FSI On Oil Structure

STABILIZATION AND FINITE ELEMENT
ANALYSIS OF THE OFFSHORE OIL RIGS

(JACK-UP AND JACKET TYPE)
A Dissertation Submitted
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Award
of the Degree of
Bachelor of Engineering in
CIVIL ENGINEERING
Submitted By
ATUL KUMAR SINGH

(Roll No.: B80020006)
UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF
Prof. SUMANT N. SHINDE

Assistant Professor,
Department of Applied Mechanics
MIT, Pune
DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS

MAHARASHTRA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY,
PUNE
MAHARSHTRA INSTITUTE OF
TECHNOLOGY,
PUNE
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the dissertation entitled,
Stabilization and Finite Element Analysis of Offshore Oil rigs (JackUp and Jacket type)
Submitted by
Atul Kumar Singh
(Roll No. B80020006)
for fulfilment of the curriculum requirements for the award of Bachelor
of Engineering in Civil Engineering at Department of Applied Mechanics,
Maharashtra Institute of Technology, Pune. This work is being submitted
for the award of degree of Bachelor of Civil Engineering. It is submitted
in the partial fulfilment of the prescribed syllabus of Savitribai Phule
Pune University, Pune for the academic year 2014 2015. The matter
embodied in this dissertation has not been submitted for the award of any
other degree at any other Institute/ University.
Prof. Sumant N. Shinde
Prof. (Dr.) Mrs. M.S.Kulkarni

Head of Department
Guide

Maharashtra Institute of Technology,
Pune

Pune
Prof. Dr. L.K.Khisrsagar

Principal
Pune
EXAMINATION APPROVAL SHEET

The dissertation report entitled
STABILIZATION AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF
OFFSHORE OIL RIGS (JACK-UP AND JACKET TYPE)
By
ATUL KUMAR SINGH
are approved for the degree of B. E. (Civil) of
Savitribai Phule Pune Univeristy at MAEERs M. I. T, Pune.
Examiner:
1. Name of External Examiner: ___________________.
Signature: __________________.
2. Name of Internal Examiner: ___________________.
Signature: __________________.
3. Name of Internal Examiner: ___________________.
Signature: __________________.
Date: _____/_____/_______.
Place: ____________.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I owe a debt of deepest gratitude to my guide, Prof Sumant S. Shinde, Assistant Professor,
Department of Applied Mechanics, for his guidance, support, motivation and encouragement
throughout the period this work was carried out. His readiness for consultation at all times, his
educative comments, his concern and assistance even with practical things have been invaluable.
I am grateful to Dr. M.S.Kulkarni, Head of Department, Department of Applied
Mechanics for providing the necessary opportunities for the completion of my project. I also
thank the other staff members of my department for their invaluable help and guidance.
I am also grateful to MR. R.K.Ghanekar of ONGC for allowing me to do the
experimentation work required for this project at the same time I extend me sincere thanks to the
Prof. DR. P.R.Maiti of IIT BHU for developing my software skills during my 2 months
Internship under him.
I also pay my sincere gratitude towards the University of Wisconsin and NOAA for
providing me with the data required for the analytical work.
I extend my sincere thanks to, Dr. L. K. Kshirsagar, Principal, MIT, Pune for
extending all kinds of co-operation during the course. I am also thankful to Prof.
Sharadchandra.S.Darade (Patil), Dean Faculty of Engineering, MAEERs MIT, Pune for his
constant inspiration and encouragement.
I take this opportunity to express my sincere appreciation for the co-operation given by
Prof. Dr. Vishwanath D. Karad, Founder, Executive President, Maharashtra Academy of
Engineering &Educational Research (MAEER), Pune, and need a special mention for all the help
extended by him to make my dissertation a memorable experience.Finally and most significantly,
I am deeply grateful to my Parents for their love, sacrifice, inspiration and valuable help that
enabled me to complete this assignment.
ATUL KUMAR SINGH
BE CIVIL
Department Of Civil Engineering
MIT, PUNE
ii
ABSTRACT
An oil platform, offshore platform, or (colloquially) oil rig is a large structure with facilities to
drill wells, to extract and process oil and natural gas, or to temporarily store product until it can
be brought to shore for refining and marketing. In many cases, the platform contains facilities
to house the workforce as well. Depending on the circumstances, the platform may be fixed to
the ocean floor, may consist of an artificial island, or may float. Remote subsea wells may also
be connected to a platform by flow lines and by umbilical connections. These subsea solutions
may consist of one or more subsea wells, or of one or more manifold centres for multiple wells.
Since offshore structures are used worldwide for a variety of functions and in a variety of water
depths, and environments there is a need for right selection of equipment, types of platforms
and method of drilling and also right planning, design, fabrication, transportation, installation
and commissioning of petroleum platforms, considering the water depth and environment
conditions are very important, this work deals with the practical methods for soil investigation
required for the establishment of the oil rig and then the analytical method to determine the
effect of sea waves on the standing jacket type oil rig.
Firstly, before the oil rig is established there is a need to determine various soil properties below
the sea bed, so that we can conclude that till which depth the rig is supposed to be penetrated
or what kind of material and what should be the dimensions of the rigs so that the rigs will with
stand the soil structure interaction. At the same time there are various forces which are applied
on the oil rigs above the sea bed and that forces are because of Fluid-Structure Interaction, and
this force is because of the load that is generated due to the sea waves.
Various tests such as sieve analysis, Atterberg limits test, UU Triaxial test etc. were done on
the soil samples that were extracted from the sea bed so as to determine the soil characteristics,
the soil stratigraphy and the type and strength characteristics of various soil strata. Along with
these Lateral load deformation characteristics (p-y, t-z and q-z data) for pile used in Jack-up
legs and Mud mat bearing capacity was determined.
iii
In the second part of the work, the effects of linear sea waves were studied using the concept
of Fluid- Structure Interaction with the help of concept of Finite Element Analysis and
Computational Fluid Dynamics. This study of the effect of Hydrodynamic Loading on the Jackup rig was studied with the help of ANSYS WORKBWNCH 14.5. As we know the sea waves
are non-linear in nature so to it is very tough to determine the various properties of waves. So
in my work I have assumed that the sea waves in the western offshore basin are linear and I
have determine the properties like wavelength, time period etc. with the help of Airys Wave
theory and some data of WOB was taken from Oil & Natural Gas Corporation and National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, USA
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Acknowledgement
2. Abstract
ii
3. List Of figures
vi
4. List Of tables
vii
5. Abbreviation
vii
6. Nomenclature
xi
CHAPTER-1 INTRODUCTION
[1-6]
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Aim of the Research
1.3 Scope of the Research
CHAPTER-2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
[7-20]
2.1 Anatomy of Oil rigs
2.2 Jack-up Oil rigs
2.3 Jacket Type Oil rigs
10
2.4 Geotechnical Soil Testings
11
2.4.1 Grain Size Distribution Test
13
2.4.2 Atterberg Limits Tests
13
2.4.3 Triaxial Shear Tests
15
2.5 Finite Element Analysis
16
2.5.1 History of FEA
17
2.5.2 Steps Involved In FEA
18
2.5.3 Advantages of FEA
19
2.5.4 ANSYS
20
CHAPTER-3 LITERATURE RIVEW
[21-23]
CHAPTER-4 ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES
[24-36]
4.1 Basics of Offshore Engineering
25
4.2 Hydrodynamics
25
4.3 Wave Theories
26
4.4 Airys Wave Theory
27
4.5 Ocean-Wave Spectra
29
4.5.1 Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum
30
4.6 Morison Equation
33
4.7 The API Choice of Hydrodynamic Coefficient
34
CHAPTER-5 LABORATORY SOIL TESTINGS
[37-46]
5.1 General
37
5.2 Geotechnical Survey of Jack-Up Installation Location
37
5.3 Soil Conditions
38
5.3.1 General
38
5.3.2 Stratigraphy
38
5.3.3 Soil properties and Design Parameters
40
5.3.3.1 Clays
40
5.3.3.2 Sands
40
5.3.3.3 Silts
41
5.4 Engineering Analysis
42
vi
5.4.1 Axial Pile capacity
42
5.4.2 Mud-Mat Bearing Capacity
44
5.4.3 Jack-up leg penetration analysis
45
CHAPTER-6 MATERIALS AND METHOD
[48-52]
6.1 Data Acqusition
49
6.2 Solid Model Generation and Export
50
6.3 Assembly of the Components
50
50
6.5 FE model of Jack-Up oil Rigs
51
6.6 Material Assignment
51
6.7 Loading
54
6.8 Loading Value and Boundary Condition
55
CHAPTER-7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
[57-67]
7.1 Results
57
7.2 Acceleration Level
65
7.3 Discussion
66
CHAPTER-8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
[68-70]
8.1 Geotechnical investigation
68
68
8.3 Recommendations for further work
70
REFERENCES
ILLUSTRATIONS
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX B
[71-73]
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1 Types of Oil Platform
Figure 1.2 Jack-Up rig of ONGC installed in the western offshore basin
Figure 2.1 Anatomy of oil rig
Figure 2.2 (a) Jack-up structure (designed in CREO 3.0); (b) a jack up oil rigs
Figure 2.3 (a) Jacket structure (designed in CREO 3.0); (b) a jacket oil rig
Figure 2.4 Graph depicting the grain size distribution.
Figure 2.5 Cassagrande Cup in Action.
Figure 2.6 Triaxial Test Apparatus.
Figure 4.1 Sample offshore structure design
Figure 4.2 Various Loads on the Oil Rigs
Figure 4.3 Airy Wave Theory
Figure 4.4 Wave spectra of a fully developed sea for different wind speeds according to
Moskowitz (1964)
Figure 4.5 Significant wave height and period at the peak of the spectrum of a fully
developed sea calculated from the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum using.
Figure 4.6 Flow forces according to the Morison equation as function of time (a) Blue
Line: - Drag Force (b) Red Line: - Inertial Force (c) Black Line: - Total Force
Figure 5.1 Loading mechanism of a pile
Figure 5.2 Calculation for by various method
Figure 6.1 Flow chart showing whole research work in steps.
Figure 6.2 Dimensions of Jacket Oil Rigs
Figure 6.3 Hydrodynamic load history generated for Jacket model for H = 33 m and
T= 16 s for different water depths.
Figure 7.1 Static collapse modes for different water depths and corresponding
inundation levels
Figure 7.2: - Stiffness curves for in terms of base shear (BS) for different water depths
Figure 7.3: -Dynamic displacement response for different water depths / inundation
levels
Figure 7.4:- Dynamic and static response history, water depth 78 m /inundation 3.06m
Figure 7.5: Acceleration response for different water depths / inundation levels
Figure 7.6: Structural plastic state at dynamic max. Displacement, water depth 78 m
Figure 7.7: Contributions from structural restoring forces and inertia force
viii
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Various types of Soil Testing

Table 4.1 API recommendation of C d and Cm
Table 5.1 Onshore Laboratory Tests
Table 5.2 Description Of soil Layers
Table 6.1 Material Properties for the Structural Steel
Table 6.2: Jacket Model dynamic forces to be used in analysis
Table 7.1: results from non-linear static and dynamic analyses, h =33 m, T = 16 s
ix
ABBREVATION
ONGC
Oil And Natural Gas Corporation
FEA
Finite Element Analysis
FEM
Finite Element Method
DOF
Degree of Freedom
CAD
Computer-Aided Design
UU
Unconsolidated Undrained
WOB
Western Offshore Basin
MODU
Mobile Offshore Drilling Units
CPT
Cone Penetration Test
API
American Petroleum Institute
ASTM
American Society for Testing and

