Seismic Performance of Jacket

Type Offshore Platforms Through

Incremental Dynamic Analysis
Behrouz Asgarian
e-mail: asgarian@kntu.ac.ir

Azadeh Ajamy
e-mail: azadeh_ajamy@yahoo.com
Civil Engineering Faculty,
K. N. Toosi University of Technology,
Tehran 15875-4416, Iran

Fixed offshore platforms in seismic active areas may be subjected to strong ground
motions, causing the platform to undergo deformation well into the inelastic range. In
this paper, incremental dynamic analysis (IDA) of jacket type offshore platforms subjected to earthquake was performed in order to study the linear and nonlinear dynamic
behavior of this type of structures. IDA is a parametric analysis method that has been
recently presented to estimate structural performance under seismic loads. By using
incremental dynamic analysis of jacket type offshore platforms, the assessment of demand
and capacity can be carried out. The method was used to predict nonlinear behavior of
three newly designed jacket type offshore platforms subjected to strong ground motions.
The engineering demand parameters of the platforms in terms of story drifts and intermediate elevation maximum displacement for different records were compared. This
method was used for the performance calculations (immediate occupancy, collapse prevention, and global dynamic instability) needed for performance-based earthquake engineering of the above mentioned platforms. Two different behaviors were observed for the
third platform in the X and Y directions. Particular attention has to be paid for the
seismic design of this kind of platform. The results of jacket type offshore platforms
incremental dynamic analysis shows that the method is a valuable tool for studying
dynamic behavior in a nonlinear range of deformation. Because of high uncertainty in
the nonlinear behavior of this type of structures, it is recommended to use this method for
the assessment and requalification of existing jacket type offshore platforms subjected to
earthquake. DOI: 10.1115/1.4000395
Keywords: incremental dynamic analysis, IDA, jacket type offshore platform, performance limit states, nonlinear dynamic behavior

Introduction

The ultimate strength and nonlinear dynamic behavior of jacket

type offshore structures subjected to earthquake has been the subject of a number of research papers in recent years.
Offshore platforms are one of the most important structures in
exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Jacket type
offshore platforms are comprised of three main parts Fig. 1:
jacket, decks, and pile foundations. The jacket consists of steel
frames made of tubular sections connected to the seabed by pile
foundations, which are extended through the main legs.
These types of structures in seismic active areas may be subjected to strong ground motions, causing the structure to undergo
inelastic range of deformations. Seismic design procedures are
recommended by modern codes such as the American Petroleum
Institute 1. Current design practices require that jacket type offshore platforms in seismic active areas behave elastically under
strength-level earthquake excitations. However, stability and design integrity must maintain under a rare ductility-level earthquake, in which local damages are considered permissible.
Strong ground motions may cause serious structural damages in
the system. Linear elastic analysis methods such as response
spectra or time history approaches can be used for the strengthlevel design. The ductility-level design often requires nonlinear
dynamic analysis capabilities.
In general, the dynamic analysis of jacket type offshore structures is very complex. Studying the response of a complex strucContributed by the Ocean Offshore and Arctic Engineering Division of ASME for
publication in the JOURNAL OF OFFSHORE MECHANICS AND ARCTIC ENGINEERING. Manuscript received April 3, 2008; final manuscript received September 1, 2009; published online March 17, 2010. Assoc. Editor: Tingyao Zhu.

tural system, such as jacket type offshore platforms subjected to

strong ground motions, leads to a better understanding of dynamic
behavior of this type of structure. Therefore, a better understanding of the dynamic behavior of offshore structures has become a
very important task for dealing with dynamic loading. An accurate
and efficient prediction of the effects of seismic forces is one of
the most important and challenging tasks in designing offshore
platforms. Methods available for predicting seismic demands involve linear static, pushover, modal pushover, linear, and nonlinear dynamic analysis 2. These methods have been studied regarding implementation of static, linear, and nonlinear dynamic
procedures. Since the 70s, much attention has been paid to aforementioned methods to provide accurate enough predictions
through considering the structural model.
Currently, an applicable method has been the incremental dynamic analysis IDA. IDA is the most accurate method of predicting behavior of structures from elastic behavior to yielding,
and finally, system collapse 3. The main focus of this paper is
the study of the dynamic behavior of jacket type offshore platforms through IDA.

