it is desirable to carry out a
nondeterministic analysis to find the structur-
al response tp wave forces. Normally the waves
are specified by a "power" spectrum ("rave ener-
gy density spectrum), that describes the dis-
tribution of wave energy with respect to fre-
quency. In this investigation the ocean waves
are described by the directional wave spectrum,
which specifies the distribution of wave energy
with respect to frequency and direction.
Linear wave theory (1-2) is used to derive
statistical expressions for the water particle

References and illustrations at end of paper.

 STOCHASTIC RESPONSE
174 OF OFFSHORE TOWERS TO WAVE FORCES GTC 2050

motions, and of the wave forces on
the structure are determined by use of the
equation (3). The effect of having a
body accelerating in water, is included by the
so-called "added hydrodynamic mass" (or virtual
mass), whose coefficient in this investigation
is assumed to be CM -I , where CM is the co-
efficient of inertia.
Statistical quantities of structural re-
sponse in the orthogonal horizontal directions
and rotation about a vertical axis are obtained.
Previously an equivalent theory to
statistics of structural response in one hori-
zontal direction using the one-dimensional
wave height spectrum has been developed by
Foster (4) and and Penzien (5-6). A
summary of this theory and numerical results are
given in (7).
where symbols [] and {} indicate matrix and
vector, respectively. [M s ] represents the
lumped structural masses and rotational inertias
about the vertical z-axis; [Cs] and [K]
represent the structural damping and stiffness
coefficients, respectively; {O(tl}, {(Htl}
and {u(t)} represent the structural acceler-
ations, velocities and displacements (rota-
tions), respectively; and {Pt(tl} represents
the wave forces on the structure.
Arranging the displacement vector as fol-
lows
(4)

This paper is based on the Ph.D where {Ux (tl) and {U y (tl} are the displace-
tion of the primary author (8), a former student ment vectors in the x and y directions, re-
of the co-author. spectively; and {Ue(t* is the rotational
vector; the matrices in Eq. (3) can be written
DYNAMIC RESPONSE TO RANDOM WAVE FORCES in the following partitioned form

Figure 1 shows an idealized model of an

offshore tower with 4 legs, symmetric about the
vertical xz-plane. The equations in this paper
are based on symmetry about a vertical plane.
The model has the masses lumped at horizontal
levels and inertia effects in the vertical di-
rection are neglected. The structure at each
horizontal level is assumed to act as a rigid
diaphragm. Thus, the number of degrees of free-
dom at each level is reduced to 3, namely trans-
in the x and y directions
and rotations about the vertical z-axis.
Wave forces are applied in the orthogonal
horizontal directions at 4 locations on this
model, namely where the tower legs are located,
such that the phase of the wave
forces on the structure are taken approximately
into account.
............ (5)
where the subscripts xx and yy indicate
translations in the x and y directions, respec-
tively; ee indicates rotation; and ye and
ey indicate the coupling effects between
translation in the y-direction and rotation.
l{hen the mass matrix is partitioned according
to Eq.(5), the submatrices are diagonal matri-
ces.
The forcing vector may be written in par-
titioned form as

Examining Figure 1, and calling the hori- (tl}

zontal of node k at level i x ik
and Yik the of node k are {Pt(tl} = ( 6)
--'-----
(1) {lfe (tl}
U .
YIk
= uy +xo k ue (2) where the wave forces at level i are
iii

Equations of Motion NP
Pt x' (t) =I Px. (7)
I k =I Ik
The dynamic equations for this
model can be written in matrix form as NP
r> (tl =" p ( 8)
"ty'1 Lk=1 y'k
I