Materials
TLP
Tension Leg Platform
NOMENCLATURE
Symbol
Definition
Dimension
Force
Stiffness
Displacement
Resultant Force/Vector
CG
Centre of Gravity
m/s
Weight
Kg
Stress
Pa
Strain
Density
kg/m3
Mass
Kg
Gravity
m/s
STABILIZATION AND FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS OF OFFSHORE OIL RIGS (JACK -UP AND JACKET TYPE)
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
An oil platform, offshore platform, or (colloquially) oil rig is a large structure with
facilities to drill wells, to extract and process oil and natural gas, or to temporarily store
product until it can be brought to shore for refining and marketing. In many cases, the
platform contains facilities to house the workforce as well. Depending on the
circumstances, the platform may be fixed to the ocean floor, may consist of an artificial
island, or may float. Remote subsea wells may also be connected to a platform by flow
lines and by umbilical connections. These subsea solutions may consist of one or more
subsea wells, or of one or more manifold centres for multiple wells.
Fig 1.1 1.2) Conventional Fixed Platforms; 3) Complaint Tower; 4, 5) Vertically

moored tension leg mini-tension leg platform; 6) Spar; 7,8) Semi-submersibles; 9)
floating production, storage off loading facility 10) Sub-sea completion and tie back to
host facility.
1.1.1 Fixed platforms

These platforms are built on concrete or steel legs, or both, anchored directly onto the
seabed, supporting a deck with space for drilling rigs, production facilities and crew
quarters. Such platforms are, by virtue of their immobility, designed for very long term
use (for instance the Hibernia platform). Various types of structure are used: steel jacket,
concrete caisson, floating steel, and even floating concrete. Steel jackets are vertical
sections made of tubular steel members, and are usually piled into the seabed.
1.1.2 Jacket drilling rigs
Jacket Mobile Drilling Units (or Jackets), as the name suggests, are rigs that can be
jacked up above the sea using legs that can be lowered, much like jacks. These MODUs
(Mobile Offshore Drilling Units) are typically used in water depths up to 120 metres
(390 ft), although some designs can go to 170 m (560 ft) depth. They are designed to
move from place to place, and then anchor themselves by deploying the legs to the ocean
bottom using a rack and pinion gear system on each leg.
Fig 1.2 Jacket rig of ONGC installed in the western offshore basin
1.2
Motivation
Offshore geotechnical engineering is a sub-field of geotechnical engineering. It is

concerned with foundation design, construction, and maintenance and decommissioning
for human-made structures in the sea. Oil platforms, artificial islands and submarine
pipelines are examples of such structures. The seabed has to be able to withstand the
weight of these structures and the applied loads. Geo-hazards must also be taken into
account. The need for offshore developments stems from a gradual depletion of
hydrocarbon reserves onshore or near the coastlines, as new fields are being developed
at greater distances offshore and in deeper water, with a corresponding adaptation of the
offshore site investigations.
1.2.1 Geotechnical surveys
Geotechnical surveys involve a combination of sampling, drilling, in situ testing as well
as laboratory soil testing that is conducted offshore and/or onshore. They serve to ground
truth the results of the geophysical investigations; they also provide a detailed account
of the seabed stratigraphy and soil engineering properties. Depending on water depth
and met ocean conditions, geotechnical surveys may be conducted from a
dedicated geotechnical drillship, a semi-submersible, a Jacket rig, a large hovercraft or
other means. They are done at a series of specific locations, while the vessel maintains
a constant position. Dynamic positioning and mooring with four-point anchoring
systems are used for that purpose.
The purpose of deep penetration geotechnical surveys is to collect information on the
seabed stratigraphy to depths extending up to a few 100 meters below the mud-line.
These surveys are done when larger structures are planned at these locations. Deep drill
holes require a few days during which the drilling unit has to remain exactly in the same
position.
Seabed surface sampling can be done with a grab sampler and with a box corer. The
latter provides undisturbed specimens, on which testing can be conducted, for instance,
to determine the soils relative density, water content and mechanical properties.
Sampling can also be achieved with a tube corer, either gravity-driven, or that can be
pushed into the seabed by a piston or by means of a vibration system.
Drilling is another means of sampling the seabed. It is used to obtain a record of the
seabed stratigraphy or the rock formations below it. The set-up used to sample an
offshore structure's foundation is similar to that used by the oil industry to reach and
delineate hydrocarbon reservoirs, with some differences in the types of testing.
Information on the mechanical strength of the soil can be obtained in situ (from the
seabed itself as opposed to in a laboratory from a soil sample). The advantage of this
approach is that the data are obtained from soil that has not suffered any disturbance as
a result of its relocation. Two of the most commonly used instruments used for that
purpose are the cone penetrometer (CPT) and the shear vane.
Now, In case of the Oil rigs in India, all the initial soil testing for the establishment of
the structure is done in the Indian Engineering and Ocean Technology, ONGC. The
purpose of the investigation was to ascertain the soil condition at the location for
assessment of ultimate axial pile capacity, load deformation data for open-ended tubular
piles for the platform, assessment of Mudmat bearing capacity and estimation of Jacket
rig penetration for standard ONGC rig.
Designing and Stability
There are more than 9000 fixed offshore platforms around the world related to
hydrocarbon production, the largest numbers of platforms are located in South East Asia,
Gulf of Mexico and the North Sea followed by the coast of India, Nigeria, Venezuela
and the Mediterranean Sea. The majority of the worlds platforms have been designed
according to the different editions of Recommended Practice by The American
Petroleum Institute (API), which until 1993 have been in Working Stress Design (WSD)
format.
The 20th edition (1993) was also issued in Load and Resistance Factor Design (LRFD)
format, and was in 1997 supplemented with a section on requalification of offshore
structures. However, from the mid-seventies, Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD)
and Det Norske Veritas (DNV) in Norway and Health and Safety Executive (HSE) in
Great Britain developed their own set of rules, which replaced the API recommendations
relating to design of structures for petroleum exploitation in the North Sea.
The structural design requirements of an offshore platform subjected wave induced
forces and moments in the jacket can play a major role in the design of the offshore
structures. For an economic and reliable design; good estimation of wave loadings are
essential. A nonlinear response analysis of a fixed offshore platform under wave loading
is presented, the structure is discretized using the finite element method, wave force is
determined according to linearized Morison equation. Hydrodynamic loading on
horizontal and vertical tubular members and the dynamic response of fixed offshore
structure together with the distribution of displacement, axial force and bending moment
along the leg are investigated for regular and extreme conditions, where the structure
should keep production capability in conditions of the one year return period wave and
must be able to survive the 100 year return period storm conditions.
With the development of the concept of the Finite Element Analysis along with the
softwares related to the FEA, it is easy to study the effect of various environmental
loads, fluid-structure interaction as well as the soil-structure interaction. Because of the
Finite Element Method it is easy to analyse various effects on the Oil rigs without
actually constructing them and then we can select the best possible structure.
1.3 Aim of The Research
To Determine the Soil Properties, by doing various testings on the soil in the
laboratory.
To improve the understanding of the dynamic effects of wave loading on the

response of jacket platforms and, based on that, present results on jacket response
and capacity to withstand wave loads for the benefit of the structural engineering
community.
The results of this study shall be helpful for an offshore geotechnical as well as offshore
structural engineer to understand the behaviour of the soil as well as the behaviour of
various environmental loads on the offshore jack up rig, in construction of the Jacket
rigs in the Western Offshore Basin of India. It can also be used as a database for the
forthcoming students who are interested to work further in this field of Offshore
Engineering.
1.4 Scope of The Research

The scope of this report is to present:
The results of the laboratory tests performed onshore.
Soil Characteristics including boring logs showing the soil stratigraphy and the
type and strength characteristics of various strata.
Determining the Jacket leg penetration analysis Mud Mat bearing capacity of the
oil rig.
Generating a 3D model of the Jacket type rig with the help of the data determined
in the 1st part of the research in the software CREO 2.0
Last but not the least; validate the developed model by analysing the mechanical
behaviour under static loading, FE Analysis was done in ANSYS R14.5
Computational analysis can be performed estimation of the effects of the Fluid Structure
Interaction effects on the structure. So, these results are expected to be helpful for a
researcher. The aim of this dissertation is to check whether the Jacket type oil rigs are
suitable in WOB.
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
The objective of this chapter is to provide a basic relevant theoretical outline of the
various types soil testing done on the soil samples that are gathered from the sea bed and
finite element method used to solve the problem of wave in deck loading. It will serve
as the reference to the topics described ahead.
2.1 Anatomy of Oil Rigs
There are three primary rig types. Jackups/Jackets, semisubmersibles and drillships
make up the majority of the offshore rig fleet and all are used worldwide. Other rig types
such as platform rigs, inland barges and tender-assisted rigs are used as well, but they
are fewer in number and are generally used in specific geographic areas.
Jack-Up/Jackets Used for shallow water drilling, there are two jackup types: Independent-leg jackups make up the majority of the existing fleet. They have legs
that penetrate into the seafloor and the hull jacks up and down the legs.
Mat-supported jackups are presently used only in the U.S. GoM. As the name implies,
the mat rests on the seafloor during drilling operations. Cantilever jackups are able to
skid out over the platform or well location, while slot units have a slot that fits around
a platform when drilling development wells.
Semisubmersibles Used for deepwater drilling, these floating rigs have columns
that are ballasted to remain on location either by mooring lines anchored to the
seafloor or by dynamic positioning systems. They are used for both exploratory and
development drilling.
Drillships Also used for deepwater drilling, these ship-shaped floating rigs move
from location to location under their own power. They are capable of operating in
more remote locations and require fewer supply boat trips than do semis.
They maintained on location via dynamic positioning systems, and most of the rigs
currently under construction are drillships.
Platform Rigs These are self-contained rigs that are placed on fixed platforms for
field development drilling. Some are called self-erecting and can be rigged up in as
little as a few days. Other larger units require a derrick barge to be installed and can
take up to two weeks to be rigged up. Once drilling is completed, the rig is removed
from the platform.
Tender-Assist Rigs There are only about 25 of these rigs left in existence, used
mostly in West Africa and Southeast Asia. They are monohull units that are moored
next to a platform. The rig is then installed onto the platform, while all the power,
storage and other functions remain on the tender.
Inland Barges These rigs are specially adapted for inland waters close to shore.
They are used in the GoM as well as other areas of the world.
This image shows some of the major components of an offshore Jacket rigs: -
Fig. 2.1 Anatomy of Oil Rig
Hull initially rigs were built out of tanker hulls, so the terminology remains
Power Module converts available fuel into power for the station
Process Module onboarding and offloading of supplies and products
Drilling Module the traditional drilling rig apparatus
Quarters Module where the crew sleeps and eats
Wellbay Module access to the well and other equipment
Derrick the oil derrick
2.2 Jack-Up Oil Rigs

A Jacket rig or a self-elevating unit is a type of mobile platform that consists of a
buoyant hull fitted with a number of movable legs, capable of raising its hull over the
surface of the sea. The buoyant hull enables transportation of the unit and all attached
machinery to a desired location. Once on location the hull is raised to the required
elevation above the sea surface supported by the sea bed. The legs of such units may be
designed to penetrate the sea bed, may be fitted with enlarged sections or footings, or
may be attached to a bottom mat. Generally Jacket rigs are not self-propelled and rely
on tugs or heavy lift ships for transportation.
The primary advantage of the Jacket design is that it offers a steady and relatively
motion-free platform in the drilling position and mobilizes relatively quickly and easily.
Although they originally were designed to operate in very shallow water, some newer
units, such as the ultra-harsh environment Maersk MSC C170-150 MC, are huge (Fig.
2.2) and can be operated in 550 ft in the GOM. With 673.4-ft. leg length, a hull
dimension of 29133639 ft, and a variable deck load (VDL) of 10,000 long tons, it is
mammoth and rivals some of the larger semis. This type of unit can be commercially
competitive only in the North Sea and in very special situations.
(a)
(b)
Fig 2.2 (a) Jacket structure (designed in CREO 3.0); (b) a jack up oil rigs
2.3 Jacket Type Oil rigs

