EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

Introduction to the Analysis and Design of Offshore Structures– An

Overview
N. Haritos
The University of Melbourne, Australia

ABSTRACT: This paper provides a broad overview of some of the key factors in the analysis and design of
offshore structures to be considered by an engineer uninitiated in the field of offshore engineering. Topics
covered range from water wave theories, structure-fluid interaction in waves to the prediction of extreme val-
ues of response from spectral modeling approaches. The interested reader can then explore these topics in
greater detail through a number of key references listed in the text.

1 INTRODUCTION mands in terms of hydrodynamic loading effects,

The analysis, design and construction of offshore
structures is arguably one of the most demanding
sets of tasks faced by the engineering profession.
Over and above the usual conditions and situations
met by land-based structures, offshore structures
have the added complication of being placed in an
ocean environment where hydrodynamic interaction
effects and dynamic response become major consid-
erations in their design. In addition, the range of
possible design solutions, such as: ship-like Floating
Production Systems, (FPSs), and Tension Leg Plat-
form (TLP) deep water designs; the more traditional
jacket and jack-up (space truss like) oil rigs; and the
large member sized gravity-style offshore platforms
themselves (see Fig. 1), pose their own peculiar de-
foundation support conditions and character of the
dynamic response of not only the structure itself but
also of the riser systems for oil extraction adopted
by them. Invariably, non-linearities in the descrip-
tion of the hydrodynamic loading characteristics of
the structure-fluid interaction and in the associated
structural response can assume importance and need
be addressed. Access to specialist modelling soft-
ware is often required to be able to do so.
This paper provides a broad overview of some of
the key factors in the analysis and design of offshore
structures to be considered by an engineer uniniti-
ated in the field of offshore engineering. Reference
is made to a number of publications in which further
detail and extension of treatment can be explored by
the interested reader, as needed.

Figure1: Sample offshore structure designs

55
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)
2 OFFSHORE ENGINEERING BASICS
A basic understanding of a number of key subject
areas is essential to an engineer likely to be involved
in the design of offshore structures, (Sarpkaya &
Isaacson, 1981; Chakrabarti, 1987; Graff, 1981;
DNS-OS-101, 2004).
These subject areas, though not mutually exclu-
sive, would include:
• Hydrodynamics
• Structural dynamics
• Advanced structural analysis techniques
• Statistics of extremes
amongst others.
In the following sections, we provide an overview
of some of the key elements of these topic areas, by
way of an introduction to the general field of off-
shore engineering and the design of offshore struc-
tures.
2.1 Hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamics is concerned with the study of water
in motion. In the context of an offshore environ-
ment, the water of concern is the salty ocean. Its mo-
tion, (the kinematics of the water particles) stems
from a number of sources including slowly varying
currents from the effect of the tides and from local
thermal influences and oscillatory motion from wave
activity that is normally wind-generated.
The characteristics of currents and waves, them-
selves would be very much site dependent, with ex-
treme values of principal interest to the LFRD ap-
proach used for offshore structure design, associated
with the statistics of the climatic condition of the site
of interest, (Nigam & Narayanan: Chap. 9, 1994).
The topology of the ocean bottom also has an in-
fluence on the water particle kinematics as the water
depth changes from deeper to shallower conditions,
(Dean & Dalrymple, 1991). This influence is re-
ferred to as the “shoaling effect”, which assumes
significant importance to the field of coastal engi-
neering. For so-called deep water conditions (where
the depth of water exceeds half the wavelength of
the longest waves of interest), the influence of the
ocean bottom topology on the water particle kine-
matics is considered negligible, removing an other-
wise potential complication to the description of the
hydrodynamics of offshore structures in such deep
water environments.
A number of regular wave theories have been de-
veloped to describe the water particle kinematics as-
sociated with ocean waves of varying degrees of
complexity and levels of acceptance by the offshore
engineering community, (Chakrabarti, 2005). These
would include linear or Airy wave theory, Stokes
second and other higher order theories, Stream-
56
Function and Cnoidal wave theories, amongst oth-
ers, (Dean & Dalrymple, 1991).
The rather confused irregular sea state associated
with storm conditions in an ocean environment is of-
ten modelled as a superposition of a number of Airy
wavelets of varying amplitude, wavelength, phase
and direction, consistent with the conditions at the
site of interest, (Nigam & Narayanan, Chap. 9,
1994). Consequently, it becomes instructive to de-
velop an understanding of the key features of Airy
wave theory not only in its context as the simplest of
all regular wave theories but also in terms of its role
in modelling the character of irregular ocean sea
states.
2.1.1 Airy Wave Theory
The surface elevation of an Airy wave of amplitude
a, at any instance of time t and horizontal position x
in the direction of travel of the wave, is denoted by
η ( x, t ) and is given by:
η ( x, t ) = a cos(κx − ωt ) (1)
where wave number κ = 2π / L in which L repre-
sents the wavelength (see Fig. 2) and circular fre-
quency ω = 2π / T in which T represents the period
of the wave. The celerity, or speed, of the wave C is
given by L/T or ω/κ, and the crest to trough wave-
height, H, is given by 2a.
Figure 2: Definition diagram for an Airy wave
The alongwave u ( x, t ) and vertical v( x, t ) water
particle velocities in an Airy wave at position z
measured from the Mean Water level (MWL) in
depth of water h are given by:
aω cosh (κ (z + h ))
u ( x, t ) = cos(κx − ωt ) (2)
sinh (κh )
aω sinh (κ ( z + h ))
v ( x, t ) = sin (κx − ωt ) (3)
sinh (κh )
The dispersion relationship relates wave number
κ to circular frequency ω (as these are not inde-
pendent), via:
ω 2 = gκ tanh (κh ) (4)
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