NP
Pte, (tl = L [- Y'k Px (tl + x.Ik PYik (t)] (9)
I k=1 I ik
OTC 2050 _BENT BERGE AND JOSEPH PENZIEN
where PX"k (t) and PY'k (t) represent the
wave at node ik id the x and y direc-
tions, respectively; and NP is the number of
nodes where the wave forces are applied at level
i.
The wave forces are described by the
toorison equatiop (3), modified to the following
form for oscillating cylinders.
p(t) =cMP b ii(tl - (C M-I) P b u (tl
I cedure because the relative velocity deviations
I
+2 C oP a v(tl-u(tll{idtl-u(t) (10) calculated in one step are based on the linear-
where CM and Co are coefficients of inertia
and drag, respectively; P is density of fluid;
b is volume of member; a is projected area
of member perpendicular to_motion of fluid;
ii(tl and v(tl are fluid acceleration and
velocity, respectively; and U(tl and u(tl
are structural acceleration and velocity, re-
spectively.
Calling the relative velocity between wa-
ter particles and structure Yr(tl ,given by
"r(t) = v{t) -u(t) (11)
the drag force in Eq.(lO) can bewritten_
PD(t) Ivr(tllvr(tl (12) depend on structural motion in the mass and
Thus, the drag force is proportional to the _
relative velocity squared with the exception of
the absolute sign, which preserves thedirec-
tion of the force. Practical solution of this
dynamic problem requires a linear set of differ- and hydrodynamic (added) masses; [C] represents
ential equations. The drag force ;is_therefore
linearized by the method of equivalent linear-
ization (9). The mean square error introduced
by replacing the nonlinear term Iilr(t) Iilr(tl
with dI ilr (t) is minimized (10). This gives
the following expression for the linearized
drag factor
dJ =
[lv 2]
E r IV r
(13)
2
E [ vr ]
where E [J denotes the average over the en-
semble.
Since the input process (water particle
motion) is assumed to be a zero mean ergodic
Gaussian process ,the linearized output process
is also a zero mean ergodic Gaussian process.
Thus, the probability density function for the
relative velocity is
2 II
exp(-ilr ) (14)
2 (T'v 2
r
175
where (Tvr is the standard deviation of the
relative velocity. Substituting Eq.(14) into
Eq.(13), the linearized drag factor becomes
dI = .j (Tvr (15)
Thus, only the standard deviations of the rela-
tive velocities between water particles and
structure need be determined in order to linear-
ize the drag forces. This is an iterative pro-
ized drag forces calculated in the previous
step. Fortunately, acceptable convergence is
obtained after very few iteration
The wave forces, Eq.(lO) , can now be ex-
pressed in the following linearized form
p(tl =CMP bii(tl - (CM -llpbU{tl
I
+ 2 CoP a dj(V(fl-i.J(fl) (16)
Solution of the Linearized Equations of Motion
Eq.(16) shows that the linearized forcing
functions depend on both water particle and
structure motions. Including the terms that
damping matrices, Eq. (3) can be rewritten as
[M]{ii(f)}+ [c]
{U(fl} + [K]
{u(tl} = {P(fl} (17)
where [M] represents the sums of structural
the sums of structural and hydrodynamic damping
coefficients; and is the forcing vector
depending only on the water particle motion.
The added mass matrix [MaJ and the hydro-
dynamic damping matrix [Ch] may be partitioned
as the matrix [A] in Eq.(5). (The coupled
hydrodynamic damping coefficients for transla-
tion in x-direction and rotation are neglected
such that vibrations in the x-direction are not
coupled with vibrations in the y-direction and
rotation. These damping coefficients are zero
in the initial calculation of the structural
response, and they will be very small even when
the drag forces are linearized.)
Elements ii of the diagonal submatrices are
(1) the added mass matrix
NP
m axx " = m ayy = L(CM-Ilpb ik (18)
Ii k= I
NP 2 2
maaeIi =L{C -llpb'lk (Y'k +x' k ) (19)
k. I M I I
 THRW-DTXENS1ONALSTOCHASTIC!RESFONSE
76 OF OFFSHO.RE.
TOWERS TO WAVE FORCES OTC 2050

where {Y(t)} isthenormal coordinatevector

and [@] is the modal matrix (eigenvectors)ob-
ayeii = a8yii f~c~-l)Pbikxik (20) tained by solving the eigenval?ue
problem for
the undamped case, given by
where bik is the volume of the members lumped
at node ik.
[W=[mmlz ***********~********(~2)
(2) the hydrodynamicdamping matrix where
2
NP
[1
Cl =diag(ur2) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(33)
%xii=;
fx,k ...., ** ..... .........(21)

where Ur is the natural frequency for mode r.

c~yyii
= :,Byik ..... .. . ..... ...
. (22)
Modes in the x-directionare not coupled
with the coupled modes in the y-directionand
rotation. Thus, the modal matrix may be parti-
tioned as follows
CMX3..
,,$l[~xil(y;; 1 . . . . . . . . . . . ..(23)
~Yikxil(2
@------
[1 lo
_-:x
@, . . . . . . . . . . . ,.O...O . . . . .J(?4)
chy6,. = ch6yii
11
= $l@yik
, ik . . . . . . . . . . . ..(24)
[1 o ~@ye
[1

L
where
where [@xx1iS~Nx N matrix and [@ye]
is a 2N x 2N matrix; and where N is the number
.. .. 0 .(25)
@,ik=~CDp axikdfxik .0 . . 0 ***.
of levels of the dynamic model..

P y~k+ cDPayikdfyik . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(26) PrsnultiplyingEq.(17) by [~lT and using

the coordinatetransformationgiven by Eq.(31),
where ~Xik and ayik are the projected areas, the normal equations of motion are obtained
perpendiciilarto the x and y directions~re-
spectively,of the members lumped at fiodeik;
and dJXik and dsy. are the linearizeddrag
[V{y(+)}+[c:l{y ()}+[d{y(f)}={~(t)}(~
factors in the x an5 y directions,respective- where
ly, at node ik.

