Course Offshore Vanucci

Master SPI DSME - Dimensionnement
des Structures Mécaniques dans leur

Environnement
2ème Année
Cours Mécanique pour l’Industrie du Pétrole
Part 2: Offshore Engineering
P. Vannucci
Foreword Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

paolo.vannucci@meca.uvsq.fr
This course on Offshore Engineering is a basic course serving as an
introduction to the problems concerning design and construction of
offshore platforms, normally used in oil industry.
So, some topics will be considered in this course, namely the
principal ones that concern the structural design of an offshore
platform; some other topics, like for instance marine installation
procedures, corrosion protection, facilities and plants engineering
will not be considered here.
The course is addressed to undergraduate students having already
a good knowledge in structural engineering and fluid mechanics.
Versailles, May 2006
1
Content
Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Chapter 1: Introduction 7
General considerations
Platform functions and types
Historical background
Design process
Standards and regulations
Chapter 2: Design actions 65

Types of loads
Operational loadings
Deformation loads
Accidental loads
Environmental loadings
Storm selection
Wind forces
Ice forces
Snow loads
3
Content Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Current forces
Marine growth
Earthquake actions
Design load combinations
Chapter 3: Hydrodynamics of wave forces 140

The actions of a fluid on an immerged body
Inertial force: the added mass
The drag force
Wave theories
Slender and large bodies
First order wave action on a slender body
The case of a moving body
Second order wave action on a slender body
First order wave action on a large body
The Mc Camy and Fuchs solution
The Garrett solution
4
2
Content

The simplified Garrett solution
The Ogilvie solution
Second order wave action on large bodies
Something about the case of multiple bodies
Oscillating large bodies
Wave slamming
Vortex shedding
Numerical methods for the wave action
The spectral method in wave forces calculation
Chapter 4: Dynamical considerations 373

Introduction
Response to regular waves
Response to an impulsive force
Response to irregular waves: the spectral analysis
The wave force spectrum
Bibliography
The most part of information, figures and diagrams of this course,
where not explicitly indicated, have been taken from the following
sources.
Books
T. Sarpkaya & Isaacson: Mechanics of wave forces on offshore
structures. Van Nostrand, 1981.
B. Mc Clelland & M. D. Reifel (Eds.): Planning and design of fixed
offshore platforms. Van Nostrand, 1986.
O. C. Zienkiewicz, R. W. Lewis & K. G. Stagg (Eds.): Numerical
methods in offshore engineering. J. Wiley, 1978.
M. G. Hallam, N. J. Heaf & L. R. Wotton (Eds.): Dynamics of marine
structures. Report UR8 – CIRIA, 1978.
Internet sites
http://www.kuleuven.ac.be/bwk/materials/Teaching/master/wg15a/l0200
.htm
http://www.nts.no/norsok
http://www.offshore.tudelft.nl/
3
Chapter 1

Introduction
7

General considerations 9
Platform functions and types 10
Historical background 48
Design process 52
Standards and regulations 58
4
General considerations

Offshore engineering is a branch of civil engineering involved with
the construction of sea structures, far form the coast.
Such structures are normally called platforms. They are usually
employed in oil industry, but there are also platforms for
broadcasting, navigational lighting, radar surveillance, space
operations, oceanographic research and so on.
The general design requirements for an offshore platform are similar
to any industrial structure; the first step in the design is to develop a
concept of the structure based on its functional requirements,
environmental restraints and construction method. The function of
an offshore platform is to provide a secure working support, so the
platform must be structurally adequate to withstand both operational
and environmental loading; in addition, it must be practical to
construct and economically feasible.
Nevertheless, due to their characteristics, to environmental and
geographic aspects, to the construction procedures, offshore
platforms are very peculiar structures, and several unusual aspects
must be taken into account in its design phase: environmental
loadings, construction phases, economic aspects, linked to the type,
construction procedure and date and to the installation site.
9
Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

During the last five decades, several types of offshore platforms
haves been designed and used; this variety of platform types is due
to different factors: technological and scientific progress, economical
factors, need to exploit deeper natural reservoirs, ecological
constraints.
A possible, of course incomplete, classification is the following one.
steel jacket
steel tower
rigid steel gravity
Fixed offshore concrete gravity
platforms
free standing tower
guyed tower
compliant
spar tower
TLP
drilling ship
Mobile offshore platforms semi-submersible
10
jack up
5

Fixed offshore platforms are normally used for production, while
mobile platforms are almost exclusively used for exploration and
drilling phases.
The difference between fixed and compliant platforms is in the way
they face environmental (namely wind and wave) lateral actions.
As its name clearly indicates, a fixed platform is a traditional
structure, in the sense that its deformation under lateral loads is
small, but it is located into the sea water.
Unlike fixed, compliant platforms are designed to move under lateral
forces, so that the effects of these forces are mitigated. The trade-off
in a compliant platform is between excursion amplitude and
restraining force.
Compliant platforms are used in deep water, where the stiffness of a
fixed platform decreases while its cost increases, and they are the
only technical solution in very deep waters (> 500 m).
The fluid-structure interaction is a capital aspect in platform design,
but it assumes a biggest role in the case of a compliant platform.
11

General scheme of offshore platforms in relation with water depth.
drilling ship
semi-submersible TLP
jack-up
jacket
www.mms.gov
12
6

Steel jacket: it is the most
classical and widely used
offshore platform. A typical
jacket is shown in the figure.
It is composed of three
principal parts: the deck,
carrying the topsides (living
quarters, drilling derrick,
consumables, facilities,
helideck, flare etc.), the
jacket itself and the
foundation piles.
Steel jackets are normally
used in shallow to moderate
deep waters (from 20 to 100
m), but they have been used
up to 500 m of water.
13

If not too big, jackets are built in a
dock and then charged onto a
barge by a crane. Large jackets
www.offshore-technology.com
are built on one side, directly on a

barge or on rails to be the skidded
onto a barge.
An important characteristic of a
jacket is a small floatability: in fact,
legs are not plugged, as they are
the templates for the piles, and the
braces are normally too small to
ensure the necessary buoyancy.
So, a barge is needed to carry
them to the field, where the jacket

is put into water by a crane, for
small jackets, or directly skidded or
rolled off the barge (launching
operation) for large jackets.
14
7

In the first case, the design phase
must take into consideration the
lifting phase, while in the second
cases a complete analysis of the
launching phase must be done, in
order to asses the transient stress
distribution and to control the actual
behaviour of the jacket during the
transportation and the launching
phases, namely if an additional
buoyancy is needed and if the jacket
touch the sea bottom during
launching.
Numerical investigations are normally
used to simulate these phases, which
considerably condition the design of
a steel jacket. In the next pages,
these phases are outlined.
15

http://community.webshots.com/album/126570186ZWQFUs
Launching phases of a steel jacket.
16
8

Two pictures of a jacket installed by a crane and of the mating of a
deck and a jacket.
17

The construction phases of a jacket. 1: construction in a coast yard;
2: transportation by barge on
the oil field;
3: launching of the jacket.
1
www.doris-engineering.com
3 2
18
9

Another characteristic of steel jackets is the foundation system: as
previously said, piles are directly inserted into the legs and they
directly support the deck. Sometimes, especially for larger platforms,
additional skirt piles are necessary. Once the piles driven, they are
grouted into the legs to join them to the platform.
Once the piles installed and grouted, the deck is placed at the top of
the jacket by a crane. Normally, all the installments and facilities are
already installed onto the deck before its mating with the deck.
www.rigzone.com
www.structurae.de
19

Steel tower: it is a large jacket where
the piles cannot be inserted in the
legs mainly for economical reasons.
In fact, too long piles are too
expensive. So, when the platform is
located in deep waters, the jacket
becomes very heavy and the piles
cannot be as long as the legs. They
become skirt piles inserted in sleeves
around the outside of the legs.
In this way, the legs are plugged and
normally sufficient to ensure the
buoyancy: the jacket does not need a
barge to be carried on the site, as it
floats (eventually with auxiliary
buoyancy) and can be towed. This is
very convenient both for economical
and construction aspects.
They exist tower structures installed in
more than 400 m water depth.
20
10

Some relevant achievements of jacketed structures.
21

Steel gravity platforms: this type of structure, rarely used, uses its
own weight to counter the lateral actions due to wind and waves that
tend to overturn the platform: the weight is used as a stabilizing
force.
Nevertheless, the real reason for using gravity platforms is the
nature of the soil: when it is of solid rock, it is impossible to drive
piles into it, so the gravity solution is the only possible one.
Normally, gravity platforms are concrete platforms, but in some
cases a steel solution can be adopted, in relation with several
factors, mainly economic considerations.
Normally, the structure has a certain number of large tanks, flooded
by water or by crude oil, to ballast the platform and provide the
necessary weight to counter overturning lateral forces.
These tanks, in the transportation phase, provide the necessary
buoyancy.
An important feature of all the gravity platforms is that they can be
removed for demobilization or re-use.
22
11

The Maureen Alpha platform is a steel
gravity platform with a weight of
112000 t, height of 241 m.
It has been installed in 1983 in the
North Sea; in 2001 it has been removed
and replaced on another oil field.
www.tecnomare.it
www.paroscientific.com
www.raeng.org.uk
23

Loanga platform
(Nigeria): it is a steel
gravity platform, with
inclined risers to optimize
the exploitation of the
field.
24
12

Concrete gravity platforms: they are the hugest and most
impressive structures ever built.
In this platforms, the steel structure supporting the deck is totally or
partially replaced by a concrete structure of large dimensions.
www.ogp.org.uk
www.ogp.org.uk
25

Concrete gravity platforms are used when some particular
circumstances are present:
economical factors: in some cases, the construction of a very large
concrete structure can be cheaper than the construction of a steel
structure;
ecological factors: a concrete platform can be very huge, so as to
concentrate onboard some industrial treatments of the crude and to
allow a great stocking capacity in the ballast cells;
construction conditions: the pile driving operation for a steel jacket
needs usually 5 to 10 days; in the North Sea it is rare to have such a
period of fine weather; the installation in the oil field of a concrete gravity
platform, complete with its deck, requires a shorter period (1 to 2 days);
decommissioning aspects: concrete gravity platforms can be
decommissioned and eventually re-used;
soil conditions: when the soil is made of rock it is impossible to drive
piles into it: the gravity solution is then the only one possible;
geographical conditions: the presence of calm and deep waters not far
from the oil field is an important factor for the construction phases.
26
13

The above factors have often been determinant in the choice of this
kind of platforms in the North Sea.
Nevertheless, rather recently concrete gravity platforms have been
commissioned in other parts of the world (East Russia, Philippines
and so on).
These structures can reach a height of 400 m and weigh more than
800000 t.
www.ogp.org.uk
27

Source: www.ogp.org.uk
28
14

Source: www.ogp.org.uk
29

It is important to understand the construction phases of this kind of
platforms: the fundamental aspect is the Archimedes' force.
In fact, the concrete substructure is built onshore, in a dock under
the sea level.
Once the base is ready, the dock is flooded and the base floats; it is
then towed in deeper but calm waters, where the construction of the
substructure continues on the floating base.
www.sir-robert-mcalpine.com
30
15

Once the substructure ready, it is towed in sufficiently deep and
calm waters (a fiord gives the optimal conditions) for the mating
operation: the deck, carried by two barges with all the topsides, is
mated to the concrete substructure just by an operation of ballasting
and deballasting the concrete substructure with water.
All these operations are outlined in the following scheme.
31

Malampaya concrete gravity platform (Philippines; the first concrete
gravity platform in Asia): all the construction phases.
1. construction in a dock under the sea level
2. construction of the towers
3. flooding of the dock: the platforms is ready

to be towed
32
16

4. towing of the concrete substructure 6. mating
www.malampaya.com
5. ballasting of the concrete substructure
7. the final platform
Source: www.arup.com
33

The disaster of Sleipner A: this platform produces oil and gas in
the North Sea in a water depth of 82 m. The first concrete base
structure for Sleipner A sprang a leak and sank under a controlled
ballasting operation during preparation for deck mating in
Gandsfjorden outside Stavanger, Norway on 23 August 1991.
The loss was caused by a failure in a cell wall, resulting in a serious
crack and a leakage that the pumps were not able to cope with. The
wall failed as a result of a combination of a serious error in the
finite element analysis and insufficient anchorage of the
reinforcement in a critical zone.
A better idea of what was involved can be obtained from the photos
in the following page. The top deck weighs 57,000 t, and provides
accommodation for about 200 people and support for drilling
equipment weighing about 40,000 t.
When the first model sank in August 1991, the crash caused a
seismic event registering 3° on the Richter scale, and left nothing
but a pile of debris at 220 m of depth. The failure involved a total
economic loss of about $700 million.
34
17

The post accident investigation traced the error to inaccurate finite
element approximation of the linear elastic model of the cells (using
the popular finite element program NASTRAN). The shear stresses
were underestimated by 47%, leading to insufficient design. In
particular, certain concrete walls were not thick enough. More
careful finite element analysis, made after the accident, predicted
that failure would occur with this design at a depth of 62 m, which
matches well with the actual occurrence at 65 m.
Source: http://www.ima.umn.edu/~arnold/disasters/sleipner.html
www.ima.umn.edu
www.ima.umn.edu
35

Free standing towers: they are classical towers but so slender that
their structural behavior is that of a compliant structure: large sway
displacements and high oscillating period.
Baldpate: the highest, freestanding compliant structure in the world.
Characteristics:
water depth: 501 m;
sway response cycle: 30 s;
lateral displacement: 3 m;
cross section: 42.6 x 42.6 m (bottom),
27.4 x 27.4 m (top);
weight of the tower:
28900 t;
weight of deck and

topsides: 2700 t;
foundation: 12 piles
driven for 130 m.
36
18

Guyed towers: these compliant platforms are composed by a
slender jacket, normally pin-joined at its base, whose vertical stable
position is ensured by the buoyancy of the structure itself and by a
series of mooring catenary lines.
The structure can oscillate under the lateral actions, the restoring
force being provided by the buoyancy and the mooring lines. The
clump weights provide additional restraining forces in case of storm,
when they are lifted off the seafloor.
These platforms are used for water depth in the range 200-600 m,
and they can be re-used.
37

SPAR towers: these platforms are composed by a large steel tube
as substructure directly supporting the deck and topsides.
The tube is ballasted so as its floating stable equilibrium position is
vertical (including topsides), and moored by tensioned risers and by
mooring lines (catenaries).
On the lateral surface of the large vertical cylinder there are
helicoids, installed to counter vortex-shedding.
www.offshore-technology.com www.offshore-technology.com www.offshore-technology.com
38
19

TLP (Tension Leg Platforms): they are floating structures
anchored to the seafloor by a series of vertical tendons (tethers) pre-
tensioned by extra-buoyancy. The tethers are made by steel pipes.
A TLP is composed by 4 principal parts: the foundation template, the
tethers, the hull and the deck.
Some TLPs (e. g. Heidrun) have a concrete hull.
TLP are very large structures, able to host
great payloads. So, they are used for great
fields and can host some refining processes
and have a good storage capacity.
TLP can be used from 150 m of water depth
on, and theoretically there is no limit of water
depth for their use.
The restoring force is given by extra
buoyancy; this is obtained deballasting the
TLP hull once the tethers installed.
TLPs can be re-used.
39

The constructing phases of a TLP are similar to those of a concrete
gravity platform, and are sketched in the figure.
a: construction of the hull in a dock;
b: towing the hull to the mating site;
c: towing the deck to the mating site;
d: mating;
e: tethers positioning;
f: deballasting for tensioning the tethers.
www.rigzone.com
40
20

TLPs have known a wide diffusion all over
the world in the last decade. The water
depth, in 20 years, has been multiplied by a
factor of ten.
Jolliet Snorre Auger Heidrun Ursa
water depth (m) 536 395 872 345 1158
diam. col. (m) 12,2 24,4 22,6 24 26
column height (m) 54
dimension (m) 55 x55 100 x 100 87,6 x 103,1 110 x 110
hull's weight (t) 1950 43700 21772 20321
topsides weight (t) 4170 30000 35380 26018
displacement (t) 16602 106000 66225 290610 88450
41

Some pictures of TLPs (source: Atlantia Offshore LTD).
Magnolia
Heidrun
Marlin Snorre
42
21

Recently, a new TLP concept has been developed: it is that known
as mini TLP.
In this solution, only one column is present, just as in the case of
spare towers.
The column is anchored to the
seafloor by pretensioned tethers that
are fixed at the end of three
pontoons at the bottom of the
cylinder.
These TLP have a less payload
capacity, and are normally used for
deep water small fields.
43

Drilling ships: like all the mobile systems, drilling ships are used
mostly for the drilling phase, but they can be used, at least
temporarily, also as FPS (Floating Production System).
A drilling ship is, as its name indicates, a common ship equipped
with a drilling system (a derrick tower).
It is maintained in its position by a system of mooring catenaries,
eventually assisted by servo-motors and GPS positioning.
44
22

Semi-submersibles: as their name indicates, these are special
ships, normally composed of two pontoons, some columns and a
deck. The deck is equipped for all the drilling operations.
A semi-submersible is a complete platform, that can navigate as it is
furnished of motors. Once in place, its positioning is provided by a
system of catenaries normally controlled by a GPS system.
Recently a concrete semi-submersible
has been constructed.
45

Jack-ups: these are special mobile platforms,
http://community.webshots.com/photo/126570186
normally used for the drilling operations.

They are triangular barges, completely

equipped for the drilling operations and
disposing of three truss legs.
These legs can be lifted
or lowered by motors.
http://community.webshots.com/album/126570186ZWQFUs
When the legs are

lifted, the jack-up can
navigate just as a
http://community.webshots.com/photo/126570186
common ship. Once

arrived on the field, the
jack-up lowers the legs
so as to be fixed in the
drilling place and it lifts
itself at the right height
above the sea level.
46
23

In this course, only fixed platforms will be considered, as the case of
mobile platforms concerns much more naval engineering.
Nevertheless, several considerations which will be made in the
following, such as dynamic response, wind and wave force analysis
and so on, concern as well mobile platforms, namely jack ups.
47
Historical background Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

1896. Summerland, California: the first oil and gas operations over
water, with wells drilled from piers extending from shore.
1909 or 1910. Ferry Lake, Louisiana: wells drilled using a wood
deck erected on a platform supported by cypress trunks driven as
piling.
1924 and after. Lake Maracaibo, Venezuela: wells drilled from
wooden platforms supported on timber pilings.
1930s: the oil industry moves into the marsh and swamplands of
South Louisiana, and then, as a natural extension, into shallow
waters of the Gulf of Mexico, using existing technology for timber
structures.
1937. Gulf of Mexico: the first platform close to shore; it is a
traditional timber-pile structure.
1945. Gulf of Mexico: Magnolia Petroleum Company builds a
wooden structure in about 6 m of water and drills the first offshore
well remote from shore.
48
24

1947. Gulf of Mexico: the first steel platform is installed out of sight
of land, in 6 m of water by Superior Oil Company, and another in 5.4
m of water by the Kerr McGee-Phillips-Stanolind group. These early
steel platforms were fabricated entirely offshore. They were
supported by a large number of small steel pilings (40-60) driven in
varying directions and to varying depths. After the pilings were
driven, horizontal pipe braces were laid out on the construction
barge and cut to fit.
1948. The first prefabricated substructure sections assembled on
the site.
1950. The first onshore fabrication
of unitized substructures, referred
to as templates or jackets. The
steel jacket was placed on the
ocean floor, where it acted as a
template for the steel piles that
were driven through its tubular
legs. The first steel platform (1947).
49
Historical background Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

1955 to 1978. The water depth for steel jacket platform construction
passes from about 30 to 311.8 m: a progression of ten times in 20
years.
1973. North sea: the first concrete gravity platform, Ekofisk, is
installed in 70 m of water.
1983. Gulf of Mexico: Exxon installs the first guyed tower, Lena, in
304 m of water.
1984. North Sea: Conoco installs Hutton, the first TLP, in 147 m of
water, used as a drilling and production platform.
1991. Bullwinkle, the highest rigid steel jacket is installed in 412 m of
water.
1995. The highest concrete platform is installed in 330 m of water.
1998. Baldpate, the highest steel jacket, is installed in 501 m of
water: it is a compliant free standing platform.
1999. A TLP is installed for the first time in more than 1000 m of
water: Ursa, in 1158 m of water, in the Gulf of Mexico.
2005. The TLP Magnolia is installed in 1425 m of water.
50
25

1600
Jackets 2005; 1425

1400 TLP 2004; 1311
Concrete
1200 1999; 1158
Water depth (m)
1000 1997; 980

1994; 872 1996; 894
800
600
1989; 536
1998; 501
400 1978; 311,8 1991; 412

1995; 330
1976; 258,6 1989; 217
200 1993; 250
1975; 144
1984; 147
1965; 68,5 1977; 151
1947; 6 1955; 30
1973; 70
0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
Year
51
Design process Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The design of an offshore platform is a very complex process, as
several different aspects must be taken into account.
Normally, in a preliminary phase data concerning the industrial
activity, the construction facilities, the environmental conditions must
be collected.
These data concern the payload, that is the total weight, surface and
distribution of the topsides facilities, installments and plants; all this,
of course, depends on the kind of industrial activity of the platform
(see hereafter).
Then, the environmental and geographic conditions must be known;
the design storm must be selected and the characteristic wave
determined, which is fundamental to assess the wave lateral forces
on the platform.
The wind characteristics must also be determined, in order to
evaluate the maximum horizontal force acting on the superstructure.
The soil stratigraphy must also be known, which is capital for
foundation design.
52
26
Design process

In fact, the number and length of piles, which are in connection with
soil properties and stratigraphy but also with the platform
dimensions and with the amount of horizontal actions, can affect
greatly the design of the platform. Moreover, the existence of bad
soil layers or of solid rock can suggest, and eventually impose, the
choice of a gravity platform.
The construction phases must always be taken into account during
the design process. In fact, small jackets and decks are lifted and
installed by cranes, and so these phases must be considered and
submitted to structural calculation, as very different from the normal
conditions the jacket and the deck are designed for.
Greater jackets are skidded onto barges and then launched into the
sea, eventually with the aid of a crane or of floating units. Also these
phases must be carefully considered and analyzed, as very different
from the usual situation of the jacket.
53

Finally, the transitory phase of pile driving must be studied: during
this phase, the jacket must not overturn under the action of
moderate waves.
In the design phase, the corrosion aspects and the marine growth
must be considered: for the first problem, an additional thickness of
the steel members is used (normally 5 mm), and also the use of
sacrificial anodes, while for the latter an extra thickness (about 50
mm) is taken into account to calculate the wave action and the total
immersed weight.
Another important factor is time: it is always important to construct
the platform in as less time as possible, for evident economical
reasons, and this can affect considerably the structural choices and
the construction phases.
For rigid structures installed in water depths to about 100 m, static
analyses are normally adequate, because these structures are
sufficiently stiff, so that dynamic effect can be safely ignored.
54
27
Design process

Unlike this case, that is in deeper water and anyway for any situation
in which the fundamental period of the structure exceeds 3 sec
(compliant structures), the effect of cyclic platform motion caused by
wave action becomes an important factor and must be carefully
analyzed: the fluid-structure interaction becomes an important
problem and must be properly taken into account in the design
phase.
Usually, a preliminary design is done, taken into consideration a
cardinal rule in offshore engineering: the onshore work must be
maximized and the offshore work minimized, and this for economical
reasons.
This preliminary design is useful to obtain the overall dimensions of
the platform, the number of piles and so on.
Once this preliminary design done and approved, a detailed design
is done, in which all the structural parts are studied and calculated in
detail.
55

In this phase, also the exact construction
sequence is attentively considered and taken
into consideration in the structural calculations.
The knowledge of the climatic and geographic
data allows to determine some fundamental
dimensions of the structure. ag
In fact, once the LAT (Lowest Astronomical a
Tide) and the design wave known, the height h LAT

tmax
of the jacket can be determined:

h = LAT + tmax + a + ag
Here, a is the wave amplitude, tmax is the

maximum tide and ag is the so-called air-gap,
a safety height, normally 0.5 m.
Actually, no point of the deck must be
positioned under the height h, and this to put
all the installments off the wave action.
56
28
Design process

The most important parameter, however, in the design phase is the
economical aspect: this point conditions very much the choice of the
structure type.
In the figure, it is shown a comparison of the relative cost trends for
different platform types, for mild-sea (e.g. the Gulf of Mexico) and for
extreme-sea conditions (e.g. the North Sea).
It is apparent that the cost of bottom-supported platforms increases
rather quickly with the water depth: beyond a certain water depth,
these are no more cost-effective.
57
Standards and regulations Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The offshore installments must be safe to protect the human,
marine, and coastal environments, and to preserve the very
considerable investments of time and resources involved.
It is the purpose of this section to identify the methods by which
responsible parties seek assurance of the structural integrity of
offshore platforms.
Until the late 1960s, structural integrity in the U.S. offshore industry
was largely the responsibility of the designers, who worked to a
variety of standards drawn from coastal and onshore engineering
experience.
The first published design standard for fixed offshore platforms was
issued in 1969 by the American Petroleum Institute (API).
Actually, the structural integrity can be checked through one of three
similar, but different, procedures known as verification, certification,
and classification, having the characteristic that each is carried out
by specialist organizations independent of both the owner and the
designer.
58
29

The object of quality assurance procedures is to verify that the best
available technical and environmental knowledge has been applied
during the phases of design, construction, installation, and operation
of an offshore platform.
Classification is a quality assurance service provided by one of the
private organizations known as classification societies, and begins
during the design phase of a structure.
Criteria for classification are the society’s published standards,
known as rules or guides. The procedure begins with submittal of
engineering calculations, specifications and fabrication drawings so
that the society can verify compliance of the design with the rules.
During the subsequent phases of construction, installation, and
operation, surveys are conducted as necessary to ensure complete
and continuing adherence to standards.
The classification procedure includes periodic inspections and
special damage surveys to ensure that integrity and serviceability
are maintained throughout the life of the installation.
59

Well-known classification societies include the American Bureau of
Shipping, Det Norske Veritas (Norway) and Lloyd’s Register of
Shipping (U.K.).
These and other societies have expanded their scope of services
beyond the traditional classification of vessels of commerce to
encompass many other types of marine structures, including
offshore structures.
Certification is a quality assurance procedure under which the
owner or a government mandates adherence to specified standards
or rules for design or construction and requires verification of
compliance by one of a limited number of authorized certification
agents.
While an authorized certification agent may apply the standards of
its own organization in the process of evaluation, the standards
specified by the owner or government having jurisdiction prevail in
cases of conflict.
60
30

Examples of assuring structural integrity by certification are the
procedures adopted by the U. K. and by Norway.
In the U.K. regulations stipulate that a fixed offshore structure must
be certified by American Bureau of Shipping, Det Norske Veritas
(Norway), Lloyd’s Register of Shipping (U.K.), Bureau Veritas
(France), Germanischer Lloyd (Germany) or Halcrow Ewbank and
Associates Certification Group (U. K.).
The U.K. regulations make it clear that the owner has the
responsibility for sound design and construction as well as adequate
maintenance of the offshore installation.
Norwegian regulations specify only the Norwegian Petroleum
Directorate (NPD) as the approval agency, but NPD customarily
contracts with independent review agencies to confirm compliance
with its rules. The owner carries responsibility for assuring structural
integrity.
61

Verification is the procedure used in the U.S. to assure structural
integrity of offshore platforms. It is administered by the government
under the Platform Verification Program.
In the USA, verification is mandatory for a new platform and for
major modifications to an existing platform if any of the following
conditions will exist:
it is installed in water deeper than 120 m;
it has a natural period greater than 3 s;
it is installed in an area having unstable bottom conditions;
it is installed in a frontier area;
it uses an unusual design concept in comparison to typical installations
in the region.
In 1979, a study conducted in the USA revealed that in the Gulf of

Mexico, over 32000 platform years of service had been accumulated
with 37 platforms lost.
62
31

Of these, 34 losses were due to overloading from hurricane waves,
and 3 losses occurred because of hurricane wave loading combined
with wave-induced motion of unstable sea-floor deposits. This
represents a failure rate of 0.1 percent annually.
By 1984, five years after the period covered by the above statistics,
approximately 14000 platform years of service had been added
without further losses.
Present offshore technology, standards, and regulations provide
adequate safety of fixed offshore structures against general
collapse.
The general knowledge about this topic has spread rapidly all over
the world and at present all the countries have similar and
equivalent rules.
63

Nevertheless, there are some rules that are considered as reference
norms:
API RP 2A - Recommended Practice for planning, designing,
constructing fixed offshore platforms. In the following of this course, if
not specified differently, API norms are intended to be used (abridged in
API);
Det Norske Veritas – Rules for the design, construction and inspection
of off-shore structures (abridged in the following with DNV);
British Standard 6235 – Code of practice for fixed offshore structures
(abridged in the following with BS);
DOE – Offshore installations: guidance on design and construction;
German norms.
NTS: Norsok Standard – Actions and action effects (abridged in the
following with NTS – Norwegian Technology Standards, or Norsok
Standard).
64
32
Chapter 2

Design actions
65

Types of loads 67
Operational loadings 68
Deformation loads 77
Accidental loads 79
Environmental loadings 81
Storm selection 82
Wind forces 99
Ice forces 114
Snow loads 127
Current forces 128
Marine growth 131
Earthquake actions 133
Design load combinations 137
66
33
Types of loads

As for any other type of structures, loads acting upon an offshore
platform can be divided into two different main classes:
permanent (dead) loads;
variables (live) loads.
In turn, these two classes can be divided into several subclasses of
loads:
Permanent loads are composed of structural loads, operational dead
loads, deformation and hydrostatic permanent loads.
Variable loads are composed of operational live loads, environmental
loads, accidental loads, variable hydrostatic and deformation loads.
Structural load: it is the self weight of the structure constituting the
platform; hence, it is a result of the design process.
Hydrostatic loads: they are the buoyancy of some submerged
members, buoyancy that, for a part of it, can be also variable as a
function of the immersion (depending upon tides and waves). It must
be remarked that hydrostatic loads are essential in floating
structures, as they give the global stiffness of the structure.
67
Operational loadings Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Operational loadings: they are all the loadings which are inherent
to the proper use and functions of the platform.
So, each technical equipment onboard the platform (production and
process moduli, but also the appurtenances, i.e. the boat landing,
the helideck, the cranes, the flare boom and so on) and each bulk
material and technical pieces (e.g. drilling tubes) used onboard for
different purposes are operational loads.
Usually, operational loadings are divided into:
topsides;
consumables;
human weights.
Topsides: it is the whole system hosted by the platform, normally by

the deck: process units, pumps, generators, drilling units, cranes,
helideck, flare, living quarters, bridges, boat landing and so on.
Topsides are permanent loads.
68
34

Consumables: it is the weight of all the items and liquids that must
be stored onboard for production, treatment and so on: fuel (diesel
or gas condensate), potable water, waste treatment, corrosion
inhibitors, lubricants, drilling tubulars, drilling mud, chemicals for
various treatments and so on.
Human weights: it is the weight of the personnel onboard; it is often
already considered in the weight of the living quarters.
In the design process, all these weights are input data.
In fact, once the production capabilities decided, the designers are
able to decide what goes onboard and its dimensions.
Normally, topsides facilities, like for instance living quarters or
process units, are pre-assembled and standardized items.
So, once decided the number and type of items to be used, the
designer is able to know the topsides weights and dimensions, and
following the norms concerning mutual distances of units, to decide
the deck: arrangement and dimensions.
69

It must be recalled that pre-fabricated units or pre-designed items
(like a helideck) apply generally speaking a complex load to the
platform structure.
For instance, the action applied by a flare to the deck of the platform
consists not only of vertical loads, but of all the loads applied by the
truss of the flare, which can have also horizontal components.
In addition, the loads given by a modulus are not, in general,
uniformly distributed, but they are applied in some singular precise
points, which support the topside weights: of course, this affects the
deck design.
However, in a first design phase, some average uniform loads can
be used for pre-dimensioning: from 2 t/m² for usual platforms up to 4
t/m² for North sea platforms.
A more rigorous method is to utilize the following figures to obtain
topside weights and deck areas. The data in these figures are from
installed platforms.
70
35

Topsides weight as a function of production rate.
71

Deck area as a function of production rate.
72
36

Actually, once the deck arrangement chosen, all operating loads are
usually given by the operator and the equipment manufacturers.
An example of detailed operational loads is given in the following
table.
Loads to be taken into account (kN/m2) For portions of the structure For the
structure as a
whole
Zone considered Flooring and Other

joints components
Process zone (around wells and large-scale machines) 5 5 2.5
Drilling zone 5 5 2.5
Catwalks and walking platforms (except emergency exits) 3 2.5 1
Stairways (except emergency exits) 4 3 0
Module roofing 2 1.5 1
Emergency exits 5 5 0
STORAGE
Storage floors - heavy 18 12 8
Storage floors - light 9 6 4
Delivery zone 10 10 5
Non-attributed area 6 4 3
73

Notes:
In the process and drilling zone, for loads on a portion of the structure,
the load must be accumulated with a point load equal to the weight of
the heaviest part likely to be removed, with a minimum value of 5 kN.
Point loads are assumed as being applied to a 0,3m x 0,3m surface.
In the absence of specific data from the manufacturer, and at an

early design stage, the following values are recommended in BS
norms:
crew quarters and passageways: 3,2 KN/m2;
working areas: 8,5 KN/m2;
storage areas: γ H KN/m2;
with
γ is the specific weight of stored materials, not to be taken less than
6,87KN/m3;
H is the storage height (m).
74
37

The Norwegian NTS in Norsok Standard gives the following average
accidental (i.e. variable) loads for the deck design:
75

