OTCD-ROM DOCUMENT REPORT

OTC 2908
INELASTIC DYNAMIC ANALYSIS OF TUBULAR OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
Peter W. Marshall, Shell Oil Co., William E. Gates, Dames and
Moore, and Stavros Anagnostopoulos, Shell Development Co.

Copyright 1977, Offshore Technology Conference

This paper was presented at the 9th Annual OTC in Houston, Tex.,
May 2-5, 1977. The material is subject to correction by the
author. Permission to copy is restricted to an abstract of not
more than 300 words.

ABSTRACT

A computer program for inelastic dynamic analysis of tubular

offshore structures has been developed This includes a strut
element which models the inelastic stretch and post-buckling
behavior of braces, and a failure algorithm based on limiting
ductility at plastic hinges. Application to a pile-supported
example platform, subjected to extreme shaking well beyond normal
elastic design limits, demonstrates survival in spite of damage.

INTRODUCTION

Current design criteria for fixed offshore structures specify a

design "Strength Level" earthquake for which the probability of
occurrence is comparable to that of the design wave. This level
of shaking is also consistent with that used to analyze important
onshore structures.

In addition, the 1977 edition of RP 2A will call for specific

investigation of platform overload response for a "Ductility
Level" earthquake whose intensity is twice the design Strength
Level. Alternatively, designers may further wish to investigate
platform survivability for higher estimates of the "Maximum
Credible" earthquake having peak ground velocity on the order of
4 to 5 ft/sec.

The cost penalty for having to design for these larger quakes on
a strength basis can run to tens of millions of dollars per
structure. However, if offshore structures can be properly
detailed to maintain integrity during inelastic deformation,
earthquake motions beyond the design elastic capacity may result
in permanent distortion and localized damage--but not collapse.
Thus the order-of-magnitude increases in design criteria cited
above do not necessarily require a corresponding increase in
platform strength and cost, if this inelastic ductility reserve
can be taken into account.

Various approaches to inelastic analysis have been reviewed in a

companion paper. A common feature of these analytical efforts is
that they rely heavily on empirical descriptions of tubular
member behavior in the inelastic range.

- Page 1 -
 OTCD-ROM DOCUMENT REPORT

ULTIMATE CAPACITY OF TUBULAR MEMBERS

Beginning with an API-sponsored research project in 1972, Sherman

et al have been steadily expanding our knowledge of the inelastic
behavior of tubular members of the types used in offshore
structures.

The initial series of tests dealt with the flexural capacity of

fixed-end and cantilever beams. Tubes with a D/t ratio of 36 or
less (1300/Fy) were found to qualify as compact sections, in the
sense that they possessed sufficient plastic hinge rotation
capacity (prior to local buckling) to develop the theoretical
limit load for fixed-end beams. Tubes with D/t of up to 48
(1700/Fy) also demonstrated considerable ductility (3 to 10 times
yield deformation) and developed the theoretical limit load prior
to failure, although local buckling initiated earlier. Tubes with
D/t of up to 92 (3300/Fy) easily exceeded yield deformation, but
lacked sufficient rotation capacity to develop the theoretical
limit load; such behavior might be termed semi-compact.

A plot of test curvatures, as determined from strain gage

measurements, is given in Figure 2. To use these critical
strains, or curvatures directly as the criterion of
failure can lead to the paradoxical situation that, in a discrete
element (or segmented beam) analysis, concentration of curvature
at the end hinges can lead to unrealistically low estimates of
capacity and ductility, especially when a large number of
increments are used. A more useful empirical approach to the
problem has been derived as follows.

Overall member behavior may be treated by an elastic beam plus

plastic mechanism model, in which the total lateral deflection is
given by

(1)

P. 235

- Page 2 -