The forcing vector may be partitioned as

[M]
[ml [4
in Eq.(6), &ut noy_3.he~c~_dSnd_only= . generalizedmass matrix ............... (36)
the water particle motion. Thus, the forces
at level i are
NP
[%q=[@]T[c]
[@]
. generalizeddarnpingmatrix............. (37)
Px, t) k~,~ik Xik h)+pxikvxik(t)
1 .COOO*OOOOOA27)
[~]=[@~[K][@]
NP

y. +) k~[aik (t)].............(28)
Yik(t)+pyikvyik . generalized stiffness matrix........... (38)
1

P8 t)=k~l
NP

{[Yik ikvxik m+~xiktixik(t)]

[@s{f(t)}
{fl(t)}
i = generalizedforce vector............... (39)

+ Xik ikvyik (t)+@yikoyik (t)]} . . . . . ..(29)

[ Both the generalizedmass and stiffness
matrices are diagonal matrices, while the
where
generalizeddamping matrix normal~y is a full
matrix.
a.
Ik
= CMpbik . . . ., . . ** . . .** . . . . *. ..(30)

EquivalentNormal Equations of Motions The generalized force vector may be

partitioned as follows
Using normal mode superposition,the re-
sponse of the structure can be expressed as
P,*(t)
{} . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(40)
P*(t) = -;---
{}
{uo)}=[@]{Y(t)} ............. ..o.**..*..(31. {}
Py@(t)
[1
OTC 2050 BINT ~R@j-Am JOSEPH PENZIEN 77
A,

where the elements of the subvectorsare ob. Response Statistics

tained by substitutingEqs. (27) through (29)
and (34) into Eq.(39). Since the input process (water particle
motion) is assumed to be a zero mean ergodic
Gaussian process, the response process for the
X~*(t) ~14XXir f, [ai~ xi~(t) pxi~ Xik(t)]. . ..(41)
structure is fully described by its covariance
matrix, which for response in normal coordinates
is
PYe,*(t) = 3 {~y~i~
i.1
~1 [aik
=
Yik(t) +PYikvYik(t)] FYY(T)l=E[{y(t)}T{y(
t+T)}l 0090.=0000(47)
SubstitutingEq.(46) into Eq.(47), noting
that the unit impulse response function is zero
for negative arguments and changing the limits
of integration,the cross covariance function
for responses in modes r and s becomes
+Xik(a v (t)+@
YiJYiy)]}
. . . . . . ..(42)
ik Yik am

Practical solution ofthis dynamic problem Ryry$)=

-m-m
RP*p*(T-y2+y,)
rs
L1
requires an uncoupled set of equations of._mo-
tion. The coupling between damping in the hr(~)h$(Y2)d Yld Y2 . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(48)
various modes must therefore be removed. The
procedure used to evaluate the optimal modal
damping coefficientsis similar to that used .to.
where ~ and Y2 ~je dummy time variables
linearize the drag forces, namely to minimize th and RP:%K (T) is the covariance function for
mean square of tineintroduced error. Opti.ml the generalizedforces in modes r and s, i.e.
damping coefficient for mode r is obtain~d..as RP*P*(T)=E Pr*(t)~*(t+~) . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(49)
rs [ 1
Taking the Fourier transform of Eq.(48),
...*.............(43) the cross spectral density function for the re-
sponses in modes r and s is obtained as

The optimizationof the damping coefficientsis s Y r Y ~ (w) =~r(iu) ............(50)

an iterative mocedure, since the mean moducts
of the genera~ized structuralvelocities,.
E[~,?~] , must be determined. These products
depend on the damping of the system. The diag-
onal terms of [CO*] are selected as initial
modal damping coefficients. The dam~ing coef-
ficients must ~e optimized at each iteration
step in the linearizationof the drag forces,
PremultiplyingEq.(~5) with [M*1
and neglecting the errors introducedby the op-
timization procedure, the normal equations of
motion may be expressed in the familiar uncou-
pled form
+2[Q][H] {i(t)} +[Q]2{y(t]=[M*j{fl(tj
{Y(t)}
where
[~]= diog(fr) =&[M*]-' [f,l]-'
where gr is the damping ratio for mode r,
,;i(Q.-j
[f.2*] . . . . . . . . . . ..(45)
H~(iu)Sp*p*(u)
rs
where Spr~pS* (W) is the cross spectral density
function for the generalized forces in modes r
and s; H(iw) is the complex frequency response
function and ~(iu) is the complex conjugate
of H(iw) . For mode r this function is
I . . . . . . . . . ..(51)
Hr(iw)=fi
r r 2-u2+2i<rwrw
The covariance functions for the genera-
lized forces in the various modes are obtained
by substitutingEq.(41) and (42) into Eq.(49).
Taking the Fourier transform of these quanti-
ties, the cross spectral density functions for
the generalizedforces are obtainecl.These
spectral density functions contain many differ-
ent terms~ therefore, onfiythe expression for
the spectral density ftmctions for the genera-
lized forces when both modes are in the x-di-
rection is given in this paper, namely

Solving Eq.(44) through the time domain

spxr*px~*(w)=:l:, +X x ir+x x
results in the convolutionintegral solution
js
t
Yr(t)=fP:(y)hr(t- y)dy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(46)
-al ~ ~{aik aji Vxik Vxjr+ aikpxj~ vXikvxj~
where hr(t) is the unit impulse response func-
tion for mode r.
+&j
x.
a. Six ~ +Pxik PxjJ %x ,k Vx.,, } . . . ..(52)
,k 1 ik jI
 THREE-DIMENSIOiiALSTOCHASTIC RESFCIW3E
17$ OF OFFSHORE TOWEI TO WAVE FORCES OTc 20