IDA

A practical and accurate approach for prediction of seismic demands and limit-state capacity is the IDA, which is state of the art
in structural dynamics and seismic response. Recently, Vamvatsikos and Cornell 4 from Stanford University have proposed this
method. A fundamental step in IDA is to perform a series of
nonlinear dynamic analysis of structure under a suite of multiple
scaled ground motion records. Indeed, each record is scaled to
several intensity levels so that it covers the whole range from
elastic to nonlinear, and finally, collapse of the structures 4. Ob-

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

Copyright 2010 by ASME

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-1

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

There are several methods to summarize the IDA curves. In this

paper, the method of fractiles has been employed. An aforementioned method summarized the results of analysis into their 16%,
50%, and 84% fractile IDA curves.

Description of Nonlinear Dynamic Analysis

A series of nonlinear dynamic analyses were carried out to investigate the seismic behavior of three newly designed jacket type
platforms in the Persian Gulf. Applying IDA to determine the
performance of a jacket platform requires several steps. First, a
proper nonlinear structural model needs to be formed, and a series
of records must be compiled. Then, for each record, the scaling
levels must be selected, the dynamic analysis performed, and the
results postprocessed. Building upon this foundation, several topics of practical interests will be discussed, showing in detail the
reasons behind the choices made in examples and in the advantages or disadvantages of each.

Fig. 1 Typical jacket type offshore platform

viously, it is very important to recognize its level. The IDA result

is consistent with the relationship between the intensity measure
and damage measure, determined by the analysis of the structural
model. Finally, such matters are considered to define performance
levels or appropriate limit states such as the dynamic global system instability within a suitable framework on the IDA curves.
To define IDA, many quantities that can characterize the intensity of ground motion records have been proposed. These
quantities could be moment magnitude, duration, peak ground acceleration PGA, peak ground velocity PGV, the spectral acceleration at the structures first-mode period SaT1, etc. In the
analysis performed in this paper, the spectral acceleration at the
structures first-mode period, considering 5% damping
SaT1 , 5%, has been selected, that represents the scaling factor
of the ground motion record. On the other hand, some techniques
are needed to monitor the structures state and its response to the
seismic load. This observable quantity is the engineering demand
parameter EDP 5. It is noticeable that, Vamvatsikos and Cornell 5 have used the term of damage measure instead of EDP.
Choosing a proper EDP depends on the application and the structure itself. In this paper, the maximum interstory drift ratio variable has been chosen as EDP, hereafter. After performing IDA, the
resulted response values versus the intensity level are plotted as
the continuous curve. If a suite of records are compiled to run the
nonlinear dynamic analysis and to post process the results, it can
be possible to generate the IDA curve for each record and then
using appropriate summarization techniques to define limit states.
031301-2 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

3.1 Description of Model. The simulation of a structural and

geotechnical system is a crucial step in its design and assessment.
A number of nonlinear analysis programs incorporating various
types of beam and column elements have been developed by research groups in seismic engineering.
The fundamental problem in earthquake engineering and design
has been the traditional computer-oriented design environment.
Since an earthquake is a variable force that varies with time, as
well as a load, therefore, the object-oriented approach is efficient
to overcome the above mentioned problems. This is an essential
objective of the seismic design. In this study, the threedimensional models for the structural analysis systems using the
open system for earthquake engineering simulation OPENSEES
computer program have been proposed 6. OPENSEES is a software
environment for the network-based simulation of structural and
geotechnical systems. The development of OPENSEES has been
supported since 1997 by the Pacific Earthquake Engineering Research Center PEER, headquartered at the University of California at Berkeley. The goal of the OPENSEES project is to develop
and utilize a new software framework for simulating the seismic
response of structures and geotechnical systems to support
PEERs research mission in performance-based earthquake engineering PBEE. For the modeling of the jacket and deck members in this study, nonlinear behavior of the members modeled
using the fiber element of OPENSEES. Therefore, the standard bilinear model with 5% strain hardening without deterioration has
been applied. The fiber element has been used for the nonlinear
analysis of jacket type offshore platforms 7,8. Fiber element
applications for modeling buckling and postbuckling behavior of
tubular section members and nonlinear analysis of jacket type
offshore platforms have been discussed in detail in the above
references.
All members were modeled using three-dimensional elements
with fiber cross sections that have two nodes one at each end, and
each end has 6 degree of freedom DOF, three translations, and
three rotations. Geometric nonlinearities P- effects were included into the nonlinear time history analysis in order to consider
large deformation effects. All of the members were divided to 20
segments, and then member cross sections were subdivided to 16
fibers.
Soil-structure interaction was replaced using an equivalent pile
stub. The cross section of the actual pile was considered as the
pile stub cross section. The pile stub length equal to 10D was
considered, in which D is the actual pile diameter. The pile ends
were fixed into the support.
The jacket mass model includes all the main structure weight
plus the entrapped water mass on flooded elements and added
mass for all members below the sea level.
The added mass coefficient Cm was calculated with Cm= 1
i.e., considering as added mass the mass of water displaced by
the member.
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 1 Applied strong motion records