The design is intended to be divided into three parts:
Local design: design of deck plates and stiffeners;
Primary design: design of deck beams and beam-columns;
Global design: design of deck main structure (and substructure).
Notes:
Wheel actions to be added to distributed actions where relevant. (Wheel
actions can normally be considered acting on an area of 0.3 x 0.3 m).
Point actions to be applied on an area 0.1 x 0.1 m, and at the most
severe position, but not added to wheel actions or distributed actions.
The distributed load q is to be evaluated for each case. Storage areas
for cement, wet or dry mud should be the maximum of 13 kN/m² and
ρgH, where H is the storage height in m. Laydown areas are not
normally to be designed for less than 15 kN/m².
The factor f is the min of 1.0 and (0.5 + 3/A0.5), where A is the action
area in m².
Global action cases should be established based upon “worst case”,
representative variable action combinations, complying with the limiting
global criteria to the structure.
76
38
Deformation loads

Deformation loads: they are all the loads produced by an imposed
state of strain on the structure.
Such imposed states of strain can be produced by temperature
differences, ground settlements, pre-stressed states.
In the case of temperature differences, they are typical variable
deformation loads, with different periods (daily, annual).
In hyperstatic structures, temperature differences produce stress
states that can be very important.
To be recalled that the submerged part of the platform is at an
almost constant temperature, while the emerged part can be
subjected to very important temperature excursions, generally
varying with time and place.
In addition, some structural parts are subjected to temperature
differences produced by the production processes: the most
representative case is that of risers, with the external temperature
equal to that of the sea and the internal one typical of oil produced,
normally rather high.
77
Deformation loads Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Another example is that of submerged tanks in gravity platform: the
tank can be filled in with water or with oil or gas, and they have
different temperatures.
Pre-stressed states are used in concrete platforms for preventing
from concrete cracks.
In TLP, the tethers are highly pre-stressed by the extra buoyancy of
the hull, which gives the global stiffness of the platform.
Of course, this pre-stress affects also the stress distribution in the
hull.
Ground settlements often occur during reservoir exploitation.
If they are not uniform, they induce stresses in hyperstatic
structures.
78
39
Accidental loads

Accidental loads: they are caused by wrong operations or by
events not considered in the normal operations of the platforms,
such as explosions, impacts, fires and so on.
The most important accidental loads for a platform are those caused
by impact, that produce impulsive forces.
These impulsive forces can arise during some transient operations,
and the most important are those that arise during the landing of
helicopters and during the mooring of vessels to the platform.
BS norms consider two situations for helicopter landing: heavy and
emergency.
For the first case, the impact load is equal to 1.5 times the maximum
take-off weight, whilst for the second case this factor is 2.5. In both
cases, a horizontal load applied at the points of impact and equal to
half the maximum take-off weight must be taken into account.
NTS give some more detailed conditions for the analysis of impact
during helicopter landing, making a distinction between the local
forces and the global forces.
79
Accidental loads Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

For vessel mooring, design impact forces, to be applied at the boat
landing but also to other less favorable parts, should be computed
for the largest ship foreseen for the platform, at a velocity
corresponding to operational speed.
BS norms, for instance, consider for the minimum design impact that
generated by a vessel of 2500 tons with a velocity of 0.5 m/s.
The added mass must be considered (i.e. DNV norms prescribe an
added mass of 40% for sideways collisions and of 10% for stern or
bow impacts).
All the kinetic energy of the ship must be absorbed by the fender, or,
for the zones out of the boat landing, the platform must be able to
withstand without major damages (only local damages are allowed)
to the same impacts.
When deeper investigations are not conducted, the impact zone
goes from 10 m under the LAT to 13 m above the LAT.
Other accidental loads often considered are those produced by the
fall of objects.
80
40
Environmental loadings

Environment gives different kinds of actions on offshore platforms:
wave forces;
wind forces;
ice forces;
snow loads;
current forces;
marine growth;
earthquake actions.
We will briefly consider in the following these loadings, leaving to the

next chapter the hydrodynamics of wave forces, the most important
environmental action on offshore structures.
The most part of the environmental loadings depends upon
meteorological conditions.
So, before considering the different actions, we deal in the next
section with the procedure to select a design storm.
81
Storm selection Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

There is a relation between the frequency and the intensity of the
events that a structure may experience. Such a relation is
qualitatively sketched in the figure.
The structure is designed to withstand some extreme event SD,

which has a frequency fD. The choice of the event is made so that
the chance of having events with severity greater than SD occur
82
41
Storm selection

during the lifetime L of the structure is reasonably small. This is
called the encounter probability and represents one of several ways
to characterize environmental risk.
Usually a designer should consider three types of events:
those causing fatigue effects;
those that may interfere with normal operations;
those that may produce the failure or a severe damage of the structure.
Each category requires a different type of data and statistical
analysis for resolution of the associated problems.
Considered as random process, a storm must be statistically
described.
Actually, the physical elements of a storm (e.g. the wave height or
the wind velocity) are described, using the recorded meteorological
data, by some distribution laws, particularly suited to describe
extreme events, such the occurrence of a storm of great intensity.
The random wave variables, usually recorded and processed, are
defined in the following figure.
83

84
42
Storm selection

If a suitable convention is adopted, the random sea shown in the
previous figure can be described in terms of wave height (H) and
period (T).
In engineering applications the usual definition of wave height is the
maximum surface elevation difference between successive up-
crossings of still water level.
This leads to the definition of zero-crossing period Tz.
Longuet-Higgins (1952) has shown that, for certain conditions the
cumulative distribution of wave height is approximated by the
Rayleigh distribution:
H2 H2
− −
H 2
8σ η 8σ η2
p(H ) = e → P (H ) = 1 − e .
4σ η2
ση=: standard deviation of η(t) (see previous figure).
85

A measure often used of the random wave field is the significant
wave height, HS.
Hs is taken as H1/3, the expected value of the highest one-third of the
waves in a sample.
For the case of the Rayleigh distribution, it can be shown that:
H1/3= 4ση.
The expected value of the maximum wave height Hmax in a sample
of N waves is given by:
H1 3
H max = 2 ln N .
2
Usually, designers switch at this point from a probabilistic to a

deterministic approach: they introduce a regular train of waves
where the wave height is taken as equal to Hs or Hmax.
86
43
Storm selection

So, in this deterministic approach the statistics of waves is used only
to obtain a wave height for a regular sea state.
However, in this approach there is the problem of the selection of a
wave period to be associated with the wave height.
This point, concerning the choice of the wave period, will be treated
after.
The probabilistic models developed thus far relate to short-term

stationary conditions.
They must be developed for the prediction of the expected
maximum wave height, the design wave, over a long-term period
such as 50 or 100 years (the centennial wave).
The long-term wave height distribution is, usually, based on one-
year’s data and its extrapolation to a return-period of 50 or 100
years is made using the Weibull or Gumbel distribution, which are
typical probability laws of extreme values.
87

The Weibull probability law is
γ γ
γ −1  H −η   H −η 
γ  H −η  −
α 
 −
 α 

p(H ) =   e → P (H ) = 1 − e .
α α 
α : scale parameter, α>0;
γ : shape parameter, γ>0;
η: location parameter, H≥η;
The values of the mode µ, mean m, median M and standard
deviation σ of the distribution are given by:
1
 1 γ  1
µ = η + α 1 −  , m = η + α Γ1 + ,
 γ  γ
1  2  1
M = η + α (ln 2)γ , σ = α Γ1 +  − Γ 2 1 + .
 γ  γ
∞
Γ is the gamma function: Γ( x ) = ∫ e −t t x −1dt .
0
88
44
Storm selection

The Gumbel probability law is
H −µ H −µ H −µ
1 −
β −e
−
β
−e
−
β
p(H ) = e e → P (H ) = e .
β
µ : location parameter; it corresponds to the mode of the distribution;
β : scale parameter:
6
β= σ ≅ 0.7797σ ;
π
σ : standard deviation of the distribution.
The values of the mean m and of the median M are given
respectively by
m = µ + 0.45σ ,
M = µ + 0.2858σ .
Both the Weibull and the Gumbel distribution of the maximum wave
height can be derived from an histogram of the recorded daily
highest waves in one year.
89

In the figure, the probability density function and the cumulate
probability function for the case of Weibull (for η=0) and Gumbel
distribution sharing the same mode (µ= 5 m) and median (M= 5.73
m); the curves do not fit the same recorded histogram.
p(H) P(H)
Gumbel
Gumbel
Weibull
Weibull
H (m) H (m)
90
45
Storm selection

The probability distribution used to fit the wave height data is used to
select the design wave.
This is usually done choosing a return period TR: it is the average
time interval between successive events of the design wave being
equalled or exceeded:
1 1
TR = → P (H ) = 1 − .
1 − P (H ) TR
So, once TR fixed, P(H) is known and by the distribution of wave
height, the design wave is obtained.
For instance, for the case of a Gumbel distribution with mean m and
standard deviation σ, it is easy to find that the design wave has the
height
 T 
H = m − 0.45σ − 0.7797σ ln ln R .
 TR − 1
91

This value of H will be, in the average, equalled or exceeded once in
a period equal to TR.
So, for TR= 50 years, it is:
H 50 = m + 2.5923σ .
Instead, for TR=100 years, it is:
H100 = m + 3.1367σ .
For instance, for the case of the Gumbel distribution sketched in the
previous figures (m= 6,15 m, σ = 2.565 m) it is H50= 12,8 m and
H100= 14,2 m. This means, for instance, that waves with a height
equal to or greater than 14,2 m are waited once in a century.
For instance, in the Adriatic Sea H100= 13 m, while in the North Sea
H100= 26 m.
92
46
Storm selection

An alternative approach, is that using the encounter probability E: it
is the probability that the design wave is equalled or exceeded
during the lifetime L of the structure.
It can be shown that
L
 1 
E = 1 − 1 −  .
 TR 
So, what is done is that an encounter probability E and a lifetime L is
fixed for the platform (actually, L is known from the production
planning and from the data of the reservoir) and TR is calculated:
−1
 1

TR = 1 − (1 − E ) L  .
 
After this, the determination of the design wave follows the same
steps seen above.
93

For instance, in the previous example, if L= 20 years and E= 0.1, i.e.
if a probability of 10% is accepted for the wave design being
exceeded in 20 years, then TR= 190.3 years, P(HD)= 99.474% and
the design wave has a height HD= 15,5 m.
Let us now to consider the problem of determining a wave period T

to be associated with the design wave.
One possibility is to repeat the entire procedure used for determining
HD using wave periods instead of wave heights as statistics.
Draper (1963) has suggested to take, in determining the wave
period, the same return period as for wave heights and then to
associate this wave period to the wave height.
An alternative approach consists in using the design wave height to
set a lower limit to the wave period; then, a series of wave periods
above this lower limit should be used to find the worst possible effect
on the structure.
94
47
Storm selection

For instance, DNV rules suggest, for a deterministic analysis, a
range of
6.5 HD<T<15 HD.
NTS rules suggest the following range,
6.5H100 < T < 11H100 .

Battjes (1970) has indicated that limitations on wave steepness due
to wave breaking imply that wave periods must respect the condition
2π HD 1
2
≤ .
gT 16
This gives the following lower value for T:

32π H D
T≥ ≅ 10.25 H D .
g
95

A more correct procedure should consist in fitting a bivariate
probability distribution of both wave heights and wave periods
(Longuet-Higgins, 1975, Cavanié et alii, 1976).
Some attempts (Thom, 1975) have also been made to link wind and
waves in predicting the design wave.
The probabilistic description presented above is deficient in that the

frequency content of the wave field and the relative distribution of
energies at different frequencies are not retained in the formulation.
Such information is given by the wave energy spectral density
function or, more simply, the surface-elevation spectrum.
The surface-elevation spectrum, Sηη(ω), is crucial to a wide range of
design situations in the offshore environment.
In design, one of many standard forms of Sηη(ω) may be adopted,
specified by a small number of properties or characteristic measures
of the random sea.
96
48
Storm selection

For instance, the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is, for the fully
developed sea condition,
ω4
2 −β o
αg 4
Sηη (ω ) = e ω ;
(2π )4 ω 5
α= 0.0081;
β= 0.74;
ωo= g/U;
U: characteristic wind speed at 19.5 m above the still water level;
The JONSWAP spectrum has been proposed for fetch-limited
situations and not completely developed sea states:
4 (ω −ωm )2
ωm −
−1.25 2 2
α g2 ω4 γ e 2θ ωm
Sηη (ω ) = e ;
ω5
γ= 3.3;
σ = 0.07 for ω≤ ωm, σ = 0.09 for ω> ωm;
ωm frequency of the spectral peak.
97

α and ωm are functions of U and of the fetch F:
1
 U 2 5
α = 0.042  10  ,
 F 
ωm = 14.04 U10−0.4F −0.3 ,
U10: wind speed at 10 m above the still water level.
S (m²s)
In the figure, the Pierson-Moskowitz
spectrum for U= 40 m/s.
We will see in the following the

importance of the wave spectrum in
the analysis of the dynamical
behavior of the platform in a
stochastic approach. ω (1/s)
98
49
Wind forces

Severe winds and waves can occur simultaneously during a storm.
Usually, wave forces are several times greater then those due to
winds; however, it is important to determine with a sufficiently good
accuracy wind forces.
In fact, their moment arm about the seafloor is larger than that of
wave forces (for shallow-waters platforms, it can be more or less
twice), so that the moment due to winds can be substantial,
sometimes greater than that due to waves.
Physical theories giving wind action on bluff bodies are much
poorer, under a theoretical point of view, than those concerning
wave actions.
Actually, this is essentially due to the fact that wind actions on bluff
bodies cannot be easily modeled: the flow is normally turbulent,
unsteady and the boundary layer separated.
In this context, no exact theories exist to predict fluid actions and the
wind force is normally modeled as a drag force.
99
Wind forces Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The drag force: the drag force can be steady or unsteady, can
depend upon the position, and is a function of some experimental
coefficients.
The general form of the drag force (the form or pressure drag) is
1
Fd = Cd ρ A U 2 .
2
ρ: fluid density (air: 1,225 kg/m3);
A: area of the projection of the body on a plane orthogonal to the flow;
U: wind speed;
Cd: drag coefficient.
The drag coefficient: for what concerns Cd, basically it depends
upon body’s shape, Reynolds number, surface roughness,
orientation of the body relative to the wind vector and the influence
of any adjoining members.
The variation of Cd with Reynolds number and surface roughness for
a flow perpendicular to a circular cylinder is presented in the next
figure.
100
50
Wind forces

If it is found that wind forces are substantial, it is worth to conduct
wind tunnel tests for a model of the structure, but this is rarely done.
101

Drag
Ar e a
Co e f f icie n t
The table aside shows some drag T y p e o f O b je ct

- cd - - A -
coefficients for different shapes and Old Car like a T-for d 0 ,7 - 0,9 fr ont al ar ea
objects. Moder n Car lik e Toy ot a Pr ius 0 ,2 6 fr ont al ar ea
Com m on Car lik e Open Vect ra 0 .2 9 fr ont al ar ea
Of course, the presence of multiple Passeng er Tr ain 1 ,8 fr ont al ar ea
objects affects the flow and hence the Tract or Tr ailed Tr uck
Dolp hin
0 ,9 6
0 ,0 0 36
fr ont al ar ea
w et t ed area
drag. Bird 0 ,4 fr ont al ar ea
Solid Hem isp here 0 ,4 2 p / 4 d2
What is done, is that the wind actions Solid Hem isp here flow nor m al
t o flat side
1 ,1 7 p / 4 d2
upon the different bodies composing Thin Disk 1 ,1 p / 4 d2
s2
the platform are added together; this
Cub e 0 ,8
St r eam line b od y 0 ,0 4 p / 4 d2
superposition hypothesis does not Sq uared flat p lat e at 9 0 d eg
Long flat p lat e at 9 0 deg

1 .1 7
1 .9 8
take into account for interactions Hollow sem i-sp here op p osit e
st r eam
1 .4 2
among bodies for what concern the Hollow sem i-sp here facing
st r eam
0 .3 8
global wind action, but usually this Hollow sem i-cy lind er op posit e
st r eam
1 .2 0
approach is conservative. Wir es and cab les 1 .0 - 1.3
Lam inar flat plat e (Re= 1 0 6 ) 0 .0 0 1

Usually, Cd = 1,5 for beams and sides Tur b ulen t flat plat e (Re= 1 0 6 ) 0 .0 0 5
of buildings, Cd= 0,5 for cylindrical Sub sonic Transp or t Air craft
Sup ersonic Fig ht er , M= 2 .5

0 .0 1 2
0 .0 1 6
sections and Cd= 1,0 for total Per son (up r ig ht p osit ion) 1 .0 - 1.3
projected area of platform. Sk i jum per 1 .2 - 1.3
102
51
Wind forces

Velocity profile: concerning the
wind speed U, generally
speaking it depends upon place
and time:
U= U(x, y, z, t).
However, in structural
applications and for static
analysis it is commonly admitted
that U depends only upon the
vertical position z above the
mean water level.
In this case, a value for U is
chosen (for instance, the mean
value or a percentile value).
A question arises: what kind of
variation of wind speed with the
vertical position must be used,
i.e., what about U= U(z)?
103

Wind data are obtained by recorded measures; in particular, the
wind speed is that averaged on a given time interval.
For averaging intervals less than one minute, wind speeds are
classified as gusts. For averaging intervals of one minute or longer
they are classified as sustained wind speeds.
Usually, the surface winds reported are measured at a certain height
(e.g. at 10 m above the mean water level in the API norms).
Winds at this standard elevation are those usually available for
engineering use.
But winds changes with height as a consequence of the fact that
they are a flow in the boundary layer of the earth.
So, the question is how to extrapolate a wind distribution from a
single measure at a certain height.
Some wind profiles have been proposed in the literature; two
velocity profiles which are in fairly common use are the logarithmic
velocity distribution and the power law distribution.
104
52
Wind forces

Logarithmic Velocity Distribution: the logarithmic velocity
distribution is based on reasonable physical considerations of
uniform shear stress within the first few meters of elevation and a
mixing length that increases linearly above the mean free surface.
The resulting mean velocity distribution is:
Uo z + zo
U (z) = ln ;
κ zo
κ ≅ 0.4 is the Von Karman constant;

zo is the characteristic roughness height, which is related to the height
characteristics of the waves;
Uo is the friction velocity, which is proportional to the square root of the
shear stress on the water surface:
κ UR
Uo = ;
zR + zo
ln
zo
UR is the wind speed at the reference elevation zR of 10 m.
105

Finally, it is
z + zo
ln
zo
U (z) = UR .
zR + zo
ln
zo
Wu (1969) has found that for wind speeds in excess of 15 m/sec the
roughness height zo is related to the reference wind speed UR at a
reference elevation of 10 m by
U R2
zo = 2.91 10 −5 .
g
g is the gravitational constant.
Power Law Velocity Distribution: the power law distribution is

more empirically based than the logarithmic distribution and can he
written in terms of the reference velocity UR and reference elevation
zR as
106
53
Wind forces

1
 z n
U ( z ) = U R   ;
 zR  U (m/s) power law for sustained
winds (n= 13)
n is ranges from 7 to 13, and power law for
is a function of the sea state, gusts (n= 13)
the distance from land and
the time interval over which logarithmic
the design wind blows. It is
approximately equal to 13 for
gusts and to 8 for sustained
winds in the open ocean.
The power law velocity
distribution is used in API
UR= 44 m/s
norms.
In the figure, the wind profile z (m)
given by the logarithmic and
the power law velocity
distribution.
107

Norsok wind laws: the Norwegian NTS in Norsok Standard
suggests to take the following wind velocities for the standard height
of 10 m:
Annual probability of Velocity Velocity
exceedance (10 min average) (1 hour average)
10-2 41 m/s 38 m/s
10-4 48 m/s 44 m/s
The same norms give a different wind profile, taking into account the
time variation too:
 z t 
U ( z, t ) = U R 1 + 0.137 ln − 0.047 ln ;
 zR tR 
UR: velocity at zR= 10 m and tR= 600 s.
108
54
Wind forces

The figure shows the variation of the wind speed U with z and t.
It is apparent the quick
variation of U with the
height in the first part: the U (m/s)
wind increases rapidly just
above the sea level.
In case of extreme wind
conditions (exceedance
probability of 10-2 or 10-4),
the following formula is
suggested: t (s) z (m)
 t 
U ( z, t ) = U ( z )1 − 0.41 Iu ( z ) ln ;
 tR 
 z 
U(z):1 hour mean wind U ( z ) = U o 1 + 0.0573 1 + 0.15 U o ln ;
speed:  zR 
109

Uo: 1 hour mean wind speed at zR= 10 m;
tR= 3600 s;
Iu(z): turbulence intensity factor:
−0.22
 z 
Iu ( z ) = 0.06[1 + 0.043 U o ]   ;
 zR 
In the figure: a comparison extreme conditions

U (m/s)
between the two wind normal conditions
laws of NTS.
t=3600 s
UR= 44 m/s
z (m)
110
55
Wind forces

The drag force is a static force; nevertheless, wind can produce
some dynamical effects:
the time-oscillating part of wind can produce in-line vibrations of a body;
the steady part of wind can produce cross vibrations of a body due to
vortex shedding (see next chapter).
Usually, these effects are neglected, especially the first one.
In some cases, however, they should be considered:
slender parts, such as flares, bridges, derricks and so on, can be
dynamically excited by wind;
in compliant structures, the wind can significantly participate to the
dynamic excitation of the whole structure.
For instance, API norms consider that, when the ratio of height to
the least horizontal dimension of the wind exposed object (or
structure) is greater than 5, then this object (or structure) could be
wind sensitive; in this case, the dynamic effects of the wind are to be
taken into account and the flow induced cyclic wind loads due to
vortex shedding must be investigated (see next chapter).
111

In accounting for the dynamical effects due to wind fluctuations, the
wind velocity U is normally written as:
U ( z, t ) = U m ( z ) + Uf ( z, t );
Um: mean wind velocity (1 hour average);

Uf: fluctuation wind velocity: the velocity during a gust minus Um (see
figure on page 103).
So the drag force will be:

1 1
Fd = Cd ρ A (U m + U f )2 ≅ Cd ρ A (U m2 + 2U mU f ).
2 2
The approximation is valid as normally Uf is small compared to Um;

in this way, the dynamical wind excitation is linear in the fluctuating
velocity.
112
56
Wind forces

For combination with wave loads, the DNV norms propose the less
favorable loading combination between :
1-minute sustained wind speeds combined with extreme waves.
3-second gusts.
API norms distinguish between:

global wind load: values of 1-hour average wind speeds are given, to be
combined with extreme wave and current loads;
local wind load: values of extreme wind speeds are given, to be used
without regard to waves.
113
Ice forces Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Sea ice exerts forces on arctic fixed offshore structures. In areas
subjected to severe ice conditions such forces will probably control
the design of an offshore structure. Even in areas with less severe
ice conditions, ice forces may constitute an important or even a
predominant design consideration.
Before giving the formulae for the calculation of ice forces, the
various forms in which sea ice occurs must be introduced, along
with the mechanical properties of sea ice.
Turning to the calculation of ice forces, we will first review various
theoretical aspects of ice-structure interaction.
We shall see that ice impinging on a structure with vertical sides
behaves very differently from ice impinging on a structure with
inclined sides.
As a consequence, different theoretical considerations and different
procedures for calculating ice forces arise in these two situations.
It must be emphasized that at present the calculation of ice forces
on a structure involves considerable uncertainty even under the
most favorable conditions. 114
57
Ice forces

Sea ice occurrence: sea ice occurs in a variety of forms. The
purpose of this section is to review these forms and to point out the
main features of each.
The properties of arctic sea ice as well as its form will vary from
location to location and will be a primary determinant of the ice
forces that may be exerted on a structure in a given location.
The near shore regions of the Arctic are characterized by the
seasonal occurrence of fast ice. Characteristically, fast ice forms
each year during the fall and winter, possibly reaching a maximum
thickness of approximately 2 m, and it breaks up and dissipates in
summer. It is attached to the coast or to emerging structures.
Unlike this, the pack ice is not attached to the shore, either directly
or by connection to the fast ice. It is in continual motion, and
consists of a more varied and heterogeneous ice covering, with
large masses of ice in various forms constantly interacting with one
another.
The distinction between fast and pack ice is important: the pack ice
is normally stronger and moves with a greater speed (it can have a
speed similar to that of ocean current, about 300m/h).
115

Structure of the Ice: a brief description of the process of formation
and the consequent structure of a smooth sheet of arctic sea ice will
be helpful to understand the mechanical properties of such ice.
Ice forms at the surface and grows downward: this forms a
predominant polycrystalline structure (see figure).
So, the ice sheet consists primarily of an array of more or less
parallel vertical, columnar crystals, having a length that can equal
the thickness of the ice sheet.
As a result, the ice is
transversely isotropic, with the
anisotropic axis vertically
disposed.
In addition, salt and droplets of
brine are included, not
homogenously, in the ice,
which affects the behavior of
ice for strength and stiffness
with the temperature.
116
58
Ice forces

Strength Characteristics of Smooth Ice: strength within a given
ice sheet depends on temperature, salinity, and orientation.
In addition, it depends strongly upon strain rate, i.e. the speed of
deformation and it is ordinarily greater near the top and middle of the
ice sheet than near the bottom.
Generally, however, the spatial variation of strength within an ice
sheet is not accounted for in carrying out an analysis of ice-structure
interaction, and an average strength is usually considered.
Consideration of the impingement of ice on a structure with vertical
sides usually requires the characterization of the ice sheet in terms
of a mean compressive strength. For a structure with inclined sides
a mean flexural strength is required.
For compressive strength, design values range from 2 to 10.6 MPa,
while for bending from 0.3 to 1 MPa.
The following diagrams show the dependence of compressive
strength on strain rate and temperature.
117

Compressive strength vs strain rate
Compressive strength vs temperature
118
59
Ice forces

Young’s modulus: The dependence of Young’s modulus on
various parameters is similar qualitatively to that of compressive
strength.
The increase of modulus with strain rate is an indication of the visco-
elastic character of ice material behavior. Again, account must be
taken of the dependence of modulus on temperature and on salinity.
A range of values for modulus that allows for these dependences is
1700— 9500 MPa.
A modulus value within this
range should be satisfactory for
preliminary design calculations,
particularly as such calculations
of ice forces may not involve or
at least are not very sensitive to
modulus.
In the figure, the dependence of
Young’s modulus on strain rate.
119

Ice forces on vertical cylinders: for a
geometry like that in the figure, and
assuming elastic response of the ice
sheet, an analysis of the stresses
induced in the ice sheet by its contact
with the cylinder should be done to
obtain the global ice force.
This is the value of load required to
cause a sufficiently extensive failure in
the ice sheet to move past the cylinder
without any further increase in the load.
Thus, a completely nonlinear analysis of
the ice structure interaction problem is
necessary.
One approach is to assume the ice as
perfectly plastic, and then to apply the
theorems of plastic limit analysis to
develop upper- and lower-bound
solutions for the load necessary to fail the
ice sheet completely (see the figure for
the case of a flat indentor). 120
60
Ice forces

Similar, but more involved, results are available for the circular
indentor of more general interest in the present context.
An examination of the results of these and similar calculations
shows that for a given geometry and condition of contact between
the ice sheet and the cylinder, the force F exerted on the cylinder is
given by an equation of the form
 d 
F = C σ c t d f  ;
 t 
C: a constant of proportionality;
σc: ice compressive yield strength;
t: ice sheet thickness;
d: cylinder diameter;
f: a function of the aspect ratio d/t.
This type of formulae usually overestimates the force: this is mainly
due to the assumptions of perfectly plastic behavior of the ice. In
fact, ice often shows a brittle behavior, so after yielding it can no
longer carry as large a stress as the initial yield stress.
121

A number of relatively simple design formulas have been proposed
for the prediction of ice forces exerted by smooth ice on vertical
cylinders.
A formula which appears to agree well with the available data, and
in particular to reflect the dependence of the maximum force on the
aspect ratio of the contact between the ice and the structure, is
t
F = σ c t d 1+ 5 ;
d
The dependence of F upon
temperature, salinity and
strain rate is considered in
the value of σc.
The agreement of this
formula with some
experimental data is shown
in the figure.
122
61
Ice forces

Ice forces on vertical cones: as the ice forces on vertical
structures are very large, structures with inclined sides have been
often used (bridge piers and lighthouse pedestals are often inclined
for this purpose).
The reduction in ice force arises because in general it is easier to
cause an ice sheet to fail by applying a vertical force that will induce
failure in bending.
For an ice feature riding up the side of a structure inclined at an
angle α to the horizontal and with the coefficient of friction µ
between the ice and the side of the structure, the relation between
the horizontal force F and the vertical force V at the point of contact
is given by
F = V tan(α + β )
β= arctan µ, friction angle.
This equation shows that for the small angles of friction,
characteristic of the contact between ice and other materials, and for
angles of inclination of the side of the structure of the order of 45°,
123

the horizontal force exerted on the structure when the ice first fails is
of the same order of magnitude as the vertical force required to
cause the failure.
The horizontal force becomes
greater than the vertical force
only when the sum of the
inclination angle and the angle of
friction substantially exceeds 45°.
The ratio of these two forces for
various angles of inclination and
friction is shown in the figure.
As the sum α+β approaches 90°,
the horizontal force will become
sufficiently large to cause the ice
sheet to fail in compression
rather than in bending.
124
62
Ice forces

For the horizontal force due to the impingement of smooth ice on a
conical structure, the following formula has been proposed on the
basis of upper-bound, plasticity theory calculations:
F = [ A1 σ f t 2 + A2 γ w t d 2 + A3 γ w t (d 2 − dT2 )]A4;
t: ice sheet thickness;
σf: ice flexural strength;
γw: water specific weight;
d: waterline diameter of the cone;
dT: diameter of the cone at its top;
Ai: numerical coefficients, see the figures.
125

This formula is in good agreement with available test data, as
indicated by the comparisons plotted in the figure.
A corresponding formula is available for the vertical force imposed
on the structure. It is noteworthy that similar formulas have been
developed to describe forces on icebreaking ships.
126
63
Snow loads

Snow loads: are calculated with the same norms as for civil
constructions, e.g. Eurocode 1, DNV.
Snow loadings are difficult to be determined, and conventional

values range from 50 to 100 daN/m².
Usually, snow loads are not important in offshore engineering, and

they of course are considered only for platforms in the arctic regions
and in the North Sea.
Snow actions can be, however, rather important for local effects on
some single element (e.g. roofs, beams and so on).
127
Current forces Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Currents in oceans can be determined by several factors: circulation
currents, density currents (due to salinity, atmospheric pressure or
thermal differences), tidal currents, storm (wind) currents and so on.
In still water (i.e. without waves) a typical vertical profile of the
current speed is decreasing with deepness, like that in the figure,
relative to a typical current profile in the Gulf of Mexico..
Nevertheless, in some cases, significant currents can happen at
higher depth. 1.00 0.91
The best way to consider currents, is to z/d V(z/d)
(m/s)
have some in situ measurements. If these 0.75 0.70
are not at the disposal of the structural
designers, some current profiles can be d 0.50 0.58
found in various sources.
For instance, DNV rules give the following 0.25 0.46
z
velocity profile V(z) for a current, sum of
the astronomic tide current Vt(z) and of the 0 0.18
wind current Vw(z):
128
64
Current forces

V ( z ) = Vt ( z ) + Vw ( z )
with: z
1
h+z 7 0 Vt=0.5 m/s
Vt ( z ) = Vt   , Vw:=0.1 m/s
 h  ho h=100 m
h +z h
Vw ( z ) = Vw  o  for 0 ≥ z ≥ −ho ,
h
 o 
Vw ( z ) = 0 for z < −ho ,
h: total water height;

ho: conventional water height: ho= 50 m;
Vt: velocity of the astronomic tide current at the surface;
Vw: velocity of the wind current at the surface.
129
Current forces Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Usually, the effects of currents are taken into account in the design
phase simply superimposing the velocity of the current to that of the
waves, also if this is not completely correct.
Actually, the current force, considered as constant, affects only the
drag force (see next chapter for the theory of wave forces).
Since the drag force varies with the square of the velocity, the
superposition of current to waves can significantly increase the total
sea horizontal force on a platform.
In addition, unlike wave motion which decreases rapidly with depth,
current speed can be significant also at great depth.
In this case, vibrations on slender members can be induced by the
vortex shedding due to the current.
This effect can be very significant on the time-life design of such
members and must be taken into account.
130
65
Marine growth

Marine growth is a common designation for a surface coat on
marine structures, caused by plants, animals and bacteria.
Marine growth is accumulated on submerged members. Its main
effect is to increase the wave forces on the members by increasing
not only exposed areas and volumes, but also the drag coefficient
due to higher surface roughness.
In addition, it increases the unit mass of the member, resulting in
higher gravity loads and in lower member frequencies.
Depending upon geographic location, the thickness of marine
growth can reach 0,3 m or more.
It is accounted for in design through appropriate increases in the
diameters and masses of the submerged members.
In the calculation of structural actions, unless more accurate data
are available, or if regular cleaning is not planned, thickness
referring marine growth to mean water level as indicated in the table
may be assumed (North Sea conditions).
131
Marine growth Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Water depth
(referred to mean 56-59°N 59-72°N
water level) [m]
+2 ÷-40 100 mm 60 mm
Under -40 50 mm 30 mm
Marine-growth thickness (source: Norsok Standard)

The thickness of marine growth may be assumed to increase
linearly to the given values over a period of 2 years after the
structure has been placed in the sea.
Unless more accurate data are available, the roughness height may
be taken as 20 mm. The roughness should be taken into
consideration when determining the coefficients in Morison’s formula
(see next chapter).
The weight of marine growth is classified as a variable functional
action. Unless more accurate data are available, the specific weight
of the marine growth in air may be set equal to 13 kN/m3.
132
66
Earthquake actions