Jacket refers in the oil and gas exploration and production to the steel frame supporting
the deck and the topsides in a fixed offshore platform. There are multiple types of
offshore platforms depending on the applications and the depth of the water. Most of the
platforms are used in the shallow waters of the continental shelf, so 95% of the offshore
platforms in the world are jacket designed. In these areas and where the water depth does
not exceed 500 meters, these platforms may be anchored directly to the seabed.
These platforms are fixed and their deck is supported by a steel tubular structure having
its feet on the seabed. This steel tubular structure is called the jacket. To fix the jacket
onto the seabed, the jacket is equipped with thick steel piles of 2 meters diameter that
can penetrate the sea floor up to 100 meters deep to ensure the stability of the whole
platform.
10
The jacket may be hundreds meters high and weight thousands tonnes. The height of the
jacket is defined by the water depth plus about 15 meters above the sea level.
The tubular structure of a jacket is designed to support multiple constraints:
- Weight of the processing equipment (topsides)
- Impact of the waves
- Pressure of the wind on the topsides
- Flow of the sea water streams and tides
- Corrosion
- Fatigue effect
- Life cycle time
Acting as a cage, the jacket is protecting all the piping going through to the seabed. This
space tubular frame is also protecting these pipes from lateral load. The deck structure
is connected to the jacket by the deck legs transferring efforts both ways.
(a)
(b)
Fig 2.3 (a) Jacket structure (designed in CREO 3.0); (b) a jacket oil rigs
11
2.4 Geotechnical Soil Testing

As the basic structural foundation for almost all construction, soil materials play an
important role in the ultimate success of a project. Whether you're working in clay, silt,
sand, gravel, peat, or loam, understanding the soil properties of your site help you make
good construction decisions.
In-lab and onsite
Element laboratories perform in-house and onsite testing of soil materials used for
subgrades, structural fills, roadways, and earthen dams, providing valuable information
that assists design engineers in achieving sound engineering practices. Element soils
laboratory scientists sample, analyse, and classify soil materials, utilizing the most
current state, federal, and industry standards and specifications.
Geotechnical Soil Testing and Analysis: Element soil labs perform sophisticated and
complex geotechnical soil testing methods, such as permeability, unconfined
compressive strength Triaxial shear, consolidation linear shrinkage tests and hydrometer
analysis.
Table 2.1 various types of Soil Testing
12
2.4.1 Grain Size Distribution Test

This test is performed to determine the percentage of different grain sizes contained
within a soil. The mechanical or sieve analysis is performed to determine the distribution
of the coarser, larger-sized particles, and the hydrometer method is used to determine
the distribution of the finer particles.
The distribution of different grain sizes affects the engineering properties of soil. Grain
size analysis provides the grain size distribution, and it is required in classifying the soil.
Fig. 2.4 Graph depicting the grain size distribution
2.4.2 Atterberg Limits Test

The Atterberg limits are a basic measure of the critical water contents of a finegrained soil, such as its shrinkage limit, plastic limit, and liquid limit. As a dry, clayey
soil takes on increasing amounts of water, it undergoes dramatic and distinct changes in
behaviour and consistency.
13
Depending on the water content of the soil, it may appear in four states: solid, semisolid, plastic and liquid. In each state, the consistency and behavior of a soil is different
and consequently so are its engineering properties. Thus, the boundary between each
state can be defined based on a change in the soil's behavior.
The Atterberg limits can be used to distinguish between silt and clay, and it can
distinguish between different types of silts and clays. These limits were created by Albert
Atterberg, a Swedish chemist. They were later refined by Arthur Casagrande. These
distinctions in soil are used in assessing the soils that are to have structures built on.
Soils when wet retain water and some expand in volume. The amount of expansion is
related to the ability of the soil to take in water and its structural make-up (the type of
atoms present). These tests are mainly used on clayey or silty soils since these are the
soils that expand and shrink due to moisture content. Clays and silts react with the water
and thus change sizes and have varying shear strengths. Thus these tests are used widely
in the preliminary stages of designing any structure to ensure that the soil will have the
correct amount of shear strength and not too much change in volume as it expands and
shrinks with different moisture contents.
Shrinkage limit
The shrinkage limit (SL) is the water content where further loss of moisture will not
result in any more volume reduction. The test to determine the shrinkage limit is ASTM
International D4943. The shrinkage limit is much less commonly used than the liquid
and plastic limits.
Plastic limit
The plastic limit (PL) is determined by rolling out a thread of the fine portion of a soil
on a flat, non-porous surface. The procedure is defined in ASTM Standard D 4318. If
the soil is at a moisture content where its behaviour is plastic, this thread will retain its
shape down to a very narrow diameter. The sample can then be remoulded and the test
repeated. As the moisture content falls due to evaporation, the thread will begin to break
apart at larger diameters
14
Liquid limit
The liquid limit (LL) is conceptually defined as the water content at which the behavior
of a clayey soil changes from plastic to liquid. However, the transition from plastic to
liquid behaviour is gradual over a range of water contents, and the shear strength of the
soil is not actually zero at the liquid limit.
Fig. 2.5 Cassagrande Cup in Action
2.4.3 Triaxial Shear Tests

A Triaxial shear test is a common method to measure the mechanical properties of many
deformable solids, especially soil (e.g. sand, clay) and rock, and other granular materials
or powders. There are several variations on the tests;-
15
Consolidated Drained (CD)
In a consolidated drained test the sample is consolidated and sheared in compression

results in drainage. The rate of axial deformation is kept constant, i.e. is strain controlled.
The idea is that the test allows the sample and the pore pressures to fully consolidate
(i.e. adjust) to the surrounding stresses. The test may take a long time to allow the sample
to adjust, in particular low permeability samples need a long time to drain and adjust
strain to stress levels.
Consolidated Undrained (CU)
In a consolidated undrained test the sample is not allowed to drain. The shear
characteristics are measured under undrained conditions and the sample is assumed to
be fully saturated.
Unconsolidated Undrained (UU)
In an unconsolidated undrained test the sample is not allowed to drain. The sample is
compressed at a constant rate (strain-controlled).
Fig. 2.6 Triaxial Test Apparatus
16

Finite Element Analysis (FEA) is an engineering analysis tool, with a wide applications
of linear, non-linear, static, dynamic, buckling, thermal, structural and fatigue analysis
that is often used in medicines to assist in the design of implants and devices. It is an
approximate numerical method that gives mathematical representation of actual
problem. For load carrying structures of unlimited complexity FEA is used to calculate
stresses, although there are limitations of a practical nature.
2.5.1 Domain Discretization
The basic concept of the finite element method is the subdivision of the computational
domain into elements of arbitrary shape and size. The only restriction is that the elements
may not overlap and that they have to cover the complete computational domain. The
geometric object is finally represented by a mesh of 1-D, 2-D and/or 3-D basic elements
(geometric units) such as bars, triangles, quadrilaterals, tetrahedrons, hexahedra and
pyramids. (Which type of element is most appropriate for a particular problem depends
on several factors, such as domain geometry, required accuracy, computational costs
etc.). The ability to handle non-uniform and distorted computational domains has always
been an important feature of the finite element method.
Fig. 2.7 Discretization of a single pile In ANSYS
17
2.5.2 Steps Involved In FEA

An analyst can obtain a solution for the stress and strain distribution throughout a
continuum when the applied loads, boundary conditions and material properties are
known with the help of FE method. The basic steps in any software based finite element
analysis consist of the following:
a) Pre-processing Phase
Creating a 3D CAD Model: Use any of the 3D CAD modelling tools like ProE, Catia,
Creo and solid Edge etc. for creating the 3D geometry of the part/assembly of which you
want to perform FEA.
Importing 3D CAD geometry to FEA Package: Start the FEA package and import the
CAD geometry into the FEA package like Abaqus, Ansys, and Nastran.
Defining Material Properties: Define material which is going to be used for the
part/assembly in FEA package. By this process, one can define modulus of elasticity,
Poissons ratio and all other necessary properties required for the FEA.
Meshing: Meshing is a fundamental step in FEA. In this operation, discretization is used
to convert infinite DOF to finite elements. So, after this operation the CAD geometry is
divided into large numbers of small elements. The small elements are called mesh. The
analysis, accuracy and duration depend on the mesh size and orientations. With the
increase in mesh size, the finite element analysis speed increases but the accuracy
decreases. A sample Meshing is shown in Figure 2.7
Defining Boundary Condition: Boundary conditions are the loads and constraints that
represent the effects of the surrounding environment on the model. Loads can be forces,
moments, pressures, temperatures, accelerations and constraints are for resist the
deformations induced by the loads. So, by defining where loads applied and where
constraints applied to rest the part/assembly.
18
After completion of pre-processing, software internally forms mathematical equations

in the form
{F} = [K] {}
......Eq 2.1
where, {F} is the vector of applied nodal forces, [K] is a square matrix, known as the
stiffness matrix, and {} is the vector of (unknown) nodal displacements.
b) Solution Phase
In this step, FEA package solve the problem for the defined material properties,
boundary conditions and mesh size. Internally, software carries out matrix formation,
inversion, multiplication & solution for unknown, such as displacement & then finds
strain & stress for static analysis.
The solution is obtained numerically through a set of linear equations, equal to the
amount of degrees of freedom in the model: the number of nodal points times the number
of displacement components in each node (two in a 2-D, three in a 3-D model). The
processing time and memory space required for a problem in computer progressively
depends on the number of degree of freedom. A time-efficient element mesh is crucially
important, since computer hardware capacity is the only practical limit to the level of
model complexity feasible.
c) Post processing Phase
In this step, FEA package gives results of the solution. The result can be viewed in
various formats like graph, value, animation etc. through which you can verify, conclude
and think what steps could be taken to improve the design.
19
2.5.3 Advantages of FEA

a) Increases visualization: It is not easy to visualize or predict failure location for real
life complex problems but with the help of this tool one can successfully predict failure
location for the given set of forces.
b) Decrease design cycle time: Conventional chain design cycle is a very long & time
consuming process while current concurrent engineering design cycle is very fast &
more efficient due to which design cycle time is decreased.
c) Optimum design: It provides most appropriate environment which results into a
favourable design outcome.
2.5.4 ANSYS
ANSYS is a widely used finite element analysis package which can simulate problems
in area of structural mechanics, electromagnetics, heat transfer, fluid dynamics, and
acoustics and coupled problems. It has the capability to analyse static and dynamic,
linear and non-linear problems in structural analysis. The simulations carried out in this
work are linear static in nature.
Linear static analysis is the most basic type of analysis. The term linear signifies that
the computed response (displacement, stress or strain) is linearly related to the applied
force. And the term static signifies that there is no variation of forces with respect to
the time or, that the time variation is insignificant and can therefore be safely ignored.
20
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW
Since the beginning of 19th century, offshore engineering has become one of the subjects
of interest for research. Significant contributions to understand the concept of
construction of structures in offshore were made by different type of studies that always
helped Sub-Sea Engineer and researchers to do the needful applications for it.
Nowadays, numerical modelling, especially computer modelling is widely used by the
researchers for this study. Some authors who have done work in a similar fashion
adopting different techniques and concluding different results:
George Biddell Airy in the 19th century gave a theory In fluid dynamics, Airy wave
theory (often referred to as linear wave theory) gives a linearized description of
the propagation of gravity waves on the surface of a homogeneous fluid layer. The
theory assumes that the fluid layer has a uniform mean depth, and that the fluid
flow is inviscid, incompressible and irrotational.
Sir George Stokes, again gave a wave theory named as Stokes wave is a nonlinear and periodic surface wave on an inviscid fluid layer of constant mean
depth. Stokes' wave theory is of direct practical use for waves on intermediate and deep
water. It is used in the design of coastal land offshore structures, in order to determine
the wave kinematics (free surface elevation and flow velocities). The wave kinematics
are subsequently needed in the design process to determine the wave loads on a structure.
In 1992 Bill Madock et all evaluated the Canadian Standards Association Code for the
Design, Construction, and Installation of Fixed Offshore Structures in its application to
the design of an actual steel jacket structure. The evaluation compared the results of a
design based on the CSA standards to British Petroleum's GYDA platform, applying the
design criteria and environmental conditions used in the original design and focusing on
the jacket structure and the pile foundations only.
21
In 1995 Bea et al gave the simplified procedures to evaluate loadings imposed on