No.

Event

Station

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

Loma Prieta, 1989

Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Imperial Valley, 1979
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989
Superstition Hills, 1987
Imperial Valley, 1979
Imperial Valley, 1979
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Superstition Hills, 1987
Imperial Valley, 1979
Loma Prieta, 1989
Loma Prieta, 1989

Agnews State Hospital

Compuertas
Hollister Diff, Array
Anderson Dam Downstream
Coyote Lake Dam Downstream
Cucapah
Sonnyvale Colton Avenue
El Centro Array No. 13
Westmoreland Fire Station
Hollister South 8 Pine
Sonnyvale Colton Avenue
Wildife Liquefaetien Array
Chihuahua
El Centro Array No. 13
Westmoreland Fire Station
Waho
Wildlife Liquefaction Array
Plaster City
Hollister Diff, Array
Waho

Soilb

90
285
255
270
285
85
270
140
90
0
360
90
282
230
180
0
360
45
165
90

C,D
C,D
-,D
B,D
B,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
-,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
C,D
-,D
C,D
C,D
-,D
-,D

7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7

Rd
km

PGA
g

28.2
32.6
25.8
21.4
22.3
23.6
28.8
21.9
15.1
28.8
28.8
24.4
28.7
21.9
15.1
16.9
24.4
31.7
25.8
16.9

0.159
0.147
0.279
0.244
0.179
0.309
0.207
0.117
0.074
0.371
0.209
0.18
0.254
0.139
0.11
0.37
0.2
0.042
0.269
0.638

Component.
USGS, geomatrix soil class.
c
Moment magnitude.
d
Closest distance to fault rupture.
b

The mass of the jacket structural members in the dynamic analysis was simulated on the basis of consistent mass
assumption.
The mass of decks and all nonstructural items, such as conductors, mud mats, boat landing, walkways, ballasting system, grouting system, caissons, and riser, was considered together with the
relevant internal and added-mass. The mass of nonstructural items
was lumped to the nearest jacket structural nodes.
Uniform damping of 5% has been taken into account for all
mode shapes of the structure 3% for structural damping and 2%
for hydrodynamic damping.
Additional hysteretic damping in the structure to represent the
energy dissipated due to plastic deformation of structural members was considered.
IDA of the sample platforms were performed subjected to
earthquake time histories considering P-delta effects. In the IDA,
no environmental load was assumed to act along with the seismic
load. During the nonlinear analysis, the platform deck was assumed to remain elastic. Each routine involves a modal analysis
to determine natural frequencies, a static analysis for structural
state determination in gravity loads, and a series of nonlinear dynamic time history analysis to determine structural capacity and
demand.
3.2 Record Used in the Analysis. The seismic excitation that
was used in this paper was defined by a set of 20 recorded large
magnitude with moderate distance to fault ruptures largemagnitude-small-distant LMSR 6.5 Mw 6.9, 15 km R
32 km 9. These accelerograms have been recorded on firm
soil and bearing no marks of directivity. A set of twenty ground
motion records were reported in PEER database; the list in Table
1 was selected. In the table, employed ground motion events and
relevant recording stations are listed in the second and third columns. The parameter on the fourth column represents the component and USGS Geomatrix class are presented in the next column. Moment magnitude M, closest distance to fault rupture
R, and PGA are presented in the last three columns, respectively.
Actually, these records were used by Vamvatsikos and Cornell 4
for the performance study of steel frames. For each of the records,
12 levels of intensity have been used for this evaluation. For each
Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

of the platforms, the 5% damped spectral acceleration at the fundamental period of the structure SaT1, was used as the control
parameter for the ground motion intensity.