Earthquake actions are classified as environmental actions in
offshore engineering.
Platforms in seismic regions are typically designed for two levels of
earthquake intensity: the strength level and the ductility level
earthquake.
For the strength level earthquake, defined as having a "reasonable
likelihood of not being exceeded during the platform's life" (mean
recurrence interval ~ 200 - 500 years), the structure is designed to
respond elastically.
For the ductility level earthquake, defined as close to the "maximum
credible earthquake" at the site, the structure is designed for
inelastic response and to have adequate reserve strength to avoid
collapse.
For strength level design, the seismic loading may be specified
either by sets of accelerograms or by means of design response
spectra.
133
Earthquake actions Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Use of design spectra has a number of advantages over time history
solutions (where input is the base acceleration), and usually they are
preferred for strength level designs.
Be amax the design spectral intensity; then API norms recommend
using amax for the two principal horizontal directions and 0,5 amax for
the vertical direction. The DNV rules, on the other hand, recommend
amax and 0,7 amax for the two horizontal directions (two different
combinations) and 0,5 amax for the vertical.
The value of amax and often the spectral shapes are determined by
site specific seismological studies.
In the next figure, typical design response spectra are shown.
Designs for ductility level earthquakes are made in the inelastic
behavior range for the structure.
In these analyses, the seismic input is given as 3-component
accelerograms, real or artificial, which represent the extreme ground
motions during the seismic event at the platform site.
134
67
Earthquake actions

135
Earthquake actions Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The characteristics of such motions, however, may still be

prescribed by means of design spectra, which are usually the result
of a site specific seismotectonic study.
For the rest, the seismic
analysis of an offshore
platform is performed just
like another civil structure,
but with the difference that
water can affect the
response of the structure,
and consequently the
stress level, by the
combined effects of added
mass and damping.
The effects of seismic
accelerations on compliant
structures are usually
negligible.
136
68

As for any other kind of structures, offshore platform must be
designed for suitable load combinations that should account, in
some way, for the probability that extreme actions realize at the
same time.
These combinations depends upon the design method: allowable
stress design or limit state design.
In the case of allowable stress design, the following load
combinations should be considered:
Combination 1: dead loads (structural plus permanent operational
loads) plus operating environmental loads plus maximum live loads (non
permanent operational loads).
Combination 2: dead loads plus operating environmental loads plus
minimum live loads.
Combination 3: dead loads plus extreme (design) environmental loads
plus maximum live loads.
Combination 4: dead loads plus extreme (design) environmental loads
plus minimum live loads, appropriate for combining with extreme
conditions.
137
Design load combinations Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Environmental loads should be combined consistently with their joint
probability of occurrence during the considered load condition.
Earthquake loads must be considered as a separate environmental
load, i.e., not to be combined with waves, wind, etc.
Operating environmental conditions are defined as representative of
severe but not necessarily limiting conditions that, if exceeded,
would require cessation of platform operations.
Allowable stress design is permitted by some rules (e.g. DNV, BS),
while API norms recommend to use this method.
For what concerns limit state analysis, the DNV and the NPD rules
for limit state design consider four limit states:
1. Ultimate limit state: the following two loading combinations must
be used:
ordinary: 1,3 P + 1,3 L + 1,0 D + 0,7 E;
extreme : 1,0 P + 1,0 L + 1,0 D + 1,3 E.
138
69

P, L, D and E stand for Permanent (dead), Operating (live),
Deformation (e.g., temperature, differential settlement) and
Environmental loads respectively. For well controlled dead and live
loads during fabrication and installation, the load factor 1,3 may be
reduced to 1,2.
In case of unmanned platforms during storm and without storage of
oil and gas, the 1,3 load factor for environmental loads, except
earthquakes, may be reduced to 1,15.
2. Fatigue limit state
All load factors are to be taken as 1,0.
3. Progressive Collapse limit state
4. Serviceability limit state
For both the methods, in any design load combination, the load
condition must be the less favorable.
139
Chapter 3 Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Hydrodynamics of wave forces

140
70
Content

The actions of a fluid on an immersed body 143
Inertial force: the added mass 148
The drag force 171
Wave theories 180
Slender and large bodies 201
First order wave action on a slender body 211
The case of a moving body 218
Second order wave action on a slender body 219
141

First order wave action on a large body 224

The Mc Camy and Fuchs solution 233
The Garrett solution 250
The simplified Garrett solution 256
The Ogilvie solution 270
Second order wave action on large bodies 272
Something about the case of multiple bodies 295
Oscillating large bodies 301
Wave slamming 313
Vortex shedding 323
Numerical methods for the wave action 340
The spectral method in wave forces calculation 362
142
71
The actions of a fluid on an immersed body

Generally speaking, the interaction between a
body Ω and a fluid is a force acting on Ω given ∂Ω
by
t
Ω
f = ∫ t ds
∂Ω
n
t: surface stress applied on ∂Ω by the fluid.
By the theorems of Cauchy and of Gauss

f = ∫ σ n ds = ∫ div σ dv
∂Ω Ω
and for a Newtonian incompressible fluid
σ = − pI + 2µD
we get
f = −∫ p n ds + 2µ ∫ D n ds = − ∫ ∇p dv + µ ∫ ∆u dv
∂Ω ∂Ω Ω Ω
143
The actions of a fluid on an immersed body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

To be remarked that the second term does not appear in the case of
ideal fluids; nevertheless, also in this case f is a function of the
velocity field through p.
For body forces b depending upon a potential β,
b = ∇β ( b = − ge z → β = − g z for the gravity force, axis z upward)
the Navier-Stokes equations can be written

du 1
= − ∇p* + ν ∆u
dt ρ
with
p* = p − ρβ → ∇p = ∇p * + ρ∇β .
So, in the case of gravitational body forces, f becomes
f = f1 + f2 + f3
where
144
72

f1 = − ρ ∫ b dv = ρ g ∫ dv e z = ρ gV e z .
Ω Ω
This is the Archimedes' force (the only existing with the fluid at rest),
depending only upon the immersed volume V of the body and not on
its shape or orientation with respect to the stream lines.
f2 = (τ ⊗ τ )( − ∫ p * n ds + 2µ ∫ D n ds ) = (τ ⊗ τ )∫ ( −∇p * + µ ∆u)dv .
∂Ω ∂Ω Ω
This is the more general expression of the force that the fluid applies
on the body in the direction τ, which should be the direction of the
undisturbed flow. We will see that this force has different
expressions, depending upon the negligibility or not of some effects.
This force is composed of two terms: the first one linked to p* and
the other one to the stretching tensor D, the symmetric part of the
velocity gradient.
This second term, being proportional to viscosity, is absent for
inviscid fluids. It is the part of the resistance called the friction or
viscous force. The term proportional to p* gives the force due to the
pressure fields around the body.
145
The actions of a fluid on an immersed body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

This force is usually, for bluff bodies, the largest part of the
resistance.
Of course, it can be calculated once the pressure field around the
body is known.
We will see that this is crucial for bluff bodies, as in this case the
computation of the pressure field downstream the body is often
impossible analytically.
In addition, in such cases, the pressure field is not balanced around
the body and this gives rise to larger values of the resistance term
due to p*, called in this cases the drag force.
The pressure being linked to the velocity field u through he Navier-
Stokes equations (more simply by the Bernoulli’s theorem for
inviscid fluids), the term of resistance due to p* is indeed affected by
the velocity field u.
We will see that, also for the ideal case of inviscid fluids, giving rise
to balanced pressure fields around the body, a term of resistance is
due to the time variation of the velocity field: it is the inertial force.
146
73

Finally, the last term of f is
f3 = f − f1 − f2 = f + ρ ∫ b dv + (I − τ ⊗ τ )∫ ( p * n − 2µ D n)ds
Ω ∂Ω
This term gives a force orthogonal to the undisturbed flow, often

called lift force, the Archimedes' force excluded.
The given expressions of f2 et f3 are not useful for computations,
and we will find other expressions of them, especially for f2.
Nevertheless, they show a general decomposition of the global
interaction force and also that resistance and lift force depend upon
not only the volume of Ω but also on its shape and orientation with
respect to the undisturbed flow.
So, the interaction force concerns always one body and one
orientation.
In the reminder of this chapter, we will consider mainly the
resistance.
147
Inertial force: the added mass Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

In order to give a suitable expression to the resistance, let us first
consider an ideal case: that of an inviscid incompressible fluid in
irrotational motion subjected to conservative body forces.
In this case the potential theorem ensures the existence of a scalar
function, the velocity potential Φ, such that
u = ∇Φ.
The continuity equation gives then
div u = 0 → ∆Φ = 0.
This is the field kinematical condition for such flows.
The Navier-Stokes equations reduce to Euler equations:
∂u p u2
= ∇( β − − )
∂t ρ 2
148
74

The boundary condition is:
∂Φ
(u − w ) ⋅ n = 0 → = wn,
∂n
w: velocity of the boundary;
n: unit normal at the boundary surface.
The Bernoulli’s theorem gives the link between Φ and p:
∂ Φ p ( ∇Φ ) 2
+ + − β = f (t ),
∂t ρ 2
f(t) is a time function accounting for unsteady effects (f(t)= 0 for steady
flows, but anyway f(t) can be included into Φ).
The first term in the Bernoulli’s theorem is known as transient

pressure.
149

It is apparent the link between p and the velocity field, also for what
concerns the unsteady part.
The problem is now the determination of only one scalar function,
the velocity potential, harmonic on the field with Neumann-type
boundary conditions.
The problem is linear, and the superposition of solutions is possible,
but only for the velocity field, not for pressure, as the link between
velocity and pressure remains non linear in the Bernoulli’s theorem
(which contains now all the non linearity of the problem).
The determination of Φ for some geometrical simple forms in
uniform flows, sometimes can be done analytically.
Let us now consider the forces on a body in the present case.
The previous formulae giving f reduce to
f = − ∫ ∇p * dv − ρ ∫ b dv .
Ω Ω
The last term is the Archimedes' force, discarded in the following.
150
75

The previous equation can be rewritten as
f = − ∫ ∇p dv = − ∫ p n ds.
Ω ∂Ω
Let us use the this formula for the case of a body moving at velocity
v in a fluid at rest at infinity. Be the flow irrotational and the fluid
ideal.
Then, we can write
Φ ( x, y , z; t ) = v(t ) ⋅ ϕ( x, y , z ).
This because, being the flow irrotational, the whole velocity field is
instantaneously affected of a change in the boundary conditions,
which can happen only at the body surface (actually, it can be
shown that irrotational ideal flows are the fluid equivalent of the rigid
body).
151

We now integrate the Euler equation over the fluid field, limited by
the boundary of the body and by a sphere S∞ of infinite radius
centered on the body itself.
Neglecting the Archimedes’ force, inessential as static, the result is
dΦ
∫Ω ρ ∇( dt )dv = − ∫Ω ∇p dv .
The divergence (Gauss) theorem gives then (n is the unit normal
exterior to the fluid region)
dΦ
∫Ω
∂ US ∞
ρ
dt
n ds = − ∫
∂Ω US∞
p n ds.
As u is identically null at S∞, Φ depends only on the time over there,

and not on position.
The same holds for the pressure, as the Bernoulli’s theorem shows
immediately.
152
76

Now, the surface integral, over a sphere, of a quantity not depending
upon the place and multiplying the unit normal at the sphere is the
null vector, for evident symmetry reasons, so the previous equation
reduces to
dΦ
∫Ω ρ
∂ dt
n ds = − ∫ p n ds.
∂Ω
The second member is nothing else than the dynamical force acting
on the body, f.
So
dΦ
f=∫ ρ n ds.
∂Ω dt
Remembering the expression of Φ used in this case, we get
dv
f = ρ ( ∫ n ⊗ ϕ ds ) .
∂Ω dt
153

This last equation can be rewritten as (Ω is the volume of the body)
dv
f = ρΩ A .
dt
This shows that all the dynamical force is an inertial force: if the
body moves with constant speed, the force is null.
It is the celebrated d’Alembert paradox, already known to Euler
(1745): in the case of an ideal fluid, the only force acting on a
moving body and due to the fluid is an inertial force, null in the case
of steady motion (of course, if the body is at rest and the fluid in
motion the result is the same).
The tensor A appearing in the previous equation is the inertial
coefficients tensor, given by
1
A= (∫ n ⊗ ϕ ds).
Ω ∂Ω
154
77

This is a general demonstration of the fact that in an inviscid fluid the
only force acting upon a moving body is of the inertial type, with a
coefficient multiplying the mass of the displaced fluid and depending
upon the shape, volume and orientation of the body with respect to
the movement.
The result found here is of course false: it is easy to experiment that
each body moving at constant speed in a fluid experiences a force
acting upon it.
This paradox is due to the assumption of inviscid fluid: the presence
of viscosity produces friction forces at the boundary and, most
important, in the case of bluff bodies produces the boundary layer
separation, that alters the pressure fields around the body and gives
a steady force acting upon the body. We will see this in the next
section.
Now, it is of some importance to remark that the results obtained in
the case of inviscid fluid, give not only the d’Alembert paradox, but
also the existence of an inertial force, proportional to the mass of the
displaced fluid through the inertial coefficient.
155

This force exists any time that the body (or fluid) motion is unsteady
and is of paramount importance in the case of the wave action.
Anyway, a basic difference exists between a body accelerated in a
fluid at rest and a body at rest in an accelerated fluid.
This can be seen in a simple case, but of great interest in offshore
engineering: the case of a circular cylinder.
Let us first consider the case of the cylinder in an accelerated fluid.
The problem being plane, the complex potential technique can be
used.
Be V(t)=α t the fluid particles velocity, with α the flow acceleration.
So, the flow can be
described by a complex n
potential describing the
superposition of a R
f θ
uniformly accelerated flow
and a doublet: V(t)
156
78

R2  R 2 −iθ 
f ( z ) = fu ( z ) + fd ( z ) = V (t )z + V (t ) = V (t )re iθ + e .
z  r 
z=r eiθ;
fu:= potential of the uniform flow;
fd: potential of the doublet.
The velocity potential is hence

ϕ (r ,θ ) = Re(f ) = ϕu (r ,θ ) + ϕd (r ,θ ) = V (t )r cosθ +
R2  R 2 
cosθ = V (t ) cosθ  r +
+ V (t ) .
r  r 

The complex velocity is
df  R 2 
g= = V (t )  1 − .
dz  2 2iθ 
 r e 
Its value on the cylinder’s surface is:
g (r = R ) = V (t )(1 − cos 2θ + i sin 2θ ).
157

Hence, the norm of the fluid particles velocity on the cylinder’s
surface is
v ( r = R ) = gg = 2V (t ) sinθ .
r =R
The unsteady Bernoulli’s theorem gives the pressure :

p v 2 ∂ϕ
+ + = F (t )
ρ 2 ∂t
In writing the above equation, the body forces have been neglected
(actually, they give rise only to the Archimedes’ force).
The time function F(t) can be included in the potential (it is a spatial
constant) to give the value of the pressure everywhere:
 v 2 ∂ϕ 
p = −ρ + .
 2 ∂t 
 
The time derivative of the potential is:
158
79

∂ϕ  R 2 
= α cos θ  r + .
∂t  r 

The pressure on the cylinder’s surface is hence:
v 2 ∂ϕ 
p = −ρ  +
2 ∂t
 (
= − ρ 2α 2t 2 sin2 θ + 2αR cos θ . )
  r =R
The force acting upon the cylinder is then the surface integral of the
pressure over the cylinder’s surface:
f= ∫∂Ω t ds = − ∫∂Ω p n ds.
For symmetry, the only component of f different from zero is that
along the direction of the flow; so, with reference to the figure on
page 156:
2π
f = − ∫ p cos θ ds = −R ∫ p cos θ dθ .
∂Ω 0
159

Using the expression of p found above, one gets:
2π 2π
f = ρ R∫ 2α 2t 2 sin2 θ cos θ dθ + ρ R ∫ 2αR cos 2 θ dθ .
0 0
It is readily seen that the first integral is null over 2π; physically, this
means that the force due to the kinetic pressure is still null, also in
the case of an uniform accelerated flow.
On the contrary, the second integral is not null and gives
f = 2π ρ α R 2.
This is the inertial force acting upon the cylinder. It is exclusively due
to the transient pressure; in fact, from the demonstration above it is
apparent that, being null the contribution due to the kinetic pressure,
it is:
∂ϕ
f = − ∫ p n ds = ρ ∫ n ds.
∂Ω ∂Ω ∂t
This result has a general validity and the force above is called the
Froude-Krylov force (it is just the same already found on page 153).
160
80

This force is strictly linked to the unsteadiness of the flow and is
actually an inertial force.
It is interesting to write this force decomposing it into the two parts
respectively due to ϕu and to ϕd (see page 157); using the Gauss’
theorem, one gets:
∂ϕ  ∂ϕ ∂ϕ  ∂ ∂
f = ρ∫ n ds = ρ ∫  u + d  n ds = ρ ∫ ∇ϕu dv + ρ ∫ ∇ϕ d dv .
∂Ω ∂t ∂Ω  ∂t ∂t  ∂t Ω ∂t Ω
Remembering the link between the velocity and the potential, one
can write that the term depending upon the uniform flow potential is
∂ ∂ ∂v u
ρ ∫
∂t Ω
∇ϕu dv = ρ ∫ v u dv = ρ ∫
∂t Ω Ω ∂t
dv = ρα ∫ dv = ραΩ .
Ω
Hence, this part of the Froude-Krylov force is always equal to the

force necessary to accelerate a body having the mass equal to the
fluid displaced by the body (just like the Archimedes’ force, but due
to the flow acceleration and not to the gravitational one).
161

This result, as apparent, is quite general, and it is not limited to
cylinders.
Unlike this, the second part of the Froude-Krylov force is shape-
dependent. In the case of a cylinder, this part is well represented by
a doublet potential, but of course for other shapes it is not so.
Anyway, we can write that
∂ ∂
ρ
∂t ∫Ω
∇ϕ d dv = ρ ∫ v d (α ) dv = ρ ∫ ad (α ) dv .
∂t Ω Ω
In the above formula, the subscript d stands, generally speaking, for
disturbed (in the sense that the presence of the body disturbs the
uniform flow) not only for doublet, and vd and ad are respectively the
disturbed velocity and acceleration, both functions of α, the fluid
acceleration.
The above formula shows that also this term is an inertial one and
generally speaking it can be written as
∂
∂t ∫Ω
ρ ∇ϕ d dv = µα .
162
81

In the above equation, µ is the added mass and α the fluid
acceleration. The meaning of the added mass will be shown later.
Finally, one can write that, generally speaking, the Froude-Krylov
force, that is, the force acting upon a fixed body and due to the
transient pressure is, in the case of an uniformly accelerating fluid,
of the type (eα is the direction of the fluid acceleration)
∂(ϕu + ϕd )
f = ρ∫ n ds = (ρ Ωα + µα )eα .
∂Ω ∂t
Usually, this is written as

f = CM ρ Ω α e α .
The coefficient CM appearing in the above equation is the inertial

coefficient:
CM = 1 + C A .
163

In the last equation, CA is the added mass coefficient:
µ
CA = .
ρΩ
The meaning of CM is clear: the force being inertial, that is
proportional to an acceleration, it is the ratio between the apparent
mass, that is the mass multiplying the acceleration in the expression
of the force, and the fluid mass displaced by the body.
It is apparent that CM>1, so the apparent mass is always greater
than the mass of the displaced fluid.
The meaning of CA is different: it is the ratio between the added
mass and the mass of the displaced fluid.
Now, it is of importance to remark that, for the case of the circular
cylinder, the force per unit length will be
f = ρ CM π R 2α = 2 ρ π R 2α → CM = 2.
So, in such a case the apparent mass is twice the displaced mass.
164
82

This implies also that CA= 1, that is, the added mass is exactly equal
to the displaced mass.
Actually, this result comes directly by the computation made above
for the cylinder.
Let us now consider the dual case of the previous one: that of a
cylinder accelerating with acceleration α in a fluid at rest.
What changes? Only the fact that the potential is now that of the
doublet for a flow having the direction opposite to that of the
cylinder, i.e. there is not the potential of the uniform flow (the fluid is
at rest).
But the procedure is exactly the same; so, remembering, from the
above discussion, what the uniform potential gives, that is the term
ρΩα, now this last will not appear in the final expression of the force,
which hence will be, in the general case,
∂ϕ d
f = ρ∫ n ds = µ α eα = C A ρ Ω α eα .
∂Ω ∂t
165

So, the force necessary to accelerate a body in a fluid at rest, is
proportional to the added mass and not to the apparent mass, i.e. to
CA and not to CM; this force is hence always less than that acting
upon the same body, fixed and acted upon by a flow accelerating
with the same acceleration.
In the case of a circular cylinder, the hydrodynamic force acting
upon the fixed cylinder is exactly twice that necessary to accelerate
the cylinder with the same acceleration and in the fluid at rest (apart
from the force necessary to accelerate the own cylinder mass).
In other words: the two cases of fixed or moving body are not
equivalent. This difference is due to the absence, in the case of the
fixed body, of the potential of the uniform flow, in other words, to a
different condition to infinity: this simply means that the flows in the
two cases are not the same changed of sign.
The meaning of the added mass is now clear: it is the quotient of the
additional force required to maintain the acceleration of the body
throughout the fluid divided by the same acceleration of the body.
166
83

This means also that to accelerate a body into a fluid it is necessary
not only to accelerate the own mass of the body, but also its added
mass.
This is important for instance in dirigibles and aerostats, but also in
the navigation of submarines and ships.
It must be recall that this inertial force is due to the transient
pressure and not to the kinetic pressure (proportional to the square
of the fluid velocity).
The following figures (source: Sarpkaya & Isaacson) show the value
of the added mass in some cases of interest.
The results found above are inherent to the d’Alembert paradox,

which, as already said, is a consequence of the assumption of
inviscid fluid.
Nevertheless, a first partial removal of the d’Alembert paradox can
be done right in the case of inviscid fluids.
In fact, it can be shown (Blasius, Kutta, Jukowski theorem) the
existence of a lift force, fL, orthogonal to the flow direction, whose
expression is, in the bi-dimensional case,
167

168
84

169

fL = − ρ Γ v
Γ : circulation around the body contour.
fL
However, this result does not yet make appear a resistance in the
case of steady flow.
Actually, to obtain such a force, it is necessary to remove the basic
assumption used in the demonstration of the d’Alembert’s paradox:
the hypothesis of inviscid fluid.
170
85
The drag force

It is a classical result of fluid mechanics the fact that the only
irrotational flow of a viscous fluid is the fluid at rest.
Nevetheless, the boundary layer theory (Prandtl, 1905) shows that it
is still possible to consider an irrotational fluid motion almost
everywhere, excepted in a thin layer, the boundary layer, at the solid
boundaries of the fluid field.
This can be justified in the following way: let us introduce the
Reynolds number Re:
UD
Re =
ν
U: characteristic fluid velocity in the flow;
D: linear characteristic dimension of the problem;
ν: kinematical viscosity of the fluid.
Re can be interpreted as the ratio between the orders of magnitude

of inertial and viscosity forces in the motion equation and of the
convection and the diffusion terms in the vorticity equation:
171
The drag force Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

∂ω
+ (∇ω)u = (∇u)ω +ν∆ω, ω = curlu.
∂t
The convection term is the second one at the first member whilst the
diffusion term is the last at the second member.
For fluids like water or air, the values of ν give almost always rise to
values of Re much greater than unity (of the order of 104 and more).
This means that in all these cases, the viscosity term can be
neglected in the motion equation and the diffusion term in the
vorticity equation.
So the motion equations can still be approximated by the Euler
equations also for a viscous fluid.
Actually, viscosity is taken into account by the dynamical boundary
condition, stipulating the adherence of the fluid particles to the solid
surface:
u=w.
172
86
The drag force

Vorticity is generated at the body surface as a consequence of the
adherence condition.
This vorticity is transported by convection and diffuses in the fluid
domain.
Re is >>1 means that the diffusion of vorticity can be neglected with
respect to its convection.
Physically, vorticity that generates at the solid walls do not diffuse in
the fluid domain but remains confined in a thin boundary layer at the
body surface and is transported by convection along such surface.
In other words, it can be considered that all the vorticity is
concentrated in a boundary thin layer at the body surface and
outside this region the motion can still be considered as irrotational
and inviscid.
So, in the exterior region the solution to the Euler equations is still
sought by the same methods as for potential fluids, while in the
boundary layer the viscosity must be taken into account.
173

The two solutions are then connected by a continuity condition on
the velocity of the fluid.
A result of the Prandtl theory is that the thickness of the boundary
layer is of the order 1/ Re and that the pressure do not vary along
the thickness of the boundary layer.
This allows to calculate the pressure resultant on the body surface
with the result of the exterior region problem, i.e. considering the
fluid as inviscid and the flow as irrotational.
Once the pressure field found on the border between boundary layer
and exterior region, it can be applied directly to the body surface to
found the resultant pressure action being the pressure constant in
the boundary layer and being its thickness extremely small.
So, up till now nothing changes for what concerns the computation
of the pressure resultant: it is made as in the ideal irrotational case
(this implies also the existence of the inertial term in accelerated
motions).
174
87
The drag force

But now, the introduction of the boundary layer, where the flow is
rotational and the fluid must be considered as viscous, allows the
introduction of a force acting upon the body in the direction of the
motion, which is a resistance if the body moves.
In fact, the velocity of the fluid in the boundary layer passes quickly
from the value of the body speed (zero for a body at rest) on the
body surface to the value of the irrotational flow at the surface of
separation between the exterior zone and the boundary layer.
Usually, this implies very high gradients of the velocity, as the
thickness of the boundary layer is very small.
So, now the viscosity of the fluid gives a friction action on the
surface of the body, whose resultant is:
fv = 2µ ∫ D n ds.
∂Ω
This is the viscous drag.

But what can be shown in some examples and tests, is that the
viscous drag is always almost negligible with respect to the inertial
175

force (in water) and that it is very small for some bodies with respect
to the measured value of the interaction force in steady motion (in
air and in water).
This means that the model sketched before does not well represent
the physical situation in some cases.
But, actually, what happens? The model described hereon has a
fundamental hypothesis: that the boundary layer, where vorticity is
concentrated, remains attached at the body surface.
This is true only for fluid-dynamic bodies, i.e. sharp-shaped bodies.
This is the case, e.g., of an airfoil, like in the figure.
exterior region boundary

layer
fv
v v
τ
176
88
The drag force

Unlike this case, is that of bluff bodies.
A bluff body is a body for which the boundary layer does not remain
attached at the body surface: it is detached and transported in to the
fluid field, downstream the body, creating a turbulent wake where
vorticity is concentrated: it is the phenomenon of the wake
separation.
This alters deeply the pressure field around the body, which is no
more equilibrated.
So, now the surface integral of the pressure on the body surface is
no more null: the drag force fd appears, and now this force, usually
fd
v wake
177

of some orders of magnitude greater than the viscous drag for bluff
bodies, gives reason of the measured values of the resistance.
This force is only indirectly due to viscosity, as it is the resultant of a
pressure field (caused in part by viscosity).
Unfortunately, such a flow pattern usually cannot be described
analytically, and anyway the analytical tools used for the irrotational
inviscid flows in the case of fluid-dynamic bodies can no longer be
used.
Anyway, a general simple relation giving the drag force can be found
using for instance the methods of mechanical similitude.
The result, already introduced in Chapter 2, gives for the drag force
1
fd = Cd ρ A V 2 .
2
A is the area of the body in a plane orthogonal to the flow;
V is the undisturbed (or body) speed;
Cd is the drag coefficient.
178
89
The drag force

The drag coefficient depends upon the body shape and on its
orientation with respect to the flow (or the body motion) and on Re.
A wide discussion of Cd has already been done in Chapter 2.
Now, the d’Alembert’s paradox is definitely removed.
Other fluid-structure interactions can exist, namely of dynamical
type, i.e. coupling the fluid and the body motion.
Some of these will be briefly introduced in the following sections and
chapters.
Now, it is important, for offshore structure, to link the analysis done
before for the fluid actions to the flow generated by regular waves
around a fixed body, in order to calculate the wave action exerted on
a fixed structure.
For doing this, it is of importance to recall some aspects of the wave
theories.
This is done in the next section.
179
Wave theories Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Several wave theories exist to describe at best the flow produced by
gravity waves in water:
the trochoidal wave theory (Gerstner, 1802);
the sinusoidal wave theory (Airy, 1827);
the nth-order wave theory (Stokes, 1847);
the solitary wave theory (Boussinesq, 1871, Rayleigh, 1876);
the cnoidal wave theory (Korteweg & De Vries, 1895);
the long wave theory (Stoker, 1957);
the stream function wave theory (Dean, 1965);
the hyperbolic wave theory (Igawaki, 1968) etc.
Here, we will recall only the classical theories, the most used in
offshore engineering: the Airy theory and the second order Stokes
theory.
In this chapter, the approach to the modeling of wave action is
deterministic: a regular wave train, composed of identical waves is
considered.
The characteristic of these waves are those determined by the
stochastic analysis described in Chapter 2. 180
90
Wave theories

The following assumptions will be made in formulating the wave
models:
ideal fluid (i.e. inviscid incompressible fluid);
irrotational motion;
bi-dimensional flow;
horizontal plane sea bottom.
The model scheme is in the figure:

L: the wave length; a η
d: the water depth; H
η: the wave surface position
above the still water level; L
a: the wave amplitude; d

Ω
H=2a: the wave height;
z
ω=2π/T: the wave frequency;
x
T: the wave period;
0
k=2π/L: the wave number.
181

The flow is modeled as bi-dimensional as in many occasions it is
almost the case; in addition, this assumption does not alter the
results in a significant way.
The assumption that the curl of the velocity field is null is rather
confirmed by experience, at last in a region sufficiently far from the
boundaries (i.e. the bottom and free surfaces).
In fact, the Lagrange-Cauchy theorem assures that a flow beginning
from an ideal fluid at rest remains irrotational.
Water is not a high viscous fluid and in addition the Reynolds’s
number in typical situations are very large: the ideal fluid
approximation can be considered as satisfactory in the field, far from
the boundaries (boundary layer theory).
Hence, it is correct, thank to the Lagrange-Cauchy theorem and in
the theoretical framework of the boundary layer theory, to consider
the water as an inviscid fluid in irrotational motion.
Other theories, however, are rotational theories (e.g. the Gerstner
theory).
182
91
Wave theories

Thanks to the assumptions done hereon, it can be easily verified
that the problem of describing the wave motion corresponds,
mathematically, to search of a scalar function ϕ, the velocity
potential, harmonic on the field and respecting the kinematical
condition of ideal fluids at the free and bottom surface, and the
dynamical condition (given by the Bernoulli’s unsteady theorem) at
the free surface (stipulating the continuity of the pressure field).
The equations to be satisfied by ϕ are:
∂ 2ϕ ∂ 2ϕ
∆ϕ = 2 + 2 = 0 in Ω ;
∂x ∂z
∂ϕ
= 0 for z = 0;
∂z
∂η ∂η ∂ϕ ∂ϕ
+ − = 0 for z = η + d ;
∂t ∂x ∂x ∂z
∂ϕ (∇ϕ )
2
+ + gη = 0 for z = η + d .
∂t 2
183

The previous equations are highly non-linear, the non-linearity being
given by the two conditions at the free surface.
Actually, this non-linearity is not only algebraic, as there are
products of derivatives, but, and more important, it is given also by
the fact that these two conditions must be written in correspondence
of the moving free surface, which is just an unknown of the problem.
In fact, the main goals of a wave theory are to determine:
the moving wave profile, i.e. the function η=η(x,t);
the wave celerity, i.e. the propagation speed of the wave:
L ω
c= = ;
T k
the velocity field of the particles, u=∆ϕ.
So, it is impossible to state a boundary condition at an unknown

boundary.
The way the free surface boundary conditions are treated
distinguishes the following wave theories.
184
92
Wave theories

The Airy’s theory: in the Airy’s theory, the equations are linearized,
i.e. the non-linear terms are discarded and the two free surface
conditions are written at the still water level, not at the actual one,
i.e. for z= d and not for z=η + d.
It can be easily shown that these approximations are acceptable if
the following conditions are satisfied:
deep waters, i.e. L<<d (usually, this condition is considered satisfied if it
is approximately d>L/2);
small amplitude waves, i.e. H<<L.
So, this is a small amplitude wave theory in deep waters.
The free surface conditions become:
∂η ∂ϕ
− =0 for z = d ;
∂t ∂z
∂ϕ
+ gη = 0 for z = d .
∂t
185

They can be rearranged to give:
1 ∂ϕ
η ( x, t ) = − =0 for z = d ;
g ∂t
∂ 2ϕ ∂ϕ
+g =0 for z = d .
∂t 2
∂z
The first equation gives the wave profile once the velocity potential ϕ
known.
In order to obtain a form of the solution, the separation of variables
technique is used: the solution is written in the form
ϕ ( x, z, t ) = f ( z ) cos (kx − ωt ).
This form assures that the motion is a regular train of wave
propagating in the positive x-direction at speed c=ω/k, periodic in
time and space.
186
93
Wave theories

The function f(z) is determined in such a way to satisfy the boundary
conditions; it is easy to see that
f(z) = A cosh kz.
The constant A is determined imposing that the maximum value of η

is a, the wave amplitude; this gives
ga
A=− .
ω coshkd
Finally,
g a cosh kz
ϕ ( x, z, t ) = − cos (kx − ωt ).
ω cosh kd
So
η ( x, t ) = a sin (kx − ω t ).
187

The dynamical condition at the free surface gives, with the previous
value of ϕ, the dispersion equation, linking ω to k (or equivalently T
to L) and d:
ω 2 = g k tanh kd .
This gives
g tanh kd
c= .
k
The velocity vector is
kg a
u = ∆ϕ = [cosh kz sin(kx − ωt );− sinh kz cos (kx − ωt )],
ω cosh kd
and the displacement about the mean position is
a
x= [cosh kz cos (kx − ωt ); sinh kz sin(kx − ωt )].
sinh kd
188
94
Wave theories

The particles motion is a periodic motion over closed elliptic orbits,
whose amplitude decreases exponentially with water depth; at the
bottom, the movement is purely oscillatory, according to the
boundary condition thereon.
The particles velocity has a similar variation with water depth.
So, in the Airy’s theory there is not mass transport; the wave profile
is sinusoidal, and crests and trough are exactly symmetrical.
189

The Stokes' theories: in the Stokes' theories a perturbation
approach is used: the velocity potential and the free surface are
developed in power series of a perturbation parameter ε:
ϕ = ε ϕ1 + ε 2ϕ 2 + ....
η = ε η1 + ε 2η 2 + ....
The number of terms retained in the power series determine the
order of the Stokes' theory; here we will briefly outline the second
order Stokes' theory.
Each equation containing ϕ must be satisfied for each value of ε;
this allow to split each equation into two equations, on for the linear
term ϕ1, the other one for the quadratic term ϕ2.
So, the conditions on the field and at the bottom become
∆ϕ i = 0, i=1,2;
 ∂ϕi 
∂ z  = 0, i=1,2.
  z =0
190
95
Wave theories

The condition at the free surface is now written as
∂ 2ϕ ∂ϕ ∂ (∇ϕ )2 1
f ( x,z,t ) = +g + + ∇ϕ ⋅ ∇(∇ϕ )2 = 0, for z = η + d .
∂t 2
∂z ∂t 2
This equation can be found either from the two free surface
conditions, the kinematical and the dynamical one, either imposing
the derivative of the pressure to be null, using the Bernoulli’s
theorem and the formula for the substantial derivative.
The above condition is again to be imposed on an unknown
boundary. Stokes develops in a Taylor series the function f(x,z,t) up
to second term and then imposes the condition for z=d. This gives,
for the two orders, the conditions:
∂ 2ϕ1 ∂ϕ
+ g 1 = 0, for z = d ;
∂t 2
∂z
∂ ϕ2
2
∂ϕ2 ∂ (∇ϕ1 )2 ∂ ∂ 2ϕ1 ∂ϕ
+ g = − − η1 ( 2 + g 1 ), for z = d .
∂t 2
∂z ∂t ∂z ∂t ∂z
191

The Bernoulli’s theorem gives also the free surface function η:
1  ∂ϕ 1 
η = −  + ( ∇ ϕ )2  .
g ∂ t 2  z =η + d
Using the power series expansion for η and developing it in Taylor’s
expansion up to the second order term written again for z=d, one
gets:
1 ∂ϕ 
η1 = −  1  ;
g  ∂ t  z =d
1 1 ∂ 2ϕ1 ∂ϕ2 
η2 = −  (∇ϕ1)2 + η1 +  .
g  2 ∂ t ∂ z ∂ t 
z =d
Finally, all the linear terms define again the Airy’s theory, so the
Airy’s solution is just the linear term ϕ1 and η1 in a power expansion
of the wave problem. That is why the Airy’s theory is also called the
linear theory.
192
96
Wave theories

The second order problem can be solved once the solution of the
first one is known (this technique is standard also for higher order
theories). The solution is
3 ω cosh 2kz
ϕ2 = − sin 2(kx − ωt );
8 k 2 sinh 4 kd
1 ω 2  3 cosh 2kd sin2 (kx − ωt ) 

η2 = − (
2 g k 2  2 sinh 4 kd
+ 1 )
cos 2( kx − ω t ) +
sinh 2 kd 
.
The perturbation parameter in the Stokes' theory is
2π a
ε = ka = .
L
This parameter represent the steepness of the wave; if ε is small,
the wave steepness is small and hence the wave is a small
perturbation: the linear theory of airy is justified, i.e. the power series
can be truncated at the first term.
193

But if the steepness is not sufficiently small, more terms must be
considered in the power expansions: the Stokes' theory appears
hence as a theory suitable for waves of finite amplitude.
Finally, the solution of the second order Stokes' theory is
g a cosh kz 3 cosh 2kz

ϕ=− cos(kx − ωt ) − a 2ω sin 2(kx − ωt );
ω cosh kd 8 sinh4 kd
1 ω 2a 2  3 cosh 2kd sin2 (kx − ωt ) 

η = a sin (kx − ωt ) − (
2 g  2 sinh4 kd
+ 1 cos )
2( kx − ωt )+
sinh2 kd 
.
Unlike in the linear theory, now crests and troughs are no longer
symmetrical, the crests being steeper than the troughs, see the
figure.
It is worth noting the fact that the quadratic term is of an order of
magnitude less than the linear term (it is apparent in the figure).
194
97
Wave theories

10 η (m) Stokes 2nd order wave
5
2nd order term
0
L=200 m
-5
a=10 m
d=500 m
-10 1st order term x (m)
0 50 100 150 200
The components of the velocity vector are:
 g cosh kz 3 cosh 2kz 

u = ka  sin( kx − ωt ) − ωa cos 2(kx − ωt );
 ω cosh kd
4
4 sinh kd 
 g sinh kz 3 sinh 2kz 
w = −ka  cos(kx − ωt ) + ωa sin 2( kx − ωt ).
 ω cosh kd
4
4 sinh kd 
195

It is apparent, in the expressions of the velocity components, the
existence of a second order term, i.e. depending on ka², oscillating
at a double frequency. These terms will have an important
consequence in the non linear wave action and for the fatigue
design of a platform.
It can also be shown the existence, at the second order, of a
constant term of velocity, the drift, whose expression is:
1 cosh 2kz
ud ( z ) = k a 2ω .
2 sinh 2 kd
The horizontal velocity of a particle with respect to an observer at

rest is then the sum of u and ud.
This implies that the particle orbits are no longer close: there is a
mass transport, due to the drift.
The particle paths are obtained by time integration of the total
speed:
196
98
Wave theories

  g cosh kz 3 cosh 2kz 1 cosh 2kz
x = ka  2 cos(kx − ωt ) + a sin 2(kx − ωt ) + a ωt;
  ω cosh kd
4
8 sinh kd 2 sinh2 kd
g sinh kz 3 sinh 2kz 

sin(kx − ωt ) − a cos 2(kx − ωt ) .
ω cosh kd
2 4
8 sinh kd 
In the following figures, we can see the comparison between the
horizontal components of the particle velocity, showing the fact that
the drift is a second order phenomenon, and the path of a particle,
showing the fact that at the second order the path is open.
m/s 10 m
6
u+ud 2nd order
4 5 1st order
path
2 ud path
0
0
-2 L=200 m L=200 m
-5
a=10 m a=10 m
-4 u
d=500 m sec. d=500 m m
-10
0 2 4 6 8 10 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
197

The drift is important for at least two reasons: first of all, it shows the
presence of a transport mass also for the case of a pure wave
motion, without superposing currents.
Then, it is responsible of a steady second order wave force, the drift
force, which is rather important, especially for compliant structures;
we will see it later in this chapter.
In the following table, it is reported, just for information, the results of

the Stokes’ fifth order theory (source: Sarpkaya & Isaacson),
developed by Skjelbreia & Hendrickson (1960).
The results are rather complicate and they depend upon some
functions of kd, Aij, Bij and Cij, found by the authors of the theory.
The reader is addressed to the original paper of the authors for the
expression of these functions.
198
99
Wave theories

199

The following figure is a scheme for the wave theory selection where
two dimensionless parameters representing water depth and wave
steepness are related (HB is the height of the steepest wave, see
page 207).
H/(gT2)
Deep water waves
Intermediate depth waves
Shallow water waves
Dean’s stream function
Stokes’ 5th order
H/HB=0,25
Stokes’ 2nd order

Cnoidal
Airy’s
d/(gT2)
200
100

Offshore structures are always bluff bodies: usually, they are
composed by several parts having a circular section.
Hence, for what we have seen before, one should consider in this
case the drag force caused by the wake separation in a flow
produced by currents and waves.
In addition, the wave flow being unsteady, an inertial force
proportional to the fluid particles acceleration and to the inertial
coefficient of the structure must be taken into account.
So, generally speaking, in the case of offshore structures the two
principal hydrodynamic forces are to be considered, along with, in
several cases, the Archimedes' force.
The only force that can be always neglected in offshore engineering
is the viscous drag, as its contribution is always of several orders of
magnitude inferior to that of the inertial and drag force.
201
Slender and large bodies Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The presence of an obstacle, like for instance a platform leg, alters
the flow pattern of a regular train of waves.
Hence, it is questionable if the results obtained with a wave theory
(i.e. in the absence of any obstacle) can be longer used in the
computation of wave actions.
Of course, this point depends upon the importance of the
disturbance caused by the obstacle on the undisturbed wave flow.
All these points can be better investigated by the following
approach.
Let us consider a vertical circular cylinder of diameter D, in a water
depth d and, for the sake of simplicity, subjected to small amplitude
waves.
Then, the largest horizontal speed of water particles at the cylinder
axis, computed in the hypothesis that the cylinder does not alter the
undisturbed wave flow, is get at the free surface in correspondence
to the passage of a crest or of a trough:
202
101

g ak g ak H 2πg
umax = = = .
ω g k tanh kd 2 L tanh 2πd
L
In deep waters (kd→∞), it is
πg H
umax ≅ H ≅ 3.925 .
2L L
The corresponding Reynolds’s number is
HD
Re ≈ 3 × 10 6 .
L
With the usual design values of D, H and L, Re is always much
greater than 1 (for instance, if L=200 m, H=20 m and D=1 m,
Re ≅ 4.23×106).
203

Hence, the viscous effects are always negligible with respect to the
inertial ones, and the problem can be analyzed, in theory, with the
potential flow model.
This model gives only one dynamical force of interaction: the inertial
force, due, in the case of the wave motion, to the unsteadiness of
the motion.
But we have seen above that this is true only in the absence of wake
separation.
Unfortunately, as already said, offshore platforms are always bluff
bodies, and the potential flow model is not correct, in principle, to
assess wave actions on offshore platforms.
Nevertheless, it happens that the potential flow model is still valid, if
certain geometrical restrictions are satisfied, to predict with a good
approximation wave actions, but only wave actions, not wind or
current actions.
The reason of this is exclusively due to the fact that the wave motion
is an unsteady oscillating flow.
204
102

In fact, let us consider the dimensionless ratio
umaxT
KC = .
D
It is known as the Keulegan-Carpenter number and it represents the
ratio between an overestimation of the horizontal distance traveled
by a particle during the wave period T and the cylinder diameter D.
Hence, a small KC means that the particle near the cylinder cannot
travel far from the cylinder itself, for the flow inversion during the
wave period.
In such circumstances, the wake separation, though it tends to
produce, is actually unimportant, as this phenomenon remains
confined in a small region close to the cylinder’s surface.
Outside this zone, the flow is not affected by the wake separation: it
is still a potential flow and hence this model can still be used for the
assessment of the wave actions on the cylinder.
205

It is apparent that this computation scheme is strictly due to the
geometrical dimensions of the cylinder with respect to the wave
characteristics and to the oscillatory character of the wave motion:
hence, it cannot be used, for instance, for steady (or anyway not
oscillatory) flows, like those produced by wind and currents.
It is commonly considered that KC<4 is sufficient to ignore the wake
separation effects.
For the same water depth and wave, KC increases when D
decreases.
Hence, for small-diameter cylinders (slender bodies) the wake
separation cannot be neglected in the computation of wave actions,
whilst for large diameter cylinders (large bodies) the potential flow
model is correct.
This means that for traditional steel offshore platforms (jackets, jack-
up), composed of tubular beams with a diameter of about 1 m of
diameter, the computation of the wave action is made taking into
account the wake separation.
206
103

On the contrary, for large-diameter structures (concrete gravity
platforms, TLPs, SPARs), having diameters usually greater than 10
m, the computation of the wave action is made within the theoretical
framework of the potential flow.
Using the expressions of umax, T and the dispersion equation, we get
g akT g ak a π (H/L)
KC = = 2 π 2 = 2π = .
ωD ω D D tanh kd (D/L) tanh kd
It can be shown that the maximum steepness of a wave is

H 1 π L L
= tanh kd → KCmax = ≅ 0.45 .
L 7 7D D
So, the highest value of KC for a wave and a cylinder depends

essentially upon the ratio between the wave length and the cylinder
diameter.
207

This ratio is also of importance in describing the disturbance of the
cylinder on the wave undisturbed flow (that can be modeled by one
of the wave theories seen above).
In fact, if the ratio D/L is small, the wave flow is substantially not
disturbed by the presence of the cylinder.
On the contrary, if D/L is large, the cylinder affects in a substantial
way the wave flow.
In this last case, it is no longer possible to compute the wave actions
upon the body as if the wave motion were undisturbed, i.e. the flow
described by the formulae seen above for the theories of Airy and
Stokes cannot be used: the wave description must take into account
for the presence of the body. The theory that is used in this case is
the diffraction theory (actually, the obstacle diffracts the waves).
In addition, if the body is large, it is meaningless to assess the
surface actions due to the pressure field as if the value of the
pressure were the same everywhere, as in the case of slender
bodies, when the wave characteristics are evaluated only in one
place: on the axis of the cylinder.
208
104

In fact, the velocity, and pressure, field can be very different in
points of the cylinder surface that are distant one from the other and
the global wave action is very influenced by this spatial variation.
It is commonly considered that for a ratio D/L>1/5 the diffraction
effects must be considered.
In such cases, KCmax≅ 2.25; this means that whenever the diffraction
theory must be used, it is possible to use the potential flow model
and to neglect the wake separation effects (diffraction range).
On the contrary, when D/L<1/5 the diffraction effects are negligible,
the wake can still be described by an undisturbed wave (commonly,
bi-dimensional) model. Two cases are still possible in such a
situation:
D/L<1/5 and KC<4, the wake separation can be neglected and the wave
force is essentially an inertial force (inertial range);
D/L<1/5 and KC>4, the wake separation is the dominant effect and the
wave action is due to both inertial and drag terms (separation range).
In both these last two cases, the undisturbed wave motion is
evaluated on the points of the cylinder axis.
209

The above considerations are summarized in the following diagram.
The shadowed zone is that where non-linear effects should be taken
into account, both for the slender and the large body cases.
10
KC
8
Separation range
Important non-linear effects
H/L=(H/L)max
6 KC = KCmax
4
H/L=0.5(H/L)max
1
KC = KCmax
2
2 Diffraction range
Inertial range
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
D/L 210
105

We have seen above that in the case of slender bodies, the wake
separation effects become important and in computing the wave
action, both the inertial and the drag forces must be taken into
account.
Unfortunately, there are no theories giving the inertial force for a
turbulent flow, i.e. in the presence of wake separation. In other
words, they do not exist exact formulae giving at the same time the
drag and the inertial force.
However, we know how to calculate these two forces separately,
each one in a flow pattern quite different: the potential flow for the
inertial force, the rotational turbulent flow for the drag force.
This was the situation at the beginning of offshore engineering, in
the early ‘50s.
At that period, a semi empirical formula was proposed for the
evaluation of the wave action on slender bodies.
211
First order wave action on a slender body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

This formula is the celebrated Morison’s equation (Morison, O’Brien,
Johnson & Schaaf, 1950): the in-line horizontal wave force per unit
length on a vertical cylinder is
du 1
F = CM ρ A + CD ρ D u u ;
dt 2
u: horizontal component of the particles’ velocity;

D: cylinder’s diameter;
A: cross sectional area of the cylinder;
ρ: water’s density;
CM: inertia coefficient: CM = 1 + C A ;
CA: added mass coefficient: C A = µ / ρA;
µ: added mass per unit length of the cylinder;
CD: drag coefficient (see Chapter 2).
This formula has not a theoretical basis: it is simply the
superposition of the inertial and drag force, calculated in two
different schemes, the potential and the separated flow.
212
106

However, experience has shown that this formula works rather well.
In the case of a circular cylinder in an uniform accelerated current,
we have seen that the added mass per unit length is just ρ A; so, in
such a case, the one of concern in offshore platforms, it is CM= 2.
However, the wave motion is not an uniform accelerated motion; so
a wide discussion and a large mass of results concern the actual
values of CM and CD to be used in calculations. Actually, this is
mostly a way to fit a semi-empirical law with experimental results.
Experiences show that these two coefficients depends upon almost
all the parameters not directly included in the Morison’s equation,
and namely: Re, KC, roughness, water depth and also the wave
theory.
API norms suggest the values CD= 0.6 to 1.2 and CM= 1.3 to 2.0.
NTS rules suggest to get
For KC>30:
CD = 0.65 and CM = 1.6 for smooth members.
CD = 1.05 and CM = 1.2 for rough members.
213

For 4<KC<30:
CD = 0.65 and CM = 2.0 for smooth members.
CD = 0.80 and CM = 2.0 for rough members.
The following experimental diagrams are due to Sarpkaya (1976),
and show CD and CM as functions of Re and for constant values of
KC.
It is apparent that the value 2 is an upper limit for both the

coefficients. In particular, for small KC, CM tends towards 2.
214
107

In the figures above, CD and CM are plotted as functions of Re and
for constant values of the relative roughness ε/D (ε: mean dimension
of the roughness, in m). The curves have been traced for KC= 50.
To consider that in the early lifetime of a platform, the cylinder
surface can be considered as smooth, but, due to marine growth, it
becomes rough after some months.
215

To be remarked that the ratio between the highest drag force and
the highest inertial force is:
1
FD max CD ρ D umax
2
2 CD umax KC CD
= 22 = = .
FI max πD π CM ω D π 2 CM
CM ρ ω umax
4
Hence, for small values of KC, the inertial force prevails on drag
force, the contrary for large values of KC.
In other words, for small KC, drag force is negligible with respect to
inertial force: in this case the diffraction theory is more appropriate to
evaluate the wave force.
In the case of a current superposed to the wave motion, the
Morison’s equation is used simply adding the wave and current
velocities.
Anyway, there is a general and exact transformation that allows to
consider the presence of a current in a wave motion.
216
108

Since the solution for the wave motion is in the absence of a mean
current, the transformation is obtained selecting a reference system
translating with the current speed U (current considered to
propagate in the same direction as the wave motion).
The problem is thus rendered in the same form as that for the
original (without current) solution; the only modification is that it is
necessary to utilize the encounter period, i.e. the period apparent to
an observer moving with the current U, as contrasted to the actual
wave period, apparent to a stationary observer.
The two periods are related by
T
Te = .
U
1−
c
This transformation is always applicable, not only for the case of
slender bodies.
217
The case of a moving body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

All what has been said above, refers to a stationary obstacle, and it
is the principal situation encountered in offshore engineering, where
platforms are stiff, fixed structures.
But in some cases, namely for compliant structures (semi-
submersibles, TLPs, SPARs, compliant structures, guyed towers),
the motion of the structure is important with respect to the structure’s
dimensions, and the motion of the platform can interact with the
wave flow.
Newmann (1977) has given a modified expression of the Morison’s
equation to be used when the cylinder moves (x is the actual
position of the cylinder’s axis):
1 ∂ u ∂ u
F= ρ CD D u − x& (u − x& ) + ρ CM A  + (u − x& ) − µ x&&;
2  ∂t ∂ x 
To be remarked that the force depends upon the cylinder velocity,
i.e. it is non linear.
218
109

The Morison’s equation is a formula which is intended for small
amplitude waves.
In fact, all the non linear terms are neglected in it, as the inertial and
drag force are calculated in an ideal uniform current, not for a real
wave motion, CM and CD being adjusted to fit the experimental
results.
But, in a real wave motion, some phenomena should be taken into
account, like for instance the drift or the fact that the free surface is
not plane.
If the wave is a small amplitude wave, these phenomena are
negligible, and also their consequences on the wave action.
But when the wave steepness becomes important, say greater than
half its maximum theoretical value (see figure on page 210), the
wave should be modeled by a non-linear theory in order to introduce
non-linear effects in the wave action.
Here, we consider the second order wave action for the case of
slender bodies, i.e. the action that is theoretically in accordance with
the Stokes' second order wave theory. 219
Second order wave action on a slender body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Lighthill (1979) has proposed a correction to the Morison’s formula,
to take into account the second order terms; the results are given in
the case of deep waters, for a vertical circular cylinder placed on the
bottom surface and crossing the free surface z=d (C is the cylinder
cross section contour line, b is the cylinder’s radius and θ is the
polar angle in a cylindrical frame centered on the cylinder’s axis):
F = F1 + F2 + F3 + F4 + F5 .
In the above formula, it is:
∂ ϕ1
F1 = − ρ ∫ n ds = 2 π ρ g a b 2 cos ωt .
∂Ω ∂ t
This term is exactly the inertial term in the Morison’s equation for a
vertical cylinder, with CM=2 (this force is due to the unsteadiness of
the linear wave motion).
220
110

The second term is the drag force acting on the whole cylinder.
F2 = 1 CD ρ g a2 D sinωt sinωt .
4
The third term is:
π  0,28 
F3 = − ρ ∫ w(∇ϕ1 )2ds = ρ g a 2 b 4 k 3 16 log − 3  sin 2ωt .
z =d 2  kb 
This term is due to the quadratic term of the velocity potential in a
second order Stokes-like potential decomposition.
The fourth term is:
1 π
F4 = ρ ∫ (∇ϕ1 )2 cos θ ds = ρ g a 2 b 2 k sin 2ωt .
2 S 4
This term is due to the kinetic pressure, relative to the only linear
potential.
221
Second order wave action on a slender body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Finally, the last term is:
2
ρ  ∂ ϕ1 
F5 = ∫ 
2g  ∂ t 
C
 cos θ dl = 4F4 .
This term is present only if the cylinder cross the free surface and it
is due to the fact that the boundary condition is written on the actual
surface, and not on z=d, with the technique seen in the Stokes'
second order theory.
The next figure shows the case of a cylinder with D= 1m subjected
to waves with H= 20m and L= 200m.
The terms of the Lighthill’s correction are small compared to those of
the (linear) formula of Morison.
Actually, as already said, the importance of these terms increases
with the steepness of the wave (the wave considered in the example
is almost the steepest possible wave): it is sufficient to consider the
ratio between F4 and F1 to appreciate this circumstance:
222
111

F4 π π2 H
= k a sin ωt = sin ωt .
F1 4 4 L
If one remembers that in case of deep waters the maximum
steepness of a wave is 1/7 (as tanh kd→1), then F4 is at most the
35% of F1; in such a case, F5 can be greater than F1.
tons tons
10 F5
F2
F1+F2
10 F4 F1
F3+ F4+F5
100 F3
Ftotal
sec sec
223
First order wave action on a large body Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

In the case of a large body, this affects the wave motion (the
phenomenon of wave diffraction).
Commonly, it is considered that for D/L>1/5 the wave diffraction
effects cannot be neglected.
So, the solution obtained for an undisturbed wave flow must now be
modified to account for this effect: a wave diffraction theory is
necessary to this purpose.
In addition, we have seen that whenever the diffraction theory is of
concern, the mathematical model is that of a potential flow: in fact, in
the worst case, when D/L=1/5, it is, for the steepest possible wave,
KCmax≅ 2.25, i.e. KC<4: below this value of KC, it is commonly
accepted that the wave diffracted flow is a potential flow.
Hence, the problem is now the following one: to find a suitable
representation of the wave diffracted flow by a velocity potential
function ϕ: it is a typical boundary value problem that can have, in
some cases, an analytical, and even a closed form, solution.
224
112

Before stating the diffraction problem and looking for some classical
solutions, we must remark two points.
The first one, is the fact that the drag force disappears completely: in
fact, it is linked to the wake separation, that does not happen in a
potential flow scheme.
The second one is the fact that the diffraction theory is not unique,
just like the wave theories.
Basically, the wave diffraction theory depends upon the wave theory
used to describe the undisturbed flow.
Usually, this is the Airy’s theory or the Stokes' second order theory.
Hence, we have a first order diffraction theory if the Airy’s theory is
used, and a second order diffraction theory if the Stokes' second
order wave theory is used.
The first case is that of small amplitude waves, the second one that
of steepest waves (H/L>0.5 (H/L)max≅ 0.07, see figure on page 210).
Of course, different diffractions theories can be used, according to
the wave theory used, but usually this is not done.
225

In this section, we consider the linear diffraction theory (small
amplitude waves).
The undisturbed wave motion is then described by the Airy’s theory.
We use the same scheme used for the description of the
undisturbed waves, shown in the figure. The body is fixed.
The case of a diffracted train of waves is governed by the same
equations on the field, at the bottom and free surface (namely, the
linearised free surface conditions are used).
In addition, a condition is needed on the surface of the body.
As the fluid is modeled as a η
ideal, i.e. inviscid, this
condition is the same as
that at the bottom surface, L
d ∂Ω
i.e. the kinematical condition Ω
imposing the component of z n
the velocity normal to the x
body surface to be null. 0
226
113

Finally, the following Neumann problem must be solved:
∆ϕ = 0 in Ω ,
∂ϕ
=0 for z = 0,
∂ z
∂ϕ
=0 at ∂Ω ,
∂n
∂ 2ϕ ∂ϕ
+g =0 for z = d .
∂t 2
∂ z
The wave profile is still given by
1  ∂ϕ 
η ( x, t ) = − .
g  ∂ t  z =d
227

The presence of the body is accounted for by the body’s surface
condition.
The essential point is the fact that all the equations are linear:
hence, the superposition of flows is possible.
The velocity potential ϕ is then split into two parts:
ϕ = ϕw + ϕs ;
ϕw: undisturbed wave potential;
ϕs: scattered wave potential.
Physically, the flow is considered as the superposition of two

different flows: an undisturbed flow, i.e. the flow that one would have
in the absence of the body, and a scattered flow, i.e. a flow of waves
emanating from and outward the body.
For what concerns ϕw, it must describe the undisturbed flow in the
framework of the linear theory, i.e. ϕw is just the Airy’s solution.
228
114

As ϕw is harmonic and respects the bottom and free surface
conditions, also ϕs must respect these two conditions:
∆ϕs = 0 in Ω ,
∂ϕs
=0 for z = 0,
∂z
∂ 2ϕs ∂ϕ
+ g s = 0 for z = d.
∂t 2
∂z
In addition, ϕs must respect a condition at the body’s surface such
that the global potential ϕ respect the kinematical condition at that
surface; hence, it must be
∂ϕs ∂ϕ
=− w at ∂Ω .
∂n ∂n
This relation gives the dependence of ϕs on ϕw.
229

To determine ϕs another condition is needed, that must state the
behaviour of the scattered waves far from the body (i.e. at an infinite
distance from it).
This condition is not needed for ϕw as the undisturbed flow is
intended to be the same everywhere.
The condition the precise the behaviour of the scattered waves far
from the body is known as the Sommerfeld radiation condition: it
states that the scattered waves departs from the body and that they
decrease to extinguish at infinity.
Physically, this means that the body produces a localised
perturbation, perturbation that decreases in intensity with the
distance r from the body.
It can be shown that, in complex form, the Sommerfeld condition is:
 ∂ϕ 
lim r  s − i k ϕ s  = 0.
r →∞
∂r 
230
115

The problem being linear, the wave profile is obtained as the sum of
the wave profiles corresponding to the two flows, the undisturbed
and the scattered one:
η = ηw + ηs .
Each one of the two components is computed with the relation seen
above for η, applied to the corresponding potential.
Once the velocity potential known, the wave action F is computed by
the relation:
F = −∫ p n ds.
∂Ω
The pressure p is computed by the Bernoulli’s unsteady theorem; if

the hydrostatic term is not considered (Archimedes' force) as it does
not give a dynamical action and, coherently with a linear theory,
neglecting the quadratic velocity term (kinetic pressure) we get, see
equation on page 149 (the space constants have been included in
the potential):
231

∂ϕ
p = −ρ .
∂t
Integrating the pressure over the immersed body surface, we get the
dynamical wave action on the body:
∂ϕ
F=∫ ρ n ds.
∂Ω ∂t
This is the Froude-Krylov force, already found, see page 160 (some
authors reserve this name only to the case where the potential is
evaluated on the cylinder’s axis, i.e. to the inertial term of the
Morison’s equation); once again, it is worth noting that it is due only
to the transient pressure, i.e. to the unsteadiness of the motion.
So, in the theoretical framework of the linear diffraction theory, the
whole wave action on a fixed body is entirely due to the transient
pressure, hence to the fact that the flow is not steady.
232
116

The problem is now to find the scattered potential ϕs; in the case of
a vertical cylinder, the one of concern in offshore engineering, this
can be done analytically.
The first solution obtained in the framework of the linear diffraction
theory concerns a vertical circular cylinder of radius b placed on the
bottom surface and crossing the free surface (see the figure): it is
the solution of Mc Camy and Fuchs (1954).
As the problem has a cylindrical symmetry, it is worth to use the
cylindrical coordinates.
2b
a η
L ∂Ω
d
Ω n
z
x
0
233
The Mc Camy and Fuchs solution Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

With these coordinates, if the subscript h reads w for the
undisturbed flow and s for the scattered one, the equations are:
∂ 2ϕ h 1 ∂ϕh 1 ∂ 2ϕ h ∂ 2ϕ h
∆ϕ h = + + + = 0 in Ω ;
∂ r 2 r ∂ r r 2 ∂ θ 2 ∂ z2
∂ϕs ∂ϕ
= − w for r=b;
∂r ∂r
∂ϕh
= 0 for z = 0;
∂ z
∂ 2ϕ h ∂ϕ
+ g h = 0 for z=d;
∂t 2
∂ z
 ∂ϕ 
lim r  s − i k ϕ s  = 0.
r →∞
 ∂ r 
234
117

The potential ϕw is already known, it is the solution of Airy, but it is
worth to have an expression of ϕw suitable for cylindrical
coordinates.
So, we write ϕw in the complex form
 g a cosh k z i ( k r cosθ −ω t ) 
ϕw = Re − e .
 ω cosh k d 
This equation can be rewritten using the identity
∞
e i k r cos θ = ∑ ε n i n Jn (kr ) cos nθ ; Jn n=0
n =0
n=1
n=2
εn: Neumann’s index; εn = 1 for n=0, n=3 n=4
n=5
εn = 2 for n≥1;
Jn(kr): Bessel’s function of the first type,
order n and argument kr; it satisfies the
Bessel’s equation
x 2 y ′′ + xy ′ + ( x 2 − n 2 )y = 0. kr
In the figure: the functions Jn(kr) for n=0,…,5. 235

So we get:
 g a cosh k z ∞ 
ϕw = Re − ∑ ε n i n Jn (kr ) cos nθ e −iωt .
 ω cosh k d n =0 
For what concerns the scattered waves potential, we proceed in a

similar way: we pose
 g a cosh k z 
ϕ s = Re − φ (r ,θ ) e −i ω t .
 ω cosh k d 
In this way, the boundary conditions at the bottom and free surfaces
are automatically satisfied.
The function φ(r,θ) is expressed by a Fourier series of Hankel’s
functions:
∞
φ (r ,θ ) = ∑ ε n i n an Hn (kr ) cos nθ ;
n =0
236
118

Hn(kr) is the Hankel’s function of the first n=0 n=1 n=2 n=3 n=4
Yn n=5
type, order n and argument kr:
Hn = Jn + i Yn ;
Yn(kr): Bessel’s function of the second

type, order n and argument kr; also Yn
satisfies the Bessel’s equation.
In the figures: the functions Yn and Hn for
n=0,…,5. kr
With this choice, the equation on the field is automatically satisfied

(i.e. the function is harmonic), independently on the series
coefficients, thanks to the properties of the derivatives of Hn.
In addition the function Hn admit, for r→∞, the asymptotic
representation
2 n +1
2 i (k r − π)
Hn (kr ) ≈ e 4 ∀n.
πkr
Hence, the Sommerfeld irradiation condition is also satisfied.
237

The coefficients an are determined by imposing the last condition
that is still to be statisfied: the kinematical condition at the cylinder’s
surface; with some algebraic simple manipulations we get:
J′n (kb)
an = − .
H′n (kb)
The prime indicates the derivative with respect to the argument, kr.
To resume, Mc Camy and Fuchs have obtained a representation of
the scattered potential using the classical techniques of variable
separation, series representation and using some special functions
automatically satisfying all the conditions but that on the body’s
surface: this last has given the coefficients of the series.
Finally, the total potential is
 ∞ 
g a cosh k z  J′ (kb) 
ϕ = Re −
ω cosh k d
∑ ε n i n Jn (kr ) − Hn′ (kb) Hn (kr ) cos nθ e −i ω t .
 n =0  n  
238
119

The wave profile can now be easily determined:
 ∞ 
 J′n (kb ) 
η = −a Re  ∑ ε n i n +1  Jn (kr ) − Hn ( kr )  cos nθ e −i ω t .
n =0  H′n (kb )  
In the figure, the diffracted wave profile (b= 20m, a=10 m, L=200 m,
d=500 m; 10 terms in the series; radius of the plotting: 20 kb).
239

Finally, being n=(cosθ, sinθ, 0) the wave action on the cylinder (the
Froude-Krylov force) is easy to be calculated and we obtain:
2π   J′ (kb )  
F= ρ g a b tanh kd Re −  J1( kb ) − 1 H1( kb )  e −i ω t .
k   ′
H1(kb )  
This expression can be simplified; in fact, the identity
J′n (kb) 2i
Jn (kb ) − Hn (kb) = ,
H′n (kb ) π k b H′n (kb)
gives
4ρga i e− i ω t 
F= tanh kd Re .
k2  H1′ (kb ) 
Then, as for real positive arguments (as in this case kr) the Bessel’s
functions of the first and second order are real valued and as
240
120

1 J ′ − i Y1′
= 1 ,
H1′ J1′ 2 + Y1′2
we get the final expression of the force:

4ρga tanh kd
FMCF = cos (ω t − δ ) .
2
k J1′2 (kb ) + Y1′2 ( kb )
The phase angle δ is given by