where g is the acceleration due to gravity (9.8 m/s2). original description and that of a numbers of other
authors in this field)
The alongwave acceleration u ( x, t ) is given by Le Mahaute (1969) provided a chart detailing ap-
the time derivative of Equation (2) as: plicability of various wave theories using wave
aω 2 cosh (κ ( z + h )) steepness versus depth parameter in his description,
u ( x, t ) = sin (κx − ωt ) (5) reproduced here in Figure 3. (The symbol for depth
sinh (κh )
of water is taken as d instead of h to be consistent.)
It should be noted here that wave amplitude, a, is
considered small (in fact negligible) in comparison
to water depth h in the derivation of Airy wave the-
ory.
For deep water conditions, κh >π , Equations (2)
to (5) can be approximated to:

u ( x, t ) = aω eκz cos(κx − ωt ) (6)

v( x, t ) = aω eκz sin (κx − ωt ) (7)

ω 2 = gκ (8)

u ( x, t ) = aω 2eκz sin (κx − ωt ) (9)

This would imply that the elliptical orbits of the

water particles associated with the general Airy
wave description in Equations (2) and (3), would re-
duce to circular orbits in deep water conditions as
implied by Equations (6) and (7).

Figure 3: Applicability of Wave Theories

2.2 Higher order and stretch wave theories

A number of “finite amplitude” wave theories have 2.3 Irregular Sea States
been proposed that seek to improve on the restriction
of the ‘negligible wave amplitude compared with Ocean waves are predominantly generated by wind
water depth’ assumption in the definition of Airy and although they appear to be irregular in character,
waves. The most notable of these include second and tend to exhibit frequency-dependent characteristics
higher order (eg fifth order) Stokes waves, (Chakra- that conform to an identifiable spectral description.
barti, 2005), waves based upon Fenton’s stream Pierson and Moskowitz (1964), proposed a spec-
function theory (Rienecker & Fenton, 1981), and tral description for a fully-developed sea state from
Cnoidal wave theory (Dean & Dalrymple, 1991). data captured in the North Atlantic ocean, viz:
The introduction of the so-called “stretch” theory ⎛ ωo ⎞ 4
by Wheeler (1970), as implied in its name, uses the αg 2 − β ⎜ ⎟
results of Airy wave theory under the negligible am-
S (ω ) = 5 e ⎝ ω ⎠ (10)
ω
plitude assumption as a basis, to map these results where ω = 2πf, f is the wave frequency in Hertz, α
into the finite region of their extent from the sea bot- = 8.1 × 10-3, β = 0.74 , ω o = g/U19.5 and U19.5 is
tom to their current position of wave elevation. (This the wind speed at a height of 19.5 m above the sea
is essentially achieved by replacing “z” with surface, (corresponding to the height of the ane-
“ z /(1 + η / h) ” in the Airy wave equations presented mometers on the weather ships used by Pierson and
above). Moskowitz).
Chakrabarti (2005) refers to alternative concepts Alternatively, equation (10) can be expressed as:
and some second order modifications for achieving −5 ⎛ f p ⎞
4
⎜ ⎟
“stretching” corrections to basic Airy wave theory 0.0005 ⎜
4⎝ f ⎠ ⎟
results, though not commonly adopted, can nonethe- Sη ( f ) = e (11)
f5
less be used for this purpose. with Le Mahaute’s

57
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

in which fp = 1.37/ U 19.5 , is the frequency in Hertz stream wind, which leads to a more slowly varying
at peak wave energy in the spectrum and where mean wind profile with height and to lower levels of
H s = 4σ η = 0.021U 19.5
2
. (Note that the variance of turbulence intensity than encountered on land. As a
a random process can be directly obtained from consequence, wind speed values at the same height
the area under its spectral density variation, above still water level (for offshore conditions) as
hence the basis for the relationship for those above ground level (for land-based structures)
σ η ≈ 0.005U 19.5
2
, from the P-M spectral descrip- for nominal storm conditions, tend to be stronger
tion quoted above). Figure 4 depicts sample plots and lead to higher wind loads. (Figure 5 provides a
of the Pierson-Moskowitz (P-M) spectrum for a diagrammatic representation of this mean wind
selection of wind speed values, U 19.5 . speed variation).
100 500m
400m
U = 20m/s
80 300m
250m
Spectral Density

60
U = 18m/s

40
U = 16m/s
20 Figure 5: Variation of mean wind speed with height
U = 12m/s
U = 10m/s
0 For free-stream wind speed, UG, at gradient
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 height, zG (the height outside the influence of rough-
Frequency (Hertz) ness on the free-stream velocity), the mean wind
speed at level z above the surface, U (z ) , is given by
Figure 4: Sample Pierson-Moskowitz Wave Spectra the power law profile
α α
An irregular sea state can be considered to be ⎛ z ⎞ ⎛ z ⎞
U ( z ) = U G ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ = U ref ⎜ ⎟ ≤ UG (13)
composed of a Fourier Series of Airy wavelets con- ⎜z ⎟
⎝ zG ⎠ ⎝ ref ⎠
forming to a nominated spectral description, such as where α is the power law exponent and “ref” refers
the P-M spectral variation. to a reference point typically chosen to correspond
Then wave height η (t ) can be expressed as to 10m.
Table I compares values for key descriptive pa-
N / 2 ⎛ 2.S ( f )
⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ rameters, α and zG, for different terrain conditions,
η (t ) = ∑ ⎜ η
sin⎜ − φn ⎟ ⎟ (12) including those for rough seas.
⎜ T ⎝ T ⎠ ⎟
⎝ n =0 ⎠
where η(t) is represented by a series of points (η1, Table I Wind speed profile parameters
η2, η3, …, ηM) at a regular time step of dt for M Terrain Rough Sea Grassland Suburb City centre
points where T = M.dt here represents the time α 0.12 0.16 0.28 0.40
length of record, and φn is a random phase angle be- zG (m) 250 300 400 500
tween 0 and 2π. (Equation (12) offers a convenient
approach towards numerically simulating sea states The drag force, FW (t ) , exerted on a bluff body
conforming to a desired spectral variation via the (eg such as the exposed frontal deck area of an off-
Fast Fourier Transform. Such sea state descriptions shore oil rig), by turbulent wind pressure effects can
can then be adopted in numerical studies that take be evaluated from
into account non-linear characteristics and features 1
that would otherwise not be considered for conven- FW (t ) = ρ a C D AV 2 (t ) (14)
2
ience). where ρ a is the density of air (1.2 kg/m3), A is the
exposed area of the bluff body, CD is the drag coef-
ficient associated with the bluff body
3 ENVIRONMENTAL LOADS ON OFFSHORE shape/geometry, and V(t) is wind speed at the loca-
STRUCTURES tion of the bluff body.
3.1 Wind Loads
Wind loads on offshore structures can be evaluated 3.2 Wave Loads
using modelling approaches adopted for land-based
structures but for conditions pertaining to ocean en- The wave loads experienced by offshore struc-
vironments. The distinction here is that an open sea tural elements depend upon their geometry, (the size
presents a lower category of roughness to the free-
58
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

of these elements relative to the wavelength and u mT Re

their orientation to the wave propagation), the hy-
drodynamic conditions and whether the structural
system is compliant or rigid. Structural elements that
are large enough to deflect the impinging wave (di-
ameter to wavelength ratio, D/L > 0.2) undergo load-
ing in the diffraction regime, whereas smaller, more
slender, structural elements are subject to loading in
the Morison regime.
3.2.1 Morison’s Equation
The alongwave or in-line force per unit length
acting on the submerged section of a rigid vertical
surface-piercing cylinder, f ( z , t ) , from the interac-
tion of the wave kinematics at position z from the
MWL, (see Fig. 6), is given by Morison’s equation,
viz:
f ( z, t ) = f I ( z, t ) + f D ( z, t ) (15)
where f I ( z , t ) = (π / 4)ρ C M D 2 u ( z, t ) and
f D ( z , t ) = 0.5 ρ C D D u ( z , t ) u ( z , t ) represent the iner-
tia and drag force contributions in which CM and CD
represent the inertia and drag force coefficients, re-
spectively, ρ is the density of sea water and D is the
cylinder diameter.
KC = ; β= (16)
D KC
where um = the maximum alongwave water particle
velocity. It is found that for KC < 10, inertia forces
progressively dominate; for 10 < KC < 20 both iner-
tia and drag force components are significant and for
KC > 20, drag force progressively dominates.
Sarpkaya’s (1976) original tests conducted on in-
strumented horizontal test cylinders in a U-tube with
a controlled oscillating water column remain to be
the most comprehensive exploration of Morison
force coefficients in the published literature.
Figures 7 and 8, derived from these results pro-
vide an indication of the variation of these force co-
efficients with respect to KC and Re. As a rule of
thumb, it can be stated that CM decreases as CD in-
creases, and vice versa, and that both values gener-
ally lie in the range 0.8 to 2.0. The drag force coeffi-
cient is also influenced by roughness on the
cylinder. (Marine growth is particularly troublesome
in this regard as it not only increases the effective
diameter of a cylinder, but the increase in roughness
generally leads to an increase in drag coefficient,
CD).
CM 3.0

2.0 Re x 10-3
1.5

1.0

0.5
0.4
0.3
2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 40 50 100 150 200

Figure 7: Inertia force KC coefficient dependence on

flow parameters

CD 3.0

2.0 Re x 10-3
1.5

1.0

0.5
0.4
0.3
2.5 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 15 20 30 40 50 100 150 200