Sample Platforms Incremental Dynamic Analysis

To illustrate the aforementioned methodology, real cases of

three newly designed jacket type offshore platforms in the Persian
Gulf platforms P1, P2, and P3 have been selected.
Platform P1 is the first platform newly designed based on environmental loads in the Persian Gulf. The platform is a four-leg
jacket type, which will be installed in a water depth of 49 m with
a total height of 99 m. Platform P2 is a four-leg platform with a
total height of 96 m. Platform P3 is a six-leg jacket with a total
height of 77 m. Figure 2 shows three-dimensional elevations of
the analyzed platforms. The mass of the platforms is simulated on
the basis of consistent mass assumption. Modal analysis of the
platforms was performed, and the first ten natural periods of the
system was computed. Table 2 compares the first ten natural periods of the systems computed using OPENSEES with the periods
computed during the design stage using structural analysis computer system SACS software. SACS is a finite element structural
analysis suite of programs for offshore and civil engineering modeling simulations developed by Engineering Dynamics, Inc
USA. This is the most commonly used design and analysis package offered to offshore design processes. SACS consists of several
compatible structural analysis programs, which are interfaced to
each other to eliminate the requirements. All the required analysis

Fig. 2 Three dimensional view of sample platform P1

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-3

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Table 2 Main periods for sample platform P1, P2, and P3

Platform P1 periods
sec

Platform P2 periods
sec

Platform P3 periods
sec

Mode No.

SACS

OPENSEES

SACS

OPENSEES

SACS

OPENSEES

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

2.43
2.2
1.43
0.8
0.68
0.63
0.54
0.43
0.4
0.39

2.35
2.04
1.33
0.77
0.74
0.62
0.53
0.35
0.39
0.38

2.83
2.62
1.62
0.74
0.71
0.43
0.37
0.36
0.33
0.32

2.89
2.7
1.67
0.77
0.68
0.42
0.36
0.34
0.32
0.31

3.11
2.47
1.49
0.71
0.54
0.51
0.43
0.32
0.3
0.23

3.05
2.44
1.45
0.77
0.54
0.5
0.45
0.32
0.29
0.26

for designing jacket type offshore platforms have been predicted

in this package.
It can be observed from the results that the dynamic characteristics from OPENSEES match well with SACS results. Nonlinear
analyses of platforms are presented in the following sections.
4.1 IDA of Platform P1. Figures 3 and 4 show results from
the IDA of platform P1 subjected to records Nos. 14 and 15.
These figures show first-mode spectral acceleration against maximum interstory drift ratio.

In the above figures, it is observed that the behavior at the low

level of the earthquake is linear, and for the higher level of the
earthquake, the platforms meet at a nonlinear range of deformations. The curve softens sharply after the initial nonlinearity and
accelerates toward large drifts and eventual collapse. Figure 4 also
follows the equal displacement rule.
All curves exhibit successive segments of softening and
hardening. Such matters are due to the nature of loads dynamic and different behavior of structure when subjected to

Fig. 3 IDA curve of platform P1 for record No. 14

Fig. 4 IDA curve of platform P1 for record No. 15

031301-4 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 5 IDA curve of platform P1 for record No. 12

ground motions with different scale factors. The local slope or

stiffness decreases with higher intensity measure IM. Sometimes, the structure experiences acceleration of the rate of damage
measure DM accumulation, and at other times, a deceleration
occurs that can be powerful enough to momentarily stop the DM
accumulation or even reverse it, thus, locally pulling the IDA
curve to relatively lower DMs and making it a nonmonotonic
function of the IM. The foresaid process is observed in Fig. 5.
This figure shows results from the IDA of platform P1 subjected
to record No. 12. This figure shows the first-mode maximum interstory drift ratio against spectral acceleration. Figure 6 compares
IM versus maximum interstory drift for different elevations of the
jacket for different levels of the earthquake. As it is observed, the
midbay of the jacket acts as a fuse for the upper story and decreases its DM in higher levels of the earthquake. Figure 7
shows the IDA results of platform P1 subjected to record No. 1 at
different elevations of the jacket. Focusing on this figure, in different floors, DMs proportions are not constant in a given IM
value. Aforementioned observations are explained after the
occurring plastic behavior in different floors. It should be noted
that in some floors, the rate and distribution of plastic behavior

are more than others.