Y1′ (kb)
δ = − arctan
.
J1′ (kb)
The force F depends linearly upon a and it can be shown that it
tends to the Morison’s inertial term when b→0.
It is worth to give a dimensionless expression to F; to do this, we
introduce the conventional quantity
B = π ρ g a b 2.
241

B is the Archimedes' force acting upon the cylinder for a water
height equal to the wave amplitude a; hence, B is a force
characteristic of the problem, both for the cylinder and the wave.
In this way, we introduce the dimensionless value of F as the ratio
FMCF 4 tanh λ
FMCF = = cos(ω t − δ );
B π µ2 J1′ 2 + Y1′ 2
λ=kd, µ=kb and the Bessel’s function are intended to be evaluated for
the value µ of the argument.
In a similar way one can compute the overturning moment
∂ϕ 4 ρ g a 1 + kd sinhkd − coshkd cos(ω t − δ )
MMCF = ρ ∫ ( p − o) ∧ n ds = .
∂Ω ∂t k3 coshkd J1′2 (kb) + Y1′2 (kb)
Again, we introduce the dimensionless overturning moment:
M MCF 4 1 + λ sinh λ − cosh λ 1

M MCF = = cos(ωt − δ ).
bB πµ 3 cosh λ J1′ + Y1′2
2
242
121

In the following figures, the functions F (λ, µ ) and M (λ, µ ) are shown.
It is apparent that the force depends on λ only for small values of λ,
while the moment, as a consequence of this, is almost linearly
dependent upon λ.
A result a little bit surprising: the larger the cylinder, the smaller the
force! The largest structures do not experience the highest forces.
F
λ
λ
µ µ
243

Let us compare now the Morison’s and the Mc Camy and Fuchs
forces.
To do this, we first calculate the whole action on the cylinder: by
integrating the unit length action over the cylinder’s length we get
FM = CM π ρ g a b 2 tanh kd cos ωt +
1 cosh kd sinh kd + kd
+ CD ρ g a 2 D sin ωt sin ωt .
2 cosh kd sinh kd
In the case of deep waters, and assuming CM=2, we find again the
terms F1 and F2 of the Lighthill correction to the Morison’s equation.
We introduce now the ratio χ between the maximum of the
Morison’s force and maximum of the Mc Camy and Fuchs formula.
For the sake of simplicity, the maximum of the Morison’s force is
computed as the sum of the inertial and drag terms; the real
maximum of Fm is slightly smaller than this value.
244
122

With the above expressions, we obtain:
cosh λ sinh λ + λ
CM π µ tanh λ + CDα
µ cosh λ sinh λ ;
χ=
4 tanh λ
J1′ 2 ( µ ) + Y1′ 2 ( µ )
α= ka, a wave steepness dimensionless parameter.
For the case of deep waters, the above expression is well

approximated by the simpler
µ
χ= (CM π µ + CDα ) J1′2 ( µ ) + Y1′2 ( µ );
4
In the following figure, the ratio χ is plotted as a function of µ and λ,

for CM=2 and CD=0.5, a=10 m, L=200m, and then for the case of
λ=10.
245

separation range
χ
inertial range
diffraction range
FM /FMCF
λ FIN /FMCF
FD /FMCF
µ
D/L=0.1
D/L=0.2
µ
The first figure shows that χ practically does not depend upon λ.
The second figure, shows that in the separation range the Mc Camy
and Fuchs solution underestimate the force.
Physically, this is because it does not consider drag, and
mathematically, because the drag is a linear function of µ while the
Mc Camy and Fuchs force (as well as the inertial force) is quadratic.
246
123

In the separation range, the Morison’s force becomes greater than
the Mc Camy and Fuchs force.
This is essentially due to the inertial force in the Morison’s equation,
how the two ratios FIN/FMCF and FD/FMCF, also plotted, show.
This is due to the fact that in the Morison’s equation, diffraction is
not considered and the pressure field is reduced at the only
pressure in correspondence of the cylinder axis.
When the diameter of the cylinder is large in comparison with the
wave length, this brings to a large overestimation, as the pressure
field, caused by the unsteadiness, i.e. by the oscillatory movement
of the particles, changes considerably on the cylinder’s surface.
So, this shows clearly the need to use a diffraction theory for about
D/L>0.2, i.e. for, say, µ>0.6.
In the inertial range, the two forces are practically equivalent;
however, unlike the case of the Morison’s equation, the diffraction
theory can give account, also in this case, for the wave
enhancement near the cylinder, by the function η seen above.
247

Finally, the next two figures show the time variation, during the wave
period, of FM and FMCF, in the separation and diffraction range,
where
F α cosh λ sinh λ + λ
FM = M = CM tanh λ cos ωt + CD sin ωt sin ωt .
B µ cosh λ sinh λ
In both the cases, it is α=π/10, λ=π, CM=2 and CD=0.5.
FM FMCF FM
FMCF
µ=π/100 µ=3π/10
t t
248
124

The remarks made before are confirmed by these results; in
addition, the phase angle increases with µ, and also this effect is
due to the fact that in the case of large cylinders, the pressure fields
vary so much along the cylinder’s surface that the time variation of
the force is affected too.
In conclusion, the Mc Camy and Fuchs solution must be used for
structures having values of µ greater than, say, 0.6.
This must be done to not overestimate the wave action, what
happens if the Morison’s equation is used in this range.
249
The Garrett solution Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The Garrett solution concerns the case of a fixed floating vertical
cylinder, i.e. not touching the bottom surface.
This is of interest in some cases: SPARs, TLPs and so on.
Garrett (1971) has given the solution for the case of a cylinder and
also for that of a torus, with rectangular section, of interest for
floating harbours; here, we are concerned only with the first case.
The reference scheme is sketched in the figure; the immersion p
and the clearance h are put in a dimensionless form as:
ν = kh; τ = kp. 2b
a η
The solution technique ∂ΩL
is the same as in the nL p
previous case: the L ∂ΩB
potential is still d nB
Ω1 h
expressed as the sum Ω2 z
of an undisturbed and a
scattered potential. x
0
250
125

In particular, Garrett posed
 ∞ 
ϕ = ϕw + ϕs = Re− i a ω ∑ ε m i m ψ m (r , z ) cos mθ e −iωt .
 m=0 
The eigen-functions ψm, dimensionally equivalent to a length, are

determined in such a way to satisfy the conditions on the field, at the
boundaries and at infinity (Sommerfeld condition).
The problem is much involved than the case of Mc Camy and
Fuchs.
First of all, there is a flow underneath the cylinder; to take this into
account, and to facilitate the search of suitable eigen-functions,
Garrett has subdivided the whole region Ω into two parts:
Ω1 : r < b, 0 ≤ z ≤ h;
Ω 2 : r ≥ b, 0 ≤ z ≤ d .
251

In each one of the two regions, the eigen-functions are determined
in such a way they separately respect the conditions in their
respective region.
Some continuity conditions must now be imposed at the frontier
between Ω1 and Ω2: these conditions must specify the continuity of
the pressure field and of the flow across the frontier.
Mathematically, these conditions are expressed imposing that the
potential must be continuous and that it must have normal derivative
continuous at the frontier between Ω1 and Ω2, i.e. for r=b, 0<z<h.
The mathematical procedure used by Garrett, basically a method
using a “cocktail” of special functions, is very difficult and absolutely
“a matter of specialists”, so we will not give all its details here.
It is of some importance, however, to recall that, unlike the case of
the Mc Camy and Fuchs solution, the Garrett solution, though
analytical, is not in closed form, in the sense that the potential is
expressed under the form of a series of special functions.
252
126

In addition, and more important, as it constitutes a serious obstacle
to the use of the Garrett solution, the coefficients of the series are
found as solution of two linear equation systems, whose size is
equal to the order of truncature of the series representing ϕ.
Once the potential known, the procedure is still the same: the wave
profile and the wave force on the cylinder (actually, again the
Froude-Krylov force), are computed by the same formulae used
previously (see pages 227 and 232).
The only difference with the case of Mc Camy and Fuchs is the fact
that now the cylinder, having a bottom surface in contact with the
water, is acted upon also by a vertical dynamical force Z, besides
the horizontal one, X.
Garrett has shown that the general expression of the two forces is:
X = Re − 2 π i ω 2 ρ a b ∫ ψ 1(b, z ) dz e −i ω t  e1;
d
 h 
Z = Re 2 π ω 2 ρ a ∫ ψ 0 (r , h ) r dr e −iω t  e 3 .
b
 0 
253

To give these forces in dimensionless form, still using the force B, it
can be shown that one gets:
  −1 −
1  
X  2 sinh λ − sinhν sinh λˆ − sinhνˆ  −iω t 

= Re − 2 iλ tanh λ  Nk F1k + ∑ Nq F1q
2
 e ;
B   µ q
µˆ 
   
   
   
∞
Z 1 (−1)n F0n  −iω t 
= Re2λ tanh λ  F00 + 2 ∑ e ;
B  2 2G  
 n =1  n π µ  0n 
     
   ν   
λˆ = qd , µˆ = qb, νˆ = qh;
the parameters q are the real positive solutions of the equation
ω 2 + q g tan qd = 0.
254
127

The different coefficients Nk, Nq, F1k, F1q, F00, F0n and G0n that
appears in the above equations are to be found by the resolution of
the two systems of linear equations introduced above.
It can be checked that if h→ 0, the horizontal force tends to the Mc
Camy and Fuchs force, while the vertical force tends to zero.
Garrett has computed also the overturning moments of the
horizontal and vertical force about the frame origin o.
Also in this case, the moment of the vertical force tends to zero for
h→ 0, while that of the horizontal force tends to the same value of
the Mc Camy and Fuchs solution.
Finally, though the solution of Garrett is an analytical solution, it is

difficult to be handled, mainly in a design phase, due to the
necessary solution of two linear equation systems.
255
The simplified Garrett solution Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Garrett used a Galerkin-type approach to find the unknown
coefficients; in this way, he obtained a unique linear system to be
solved.
Vannucci (1994) has shown that this linear system has some
algebraic properties, by which he succeeded in obtaining a
simplification of the Garrett’s solution.
In fact, the system of concern here has the coefficients on the
diagonal of the matrix associated to the system which are, in
modulus, greater than the terms located elsewhere.
So, an approximation can be obtained if the coefficients out of the
diagonal are put to zero: in this way, the equations of the system
become uncoupled and, more important in this case, only the first
one has a solution different from zero.
The consequence of this is that all the coefficients with index q in the
expression of X/B are null, the only different from zero being those
with index k.
The expression of the wave action X/B is greatly simplified:
256
128

 −
1 
X  sinh λ − sinhν −iω t 
= Re  − 2 iλ tanh λ Nk F1k
2 e .
B  µ
 
In addition, the equation giving the coefficients q does not need to
be solved anymore.
By some, rather involved, algebraic manipulations, it can be shown
that
X 4 sinh λ − sinh ν  − e −i ω t 
= Re  .
B π µ2 cosh λ σ 1H1 − H1′ 
The function σ1 in the equation above is given by the following

general equation:
nπ µ 
I′m  
4π sinh 2 ν ∞ n  ν  .
σ m (λ, µ,ν ) = ∑ n
ε
2λ + sinh 2λ ν 2 n =0  2 2 2 nπ µ 
1 + π  Im  ν 
n
 ν 2 

257

In the above expressions H1 is the Hankel’s function of the first type
and first order and computed for the value µ of the argument; the
function Im is the modified Bessel’s function of order m, defined by
Im (ζ ) = i −m Jm (i ζ ).
Thanks to the definition of the Hankel’s function, we get finally the

expression
X 4 sinh λ − sinh ν 1
= cos (ω t − δ x );
B π µ2 cosh λ α +α2
2
1 2
α1(λ, µ,ν ) = σ 1(λ, µ,ν )J1(µ ) − J1′ (µ );

α 2 (λ, µ,ν ) = σ 1(λ, µ,ν )Y1(µ ) − Y1′ (µ );
α2
δ x = − arctan .
α1
The function σ1 needs still the computation of a series.
258
129

One can obtain a simpler form of the force thanks to the Mc Camy
and Fuchs solution.
In fact, it is easy to compute the force acting, in that case, between
z=p and z=d:
F 4 sinh λ − sinh ν 1
= cos (ω t − δ ).
B π µ2 cosh λ J1′2 + Y1′2
Hence, one can write the horizontal force acting upon a truncated
cylinder, of immersion p, as
X 4 χ x (λ, µ,ν ) sinh λ − sinh ν 1

= cos (ω t − δ x ).
B π µ2 cosh λ J1′2 + Y1′2
In other words, the value of the force is, to within a corrective
coefficient χx, the same as that given by the Mc Camy and Fuchs
formula (but the phase angle remains different).
259

Nevertheless, the last formula should not be of great immportance
(in fact basically nothing has changed) if a remark concerning the
corrective coefficient is not done.
In fact, χx varies very little in the field of interest for offshore
engineering, where it can be considered as a constant: χx≅0.95, see
the following figure.
The value of χx is practically constant with µ and is always less than
one.
1
χx 0.5
0.9 0.6
1 0.7
0.8
χx 2 0.8
0.8
1.5 0.7
0.6 υ/λ=0.9 µ=0.5
1 0.6
ν/λ=0.8 µ
5
0.5 0.5
10
λ 15 0 5 10 15 λ 20
20
260
130

This means that the force acting upon a truncated cylinder is always
less than that computed for an equivalent immersion of a cylinder
touching the sea bottom.
The difference between these two forces is due to the effects on the
cylinder’s bottom.
These effects are more important in shallow waters (small λ) , and,
for flat cylinders (large ν).
This result is in accordance with the fact that the wave flow is
stronger near the surface, while it decreases exponentially with the
depth. -1.4
0.5
0.6
The figure aside shows the δ
x
0.7
0.8
variation of the phase angle δx. -1.45
ν/λ =0.9
-1.5
µ=0.5
-1.55
0 5 10 15 λ 20
261

The expression of the horizontal force can still be simplified, in some
cases, namely for µ<1.
In such cases, the following approximations of the Bessel’s functions
can be used
1 2
J1′ (µ ) ≅ , Y1′ (µ ) ≅ .
2 π µ2
By these approximations, one gets easily the following expression of
X/B:
X 8χ x sinh λ − sinh ν
= cos(ωt − δ x ).
B 16 + π µ2 4 cosh λ
The next figures show the comparison between the value of X/B
computed with the formula on page 258 for ten terms in the series,
the upper graphics, and that computed with the last approximation
hereon, the lower graphics, for χx=0.95.
262
131

2
X/B ν/λ=0
1.5
0.3
2 λ=5µ
X/B 2 1
1
1.5 0.6
0 0.5
1
5 ν/λ=0.8 µ 0.9
0.5 0
10
0 2 4 6 8 10
λ 15 µ
20 a) b)
2
X/B ν/λ=0
1.5
0.3
2
0.6 λ=5µ
X/B 2 1
1
1.5
0 0.5
1 0.9
µ
5 ν/λ=0.8 0.5 0
10 0 2 4 6 8 10
15 µ
λ
c) d) 263
20

It can be noticed that the last approximation remains valid also for
µ>1, but overestimates the value of the force for large values of ν ; in
these cases, a smaller value of χx should be more appropriate, in
accordance with the remarks done above.
What has been done for the horizontal force can be done also for
the vertical one. Following the same steps one gets
Z 4 χ z (λ, µ,ν ) ξ (µ,ν ) sinh ν
= cos (ω t − δ z ).
B π µν J′02 + Y0′2 cosh λ
J′02 (µ ) + Y0′2 (µ )
χ z (λ, µ,ν ) = ;
β12 (λ, µ,ν ) + β 22 (λ, µ,ν )
β1(λ, µ,ν ) = σ 0 (λ, µ,ν )J0 (µ ) − J′0 (µ );
β 2 (λ, µ,ν ) = σ 0 (λ, µ,ν )Y0 (µ ) − Y0′ (µ );
β1
δ z = arctan .
β2
264
132

The function ξ is
n π µ 
∞ I1 
1 2ν 1  ν .
ξ (µ,ν ) = + ∑
2 π µ n =1  n π   n π µ
2 2 
n1 +  I0  
 2   ν 
 ν 
The behavior fo the coefficient χz is shown in the figure; in many

cases of interest in offshore engineering, it can be taken equal to 1.
ν/λ=0
1χ
z 0.3
0.995
0.6
0.99
1 0.985
0.99 χz 2 0.98
1.5 0.975 0.9
0.98
ν/λ=0.8 1 0.97 µ=0.5

µ 0.965
5
0.5
10 0 5 10 15 20
15 λ
λ
20 a) b)
265

Still repeating what done for X/B, one can obtain a simpler formula
for the vertical force if the following approximations of the Bessel’s
functions, valid for µ<1, and of the function ξ are used:
µ 2
J′0 (µ ) ≅ , Y0′ (µ ) ≅ − ;
2 πµ
ξ (µ,ν ) ≅
1
2
(
ν + e −ν . )
The above approximation for the function ξ assumes the
independence of ξ on µ; actually, the dependence of ξ on µ is
almost linear but rather weak, and it has been neglected in the
above approximation.
In this way, the following simple formula for the vertical force is
easily found
Z 4χ z sinh ν ν + e −ν
= .
B 16 + π 2 µ 4 cosh λ ν
266
133

1
Z/B
ν/λ=0.8 0.8
1 0.6 λ=5µ
Z/B 2
0.5
1.5 0.4
0
1 0.2
µ ν/λ=0.9
5 0.3 0.6
0.5 0
10
0 2 4 6 8 µ 10
λ 15
20 a) b)
1
Z/B
ν/λ=0.8 0.8
1 0.6 λ=5µ
Z/B 2
0.5
1.5 0.4
0
1 0.2
ν/λ=0.9
5 µ 0.3 0.6
0.5 0
10
0 2 4 6 8 µ 10
15
λ
20 c) d)
267

The previous figures show the comparison between the value of Z/B
computed with the formula on page 264 for ten terms in the series,
the upper graphics, and that computed with the last approximation
hereon, the lower graphics, for χz=0.95.
Finally, by the same procedures, one can obtain also the
approximated expressions of the moments about the origin o of the
overturning moments due to the vertical and horizontal force,
respectively M1 and M2. In dimensionless form they are:
M1 2 µ χ x ν + e −ν sinh ν
= ;
bB 16 + π 2 µ 4 ν cosh λ
M2 8 χx λ sinh λ − cosh λ − ν sinh ν + cosh ν

= .
bB µ 16 + π 2 µ 4 cosh λ
268
134

The following figures show the variation of the overturning moments
and of their sum M (the two moments are in phase with the
horizontal force), traced for χx=0.95.
d)
ν/λ=0.8 ν/λ=0.8
M1/bB M/bB
0.3 2 100
0.2 2
0.1 1.5 50 1.5
0
1 0
5 1
µ 5
10 0.5 µ
10 0.5
λ 15
b) 15
20 λ
f) 20
M/bB
ν/λ=0.8 6 ν/λ =0,0.3
5
M2/bB 0.6 λ=5µ
100 2 4
50 1.5 3
0
1 2
5 µ 0.9
10 0.5 1
15 0
λ
20 0 2 4 6 8 10
d) µ 269
The Ogilvie solution Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

All the previous solutions concern a vertical cylinder; but, in offshore
platforms, there are also cylinders which are not vertical.
In the case of horizontal cylinders perpendicular to the wave
propagation, Ogilvie (1962) has given an analytical solution for the
bi-dimensional problem (infinite cylinder).
The solution is very complicate, but the same author proposes a
simplified relation for the unit-length action in the case where the
radius or the immersion of the cylinder, or both is little compared to
the wave length, and this is often the case in offshore engineering.
The formula of the force per
a 2b
unit length of the cylinder is η
p
f = 2 π ρ g k a b 2 e −k ( p −b ) . L
d
Ω z
x
0
270
135
The Ogilvie solution

One can obtain a dimensionless form of the Ogilvie force dividing by
B/L:
fL
= 4 π e µ −τ .
B
τ =kp.
fL/ B
The variation of fL/B with µ
and τ is in the figure.
µ
τ
271
Second order wave action on large bodies Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The technique used in the diffraction theory to account for non-linear
forces, is just the same used for the Stokes' wave theories: the
velocity potential and the wave profile are decomposed in two parts,
a linear and a quadratic one, and this for both the undisturbed and
the scattered wave fields:
ϕ = ε ϕ1 + ε 2ϕ 2 = ε (ϕ1w + ϕ1s ) + ε 2 (ϕ 2w + ϕ 2s );
η = ε η1 + ε 2 η 2 = ε (η1w +η1s ) + ε 2 (η 2w +η 2s ).
As usual, the linear and the quadratic potentials must be harmonic
and satisfy the conditions at the bottom surface, on the body’s
surface and at the free surface:
∆ϕ iw = ∆ϕ is = 0;
∂ϕiw ∂ϕis
= = 0; for z = 0; i = 1,2
∂z ∂z
∂ ϕ is ∂ ϕ iw
=− on ∂Ω ;
∂n ∂n 272
136

∂ 2ϕ1j ∂ϕ1j
+g = 0, for z = d ;
∂ t2 ∂ z j=s or w
∂ 2ϕ 2 j ∂ϕ2 j ∂ (∇ϕ1 j )2 2
∂ ∂ ϕ1j ∂ϕ1j
+g =− − η1 j ( +g ), for z = d .
∂ t2 ∂z ∂t ∂z ∂ t 2 ∂ z
In addition, the scattered potentials must satisfy a condition of

irradiation (the Sommerfeld condition for ϕ1w, an equivalent condition
for ϕ2w).
The components of the wave profile are then calculated as usual:
1 ∂ϕ1j
η1j = − ;
g ∂t
j=s or w
1 1 2 ∂ 2ϕ1j ∂ϕ2 j 
η2 j =−  (∇ϕ1 j ) + η1 j + .
g 2 ∂t ∂z ∂t 
 
273

For the computation of the force, a decomposition in a linear and
quadratic part is also used:
F = ε F1 + ε 2 F2 .
It is easy to see that the linear term is still given by the Froude-
Krylov force:
∂ϕ1
ε F1 = ρ ∫ n ds.
s ∂t
For what concerns the quadratic term, it has been shown by Molin
(1979) that it can be put in the form
2
ρ  ∂ ϕ1  ρ ∂ ϕ2
2
∫ (∇ϕ1 ) 2
2 ∫∂Ω
ε F2 = −   n dl + n ds + ρ ∫ n ds.
2g  ∂ t 
C ∂Ω ∂t
If one separates, in the expression of the potentials, the space and

time dependence, putting, as already done,
274
137

ϕ1 = Re φ1( x, y , z ) e − i ωt ,
 
[
ϕ 2 = Re φ2 ( x, y , z ) e − 2 i ωt , ]
then the following expression of F2 is readily obtained:
F2 = F2C + Re (F2T e − 2 i ωt ).
In the above expression, F2C is a constant force, the drift force, FD,
and it is easy to see that
ω 2ρ ρ
F2C = FD = FD1 + FD 2 = −
4g ∫C φ1φ 1n dl + 4 ∫∂Ω ∇φ1 ⋅ ∇φ 1n ds.
So, the drift force is exclusively due to the 2nd order condition on the
free surface and to the quadratic term of the kinetic pressure due to
the first order potential (the bar indicates the complex conjugate).
275

The value of the time dependent term of F2 is given by
ω2ρ ρ 2
∫C φ1 n dl − 4 ∫∂Ω (∇φ1) n ds + 2 i ω ρ ∫∂Ω φ2 n ds.
2
F2T = −
4g
This force oscillates at a time frequency double than the Froude-

Krylov force.
Hence, the second order diffraction theory gives as a general result,
the wave force as the superposition of three forces:
the first-order Froude-Krylov force, oscillating at frequency ω;
a second-order time-dependent force oscillating at frequency 2ω;
a second-order constant force, the drift force.
For compliant structures, the second-order forces are rather
important, though of second order, hence less in magnitude than the
Froude-Krylov force, for the structure response.
In fact, it is the drift force that gives the largest displacements of the
structure and it is the second-order oscillating force that can cause
some fatigue problems.
276
138

The above second order forces can be determined analytically for
the case of a cylinder, adapting the solutions of Mc Camy and Fuchs
and of Garrett.
Let us consider first the case of a cylinder placed on the bottom
surface, i.e. the case of Mc Camy and Fuchs.
Then, see page 239, it is
 g a cosh k z ∞  J′ (kb)  
ϕ1 = Re − ∑ ε n i n Jn (kr ) − n Hn (kr ) cos nθ e −i ω t .
 ω cosh k d n =0  H′n (kb)  
So, the complex conjugate can be easily computed and with some
algebraic passages one obtains:
ω2ρ 4 ρ g a 2b ∞
FD1 = −
4g ∫C
φ1φ 1n dl = −
π µ2
∑Ψ m (µ ) e1,
m =0
where
′ Ym
Jm ′ +1 − J m
′ +1Ym
′
Ψ m (µ ) = .
′2
(J m ′ 2 )(J m
+ Ym ′2+1 + Ym
′2+1)
277

The evaluation of FD2 needs first the calculation of ∇φ1:
ga  2 i coshkz ∞ n εni n sin nθ 2 k i sinhkz ∞ ε ni ncos nθ 

∇φ1(b,θ, z) = − 0; − ∑ H′ ; π µ coshλ ∑ ;
ω  π µ b coshλ n=0 n n=0 H′n 
Some passages give then
ρ 2 ρ g a2b ∞ m(m + 1)  2λ  2λ 
FD2 =
4 ∫ ∇φ1 ⋅ ∇φ1 n ds = π µ2
∑ Ψm (µ) 2 1+ 
 sinh2λ 
+ 1−  e1.
sinh2λ 
∂Ω m=0  µ
Finally,
2 ρ g a 2b  2λ  ∞  m(m + 1) 
FD = FD1 + FD 2 =  1+  ∑
π µ 2  sinh 2λ m =0
Ψ m ( µ )
2
− 1 e1.
 µ 
The dimensionless form of the norm of FD is then:

FD 2α  2λ  ∞  m( m + 1) 
=  1+  ∑ Ψ m ( µ ) − 1.
B π µ  sinh 2λ m =0
2 3
 µ
2

278
139

The drift force is proportional to the square of the wave amplitude a;
in the next figure, the variation of FD/B is plotted as function of λ and
µ, for α= π/10, i.e. for a wave steepness close to the highest
possible value. Hence, the drift force plotted in the figure is close to
the highest possible one.
The second plot is the ratio between the drift force and the
maximum first-order force, the Froude-Krylov force of the Mc Camy
and Fuchs solution, see page 241.
FD/|FMCF|
0.15
0.1
FD/B 0.1 2 2
0.05 0.05
1.5 1.5
0 0
1 1
µ µ
5 5
0.5 0.5
10 10
λ 15 λ 15
20 c) d) 20
279

It is apparent that the drift force is of an order of magnitude less than
the first-order force (proportional to a): the drift force is always less
than the first-order force, except for λ →0, i.e. in shallow waters.
This is systematic: all the second-order forces become important in
shallow waters.
The series involved in the formula of the drift force are quickly
convergent, in practice, three terms are sufficient (the plots have
been computed with six terms).
The overturning moment of the drift force can be computed following
the same steps as for FD:
ρ g a 2b ∞  m(m + 1)(1 + 2λ2 + 2λ sinh 2λ − cosh 2λ )

MD = ∑ m 
π µ 2 k m =0
Ψ ( µ )
µ 2 sinh 2λ
+

1 − 2λ2 − 2λ sinh 2λ − cosh 2λ 

+ e 2.
sinh 2λ 
280
140

In dimensionless form one gets:
∞  m( m + 1)(1 + 2λ2 + 2λ sinh 2λ − cosh 2λ )
MD α
= ∑
bB π 2 µ 4 m =0
Ψ m ( µ )
µ 2 sinh 2λ
+

1 − 2λ2 − 2λ sinh 2λ − cosh 2λ 

+ .
sinh 2λ 
The next figure shows the variation of MD/bB and of the ratio of MD
and the first-order overturning moment (MMCF).
MD/|MMCF|
MD/bB 2 0.15
2 2
0.1
1
1.5 0.05 1.5
0 0
1 1
5 µ 5
10
0.5 0.5 µ
10
λ 15
c) d) λ 15
20 20 281

The evaluation of the second-order time-depending force (equation
on page 276) is much more complicate.
First of all, one can observe that this force can be considered as
composed of two parts: the first one, F2T1, depending upon ϕ1 and
the second one, F2T2, depending upon ϕ2.
It is still possible to develop analytically the computation for the first
component, but the passages are rather complicate, so only the
results are reported hereafter (in dimensionless form):
F2T 1(t ) 2α
=− A 2 + B 2 cos (2 ω t − δ ),
B π 2µ 3
where
∞ ∞
A B B
A= ∑ (− 1)m Cm fm ; B = ∑ (− 1)m Cm fm ; δ = arctan A ;
m =0 m m =0 m
3 sinh 2λ − 2λ m(m + 1) 2λ + sinh 2λ

fm = + .
sinh 2λ µ2 sinh 2λ
′ Ym′ +1 + Ym′ J m
Am = J m ′ +1; Bm = J m
′ Jm ′2 + Ym′2 J m
′ +1 − Ym′ Ym′ +1; Cm = J m (
′2+1 + Ym′2+1 . )( )
282
141

One can observe, once )
more, that also this force

is of an order of
magnitude less than the
first-order force. 0.4
F2T1/B 0.3 2
In fact, just as the drift 0.2
1.5
force, its dimensionless 0.1
0
form depends upon α, 1
while the dimensional form 5
0.5
µ
10
depends upon a . 2
λ 15
The computation of the d)
20
second component of F2T
is much more involved, and can be done following a technique
proposed by Haskind (1957) and based upon a dual irradiated flow.
Unfortunately, even in the simpler cases, an analytical solution
cannot be obtained; however, it can be shown that this term
corresponds to the term F3 in the Lighthill correction, see page 221,
283

valid for small diameter cylinders; so, just like the term F3, the
second term of F2T is negligible, also compared to the other second-
order forces.
The case of the truncated cylinder is much more involved than the
previous one.
Vannucci (1994) ha proposed an expression for all the second order
forces acting upon a truncated cylinder, using the same simplifying
technique already used in the case of the first-order force.
The algebraic passages are very complicate, so here only the final
results are recalled.
The most important difference with respect to the previous case is
the existence, for the truncated cylinder, of vertical second order-
forces: a vertical drift and a vertical time-dependent second-order
force.
Actually, this is due to the fact that now the cylinder has a bottom
surface in contact with water.
284
142

The result for the horizontal drift force is:
∞
2 ρ g a 2b  m(m + 1) 2λ − 2ν + sinh 2λ − sinh 2ν
FD = FD1 + FD 2 =
πµ 2 ∑ ζ m ( µ ) 2 sinh 2λ
+
m =0  µ
− 2λ + 2ν − sinh 2λ − sinh 2ν 
+  e1,
sinh 2λ
where (see also page 257):
M m N m +1 − N m M m +1
ζ m (λ, µ,ν ) = 2 2 2 2
,
(M m + Nm )(M m +1 + N m +1 )
M m (λ, µ,ν ) = σ m (λ, µ,ν )J m (µ ) − J m

′ (µ ),
N m (λ, µ,ν ) = σ m (λ, µ,ν )Ym (µ ) − Ym′ (µ ).
The dimensionless expression of the horizontal drift is:

285

FD FD1 FD 2 2α ∞  m(m + 1) 2λ − 2ν + sinh 2λ − sinh 2ν

B
=
B
+
B
= ∑
π 2 µ 3 m =0
ζ m ( µ )
2 sinh 2λ
+
 µ
− 2λ + 2ν + sinh 2λ − sinh 2ν 
+ .
sinh 2λ
The following figure is the analogous of that on page 279, plotted for
α= π/10 and ν = 0.8.
) )
FD/|FMCF|
FD/B
0.06 2 0.15 2
0.04 0.1
0.02 1.5 0.05 1.5
0 0
1 1
5 µ 5 µ
0.5 0.5
10 10
λ 15 λ 15
20 c) d) 20
286
143

The next figure shows the same graphics plotted for ν=0, i.e. for a
cylinder placed on the sea bottom.
Comparing this figure with the one on page 279, it is apparent that
the above formula matches almost perfectly the solution found,
without approximations, for the case of a cylinder placed on the sea
bottom; this shows the good quality of the approximation for the
case of the truncated cylinder.
FD/|FMCF|
0.15
0.1
FD/B 0.1 2 2
0.05 0.05
1.5 1.5
0 0
1 1
µ µ
5 5
0.5 0.5
10 10
λ 15 λ 15
20 c) d) 20
287

The vertical drift force is given by:
FDV = −
4 ρ g a 2d sinh 2 ν ∞
πλµ ν 2 2 sinh 2λ ∑
M 2
εm
+ N
b
2 ∫0
2
r Am 2
+ Bm dr e 3 ; ( )
m=0 m m
where
nπr
m −1 ′ 
Im 
mr  2π ∞ n  h ,
Am =  
b b
+ ∑
h n =1 n 2π 2 n π b
1+ Im  
ν2  h 
 n π r 
 m ∞ Im  
m r  n  h  .
B m = −   + 2 ∑
r  b  n =1 n 2π 2 I  n π b  
 1+
 h  
m
 ν2
The above expression of the vertical drift shows that this force is
always directed downward.
288
144

The next figure shows the vertical drift for the case α= π/10 and
ν = 0.8, along with its ratio to the highest first-order vertical force Z,
see page 264.
Also in this case it can be remarked the facts that the vertical drift is
less than the first-order vertical force and that its importance
increases in shallow waters.
FDV/|Z|
0 0
FDV/B 2 2
-0.02 -0.05
1.5 1.5
-0.04 -0.1
1 1
5 µ 5 µ
0.5 0.5
10 10
λ 15 λ 15
a) b)
20 20
289

The computation of the moment of the horizontal drift force about
the point o= (0,0,0) gives (the vertical drift has null moment):
∞
MD α ζ m (µ )
=
2 4 ∑ 2
[m(m + 1)(2λ2 − 2ν 2 + 2λ sinh 2λ − 2ν sinh 2ν −
bB π µ m=0 µ sinh 2λ
− cosh 2λ + cosh 2ν ) − 2λ2 + 2ν 2 − 2λ sinh 2λ − 2ν sinh 2ν − cosh 2λ + cosh 2ν ].
The next figure is the analogous of that on page 281, for ν =0.8.
MD/|M|
MD/bB 2
2 0.1 2
1 0.05
1.5 1.5
0 0
1 1
5 µ 5 µ
0.5 0.5
10 10
λ 15 λ 15
20 c) d) 20
290
145

Finally, the second-order oscillating force acting upon a truncated
cylinder and due to the first order potential, F2T1, is
F2T 1(t ) 2 α 3 sinh 2λ − sinh 2ν − 2λ + 2ν
=− P12 + Q12 +
B 2 3  sinh 2 λ
π µ
sinh 2λ − sinh 2ν + 2λ − 2ν 
+ P22 + Q22 cos (2 ω t − β ),
sinh 2λ 
with
∞ ∞
P Q Q
P1 = ∑ (− 1)m Rm ; Q1 = ∑ (− 1)m Rm ; β = arctan 1 ;
P1
m =0 m m =0 m
∞ ∞
P Q
∑ (− 1)mm(m + 1) Rm ; Q2 = ∑ (− 1)m m(m + 1) Rm ;
)
P2 =
m =0 m m =0 m
Pm = M mNm +1 + Nm M m +1; Qm = M m Mm +1 − NmNm +1;
Rm = M m (
2 + N2 M2
m )(
2
m +1 + Nm +1 .
) 0.4
0.2
2
1.5
0
In the figure, the variation of F2T1/B as 1
function of λ and µ, for α= π/10 and ν = 0.8. 5

10
0.5
µ
λ 15
291
d) 20

As in the previous case of the cylinder placed on the sea bottom,
also the second-order forces depending upon the quadratic potential
will be neglected here.
The vertical time-dependent second order force is given by the
relation
2
F2TV (t ) 4α 1 cosh 2ν − 1 3 ν 2 + π 2 
=− U 2 + V 2 cos (2 ω t − βv ),
B π 2 µ 3 µ ν 2 sinh 2λ  ν 2 + π 2 
where
∞ ∞
U V V
U= ∑ (− 1)m m Wm ; V = ∑ (− 1)m m Wm ; βv = arctan ;
U
m =0 m m =0 m
2
Um = Mm 2
− Nm 2
; Vm = − 2 M m N m ; W m = M m 2
+ Nm . ( )2
The next figure shows is the analogous of that on page 290, i.e. the
variation of F2TV/B and its ratio to the highest value of the first-order
vertical force (α= π/10 and ν = 0.8).
292
146

F2TV/|Z|
F2TV/B 0 0
-0.01 2 2
-0.04
-0.02 1.5 1.5
-0.08
1 1
5 µ 5 µ
0.5 0.5
10 10
λ 15 λ 15
20 a) b) 20
Concerning this last force, the same remarks done for the vertical
drift can be done.
Now, we have ended the parade of the wave actions on cylinders

and we can resume as follows.
At the first order, there are only time-dependent forces, all of the
Froude-Krylov type, oscillating at the same frequency of the waves
and proportional to the wave amplitude.
At the second order, besides the same first-order forces, there are
293

two other forces: a constant action, called the drift force, and a time-
dependent force oscillating at twice the wave frequency.
Both these two second-order forces, are of an order of magnitude
less than the first-order forces, and are proportional to the square of
the wave amplitude.
Though smaller in magnitude, the second-order forces can produce
important effects on structures, especially when a coupling between
these actions and the structural response is possible (for instance
due to resonance-like phenomena).
In particular, the time-dependent second-order force can be
important for fatigue, while the drift force is crucial for the
displacements of compliant structures, such as TLPs and SPARs.
Finally, for truncated cylinders the second-order forces are also
vertical; in particular, the vertical drift is always a downward force,
and this can affect the stiffness of a floating platform as it diminishes
the extra-buoyancy.
So, second-order forces are not, sometimes, forces of less
importance in offshore engineering! 294
147

The simpler case is obviously that of a single vertical cylinder; but,
actually, this is the case only in a limited number of situations (e.g.
for SPARs).
The most part of times, an offshore structure is composed of an
array of cylinders: four large-diameter vertical columns for a TLP
and four horizontal pontoons, at least four legs for a traditional jacket
and several braces and so on.
Of course, the presence of multiple bodies produces interferences of
the wave action on the single bodies, so that the global action
results affected, i.e. it is not the sum of the actions on each body
computed when isolated.
So, it should be of great importance to dispose of a theory able to
predict the global action of waves on an array of cylinders, i.e. a
theory taking into account for the interaction among multiple bodies.
Unfortunately, general results exist only in a limited number of
cases, namely for arrays of large-diameter vertical cylinders, i.e. in
the framework of the diffraction theory.
295
Something about the case of multiple bodies Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

In particular, it does not exist a theory for the case of slender bodies,
but only experimental results, sometimes confusing and not clear.
Some indications are given in the norm ISO 13819-2 about the
coefficients to be applied to the force computed by the Morison’s
formula for each cylinder in an array having certain geometrical
characteristics.
On the contrary, in the case of the diffraction theory, linear or
quadratic, some methods are known for the assessment of the
interaction among vertical cylinders.
These methods, developed with various approaches, are based
upon the superposition of the effects inherent to the linearity of the
diffraction problems (they all are elliptic problems).
The first work in the subject is due to Spring & Monkmeyer (1974):
the potential is expressed as the sum of the undisturbed waves
potential plus the N scattered potentials from the N cylinders.
296
148

Successively, Simon (1982) proposed a modified approach, based
upon the planar wave approximation: the diffracted wave is
replaced, near another cylinder, by an equivalent plane wave, plus a
non-planar correction term.
This approach does not allow a correct description of the wave field,
but for what concerns the assessment of the wave action it gives
good results, as in this case only the wave field near the cylinders is
concerned.
Of course, this approximation is better when the distances between
the cylinders is greater than the length of the incident wave;
nevertheless, the comparison with the results given by other
theories is fairly good also for small distances.
The real advantage of the Simon’s method is the fact that the flow is
expressed as function of the only isolated cylinder characteristics,
which are known (for instance, the Mc Camy and Fuchs or the
Garrett solution).
297

Abul Azm & Williams (1989) have used the Simon’s approach to the
Garrett’s solution, also with the non-linear theory.
Vannucci (1994) has used the same approach with the
approximated Garrett’s solution, i.e. introducing the coefficient χx.
For instance, for the case in the figure, representing a TLP, the
forces on the cylinders are (X is the force computed on an equal
isolated cylinder): R
  c 
X 1 = X 4 = 1 − Re c12 + 13   X , 4 3
  2 
R
  c 
X 2 = X 3 = cos kR + Re c 21 + 24   X . 1 2
  2  y
x
So, the global force in the x direction is 2b
  c − c13  
X glob = 21 + cos kR + Re c 21 − c12 + 24  X.
  2  
298
149

The diffraction produces also a force on the cylinders in the y-
direction:
 c 
Y1 = −Y4 = − Rec14 + 13  X ,
 2
 c 
Y2 = −Y3 = − Rec 23 + 24  X .
 2
By the symmetry, the global force in the y-direction remains,

however, null; of course, this should not be the case if the wave
direction were inclined with respect to the axe x.
The complex coefficients cij are obtained numerically, solving a
linear system derived by the Simon’s method.
The next figures show the actions on the cylinders for the case
R/b= 5.
It is apparent that the variations with respect to the isolated cylinder
299

are relevant, and can be in the sense of increasing as well as in that
of decreasing the force.
In some cases, for particular values of the ratio R/b, the global force
can be sensibly reduced; anyway, it is apparent that the global force
varies considerably with the wave length, which renders difficult to
assess the wave causing the highest global force: in the design
phase several waves, sharing the same HD, should be considered
(see chapter 2, page 94).
1.3 1.05
X /F
1 1.2 X /F
2
1
1.1
1
0.95
0.9
0.8 0.9
0.7
0.85
0 0.5 1 1.5 kb 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 kb 2
300
150

We have seen on page 218 the modification of the Morison’s
equation proposed by Newman to account for the proper
movements of a cylinder acted upon by waves.
In the case of moving large bodies, the fluid-structure interaction can
be computed by a theory taking advantage on the irrotational model,
the diffraction-radiation theory.
In this theory, the situation is modeled as the combination of two
distinct but correlated problems: the diffraction problem, seen above,
i.e. the diffraction of a regular train of waves interacting with the
fixed body, and the radiation problem, i.e. the problem of the
irradiation of waves from a body oscillating in water at rest about an
equilibrium position: the linearity of the problem, inherent to the
irrotational model, allows the superposition of the movements.
Following hence the same technique already used in the diffraction
theory, the total potential is written as
ϕ = ϕw + ϕs + ϕf ;
301
Oscillating large bodies Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

ϕw: potential of the undisturbed waves;
ϕs: potential of the scattered waves;
ϕf: potential of the irradiated waves.
The first and second term are the same used in the diffraction
theory, while the third describes the flow of the waves produced by
the forced oscillation of the body in the water at rest.
The global potential must still be the solution of a Neumann
problem, where each potential above is a harmonic function
satisfying the same conditions at the sea bottom and at the free
surface seen for the diffraction theory. In particular, if the linearised
condition is used at the free surface, then one gets the linear
diffraction-radiation theory.
In addition, both the potentials ϕs and ϕw must satisfy the condition
of irradiation, prescribing the extinction of the wave motion at infinity
(the Sommerfeld condition for the linear theory).
What really changes with respect to the diffraction theory is only the
kinematical condition at the body’s surface.
302
151

This condition becomes now:
∂ϕw ∂ϕs ∂ϕf
+ + = v ⋅ n on ∂Ω t ;
∂n ∂n ∂n
v: body’s velocity;
n: external unit normal to the body’s surface;
∂Ωt: actual body’s surface at the time t.
In the case of small amplitude movements, i.e. for an oscillation
about an equilibrium position, the actual position of the body ∂Ωt can
be substituted by the position at rest ∂Ω, and hence one gets a
simpler condition at the body’s surface:
∂ ϕw ∂ ϕ s
+ = 0,
∂n ∂n on ∂Ω.
∂ ϕf
= v ⋅ n.
∂n
303

In this way, the solution for ϕs and ϕw is just the one seen for the
case of fixed body, i.e. the results of the diffraction theory are still
valid, while for ϕf the problem is different form that of ϕs just for the
condition at the body’s surface.
In the case of small oscillations, some general developments can be
done.
In fact, it is known that in this case the movement of a rigid body can
be decomposed into six degrees of freedom αj as:
α j = a j e − iωt , j = 1,...,6;
aj: motion’s amplitude.

The movements j=1, 2, 3 are the three components of the
displacement along the three axes, while the movements j= 4, 5, 6
are the three components of the rotation about the three axes.
The velocity of the points of the rigid body, and hence also the
velocity of the points on its surface, can then be written using the
first law of the kinematics of rigid bodies (see the figure):
304
152

v p = −i ω [a j e j + a3 + j e j ∧ ( p − o )]e − i ωt .
In writing this equation, the displacement described by the αj, j= 1, 2,

3 is that of the point o.
The component of the velocity orthogonal to the surface at the point
p, whose coordinate with respect to the body’s frame are p=(x,y,z),
is then:
v n = (n ⊗ n) vp = −i ω a j n j e − i ω t n,
n1 = n x , n2 = n y , n3 = nz ,
n 4 = y n z − z ny , n 5 = z n x − x n z ,
n6 = x n y − y n x .
What has been done for the velocity is done also for the potential,
305

which is decomposed in six parts (this is once again possible thanks
to the linearity of the irrotational problem):
6 
ϕf = Re ∑ ϕf j ( x, y , z ) e − i ωt .
 j =1 
Hence,
∂ϕf  6 
= Re− i ω ∑ ϕf j ( x, y , z ) e − i ωt .
∂t  

j =1 
The motion equation can be written, in the general case, as:
∂ 2α j
mij + c ij α j = Fi , i = 1,...,6.
∂ t2
The terms mij are the components of the inertial matrix, whilst the
terms cij are those of the stiffness matrix.
306
153

The terms mij take into account the proper inertias of the structure.
The terms cij take into account not only the structural stiffness, but
also the hydrostatic stiffness, due to the increase in the hydrostatic
force in the direction i due to a unit displacement in the direction j.
The force Fi acting upon the body is the Froude-Krylov force,
∂ϕ
Fi = ρ ∫ n ds= i = 1,...,6.
∂Ω ∂t i
It is decomposed into two parts:
∂ (ϕw + ϕ s )
Fe i = ρ ∫ ni ds , i = 1,...,6;
∂Ω ∂t
∂ϕf  6 
Ff i = ρ ∫ ni ds = −ωρ Re i ∑ ∫ ϕ f j ( x, y , z ) ni ds e − i ωt , i = 1,...,6.
∂Ω ∂ t ∂Ω
 j =1 
307

The first one, Fe, is the exciting force acting upon the body: it is due
to the action of the undisturbed and scattered waves upon the fixed
body, that is it is the force that is computed in the diffraction theory
(for instance the solution of Mc Camy and Fuchs or that of Garrett
for the case of a cylinder and so on).
The second one, Ff, is due to the forced potential, that is to the
potential describing the wave motion produced by the forced motion
of the body in the fluid at rest, and it is linked to the dissipation of
energy caused by the creation of a wave motion by the oscillating
body.
This last term can be decomposed in the sum of two quantities, the
first in phase with the acceleration, the other with the velocity of the
body:
6 ∂ 2α j ∂α j 
Ff i = − Re ∑ µ ij + λij , i = 1,...,6.
 j =1 ∂ t2 ∂t

308
154

The coefficients µij and λij appearing in the last equation can be
deduced by comparison with the general expression of the Ffi: using
the condition on the body’s surface for the forced potential and the
general expression of the normal component of the velocity found
above, one gets easily
∂ϕf j
= −i ω a j n j , j = 1,...,6 on ∂Ω .
∂n
Then, after calculating the time derivatives of the αj and injecting the
results in the above expressions, one gets
i ρ∫ ϕ (x,y,z) ni ds = −a j (ω µ ij + i λij ), j = 1,...,6.

∂Ω f j
Splitting the above complex expression in its real and imaginary

parts the following expressions of the real coefficients µij and λij are
obtained:
309

ρ
µ ij =
a j ω ∫∂Ω
[ j ] ni ds,
Im ϕf
j= 1,…,6.
ρ
λij = −
aj ∫∂Ω Re[ϕf j ] ni ds.
Finally, after calculating the various coefficients ni from the first

equation on the previous page
µ ij =
iρ
∫ [ ] ∂∂ϕnf i )∂Ω ds,
Im ϕ f j (
(a j ω )2 ∂Ω
j= 1,…,6.
iρ ∂ϕ
λij = − 2 ∫ Re[ϕ f j ]( f i )∂Ω ds.
aj ω ∂Ω ∂n
310
155

Being the functions ϕfj harmonic, the Green’s theorem gives:
∂ ϕf j ∂ ϕf i
∫∂Ω ϕf i
∂n
ds = ∫ ϕ f j
∂Ω ∂n
ds, i,j = 1,...,6.
Replacing these relations in the equations giving the µij and λij ,one
gets:
µ ij = µ ji ,
i, j= 1,…,6.
λij = λ ji .
This means that the hydrodynamic coefficients are the components

of symmetric square matrices of dimension 6.
Finally, the motion equation, is, in matrix form,
∂ 2α j ∂α j
(mij + µij ) + λij
∂t
+ c ij α j = Fe i , i , j = 1,...,6.
∂ t2
311

Finally, the following remarks can be done.
The undisturbed and scattered wave motions give raise to the
exciting force, Fe, that is a Froude-Krylov force computed by the
diffraction theory and it is independent on the motion of the body.
The forced potential, describing the wave motion caused by the
forced oscillation of the body in the water at rest, gives raise to two
hydrodynamic effects: an inertial effect, affecting the acceleration of
the body, and a damping effect, affecting the velocity of the body.
The first one is the added mass effect and the µij are the added
inertias of the body, while the second one is the dissipation effect
and the λij are the hydrodynamic damping coefficients of the body.
312
156
Wave slamming

The wave slamming is the effect due to the sudden immersion of a
body during the passage of a wave.
The typical case in offshore engineering is that of horizontal braces
in jacket structures, placed near the still water level.
In such cases, the action on the horizontal member is due to the
hydrostatic force, as well as to an inertial and drag term.
In addition, all these effects are dynamics, and a dynamical analysis,
coupling the wave actions and the structural member response,
must be done, or alternatively an appropriate dynamical coefficient
must be considered in the computation of the wave actions
considered as static forces (see the next chapter).
These actions have not a global effect on a platform, but can be very
relevant for the local structural behaviour and verification of a single
member, especially for what concerns the fatigue design.
A good design rule is that to avoid to place horizontal braces near
the free water surface, as the wave slamming is null on vertical
members, very reduced on inclined members but maximal for
horizontal braces. 313
Wave slamming Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The wave slamming force is usually given in the form of a drag
force; for a horizontal cylinder, subjected to the slamming of a wave
propagating normal to it,
1 2
fws = Cws ρ D um ;
2
fws: wave slamming force per unit-length;
um: maximum horizontal water particles velocity;
Cws: wave slamming coefficient.
Kaplan & Silbert (1976) have shown that fws is due to the buoyant
force plus the time-rate change of momentum:
∂µ 2
fws = ρ g Ai + ( µ + ρ Ai )η&& + η& ;
∂z θ R
Ai: immersed area;
z Ai
z: instantaneous depth of immersion η
η: instantaneous wave height; ηo Still water level
µ: added mass.
314
157
Wave slamming

Equating the two expressions so found, one gets the value of Cws:
g Ai µ + ρ Ai 1 ∂µ
Cws = − sin ω t + cos2 ω t .
2 2
a ω R ρRa ρ R ∂z
The expression of the added mass in the case sketched in the figure
has been given by Taylor (1930):
1 2 1 − cos θ π 
µ= ρ R2  π 3 + (1 − cos θ ) + sinθ − θ .
2  3 (2π − θ )2 3 
The curves in the figure show the
dependence upon θ of the ratios
of the added mass to, µ/ρAi
respectively, the total displaced
mass of the cylinder and the µ/ρπR²
actual displaced mass, that is that
corresponding to the
instantaneous immersed area.
θ (rad)
315

In the case of the linear wave theory, it is (putting the centre of the
cylinder at x=0):
η (t ) = a sin ω t ;
a: wave amplitude;
ω: wave frequency.
The maximum horizontal velocity of the particles is, in deep waters:
ωa
um = ≅ ω a.
tanh kd
In addition, the immersed area Ai and the draught z are:
 1  θ
Ai = R 2 θ − sinθ , z = R(1 − cos ).
 2  2
The value of z can be expressed also as a function of θ or of η(t):
 z
z = η (t ) − η o = a sin ω t − η o = 2 arccos 1 − .
 R
316
158
Wave slamming

This gives θ as a function of t:
 a sin ω t − η o 
θ = 2 arccos 1 − .
 R 
Finally, one must consider that
∂µ ∂µ ∂θ
= .
∂z ∂θ ∂z
Using all these relations in the formula Cws L=200 m

giving Cws, one obtains the time variation a=10 m
of Cws during the wave slamming; a ηo=1 m
numerical example is shown in the figure. R=0.5 m
The beginning and ending instant of the  2π g
 ω = = 0.5 Hz;
wave slamming can be easily computed:  L
2π 
T = = 11.3 s 
1 ηo 1 η o + 2R ω 
t1 = arcsin , t2 = arcsin .
ω a ω a
t
317

To remark that wave slamming is an impulsive vertical force, whose
highest value is attained just at the instant t1, the beginning of the
wave slamming (the instant at which the water touches the bottom of
the cylinder’s surface).
The value of Cws at that instant is easily calculated, evaluating its
expression for t=t1; as for t=t1 µ and Ai are null, one gets, scaling the
time in such a way that t1=0 (i.e. for the simplified case ηo=0),
1 ∂µ
Cwsmax = lim = π.
t →0 ρ R ∂z
So, usually the wave slamming is taken into account in the structural
design as an impulsive (i.e. instantaneous) force with Cws =π.
In this case, the dimensionless wave slamming force, obtained
dividing fws by the weight of the displaced water, πρgR², is
ω 2a 2
fws = .
gR
318
159
Wave slamming

In deep waters it is
2π a 2
fws ≅ .
LR
This shows that wave slamming is proportional to the wave
amplitude, to the wave steepness and to the inverse of the cylinder’s
radius: the highest effects are obtained by high and steep waves
slamming small cylinders.
In the limit case of the greatest steepness (H/L=1/ 7, see page 207)
one gets:
πa
fwsmax ≅ .
7R
In the previous example, for instance, it is fws
max
≅ 9, which means
that the wave slamming is an impulsive force, whose value is about
9 times the buoyancy on the cylinder per unit-length.
This force is periodic, with a period equal to that of the waves, and
this constitutes a severe condition for the fatigue design of a brace.
319

In fact, an impulsive periodic forces produces a dynamical response
of the structural member: the dynamical amplification is a function of
the ratio of the force frequency (in this case that of the waves) and
the natural frequency of the structural member.
When the two frequencies are close, the dynamical amplification can
be very important (resonance phenomenon).
So, the stress state of a member subjected to wave slamming
should be evaluated by a dynamical analysis, taking into account the
structural response of the member to the dynamical action of the
slamming.
If, in a simplified analysis, the wave slamming is considered as a
static action, an appropriate dynamical amplification factor cdyn must
be used.
An experimental study made by Sarpkaya, indicates a value of 1.75
for cdyn; NTS rules suggest to take the value 2 for cdyn, while DNV
suggests the values 1.5 and 2, respectively for the computation of
the bending moment at the clamped edges and at the middle point.
320
160
Wave slamming

The above results have been obtained in the theoretical framework
of a potential flow model, hence not taking into account for the drag
force.
This force appears and becomes important when the submerged
part increases; the previous equation for fws should then be modified
as follows:
∂µ 2 θ
fws = ρ g Ai + ( µ + ρ Ai )η&& + η& + Cs (θ )ρη& η& R sin ;
∂z 2
Cs: drag coefficient for slamming, depending upon the angle θ and to be
determined only experimentally.
In this case, the slamming coefficient must be determined
experimentally.
The following figure shows the comparison between the theoretical
and experimental results (Sarpkaya, 1978).
321

It is worth noting that the highest value of Cs remains that computed

at the very beginning of the slamming, i.e. with the potential theory.
That is why drag normally is not considered in wave slamming
computation.
Finally, the above model is theoretical; in real situations, Cs is less
than the theoretical value as it is difficult that the wave front be
perfectly horizontal and parallel to the cylinder’s axis.
322
161
Vortex shedding

The presence of a viscous separated
flow downstream a body causes not
Vortex shedding of a cloud cover by the Robinson Crusoe Island, near Chili (Landsat image).
only a drag force, but also pulsating
forces, in-line (i.e. in the same
direction of the flow) and cross-flow
(the lift or transversal force).
The origin of these forces is due to a
hydrodynamic phenomenon known as
vortex shedding, sketched in the
figures.
Source: www.tecplot.com
323
Vortex shedding Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

These forces produce in-line and transversal oscillations of the body
when it is elastically supported; this is the case, e.g., of braces.
Basically, the downstream separated flow does not conserve a
symmetry about the middle longitudinal plane, so that the vortices,
produced by the adherence of the boundary layer at the body’s
surface, enter the turbulent downstream flow detaching form the
body not at the same moment at the two sides of the body.
This results in an unbalanced pressure field around the body itself,
causing a net force that oscillates according to the vortex shedding.
This phenomenon happens for a fluid velocity greater than a critical
value, and can be dangerous especially for slender members, for
which the vortex shedding frequency, and hence the frequency of
the oscillating forces, can be close to a natural frequency of the
structural member, causing dynamical amplitude of the oscillations
and eventually resonance.
So, the vortex shedding is a phenomenon to be taken into account
in the design of single members, not in the global design of the
324
162
Vortex shedding

platform, just like the wave slamming, and especially in the fatigue
design.
Normally, the cross-flow forces are greater than the in-line forces,
and the corresponding oscillations too.
Experimental evidence shows that with a uniform stream, the flow
about a circular cylinder remains uniform until a Reynolds number,
based on the cylinder diameter, of about 4, when vortices appear,
attached to the trailing surface of the cylinder.
At a Reynolds number of about 40, the cylinder wake becomes
unstable and the characteristic Von Karman vortex street begins to
appear. The attached eddies finally shed at Reynolds numbers of
about 60, and the alternate shedding pattern continues.
Starting at Re≈150 the vortex street becomes turbulent further
downstream, and at Re≈400, the vortices themselves become
turbulent from the point of generation. For higher values of the
Reynolds number, vortices lose their regular shape and coherency,
making visualization difficult.
325

For a circular cylinder, the frequency of the vortex shedding is given
by the semi-empirical formula
St
ϖD  19.7 
≅ 0.198 1 − ;
V  Re 
ϖ: vortex shedding frequency;

V: stream’s velocity;
VD
Re: Reynolds’ number: Re = . log10Re
ν
The above equation is valid in the range 250<Re<2×105.

The dimensionless parameter
ϖ D
St = ,
V
is the Strouhal number (1878), introduced in a study on the
humming and “singing” of power and telegraph wires.
326
163
Vortex shedding

The shedding frequency is hence a function of V and D:
V  19.7 
ϖ ≅ 0.198 1 − ν .
D VD 
In the water (ν = 1.3 ×10-6 at 10°C) it is (figure)
V  5 × 10 −6 
ϖ ≅ 0.198 − .
D  VD 
In the case of a wave flow, V should be ϖ (Hz)

taken as the value of the highest horizontal
velocity; in deep waters and for the linear
theory, V
V = aω,
a: wave amplitude; D
ω: wave frequency.
327

Then, the link between the vortex shedding and wave frequencies is
aω  5 × 10 −6 
ϖ ≅ 0.198 − .
D  aωD 
As an example, for the wave and the cylinder of the example in the
figure on page 318, one gets ϖ ≅ 1 Hz, that is twice the wave
frequency.
The following diagram St

(Lienhard, 1966) shows
the dependence of St
on Re according to
some experimental
results (source
Sarpkaya & Isaacson).
Re
328
164
Vortex shedding

The action on a cylinder due to vortex shedding must be computed
taking into account for the interaction between the cylinder’s
oscillation and the flow.
Actually, experimental tests have shown that when the vortex
shedding frequency is close to a natural frequency of the cylinder,
this last takes the control of the shedding in apparent violation to
the Strouhal relationship, valid for bodies at rest.
In this case, the frequencies of the vortex shedding and of the
cylinder oscillation collapse into a single frequency close to the
natural frequency of the body: it is the so-called phenomenon of
lock-in (also called synchronisation or wake capture or lock-on).
During lock-in, the cylinder undergoes to a self-excited oscillation,
i.e. it experiences a vortex-induced oscillation in which the force
acting upon the cylinder depends non-linearly upon the interaction of
the flow and the cylinder’s motion.
What is also surprising in this phenomenon is the fact that it
happens when the natural frequency of the body belongs to the
range (1±0.25÷0.3)ϖ.
329

Also surprising is the fact that the vibration locks–in the vortex
shedding and controls the shedding process.
The two fundamental parameters for the phenomenon are the
reduced velocity Vr and the stability parameter Ks:
V 2meδ
Vr = , Ks = ;
fn D ρD 2
fn: natural body’s frequency;
me: the effective mass of the body (per unit length);
δ: the logarithmic decrement of the structural damping.
In the case of a completely immersed cylinder, me coincides with its

unit mass.
For a not completely immersed vertical cylinder, the effective mass
is defined equating the real cylinder to an equivalent one having the
same diameter and having a length equal to the water depth; both
have the same mode shape, natural frequency and inertial
330
165
Vortex shedding

properties, so that the total amount of kinetic energy contained in the
overall vibrating cylinder is made equal to the amount of kinetic
energy in an effective structure of the depth of the water.
The effective mass per unit length is thus given by
l 2
∫ m ζ (s ) ds ;
me = 0
d 2
∫0 ζ (s ) ds
m: mass per unit length, including the structural and added mass (so, it
is different in and out of water), and also the water eventually contained
in a hollow cylinder;
l: overall length of the cylinder;
d: water depth;
ζ: mode shape as a function of the ordinate s.
331

Concerning δ, it is
δ = 2πξ ;
ξ: structural damping coefficient, see next chapter (ξ is about equal to

0.02÷0.03 for steel structures in water).
The two parameters indicate if the forced oscillations really happens

and their type (in-line or cross-flow).
In-line oscillations occur within two adjacent regions: the first is in
the range 1.0<Vr<2.15 with a maximum at Vr=2.1. This region is
characterised by symmetric vortices, shedding simultaneously.
The second region is in the range 2.25<Vr<2.9 with a maximum at
Vr=2.6. This region is characterised by vortices shedding
alternatively from either side of the cylinder.
In the next figure, the relative amplitude (ratio η of the amplitude to
the diameter) of the oscillation of a cylinder is plotted as a function of
the reduced velocity (Wotton et al, 1972; source CIRIA).
332
166
Vortex shedding

η
Vr
333

The in-line oscillation amplitude depends upon Ks in two different
ways, according to the region where it produces.
The figure shows
this dependence
η
(source: CIRIA). (for Vr=1.9)
It is apparent that
these oscillations
are small
compared to the
cylinder’s
diameter, and
that they are (for Vr=2.5)
suppressed if
Ks>1.8.
Ks
334
167
Vortex shedding

The cross-flow oscillations happens when 3.5<Vr<10, with a
maximal amplitude in the zone 6.5<Vr<8.
This range of Vr is known as the range of capture of the body. While
the reduced velocity is in the range of capture, the shedding
frequency remains relatively constant, and as the perturbation
amplitude increases, so does the range of capture.
The amplitude of the cross-flow oscillation is a decreasing function
of Ks, as depicted in the following figure (source: CIRIA).
Ks
335

It is apparent that the cross-flow oscillation is suppressed, for
circular cylinders, if Ks >10.
Comparing this graphic to the previous one, it is quickly recognised
that the in-line oscillations are smaller than ones cross-flow.
The oscillating forces are expressed as drag forces, with appropriate
drag coefficients:
1
fF = CF ρV 2D,
2
1
fL = CL ρV 2D,
2
fF: per unit length oscillating in-line force, in the direction of the flow;
fL: per unit length oscillating lift force, cross-flow;
CF: drag coefficient for the oscillating flow;
CL: lift drag coefficient.
336
168
Vortex shedding

The two coefficients
CF and CL are CL
obtained
experimentally, and
they are given as
function of Re in the
diagrams of the
figures aside
(source: CIRIA).
Re
CF
Re
337

The diagram aside (source:
CIRIA) gives the value of the Vr
reduced velocity at the onset of

vortex shedding oscillations for
the two regions of in-line
oscillation.
Ks
The diagram aside gives the Vr
value of the reduced velocity at

the onset of vortex shedding
oscillations and at the maximum
amplitude oscillations for the
cross-flow motion (source:
CIRIA). Re
338
169
Vortex shedding

To end this part, it is worth noting that the structure can be designed
to minimize the effects of vortex shedding.
A way is to diminish Vr, namely increasing D, what acts twice on Vr,
as fn depends on the stiffness, hence on D.
Another way, is to increase Ks, i.e. the
damping and/or the mass.
Finally, the last way is to modify the flow
around the cylinder, and this can be
obtained using particular shaped spoilers
and fins, see the figure (source: Sarpkaya &
Isaacson).
Helical fins (called strakes) give a drag
coefficient CD=1.3 cylinder’s diameter
based and independent upon Re;
perforated external cylinders (called
strouds) are perhaps more effective, as CD=
0.9 based upon the inner cylinder’s
diameter.
339
Numerical methods for the wave action Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

To end this part concerning the evaluation of wave forces on
offshore structures, it is worth to consider the case of an immersed
body of a general shape.
In fact, we have seen above some solutions for slender and large
circular cylinders, but in several cases, the shape of an offshore
platform can be different, especially for gravity based platforms, like
that in the figure.
In such cases, the computation of the wave
action on the immersed structure must be
done by numerical methods.
These methods are basically two:
the three-dimensional source distribution
method, that discretizes the body’s surface;
www.sir-robert-mcalpine.com
the finite (or infinite) elements method, that

discretizes the whole fluid field.
We will see these two procedures in brief,
addressing the reader to the specialized
texts for a deeper insight in the matter.
340
170

The three-dimensional source distribution method: let us
consider once again the general linear diffraction problem already
defined on pages 226 and following (for the sake of shortness, we
will consider here only this case, that is the one of an immersed
fixed body subjected to linear waves, disregarding the case of
second-order effects and of moving bodies).
As already seen, the velocity potential is decomposed into two parts:
ϕ = ϕw + ϕs .
The first one describes the undisturbed wave flow, and in the linear
context it is simply the a η
Airy’s solution.
The second one
describes the scattered L
d ∂Ω
flow, depends upon the Ω
shape of the body and z n
must satisfy the x
equations: 0
341

∆ϕs = 0 in Ω,
∂ϕs
=0 for z = 0,
∂z
∂ 2ϕs ∂ϕ
+ g s = 0 for z = d ;
∂t 2 ∂z
∂ϕs ∂ϕ
=− w at ∂Ω;
∂n ∂n
 ∂ϕ 
lim r  s − i k ϕ s  = 0.
r →∞ ∂r 
In the linear context, the pressure is given by the only transient term:
∂ϕ
p = −ρ .
∂t
342
171

If the body’s shape is simple, like for the case of vertical cylinders,
an analytical solution is possible for the scattered problem, but,
usually, this is impossible for generally shaped bodies.
In such cases, however, the mathematical structure of the problem
allows for a numerical procedure, which is essentially based upon
the superposition of the velocity fields, once more.
Actually, the scattered potential ϕs is expressed as the superposition
of an infinite number of elementary potentials, each one describing a
flow scattered from one point on the body’s surface.
This technique has been proposed first by Lamb (1932) who has
shown that the scattered flow can be described, in the case of a
body in an infinite fluid region, by a distribution of three-dimensional
source potentials on the body’s surface; in other words, the
scattered fluid can be always obtained as the superposition of an
infinite number of source potential flows, of different strength, each
one scattering from one point of the body’s surface.
In the case of finite fluid region, some corrective terms must be
added to the source potentials.
343

This result is actually an application of the Green’s theorem:
∫∂Ω (f ∇g − g ∇f ) ⋅ nds = ∫Ω (f ∆g − g ∆f )dv .

If g is a constant, it is simply (remembering the definition of normal
derivative)
∂f
∫∂Ω ∂n ds = ∫Ω ∆f dv .
For a wave flow, as usual, the potential is expressed as, see also
page 236,
ϕ = Re[φ ( x, y , z ) e −iωt ].
The complex potential φ is expressed as

1
4π ∫∂Ω
φ ( x, y , z ) = f (ξ ,η,ζ )G( x, y , z;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds;
(ξ, η, ζ) is a point on ∂Ω ;
f(ξ, η, ζ) is the unknown source distribution on ∂Ω .
344
172

G is the Green’s function, i.e. the source potential; it must satisfy all
the boundary conditions of the problem except that on the body’s
surface and it must have a source-like behaviour; in short, G must
be of the form
1
G= + G *;
R
R= (x − ξ )2 + (y − η )2 + (z − ζ )2 ;
G* is a regular function satisfying
∆G * = 0 on ∂Ω .
The expression of G appropriate to the boundary-value problem has

been given by Wehausen & Laitone (1960) and in the case of a
wave motion with large period (as is the case usually in offshore
engineering), the expression of G can be approximated as:
345

∞ 
1 1 1 1 1 1 
G= + + ∑  + + + ;
R R1 n =1 R2 n R3 n R 4 n R5 n 
the above functions Ri are given by:
R1 = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η )2 + (z + ζ )2 ;
R 2n = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η )2 + (z − 2nd − ζ )2 ;
R3 n = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η )2 + (z + 2nd + ζ )2 ;
R 4n = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η )2 + (z + 2nd − ζ )2 ;
R5 n = (x − ξ )2 + (y − η )2 + (z − 2nd + ζ )2 .
The solution of the scattered problem posed in this form
automatically satisfies the field condition (the potential to be
harmonic), the boundary conditions at the bottom and free surface
and the irradiation condition.
346
173

The last condition, the one on the body’s surface, gives the following
integral equation:
1 ∂G
− f ( x, y , z ) +
2π ∫∂Ω
f (ξ ,η,ζ )
∂n
( x, y , z;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds = 2w n ( x, y , z ).
wn: amplitude of the normal component of the velocity of the

undisturbed flow on the immersed surface
The above integral equation can be solved numerically; to do this, a

discretization of the body’s surface in N quadrilateral patches or
panels is done.
Each panel has area Ai and a node is placed in correspondence of
each panel’s centroid, Ci=(xi, yi, zi); it is just at these points, the
panels’ centroids, that the above equation is stated.
In this way, the above integral equation, to be satisfied in principle at
each point of the body’s surface, is replaced by the following N
equations, one for each panel:
347

1 ∂G
− fi + ∫
2π ∂Ω
f (ξ ,η,ζ )
∂n
( x i , y i , zi ;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds = 2w n i .
In addition the above integral can be written as the sum of the N

integrals over the N panels and the source function f(ξ, η, ζ) can be
taken as constant over each panel, so that the previous equation
becomes (with Einstein’s notation):
− fi + α ij f j = 2 w ni , i , j = 1, 2,..., N.
The αij coefficients in the above linear system are
1 ∂G
2π ∫Ai ∂n
α ij = ( x i , y i , zi ;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds.
Physically, αij denotes the velocity induced at the ith node point in the
direction normal to the body’s surface by a source distribution of unit
strength distributed uniformly over the jth panel.
348
174

In matrix form, it is
f = 2(α − I) −1w n .
The same numerical scheme outlined above can be used to express

the potential φ on page 344 at each node as the sum of the N source
potentials
φi = β ij f j , i , j = 1, 2,..., N.
In the above equation it is

1
4π ∫Ai
β ij = G( x i , y i , zi ;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds.
The scattered velocity field can then be computed at each node

simply calculating the gradient of φ:
fi  ∂G ∂G ∂G 
∇φ = ∫ ( x, y, z;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds; ∫ ( x, y, z;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds; ∫ ( x, y , z;ξ ,η,ζ ) ds .
4π  i ∂x
A Ai ∂y Ai ∂z 
349

Finally, differentiating the total potential with respect to time gives
the pressure field; with the above discretization, the pressure can be
computed in correspondence of the nodes and, considering its value
as a constant over each panel, a simple numerical integration gives
the value of the Froude-Krylov force.
It must be emphasized that this approach is valid only for large
bodies, i.e. where the wake separation effects are negligible.
The other great numerical method used in calculating the wave

forces on immersed bodies is the finite element method.
The advantages of this approach over the pure boundary integral
equation techniques, like that seen above, are mainly:
the resulting linear equation system is symmetric and banded (like in all
the finite element approaches); this is not the case for the boundary
equation techniques;
it is ideally suited for deriving the coupling with the structure for which,
usually, a finite element discretization is used.
350
175

The physical context in which the finite element method is
developed is just the same used for the boundary integral equation
techniques, i.e. the very classical one of linear diffraction.
In other words, the governing equations for the scattered potential
are just those on page 342.
For the sake of convenience, let us write the scattered potential in
the complex form
ϕ s = φ ( x , y , z ) e iω t
.
In addition, let us pose:
∂ϕ w
= −w n e iωt .
∂n
Finally, we go to use another form of the radiation condition; it can

be easily obtained if one considers an outgoing flow through a
surface sufficiently far from the radiating body, so that the wave can
be represented by a plane wave:
351

ϕ s = f (r − ct ) for r → ∞.
Noting that
∂ϕ s ∂ϕ s
= −c f ′, = f ′,
∂t ∂r
we obtain the radiation condition in the form
∂ϕ s ∂ϕ
+ c s = 0.
∂t ∂r
Hence, the governing equations become

∆φ = 0 in Ω ,
∂φ
=0 for z = 0,
∂z
ω2 ∂φ
− φ+ = 0 for z = d ;
g ∂z
352
176

∂φ
= wn at ∂Ω ;
∂n
∂φ iω
+ φ =0 for r → ∞.
∂r c
A further simplification is possible when the sea bed depth d is

constant and the body’s surface is vertical; in this case, always
considered previously, it is possible to integrate exactly the
governing equations in the vertical direction z, which allows to
reduce the problem to a two-dimensional one.
Actually, this has been done more or less implicitly also when the
exact solution where sought, i.e. for the Mc Camy & Fuchs and for
the Garrett solution (see for instance page 236).
In practice, we use a variable separation technique to write the
function φ:
cosh kz
φ ( x, y , z ) = Φ ( x, y ) .
cosh kd
353

This form of φ is used because it satisfies automatically to the
condition at the sea bed and at the free surface, as it is easily
recognized.
Now, the problem is a two-dimensional problem of finding the
function Φ satisfying the conditions
∂ 2Φ ∂ 2Φ
∆Φ = 0 → + + k 2Φ = 0 in Ω ;
2 2
∂x ∂y
∂Φ
= wn at ∂Ω ;
∂n
∂Φ iω
+ Φ =0 for r → ∞.
∂r c
The above equation in the field Ω is the Helmoltz equation; it is a

classical equation, encountered in other domains of physics, like for
instance acoustics, in the problems of pressure waves in liquids, in
Love waves in solids and so on.
354
177

Once the function Φ known, the pressure field of the scattered
waves is given in its complex form by
∂ϕs cosh kz iωt

p = −ρ = − ρ i ω Φ ( x, y ) e .
∂t cosh kd
The problem is now a rather classical problem for the finite element
method: to solve an elliptic problem (the Helmoltz equation) with
Neumann-like conditions on the body’s surface but, in addition, with
the radiation condition to be satisfied at infinity.
It is just the infinity condition and the way it is dealt with that
characterizes the finite element method for wave problems.
The above problem can be cast as the variational problem of
minimizing the functional
H= ∫∫Ω L( x, y ) dx dy ,
where the Lagrangian L(x, y) is
355

[ ]
1  ∂Φ  
2 2
1  ∂Φ 
L( x, y ) = (∇Φ ) − k Φ = 
2 2 2
 +  − k 2Φ 2 .
2 2  ∂x   ∂y  

In fact, the Euler-Lagrange equation is the Helmoltz equation
∂L ∂ ∂L ∂ ∂L ∂ 2Φ ∂ 2Φ
− − =0 → k 2Φ + + = 0.
∂Φ ∂x ∂Φ ,x ∂y ∂Φ ,y ∂x 2 ∂y 2
To this equation the boundary condition and the radiation condition

must be added.
This last can be taken into account by different methods.
For the sake of brevity, here we consider only the possibility of using
infinite elements.
The fluid domain is divided into two parts: the interior domain, near
the body, and the exterior domain, outside the interior.
The interior domain is discretized by finite elements, the exterior by
infinite elements, see the following figure.
356
178

The finite elements are exterior domain
usually classical isoparametric
interior domain
6-nodes triangles or 8-nodes
quadrilateral.
Body
However, some special
elements are also introduced,
to take into account for special
situations like for instance not
perfectly reflecting walls or
walls with holes, used as
finite elements infinite elements
wave dampers.
Infinite elements are defined
in a manner
very similar to finite elements; the only difference is that their
domain extends to infinity, which implies that exponential shape
functions must be used.
These shape functions have been introduced by Zienkiewicz et alii
(1975).
357

The element is parametric, the parent
shape being a rectangle which
extends to infinity in the ξ direction, ξ
and η being the reference
coordinates, see the following figure
(source: Zienkiewicz et alii).
The element has 9 points; in the ξ
direction the outer point is at large, but
finite, distance.
A new set of coordinates is set up, the
s direction, which is the same
direction as the ξ coordinate, but
distances along it are in the same
measure are those in x, y coordinates.
In the η direction, a conventional
Lagrange polynomial is used, whilst in
the s direction the following function is
used:
358
179

s
−
p(s ) e L e iks ;
p(s): a polynomial in s;
L: a length which dictates the severity of the exponential decay.
The first term, the polynomial, allows a certain variation in the wave
envelope, the second makes the wave decay for large radii and the
third ensures a basically periodic shape.
This shape function and its nodal values are complex, and it
satisfies the radiation condition.
For the rth node the shape function can be written (the nth node is far
distant)
sr − s n −1 s − s
N r = e L e iks ∏
q
.
s − sr
q =1 q
q ≠r
359

For the numerical integration in the s direction, usually a special six
point integration is used.
In the case of a body whose surface is not vertical, i.e. of general
shapes, the two dimensional approach cannot be used; in such a
case, the technique is that of using tri-dimensional elements near
the body, in the interior region, and bi-dimensional elements in the
exterior region, where the sea bed is sufficiently horizontal.
The two discretizations are matched at the interface surface, that
must be placed sufficiently far from the body (though it has been
seen numerically that it can be at a relatively small distance).
The procedure for stating the tri-dimensional problem is exactly the
same used for the two-dimensional case, but now the free surface
condition is not automatically satisfied, and it must be taken into
account in the general formulation.
Standard isoparametric bricks can be used for the discretization of
the tri-dimensional interior region, see for instance the figure on the
following page (source: Zienkiewicz et alii).
360
180

The reader is addressed to specialist papers and books on finite
element method for a deeper insight in the matter.
361
The spectral method in wave forces calculation Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

We have already introduced in Chapter 2 the wave energy spectrum
as a statistical tool to describe the sea state. In this section we will
use this tool to calculate the wave actions.
In the following, some statistical concepts are used, among them
that of spectrum. The reader is addressed to the next chapter for a
brief recall of basic concepts, and to specialized books for a deeper
insight in the matter. Here, we will consider the reader aware of the
principal concepts concerning the theory of probability.
A complete wave spectrum is a method to forecast wave

characteristics and actions.
The most easily observed physical parameter of a wave is its period;
it can be empirically related to the generating wind speed, U: each
wind velocity produces a certain range of periods with a well-defined
maximum, which increases with U.
This empirical observation is theoretically supported by the spectrum
of the surface elevation, Sηη(ω), the most used in the stochastic
description of waves.
362
181

Sηη(ω) represents, just like any other spectrum, the distribution of the
variance ση² of η in the frequency domain:
∞
ση2 = ∫ Sηη (ω ) dω.
0
A physical meaning is attached to the spectrum Sηη(ω). In fact, the
surface density of mechanical energy E associated with a wave
motion is defined as the sum of the average kinetic energy K and
the average potential energy V per unit horizontal area, referred to
the still water level, i.e. the energy associated with a fluid element of
height z+η, length L and unit width:
E = K +V;
1 L d +η 1 2
K= ∫ ∫ ρ u dx dz;
L 0 0 2
1 Lη
V = ∫ ∫ ρ g z dx dz.
L 0 0
363

In the case of the linear wave theory, it is an easy task to calculate K
and V: using the definition of wave number, the dispersion equation
and the expression of the particle’s velocity and wave profile
obtained in the linear theory, one gets
1 L d +η 1 1 L d1
K= ∫ ∫ ρ u2dx dz ≅ ∫ ∫ ρ u2dx dz =
L 0 0 2 L 0 0 2
∫0 ∫0 [cosh
2
ρ  kga  L d 2
=   kz sin2 (kx − ωt ) +
2L  ω cosh kd 
] 1
+ sinh 2 kz cos 2 (kx − ωt ) dx dz =
16
ρ g H 2;
1 Lη ρ g L a sin( kx −ωt ) 1
V = ∫ ∫ ρ g z dx dz = ρ g H 2.
L ∫0 ∫0
z dz dx =
L 0 0 16
So, in the linear theory, the kinetic energy associated with the flow is
exactly equal to the potential energy of the same flow and
364
182

1
E= ρ g H 2.
8
From the above equations it is apparent that E, as well as V and K,
is proportional to the mean square of the surface elevation.
But, for what said above, the spectrum Sηη(ω) describes the way in
which the variance, and hence the mean square of η, which is a
variable with null mean, is distributed in the frequency domain.
So, being E proportional to the mean square of the surface
elevation, the spectrum Sηη(ω) of the surface elevation is also, to
within a numerical factor, the spectrum of the wave energy, that is, it
indicates how the wave energy is distributed in the frequency
domain.
In other words, the wave spectrum is a function of the wave
frequency giving not only the surface elevation, but also the wave
energy distribution.
An examination of the spectrum shows that the wave energy is often
concentrated in a relatively narrow band (see figure on page 367).
365

The significant wave heights are related to E by the following
relations:
E
H mean = 2.5σ η = 2.5 ;
ρg
E
H1/ 3 ( = H s ) = 4σ η = 4 ;
ρg
E
H1/ 10 = 5.1σ η = 5.1 .
ρg
The maximum wave height in a fully developed sea is related to the

wind velocity by the empirical relation
H = 9 × 10 −3 U10
2 .5
.
So, the total energy E is given by (in kg/s²)

1
E = 9 × 10 −3 ρ g U10
5 5
≅ 11.04 U10 .
8
366
183

The most used wave spectra are the Pierson-Moskowitz and the
JONSWAP spectrum; the first one is used for fully developed sea
states and the second for sea state not yet fully developed.
In Chapter 2 we have already introduced these spectra; in particular,
the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is, for the fully developed sea
condition, S (m²s)
ω 4 Sηη (ω ) for
2 −β o
αg 4 U = 40 m / s.
Sηη (ω ) = e ω .
4 5
(2π ) ω
α= 0.0081 (Phillip’s empirical constant);
β= 0.74;
ωo= g/U;
U: characteristic wind speed at 19.5 m ω (1/s)
above the still water level.
It may also be written in terms of the frequency at which the energy
is a maximum, ωm:
367

4
5ωm
2 −
αg 4
Sηη (ω ) = e 4ω .
(2π ) 4 ω 5
A more convenient form is the following one, which uses the
significant wave height Hs and the average mean zero-crossing
wave period Tz (see chapter 2, page 84).
16π 3
4 2 −
8π Hs
e (ωTz ) .
4
Sηη (ω ) =
ω 5Tz4
The following relationships can be useful:
ωo = 1.14 ωm ;
2π
ωz = = 1. 4 ω m ;
Tz
Sηη (f ) = 2π Sηη (ω ).
368
184

The use of the JONSWAP (acronym for JOint North Sea WAve
Project) spectrum is more involved and it will not be treated here.
The knowledge of the spectrum allows the calculation of the wave
actions in a random sea by superposition of waves of discrete
frequency.
The spectrum is divided into either a number N of equal frequency
bands or equal area bands.
In practical applications, only the part of spectrum between ω=0 and
ω=ωmax (called also the cut-off frequency) is considered, and divided
in N= 50 bands; for most open sea states, ωmax= 1 Hz.
Then, a sea state is simulated by superposition of regular waves,
one for each band.
Each one of these regular waves has a frequency ωn equal to the
mean frequency of the band and an amplitude an related to the area
under Sηη(ω) within the frequency band; by the same definition of
the spectrum curve, if ω1n and ω2n are the lower and upper limits of
the nth frequency band, it is
369

ω2n
an = 2 ∫ω1n Sηη (ω ) dω .
The advantage of choosing equal area bands, is that all the

component waves in the simulation have a constant amplitude.
The length of each wave is computed by the dispersion relation; in
deep waters, it is
2π g
Ln = .
ωn2
The random sea state is then simulated superposing the regular

wave components; in particular, for the sea surface η it is
N
η ( x, t ) = ∑ an sin(k n x + ωn t + θ n );
n =1
370
185

The phase angles θn are randomly generated between 0 and 2π; so
a random sea state having the design spectrum is generated.
However, in doing this, discontinuities in the velocity field near the
surface are possible; these are resolved by displacing the velocity
field due to each component vertically by a distance equal to the
difference between the water surface and the component water
surface elevation.
In other words, the apparent distance zn of the water particle under
consideration from the sea bed is
zn = d + η − an sin(k n x − ωn t + θ n ).
The component velocities and accelerations are then added

vectorially to get the water particle velocity and acceleration of the
simulated random sea.
This velocity and this acceleration are used to calculate the wave
forces, both for slender or large bodies.
371

The time is then discretized in time steps ∆t, respecting the empirical
condition
2π
∆t ≤ .
5 ωmax
Then, the wave force on the structure is computed for each time
step; this will give a force time history that can be used to compute
the force spectral density, which will be used in the next chapter to
perform the dynamical analysis of a platform.
An alternative technique used to compute the wave force in a

random sea state consists in calculating the wave force spectrum
once the wave (surface elevation) spectrum known.
In the next chapter, some details of this approach will be given.
372
186
Chapter 4

Dynamical considerations
373

Introduction 375
Response to regular waves 379
Response to an impulsive force 408
Response to irregular waves: the spectral analysis 413
The wave force spectrum 438
374
187
Introduction

The structural analysis of offshore structures must be usually
performed by a dynamical analysis.
In fact, the structural analysis of the structure can be done as a
static analysis only if the fundamental period is sufficiently small, say
3 seconds.
In all the other cases, the analysis of the dynamical response to the
wave action must be performed.
However, dynamic analysis of some structural members must be
equally performed in some cases, for instance for wave slamming
and vortex shedding.
We have seen in the previous chapter all the mechanisms of wave
action, and in particular the fact that, and this in both the cases of
slender or large bodies, the actions given by a regular train of waves
on a fixed or compliant structure are:
a first order force, oscillating at the wave frequency;
a second order force, oscillating at twice the wave frequency;
a second order steady force, the drift.
375
Introduction Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

It is worth noting that, although the second order forces are of
second order with respect to the first order forces, i.e. their norm is
much smaller, their effect can be very important on the dynamical
response of the structure.
In fact, the dynamical amplification of a force depends not only on its
magnitude but also upon the ratio between the oscillating force
frequency and the natural frequency of the structure.
Generally speaking, it is important to make the distinction between

dynamic loading and dynamic response:
a dynamic loading is a loading varying with time in magnitude and/or
direction;
The dynamic response resulting from a dynamic loading is the way the
structure responses to it, and depends upon the stiffness, just as for
static loads, but also on the mass and damping of the structure.
In structural analysis, all loading having an appreciable variation
with time is considered a dynamic loading.
376
188
Introduction

Dynamic loadings can be divided into three categories:
periodic, which repeat in all essential features after certain regular
intervals of time; it is the case, for instance, of the wave actions in a
deterministic approach, i.e. for regular sea states, but also the forces
generated by vortex shedding are periodic;
impulsive, which occur once only; the typical case is that of impact loads
on fenders due to berthing of ships;
random, which do not vary regularly with time; it is the case of the wave
actions in irregular sea states
In the figure, examples of the three cases above.
f f f
impulsive
periodic
t t random t
377
Introduction Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Actually, all environmental loads fluctuate with time, but for many
design purposes it is adequate to consider them in terms of an
equivalent static load; the validity of this assumption depends upon
both the properties of the structure and the nature of the load.
Consideration must also be given to dynamic effects when the
fluctuating components of the applied forces are large compared
with the mean load (and this is the case of the wave forces, for
instance), especially if the design is such that the structure is
particularly sensitive to fluctuating loads (as in the case of fatigue
design, for instance), or when the response of the structure is likely
to be significant (for instance, when a natural frequency of the
structure coincides with the frequency of part of the environmental
force).
This chapter is divided into three main parts:
response to regular waves (harmonic loadings);
response to impulsive forces;
response to irregular waves (random loadings), with a recall of some
concepts of the theory of probability.
378
189

In this section we consider the basic mechanical facts concerning a
structure acted upon by a periodic force, like those occurring in a
regular sea state, and due to the main wave action or also to the
wave slamming and vortex shedding.
The approach is hence a deterministic approach, in which the sea
state is described by a regular train of waves.
The wave actions are hence computed by one of the methods seen
in Chapter 3, and are considered here completely known and
deterministic.
The case of an impulsive force will be also considered, as a special
case of deterministic action, in the next section.
The concepts that follows are not specific to offshore engineering,
but are common to other fields of structural engineering, like for
instance seismic design, aero-elastic design, wind engineering.
In this section it is first considered the case of a single-degree of
freedom and then the case of multi-degrees of freedom systems.
379
Response to regular waves Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

The case of a single degree of freedom system can yield useful and
general information on the likely dynamic response.
In addition, preliminary calculations can be done effectively with
simple models, sometimes depending on a single degree of
freedom.
Let us consider first the free oscillations of an undamped
(conservative) system, characterised by a stiffness K and an inertia
M (which is not, generally speaking, a mass).
The linearized Lagrange equation (that is the equation of motion of
small amplitude) is of the type
Mx&& + Kx = 0.
x=x(t) is the Lagrangian coordinate describing the system’s
configuration; it is unique as the system has only one degree of
freedom.
The above equation can be rewritten as
x&& + ωs2 x = 0.
380
190

ωs is the structural natural frequency of the system:
K
ωs =
.
M
ωs is a circular frequency (rad/sec), related to the angular natural
frequency fs (Hz) and to the natural period Ts (sec) of the structure
by the relations:
ω 2π
fs = s , Ts = .
2π ωs
The solution of the linearized motion equation is of the type
x (t ) = A cos(ωs t + ϕ ).
A is the amplitude of the motion, which varies harmonically in time

and ϕ is the phase angle representing the time lag.
The fundamental observation is that the frequency ωs increases if
the stiffness increases or if the inertia decreases.
381

A very simple example is that of the figure aside (a plane harmonic
oscillator); the angle θ can be taken as the only Lagrangian
coordinate.
If m is the mass and µ the stiffness of the angular spring, the
Lagrangian equation of motion (here the equation is linear by itself,
linearization is not necessary) is:
L=
1
2
(ml 2θ& 2 − Kθ 2 ) →
∂ ∂L ∂L
−
∂t ∂θ& ∂θ
=0 → ml 2θ&& + Kθ = 0.
m
Hence, here it is
l
2 K 1 µ θ
M = ml , K = µ → ωs = = .
M l m
µ
The system being conservative, the motion does
not change in time: the system continues to oscillate harmonically
and the total mechanical energy conserves its value, ½ K A².
382
191

The figure shows the variation of x with t. x
To be more realistic, the previous model
must consider damping, that is the
0
dissipation of energy by the system.
Generally speaking, energy dissipation
occurs due to hysteresis losses within t
the structural material itself, due to

frictional effects in joints and also due to the soil deformation.
In the case of offshore structures, a part of the total structural
damping is due to the hydrodynamic damping, that is to the
transmission of the structure’s kinetic energy to the surrounding
water (see chapter 3, page 302 and following).
For most civil engineering structures, it is convenient and realistic to
represent all the damping as a viscous damping, that is as a force
proportional to the motion velocity and opposed to the motion itself.
If we introduce the damping coefficient C, the motion equation
becomes
Mx&& + Cx& + Kx = 0.
383

The previous equation can be rewritten as
x&& + 2αx& + ωs2 x = 0;
α is the attenuation:
C
α= .
2M
The characteristic equation is
λ2 + 2αλ + ωs2 = 0,
whose solutions are:
λ = −α ± α 2 − ωs2 .
So, three cases are possible: the first one is the case of the sub-
critical response, when α 2 − ωs2 < 0. Then:
λ = −α ± iϖ s ,
where
α2
ϖ s = ωs 1 − .
ωs2
384
192

The solution of the motion equation is then
x = Ae −αt cos(ϖ s t + ϕ ).
The exponential traduces dissipation, that is the decrement of the

motion amplitude. The diagram of x is limited by the two exponential
curves ± e −α,t see the figure below, and we call pseudo-period Tp the
time interval between two consecutive zero-crossing in the same
sense. Actually, Tp is a constant but as the motion is no longer
exactly periodic (as it is damped) the name pseudo-period is
preferable. It is x
1
−
2π 2π 1  α2  2
Tp = = = Ts 1 −  =
ϖ s ωs 2  ω2 
α  s 
1− 0
ωs2 t
4π M
= . τ
Tp
2
4MK − C
385

We call logarithmic decrement the quantity
x (t ) Ae −αt cos(ϖ s t + ϕ ) 2π C
δ = ln = ln = αT p = .
x (t + T p ) −α (t +Tp )
Ae cos[ϖ s (t + Tp ) + ϕ ] 4MK − C 2
The second case is that of the critical response, when α 2 − ωs2 = 0.

In this case the damping coefficient takes its critical value
Ccr = 2Mωs = 2 MK = 2Mα .
The solution of the characteristic equation is

C x
λ=− = −ωs = −α ,
2M
and that of the motion equation is
x (t ) = ( A + Bt )e −αt .
The oscillatory character of the motion is no
t
longer present, as apparent in the figure. 0
386
193

The last case is that of super-critical response, when α 2 − ωs2 > 0.
The solutions of the characteristic equation are real and hence the
solution of the motion equation is
− α − α 2 −ωs2 t − α + α 2 −ωs2 t
x (t ) = A e   + Be   .
It is apparent that after a sufficient x

time interval, the second term is
negligible, so that the motion
amplitude decreases like the first
term, hence more slowly than the
critical case, see the figure.
In structural mechanics, the t
damping ratio ξ is often used: 0
C C α
ξ= = = .
Ccr 2 MK ωs
387

Often, ξ is expressed as a percentage:
β = ξ × 100%.
It is worth to recall that in the case of a structural member of an
offshore platform, the inertia M is
M=Ms+Madd+Mw;
Ms: structural inertia;
Madd: added inertia, due to hydrodynamic effect (see Chapter 3);
Mw: inertia of the eventual internal water (for flooded members).
In the cases of structures, the motion is normally not caused by an

initial displacement, but by a force or some forces acting upon the
structure. We must hence consider the case of forced oscillations.
The most easy case to be dealt with is that of a harmonic force,
which is just the case of wave actions.
We consider hence a force acting upon the structure of the type
388
194

F = F cos ωf t e.
The motion equation is then of the type

F
x&& + 2αx& + ωs2 x = cos ωf t .
M
It is no longer homogeneous, and its solution is the sum of the
solution of the previous case, where there are no applied force, plus
a term of the type
x f (t ) = Af cos(ωf t + ϕ f ).
We have seen above that in all the cases, a damped free oscillation
decreases in amplitude; so, under the action of a periodic force, the
term x(t) becomes more and more smaller than xf(t), and after a
sufficient time interval it can be completely neglected, so that
x (t ) ≅ x f (t ) = Af cos(ω f t + ϕ f ).
389

This means that the frequency of the structural motion is that of the
force.
To find the values of the amplitude Af and of the phase ϕs, the
solution xf(t) must be injected into the motion equation and then
identify the different terms; the result is
F 1 2αωf
Af = , ϕ f = arctan .
M
( 2 2 2
)
ωf − ωs + 4α ωf 2 2 ω 2
f − ω 2
s
It is apparent that the amplitude of the periodic motion depends

upon that of the exciting force:
F 1
Af = .
( )
2
Mωs 2 2 4α 2 2
χ −1 + χ
ωs2
χ is the ratio of the frequencies:
ω
χ= f.
ωs
390
195

To evaluate the variation of Af with χ, let us calculate

(
χ χ2 −1 + ) 2α 2 

dAf F  ωs2 
= −2 .
dχ Mωs2 3
(
 2 2 4α 2 2
 χ −1 + 2 χ ) 2
 ωs 
So, Af is extreme for χ= 0, which corresponds to the static case, and

for
ωs2 − 2α 2 α2
χ = χ* = = 1− 2 .
ωs 2
α cr
In these cases,
F F 1
Afo = Af ( χ = 0) = , Af* = Af ( χ = χ *) = .
K 2Mα ω 2 − α 2
s
391

The solution χ=χ* exists only when
ωs α
α< = cr ≅ 0.7 α cr .
2 2
In this case, Afo is a minimum and Af* a maximum, while in the other
case, Afo is a maximum. This means that if the damping is not too
great, the amplitude of the dynamic oscillation is greater than the
static displacement under the same force F; the ratio
Af 1
Q= =
Afo
(χ 2 − 1)2 + 4ωα2
2
χ2
s
is the dynamical amplification (or magnification) factor; it indicates

how much the dynamic response is greater, or smaller, than the
static response.
It is apparent that Q depends upon the mechanical characteristics of
the system, through ωs and α, and upon the frequency of the
exciting force, through χ. 392
196

In particular, for undamped oscillations, α=0, when χ=1, that is when
the frequency of the exciting force is equal to that of the system, Q
tends toward infinity: it is the phenomenon of the resonance.
When α is not null, Q is not infinite but anyway it can be very much
greater than one, especially for 5 A α*=0
Q
exciting forces having a frequency
close to the natural frequency of the 4
system.
So, in order to avoid severe dangers
for the system, any structure should be 3
designed so as to have its natural
frequency sufficiently different form the 2
frequency of the exciting forces.
The figure aside shows the variation of
Q with χ for different values of 1
α*=0.7
α*=α/ωo= α/αcr .
χ
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
393

Also the phase ϕf can be expressed as a function of χ:
2α χ
ϕ f = arctan .
ωs χ 2 − 1
The variation of ϕf with χ is plotted in the figure, once again for

different values of α*.
π
It is apparent that for small ϕf α *= 0.1
values of χ the system
follows the exciting force,
α *= 0.9
whilst for higher values of χ
the phase angle increases π/2
considerably and the
system can be also in
phase opposition with
respect to the force.
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2
394
197

Looking at the equation giving the amplitude of the response (page
390), the dynamical response can be divided into three regions:
low forcing frequency region, when χ<<1; in this case it is
F
x (t ) → cos ωf t when χ → 0;
K
in this region, it is mainly the stiffness K that controls the response, and
usually a static analysis combining the static and dynamic load is
sufficient, except when fatigue is important;
resonance region, when χ ≅1; in this case it is
F π
x (t ) → cos(ωf t + ) when χ → 1;
2Kξ 2
response is mainly controlled by the damping C, and a dynamic analysis
is essential;
high forcing frequency region, when χ>>1; in this case it is
F
x (t ) → cos(ωf t + π ) when χ → ∞;
Mωf2
response is mainly controlled by the inertia M and it is smaller than the
static response to F; nevertheless, a dynamical analysis is often
important for fatigue phenomena, as the frequency is important.
395

Going back to the expression of Q, its maximum is obtained for
χ = 1 − 2ξ 2 .
So we get
1
Qmax = .
2ξ 1 − ξ 2
Being ξ<<1 when resonance happens, it is
1 MK
Qmax ≅ = .
2ξ C
In civil engineering structures have usually a very low damping ratio
(β ≅ 3% for steel structures) and hence they are sensitive to the
phenomenon of resonance, which is totally unacceptable for
structural and operational safety.
Hence, the structure must be designed so as to ensure that
resonance do not occur. This means that the main natural
frequencies of the structure must be sufficiently different from that of
the exciting forces, which normally cannot be modified. 396
198

Type of force Typical range of f Typical range of
(Hz) T (s)
Wind turbulence 0.05÷20 0.05÷20
Unsteady velocities in tidal flow 1.0÷10 0.1÷1.0
Vortex shedding 0.5÷3.0 0.3÷2.0

Wave forces 0.05÷1.0 1.0÷20
Long period waves 0.001÷0.05 20÷1000
Tidal flows 0.0002 5000
The above table shows the approximate range of frequencies
encompassed by various environmental forces of interest in offshore
engineering.
There is another way to analyse the same vibration phenomena, it is

through the so-called transfer function.
The theoretical background of the transfer function is well
understood just in the case of a harmonic exciting force, i.e. in the
case considered above. 397

In fact, the motion equation in the case of forced damped
oscillations, can be rewritten as
Mx&& + Cx& + Kx = F e iωf t .
It is, of course, understood that the only real part is taken in the
above expression, and we will do the same in the following. The
solution is hence written as
x (t ) = Af e i (ωf t −ϕf ) ,
which injected in the motion equation gives

1
x (t ) = Fe iωf t .
K − Mωf2 + i (Cωf )
This equation is usually written in the form
x (t ) = H ( iωf )Fe iωf t .

398
199

The complex function H, defined by
1
H ( iωf ) = ,
K − Mωf2 + i (Cωf )
is the transfer function, and it relates the response of the system to

the exciting force; it is often referred to as receptance or mechanical
admittance or mobility.
The magnitude of the transfer function is
1 Q
H ( iωf ) = H (iωf ) H ( iωf ) = = .
(K − Mωf2 )2 + (Cωf )2 K
The transfer function can be introduced also in more general cases,

not only for periodic exciting forces:
x(t ) = H (iωf )F (t ).
We will use this technique in the case of random loadings.

399

A case of interest is when the exciting force is the sum of some
periodic loadings.
This is the case for wave forces, at the second order theory, but also
of any function which is periodic of time Tf= 2π/ωf, as it can be
represented by a Fourier series, hence as a superposition of
harmonic components:
∞
F (t ) = A0 + ∑ ( Ar cos rωf t + Br sin rωf t ), with
r =1
1 Tf / 2 2 Tf / 2 2 Tf / 2
A0 =
Tf ∫−Tf / 2 F (t ) dt; Ar =
Tf ∫−Tf / 2 F (t ) cos rωf t dt; Br =
Tf ∫−Tf / 2 F (t ) sin rωf t dt.
Once again, it is better to use the complex form of the Fourier
series:
∞
1 T /2
F (t ) = ∑ c r e i r ωf t , where c r = ∫ f F (t ) e −i r ωf t dt .
Tf −Tf / 2
r = −∞
The motion equation becomes hence
400
200

∞
Mx&& + Cx& + Kx = ∑ cr e i r ωf t .
r = −∞
As the equation is linear, the solution is obtained as the

superposition of the solutions to each harmonic component,
obtained multiplying the forcing term by its receptance function:
∞
x (t ) = ∑ H (i r ωf ) cr e i r ωf t .
r = −∞
What has been done above, concerned the very simple case of a
single degree of freedom system.
Real structures are modelled as multi-degree of freedom systems,
by very classical techniques like for instance finite elements.
In the case of the linear free vibrations of systems having n degrees
of freedom, the motion equations of the system are just similar to
that of a single-degree of freedom system:
401

Mx&& + Cx& + Kx = F (t ).
This time, M is the inertia matrix, C the damping matrix, K the

stiffness matrix, x the vector of the Lagrangian coordinates used to
describe the dynamics of the system and F(t) the vector of the
exciting forces.
All the matrices above are n by n arrays; the inertia and stiffness
matrices are symmetric, and usually it is assumed that the damping
matrix is of the type
C = γ 1M + γ 2K ,
with γ1 and γ2 dimensional constants. In this way, C is symmetric too.
The fundamental technique to solve the above system of coupled
differential equations is to decouple the equations, so as to solve
each one of them independently from the other ones.
The first step in this process is to decouple the reduced equations
corresponding to the linear free vibrations of the same undamped
structure, that is the equations
402
201

Mx&& + Kx = 0.
The problem is reduced to the search of the eigenvectors and
eigenvalues of M relative to K; the n roots of the characteristic
equation
det(M − ωK ) = 0,
are the n natural frequencies ωn of the discretized structure; the
spectral theorem ensures that all the ωn are real valued.
The decoupling need the search also of the eigenvectors; once
these are found, they are arranged by column in a matrix Φ; the
decoupled system is hence obtained as
Φ T MΦ z&& + Φ TCΦ z& + Φ T KΦ z = Φ T F (t ).
The coordinates z are the normal coordinates; they are related to

the Lagrangian coordinates by
x = Φ z.
403

The nth normal mode is an oscillation at frequency ωn where only the
normal coordinate zn is active, the other ones being null.
The normal modes are orthogonal, so that the energy contained in
one mode is independent of the energy contained in any other
mode.
The ith uncoupled motion equation has the form
n
M i z&&i + Ci z& i + K zi = ∑Φ ij F j (t ).
j =1
This is identical to that of a single degree of freedom system, except
that the force consists in a linear combination of the n exciting
forces, this being a result of the decoupling arithmetic.
So, each normal mode can be found independently from the other
ones and exactly in the same way used for the single degree of
freedom system.
Once the mode found, the corresponding real motion can be easily
reconstructed by the above relationship between x and z.
404
202

Usually, the natural (normal) frequencies are numbered in
increasing order; the lowest natural frequency is called the
fundamental frequency of the structure.
It is possible to analyse multi-degree of freedom systems without

decoupling the equations as done above, that is without looking for
the normal modes.
In fact, just as for the single degree of freedom case, if the forcing
function is sinusoidal, the response will also be harmonic and a
transfer function can be derived to relate input forces to output
response.
Such a transfer function will now be in the form of a complex n by n
transfer function matrix.
The system of the motion equations is rewritten as
( −Mωf2 + i C ωf + K ) x (t ) = F (t ),
where x(t)=x0eiωt.
405

We define the impedance matrix as the matrix
Z ( iωf ) = ( −Mωf2 + i C ωf + K ).
In this way, it is
Z (iωf ) x (t ) = F (t ),
so that
x(t ) = H (iωf ) F (t ).
The matrix H is the transfer matrix, which is the inverse of the

impedance matrix:
H = Z −1.
It is important to understand the physical meaning of each element
Hij of the transfer matrix: basically, Hij relates the deflection in the
degree of freedom xi on the structure due to the exciting force dual
of the degree of freedom xj when all other degrees of freedom are
unrestrained and unforced.
406
203

Thus
x
H ij = i .
Fj
The equation giving the response x(t) is analogous to that obtained

for the single degree of freedom case, and the same extensions
apply for calculating the response due to a periodic load represented
by a Fourier series of harmonics.
It is worth noting, however, that this approach based upon the
transfer matrix is convenient only for small degrees of freedom
systems, the other approach based upon the normal decomposition
being preferable, for many reasons, namely concerning the
numerical computing effort.
407
Response to an impulsive force Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Impulsive forces can be produced by many events, like for instance
the shock loading against fenders in boat-landing operations and the
wave slamming.
First of all, an impulsive force Fh(t) is a force having a constant value
Fh for a short time period ∆τ, and being null for the rest of the time:
F for τ ≤ t ≤ τ + ∆τ ; Fh(t)
Fh (t ) =  h
 0 elsewhere.
Fh
We define impulse the quantity
I = Fh ∆τ . τ τ+∆τ t
An elementary impulsive force is an impulsive force characterised by
the parameters τ =0, ∆τ → 0, I =1 (so that Fh →∞).
The motion equation of a system acted upon by an elementary
impulsive force, usually is indicated by h(t).
408
204

The case of an impulsive force can be treated analytically, modelling
the impulse by a Dirac function.
δ(t)
The Dirac function δ(t) is defined as
δ (t − a ) = 0 for t ≠ a;

 ∞
∫− ∞ ε (t ) δ (t − a ) dt = ε (a ).
a t
An impulsive elementary force produces on the system the same
effect of an initial velocity h&(0) impressed to the system.
The value of the initial velocity is obtained equating the impulse I
and the momentum Q:
1
Q = m h&(0), I h&(0) = .
=1 →Q =I ⇒
m
Hence, the motion equation h(t) of a system subjected to an
elementary impulsive force,
409

1
h&&(t ) + 2 ξ ω s h&(t ) + ωs2 h(t ) = δ (t ),
m
can be solved studying the initial value problem
h&&(t ) + 2 ξ ω s h&(t ) + ωs2 h(t ) = 0,

1
h(0) = 0, h&(0) = .
m
For the case ξ<1, interesting in the case of structural dynamics, the
solution is named impulse response function and is
1
h(t ) = e −ξ ωs t sin ωs 1 − ξ 2 t .
m ωs 1 − ξ 2 
The function h(t) can be used also to determine the response of the
system to an impulse I other than unit and applied at the instant τ.
410
205

In fact, the linearity of the equation allows for the superposition of
the responses, giving, after a time translation, the response
x (t ) = I h(t − τ ).
The impulse response function can be used to obtain the response

of a structure subjected to a generally varying function.
In fact, a generic exciting force F(t) can be considered as the
superposition of suitable impulsive forces (see the figure):
F (t ) ≅ ∑ Fhi (t ). F(t)
Fhi(τi)=
The structural response is the F(τi)
superposition of the responses
xi(t) to the corresponding
impulsive forces Fhi(t):
τi τi+∆τi t
x (t ) ≅ ∑ xi (t ) = ∑ I i h(t − τ i ) = ∑ Fhi (τ i ) ∆τ i h(t − τ i ) = ∑ F (τ i ) h(t − τ i ) ∆τ i .

i i i i
411

This expression is exact for a suite of infinite impulsive forces, when
the intervals ∆τi tend to zero:
t
x (t ) = ∫ F (τ ) h(t − τ ) dτ .
0
The response is hence given by the Duhamel’s integral of F(t) and
h(t), i.e. it is the convolution of F(t) and h(t):
x (t ) = F (t ) ∗ h(t ).
This is not the only technique to handle generic exciting forces;

another technique, always leading to a Duhamel’s integral, is the
use of the Heaviside function or, always in the time domain,
numerical techniques, such as the Newmark β-method.
More known, are the techniques based upon a transformation in the
frequency domain, by the use of the Laplace or Fourier transform.
The reader is addressed to specific texts of structural dynamics for a
deeper insight in the matter.
412
206

Generally speaking, environmental loads, such those due to waves,
turbulence or wind, cannot adequately be described by a periodic
function. In fact, the pattern of loading with time does not repeat
itself at regular intervals.
For this kind of loading, that can be assumed to be a random
process, a statistical analysis is needed, where the properties of
random loads are used. These properties are chosen such that they
remain constant or stationary over the time period for the analysis.
First of all, let us consider a single degree of freedom system. The
problem is to relate its response x(t) to the exciting force F(t) which
is a random process.
The main tool for the analysis of random vibrations is the Fourier
integral.
A quick and direct way to introduce the Fourier integral is to consider
the already introduced series
∞
1 Tf / 2
F (t ) = ∑ cr e i r ωf t , where cr =
Tf ∫−Tf / 2 F (t ) e
− i r ωf t
dt .
r = −∞
413
Response to irregular waves: the spectral analysis Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Let us apply this rule to a system of large period T=2π/∆ωf:
∞
 ∆ωf π / ∆ωf F (t ) e − i r ∆ωf t dt  e i r ∆ωf t .
F (t ) = ∑ 
2π ∫−π / ∆ωf

r = −∞  
Any random process can be considered as a periodic function

having an infinite period, i.e. with ∆ωf→0.
In this way, the above Fourier series is replaced by an integral, and
after defining the Fourier integral
∞ −i ω t
F (iω ) = ∫− ∞ F (t ) e dt
it becomes
1 ∞
F (iω ) e i ω t dω.
2π ∫− ∞
F (t ) =
The Fourier integral operates the Fourier transform and allows the
representation of a time function in the frequency domain, that is,
the function is represented by its frequency components.
414
207

The last equation operates the inverse Fourier transform, from the
frequency domain to the time domain.
The almost total symmetry between the two transforms becomes
complete if, in place of the circular frequency ω, the angular
frequency is used, f=2π/ω:
∞ − i 2π f t dt ;
F (if ) = ∫− ∞ F (t ) e
∞ i 2π f t df .
F (t ) = ∫− ∞ F (if ) e
From the last equation, it can be shown that
∞ 2 (t ) dt = ∞ F ( if ) 2 df .
∫− ∞ F −∞∫
In order to avoid negative frequencies, the limits of integration may
be changed and the last equation rewritten as
∞ 2 (t ) dt = 2 ∞ F (if ) 2 df .
∫− ∞ F 0 ∫
415

These results are not yet applicable, in this form, to random
processes: this is because the fact that the random signal must
continue over an infinite time, means that the Fourier integrals do
not converge to a steady value.
To overcome these convergence difficulties, we consider a signal
identical to the random signal over the time interval –T/2<t<T/2 and
zero elsewhere, see the figure (source: CIRIA).
By definition, the mean square value of the random process F(t) is

1 T /2 2
σ F2 (t ) =
T ∫−T / 2
F (t ) dt .
416
208

So, thanks to the previous relationship, we get
∞2 2
σ F2 (t ) = ∫ F (if ) df .
0 T
The quantity
2 2
SFF (f ) = F (if ) .
T
is the single-sided spectral density function. It does not have the
convergence difficulties of the Fourier transforms of a random
process and indicates the manner of the distribution of the harmonic
content of the signal with frequency.
The mean square value of F(t) is related to the spectral density by
∞
σ F2 (t ) = ∫ SFF (f ) df .
0
So, the mean square value of F(t) is just represented by the area
under the curve of SFF(f).
417

Using the Duhamel (convolution) integral, it can be shown that the
spectral density of the response, which is also a random process, as
caused by another random process, is given by
2
S xx (f ) = H (if ) SFF (f ).
The transfer function H(if) is obtained by the formula on page 399

after replacing ω with 2π f :
1
H ( if ) = .
2 2
K − 4π f M + i ( 2π f C )
So,
1
S xx (f ) = SFF (f ).
(K − 4π 2f 2M )2 + 4π 2 f 2 C 2
So, the link between the spectral density of the force and that of the
response is provided by the square of the transfer function; in a
sense, the structure behaves like a filter between the input and
output signals. 418
209

So, the transfer function operates directly between the force and the
response for the case of a periodic (deterministic) function, see page
399, and indirectly in the case of random loadings, in this case being
the link between the spectral densities of the exciting force and of
the response.
Using the above relationships, one gets immediately that the mean
square of the response is given by:
∞ ∞
σ x2 (t ) = ∫ S xx (f ) df = ∫ H (if ) 2 SFF (f ) df .
0 0
To calculate the other probabilistic properties of the response, some
other assumptions are needed.
Usually, and with a wide generality, the input, that is the force, is
modelled as a normal random process (i.e. the probability density
function of the force is assumed to be a Gaussian) and the transfer
is assumed to be linear.
The physical implications of the last equation hereon deserve a
deeper attention.
419

In fact, we can give to this
relationship a graphical
interpretation, like in the figure
aside (source: CIRIA), where
the spectral density of the force
and the transfer function of the
system are known and plotted
as functions of the frequency.
If the logarithmic scales are
used, the multiplication of the
two graphics is simply obtained
by adding the two curves.
The mean square of the
response can be computed
calculating the area under the
curve Sxx(f); this can be done
numerically.
420
210

The previous results are not restricted to a single-degree of freedom
system: generally speaking, they concern all the cases with one
input force and when one output response is sought for.
The only important thing is that the transfer function must really
concern the link between the input and the output.
For instance, for the case of a two degrees of freedom like the one
in the figure (source: CIRIA) one gets:
∞
σ x2 (t ) = ∫ H (if ) 2 SFF (f ) df .
2 0
with
{( )(
H(if ) = K1 − 4π 2f 2M1 K2 − 4π 2f 2M2 − )
− 4π 2f 2 (K2M2 + C1C2 ) +
[
+ i 2π f K1C2 + K2C1 − 4π 2f 2M2(C1 + C2 ) × ]}
[
× K1 + K2 − 4π 2f 2M1 + i 2π f (C1 + C2 ) . ]−1
421

In the above discussion, we have considered only the case where
the output is a displacement, but this is not needed.
In fact, the above results concern any kind of response (e.g.
stresses), that can be specified by an appropriate transfer function
between input (the force) and output (the response sought for).
Nevertheless, there is an important restriction in all this theory: the
mechanical relationship between the force and the response must
be linear. Mechanically speaking, the structure must be in the linear
elastic range.
In the case of offshore structures subjected to irregular sea states,
and hence to random wave loadings, the input is not given in the
form of a spectrum of the force, but rather in the form of a spectrum
of the surface elevation (e.g. the Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum, see
Chapters 2 and 3).
We have already seen in Chapter 3 how to compute the wave forces
once the wave spectrum known; in the next section, we will see in
detail how to relate the wave spectrum to the wave response.
422
211

Before going on to analyse the response of a multi-degree of
freedom systems, we must consider some other properties of
random signals.
An important property is the so-called auto-correlation function
1 T
T ∫0
Rh (τ ) = h(t ) h(t + τ ) dt = < h(t ), h(t + τ ) > .
That is, the value of the random signal h(t) at time t is multiplied by
the value at a later time, h(t + τ), for all values of t and then the
mean of all such products is taken, see the figure (source: CIRIA).
423

The auto-correlation function gives a measure of how much the
signal at different instants are correlated, i.e. statistically linked in
some, more or less hidden, way.
For τ =0, it is of course Rh(0)=<h²(t)>; the signals are perfectly
correlated (they are identical).
But, when τ increases, generally speaking the relationship between
the signal at the time t and that at the time t+τ tends to become
evanescent, so that the two signals become more and more
unrelated.
Of course, if the signal has some periodic structure, the correlation
is greater than for a completely random signal. In the limit case of a
perfectly harmonic signal (like a sinusoidal one) the auto-correlation
function has also a harmonic variation.
The results are usually represented by plotting Rh(τ) versus τ ; some
typical cases and comparisons between spectral density and auto
correlation functions are shown for some random signals in the next
figure (source: CIRIA).
424
212

425

It can be shown that the spectral density and auto correlation
functions are related by the following Fourier transform pair
equations:
∞
Shh (f ) = 4 ∫ Rh (τ ) cos( 2π f τ ) dτ ,
0
∞
Rh (τ ) = ∫0 Shh (f ) cos(2π f τ ) df .
These relationships allows for the calculation of the spectral density
function via the auto-correlation function.
Another property, this time concerning a pair of random signals, is

the cross-correlation function (or co-variance):
1 T
T ∫0
Rh1h2 (τ ) = h1(t ) h2 (t + τ ) dt = < h1(t ), h2 (t + τ ) > .
It is apparent that the cross-correlation function gives the same type

of information of the auto-correlation function, but this for a signal
with respect to the other.
426
213

Roughly speaking, the cross-correlation function describes the
statistical dependence of a random signal on the other one.
The cross-correlation function may be either positive or negative; for
instance, the waves at two points may be generally out of phase, so
that an increase in water level at one point, is more usually
associated with a decrease at the other.
When the cross-correlation function is null for all τ, the two signals
are unrelated, but when it is not null there is some statistical
dependence between them.
For example, in a random sea, the waves do not travel along a
single front, but there is some variation in space of all the properties.
This can be described by cross correlation functions.
Associated with the cross-correlation function, the cross-spectral
density function can be defined:
∞
Sh1h2 (f ) = 4 ∫ Rh1h2 (τ ) cos( 2π f τ ) dτ .
0
427

Finally, it is necessary, in some cases, to express the sum of some
random processes:
g (t ) = ∑ c i hi (t ).
i
The spectral density of g(t) is given in terms of the spectral and

cross-spectral densities of the component signals by
n n
Sgg (f ) = ∑ ∑ cr cs Shr hs (f ).
r =1s =1
Of course, when r=s, Shrhs(f) is the spectral density of the r-signal,

while when r≠s, Shrhs(f) is the cross-spectral density of the signals r
and s.
Let us now turn our attention on other statistical parameters of the

response.
428
214

Actually, once the spectrum of the response has been calculated,
some other statistic parameters concerning the response can be
calculated.
To do this, two assumptions are usually made:
the random sea state is described by a zero-mean Gaussian
distribution;
the system has a linear response.
The consequence of these assumptions on the structural response
is that it is also a random process described by a zero-mean
Gaussian distribution.
Hence, it is statistically completely described by its root mean
square:
∞
σ xx = ∫0 S xx (f ) df .
This value is the square root of the area under the diagram of the
response spectrum Sxx(f), and can be calculated by numerical
methods.
429

The maximum expected value of the response, i.e. the mean peak
value xmax, in a sea state of duration T (in seconds) is given by
 γ 
xmax = σ xx  2 ln(νT ) + ;
 2 ln(νT ) 
γ: Euler’s constant (γ =0.5772);

ν: frequency at which the energy at all higher frequencies is equal to
energy at all lower frequencies (it is also the frequency at which most of
the energy of a single-peaked spectrum is concentrated):
∞ 2
ν =
∫0 f S xx (f ) df
;
∞
∫ S (f ) df
0 xx
if the spectrum of the response is narrow, ν tends to ωs/2π.
The expected number of times N(x) during a period T (in seconds)

that the response will exceed a given value xo is given by
430
215

xo2
−
2
N ( x ) = ν T e 2σ xx .
The probability that the response will exceed a given value xo in a

sea state of duration T (in seconds) is given by
prob( x > xo ) = 1 − e N (x ) .
Finally, we recall that a consequence of having assumed a zero-

mean normal (Gaussian) distribution of the water surface elevation,
is the fact that the significant wave height Hs (=H1/3, the mean of the
higher third of the waves distribution; see chapter 2, page 86) is
related to the wave spectrum by the simple relationship
∞
H s = 4σηη = 4 ∫0 Sηη (f ) df .
431

Let us consider now the case of a multi-degree of freedom system.
In this case, the methods seen for the single-degree of freedom can
be used, via some modification.
First of all, a transfer function (or modal receptance) is introduced for
each mode:
1
H i ( if ) = .
K i − 4π 2f 2M i + i 2π f Ci
The direct and cross-spectral densities of the generalized forces on

the right-hand side of the ith uncoupled motion (and modal) equation
(see page 404)
n
M i z&&i + Ci z& i + K zi = ∑Φ ij F j (t ),
j =1
can be found by application of the equation in the previous page:
432
216

n n
Sfi f j (f ) = ∑ ∑Φ ir Φ js SFr Fs (f ), i , j = 1,..., n.
r =1s =1
For i=j, the above equation gives the direct spectral density of the
generalised force and for i≠j it gives the cross spectral densities.
In this way, the spatial variation and phase differences of the
exciting forces are accommodated in the analysis. It should be noted
that whereas direct spectral densities are real numbers, cross
spectral densities are complex.
The spectral densities of the generalised modal co-ordinates are
found by an equation analogous to that for single degree of freedom
systems:
Szi z j (f ) = H i H j Sfi f j (f ).
The upper bar denotes the complex conjugate.

The generalised modal spectral densities can be transformed back
433

into the original Lagrangian co-ordinates x by the general
relationship (see page 403)
x = Φ z.
Finally, it is
n n
S x i xi ( f ) = ∑ ∑Φ ir Φ is Szr zs (f ), i = 1,..., n.
r =1s =1
Once the response spectral densities have been found, then the
mean square value may be calculated and statistical statements
regarding probability, etc. can be made in exactly the same way as
for a single degree of freedom system.
It is sometimes convenient to make use of the fact that
Szr zs (f ) = Szs zr (f ) for r ≠ s.
In this way the last equation can be rewritten with only real
quantities:
434
217

n n n −1
S x i xi ( f ) = ∑Φ ir2 Szi zi (f ) + 2 ∑ ∑Φ r Φ s Re[Szr zs (f )], i = 1,..., n.
r =1 r = 2 s =1
Often, in practical applications, the last term can be neglected, so

that
n
S x i xi ( f ) ≅ ∑Φ ir2 Szi zi (f ), i = 1,..., n.
r =1
Just as in the case of deterministic loadings, the technique of the

transfer function matrix can be used.
The response in each of the n degrees of freedom can be calculated
by an equation similar to that concerning a single-degree of freedom
system:
n n
S xi xi ( f ) = ∑ ∑ H ir H is SFr Fs (f ), i = 1,..., n.
r =1s =1
435

His is the complex element of the transfer matrix relating the
response in the degree of freedom i to a harmonic force in the
degree of freedom s.
When all the n forces are unrelated (that is, when they are
statistically independent), the cross-correlation functions and hence
the cross-spectral densities are zero and the last equation simplifies
to:
n
S xi xi ( f ) = ∑ H ir 2 SFr Fr (f ), i = 1,..., n.
r =1
This represents a direct superposition of the effects due to each

single random force.
In the marine environment where the many forces on the structure
are caused by the same basic wave action, the cross-correlation
functions will not be zero and it is conservative to superimpose
responses in the manner of the last equation.
436
218

Finding the spectral density, and hence the mean square value of
the response at each of the n freedoms, may not be sufficient in
many calculations.
If further analysis is required, (to find the stresses due to the
dynamic deflections, for example) a knowledge of the response
cross spectral densities will also be required.
These may be calculated by the following equation
n n
S xi x j (f ) = ∑ ∑ H ir H js SFr Fs (f ), i , j = 1,..., n.
r =1s =1
437
The wave force spectrum Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

So far, we have seen how to calculate the spectral response of a
structure acted upon by a wave force whose spectrum is known.
As already said, in offshore engineering, it is the surface elevation
spectrum which is usually the input of the problem, not the wave
force spectrum.
Hence, we consider now the way the wave force spectrum can be
derived from the surface elevation spectrum.
We consider first the case of slender cylinders, for which the
Morison’s equation is valid.
To apply the Morison’s equation in irregular sea states, we need a
statistical description of the fluid velocities and accelerations.
It is assumed that the free surface elevation has a Gaussian
probability distribution and that the results of linear wave theory are
valid.
It may then be shown (Borgman, 1967) that the horizontal particle
velocity u and acceleration a are statistically independent and that
each possesses a Gaussian probability distribution.
438
219

Their spectral densities may readily be expressed in terms of the
wave spectrum.
The horizontal velocity u(t) and acceleration a(t) of a component
wave train are given in complex form and in the framework of the
linear wave theory as follows
u(t ) = Hu (f )η (t ),
a(t ) = H a (f )η (t ),
with
cosh kz
Hu (f ) = 2π f ,
sinh kd
cosh kz
H a (f ) = −i 4π 2f 2 ,
sinh kd
H
η (t ) = e − i 2π f t .
2
439

Hu(f) and Ha(f) are complex
receptances (transfer functions);
it is worth noting that the wave
number k influences their
frequency dependence through
the linear dispersion equation.
Taking into account what we have
seen before about the spectra,
the corresponding velocity and
acceleration spectra are given as
2
Suu (f ) = Hu (f ) Sηη (f ),
2
Saa (f ) = H a (f ) Sηη (f ).
An example of Hu(f) and Ha(f) at a

particular point which derive from
a particular wave spectrum is
given in the figure aside (source:
Sarpkaya and Isaacson). 440
220

Similar formulae can be found for other characteristics, for instance
the vertical velocity and acceleration.
It must be emphasized that the above relationships are valid in the
framework of the linear wave theory.
Once the probabilistic and spectral properties of u and a are known,
the Morison’s equation can be used to obtain the statistical
properties of the random wave force acting upon a slender cylinder,
namely its spectrum.
Borgman, 1967, has derived a suitable expression of the wave force
spectrum:
 cosh 2 kz  8 2 2 2 2 2  
SFF (f ) = Sηη (f )4π 2f 2 k
π d σ u + 4π f k i  ;
 2  
sinh kd
1 π D2
k d = ρ CD D, k i = ρ CM ;
2 4
σ²u: mean square value of u:
∞ ∞
σ u2 = ∫ Suu (f ) df = ∫ Hu (f ) 2 Sηη (f ) df .
0 0
441

Actually, the above expression of the wave force spectrum is a
linearized version of the spectrum, whose derivation is very
complicate, equivalent to assume the following linearized expression
of the Morison’s formula (a is the particles acceleration):
8
F= σ k u + k i a.
π u d
This linearization of the drag force ensures that the velocity
component at one frequency affects only the drag component at that
same frequency and thus a transfer function can be used in the
usual way.
This is in contrast to the complete Morison equation, in which a
sinusoidal velocity results in a drag force which contains
components at odd multiples of the fundamental frequency.
According to Borgman, 1969, the drag force in the equation above
can be considered as a single term approximation to a complete
power series representation of u|u|; he suggests also that the
linearized approximation is reasonable over the range IuI<2σu.
442
221

It can be noticed that if the drag forces are negligible over the range
of frequencies of the wave spectrum, then the response is in any
case linear and is easy to calculate.
In addition, when the waves so concerned also lie in the deep water
range over the complete spectrum, then the force on a single
vertical circular cylinder subjected to a sinusoidal wave within this
frequency range is
π
F (t ) = ρ g D 2CM H sin ω t .
8
As a consequence, the wave force spectrum is simply
2
π 
SFF (f ) =  ρ g D 2CM  Sηη (f ).
4 
In this case, hence, the transfer function is simply a constant, i.e. it

is independent on the frequency.
443

The previous results concern the force per unit length; when the
total force or overturning moment acting on a vertical cylinder is
needed, an integration along the cylinder’s axis must be performed.
For the case of a single cylinder extending from the sea bed and
piercing the free surface, the total force and overturning moment
spectra are given by:

 2 2
2  4π 
 32π f kd d 2 2
SFFtot (f ) = Sηη (f ) ∫ σ u ( z ) cosh f 2z dz +
 g 
2  4π f 2d 
2 0
  
 sinh
 g 
  
 
 4π 2 2 
 4π 2 2  f d
2 2 2 g 
+ 2π f g ki tanh f d +  ,
 g   π 2 
   sinh  4 
2
f d  
2
  g 
   
444
222

Sηη (f )  2 2 d 2 2  4π
2 
SMM (f ) = 32π f k ∫ zσ u ( z ) cosh f 2z dz +
 4π 2 2   d 0  g 
sinh2  f d  
 g 
 
g k i2  2 2  4π 2 2   2 
+ 8π f g d cosh f d  sinh 4π f 2d +
16π 2f 2   g   g 
   
 4π 2 2  
+ g 2 + 16π 4f 4d 2 − g 2 cosh2  f d  .
 g  
  
445

Let us now consider the case of large bodies, i.e. the case where
the diffraction theory must be used.
The random loads on large offshore structures are considerably
simpler to treat than those on slender elements, and this because no
appreciable (nonlinear) drag forces are present (in the diffraction
theory, the force is inertial).
We have seen in Chapter 3 that the wave force on a body, in the
framework of the linear diffraction theory, is proportional to the wave
amplitude.
It may be written in complex form in terms of the free surface
elevation η as (a is the wave amplitude)
F (t ) = H ( kb ) a e − i 2π f t = H (kb )η (t ).
In the equation above, b is a characteristic dimension of the body

(the radius for a cylinder) and H(kb) is a complex receptance
function which depends on k, and hence on f through the dispersion
equation.
446
223

So, as always in the calculation of a spectrum, the spectrum of the
force is given as a function of the wave spectrum by the relationship
2
SFF (f ) = H (kb ) Sηη (f ).
For a given body and water depth, H(kb) is a known function. For
example, for a large vertical cylinder it is
4 ρ gχ x tanh kd 8 π ρ gχ x tanh kd
H ( kb ) = ≅ (kb )2 .
k2 J1′2 (kb ) + Y1′2 ( kb ) k2 16 + π 2 ( kb ) 4
The coefficient χx is equal to 1 in the case of a cylinder placed on

the sea bed (Mc Camy and Fuchs solution), while it is less than 1 for
a truncated cylinder (χx ≅0.9÷0.95), see chapter 3, page 259.
Putting
Fmax
CM ( kb ) = ,
π ρ g a b2
447

which for a vertical cylinder is equal to
4χ x tanh kd tanh kd
CM ( kb ) = ≅ 8χ x ,
π (kb )2 J′2 (kb ) + Y ′2 (kb ) 16 + π 2 ( kb ) 4
1 1
we get the transfer function in the general form
H ( kb )
2
[
= π ρ g b 2CM (kb ) . ]2
The figure shows the
transfer function for the
case of two cylinders,
having different ratios
depth to radius
(respectively indicated
by d and a in the figure;
source: Sarpkaya and
Isaacson).
448
224

Course Offshore Vanucci

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Course Offshore Vanucci

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Master SPI DSME - Dimensionnement

des Structures Mécaniques dans leur

Cours Mécanique pour l’Industrie du Pétrole

Part 2: Offshore Engineering

Foreword Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Versailles, May 2006

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

 Chapter 2: Design actions 65

Content Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

 Chapter 3: Hydrodynamics of wave forces 140

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

 Chapter 4: Dynamical considerations 373

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Content Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

 Standards and regulations 58

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

are built on one side, directly on a

them to the field, where the jacket

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

 Launching phases of a steel jacket.

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

3: launching of the jacket.

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

1. construction in a dock under the sea level

2. construction of the towers

3. flooding of the dock: the platforms is ready

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

weight of deck and

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

www.offshore-technology.com www.offshore-technology.com www.offshore-technology.com

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

Platform functions and types Copyright P. Vannucci – UVSQ

normally used for the drilling operations.

 They are triangular barges, completely

Chapter 2: Design actions 65

Chapter 3: Hydrodynamics of wave forces 140

Chapter 4: Dynamical considerations 373

Standards and regulations 58

Launching phases of a steel jacket.

They are triangular barges, completely

Here, a is the wave amplitude, tmax is the

In 1979, a study conducted in the USA revealed that in the Gulf of

Topsides: it is the whole system hosted by the platform, normally by

In the absence of specific data from the manufacturer, and at an

We will briefly consider in the following these loadings, leaving to the

The structure is designed to withstand some extreme event SD,

Usually, designers switch at this point from a probabilistic to a

The probabilistic models developed thus far relate to short-term