IntegratingEcI.(50)over the..&equency rangf

one obtains the average product of the response~ Vrxik(
t)= vxik(t)-~xik(t)
in modes r and s, and i.e.
E[Y,Y,]s= s
-m YrY3
(W) dw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..4..(53) = ;,ik(t)-ux i(t) +yikuei. . . . . . . . . ..(60)
The me=n products of the generalizedveloc-
ities needed for the optimizationof the modal Close examinationof Eq.(60), reveals that
damping coefficientsare readily determined spectral density functions for the relative
since velocities are the sum of structuralvelocity
spectral densities, water particle velocity
co spectral densities and cross spectral densities
W) dw = J W2SYY (w)dw . . . . . (9+) between structure and water particle velocities.
rs The latter of these spectral densitiyfunctions
-CD
is the most cumbersometo determine. For struc-
For calculat:on of specific response statisa ture and water particle velocities in the x-
tics, consider a response quantity Zi(t) direction this function is

iw
that is linearly relsked to the response in nor.
mal coordinatesas given by
3N
s
v,.
lk
~x.
I
=Lxxi,
r=l
HX)J)

zi(t) (t).
=~1Biryr ,,. ,.., ..*.. .. *
(55)
:fjr :[~irsvxikxj,+~
xj,sxikixjfl
*(61)
where the are known coefficients. Thus
Bi~s
Variances of relative velocities are ob-
the cross spectral density finction far Z1 tained by integratingcorrespondingspectral
and
i is density functions over the frequency range and
I the linearized drag factors are obtained using
s z#)=f~B.B
js S Y rY J w )
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(56) Eq.(is).
ii r:l~=l r
STATISTICALEXPRESSIONSFOR WATER PARTICLE
and the variance of Zi is MOTIONS
co

~z .~= ff Bir
Bis~syryJw)
r :l s .1
dw
...............(57)
-a
The random ocean waves are consideredto
be a zero mean stationaryand ergodic Gaussian
process describedby the directional spectrum.
Depending on the coefficients Bir(r=l,2,...,3N), Figure 2 shows this spectrum,which specifies
u~ . m a y be the variance of displacement,
the distributionof wave energy with respect to
shdar force, twisting moment or bending moment frequency and direction of the waves. The di-
rectional spectral density, S7T(W,0) has the
Of great interest is the extreme value of property that the volume SqqAwA6 is the mean
the response. For narrow_bandresponse, the square amplitude of the waves with frequencies
mean value of the extreme is given by the rela- and directionswithin the AwAO rec%angle.
tion (11, 12) The volume enclosed by the directional spectrum
and the we-plane is equal to the mean square
E[zi(f)lm.x]=.z}- +~-
wave amplitude.
) **0*(58)
In this investigation,the directional
where T is the duration of the spectrum and the spectrum has been expressed as a product of a
frequency v is given .ly function of frequency and a function of direc-
tion, i.e.

=~e ***co*e9*0**:(5
ST7(W,8)= DWU3)ST7(W)
where D@(0)is the directional distributionof
............... (62)

Statistics of Relative Velocities Between wave ener~ ;t frequency w and

Water Particles and Structure -.
sqq(w)=fsqq(w,e)de . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..0...(63)
o
In order to linearize the drag forces on is the one-dimensionalwave spectral density.
the structure~it is necessary to determine
variances of the relative velocities between Using linear wave theory the cross spec-
water particles and structure. The relativq tral density function for water particle veloc-
velocity in x-directionat node k at level i i ities at points ~ and Pi is obtained as

.
OTC 2050 BENT BERGE AND JOSEPH PENZIEN 179
.