To illustrate the IDA concept in platform P1, Fig. 8 is depicted.
The aforesaid curve is started as a straight line in the elastic range,
but then shows the effect of yielding and slightly softens by
displaying a tangent slope, which is less than the elastic. Subsequently, it hardens, having a local slope higher than that of the
elastic, and platform P1 apparently responds with almost the same
max 0.7% for SaT1 ; 5% 0.4 g is continued to reach max
1.75% for SaT1 ; 5% in the range of 0.70.9 g. Finally, the
IDA curve starts softening again, showing ever decreasing slopes,
i.e., greater rates of DM accumulation as IM increases, reaching
the flatline at spectral acceleration more than SaT1 ; 5%
1.0 g, in which the platform responds with practically infinite
max values, and numerical nonconvergence has been encountered
during the analysis. When the platform has reached global dynamic instability, a small increase in IM resulted in unlimited
increase in the DM response. As should be evident by now, a
single-record IDA study cannot fully capture the behavior that a
platform may display in a future event. The IDA can be highly
dependent on the record chosen, so a sufficient number of records

Fig. 6 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-5

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 7 IDA curves of peak interstory drifts for each floor for record No. 1

will be needed to cover the full range of responses. Some representative results are shown in Figs. 911 for platform P1. In these
figures, the maximum displacement response values versus the
different intensity levels have been plotted. As it is evident, there
are different limit states in each floor. These differences depend on
records duration, the maximum peak ground acceleration of the
record, and other parameters such as nonlinear dynamic characteristics of the structures. In order to be able to do the performance calculations needed for PBEE, it is necessary to define
limit states on the IDA curves. For our case study, it was chosen to
demonstrate three: immediate occupancy IO, collapse prevention CP, and global dynamic instability GI. It is equally easy to
calculate the IM values for the IO limit state for each floor. The IO
limit-state values were observed at 0.23 m for the first floor, 0.38
m for the second floor, and 0.46 m for the top framing level. The
abovementioned values correspond to SaT1 ; 5% 0.25 g. By
defining the collapse preventation and global dynamic instability

criteria for the platform, relative quantities may be observed from

the IDA multirecords curve.
By generating the IDA curve for multirecords, a large amount
of data can be gathered. The multirecord IDA curves display a
wide range of behaviors, showing large record-to-record variability, thus making it essential to summarize such data and quantify
the randomness introduced by the records. The method of fractiles
have been employed that will reduce this data to the distribution
of DM, given IM, and to the probability of exceeding any specific
limit state, given the IM level. Using cross-sectional fractiles, the
IDA curves are summarized into 16%, 50%, and 84%. The capacities are summarized into their 16%, 50%, and 84% DM or IM
values. A set of IDA curve for the third elevation of platform P1
has been summarized in Fig. 12.
4.2 Platform P2. As, the nonlinear dynamic behavior of this
platform is more or less similar to platform P1, only limited

Fig. 8 IDA curve of interstory drift in top framing level for record No. 2

031301-6 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 9 IDA multirecord curve of maximum displacement in the first floor of

platform P1

Fig. 10 IDA multirecord curve of maximum displacement in second floor of

platform P1

Fig. 11 IDA multi record curve of maximum displacement in top framing

level of platform P1

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-7

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 12 The summary of the IDA curves and corresponding limit-state capacities into their 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles in the top framing level of
platform P1