template type platforms and to evaluate the ultimate limit state lateral loading capacities
of such platforms and verification of these procedures have been accomplished by
comparing results from three dimensional linear and nonlinear analysis of various
template type platforms.
Chakrabarti S.K (1990) explained that in computing the wave load on the components
of offshore structures, various wave loads are computed with the help of various wave
theories such as airy wave theory, stokes higher order theory, cnoidal theory and Stream
function theory. He worked on the applicability of various wave theories in terms design
wave parameters. He also worked on the different effects of wave on the different type
of offshore structures.
Chaudhary, G.K and Dover, W.D. 1985 gives the fatigue damage calculation for
random loading on offshore platforms takes the form of a rainflow analysis of the
dynamic response of individual members to various sea states. They provided a
theoretical method for determining random load fatigue damage. In this case, an analysis
based on broad band random loading has been produced. Their theoretical approach
gives a fatigue life estimate which is slightly (6.6%) more conservative, for a typical
example, than a rainflow analysis.
Gerwick, B.C.Jr. in 1986 worked on the geotechnical and structural aspects of the
offshore structures. He worked on the topic related to the fluid-structure interaction and
soil-structure interaction where the structure was made up of prestressed concrete.
Srinivasan Chandrasekaran and Subrata Kumar Bhattacharyya (2012) worked on
the presence of extreme waves like freak waves, which is capable of causing irreparable
damages to offshore installations and (or) create inoperable conditions to the crew on
board. Knowledge on the extreme wave environment and the related wave-structure
interaction are required for safer design of deep-water offshore structures.
22
He worked on the Dynamic response of the Tension Leg Platforms (TLP) under these
extreme waves for different wave approach angles. Based on the analytical studies cared
out, he concluded that the TLPs are sensitive to the wave directionality when
encountered by such extreme waves; ringing type response is developed in TLPs which
could result in tether pull out.
Pierre Le Tirant in 1979 gave the idea of the geophysical and geotechnical survey
recommended before the installation of Jacket rigs especially in cohesive soils. He also
gave the new methods for estimating the amount of penetration in the spud cans or mud
mats according to the type of soil and the stratification of soil present. He also did the
finite element analysis on the foundations of jack up rigs in different soils so as to
calculate the foundation fixity of the legs.
Oana-Mirela Dobrot, Florentina Tocu and Costel Iulian Mocanu used numerical
methodology for which deals with the determining of stress state occurring in the
structure of the oil rig legs for various incidence angles of the wave. The hydrodynamic
forces and moments resulting from the FORHID programme were taken as loading
situations. The hydrodynamic wave loads acting on the legs of the offshore oil rig were
determined for various wave incidence angles. These hydrodynamic trials were applied
in the nodes of the structure of the oil rig legs, and the stress state was calculated by the
Solid Works-COSMOS/M programme. The stress variation graphs are shown in the
study.
Tim A. Newson worked on the FEA of the Jacket leg penetration, he did the punch
through analysis with the help of FEM modeling with ABASQUS and PLAXIS
software. His analysis was based on the concept of FEM but at the same time the exact
result that he determined was also based on the field observation (centrifuge testing). In
the component approaches one seeks to estimate wave loading on each deck member
and all equipment separately. Interaction between different structural components can
be taken into account by using shielding or blocking factors, which can be determined
by experiments (see e.g. Sterndorff, 2002) or computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
technique.
23
Obviously, when using this kind of approach, the deck must be modelled in detail. The
amount of equipment and members in a normal platform deck necessitates, for practical
purposes, computer software to carry out the calculations. Software based on the
recommendations by dr. Kaplan (Kaplan et al., 1995) is commercially available. More
detailed information about the different methods is given in the following: Company internal models Amoco (now part of BP) has a company internal wave-indeck load model, which was made available to HSE for comparison purposes (HSE,
1997b). It requires a detailed deck model.
Kaplan et al.s (1995) model uses stretched (Wheeler, 1970) linear wave theory and
requires a detailed deck model. The model includes drag, inertia and impact loads as
well as buoyancy. The formulation handles both horisontal and vertical forces and
includes time variation.
24
CHAPTER 4
ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES
Hydrodynamic wave loading on fixed offshore structures has been an issue of concern
to the offshore oil and gas industry. The analysis, design and construction of offshore
structures are 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 considerations in their design. In general, wave and current can be found together
in different forms in the ocean. The existence of waves and currents and their interaction
play a significant role in most ocean dynamic processes and are important for ocean
engineers
In addition, the range of possible design solutions, such as: Tension Leg Platform (TLP)
deep water designs; the more traditional jacket and Jacket oil rigs; and the large number
of sized gravity-style offshore platforms themselves, pose their own peculiar demands
in terms of hydrodynamic loading effects, 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-linearity in the description of
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 software is often required to be able to do so.
25
Fig 4.1 Sample offshore structure design
4.1 Basics of Offshore Engineering

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.
These subject areas, though not mutually exclusive, would include;
Hydrodynamics
Structural dynamics
Advanced structural analysis techniques
Statistics of extreme among others.
4.2 Hydrodynamics
Hydrodynamics is concerned with the study of water in motion. In the context of an
offshore environment, the water of concern is the ocean. Its motion, (the kinematics of
the water particles) stems from a number of sources including slowly varying currents
from the effects of the tides and from local thermal influences and oscillatorymotion
from wave activity that is normally wind-generated.
26
The characteristics of currents and waves, themselves would be very much site
dependent, with extreme values of principal interest to the LFRD approach used for
offshore structure design, associated with the statistics of the climatic condition of the
site interest.
The topology of the ocean bottom also has influence on the water particle kinematics as
the water depth changes from deeper to shallower conditions. This influence is referred
to as the shoaling effect, which assumes significant importance to the field of coastal
engineering. 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 water bottom
topology on the water particle kinematics is considered negligible, removing an
otherwise potential complication to the description of the hydrodynamics of offshore
structures in such deep water environment.
Fig. 4.2 Various Loads on the Oil Rigs
27
4.3 Wave Theories

Numerous water wave theories have been developed whichh are applicable to different
environments dependent upon the specific environmentals parameters, eg. Water depths,
wave height and wave period. Most of the wave theories that are normally used in the
design of an offshore structure bassed on these three parameters. While some theories
are avaikable that apply to a slopping bottom or other bottom conditions, the categories
that will be discussed here will be a limited to a flat bottom having a constant water
depth.
Unlike the ocean waves. All water wave theories assume that the waves are perodic and
uniform, having a period T and a height H. Note that the period of the wave is defined
as the time required for a crest to travel a distance of one wave length, and the height of
thr wave is defined as the time required for a crest to travel the adjacent trough of wave.
The wave length is the horizontal ditance between similar points on two successive
waves measured in the direction of propogation of the wave. For a periodic wave, the
speed of an crest in the wave is called the celerity. Since a succession of wave crest pass
a given point in space at a fixed interval of time, T, and since the length between the two
consecutive crests is the wave length L, the velocity of wave propgation or celerity, c, is
obtained by dividing the wave length L, by the wave period, T,
Eq 4.1
While discussing a wave theory, a boundary problem (BVP) consisting of a differential

equation and certain boundary conditions describing the various boundaries is solved in
an approximate way. In this chapter, the complete boundary value problem will be
examined and the various simplifying assumptions made in developing a particular wave
theory will be discussed.
28
For the simplest of wave theories, it is reasonably straightforward to solve the

differential equations which is illustrated in next sections. As will become evident, the
complete boundary value cannot be solve in general, even in the simple cases of uniform
water depths. There are two general types of approximate theory: one is developed
around the wave height as a perturbation (e.g., in deep water) while the other is
developed as function of water depth.
4.4 Airys Wave Theory
Airy wave theory uses a potential flow (or velocity potential) approach to describe the
motion of gravity waves on a fluid surface. The use of inviscid and irrotational
potential flow in water waves is remarkably successful, given its failure to describe many
other
fluid
flows
where
it
is
often
essential
to
take viscosity, vorticity, turbulence and/or flow separation into account. This is due to
the fact that for the oscillatory part of the fluid motion, wave-induced vorticity is
restricted to some thin oscillatory Stokes boundary layers at the boundaries of the fluid
domain.
Airy wave theory is often used in ocean engineering and coastal engineering. Especially
for random waves, sometimes called wave turbulence, the evolution of the wave
statistics including the wave spectrum is predicted well over not too long distances
(in terms of wavelengths) and in not too shallow water. Diffraction is one of the wave
effects which can be described with Airy wave theory.
Airy wave theory is a linear theory for the propagation of waves on the surface of a
potential flow and above a horizontal bottom. The free surface elevation (x,t) of one
wave component is sinusoidal, as a function of horizontal position x and time t:
Eq 4.2
29
Where,
a is the wave amplitude in metre,
cos is the cosine function,
k is the angular wavenumber in radian per metre, related to the wavelength as
Eq 4.2(a)
is the angular frequency in radian per second, related to the period T and frequency f by
Eq 4.2(b)
The waves propagate along the water surface with the phase speed cp:
Eq 4.2(c)
The angular wavenumber k and frequency are not independent parameters (and thus
also wavelength and period T are not independent), but are coupled. Surface gravity
waves on a fluid are dispersive waves exhibiting frequency dispersion meaning that
each wavenumber has its own frequency and phase speed.
Note that in engineering the wave height H the difference in elevation
between crest and trough is often used:
Eq 4.2(d)
30
valid in the present case of linear periodic waves.
Fig. 4.3 Airy Wave Theory
4.5 Ocean-Wave Spectra

Ocean waves are produced by the wind. The faster the wind, the longer the wind blows,
and the bigger the area over which the wind blows, the bigger the waves. In designing
ships or offshore structures we wish to know the biggest waves produced by a given
wind speed.
4.5.1 Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum
Various idealized spectra are used to answer the question in oceanography and ocean
engineering. Perhaps the simplest is that proposed by Pierson and Moskowitz (1964).
They assumed that if the wind blew steadily for a long time over a large area, the waves
would come into equilibrium with the wind. This is the concept of a fully developed sea.
Here, a long time is roughly ten-thousand wave periods, and a "large area" is roughly
five-thousand wave-lengths on a side.
31
Fig. 4.4 Wave spectra of a fully developed sea for different wind speeds according to
Moskowitz (1964).
To obtain a spectrum of a fully developed sea, they used measurements of waves made
by accelerometers on British weather ships in the North Atlantic. First, they selected
wave data for times when the wind had blown steadily for long times over large areas of
the North Atlantic. Then they calculated the wave spectra for various wind speeds, and
they found that the spectra were of the form (Figure 4.3):
Eq 4.3
32
where = 2 f, f is the wave frequency in Hertz, = 8.1 10-3, = 0.74, 0 = g/U19.5 and
U19.5 is the wind speed at a height of 19.5 m above the sea surface, the height of the
anemometers on the weather ships used by Pierson and Moskowitz (1964).
For most air flow over the sea the atmospheric boundary layer has nearly neutral
stability, and
U19.5 1.026 U10
Eq 4.4
Assuming a drag coefficient of 1.3 10-3.
The frequency of the peak of the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is calculated by
solving dS/d = 0 for p, to obtain
p = 0.877 g / U19.5.
Eq 4.5
The speed of waves at the peak is calculated from above formulae, which gives:
Eq 4.6
Hence waves with frequency p travel 14% faster than the wind at a height of 19.5 m or
17% faster than the wind at a height of 10 m.
The significant wave-height is calculated from the integral of S() to obtain:
33
Eq 4.7
Remembering that H1/3 = 4 < 2>1/2, the significant wave-height calculated from the
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is:
Eq 4.8
Fig. 4.5 Significant wave height and period at the peak of the spectrum of a fully developed
sea calculated from the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum using.
34
4.6 Morison Equation