27T
CASE STUDIES
Stiitj (w) = tIJ2cl (9 ) Sq; (%e)
J
o Seven deep water towers are studied in
this investigation. Six of the towers are
cosh[K(- zi+d)]cosh[/c(-zj +d)]
symmetric a vertical plane, and have
about
heights of 475 (Tower 1, 5, and 6), 675 (Tower
s in h 2
[1
Kd 2), 875 (Tower 3) and 1075 feet (Tower 4),
correspondingto.water depths of 400, 600, 800
-iK (x.-x.)Cose+ (y,-Y,) sin8]}d8.. (64)
exp {[ and 1000 feet, respectively. The torsional
t J I stiffness of Tower 5 is 75$ of chatof Tower 1
(rotationalinertias and stiffnessesare scaled
where accordingly). Tower 7 is symmetric about two
vertical planes and has a height of 475 feet,
correspondingto a water depth ,of400 feet.
cos2e x-direction
cl(e) = s in 8 coSf3 x and Y directions The mass of each tower is lumped at 7
y.dj-re ~t ion
sin 28 levels. (Figure1 shows a model with 5 lev-
{ els). Numerical values are assigned to lumped
masses, rotational inertias, flexibilitycoef-
8 is the angle with the x-axis,x is the radian ficients, coordinatesof the nodal points at
wave numbersxi, yi and Ziare the coordinatesof each level, and member volumes and projected
point ~ ,d is the depth of water and areas associatedwith the submerged nodal
points. Unfortunately,due to space limita-
%#%e)= sqq*(-@)=+ SqT(@) tions structuraldata are not included. Struc-
w ~o ....(65)
tural damping ratios of 5%are assumed for all
towers vibrating in water. Six normal modes
is the directionalspectrum def~ned for both are included in the analysis. The coefficients
positive and negative frequencies. of inertia CM and drag CD are assigned values
of 2.0 and 1.4, respectively.
Using the factorizationgivenby Eq.(62),
Eq.(64) may be integrated over the angular range The ocean waves are described by several
by expandingthe terms that depend on the angle directional spectra, given by one-dimensional
9 in Fourier series to yield the following spectral densities and directionaldistribu-
result tions at Xl_discrete frequencies,corresponding
to the factorizationin Eq.(62). For most
s~~(~)z~ U2S+U)
examples, spectral densities are calculated
lj
by the Pierson-Moskowitz(13) formula, namely
cosh[~(-zi+d)]
cosh[K(-zj+d)]
0.0081g2
S77$CIJ) =
~5 ldQ+Jl ~~o
[1
sinh2
Kd
. ..(71)
where g is the accelerationof gravity and w
~Cn exP~n(~ij+&)]Jn(KAij) . . . . . . . . ..(66) is the mean wind speed at a height of 64 feet
n=-CO
above the sea surface. This equation is used
where to calculate spectral densities for wave spec-
27T
traA (50 ft/see), B (75 ft/see) andC (100 ft/
cn=L Spectral densities for wave spectrum D
27T J CI(8) D@(L?) exp(in8)d8
. . . . ..(67) eC)
are selected to investigatethe effect of two
o storms coming from different directions. The
-1 Yi-Yj directionaldistributionsare described by the
a,.= tan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..(68) circular normal (14), namely
II x.-x. I
H 1 J DW(9) = exp a cos(8-a) ... . . ..(72)
2~IO(a) [ 1
Aij = (xi- xj)2+(yi- y~2- ...*.. . . ..0.(69) where lo(a)
is a modified Bessel function of
zero order and a is a measure of the concen-
and Jn() is a Bessel function of first kind tration about the mean angle u . The higher
and order n. Expressions for water particle the value of a the more concentratedis the
velocity-accelerationand accelerationsare distributionabout the mean angle. A circular
readily obtained, since normal with a=6 is used for the directional
distr~buttonof the wave energy spectral
. . . . . . . . . . . . ..(70) density in Figure 2.
Svv =i~svi=-iw S ~u =W2 S t t i
 THREE-DIMENSIOii.KL
STOCHASTIC RESFONSE
180 OF OFFSHORE TOWERS TO WA~ FORCES nrr!
----- 70<0
,-

Directional distributionA and D use a=6 Thus, the largest rotational response 5s ob-
the two lowest frequencieswhere wave spectral tained when the mean direction of both storms
densities are given, a=5.6 for the two next is perpendicularto the plane of symmetry. Com-
frequencies,etc., and a =4 for the highest paring Curve G (Tower 5, directionaldistri-
frequency (frequencyNo. 11). Directional_ bution A) with Curve A> the effect of 25$
distributionB and E use a=10 and distribu- reduction in the torsional stiffness is observed
tion C uses a=100. Curve H (Tower 6, directionaldistribution)
shows the response when the leg spacings are
Calculationof the response of a 7 leyel doubled. The increasedtorsional stiffness
tower (21 degrees of freedom), symmetric about causes smaller rotationalresponse than for
a vertical plane, requires approximately1 Tower 1, Curve A, except when the angle between
minute central processor time on a CDC 64OO the mea,ndirection of the wave advance and the
computer when 11 discrete frequenciesare used plane of symmetry is between O and 45 degrees.
in the numerical integrationof the spectral This is due to increased effect of the leg
density functions. spacings on the rotationalexitationwhen the
waves are nearly parallel to the plafleof sym-
Results metry. Lines I and J (Tower 1 and 7, respec-
tively, directionaldistributionD) represent
Figure ~ shows the lowest mode shapes..for rotational responseswhen the angle between
Tower 1 and6. (The lowest modes for the-other the mean direction of wave advance and the plane
towers have similar shape, except tower 7 where of symmetry varies between 45 and 90 degrees foY
translationaland rotational free vibrations the waves of different frequencies.
are not coupled.) Each coupled mode shape for
vibrations in y-directionand rotation is Deck rotations versus the mean direction
drawn as two separate curves; one for the com- of wave advance are shown for Towers 1 through
ponent in the y-directionand.the other fQy the 4 in Fibmre 5. The curves show that the rota-
comp.onentin .zota&iQ.n%TQe_K0t=a230na$<QU&Qn tional response for towers of various heights
nents are 40 and 80 times their real magnitude depend similarly on the mean direction of wave
relative to the translationalcomponents for advance. Deck displacementsfor these towers
Tower 1 and 6, respective.QJ.The natural_fre- a~e plotted in Figure 6 versus nean direction
quencies for the 6 modes that are included in of wave advance.
the dynamic analysis, are given in Table ~~__
Figure 7 shows d.isjjlacementsin the y-
Figure 4 sho~isstandard deviations of deck direction ati rotations plotted for three
rotation versus mean direction of wave advance different storm intensities. It is interesting
for Tower 1, 5, 6 and 7. One-d;imensional wave to notice the hi~h ratio of rotation to transla.
spectrum B is used for all curves except curve tion for 50 ft/sec wind speed walative to the
F, where wave spectrum D is used. Curves A, same ~atio for ~~ and 100 ftlsecwind speeds.
B, and C (Tower 1, directionaldistributionA, The reason for this is that the phase diffl=enc(
B and C, respectively)show that the largest of the wave forces over the horizontal extensio
rotational response is obtained when the mean of.fie structurehas decreasing effect on trans
direction of wave advance is nearly perpengi- lation while it often miEht have an increasing
cular to the plane of symmetry,and that the. ef~ect on rotation. This phase difference de-
response incrsases as the dirett~onal.di.strib- creases with increasiri~ wave Ien@hs, and the
ution becomes more narrow. When the mean wave lengths increases17iththe severity of the.
direction of flow Ls pa,rallelto the plane of storm.
symmetry the rotational response increases
with increasing directional spread, which is Ii@re 8 shows the standard deviations of
expected since.wavgsparallel to the plane of leg displacementsin the y-direction for Tower
symmetry do.not exicatethe structure in tcJr- 1. This figure gives an indication of the
sion. Curves A and C are not syrmmetric.almut effect o:fthe rotational re sponse on theQVe~all
a perpendicularcothe plane of symmetry be- structural response. If rotacionis not in-
cause inertia and drag forces are not i.nphase. eluded in the analysis Legs L and 3 would have
Curve D and E (Tower 7, cltrectional distribu- te same displacementsas Legs 2 and 4.
tion A and B) show that the rotational re-
sponse of a tower symmetric.abouttwo vertical The data discusse~ so far have been stan-
planes is very small. -Curve-F (lower1> wave dard deviations of response. While these are
spectrum D, directionaldistributionE) shows important quantities,theclesigneris more
the e?fect of-two storr.wcoming from two dis- interested in the naximunrresponse that might
ferent directions. T%e rfiean direction of the Oc c t t i durinE a storm, Fig~~re~ sho~~sh~ the
storm with the low frequencywaves is perpe~- mean peak deck displacer!ents and iotations
dicular to the plane of symmetry,while the varies with duration of the storm for ~ di.f-
response is shown versus the m.eg.n.
d_i_rect_i_o&.of?e~entwind velocities.
the storm containingthe high frequency waves.
 Xrc 2050 BENT B-E _AIIO
JOSEPH_PENZIEN 181
Twisting moment, shear force and bending NOMENCLATURE
moment distributionsare shown in Figures 10
through 12, respectively. Standard levitations aX 1ayik projected areas of lumped
and mean peak values for.o.?~->s.>_a_E@
10 &.&?-U!!.. ik members
storms of these quantitiesare included.
b volumes of lumped members
CONCLUSIONS ik
d linearizeddrag factors
Based on this investigation,the fol.lowine IxikdJyik -
conclusionsand recommendationshave been de- h(t) unit impulse response function
duced:
i subscript:level i
(1) A stochasticanalysis should be car-
ried out to determine the overall ik subscript: node k at level i
dynamic response o; offshore towers.
r,s subscripts:mode r or s
(2) Both inertia and drag forces should
be included in the analysis. time
t
(~) Rotational response has small effect
on the total response; thus for many Ux ,U displacementsat level i
Yi -
structures a two-dimensionalanalysis i

using the one-dimensionalwave height rotation at level i

ei -
spectrum gives sufficient accuracy.
)~y.
nodal displacements
(4) The directional spread of the waves x.
Ik lk
has greatest effect on the rotational water particle displacements
response when the mean direction of x, ,k tYik

wave advance is parallel to the plane . .

rxiklvry. - relative velocities between
of symmetry. !k structure and water particles
(5) The directional spread of the waves
haslittle effect on the rotational x. Iyik horizontal coordinates
Ik
response of.towers symmetric about
a vertical plane when the mean di- x, y subscripts;direction x cm y
rection of ~,:ave
advance is perpen-
dicular to the plane of symmetry. z; vertical coordinate
(6) At least 6 normal modes of vibration specific response quantity
Zi(t)
should be Included in a three-dimen-
sional dynamic analysis. coefficientto transform
Bir
(7) Two storms, coming from di?ferent response in nornal coordinates
directions,have less effect on rota- to specific response quantity
tion of the structure than do the
same two storm coming from the sin- CD coefficientof drag
gle direction giving largest rota-
tional response. CM coefficientof inertia
(8) It is computationallysigni~icantly
damping matrix (includes
simpler to study resonance and the
effect of damping.in.atwo-dimension-
[1
c
linearizedhydrodynamic
al analysis. damping)
(g) The expected or mean eXtreme va~~e optimized diagonal generalize
c*
of response may be used as an approx- [1
damping matrix
imation of the most extreme value,
since the extreme value distribution generalizeddamping rmtri.x
is narro~i; however, the distribution [1
CO*

should always be consideredwhen Dw(Q directionaldistributionof

selecting design forces. waves of frequency w
(10) Extreme values of response increases
E[ ] average (mean) over ensemble
slowly with storm duration; approx-
imately l@o as the duration increases
from 2 to 10 hours. H(;u) - complex frequency response
function

[1
K stiffness matrix
 THRZZ-DIMEWSIOIML STOCidASTICRESFONSZ
182 OF CEFSHORTOWERS TO WAVE FORCES OTC2050
.
- 2er,ey.ali.Zed stiffness matrix
[1
K %

M mass matrix (includes added The authors wish to express their sincere
[1 thariksand appreciationto the ztandard Oil
hydrodynamicmass)
Company of California for their financial sup-
. genera~ize~ mass matrix po?t, which made this investigationpossfble.
[1
M*

N number of levels REFERENCES

NP number of nodes at each 1. Stokes, G.G., On tineTheory of Oscillatory

Level Waves, Mathematicaland Physical Papers,
1, Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity Press,
- li~ezri,zeti
force vector 1880.
P(t)
{}
P*(t) - gene~alizedforce vectar 2. Lamb, Sir Horace, fiJdrod~ynamicsj
6th ed,
{} New York: Dover Publications,Inc., 1945.
Sx,X2 (w) - spectral density function for
xl and X2 2
~. Morison, J.R.~ M.P. OBrien, J.W. Johnson
and S.A. Schaaf, The Force Exerted by
Sqq (Q@) - directionalwave spectral Surface Waves on Piles, PetroleumTrans.,
density function 18~, TP 2846 (1950),pp 149-154.

- one-dimensionalwave spectral 4. Fo ster,E.T., Model for Nonlinear Dynamics

m w) denstty f!mcticn of Offshore Towers, Journal of Engineering
Mechanics Divisionj ASCE, Vol. 96, NO. EML,
u (t) - displacenenc
vector February 1970, pp 41-67.
{}
Y (t)
{}
d isp la.c em ent vec to r in normal 5. ~~lhotya, AOKC
and J, penzien, !Nondeter-
coordinates ministic Analysis of Offshore Tower Struc-
tures, Journal of Zngineeri.ngMechanics
a ik inertia factor, urilessother- Division, Proc. ASCE, Vol. 96, NO.Elk,
wise noted December 1970, pp 985-10(S3.Discussionby
S.K. Chakrabarti,in Vol. 97, El@, June
P,ik , f$ik - drag factors 1971,pp 1028-1029.

8 - angle between direction of 6. Malhotra, A.K. and J. Penzien, Responseof

wave advance and x-axis Offshore Structures to Random Wave Forces,
Journal of Structural Division, Proc. ASCE,
8 - subscript: rotation Vol. 96, NO. STIO, Oc-:oker1970, pp 2155-
Zll,q
IU*
K - radian ?.nvenumber
7* Penzien, J., M.K. Kaul and B. Berge,
<, - dampinC ratio for mode r StochasticResponse of Offshore Towers to.
Random Sea Waves and Strong Motion Earth-
P - <ensity of water quakes, Computers and Structures,Vol. 2,
December 1972, pp 733-755.
+xxir) +ye i~ -
modal coefficients
8. Berge, B.,Three-DimensionalStochastic
~z standard deviation of z Response of Offshore Towers to Wave
Action.,Structural E@.neerin.gLaboratory
al circular freq=ency University of California,Berkeley, Novem-
ber 1973.
r - natural frequency for mode r
99 fi~loff, N, and N. Bogoliuboff, Introduc-
[1 z - diagonal matrix of modal
damping ratios
tion to Nonlinear Mechanics: Approximate
Asymptotic Methods, Princeton University
Press, 11, 1~:3.
@ r,odalmatrix
[1 10. Lin, Y.K., ProbabilisticTheory of Struc-
Q
[1 matrix of natural frequencies tural Dynamics, McGraw Hill, N.Y., 1967,
p 284.
OTC 2050 BENI i%ZRGEA.TLO
JOSEPH PENUZEN
11 Cart~iright,D.E. and ?l.
S. LonUmet-HiC~?ins,
StatisticalDistributionon the Haxira
Ota Random Function!,ProceedingEoyal
Society of London, Series A, Vol. 2~~,
1956, pp 212-232.
14.
12 Davenport, A.G., Note on tk,eDistribution
of the Largest Valve of a RaiidomFunction
with Application to Gust Loadingr,Proc.
Inst. Civil EnCrg., Pr.per1:0.6739, 1?64.
13. Pierson, I?.J.,Jr., and L. Noskowitz, A
Proposed Spectral Form For Fully Develo~ed
183
i!indSeas Based on the Simf.larity
Theory
of S.A. Kitaigo~odskii,Zournal of Gec-
physical Research,Vol. 69, NO. 2h, Dec.
::.5,
19@k, pp 5181-5190.
Gumlxl, E.J., J.A. Greenwood and D.
Ihrand, The Circular Normal Distribution,
Theory and Tables, Anerican Statistical
Association Journal, !larch,1953$ pp 131-
152.

Table 1 - Natural Frequencies in RAD/SEC

MODES IN COUPLED MODES IN Y-DIRECTION

TOWER X-DIRECTIOIT AND ROTATION

1 2 1 2 3 4

1 and 6 2.57 6.07 2.26 2.71 5.32 6.89

2 1.85 3.96 1.65 2.14 3.48 4.50

3 1.41 2.90 1.26 1.63 2.56 3.25

4 1.16 2.20 1.02 1.30 1.93 2.42

5 2.57 6.07 2.07 2.57 5.02 6.33

MODES IN MODES IN lIODESIN

X-DIRECTION Y-DIRECTION ROTATION

1 2 1 2 1 2

7 2.59 6.07 2.32 5.43 3.86 7.96

 x

I 77)77
i
z

Fig.1 ~.Idealized
tower.

+fLl

e
 \
\
\ , /
/ \
\
\.
\.
\\
\
\
\
\ I /
/
/
s

1/
1.,

w
\ \ \ \./
;
/ \
\ \ , M oD4 S I N
y- DI RECT I ON
\ 4 N D /?b7A TIOM
\
COU PL60
\
\ /?~E
,/\

-\ ~\ ?IODE I

\ MODE 2

\ . /VODE3

\ i, --- IV60EJ+
i, ~,i
\ \ /~

/y -
p

DlREc 7 /o
//

/f/ Y - DIf.Fc7/oN
J_. R0 7 4 7 1 0 W

Fig. 3 - Modeshapes. Towers 1 and 6.

4
?

o I I I I I J
o 30 60 90 120 [s0 /80
4N~~..S
6E7 WEEN MEAN DI.?EC TION OF WA VE
ADvANCE AAO X -AX I S, DE6 h3 EES

Fig.4- Standard
deviation
of rotation
of deckviidirection
of
waveadvance.
 LV .4 V E SFECTl?Utl B
W4VE sP.2c7,eut7 &
DI RECT I ON AL D/S TK/6UT/OM A

/vuHlsE.f5 /JvD/c A 74 70 Wise /v/2ff&-rf

2.4 DI SPLACE AfE/v T IIV X- O/6 ECT /ON

. _ ,, /,_ Y -...

2.2

2 .0

f. I f

L 6
/
/
1.4 Ll /

1.2 0.6

[0

0.8 0.4
/
/
0.6 /

.-
0.4 C?z

0.2 _/

0 o I I I [ I I 1
o Is 30 45 ho 75 90 0 /5 30 4s 60 75 90
~/V~~~&E TWELN P?E/+/V D/ RECTIOW OF ~~c~~ BET WEE d M EA N D/@6 C T /O/v OF W..? VC

WAVE ADVANCE AND/+-,4KlS , L= GA7EES 4 0 V .4 N CE ANO A - AX /S, DF~FzS6 S

Fig.5 - Standarddeviationof deck rotation. Towere 1, FiE. 6 - Standarddeviationof deck displacementvs

2, 3, end IL mean directionof wave advance. Towere 1, 2, 3
end 4.
 lYf?ECi10~4L D/sT.e/6uT/OW 4 w ~ VL SPEC 7-@uf-f 6
HEAN L7 PECT /ON OF Ml VE dQUA NC E : ~0 /@EC 7 _/Ofl LET Y ERs .4 BoV E CI Y .e V .S

.. . .. . ..- .- a ..... ., ------- - /N O/C.q T .S 0 1 R6 C 7 /OAfA L 01STR18 UT/ON

LET 7 6 .e WAVE .s.f-.=c /K uw w //vLJ s /-.275
u
,4NGLEs t9ETWE.E/V ME4/v DIRECTION
A A JO :T /S& C
OF PV AI WE AOVdNC.E AI A~ ~-/?AlS 4 .?E
8 B 75/+ SEC
5 f% ow Ai ABOVE CUR V .5 S
c c / oo FT/ S E C
.L..fC [AND3
DI SPLACEM EN T IN ~-4 /@ EC T I Od
Z , A4 D4
ROTA T I OA/

i
A,oO .4,$f5 4 ,9 0 c, 9 0

/
/

/ / 1
1,
I
/
1,~

I 1 1 I [ I 1 1
I I

./ .2 .3 .4 .5 0 .0 5 ./ 0 . !5 .20
DJSPLACEIYfNT, FT D15 f LA CE IYENT, F T

) I 1 I 1 1 Fig. 8- Leg displacementdeviationsin Y-direction;Tower 1.

Tower 1.
0 .2 .+ .6 .8 1.
ROTA TION /0 -2 KAtI/A N5

Fig. ~ - S t a n d a r d deviationsof displacementsin Y-directionand

of rotationsfor differentstorm intensities;Tower 1.
 .. .

..
.

..
//
F
.,$+
+-+-
., , ,_[
i

1
I I
I
1 I I I

I
1 I I I

I I I
I I
I I
1 I
I I I
I I
I
H< >
$
I I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
\I
I I

I I I r I

Ld .LN3LW32 tf7d S/U

 475

11 . --/.5 ,/
400

~ h- 1.i
g.iskw /0 //

&
300 4-77
I :!
I
I I
I ii
200

104

.
I!i
0 1 I I I
o / 2 3 +
SAWF? f%rcz / /03 K/P$
Fig. 11 - Shear force distributionin Y-direction for Tower 1.
475 ~E/q/v PEAK VALUES

.. 0, i? #@Q@ S T o@~
. 1.5 4 18

400 gM!L . . 10 /!

\ /
\\\\.

300
\ 1.
\ \ \
\ \
\ \
\ \

\ %.
6200

\-\
106 \ \
\\
\
\ \.
d I 1 1 \ I

5 EN DjN 6 t iot i~N ~ /0 ~ w p - Fr

Fig. 12 - Bending moment distributionin Y-direction for Tower 1.

- .=. .
!