Fig. 13 IDA curve of interstory drift in top framing level for record No. 2

results of platform P2 is presented. Figure 13 shows the IDA

results of platform P2 subjected to record No. 2. It is shown that
the straight line, which is the elastic range, correspond to
SaT1 ; 5% 0.15 g and max 0.11%. Then, the IDA curve is
hardened, and the local slope becomes higher than the elastic
slope. This region is continued to obtain max 0.3% for
SaT1 ; 5% = 0.59 g. Finally, the IDA curve starts softening,
reaching the flat line at SaT1 ; 5% 0.9 g. The flat line indicates
that the DM rapidly increases toward infinite values for small
changes in the IM, thus signaling global dynamic instability and
defining that the global-collapse capacity may be observed at the
IM where the IDA curve effectively becomes flat.
In general, DM is slightly increased at a lower IM in height, but
there is no regulation at a higher IM. In Fig. 14, interstory drift
has decreased in the second floor, in comparison with the first in
low level of earthquake, but it increased in the third floor again,
relative to the second floor.
In Fig. 15, the maximum displacement response values versus
the different intensity levels have been plotted. By plotting the
similar curve for other floors, it can be seen that there are different
limit states in each floor.
The IO limit-state values were defined at 0.45 m in the first
floor, which corresponds to 0.085 g SaT1 ; 5% 0.17 g.
4.3 Platform P3. Platform P3 has different geometries in the
X and Y directions. To accommodate platform heavy topside installations using the float over system, there are no braces in the
031301-8 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

sea water level bay in direction Y, and a portal action is performed

in this direction. In the other direction direction X, the frame is
a braced one. This design requirement resulted in the platform
with less strength in the Y direction, compared with X direction.
The platform P3 IDA have been performed for both X and Y
directions separately.
In Figs. 16 and 17, the IDA curve for both X and Y directions
are shown. Two types of behavior can be observed. In both of
them, with passing from the elastic region, after the first nonlinearity, curves were sharply hardened, large drifts rapidly occurred,
and eventually, the platform loosened its performance due to large
drifts.
In Fig. 18, the platform has reached global dynamic instability
in higher intensity levels. This phenomenon is defined as signaling
the onset of dynamic instability and occurrence of nonlinear
responses.
The linear behavior along each floor is usually exhibited in
lower intensities. Sometimes, higher intensity levels may lead to
earlier yielding of one floor, which in turn acts as a fuse, as in Fig.
19.
In Fig. 20, the curve in direction Y is shown. It is clear that the
third floor acts as a fuse to relieve impact. Extreme softening in
this floor provided numerical nonconvergence during the analysis
and the structures response reached infinite max values. By comparing the above figures, two types of behavior can be observed:
one related to braced frame action Fig. 19 and the other related
Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 14 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels subjected to record No. 5

Fig. 15 IDA multirecord curve of maximum displacement in top framing

level of platform P2

Fig. 16 IDA curve of platform P3 subjected to record No. 14 in direction X

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-9

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 17 IDA curve of platform P3 subjected to record No. 14 in direction Y

Fig. 18 IDA curve of platform P3 subjected to record No. 2 in direction X.

Imperial Valley, 1979 record in direction X.

Fig. 19 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 8 in
direction X

031301-10 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 20 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 8 in
direction Y

to frame with nonuniform stiffness distribution in height Fig. 20.

Figure 21 shows that, in different floors, DMs proportions are
not constant for a given IM value. The aforementioned observation is exhibited after the occurrence of plastic behavior and difference in absorbing energy in different floors. It should be noted
that in some floors, the rate of distribution of nonlinear deformations are more than others.
In Fig. 22, the curve in direction Y is shown. In this section,
maximum interstorey drift is very great in the third floor. Lack of
bracing in the third floor of this direction is the reason and will
cause rapid collapse.
Figures 23 and 24 exhibit structural behaviors of platform in
both X and Y directions for different scaled ground motions
record No. 3. The increase in the intensity measure does not

directly affect the changes in structural response. IM does not

have a predictable affect on DM. The difference in energy absorbance and softened floor in the Y direction of the platform has
caused numerically infinite DMs. Therefore, maximum interstory drift in the third floor will cause the platform to reach rapid
collapse.
In Figs. 25 and 26, the maximum displacement of the platform
on the third floor versus the intensity measure has been plotted. In
Fig. 25, limit-state capacity occurred in a wide range; however,
the range for the Y direction is limited Fig. 26. The curve slope
is lower in direction Y, compared with the X direction. The first
nonlinearity and collapse in the Y direction comes into play in
lower intensity measures in comparison to direction X.