In fluid dynamics the Morison equation is a semi-empirical equation for the inline force
on a body in oscillatory flow. It is sometimes called the MOJS equation after all four
authorsMorison, O'Brien, Johnson and Schaafof the 1950 paper in which the
equation was introduced. The Morison equation is used to estimate the wave loads in the
design of oil platforms and other offshore structures.
Fig. 4.6 Flow forces according to the Morison equation as function of time (a) Blue Line: - Drag Force
(b) Red Line: - Inertial Force (c) Black Line: - Total Force
The Morison equation is the sum of two force components: an inertia force in phase with
the local flow acceleration and a drag force proportional to the (signed) square of the
instantaneous flow velocity. The inertia force is of the functional form as found
in potential flow theory, while the drag force has the form as found for a body placed in
a steady flow. In the heuristic approach of Morison, O'Brien, Johnson and Schaaf these
two force components, inertia and drag, are simply added to describe the force in an
oscillatory flow.
The Morison equation contains two empirical hydrodynamic coefficientsan inertia
coefficient and a drag coefficientwhich are determined from experimental data. As
shown by dimensional analysis and in experiments by Sarpkaya, these coefficients
depend in general on the KeuleganCarpenter number, Reynolds number and surface
roughness. In an oscillatory flow with flow velocity (), the Morison equation gives
the inline force parallel to the flow direction: -
35
Eq 4.9
Where,
() is the total inline force on the object,
is the flow acceleration, i.e. the time derivative of the flow

velocity ()
the inertia force

force
and the hydrodynamic mass force
the drag force
, is the sum of the FroudeKrylov
,
is the inertia coefficient, and
the added mass coefficient,
A is a reference area, e.g. the cross-sectional area of the body perpendicular to

the flow direction,
V is volume of the body.
For instance for a circular cylinder of diameter D in oscillatory flow, the reference
area per unit cylinder length is
and the cylinder volume per unit cylinder
length is
is the total force per unit cylinder length.
. As a result,
Eq 4.10
Besides the inline force, there are also oscillatory lift forces perpendicular to the flow
direction, due to vortex shedding. These are not covered by the Morison equation, which
is only for the inline forces.
36
4.7 The API Choice of Hydrodynamic Coefficient

The present API procedure for the calculation of hydrodynamic loads on slender
offshore structures is described in API RP 2A. The updated API Recommended Practice
is based on a consistent treatment of all variables involved in calculating hydrodynamic
load. For a review of selection of wave kinematics models. A considerable increase in
hydrodynamic loads results from the use of updated hydrodynamic coefficients and
inclusion of current, especially if load reducing factors, such as shielding, blockage, etc.
are not considered.
Table 4.1 API recommendation
37
API recommends the following drag and inertia values for unshielded circular cylinders:
Smooth cylinders: - = 0.65, = 1.6
Rough cylinders: - = 1.05, = 1.2
These values are said to be appropriate for
The case of a steady current with negligible waves;
Or
The case of large waves with /D (KC Number) > 30
Where,
= maximum horizontal particle velocity at storm mean water level under the wave
crest from a two-dimensional wave kinematics,
= apparent wave period,
D = platform leg diameter at storm mean water level.
For wave dominant cases with /D < 30, the hydrodynamic coefficients for
nearly vertical members are modified by 'wake encounter'. Such situations may arise
with large diameter caissons in extreme seas or ordinary platform members in lower sea
states (typically considered in fatigue analysis).
38
CHAPTER 5
LABORATORY SOIL TESTING
5.1 General
Every site soil survey operation is associated with specific conditions depending on the
environment, geography, climatic condition, survey equipments available (or
ignorance) of the survey zone. Hence it is necessary to draw up a typical soil survey
program a sort of recipe to be applied step-by-step to each site. After having compelled
all the information of a logical nature which may be available on the zone, the soil survey
for the installation of a Jacket can roughly be broken down into two phases:a) In the first phase, a geological survey on the scale of the site is designed for:-
Identification of the sea bed and the superficial layers of the soil.
Detection of any shallow gas
b) In the second phase, a geotechnical survey at the exploration drilling point(s) is

conducted:-
Either prior to the installation of the Jacket, from a geotechnical survey ship
(SAMUDRA SARVEKSHAK in case of ONGC oil rigs).
5.2 Geotechnical Survey of Jacket Installation Location

The purpose of the geotechnical survey is to determine the type, thickness and
mechanical properties of the different formations below the actual installation location
of the Jacket, allowing estimated studies of leg penetration and stability of the structure.
The geotechnical survey is conducted either before the Jacket arrives on site or from the
Jacket during installation.
39
An onshore laboratory testing programme was planned and performed on the samples
available to confirm and supplement the findings of the offshore findings (investigation).
These tests are performed according to the Indian Standards. A summary of the onshore
lab. Testing programme is given below (Table 5.1):-
Tests
No. of Tests
Grain Size Distribution
17
Atterberg Limits
UU(Triaxial)
Table 5.1 Onshore Laboratory Tests
A summary of the onshore laboratory test results is given in appendix B on plate B1 to

B3. The Grain Size Distribution Curves are presented on the plates GS-01 to GS-14 for
hydrometer tests and sieve analysis in Appendix B. The plots of Unconsolidated Triaxial
Test (UU) are presented in Appendix B on plates LAB-UU-01 to LAB-UU-07 and UU1 to UU-5.
5.3 Soil Conditions
5.3.1 General
The soil conditions at the locations have been interpreted up to a depth of 107.50 m from
the CPTU tests results, on board test results and onshore laboratory test results. Soil
Classification and description is based on the laboratory classification test results
profiles of measured CPTU parameters and interpretation of CPTU data as per
classification systems proposed by Robertson (1990) and Wride (1998).
5.3.2 Stratigraphy
This section gives the layer wise soil-profile in a tabular form. Soil profile of the boring
RS-19 is described in Table 5.2.
40
Sl. No
Depth (m)
Soil Description
0.0 m -1.2m
Carbonate MUD, sandy, very soft, dark greyish
1.2 m - 4.0 m
Carbonate Sand, weakly to moderate cemented, dull

yellow with few shell fragments
4.0 m -13.0 m
Calcerous CLAY, silty, sandy, firm, highly plastic,

brownish black with few pockets
13.0 m-15.1 m
Calcerous Clay, silty, sandy
15.1 m- 18.2 m
Carbonate send, moderate to well cemented, bright

yellowish brownish
18.2 m-30.6 m
Carbonate CLAY, silty sandy, firm to stiff, medium

plastic in nature
30.6 m- 33.7 m
CLAY, stiff
33.7 m- 36.0 m
Siliceous Carbonate Sand, Weakly to moderately

cemented
36.0 m- 51.9 m
Calcerous Clay, silty sandy, stiff to very stiff, highly

plastic
10
51.9 m-53.0 m
SAND
11
53.0 m-54.5 m
CLAY, stiff
12
54.5 m-58.5 m
Siliceous Carbonate SAND, moderately to well

cemented
13
58.5 m-72.0 m
Carbonate SAND, moderately cemented
14
72.0 m-73.5 m
CLAY stiff
15
73.5 m- 78.0 m
Carbonate Sand, moderately to well cemented, pale

yellow
16
78.0 m- 86.0 m
Calcareous Clay, silty very stiff to hard , highly plastic
17
86.0 m -93.0 m
Carbonate SAND, moderately to well cemented
18
93.0 m 96.0 m
SAND, well cemented
19
96.0 m 102.3 m
Calcerous Clay, silty, hard highly plastic
20
102.3 m -106.0 m
Carbonate Sand, well cemented, grayish yellow
21
106.0 m -107.5 m
Siliceous Carbonate SAND, fine grained
Table 5.2 Description Of soil Layers

41
5.3.3 Soil properties and Design Parameters

5.3.3.1 Clays
A thin very soft sandy clay layer is observed in the soil profile starting at seabed up to
1.2m depth, followed by a weakly to moderately cemented sand layer of 2.8 m thickness.
Then there is an 11.1 m thick clay zone comprising of two clay layers ranging from firm
to stiff consistency as the depth increases. After 3.1 m thick cemented sand layers, 12.4
m thick to stiff clay layer is observed, followed by another 3.1 m thick clay layer at the
depth of 30.6 m. Another major clay layer of stiff to very stiff consistency is observed
in the soil profile between 36.0 m and 51.9 m depth. There is a stiff clay layer at the
depth of 53.0 m and a very stiff clay layer at a depth of 72.0 m, both having 1.5 m
thickness. One clay layer of very stiff to hard consistency of thickness 8.0 m is observed
at the depth of 78.0 m. lastly a hard clay layer, sandwiched between thick sand layers, is
observed from 96.0 m to 102.30 m depth.
The clay layers show increase in strength or constant strength as the depth increases.
Based on the results of carbonate content tests conducted on clay samples the clays have
been classified either as carbonate clay or calcareous clay.
Plasticity chart shows the clays to be medium to high plastic. The activity chart shows
clays to be inactive to medium active, mostly being inactive. The variations of liquidity
index, unit weight, water content and normalized undrained shear strength (UU Triaxial)
with depth is also presented graphically in Appendix B.
Liquidity index and normalized undrained shear strength (UU Triaxial) show a general
trend of decrease with depth.
5.3.3.2 Sands
First Sand layer is observed between depths 1.2 m and 4.0 m below the seabed having
weak to moderate cementation. Between depths of 15.1 m and 36.0 m, there are two
layers of thickness 2.3 m to 3.1 m having weak to strong cementation having clay layers
in between. One thin sand layer is observed depths 51.9 m and 53.0 m.
42
There is a thick sand zone having moderate to strong cementation between depths 54.5
m to 74.0 m, having one clay layer thickness at the depth of 72.0 m. There is another
sand zone of moderate strong cementation between depths 86.0 m to 96.0 m. Last sand
zone of 4.75 m thickness is observed between the depths 102.3 m and 106.0 m.
Carbonate content measured on the available samples on sand layers indicates sand layer
to be siliceous carbonate or carbonate sand. The design Friction angles on the sands were
evaluated from the estimated densities and soil types, the relative densities of sand layer
were estimated based on the correlation proposed by JAMIOLKOWSKI et al. 2001
based on Cone resistance and are presented on plates on C-9-1 and C-9-2. However this
correlation is based on silica sands and the nature of calcareous/carbonate sands-lower
crushing strength, Higher compressibility and arching effect causing low residual radial
stresses after pile driving- has been given due consideration while selecting design
friction angles.
The design friction angles vary from 30 to 35 degree for the sand layers. Limiting skin
friction of 20.0 KPa is recommended for all the sand layers. The limiting end bearing
values were selected on the basis of relative density, degree of cementation and cone
resistance. The recommended limiting end bearing value for sand layers vary from 3.0
to 6.0 MPa.
5.3.3.3 Silts
No silt layer is observed in the soil profile up to the investigated depth of 107.50 m.
43
5.4 Engineering Analysis

5.4.1 Axial Pile capacity
The American Petroleum Institute (API) provides design recommendations for axially
loaded piles in the API RP 2A publication titled Recommended Practice for Planning,
Designing, and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms (API 1993). Although this
method is not as commonly used by highway agencies as is Nordlund's method, it is
worth presenting here because the API recommendations are based on a large database
of axial pile load tests that is continuall evaluated and updated (Pelletier, e al. 1993).
Fig. 5.1 loading mechanism of a pile
Where QT is the estimated ultimate axial capacity, Q S is the ultimate shaft capacity
resulting from the surrounding soil in side shear, QB is the total ultimate tip load at the
base or tip of the Pile (Total indicates the weight of displaced volume of soil is included),
WP is the weight of the pile.
44
IN SANDS: - Ultimate axial bearing capacity in sands is calculated based on API RP2A1993 using k=0.7 in compression and k=0.5 in tension. Also, limiting unit skin friction
and unit end bearing values as given in the design parameters on plate No 1 and 2 are
used in engineering analysis.
() = () tan()
..Eq 5.1
The load capacity contributed by the shaft shear (QS) is calculated by integrating the
side shear stresses along the piles embedded length:
QS = 0 ()()
Eq 5.2
Where is the shear stress between the pile and the soil at the depth z, p (z) is the pile
perimeter at depth z, and L is the embedment depth of the pile.
The expression used for the ti or end-bearing of the pile is usually of the form: =
Eq 5.3
Where Ab is the tip or end area of the pile, and qb is the total ultimate end bearing or tip
stresses.
IN CLAYS:- Ultimate axial bearing capacity in clays is calculated is based on API

RP2A 1986.
For evaluating axial pile capacity in tension (Pull capacity), only the outer skin friction
has been considered.
Self-weight of pile and weight of the soil plug inside the pile have not been considered
in the calculation of ultimate axial capacity both in tension and compression which needs
to be taken into consideration during design.
45
Unit friction for skin friction and end bearing as derived from the design parameters are
presented in graphical form on plate nos.3 and 4 respectively. The ultimate capacity in
tension and compression of a 1.524 m diameter open ended pile is presented on plate no.
5.
5.4.2 Mud-Mat Bearing Capacity
The bearing capacity of a shallow strip footing is generally determined by the Terzaghi
method (Terzaghi, 1943). Terzaghis equation is based on an approximate solution
which uses superposition to combine the effects of cohesion, surcharge, and soil weight.
The resulting bearing capacity equation is typically written in the form: = + + .5
Eq 5.4
where the bearing capacity factors Nc, Nq and represent the effects of soil cohesion
c, surcharge q, and soil unit weight c, respectively, and B is the width of the strip footing.
These bearing capacity factors are all functions of the internal friction angle.

= tan( + )
4 2
.Eq 5.5 (a)
= ( 1) cot
.Eq 5.5 (b)
For the calculation of the Davis and Booker method is applied.
46
Fig. 5.2 Calculation for by various method
Mudmat ultimate bearing capacities for vertical load have been computed for square,
rectangular and triangular Mudmat without considering any factor of safety and
assuming that penetration into the sea floor does not occur.
The ultimate bearing capacity is plotted versus side B for square Mudmat, side B for
triangular Mudmat for isosceles right-angular shapes and with W for rectangular
Mudmat, (L/W=2). Seabed soil is sandy carbonate mud in very soft condition. The
thickness of the first layer has been assessed as 1.2 m. There is a cemented sand layer
from 1.2 m and 4.0 m below the very soft soil layer.
The recommended bearing capacity of Mudmat is shown in Plate No. 17 graphical form.
47
5.4.3 Jacket leg penetration analysis

Analysis of penetration of the standard ONGC spudcan with a diameter of 14.0 m and
preload of 45 MN was carried out. The bearing capacity curves for this spudcan is
presented in Plate No. 18- Bearing capacity-1 if the sand layer from 1.2 m to 4.0 m bears
the preload and Bearing Capacity-2. In the event of PUNCH THROUGH. The analysis
does not account for the lateral variability of the soil strata.
There is potential for punch through in the site due to combination of soil layers
existing near the seafloor. Final Penetration for the flat standard ONGC spudcan under
full preload (45 MN) is estimated to be about 1.0 m. The case is marginal due to
uncertainty in the strength of cementation in the second layer and relatively lower
strength of the underline clay layer. In the event of Punch-through, the penetration will
be about 7.0 m. The penetration refer to the bottom of the Flat spudcan below the mud
line.
48
CHAPTER 6
MATERIALS AND METHOD
A common approach to Oil rig modelling for FE analysis was adopted in order to
demonstrate the work, i.e., 3D solid model generation and FE analysis of Jacket
structure. A flow chart indicating step by step work and software used to carry out each
step is shown in Figure 6.1.
DATA ACQUSITION
SOLID MODEL GENERATION & EXPORT

EXPORT
ASSEMBLING OF COMPONENTS
FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS
Fig. 6.1. Flow chart showing whole research work in steps.
49
Steps comprising the complete analysis are: (i)
The Acquisition of data that preserves the geometrical information of Jacket rig
was acquired.
(ii)
Creo 2.0, a CAD package, was used for assembling of rigs and
(iii)
For the final step to investigate the mechanical behavior of the developed model,
FE analysis was done in ANSYS R14.5.
6.1 Data Acquisition

After doing the geotechnical survey i.e. after doing various tests on the soil sample we
have the option of choosing best possible diameter of the pile of the Jacket Oil Rigs.
There are 4 different standard diameter size that are used by the ONGC, and these are
1.524m, 1.676m, 1.82m and 2.13m, with .05m wall thickness. In our case we have taken
1.524m to be the diameter with the wall thickness .05m. In the Jacket rigs we have also
used bracings whose diameter is approximately .6m.
Main pile of 1.524
Bracings pile of .6
Fig 6.2 Dimensions of Jacket Oil Rigs
50
6.2 Solid Model Generation and Export

It is the 2nd phase in which we create the solid model of the Spud can (if necessary),
Main pile and the bracings in three different files in CREO 2.O. We do this because it
is almost very difficult to assemble the whole structure in a single CREO file. So we
create these three things differently. While creating the main pile we have to see to it
that, we either give space for the insertion of the bracings or we do some adjustment in
the main pile so as to accommodate. These three main piles are placed in such a way
that it represent the edges of an equilateral triangle of 8m size.
6.3 Assembly of the Components
CREO 2.0 gives an advantage of assembling various different models. Now, in our case
we can either insert the bracings inside the main pile than we can apply the welding
properties on their point of touching each other, or we can just have the nut bolt joint at
the intersection. .asm is the type of file for the assembly type of pile in the CREO 2.0.
This type of pile can be exported into ANSYS 14.5 so that the FEA analysis can be
done on it to get the result.
Final stage after modeling was to analyse the developed 3D solid model of Jacket oil
rigs. Static structural analysis was performed for Jacket oil rigs in ANSYS Workbench
R14.5. ANSYS, a CAD package, is an engineering simulation software which helps in
determining and improving weak points, computing life and foreseeing probable
problems are possible by 3D simulations in virtual environment. In simple language, it
is an FE program for linear and non-linear analysis.
51
6.5 FE model of Jacket oil Rigs

A three-dimensional finite element model was generated for static stress analysis by
using the ANSYS Software. The constructed femur model was imported from Creo 2.0
to ANSYS software as an ASM file to generate a volumetric mesh. For volumetric
meshing of the femur model, tetrahedron automatic mesh generation was used. Meshing
is a discrete representation of the geometry in the problem. It assigns smaller regions
over where boundary conditions are applied to solve the problem. Tetra meshing is a
3D meshing where tetrahedron, element shape, is a polyhedron composed of four
triangular faces, three of which meet at each corner or vertex. Three-dimensional finite
element Tetra mesh model of Jacket oil rigs contains 93,543 elements and 114,137
nodes for the element type solid187.
6.6 Material Assignment
In this study Jacket oil behavior was assumed as a homogeneous isotropic linear elastic
material, i.e. we have assumed material properties of the Jacket rigs to be of Structural
Steel. The consideration of heterogeneous to homogeneous material helps make FE
Analysis, especially meshing part, easier. In this study, material can be assigned in two
ways, either in Creo or in Finite element module. 50 Here material properties are
directly assigned in ANSYS. The average mechanical properties of each type of
Structural steel are shown in Table 6.1 which were extracted from CES selector
(Cambridge Engineering Selector, an engineering materials selection tool).
52
Table 6.1 Material Properties for the Structural Steel
53
6.7 Loading
In order to set the structure in deformed equilibrium position corresponding to
permanent static loads (self weight, weight of equipment and live loads etc.), these load
must be applied in a static manner i.e. without dynamic effects before the dynamic
analysis is initiated. It is chosen to apply the permanent loads without dynamic effects
during one second before the dynamic analysis is initiated. Thereafter, the dynamic, i.e.
environmental, loads are applied and the dynamic effects (inertia, and damping if
included) are switched on. In this way, structural motion arising from loads that by
nature are static is avoided. This first static second is not included in any of the
presented results in this chapter.
Self-weight
The self-weight of all members is generated automatically. In addition, a number of node
masses representing e.g. deck weight and weight of equipment are applied.
Wind
No wind loads are included in the analyses.
Hydrodynamic loads
Wave load on jacket structure The wave load is specified by wave theory, wave height
(h), period (T), direction, phase and water depth (d). Airy Wave theory is used, and the
structure is subjected to one wave cycle. The load histories are based on a wave with
and annual probability of exceedance of 10 -4 (a 10 000 years wave), and the water depth
is varied in order to represent different levels of subsidence. Tide and storm surge is
assumed to be included in the different water depths.
54
Current The current speed at the still water level is set to 1.0 m/s, and there is further
provided a depth profile of current velocity for each analysed model, see Sections 5.3.3
and 5.4.3. Since the depth profiles do not extend above the still water level, current
velocity values in the wave crest are taken from the data of NOAA. This results in e.g.
varying surface current through the wave period for the analysis of Jacket Structure.
6.8 Loading Value and Boundary Condition

Self-weight
The generated weight of all members sums up to 3.78 106 kg. In addition, a node mass
of 11 106 kg representing the deck weight and weight of equipment and personnel is
applied at node 40041 (which is located in the center of gravity of the deck structure).
Hydrodynamic loads
The reference force values for the wave-in-deck force are given in Table 6.2.
Water depth d
Crest max
Deck inund. sd
Fd,max [MN]
75
20.75
0.25
2.406
76
20.68
1.18
11.15
77
20.62
2.12
19.71
78
29.56
3.06
28.03
79
20.50
4.00
36.09
80
20.44
4.94
43.89
81
20.38
5.88
51.45
Table 6.2: Jacket Model dynamic forces to be used in analysis
55
The hydrodynamic load histories including dynamic load and current load are shown in
Figure 5.10 for the different analysed water depths. The peak wave in deck load is taken
to occur at t = 4.9 s, when the wave crest is at the deck front wall. The force peaks at
this time instant represent the wave-in-deck forces, which increase in size as the water
depth and the corresponding deck inundation increase.
If ignoring the wave-in-deck force, there are only minor variations in the magnitude of
the horizontal wave load as the water depth increases.
The load histories are based on a 33 m high (10 000 years-) wave with a period of 16 s.
Load scenarios based on water depths d = 76,77,,81 m are analysed.
100
d = 76 m
d = 77 m
d = 78 m
d = 79 m
d = 80 m
d = 81 m
80
60
40
20
0
20
8
Time [t]
10
12
14
16
Fig. 6.3: - Hydrodynamic load history generated for Jacket model for H = 33 m and T = 16 s
for different water depths
56
CHAPTER 7
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
7.1 Results
In the dynamic analyses the time steps used range from 0.005 s to 0.05 s. This
corresponds to 0.003Tn and 0.03Tn, respectively.
The displacement is recorded at a reference point at deck level, node 40041 with
coordinates x = 1.084 m, y = 1.107 m and z = 99.000 m. This is the node at which the
mass representing the weight of deck and equipment is applied.
Performance based on pushover analysis Figure 7.1 illustrates the different static
collapse modes for Jacket model for two different inundation levels. As the water depth
increases and the deck load increases accordingly, a larger part of the total force has to
be transferred from the deck through the braces in the upper bay and down into the lower
part of the jacket structure. These braces are originally not intended to transfer large
wave loads, and will therefore represent the bottlenecks when the platform is exposed
to large wave-in-deck loads.
57
(a) Depth 75 m / inundation 0.25 m
(b) Depth 81 m / inundation 5.88 m
Fig. 7.1 Static collapse modes for different water depths and corresponding inundation levels
The static ultimate capacity for base shear is 160.2 MN for 0.25 m deck inundation,
while it is dramatically reduced to 79.8 MN for 5.88 m inundation. This change in
capacity and stiffness curve can be seen in Fig 7.2, in which the static stiffness curve is
compared for the load pattern following from different water depths. Further, the clear
decrease in initial elastic stiffness with increasing deck inundation should be noted from
the figure. This is due to the fact that a larger part of the forces acts on the deck level,
having a larger effect on the displacement of the reference point in the deck.
58
200
d
d
d
d
d
d
d
150
100
50
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
Displacement [m]
0.7
0.8
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
75 m
76 m
77 m
78 m
79 m
80 m
81 m
0.9
Fig. 7.2: - Stiffness curves for in terms of base shear (BS) for different water depths
Performance based on time domain analysis The resulting displacement histories for
different water depths (and corresponding inundation levels) are given in Figure 7.3.
Fig. 7.3: - Dynamic displacement response for different water depths / inundation levels
The displacement response does, as expected, increase with increasing subsidence /

inundation. This increase gets more pronounced as the wave load approaches and
exceeds the static ultimate capacity. However, where pushover analyses indicate a total
collapse for the peak in the load time history (i.e. the ultimate capacity is exceeded at
least once during the load history), dynamic time domain simulations compute a large
but limited maximum displacement.
59
Static elastic response
0.4
Dynamic response
0.2
0.2
0
10
12
14
16
Time [s]
Fig. 7.4:-Dynamic and static response history, water depth 78 m /inundation 3.06 m
In Fig. 7.5 time histories of accelerations are given for three chosen analysis cases, the
ones having smallest and largest water depth and inundation, and the one with largest
resulting accelerations.
3
d = 75 m
d = 78 m
d = 81 m
0
1
2
3
0
8
Time [s]
10
12
14
16
Fig. 7.5: Acceleration response for different water depths / inundation levels
For d = 75 m the response is purely elastic, and the accelerations are relatively small,
maximum acceleration is 0.23 m/s2. The case with d = 78 m has moderate acceleration
during the first cycle (1.4 m/s2), but the largest accelerations in the following cycles is
obtained for this case, u = 2.2 m/s2. During the first cycle, the d = 81 m case has the
largest acceleration, u = 2.1 m/s2. Thereafter the accelerations for this case are reduced
to approximately 1.3 1.5 m/s2.
60
The reason that accelerations in cycles following the first cycle are reduced for deeper
water than 78 m, is that the larger loads lead to a significant degree of plastic material
behaviour resulting in damping of the motion response.
The term dynamic capacity (to sustain transient loads) cannot be uniquely defined or
interpreted because dynamic response depends on both the structural natural period and
the frequencies of the external load. Intuitively, one might interpret dynamic capacity
as the most onerous load history that the structure is able to sustain. However, the fact
that the structure can sustain a given load history does not give any information about
the response to other load histories.
For practical purposes, a displacement limit related to one or more given reference points
in the structure may quantify the capacity to withstand dynamic load. If the load history
leads to exceedance of this displacement, the capacity is by definition exceeded. An
absolute maximum allowable limit for the displacement can be decided from structural
considerations, e.g. a given fraction of the displacement corresponding to total collapse.
However, there might be other limitations on the displacement, e.g. safety limitations.
There is little help in having the platform deformed but standing, if rupture of pipes
could lead to explosions and subsequent fires. The platform must also, in a deformed
state, be able to withstand subsequent (large) waves, this is the ALS (accidental limit
state) requirement in structural standards.
Static pushover performance versus dynamic performance The main results from
the analyses are shown in Table 7.2 in numerical form. Elastic load limit and
corresponding displacement are extracted at first yield, regardless of the location of the
yielding element.
61
Table 7.2: results from non-linear static and dynamic analyses, h =33 m, T = 16 s
At 0.25 m inundation, the total wave load is smaller than the elastic load limit of the
structure. The dynamic maximum displacement does not exceed the displacement
corresponding to the elastic load limit, and no yielding is detected during dynamic
analysis for this case. At the next two inundation levels, sd= 1.18 m and sd= 2.12 m, the
wave load peak is still smaller than the elastic load limit, however the elastic limit
displacement is exceeded during dynamic analysis due to dynamic amplification,
meaning that the structure experiences some yielding.
At 3.06 m inundation the total wave load exceeds the elastic load limit. At 4.00 m
inundation the dynamic maximum displacement is larger than the displacement
corresponding to static ultimate capacity. At sd= 4.94 m and sd= 5.88 m (corresponding
to water depths of 80 m and 81 meters, respectively) the load peak in the dynamic
analyses exceeds the static ultimate capacity of the structure. Static displacement, in the
meaning time domain displacement excluding dynamic effects, is theoretically infinite
for these last two cases. However, the displacements estimated from dynamic analyses
are 0.728 m and 1.030 m, respectively. If these displacements are admissible, the
platform can by definition withstand these load histories, and thus it can withstand these
particular waves that generate loads exceeding the static ultimate capacity.
62
Plots of the structure with yielding zones highlighted show that the collapse modes are
similar during dynamic and pushover analyses for all analysed water depths
respectively. An example is given in Figure 7.8.
(a) Pushover case
(b) Dynamic case
Fig. 7.6: Structural plastic state at dynamic max. Displacement, water depth 78 m
Contribution from stiffness and inertia In Figure 7.7 the variation of the structural
restoring forces and the inertia forces is illustrated. The response is clearly dominated
by restoring forces, but for d = 78 m and d = 81 m it can be seen that around the time of
maximum response the inertia force amplifies the response.
63
80
External force
Restoring force
Inertia force
60
40
20
0
20
0
8
Time [s]
(a)
10
12
14
16
d=75 m
(b)
d=78 m
120
External force
Restoring force
80
Inertia force
40
40
0
10
12
14
16
Time [s]
(c)
d=81 m
Fig. 7.7: Contributions from structural restoring forces and inertia forces
64
For d = 75 m / sd = 0.25 m, the inertia response is insignificant, a fact that supports the
use of quasi-static considerations for jackets under regular wave loading not including
topside impact.
7.1 Acceleration levels

NS 4931 (1985) gives recommendations related to the sensitivity of human beings to
low frequency horizontal vibrations in buildings and fixed offshore installations. For the
first natural vibration frequency for jacket model, which is 0.63 Hz, the limit
acceleration which an average human being will feel is given as approximately 0.017
m/s2. For the same frequency, 0.0043 m/s2 is given as a threshold value below which
nobody will notice the vibrations. The acceptable acceleration level of the structure
when performing non-routine or exacting work is approximately 0.19 m/s2.
NORSOK S-002 (2004) provides acceptable acceleration limits for (human) exposure
to continuous vibrations from machinery during a 12 hours working day. The
recommendations are only given for vibration frequencies 1 Hz and above, thus
recommendations for 1 Hz are considered herein. For areas that are normally unmanned,
2 m/s2 is an upper limit of acceptable acceleration, whereas 0.05 m/s2 is acceptable for
process, utilities and drilling areas.
The accelerations calculated for model are considerably larger than the comfort levels
indicated in NS 4931. The magnitude is more in agreement with the upper acceptable
limit for continuous vibrations in normally unmanned areas given in NORSOK S-002.
All limit values are, however, related to operating situations, whereas wave-in-deck
slamming is an extreme event. 2 m/s2 acceleration corresponds to accelerating from 0 to
216 km/h in 30 seconds. In a car this is to be considered a considerable but not excessive
acceleration, being less than half the acceleration relevant for the most powerful sports
cars. As structural ground acceleration it will, however, surely be experienced as a
frightening event. A certain fright should be considered acceptable, in lieu of the fact
that wave-in-deck loading is an accidental event.
65
It is, though, a relevant question if the different equipment located on the platform is
designed to sustain such accelerations, and if required can maintain operation. It
is known that generators can trip (stop temporarily) in case of large accelerations. Such
an incident was e.g. observed on Sleipner A for a large wave impact on the platform legs
(Gudmestad, 2005).
7.3 Discussion
Dynamic performance vs. static
It is important to be aware that the static ultimate capacity of a platform does not
uniquely characterise the structural performance, neither does the load - displacement
curve. The capacity depends on the load pattern, i.e. the distribution of external forces
on the structure. Static ultimate capacity is, however, a unique and informative measure
of nonlinear structural performance when related to a given load distribution. Dynamic
performance should, on the other hand, rather be evaluated against allowable
displacements and accelerations at relevant locations in the structure for each single load
scenario.
All the dynamic analyses carried out in this chapter show dynamic amplification
compared to the static analyses. This corresponds to findings in HSE (1998). The
amplification ranges from some 15% to some 54% (for water depth d = 80 m and d =
81 m for jacket model the term dynamic amplification does not give any meaning, since
the wave load exceeds the static capacity).
The example model has shown to be able to respond to dynamic loads with short
duration peaks exceeding the static ultimate capacity of the structure with only limited
deformations, as opposed to global collapse. In other words, for the situations analysed
herein dynamic considerations are beneficial and important, as they increase the
confidence in the structural performance compared to static considerations.
For the structures and loading conditions analysed herein, it is clear that it is the ductility
of the structure, as opposed to the inertia of the mass that increases the structural ability
to resist external loading when accounting for dynamic effects.
66
Initial values
In the analyses all initial values of displacement, velocity and acceleration are set to
zero. In reality, these values will be different from zero at the time when the analysis is
initiated. The choice of initial values will influence the maximum response in the way
that they will be determining for where in a vibration cycle the structure will be at deck
wave impact, and it will be determining for the magnitude of the response immediately
prior to wave impact.
HSE (2003) analysed a Jacket rig and showed that the largest deck displacement
occurred if the wave hit the hull when it had the largest displacement in the direction
opposite to the wave heading direction, i.e. at the time the hull has the largest
acceleration in the direction of the wave heading, but that the variation in response
caused by different phasing is relatively small.
Reasonable initial values different from zero can only be included based on a
precondition of either loading or response. However, one set of initial values would lead
to reduced maximum response whereas another set would lead to an increase. It would
therefore be necessary to analyse the actual extreme wave scenario several times to
cover a representative range of wave or response conditions prior to wave impact and
determine the condition that results in the largest maximum response. One should in that
case have the results from the above mentioned HSE study in mind.
Based on the near static nature of jacket response to wave loading, implying small
accelerations, and the results from the HSE study, it is considered likely that setting the
initial values equal to zero does not imply significant mis estimation of the maximum
response following from the response immediately prior to the wave impact. However,
the magnitude of the mis estimation can only be revealed by running analyses with
different preconditions, being a recommended task for the future.
67
CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
8.1 Geotechnical investigation

The soil profile at the location is mixed profile having clay and sand layers within the
investigated depth of 107.50m. Weak to strong cementation is observed in some of the
sand layers.
The typical ultimate compressive capacity of 35.0 MN is achieved at the penetration
depth of about 90.0m below mud line for an open pile.
Mudmat bearing capacity for the vertical loading has been presented for various shapes
and sizes for Mudmat at the level of mud line. The bearing capacity curves are plotted
with the ultimate values of three primary shapes.
There is a potential of punch through in the site due to the combination of soil layers
existing near the seafloor. Final Penetration of the flat standard ONGC under full preload
is estimated to be around 1.0 m. The case is marginal due to uncertainty in the strength
of cementation in the second layer.
The aim of this research has been to improve the understanding of the dynamic types of
loading on the response of jacket platforms. Finite element analyses have been used to
simulate response time series. In addition, and as an inherent part of the work, simplified
methods for calculation of wave-in-deck load magnitude and time history have been
evaluated and the use of a simplified model to predict response to wave-in-deck loading
has been investigated.
In the following, the work carried out is summarised. The item lists comprise the
conclusions drawn from each part of the work.
68
Time domain finite element analyses of jacket structures

Jacket model with specific brace configurations, and with specific post collapse
behaviour, are analysed under static and dynamic assumptions using finite element
methodology. The external loading comprises extreme wave loading, current and
buoyancy loading. Increasing Dynamic loading is simulated by increasing the water
depth, corresponding to increasing seabed subsidence.
The following conclusions are drawn from the results of the analyses:
Dynamic forces influence a structure not only by their magnitude, which is

significant compared to the wave load on the jacket itself, but also because they
alter the load distribution in a manner that introduces high forces into (relatively)
weaker parts of the structure such as the deck legs (immediately below the deck).
Whereas static ultimate capacity is a unique and informative measure of

nonlinear structural performance when related to a given load distribution, the
dynamic performance should be evaluated against allowable response values,
such as displacements and accelerations, at relevant locations in the structure for
each single load scenario.
Typical jacket structures with a first natural period of a few seconds will
experience dynamic amplification, i.e. increase of response, when subjected to
dynamic load. This applies to both the displacement response and the base shear
forces.
Typical jacket structures that can be characterised as ductile may resist dynamic
loading with higher peak load than its static capacity relevant for the same load
distribution. For load durations typical for dynamic loading, this favourable
effect is attributed to the beyond-ultimate-capacity ductility of the structure as
opposed to any attenuating effects of the inertia of the mass (in fact, all analyses
show dynamic amplification).
69
On the other hand, brittle jackets may collapse under dynamic loading that is
considerably smaller than the static capacity associated with the load distribution
in question.
In case of dynamic loading, acceptable displacements may correspond to

excessive accelerations. It is therefore important to pay explicit attention to
acceleration response during (re)assessment of structures. In the present study,
accelerations are considerably more pronounced for the brittle structural model
than for the ductile one, although the latter has larger displacement response.
8.3 Recommendations for further work

It is further desirable to perform investigations of dynamic response under wave-in-deck
loading including damping and relevant pre-load histories implying initial values
different from zero.
The effect of using overturning moment instead of base shear as a measure of loading
and capacity in the FEM models could be a further step from the present work. It would
also be interesting to use a load time history as opposed to the solid curve (the curves
represent displacements, however, loads are given by multiplying with the elastic
stiffness).
Acceleration levels are identified as a point of concern in this work, however the effect
of brittle vs. ductile structural behaviour on acceleration levels could be investigated
more thoroughly.
Waves that are large enough to reach the deck of an offshore platform generate not only
horizontal but also vertical forces. The vertical forces are of considerable magnitude,
and their influence on the dynamic performance of offshore structures should be subject
to further investigations.
Validation of the recommendations relating to wave-in-deck load time history through
tank tests of wave-in-deck loading on jacket decks would be strongly recommended.
Particularly the validity range in terms of inundation should be examined.
70
REFERENCES
[1] American Institute of Steel Construction [AISC], (www.zentech-usa.com) Inc.,

Chicago, Illinois, USA.
[2] American Petroleum Institute [API], 1996. (RP-2A 20th edition, Recommended
Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore PlatformsWorking
Stress Design dated December 1996.
[3] Bill Madock, 1992;''Verification of CSA code for fixed offshore steel structures''.
[4] Bea et al. 1995;''Verification of simplified method to evaluate the capacities of
Template Type Platforms'',27th annual OTC, Houston, Texas, USA
[5] Chakrabarti.S.K, 2005, Hand book of offshore engineering, Elsevier.
[6] Dawson.T.H, 1983 ; ''Offshore Structural Engineering'', Elsevier.
[7] DNV (os-c201 &os-c101), Practice on the joint and connection design of jacket
platforms, Environmental Conditions and Environmental load.
[8] ISO 19902, 2007; Petroleum and natural gas industries - Fixed steel offshore
structures. - 1st edition.
[9] Rupam Mahanta, 2011; ''Pile Design for Fixed Platform for Hydrocarbon
Exploration in Indian Offshore'', Proceeding of Indian geotechnical conference, Kochi.
[10] Sadeghi K, 2001; ''Coasts, Ports and Offshore Structures Engineering''.
[11] Thomas Gjerde, 2011;''Structural Analysis of Offshore Module''.
[12] Raman, H., Jothishankar, H. and Venkatanarasaiah, P. (1977). Nonlinear wave
interaction with vertical cylinder of large diameter, Journal of Ship Research, 21: 1, 120124.
[13] Zhu, S. (1993). Diffraction of short-crested waves around a circular cylinder, Ocean
Engineering, 20: 4, 389-407.
71
[14]. Zhu, S. and Moule, G. (1994). Numerical calculation of forces induced by shortcrested waves on a vertical cylinder of arbitrary cross-section, Ocean Engineering, 21:
7, 645-662.
[15]. Harish, N., Sukomal, M., Shanthala, B. and Subba, R. (2010). Analysis of offshore
jacket platform, Natl. Conf. on Sustainable Water Resources Management - SWaRM
20; NITK, Surathkal; India; 7-9 Jan 2010.
[16]. Nagamani, K. and Ganapathy, C. (1996). Finite element analysis of nonlinear
dynamic response of articulated towers, Computers &Structures, 59: 2, 213-223.
[17]. Dynamics of Offshore Structures, James F. Wilson - Technology - 2002 - 344
pages
[18]. Engin, G. R. Tugrul, E. and Umit, G. (2011). Effect of Changes on Joint
Connections of Steel Lattice Towers due to Environmental Loads, International Journal
of Engineering and Industries, 2: 1, 30-37.
[19]. Jain, K. (1996). Dynamics of offshore structures under sea waves and earthquake
forces, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, Offshore Technology, 1, 191-198.
[20]. Fayed, S.M.M., Zidan, M. and Harb, M. (2005). Dynamic response of fixed
offshore structures under environmental loads, Eleventh International Colloquium on
Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, 11th ICSGE, 17-19 May 2005, Cairo Egypt.
E05SR26, 1-16.
[21].http://latorebondeng90245.tripod.com/api_rp2a.pdf
[22].http://huniv.hongik.ac.kr/~geotech/key%20reference/API%20Offshore%20Struct
ure%20standards%20RP%202A%20and%20much%20more%20(Mangiavacchi%2020
05).pdf
[23].http://www.isope.org/publications/proceedings/ISOPE/ISOPE%202013/papers/vo
l2/13NGZ-05Abdalla.pdf
[24].http://authors.library.caltech.edu/45978/1/AxiallyLoaded%20Centrifuge%20Pile
%20Tests.pdf
72
[25].http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Scott_Sloan/publication/222671401_Numeric
al_limit_analysis_solutions_for_the_bearing_capacity_factor_N/links/53d73ef20cf228
d363eadf8e.pdf
[26].http://www.eng.ox.ac.uk/civil/publications/reports-1/ouel_2054_95.pdf
[27].https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RNGW9CucxQsC&pg=PA230&dq=Chakra
barti+S.K&hl=en&sa=X&ei=v7RmVazhMMxuATCrYKYCQ&ved=0CCUQ6AEwA
Q#v=onepage&q=Chakrabarti%20S.K&f=false
[28].http://www.ejse.org/Archives/Fulltext/2007/Special/200705.pdf
[29].NPTEL online courses on Offshore Engineering
73
ILLUSTRATION
ILLUSTRATIONS
Design Soil Parameters

Ultimate Skin Friction Values
Ultimate End Bearing Values
Ultimate Axial Capacity
Mud-Mat Ultimate Bearing Capacity
APPENDIX A
APPENDIX A
General Location Map

Positioning Data
APPENDIX B
APPENDIX B
Summary of Laboratory tests

Grain Size Distribution Curve
UU Triaxial Tests

FSI On Oil Structure

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

FSI On Oil Structure

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

STABILIZATION AND FINITE ELEMENT

ANALYSIS OF THE OFFSHORE OIL RIGS

ATUL KUMAR SINGH

Prof. SUMANT N. SHINDE

DEPARTMENT OF APPLIED MECHANICS

Prof. Sumant N. Shinde

Prof. (Dr.) Mrs. M.S.Kulkarni

Department of Applied Mechanics

Department of Applied Mechanics

Prof. Dr. L.K.Khisrsagar

EXAMINATION APPROVAL SHEET

2. Name of Internal Examiner: ___________________.

3. Name of Internal Examiner: ___________________.

1.2 Aim of the Research

1.3 Scope of the Research

CHAPTER-2 THEORETICAL BACKGROUND

2.1 Anatomy of Oil rigs

2.2 Jack-up Oil rigs

2.3 Jacket Type Oil rigs

2.4 Geotechnical Soil Testings

2.4.1 Grain Size Distribution Test

2.4.2 Atterberg Limits Tests

2.4.3 Triaxial Shear Tests

2.5 Finite Element Analysis

2.5.1 History of FEA

2.5.2 Steps Involved In FEA

2.5.3 Advantages of FEA

CHAPTER-3 LITERATURE RIVEW

CHAPTER-4 ENVIRONMENTAL FORCES

4.1 Basics of Offshore Engineering

4.3 Wave Theories

4.4 Airys Wave Theory

4.5 Ocean-Wave Spectra

4.5.1 Pierson-Moskowitz Spectrum

4.6 Morison Equation

4.7 The API Choice of Hydrodynamic Coefficient

CHAPTER-5 LABORATORY SOIL TESTINGS

5.2 Geotechnical Survey of Jack-Up Installation Location

5.3 Soil Conditions

5.3.3 Soil properties and Design Parameters

5.4 Engineering Analysis

5.4.1 Axial Pile capacity

5.4.2 Mud-Mat Bearing Capacity

5.4.3 Jack-up leg penetration analysis

CHAPTER-6 MATERIALS AND METHOD

6.1 Data Acqusition

6.2 Solid Model Generation and Export

6.3 Assembly of the Components

6.4 Finite Element Analysis

6.5 FE model of Jack-Up oil Rigs

6.6 Material Assignment

6.8 Loading Value and Boundary Condition

CHAPTER-7 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

7.2 Acceleration Level

CHAPTER-8 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE

8.1 Geotechnical investigation

8.2 Finite Element Analysis

8.3 Recommendations for further work

Table 2.1 Various types of Soil Testing

Oil And Natural Gas Corporation

Finite Element Analysis

Finite Element Method

Western Offshore Basin