Figure 6: Wave Loading on a Surface-Piercing Bottom- Figure 8: Drag force KC coefficient dependence on
Mounted Cylinder flow parameters

Force coefficients CM and CD are found to be de-
pendent upon Reynold’s number, Re, Keulegan-
Carpenter number, KC, and the β parameter, viz:
The Morison equation has formed the basis for de-
sign of a large proportion of the world’s offshore
platforms - a significant infrastructure asset base, so
its importance to offshore engineering cannot be un-
derstated. Appendix I provides a derivation of the

59
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)
Morison wave loads for a surface-piercing cylinder
for small amplitude Airy waves and illustrates key
features of the properties of the inertia and drag
force components.
3.3 Transverse (Lift) wave loads
Transverse or lift wave forces can occur on offshore
structures as a result of alternating vortex formation
in the flow field of the wave. This is usually associ-
ated with drag significant to drag dominant condi-
tions (KC > 15) and at a frequency associated with
the vortex street which is a multiple of the wave fre-
quency for these conditions. The vortex shedding
frequency, n, is determined by the Strouhal number,
NS, whose value is dependent upon the structural
member shape and Re, (typically ~0.2 for a circular
cylinder in the range 2.5 x 102 < Re < 2.5 x 105), and
which is defined by
nD
NS = (17)
Um
where Um is the maximum alongwave water particle
velocity and D is the transverse dimension of the
member under consideration (eg diameter of the cyl-
inder).
The lift force per unit length, fL, can be defined via
1 Y1 represent Bessel functions of the first and second
fL = ρ CL DU m U m (18)
2 that specialist software based upon panel methods, is
where CL is the Lift force coefficient that is depend-
ent upon the flow conditions. Again, Sarpkaya’s
(1976) original tests conducted on instrumented
horizontal test cylinders in a U-tube with a con-
trolled oscillating water column, also provide a
comprehensive exploration of the lift force coeffi-
cient, from which the results depicted in Figure 9
have been obtained. (It should be noted here, that in
the case of flexible structural members, when the
vortex shedding frequency n coincides with the
member natural frequency of oscillation, the resul-
tant vortex-induced vibrations give rise to the so-
called “lock-in” mechanism which is identified as a
form of resonance).
Figure 9: Lift force coefficient dependence on flow parameters
60
3.4 Diffraction wave forces
Diffraction wave forces on a vertical surface-
piercing cylinder (such as in Fig. 6) occur when the
diameter to wavelength ratio of the incident wave,
D/L, exceeds 0.2 and can be evaluated by integrat-
ing the pressure distribution derived from the time
derivative of the incident and diffracted wave poten-
tials, (MacCamy & Fuchs, 1954). Integrating the
first moment of the pressure distribution allows
evaluation of the overturning moment effect about
the base. Results obtained for the diffraction force
F(t) and overturning moment M(t) are given by:
2ρ g H
F (t ) = 2
A(κ a )tanh (κ h )cos(ω t −α ) (19)
κ
2ρ g H
M (t ) = 2
A(κ a ).
κ (20)
[κ h tanh(κ h ) + sec h(κ h )−1]cos(ωt −α )
where
⎛ J ′ (κ a ) ⎞
[ (κ a )+Y1′ 2 (κ a )] 2 ; α =tan −1⎜⎜
1
A(κ a )= J1′
2
−
1 ⎟ (21)
Y1′ (κ a ) ⎟
⎝ ⎠
in which a is the radius of the cylinder (D/2), (′) de-
notes differentiation with respect to radius r, J1 and
kinds of 1st order, respectively. It should be noted
normally necessary to investigate diffraction forces
on structures of arbitrary shape, (eg WAMIT,
SESAM).
3.5 Effect of compliancy (relative motion)
In the situation where a structure is compliant (ie
not rigid) and its displacement in the alongwave di-
rection at position z from the free surface at time t is
given by x(z,t), then the form of Morison’s equation
modified under the “relative velocity” formulation,
becomes:
π π
f ( z, t ) = ρ .C M .D 2 u ( z, t ) − ρ .(C M − 1).D 2 x( z, t )
4 4 (22)
1
+ ρ .C D .D.(u ( z, t ) − x ( z, t ) ) u ( z , t ) − x ( z , t )
2
Consider the structure concerned to be of the
form of the surface-piercing cylinder depicted in
Figure 6. Consider the displacement at the MWL to
be xo(t) and the primary mode shape of response of
the cylinder to be ψ(z), with ψ(0) = 1, then the cyl-
inder motion can be considered to satisfy that ob-
tained from the equation of a single-degree-of-
freedom (SDOF) oscillator, given by:
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

0
FI (t ) + F ' D (t )
mxo (t ) + cx o (t ) + kxo (t ) ≈ ∫ Ψ ( z ) f ( z , t ) dz
−h
(23) xo + 2ω o (ζ o + ζ H )x o + ω o2 xo = (29)
m + m'
where the integration has been taken to the MWL in where
lieu of η(t), and at x = 0, as an approximation. Coef- 0
F ' D (t ) = ∫ β u ( z, t ) u ( z , t ) Ψ ( z ) dz (30)
ficients m, c, and k represent the equivalent mass, −h
viscous damping and restraint stiffness of the cylin- which is interpreted as the level of equivalent drag
der at the MWL. (Note that allowing for forcing to force at the MWL in the case of rigid support condi-
be considered at x(z,t) via u(x,z,t) produces non- tions (negligible dynamic response).
linearities that normally have only a minor effect on The term ζH in equation (29) is the contribution
the character of the response (Haritos, 1986)).
to damping due to hydrodynamic drag interaction
When equation (22) for f(z,t) is substituted
viz
into equation (23) above, the so-called “added 0
mass” term is identified for the cylinder viz:
ζH ≈
∫ −h
β u ( z , t ) Ψ 2 ( z ) dz
(31)
0 π
(m + m')ωo
m' = ∫ ρ C A D 2 Ψ 2 ( z ) dz (24)
−h 4
(In the case of large diameter compliant cylinder in
the diffraction forcing regime, analogous expres-
in which CA (= CM – 1) is the “added mass” coeffi-
sions can be derived for added mass effects and ra-
cient.
diation damping due to structure-fluid interaction ef-
This is an important result as it suggests that for
fects).
all intensive purposes a body of fluid surrounding
the cylinder appears to be “attached” to it in its iner-
tial response, and hence the coining of the label
4 RESPONSE TO IRREGULAR SEA STATES
“added mass” effect.
Equation (23) can be re-cast in the form
4.1 Inertia Force
F (t ) + FD (t ) Since the inertia force term FI(t) in equation (29)
xo + 2ω oζ o x o + ω o2 xo = I (25)
m + m' is linear it generally poses little difficulty in model-
ling under a variety of hydrodynamic conditions.
where Consider an irregular sea state composed of a
Fourier Series of Airy wavelets conforming to a P-M
0 spectral description. Then u ( z , t ) can be obtained
FI (t ) = ∫ α u ( z , t ) Ψ ( z ) dz (26) from the expression
−h

and N /2 ⎛ − ω n2 cosh (κ n ( z + h) )
u ( z , t ) = ∑ ⎜
⎜ .
β .(u ( z, t ) − x o (t )Ψ ( z ) ).
0
FD (t ) = ∫ n =0 ⎝ sinh(κ n h)
−h
(27) (32)
u ( z, t ) − x o (t )Ψ ( z ) .Ψ ( z ).dz
2 Sη ( f ) ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞
cos⎜ − φn ⎟ ⎟
T ⎝ T ⎠ ⎟⎠
π 1
in which α = ρ C M D and β = ρ C D D , ωo
2
in which κn satisfies the dispersion relationship of
4
is the natural circular 2 first mode
frequency of the equation (4).
and ζo is the critical damping ratio of the structure in In the case of Ψ(z) being a power law profile, as
otherwise still water conditions. in Figure 10, then
In the case of Ψ ( z ) x o (t ) small compared to u(z,t)
an approximation that can be made for this interac- ⎛ z⎞
N

tive term is of the form: Ψ ( z ) = ⎜1 + ⎟ (33)

⎝ h⎠
and FI(t) can be shown to be obtainable via the ex-
(u ( z, t ) − x o (t )Ψ ( z ) ) u ( z, t ) − x o (t )Ψ ( z ) pression given by (Haritos, 1989),
(28)
≈ u ( z , t ) u ( z , t ) − 2 u ( z , t ) x o (t ) Ψ ( z )

Under these circumstances, equation (25) can be

further simplified to:

61
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

π N /2
FI (t ) = ρgC M D 2 ∑ (I N (κ n h). 5
2
4 n =0 ζ%
(34) 4 5
2.Sη ( f ) ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ σx
cos⎜ − φn ⎟ ⎟
T ⎝ T ⎠ ⎟⎠ σxs 3 10
where: 2
N ⎛ N −1 ⎞
I N (κ n h) = I 0 (κ n h) − ⎜⎜1 − I N −2 (κ n h) ⎟⎟, N ≥ 2
κnh ⎝ κ nh ⎠
1
100 fo
I 0 (κ n h) = tanh(κ n h) , N = 0 (35) 0
fp
1 2 4 8 16
1 ⎛ 1 ⎞
I1 (κ n h) = I 0 (κ n h) − ⎜1 − ⎟ , N =1 Figure 12: Influence of Dynamic Properties on Response
κ n h ⎜⎝ cosh(κ n h) ⎟⎠ (Inertia dominant forcing in deep water)

N
The levels are quoted as the ratio of the standard de-
viation in the response of a cylinder exhibiting a
natural frequency of fo to that of a near weightless
cylinder with the same stiffness for which fo ap-
proaches infinity. It is clear from direct observation
of Figure 12, that response levels are controlled by
both damping and the amount of relative energy
available near 'resonance' for a dynamically respond-
ing cylinder in an irregular sea state.
Figure 10: Compliant vertical surface-piercing cylinder

Figure 11 presents the variations in I N (κ n h) for a 4.2 Drag force

range of power exponents N in mode shape Ψ(z).
The result for N = 0 is consistent with the derivation
for the inertia force component acting on a rigid cyl-
inder due to an Airy wave made in Appendix I.
I N(κh)
1.0
0
Whilst it is possible to deal with the u|u| term for
drag force numerically, the linearised approximation
to u ( z , t ) attributed to Borgman (1967), can be used
in the case u(z,t) Gaussian in a random sea state, so
that
8

u ( z, t ) ≈ .σ ( z ) (36)
=
N

0.8
1
π u
N=
2 where σu(z) is the standard deviation in water
0.6 N= particle velocity and where current is taken as
4
N=
zero-valued for all z.
0.4 This approximation can be used to simplify the
expressions for both ζH in equation (31) and FD(t)
0.2 in equation (30) and to thereby obtain closed-
κh form solutions in the case of nominated Ψ(z)
0 2 4 6 8 10 variations.
Figure 11: Variation of IN(κh) for varying N This approximation would seem reasonable for de-
termination of ζH for “stiff” structures, but in situa-
It is observed that all variations for I N (κ n h) are as- tions when the drag force FD(t) is considered domi-
ymptotic to 1 and that I0(π) is close to this value to nant, this linearization can lead to significant errors
the order of accuracy associated with the “deep wa- in the modelling of both the non-linear drag force
ter” limit of Airy waves (ie κh = π) but for N>0, and the prediction of the resultant response, accord-
IN(κh) ≈ 1 for κh >> π. In general, the effect of ing to Lipsett (1985).
higher order mode shapes (N > 0) is to reduce the
level of inertia forcing of each Airy wavelet in an ir-
regular sea state. 5 EXTREME VALUES
Figure 12 depicts the results obtained for the re-
sponse of a vertical cylinder in deep water condi-
tions (IN(κh) = 1) for inertia only forcing in uni- In the case of random vibrations associated with lin-
directional P-M waves. ear systems, use can be made of upcrossing theory
62
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

in combination with spectral modelling of the proc- level y, Ny, divided by the time length of trace, T (ie
esses involved to develop a basis for prediction of νy = Ny/T). νo would correspond to the rate of up-
peak response values, (Nigam & Narayanan, 1994). crossings of the zero mean.
A linear filter has the characteristics described by It can be shown (Newland, 1975) that upcrossings
(Hy,η(f), φlag(f)) which apply to the Fourier compo- for such a trace would satisfy
nents of a random time varying quantity (such as a 1⎛ y ⎞
2

waveheight trace, η(t), conforming to say a P-M ν y Ny − ⎜

2 ⎜⎝ σ y
⎟
⎟
spectrum) at frequency f, to produce a modified re- = =e ⎠
(39)
sultant time varying quantity, y(t), that is linearly re- ν o No
lated to η(t), as follows
N /2
The concept of a “peak value” in a time period of
y (t ) = ∑ H y ,η ( f n ) .
T would correspond to a y value with an upcrossing
n =1 (37)
⎛ ⎛ 2πnt ⎞ ⎛ 2πnt ⎞⎞ count of 1 so that ymax can be estimated from
⎜⎜ a n cos⎜ − φ lag ( f n ) ⎟ + bn sin ⎜ − φ lag ( f n ) ⎟ ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎝ T ⎠ ⎝ T ⎠⎠ 2
1⎛ y ⎞
− ⎜ max ⎟
A 'zero-lag' filter would be one for which φlag(fn) 1 2 ⎜⎝ σ y ⎟
=e ⎠
(40)
= 0 for all frequencies fn. ν oT
The spectrum for y, given by Sy(f), can be ob-
tained from the spectrum of waveheight, Sη(f), via so that
S y ( f ) = H y2,η ( f ).Sη ( f ) (38)
y max = 2 ln(ν oT ) .σ y (41)

5.1 Extreme Wave Forces Because the value of ymax itself shows a statistical
variation, Davenport (1964) has suggested a small
Use can be made of the dispersion relationship of correction to equation (41) for the value of E(ymax)
equation (4) in conjunction with the separate de- so that
scriptions above for Inertia and Drag force, to obtain
the associated relationships for H FI ,η ( f ) and ⎛ 0.577 ⎞⎟
H FD ,η ( f ) respectively, and hence the total force y max = ⎜ 2 ln(ν oT ) + .σ y (42)
⎜ 2 ln(ν oT ) ⎟⎠
spectrum for the surface-piercing cylinder of Figure ⎝
6. A diagrammatic illustration of the concept is pro- Now the rate of “zero” upcrossings is given by:
vided in Figure 13.
∞
⎛ σ ( y ) ⎞
⎜⎜ ⎟ ∫f
2
S y ( f ) df
H2FI,η(f) ⎝ σ ( y ) ⎟⎠
SFI(f)
νo = = 0
(43)
X = 2π ∞

Sη(f)
σ η2
H2FD,η(f)
X =
Figure 13: Diagrammatic description of spectral modelling of
Morison wave loading
The area under the total force spectrum equals the
variance, σ F2T , knowledge of which may be used to
estimate peak Morison loading of the vertical sur-
face-piercing cylinder, under consideration. This
peak load value may reasonably be expected to be of
the order 3σ FT , but a more precise estimation is of-
fered through the use of upcrossing theory.
For a Normally distributed trace y(t) with zero
mean and variance σ y2 , the rate of upcrossings at
level y, νy, equates to the count of upcrossings at
∫
SFtot(f)
S y ( f ) df
0
+ =
σ 2
Ft
SFD(f)
which can be determined from the spectral descrip-
tion. If y(t) is a narrow-banded process (ie energy is
concentrated at a peak frequency, fp), then νo ≈ fp.
5.2 Extreme Response Values
The concepts above can be applied to the dynami-
cally responding surface-piercing cylinder to esti-
mate the peak response at MWL, (xo)max.
An additional stage is required for this purpose,
namely the linear transformation from Morison forc-
ing to dynamic excitation via the description of
equation (29), which in terms of a spectral modelling
approach, is diagrammatically depicted in Figure14.

63
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

Davenport, A.G. 1964. Note on the Distribution of the Largest

Value of a Random Function with Application to Gust
Loading, Proc. ICE, Vol. 28, No. 187.
DNV-OS-C101, 2004. Design of Offshore Steel Structures,
SFtot(f) H2x,F(f) Sx(f) General (LFRD Method). Det Norske Veritas, Norway.
X = DNV-OS-C105, 2005. Structural Design of TLPS, (LFRD
Method). Det Norske Veritas, Norway.
σ 2
Ft fo σ x2 fo DNV-OS-C106, 2001. Structural Design of Offshore Deep
Draught Floating Units, (LFRD Method). Det Norske Veri-
Figure 14: Diagrammatic description of spectral modelling of tas, Norway.
dynamic response Chakrabarti, S. K. (ed) 2005. Handbook of Offshore Engineer-
ing, San Francisco: Elsevier.
Chakrabarti, S. K. 2002. The Theory and Practice of Hydrody-
The Transfer Function for response from Morison namics and Vibration, New Jersey: World Scientific.
loading in irregular sea states for the dynamically re- Chakrabarti, S. K. (ed) 1987. Fluid Structure Interaction in
sponding surface-piercing cylinder of Figure 10 is Offshore Engineering, Southampton: Computational Me-
given by Hx,F(f), via chanics Publications.
Chakrabarti, S. K. 1994. Hydrodynamics of Offshore Struc-
tures, Southampton: Computational Mechanics Publica-
χ m2 ( f ) tions.
H x2, F ( f ) = (44)
(m + m')2 Dean R. G. & Dalrymple, R. A. 1991. Water Wave Mechanics
for Engineers and Scientists, New Jersey: World Scientific.
where Rienecker, M.M. & Fenton, J.D. 1981. A Fourier approxima-
1 tion method for steady water waves, J. Fluid Mechs, Vol
χ m2 ( f ) = (45) 104, pp 119-137.
⎛⎛ 2 2⎞ Graff, W. J. 1981. Introduction to Offshore Structures – De-
⎜ ⎜ ⎛ f ⎞ ⎞⎟ ⎛⎜
2
⎛ f ⎞⎞ ⎟ sign, Fabrication, Installation, Houston: Gulf Publishing
⎜ ⎜1 − ⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ ⎟ + ⎜ 2ζ tot ⎜⎜ f ⎟⎟ ⎟⎟ ⎟ Company.
⎜⎝ ⎝ o ⎠ ⎠ ⎝ ⎝ o ⎠⎠ ⎟ Haritos, N. 1986. Nonlinear Hydrodynamic Forcing of Buoys
⎝ ⎠ in Ocean Waves, Proc. 10th Aust. Conf. on Mechs. of
Structs. & Materials, Adelaide, pp 253-258.
in which fo is the natural frequency of the cylin- Haritos, N. 1989. The Influence of Modal Characteristics on
der and ζtot is the total critical damping ratio (ζtot =ζo the Dynamic Response of Compliant Cylinders in Waves,
+ζH). Computational Techniques & Applications: CTAC-89, edit
W.L. Hogarth & B.J. Noye, pp 683-690, (Hemisphere).
The area under the response spectrum yields σ x
2
Holand, I., Gudmestad, O. T. & Jersin, E. (eds). 2000. Design
and after application of equation (43) to obtain νo, of Offshore Concrete Structures, London: Spon Press.
extreme value (xo)max can be obtained from equation ICE, 1983, Design in Offshore Structures, ICE, London: Tho-
(42), for the nominated duration of the irregular sea mas Telford Ltd.
state under consideration, (eg T = 3600 secs for a 1- Le Mehaute, B. 1969. An introduction to hydrodynamics and
water waves, Water Wave Theories, Vol. II, TR ERL 118-
hour storm). POL-3-2, U.S. Department of Commerce, ESSA, Washing-
ton, DC.
Lipsett, A.W. 1985. Nonlinear Response of Structures in Regu-
6 CONCLUDING REMARKS lar and Random Waves, Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of British Co-
lumbia, Canada.
This paper has provided an overview of some of the MacCamy, R. C. & Fuchs, R.A.1954. Wave Forces on Piles: a
Diffraction Theory, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Centre,
key factors that need be considered in the analysis Tech Memo No. 69.
and design of offshore structures. Emphasis has been Newland, D.E. 1975. An Introduction to Random Vibrations
placed on modelling of the hydrodynamic response and Spectral Analysis. Longman.
of a compliant vertical surface-piercing cylinder in Nigam, N. C. & Narayanan, S. 1994. Applications of Random
the Morison loading regime under uni-directional Vibrations, New York: Springer-Verlag.
Sarpkaya, T. 1976, In-line and transverse forces on cylinders in
waves. Reference has also been made to a number of oscillating flow at high Reynold’s number, Proc. 8th Off-
publications in which further detail and extension of shore Technology Conference, Houston, Texas, OTC 2533,
treatment can be explored by the interested reader. pp 95-108.
Sarpkaya, T. & Isaacson, M. 1981. Mechanics of Wave Forces
on Offshore Structures, New York: Van Nostrand
REFERENCES SESAM,http://www.dnv.com/software/systems/sesam/progr
amModules.asp
Stewart, R. H. 2006. Introduction to Physical Oceanography,
API, 1984. Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/ocng_textbook/PDF_
and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, American Pe- files/book.pdf.
troleum Institute, API RP2A, 15th Edition. WAMIT, http://www.wamit.com/
Borgman, L.E. 1967. Spectral Analysis of Ocean Wave Forces Wheeler, J.D. 1970. Method for calculating forces produced by
on Piling, Jl WW& Harbors, Vol. 93, No. WW2, pp 129- irregular waves, Journal of Petroleum Technology, March,
156. pp 359-367.

64
 EJSE Special Issue: Loading on Structures (2007)

a2 ω2
Appendix I. – Base shear on a surface-piercing FD (t) = β cos (κx - ωt)|cos (κx - ωt)| .
sinh2(κh)
cylinder from Morison loading
1 ⎛ sinh(2κh)⎞
2 ⎝h + 2κ ⎠
f ( z, t ) = f I ( z, t ) + f D ( z, t )
. π ⎡ a2 ω2 h a2 g tanh(κh) ⎛sinh(2κh)⎞ ⎤
ƒI (z,t) = α u ; (α = 4 ρ CM D2) FD (t) = ⎢β + β ⎜sinh2(κh)⎟ ⎥
⎣ 2 sinh2(κh) 4 ⎝ ⎠⎦
1
ƒD (z,t) = β u|u| ; (β = 2 ρ CD D) . cos (κx - ωt)|cos (κx - ωt)|

Inertia: ⎡ a2g κh a2g⎤

=⎢β + β 2 ⎥ cos(κx-ωt)|cos (κx - ωt)|
o ⎣ sinh2κh ⎦
⌠ . ⎛ o ⎞
FI (t) = ⎜= ⌠ ƒI (z,t) dz⎟
⌡ α u dz
⎜ ⌡ ⎟ β a2g ⎡ 2 κ h + 1⎤ cos (κx - ωt)|cos (κx - ωt)|
-h ⎝ ⎠ = 2
-h ⎣sinh2κh ⎦
o
ω2 ⎪sinh(κ(z + h))⎪
= α a.sin(κx-ωt) Hence, as an alternative approximation
sinh(κh) ⎪ κ ⎪ -h
β a2g
FD (t) ≈ cos(κx-ωt)
ω2 2
a . sin(κx - ωt) ⎪ - 0⎪
sinh(κh)
= α
κ ⎪sinh(κh) ⎪

= α g tanh(κh) . a . sin(κx - ωt) Inertia:

= α g a sin(κx - ωt) (Deep Water) α a g tanh(κh) sin (κx - ωt) → FI sin (κx - ωt)

Drag: Drag:
o ⎛ o ⎞
FD (t) = ⌠
⌡ β u|u|dz ⎜= ⌠ ƒD (z,t) dz⎟ β a2g ⎡ 2 κ h
⎜ ⌡ ⎟ ⎤ cos (κx - ωt) . | cos (κx - ωt)|
-h ⎝ -h ⎠ 2 ⎣sinh2κh + 1⎦
a2 ω2
= β cos (κx - ωt) |cos (κx - ωt)| → FD cos (κx - ωt) | cos (κx - ωt)|
sinh2 κh
o
Figures I.a and I.b depict representative varia-
.⌡⌠ cosh2(κ(z + h)) dz tions over one cycle of Airy wave of the Base Shear
-h force acting on a cylinder normalised with respect to
a2 ω2 FD/FI = 2, respectively, by way of illustration.
FD (t) = β cos (κx - ωt) |cos (κx - ωt)|
sinh2(κh)
o
1
. ⌠ 2 (1 + cosh 2(κ(z + h))) dz
⌡
-h

1.5 2.5
Total Total
2
1 1.5
Drag Drag
1
0.5
Inertia Inertia
0.5
Ftot Ftot 0
0
FI 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t 1 FI -0.5 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t 1
-0.5 T T
-1
-1.5
-1
(a) -2 (b)
-1.5 -2.5

Figure I: Morison Base Shear Force components for (a): FD/FI = 0.8 and (b): FD/FI = 2

65