Fig. 21 IDA curves of peak interstory drifts for each floor for record No. 6 in direction X

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-11

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 22 IDA curves of peak interstory drifts for each floor for record No. 6 in direction Y

C
Finally, the 16%, 50%, and 84% fractile values of DM DM16%
,
C
C
C
C
DM50%
, and DM84%
, respectively and IM IM16%
, IM50%
, and
C
IM84%
, respectively have been calculated for each limit-state, as
depicted graphically in Figs. 27 and 28.
The IO limit-state value was defined at 0.3 m in the third floor
that corresponds to SaT1 ; 5% in the range of 0.080.18 g in the
analysis of direction X. The above value was displayed 0.5 m and
SaT1 ; 5% in the range of 0.080.12 g in direction Y.

Conclusion

In this paper, incremental dynamic analyses of three sample

jacket type offshore platforms were performed. In this regard, an
analytical model was used to assess the performance of such
structures using IDA. The procedure used in this paper has been

employed to address jacket type offshore platform responses subjected to strong ground motions. The IDA results are useful data
for dynamic linear and nonlinear behavior of this type of structures. This method is a valuable tool for the seismic study of new
design platform, as well as existing platform assessments. Both
demand and capacity of this type of structures subjected to strong
ground motion may be estimated using IDA. This method was
used for the performance calculations IO, CP, and GI needed for
PBEE of the three newly designed jacket type offshore platforms.
Two different behaviors were observed for the third platform in
the X and Y directions. Particular attention has to be paid for the
seismic design of this kind of platform. The procedure used in this
paper may be extended to deal with other loading sources e.g.,
metocean loading.

Fig. 23 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 3 in
direction X

031301-12 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 24 IDA curves of maximum interstorey drift in different levels to subjected record No. 3 in
direction Y

Fig. 25 IDA multirecord curve of maximum displacement in third floor of

platform P3-X

Fig. 26 IDA multirecord curve of maximum displacement in third floor of

platform P3-Y.

Journal of Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering

AUGUST 2010, Vol. 132 / 031301-13

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 27 The summary of the IDA curves and corresponding limit-state capacities into their 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles in the third floor of platform
P3-X

Fig. 28 The summary of the IDA curves and corresponding limit-state capacities into their 16%, 50%, and 84% fractiles in the third floor of platform
P3-Y

Acknowledgment
The authors would like to express their gratitude to Professor C.
Allin Cornell from Stanford University for reviewing the paper
and providing valuable comments and fruitful suggestions.

References
1 API, 2000, Recommended Practice 2A-WSD (RP 2A-WSD) for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms, 21st ed., American Petroleum Institute, Washington, DC.
2 Bozorgnia, Y., and Bertero, V., 2004, Earthquake Engineering, CRC, Boca
Raton, FL.
3 Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A., 2002b, Direct Estimation of the Seismic
Demand and Capacity of Oscillators With Multi-Linear Static Pushovers
Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis, Proceedings of the Seventh U.S.
National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Boston, MA, Paper
No. 354.

031301-14 / Vol. 132, AUGUST 2010

4 Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A., 2002a, Incremental Dynamic Analysis,

Earthquake Eng. Struct. Dyn., 313, pp. 491514.
5 Vamvatsikos, D., and Cornell, C. A., 2005, Direct Estimation of Seismic
Demand and Capacity of Multidegree-of-Freedom Systems Through Incremental Dynamic Analysis of Single Degree of Freedom Approximation, J.
Struct. Eng., 131, pp. 589599.
6 Mazzoni, S., McKenna, F., Fenves, G. L., 2005, OpenSees Manual, University
of California.
7 Asgarian, B., Aghakouchack, A. A., and Bea, R. G., 2005, Inelastic PostBuckling and Cyclic Behavior of Tubular Braces, J. Offshore Mech. Arct.
Eng., 127, pp. 256262.
8 Asgarian, B., Aghakouchack, A. A., and Bea, R. G., 2006, Nonlinear Analysis of Jacket-Type Offshore Platforms Using Fiber Elements, J. Offshore
Mech. Arct. Eng., 128, pp. 224232.
9 Shome, N., and Cornell, C. A., 1998, Normalization and Scaling Accelerograms for Nonlinear Structural Analysis, Proceedings of the Sixth U.S. National Conference on Earthquake Engineering, EERI, Seattle, WA.

Transactions of the ASME

Downloaded 18 Mar 2010 to 80.191.23.2. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm