Ships and Offshore Structures

ISSN: 1744-5302 (Print) 1754-212X (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tsos20

Effect of foundation behaviour on steel jacket

offshore platform failure modes under wave
loading

Behrouz Asgarian, Mohamad Zarrin & Mojdeh Sabzeghabaian

To cite this article: Behrouz Asgarian, Mohamad Zarrin & Mojdeh Sabzeghabaian (2018): Effect of
foundation behaviour on steel jacket offshore platform failure modes under wave loading, Ships and
Offshore Structures, DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2018.1526862

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1526862

Published online: 20 Oct 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tsos20
SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES
https://doi.org/10.1080/17445302.2018.1526862

Effect of foundation behaviour on steel jacket offshore platform failure modes under
wave loading
Behrouz Asgarian, Mohamad Zarrin and Mojdeh Sabzeghabaian
Department of Civil Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran, Iran

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

In this paper, the performance and failure modes of a newly designed platform have been studied Received 8 January 2018
numerically as a case study. In order to investigate the effects of soil condition on the behaviour and Accepted 6 September 2018
failure modes of the platform, two different soil profiles named SC1 and SC2 classified as weak and
KEYWORDS
strong soils, respectively, have been investigated. Static Pushover analysis has been performed by Steel jacket offshore
considering wave loading as the lateral load pattern exerted on the platform. Different models in terms platforms; pushover analysis;
of different soil types and different pile sizing have been developed. A comprehensive discussion has failure mode; wave loading;
been presented about the effect of these parameters on the modes of failure of the platform. Analysis pile–soil–structure
results revealed that the strength proportionality between the foundation and the jacket part of the interaction
platform leads to a better performance of the platform in accordance with high indeterminacy of the
jacket structure and helps prevent immature failure.

1. Introduction
(1995) investigated the effect of foundation nonlinearity,
Steel jacket type offshore platforms (JTOP) is among the most and pile–soil interaction on the dynamic characteristics of a
common structural systems available in the industry to exploit fixed offshore platform model. It was found that the tower’s
offshore oil deposits, which is generally designed to withstand dynamic characteristics are greatly influenced by the foun-
environmental loads such as waves, currents, wind, and earth- dation nonlinearity and the pile–soil–structure interaction.
quake excitations. The design procedure should be carried out In another study, El Naggar and Novak (1996) conducted
in a manner that the risk of failure is reduced as much as poss- an analysis of the foundation piles response of the same
ible, with respect to the economic aspects. In this context, non- platform to transient dynamic loading accounting for soil
linear analyses including static pushover analysis can help the nonlinearity, discontinuity conditions at the pile–soil inter-
designers to identify weaknesses in structural systems subjected face, and group effect. They pursued the effect of foundation
to lateral loads, and reduce the possibility of unfavourable parameters on the tower response under wave loading.
failure of jacket platforms (Gates et al. 1997). In recent years, They found that pile–soil–structure interaction decreases
extensive research has been devoted to assess the ultimate the resonant response of tower dramatically. Furthermore,
capacity and discern the factors related to the failure of pile soil–pile interaction decreases the total response of the
JTOPs subjected to lateral loads (Tromans and Van de Graaf tower to wave forces at lower wind speeds. On the other
1992; Manuel et al. 1998; Morin et al. 1998; Hansen and hand, it increases the total response significantly for higher
Gufmestad 2001; Chakrabarti et al. 2005; Mirzadeh et al. wind speeds. The response of fixed offshore platforms sup-
2008;Sharifian et al. 2015). ported by clusters of piles including soil–structure interaction
The piles in a JTOP structure absorb the base shear forces is investigated by Mostafa and El Naggar (2004). They found
due to environmental loads; therefore, the damage and that the foundation flexibility results in a significant increase
destruction of the piles shall be avoided to the extent poss- in the response of the offshore tower. The foundation flexi-
ible. One of the important issues in the foundation response bility also increases the velocity and acceleration at the top
is that the soil behaviour is nonlinear. This phenomenon node of the tower. Furthermore, Pile–soil–pile interaction
reveals the importance of considering pile–soil–structure increases the response along the offshore tower height and
interaction. Bea (1991) performed a series of static pushover along the pile length. Moreover, a decrease in the resistance
analyses on a case study platform system to determine at of the upper soil layers leads to an increase in the response
what loadings and displacements, and where the major non- at the tower base and along the pile shaft, and it decreases
linear developments might be occurred in this structure. The the shear force and bending moment along the pile shaft.
paper illustrated the key role of the flexibility and inter- Asgarian and Lesani (2009) studied the effect of various
actions of the pile–soil elements in the deformations of first foundation modelling types on the ultimate capacity of the
two vibration modes. For this platform, the analyses indi- jacket platforms by performing pushover analysis. They con-
cated that the first nine nonlinear action would develop in cluded that the most favourable capacity is achieved when
the piles supporting the platform. El Naggar and Novak pile–soil interaction is considered in the analysis rather than

CONTACT Mohamad Zarrin mo_zarrin@yahoo.com

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 B. ASGARIAN ET AL.

using equivalent pile-stubs. Chen et al. (2010) conducted an Wave loading is the most critical environmental loading
analysis of various structural factors affecting the system exerted on the JTOPs during the design life of this type of struc-
capacity of jacket pile foundations, as well as, the foundation ture, and many research studies have been devoted to assess the
failure modes. The findings in this study revealed that Well response of JTOP under hydrodynamic wave loading. Golaf-
conductors, jacket leg stubs and steel yield stress are influential shani et al. (2011) presented Incremental Wave Analysis to esti-
to the shear capacity of the foundation system, while foun- mate different limit states and accurate behaviour of JTOPs
dation system redundancy is critical to the overturning capacity under deterministic wave loading. This method can take into
of the foundation system. Shayanfar et al. (2010) evaluated the consideration the effects of variation in wave height. On the
effect of different bracing configurations, as well as different other hand, the method requires an intensive computational
supporting conditions on the ultimate capacity of a sample expense. Abdel Rahim (2014) presented a nonlinear dynamic
platform by using static and dynamic pushover analysis. It response analysis of a fixed offshore platform under wave load-
was demonstrated that discarding pile–soil interaction is not ing. The results of this study emphasised on the importance of
a conservative assumption. Memarpour et al. (2012) presented accurately simulating nonlinear effects from the standpoint of
a new robust and practical Beam on Nonlinear Winkler Foun- view of reliable design. This study ignored the soil–pile–struc-
dation (BNWF) model for cyclic lateral behaviour of pile foun- ture interaction. Zeinoddini et al. (2012) introduced endurance
dation of Fixed Platforms. The behaviour of the piles in their wave analysis (EWA) to assess offshore structures response
case study fixed platform was investigated under wave lateral under intensifying wave load. In this method, artificial wave
cyclic and monotonic loadings. The investigation showed that records called wave functions are created so that their ampli-
it could have significant effects on ultimate capacity of the plat- tude gradually increase with time. Jahanmard et al. (2015)
forms. Hezarjarib et al. (2013) examined the nonlinear described the generation of these artificial records and their
response of jacket-type platforms against extreme waves application to numerical assessment of a fixed offshore struc-
employing sensitivity analyses. They utilised uncertainties in ture based on the extreme waves of Persian Gulf. They used
pile–soil–structure interaction parameters, as well as uncertain- an equivalent pile-stub method to model foundation behaviour.
ties in the associated wave force calculation parameters exerted The EWA method was modified by Mohajernassab et al. (2016)
on the jacket structure. Furthermore, the mechanical properties based on New-wave theory for performance evaluation of
of steel material uncertainties in the structural model were con- JTOPs under extreme wave loading. They used a simplified
sidered. It was found that the use of different values of random MDOF model of platform, and ignored foundation modelling.
variables in the sensitivity analysis could change the sequence Gaidai et al. (2018) studied nonlinear jacket dynamics, subject
of the failure mode; meanwhile, the characteristics of the soil, to hydrodynamic wave loads and currents. Satellite-based glo-
especially undrained shear strength of clay, mainly influence bal wave statistics was used for extreme long-term response
the behaviour of the Persian Gulf platforms. Some other studies prediction of offshore structures. The pile–soil interaction
have emphasised the importance of foundation nonlinearity on was modelled based on p–y curve method. Numerical results
failure modes of JTOP under earthquake loading (Zarrin and showed that the most critical location is at the base of the jacket
Asgarian 2013; El-Din and Kim 2014; Elsayed et al. 2014; Shar- leg and the top of pile.
ifian et al. 2015; Abyani et al. 2017; Zarrin et al. 2018a). For The main objective of this paper is to study failure modes of
instance, Elsayed et al. 2014 presented an approach for the fixed offshore structures against wave loading with respect to
reliability assessment of a fixed offshore platform against earth- various soil conditions. The data of two soil profiles from Per-
quake collapse. The results of pushover analysis showed that sian Gulf region are utilised, and their effects on the failure
the platform collapse was identified by multiple failures of mode and ultimate strength of an existing sample jacket plat-
the bracing and leg members of the jacket combined with bend- form are examined by conducting static pushover analysis.
ing failure of piles below mudline. Sharifian et al. (2015) inves- This is done through incorporating appropriate wave load pat-
tigated the effects of pile foundation nonlinearity and its tern as the effective lateral load exerted on the jacket. Addition-
influence on the ultimate strength of fixed platforms under seis- ally, some modified models of the platform are created by
mic loading. They concluded that the pile foundation plays a changing the pile characteristic. For each of these models, push-
paramount important role in the dynamic response of offshore over analysis is performed with two different soil profiles in
platforms, and can drastically alter the ultimate seismic order to study the effect of different strength proportionality
capacity of the platform together with its failure mode. Further- between jacket part and foundation part on the sequence of fail-
more, Zarrin et al. (2018a) reported that during the response of ure mechanisms.
the investigated case study JTOP to some earthquake records at
high-intensity levels, foundation overturning failure mode
2. Model description
could increase the drift demands in jacket story levels. It is
noteworthy that there are some studies, which ignore the In this paper, a 3-D model of a newly designed jacket platform
soil–pile–structure interaction problem in the performance in Persian Gulf (HE4 Platform) is employed as a case study.
assessment of jacket offshore platforms (El-Din and Kim, The design and the analysis of the platform is in accordance
2015). For example, Bai et al. (2015) studied a time-dependent with the recommendations of API RP2A-WSD (2007). Since
reliability assessment of the offshore jacket platform. The cor- the same design criteria are applied to many jacket platforms
rosion effect was considered for the resistance probability installed all over the world, the results of this research could
model. In order to save the analysis time, the foundation part be extended to other similar offshore platform behaviours.
was not considered in their study. The water depth in the location of the platform is 74.6 m.
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 3

The height of the jacket part of the platform from the mudline Bumpers, Anodes and Mud-Mats. The deck weight includes
elevation (elv. −74.4 m) up to the top of jacket elevation (elv. structural components, mechanical, electrical, instruments,
9.2 m) is 83.6 m. The configuration of the jacket modelled in and piping, which is applied on all nodes of the deck as concen-
OpenSees software (Mazzoni et al. 2007) is illustrated in trated loads.
Figure 1. This platform is a four-legged jacket that is battered
to 1:10 in one row and is straight in the other row. The reason
3. Soil Profiles
why the legs are constructed without any batter in one row is
because of the berthing of Jack-up drilling platform besides Based on the available thorough geotechnical reports which
the fixed platform (Sharifian et al. 2015). The considered plat- were prepared based on SCPT borings in two different
form is typical of Persian Gulf platforms (Golafshani et al. 2011; locations, two types of soil profiles namely SC1 and SC2 have
Sharifian et al. 2015; Abyani et al. 2017). The same configur- been considered in this study. The soil profiles stratification
ation of the legs can be seen in the platforms installed in and properties are tabulated in Table 1. SC1 is the original
other regions (Elsayed et al. 2014). The jacket consists of four soil profile of the platform. In this profile, the soil consists of
braced bays. The jacket plan is square shaped at working a very thin sand layer in the upper most layer, and a medium
point level with the dimension of 23 m × 23 m, and it is clay layer becoming stiff clay just a few metres below mudline.
extended with the above-mentioned batter to 23 m × 31.53 m On the other hand, SC2 is considered for the evaluation pur-
at mudline elevation. The gap between the pile and leg is poses of the effect of soil condition on the platform response
filled with grout to provide a composite section termed grouted to wave loading. Similar to the SC1 soil profile, the SC2 soil
section. All of the major joints in the jacket are strengthened profile is selected from another location in the Persian Gulf,
with the cans and brace ends. and both the profiles are representative soil profiles of the
The jacket is supported by four piles driven through the legs Gulf. The stratification of both profiles corresponds to each
with a diameter of 1.32 m and wall thickness of 5.5 cm. It other with a few thin sand layer differences in some depths.
should be noted that only the primary structural elements are Consequently, they could be considered suitable for the com-
comprised in the analysis model using OpenSees software. parison purposes. As it is obvious from Table 1, SC2 soil
The considered weight of the jacket in the analyses includes profile is of higher strength compared to SC1 soil profile in
the jacket structure, pile inside legs, Boat Landing, Barge the order of approximately two.

4. Characteristics of the numerical modelling

In the present paper, a numerical model of the jacket is devel-
oped using the finite element software OpenSees (Open Sys-
tem for Earthquake Engineering Simulations) (Mazzoni
et al. 2007). The pile and jacket elements are modelled
using nonlinear beam-column elements, which have the abil-
ity to consider the distributed plasticity along the element (De
Souza, 2000). The element is based on the force formulation
(Spacone et al. 1996), which introduces profound advantages
over the very common displacement beam-column element
formulation. This method is numerically reliable, even in
the case of softening behaviour of buckled struts. In this
model, the element is subdivided longitudinally into a num-
ber of segments. By using this distributed inelasticity element,
it is possible to capture the nonlinearity at any section along
the member length, which introduces some numerical prefer-
ences such as accurate evaluation of local strains and etc. In
order to define the characteristics of the cross section of the
elements, fibre sections are employed. The assigned stress–
strain relationship for the steel material of the pile and jacket
members for this research is the menegotto-pinto model
(Menegotto and Pinto 1973). One of the advantages of this
type of material is the gradual transition from linear region
to nonlinear range of response. The joints are assumed to
be rigid in the numerical model. Evaluation of joint capacities
and stiffnesses indicates that this assumption is reasonable for
canned joints.
The geometric-transformation capability is used to con-
struct a coordinate-transformation object, which transforms
Figure 1. The configuration of the platform modeled in OpenSees. (This figure is the beam element stiffness and resisting force from the basic
available in colour online.) local system to the global-coordinate system (Mazzoni et al.
4 B. ASGARIAN ET AL.

Table 1. Soil profile design parameters.

SC2 Soil Profile SC1 Soil Profile
Shear Strength Shear Strength
Depth (m) [kPa]- Phi (deg) Depth (m) [kPa]- Phi (deg)
Layer Soil Type From To From To Layer Soil Type From To From To
1 Sand 0 2.1 33 1 Sand 0 2.1 31
2 Clay 2.1 3.7 50 50 2 Sand 2.1 3.85 33
3 Clay 3.7 8 50 90 3 Clay 3.85 8.15 35 45
4 Clay 8 25.6 90 130 4 Clay 8.15 19.5 45 63
5 Sand 25.6 26.4 36 5 Clay 19.5 24.15 60 62
6 Clay 26.4 48.3 140 200 6 Clay 24.15 46.3 62 110
7 Sand 48.3 49.2 38 7 Sand 46.3 49.3 38
8 Clay 49.2 59.9 200 240 8 Clay 49.3 59.1 110 160
9 Sand 59.9 61 39 9a Clay 59.1 72 160 160
10 Clay 61 63.1 200 220 9b Clay 72 87 160 190
11 Clay 63.1 93.6 220 400 9c Clay 87 100.9 190 210
12 Clay 93.6 100 400 320
13 Clay 100 110 320 290

2007). For doing so in this research, the Corotational formu- According to the Table 1, the sand layers are very thin, and
lation is utilised, which performs an exact geometric transform- the soil profile can be classified as stiff clay. Therefore, the
ation. This method is capable of taking into account the large- sand layers have a less profound effect on whole soil profile
deformation effects (De Souza 2000). In order to simulate the behaviour. Moreover, except the sand layer in shallow depth
realistic performance of the jacket elements, it is essential to near mudline, the other sand layers consist of dense sand.
consider the buckling of the braces. Since the elements in The results of back calculation of p–y curves in previous exper-
OpenSees are not able to simulate buckling, an initial imperfec- imental studies (Tokimatsu et al. 2001; Tokimatsu and Suzuki,
tion of 1/1000 of the brace length is applied in the mid-span of 2004) showed that subgrade reaction doesn’t degrade in dense
the braces. Employing this technique along with using Corota- sands even near the state of ru equal to one (ru = excess pore
tional transformation formulation, global buckling and post- pressure to effective vertical stress ratio). In addition to this,
buckling behaviour of the braces are modelled precisely (Hon- conventional liquefaction potential curves (Youd and Idriss
arvar et al. 2008). 1997) suggests that liquefaction does not occur in dense
Many approaches have been proposed to model the inter- sands. Consequently, the liquefaction is not considered an
action between the pile and the soil, which are generally divided influential issue in the numerical model. However, the inverted
into two main categories: continuum models and equivalent S shape response of the saturated dense sand due to phase
models. Among the equivalent models, there has been a special transformation response of cohesionless soils is considered in
attention to the BNWF method, also referred to as equivalent the p–y model used in this study. Skin friction resistance and
p–y approach, because of its simplicity and at the same time end bearing resistance of the soil are also modelled employing
adequate accuracy. This method is utilised here to simulate the Qzsimple1 and Tzsimple1 materials in OpenSees software,
the soil–pile–structure interaction, in which nonlinear soil– respectively. The backbone curves for these materials are deter-
pile springs are utilised along the pile length. Lateral soil resist- mined based on the recommendations presented in API RP-2A
ance is modelled using the Pysimple1 uniaxial material model (2007). The procedure of soil–pile–structure interaction model-
implemented in OpenSees by Boulanger et al. (1999). In the ling approach utilised in this study has been verified with
Pysimple1 material, the nonlinear p–y behaviour is conceptual- experimental data in previous works of authors (Asgarian
ised as consisting of Elastic (p–ye), Plastic (p–yp) and Gap (p– et al. 2013; Zarrin et al. 2018b).
yg) components in series. A radiation damping dashpot is
placed in parallel with elastic element. The gap component
itself is composed of a nonlinear closure spring (pc–yg) in par- 5. Lateral load pattern
allel with a nonlinear drag spring (pc-yg). The opening of gaps To perform pushover analysis, it is necessary to define an
in clayey soils and the phase transformation behaviour, which approximately accurate load pattern. One of the main environ-
leads to the large permanent deformations in saturated sands mental loadings applied to the jacket platforms is wave loading
(inverted S-shaped ‘ ∼ ’ p–y characteristics) can be simulated combined with current loading. In this study, the wave loading
accurately in this material (Boulanger et al. 1999; Zarrin et al. is considered as the lateral load pattern in the pushover analy-
2018b). sis. After calculating the wave kinematics using the Stokes fifth-
The p–y parameters for the soft clay and stiff clay are based order theory (Fenton, 1985; USACE 2002) and adding the cur-
on Matlock (1970) and Reese et al. (1975) recommendations, rent velocity to the wave velocity, the hydrodynamic forces
respectively, which are described in API RP-2A (2007). Also, imposed on all structural and non-structural elements are com-
the p–y parameters for the sand are based on API guidelines. puted by employing the Morison’s equation (Morison et al.
Definition of p–y characteristics based on API recommen- 1950). This procedure is conducted for two wave heights of
dation is a common practice in the current offshore technology 24 and 12.2 m, and also for two major directions of the plat-
(Mostafa and El Naggar, 2004; Asgarian and Lesani, 2009; form model, +X and +Y directions. Only the principal direc-
Elsayed et al. 2014; Sharifian et al. 2015; Gaidai et al. 2018). tions of loading (end-on and broadside) are considered.
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 5

Generally, the load combination is chosen to be the fixed plat-

form gravity loading and the buoyancy forces, which are
applied firstly, and the current component that occurs at the
same time and in the same principal direction as the considered
maximum wave height. The 12.2 m wave height is the represen-
tative of 100-year design wave height in the Persian Gulf. The
24 m wave height corresponds to a wave that causes significant
damage and puts the structure on the verge of collapse.
Although the occurrence of 24 m wave height is rare in Persian
Gulf region, it is considered in this paper to investigate the
effect of wave loading profile on the results of pushover
analysis.
The maximum lateral force (base shear) that the two afore-
mentioned wave heights in combination with the current pose
on the platform is tabulated in Table 2. The corresponding
maximum base shear is determined using Sacs 5.2 software. Figure 2. Load-displacement diagram of the original jacket in +Y direction under
12.2 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.)
A whole period of wave length is passed through the platform
with small stepping increment, and the corresponding base
shear is calculated for every step. Thereafter, the maximum structure undergoes collapse with complete loss of gravity
base shear and the corresponding position of the wave crest load carrying system. Utilising the stronger soil, SC2, increases
associated with that are determined. The wave load pattern both the initial stiffness and ultimate strength of the platform,
for pushover analysis is determined at this wave crest position.
Moreover, the maximum base shear under 12.2 m wave height
in this table is the reference design value used in the calculation
of RSR values in the following tables. It should be noted that the
RSR is defined as the ratio of a platform’s ultimate lateral load
carrying capacity to its 100-year environmental condition lat-
eral loading, computed using present API Recommended Prac-
tice 2A criteria for new design.

6. Pushover analysis discussion

To determine the ultimate strength and failure mode of the
platform in various conditions, gravity load is applied in the
first step, then lateral load pattern is imposed and the lateral
displacement in the target node is pushed until the platform
collapses. The displacement increment used for the pushover
analysis is considered to be 0.0001 m. Due to the differences
in stiffness and geometry of the structure in two major direc- Figure 3. Load-displacement diagram of the original jacket in +Y direction under
tions, evaluations are carried out in +X and +Y directions of 24 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.)
the jacket separately.

6.1. Pushover analysis results of the platform

The pushover analysis results of the platform model in the form
of load-displacement curve for +X and +Y directions under
SC1 and SC2 soil conditions are displayed in Figures 2–5. As
it is shown, in the +Y direction, the failure mode of the
model with both soil profiles is dominated by plastic hinge for-
mation in the piles. At this stage, piles’ total load carrying
capacity becomes zero and the other elements cannot resist
the more load imposed on the platform. Therefore, the

Table 2. Maximum base shear induced by wave and current loading.

Maximum Base Shear (KN)
Wave Height (m) Wave Period (s) +X +Y
12.2 11 7692.13 6912.82
Figure 4. Load-displacement diagram of the original jacket in +X direction under
24 12.24 30636.13 26849.73
12.2 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.)
6 B. ASGARIAN ET AL.

piles, failure first takes place in the braces followed by their

buckling, which is more desired since the redundancy of the
jacket part is more effectively utilised, and as a consequence,
the ductility is increased.

6.2. Pushover analysis of pile strengthened platforms

The primary analyses carried out with the original model of the
platform revealed that by employing stronger SC2 soil, the plat-
form behaviour in the two investigated directions is different,
which is the result of the relatively lower strength of the jacket
in +X direction. Also by strengthening the soil, the proportion-
ality between the strength of the jacket part and the foundation
part is established, and the performance is improved in this
direction. This phenomenon does not occur when utilising
Figure 5. Load-displacement diagram of the original jacket in +X direction under
24 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.) SC1 soil profile, because the strength of the foundation is
much lower compared to the jacket part. Due to this fact that
the jacket part of an offshore platform has a notable number
but does not change the failure mode. This is because of the of indeterminate members, occurring of failure mechanism in
high strength of the jacket part in the +Y direction in pro- this part is preferable. This is attributed to alternative load
portion to the strength of the foundation. According to Figures paths and the higher possibility of redistribution of carried
4 and 5, the pile failure is the cause of collapse in the +X direc- loads. The frame action and system redundancy in the jacket
tion when the SC1 soil profile is used, which is similar to the provide additional sources of reserve strength (Gates et al.
jacket behaviour in the +Y direction except that the overall stiff- 1977). To demonstrate this kind of behaviour in more detail,
ness and strength of the jacket is lower in this direction. On the different models are developed through changing the cross sec-
other hand, in the case that the SC2 soil profile is used, the tion of the original piles, as presented in Table 4, and also
behaviour is quite different. In this case, with the increase of increasing the yield stress of the steel material of the piles.
wave load beyond the design wave level, firstly the leg elements Then, the pushover analysis is repeated for each of the modified
in the story level 1 and the upper elements of the pile (near the models with two soil profiles.
mudline) yield, and subsequently compression braces in the As reported in Table 4, to change the cross section of the
first story begin to buckle and the capacity of the platform piles, increase in wall thickness (t) as well as the combination
reduces. In about 1.38 m displacement, compression braces of of increase in both wall thickness and diameter (D) are con-
story level 1 tear, which causes a significant drop in the capacity sidered. The former case is more rational from the practical
of the platform. After this event, the structure redistributes point of view. On the other hand, the latter one is more efficient
shear to the remaining elements and continues to maintain from the economical standpoint, as with a smaller percentage
its load carrying capacity. Following that, some leg elements increase in the amount of steel, a higher increase in the moment
at level 2 (just above elevation −50), tensile braces of story of inertia can be attained. Increasing the wall thickness of the
level 1, and horizontal bracing at elevation −71 m yield. Finally, pipe section reduces the diameter to thickness (D/t) ratio,
full plastic hinges are developed in the piles, and the platform which is of interest from the structural performance view
collapses with higher levels of deformations. point. According to previous experimental tests, with reduced
Comparing analysis results with the load patterns calculated D/t ratios, the rotation capacity of the section before the occur-
based on different wave heights, this conclusion can be drawn rence of local buckling is enhanced (Mahin et al. 1980). How-
that the pattern of loading has little effect on the ultimate ever, the construction of the members with very small D/t ratios
capacity of the jacket derived from static pushover analysis. raises some issues in the offshore production industry. It should
However, applying the load pattern associated with lower be noted that according to API recommendation, for passing
wave height only causes the structure to reach global instability the pile through the legs, a minimum annulus width of
in higher levels of displacement excursions. According to the 38 mm is required between the jacket leg and the pile. Thus
Table 3 and Figures 2–5, by utilising the stronger SC2 soil in accordance with the inner diameter of the platform legs,
profile instead of the weaker SC1 soil profile in the +X direc- the diameter of the pile can be increased to a maximum
tion, the strength and stiffness of the jacket platform are value of 140 cm. For further achievement of the higher moment
enhanced. Additionally, instead of immature failure of the of inertia, the wall thickness should be increased.

Table 3. Pushover analysis results of original jacket in +X and +Y directions under SC1 and SC2 soil profiles.
Maximum Base Shear (KN) RSR Failure Model
+X +Y +X +Y +X +Y
Original model with SC1 Soil 19203.6 26455.3 2.5 3.83 Pile Failure Pile Failure
Original model with SC2 Soil 22395.8 31864.9 2.91 4.61 Brace buckling/ Leg, Pile Failure
Story and Pile Failure
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 7

Table 4. Different piles cross section specifications used in modified models.

Diameter (cm) Thickness (cm) D/t A I %A %I
Original 132.1 5.5 24.0145 0.21871 0.04389
140 5.9 23.7288 0.24856 0.05598 13.646 27.556
140 6.1 22.9508 0.2566 0.05763 17.323 31.309
140 6.4 21.875 0.26862 0.06007 22.817 36.873
140 6.7 20.8955 0.28058 0.06248 28.285 42.359
t + 40% 132.1 7.7 17.1532 0.30088 0.05841 37.567 33.084

The load-displacement curves of pile strengthened plat- mechanism totally changes. The failure trend in this case is
forms with SC1 soil for the two aforesaid wave heights in the described as: with surpassing from the design load, the struc-
+Y and +X directions are displayed in Figures 6–9. In these ture continues to behave in the elastic range (Figure 10(a)),
figures, the pushover curve of the original platform is also then the leg elements between the mudline and elevation
depicted for comparison purposes. The deflected shape corre- −71 m and also upper elements of the pile reach to the yield
sponding to different steps of the analysis of the platform limit (Figure 10(b)), which followed by buckling of com-
with pile diameter of 140 cm and wall thickness of 6.4 cm is pression braces in the story level 1. Consequently, the load car-
also captured, and shown for the +Y direction and the +X rying capacity of the platform is decreased (Figure 10(c)). With
direction in Figures 10 and 11, respectively. further increase of the displacement, compression braces in
As can be seen in Figures 6 and 7, while the pile diameter the story level 1 tear and a sudden drop in the strength of the
equals 140 cm and the wall thickness is less than 6.1 cm, the structure occurs (Figure 10(d)). Afterwards, the forces are
failure mode of the jacket platform in the +Y direction is still redistributed and the tensile braces in conjunction with the
due to the formation of plastic hinges in the top of pile below horizontal elements of elevation −71 m and the leg elements,
mudline. But, beyond the 6.4 cm thickness, the failure to some extent, absorb the loads imposed on the jacket. There-
fore, the load carrying capacity of the structure is regained

Figure 6. Load-displacement diagrams with SC1 soil profile, in +Y direction, under Figure 8. Load-displacement diagrams with SC1 soil profile, in +X direction, under
12.2 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.) 12.2 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.)

Figure 7. Load-displacement diagrams with SC1 soil profile, in +Y direction, under Figure 9. Load-displacement diagrams with SC1 soil profile, in +X direction, under
24 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.) 24 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.)
8 B. ASGARIAN ET AL.

Figure 11. The deflected shape of the platform with SC1 soil profile at different
steps of the analysis in +X direction. (This figure is available in colour online.)

displacements, the platform collapses at 10.36 m displacement.

It should be noted that the presented displacements in all
figures of this study is derived from upper most node in the
topside, where the height of this node from mudline is
97.25 m. Also, its height is 120 m relative to a depth of pile
Figure 10. The deflected shape of the platform with SC1 soil profile at different
where significant lateral deformations occur. Therefore, the
steps of the analysis in +Y direction. (This figure is available in colour online.) 10.36 m displacement might be divided by 120 m to calculate
an equivalent total drift ratio. Furthermore, due to the light
weight topside of this platform, the p-delta effect is less notable
(Figure 10(e)). Eventually, in about 3.2 m lateral displacement compared to the common platforms. This leads to a gradual
and after complete damage of the jacket legs, the platform failure toward collapse. However, the minus sign of the slope
undergoes an overall failure (Figure 10(f)). of the load-displacement curve in most of the figures is due
According to Figures 8 and 9, with strengthening of the piles to the p-delta effects. According to Figures 10 and 11, it is
in the +X direction, the braces buckle before the plastic hinge demonstrated that the fixity length of pile –the distance from
formation in the piles, which allows the jacket to use its redun- the mudline where the displacement of pile becomes very
dancy and respective capacity, and results in much higher small- is different in various steps of the pushover analysis.
energy absorption capacity (taken as the area beneath the This fixity length increases as the displacement demands in
curve). In the +X direction compared to the +Y direction, the foundation increases as a result of increased state of nonli-
with a smaller change in the pile thickness the failure mode nearity in the foundation part. This finding raises some doubts
changes which is relatively, as mentioned before, the result of about the method of using a constant fixity length to model the
the lower strength of the jacket part in this direction. The fail- foundation part (Jahanmard et al. 2015) instead of modelling
ure trend is that with the increase of load beyond the design the soil–pile–structure interaction.
level, the leg elements in story level 1 and the top elements of The load-displacement curves of pile strengthened plat-
the pile reach to the yield limit, and the compression braces forms with SC2 soil for only 12.2 m wave height in the +Y
of story level 1 begin to buckle (Figure 11(a)). In about and +X directions are illustrated in Figures 12 and 13. Accord-
1.62 m displacement, compression braces of story level 1 com- ing to previous figures, the behaviour of platform is indepen-
pletely tear which causes a sudden drop in the curve (Figure 11 dent of wave heights, and therefore the following figures are
(b)). At this stage, with the redistribution of the loads resisted presented only for 12.2 m wave height. In these figures, the
by the lost elements, the structure continues to carry the pushover curve of the original platform is also reported for
imposed loads. Subsequently, with yielding of the leg elements, the aim of comparison. The deflected shape corresponding to
the tensile braces in story level 1 and horizontal bracing of different steps of the analysis for the jacket with pile diameter
elevation −71 m, and finally by the formation of two plastic of 140 cm and thickness of 6.4 cm is also shown for +Y direc-
hinges at the top portion of the piles in high excursions of tion in Figure 14.
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 9

Figure 12. Load-displacement diagrams with SC2 soil profile, in +Y direction,

under 12.2 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.)
Figure 14. The deflected shape of the platform with SC2 soil profile at different
steps of the analysis in +Y direction. (This figure is available in colour online.)
According to Figure 12, at first stages of the analysis similar
to the other model responses, the leg elements in story level 1
and the upper elements of the piles reach their yield stress, displacements. The general investigation results of the platform
and the stiffness of the platform is reduced (Figure 14(a)). under two soil profiles, SC1 and SC2, with different cross sec-
Then compression braces of story level 1 buckle, which leads tions of the pile are summarised in Tables 5 and 6. As presented
to a sudden drop in the pushover curve (Figure 14(b)). With in these Tables, with the increase in pile cross section, and in
proceeding of the analysis, tensile braces of story level 1 and fact increase of the strength and stiffness of the foundation, a
level 2 yield, and the compression braces of story level 3 also condition can be created in which braces buckle before the fail-
buckle (Figure 14(c)). The next drops in the curves are attrib- ure takes place in the foundation. This is more desirable
uted to this phenomenon. With the force redistributions, the because the redundancy and capacity of the structural parts
lost load carrying capacity of the braces is resisted by the hori- of the platform is also utilised, and the reserve strength of the
zontal bracings and leg elements, and the platform continues to platform is enhanced.
withstand the increased load. Finally, with the yield of horizon-
tal elements of elevation −29 m and leg elements, the jacket
platform loses its load carrying capacity and the final break- 6.3. Pushover analysis results of the jackets with
down of whole system happens (Figure 14(d)). different pile penetration depths
As it was seen in the previous section, the failure of the orig-
inal platform with SC2 soil in the +X direction initiates with Failure modes of offshore platforms include member yielding,
brace buckling and foundation failure (pile pulling out due to
buckling of braces and is ended by plastic hinge formation in
tension forces and punch through due to compression loading,
the piles. Therefore, with strengthening of the piles, as dis-
played in Figure 13, a similar failure trend is observed and and plastic hinge formation due to insufficient lateral strength).
According to the results of the analysis carried out in previous
only the strength and stiffness of the platform slightly increases.
sections, general failure due to the tearing of jacket elements
Consequently, the jacket platform collapses in larger

Figure 15. Load-displacement diagrams of the jacket with SC1 soil profile and
Figure 13. Load-displacement diagrams with SC2 soil profile, in +X direction, 90 m pile penetration depth, in +Y direction. (This figure is available in colour
under 12.2 m wave load pattern. (This figure is available in colour online.) online.)
10 B. ASGARIAN ET AL.

Table 5. Pushover analysis results of pile strengthened jackets with SC1 soil profile in +X and +Y directions.
Maximum Base Shear
(KN) RSR Failure Model
D (cm) t (cm) +X +Y +X +Y +X +Y
Original 132.08 5.5 19203.6 26455.3 2.5 3.83 Pile failure Pile failure
140 5.9 20530.5 29356.3 2.67 4.25 Brace buckling/leg, story and pile failure Pile failure
140 6.1 20618.4 29863.4 2.68 4.32 Brace buckling/leg, story and pile failure Pile failure
140 6.4 20824.7 30363.8 2.71 4.39 Brace buckling/leg, story and pile failure Brace buckling/leg failure
140 6.7 20957.5 30657.9 2.72 4.43 Brace buckling/leg, story and pile failure Brace buckling/leg failure
t + 40% 132.08 7.7 20928.3 30671.6 2.72 4.44 Brace buckling/leg, story and pile failure Brace buckling/leg failure
fy = 414 Mpa 132.08 5.5 20463.1 29360.1 2.66 4.25 Brace buckling/leg, story and pile failure Pile failure

Table 6. Pushover analysis results of pile strengthened jackets with SC2 soil profile in +X and +Y directions.
Maximum Base Shear
(KN) RSR Failure Model
D (cm) t (cm) +X +Y +X +Y +X +Y
Original 132.08 5.5 22395.8 31864.9 2.91 4.61 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Pile failure
140 5.9 23046.5 34729.8 3 5.02 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Brace buckling/story failure
140 6.1 23472.4 35095.1 3.05 5.08 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Brace buckling/story failure
140 6.4 23623.8 35492.4 3.07 5.13 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Brace buckling/story failure
140 6.7 23879.4 35643.9 3.1 5.16 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Brace buckling/story failure
t + 40% 132.08 7.7 23978.2 35920.1 3.12 5.2 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Brace buckling/story failure
fy = 414 Mpa 132.08 5.5 23221.5 34766.1 3.02 5.03 Brace buckling/leg and pile failure Brace buckling/story failure

and plastic hinge formation in the piles have been observed. In Figure 15, and with SC2 soil profile with 83 m pile is displayed
this section, the effect of pile penetration depth is going to be in Figure 16. As can be seen, in the case that the platform col-
investigated. For this purpose, the platform pile penetration lapses because of the lack of adequate lateral resistance in the
depth is altered, while retaining the other specifications of the foundation, the pile penetration depth reduction does not
jacket and pile elements unchanged. It should be noted that have any effect on the failure mode. However, with increasing
all selected pile lengths meet the minimum requirements 1.5 the pile strength, in contrast with original pile length models
factor of safety for the axial capacity of piles, which is in com- where the main nonlinearity response concentrated in the
pliance with the requirements of API RP-2A. Also, it is note- jacket part, the reduction of penetration depth causes the pull-
worthy that the foundation overturning failure mode is a ing out mechanism of the piles at small to intermediate defor-
design issue and in a regular design process, it might be pre- mation ranges. Therefore, the platform model experiences
vented. However, for old platforms for which the detailed geo- relatively notable displacements as a consequence of rigid
technical design data were not available during the design body rotation of the foundation. In higher deformations, simi-
phase, or for newly designed platforms which are designed lar to the models with 95 m pile penetration depth, the failure
with a low factor of safety against pile pulling out and punch mode is dominated by the buckling of jacket story braces.
through behaviour, this mode of failure may still occur during Another finding that can be inferred from these figures is
extreme and rare wave loadings. that in the models with overturning failure mode, with increase
The load-deformation curve of the platform model with SC1 in bending strength of the piles, the buckling of the braces is
soil profile and 90 m pile penetration depth is shown in postponed to higher displacement demands.

Figure 16. Load-displacement diagrams of the jacket with SC2 soil profile and
83 m pile penetration depth, in +Y direction under 12.2 m wave load pattern. Figure 17. Load-displacement diagrams of one sample of pile strengthened jacket
(This figure is available in colour online.) with SC1 soil profile, in +Y direction. (This figure is available in colour online.)
 SHIPS AND OFFSHORE STRUCTURES 11

the pulling out mechanism of the piles. Although this failure

mode is believed to be prevented during the design process,
however in the case of happening, the platform can sustain
large displacement demands and may survive the rare events
due to high ductility capacity provided by this failure trend.
But from standpoint of view of economical issues, the repair
cost of this mode of response is too high and is rec-
ommended to be avoided. According to the analyses per-
formed in this study, the models with pile penetration
depths derived based on the 1.5 factor of safety against
pile pulling out and punch through in both soil profiles
are still prone to this mode of failure. Therefore, a safety fac-
tor of 2 or higher is recommended for the design practice.
. Comparing analysis results with load patterns based on
different wave heights, it could be concluded that the pattern
of loading has little effect on the final capacity derived from
Figure 18. Load-displacement diagrams of one sample of pile strengthened jacket static pushover analysis. This conclusion in the presented
with SC2 soil profile, in +Y direction. (This figure is available in colour online.)
case study platform may be attributed to the light weight
of platform topside.
In order to investigate the effects of longer pile penetration . In general, among the structural factors of foundation and
depth than the original pile length, one of the pile-strengthened
jacket parts, the soil condition and lateral wave pattern,
models is chosen, and the foundation is re-designed for deeper
the structural factors such as pile sizing is the most influen-
penetration depth (100 m for SC1 soil instead of its original
tial factor on the failure mode. This study recommends that
95 m depth, and 95 m for SC2 soil instead of its original
the pile utilisation factor (aspect ratio) during the design
88 m depth). As it is illustrated in Figures 17 and 18, the
phase would better to be notably lower than the utilisation
increase in the pile penetration depth, which leads to a conser-
factor of the jacket braces to ensure that the brace buckling
vative safety factor, does have the slightest effect on the failure
would occur earlier than the pile yielding.
trend or the ultimate strength of the jacket platform.

7. Conclusions Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
In this paper, in order to investigate the failure modes of JTOP,
nonlinear static pushover analysis is carried out on a newly
designed case study platform with two sample soil profiles. References
The effect of different soil profiles and different pile sizing on
the ultimate strength, and the failure mode of the jacket plat- Abdel Raheem SE. 2014. Nonlinear behaviour of steel fixed offshore plat-
form under environmental loads. Ships Offshore Struct. 11(1):1–15.
forms are assessed and compared. The following major con- Abyani M, Asgarian B, Zarrin M. 2017. Statistical assessment of seismic
clusions are drawn from the presented results: fragility curves for steel jacket platforms considering global dynamic
instability. Ships Offshore Struct. 13(4):366–374.
. When the strength of the jacket part is relatively higher than API RP2A-WSD. 2007. Recommended practice for planning, designing
the foundation part, the platform fails because of plastic and constructing fixed offshore platforms, 21st ed. Washington (DC):
American Petroleum Institute.
hinge formation in the piles. The stronger soil profile gener- Asgarinan B, Lesani M. 2009. Soil-Pile-Sturucture interaction in pushover
ally increases the initial stiffness and strength of the whole analysis of jacket type offshore platforms using fiber elements. J Constr
platform response, but does not make any change in the fail- Steel Res. 65(1):209–218.
ure trend. Asgarian B, Zarrin M, Boroumand M. 2013. Nonlinear dynamic analysis of
. Increasing the pile moment of inertia (increasing the pile foundation subjected to strong ground motion using fiber elements.
Int J Maritime Technol. 1(1):35–46.
strength) can cause the buckling of the braces before the fail- Bai Y, Yan H-b, Cao Y, Kim Y, Yang Y-y, Jiang H. 2015. Time dependent
ure of the piles. This trend is preferable because the jacket reliability assessment of offshore jacket platforms. Ships Offshore
part of platform has higher degree of redundancy. Due to Struct. 11(6):591–602.
this fact, the leg and story elements may absorb some Bea RG. 1991. Earthquake geotechnology in offshore structures.
more loads imposed on the structure after the tearing of Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Recent Advances
in Geotechnical Earthquake Engineering and Soil Dynamics. No.
the brace elements and are able to continue to carry the SOA13. St Louis(MI).
wave loading. In fact, with increasing the strength of the Boulanger RW, Curras C1, Kutter BL, Wilson DW, Abghari A. 1999.
foundation and creating a more uniform distribution of Seismic soil-pile-structure interaction experiments and analyses. J
the strength along the foundation and jacket part, the non- Geotech Geoenviron Eng. 125(9):750–759.
linear behaviour of the platform may be improved. There- Chakrabarti P, Abu-Odeh I, Mukkamala A, Majumdar B, Faber MH,
Straub D, Dios de la OJ. 2005. An overview of the reassessment studies
fore, its capacity is utilised in a more optimum way. of fixed offshore platforms in the bay of Campeche, Mexico.
. The reduction of pile penetration depth to the value that the International Conference on offshore Mechanics and Artic engineering.
code requirements minimum safety factor are met, can cause OMAE2005-67050.
12 B. ASGARIAN ET AL.

Chen JY, Gilbert RB, Murff JD, Young AG, Puskar FJ. 2010. Structural fac- deformability of structures acted on by well defned repeated loads.
tors affecting the system capacity of jacket pile foundations. Frontiers in International Association of Bridge and Structural Engineering,
Offshore Geotechnics II. CRC Press. 897–902. Libson, Portugal. 13:15–22.
De Souza R. 2000. Forced-based fnite element for large displacement Mirzadeh J, Aghakouchak AA, Samadani S, Aghakouchak A. 2008.
inelastic analysis of frames [PhD thesis]. Berkeley (CA): University of Ultimate strength analysis of jacket type offshore platforms due to
California. wave, current and wind loading. Proceeding of International
El-Din MN, Kim J. 2014. Sensitivity analysis of pile-founded fixed steel Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, OMAE,
jacket platforms subjected to seismic loads. Ocean Engineering. 85:1–11. Portugal.
El-Din MN, Kim J. 2015. Seismic performance evaluation and retrofit of Mohajernassab S, Diznab MAD, Mehdigholi H, Seif MS, Tabeshpour MR.
fixed jacket offshore platform structures. J Perf Const Facilities. 29 2016. Modification of endurance wave analysis based on New-wave the-
(4):04014099. ory. Ships Offshore Struct. 12(3):330–340.
El Naggar MH, Novak M. 1995. Effect of foundation nonlinearity on Morin G, Bureau JM, Contat N, Goyet J. 1998. Influence of tubular joints
modal properties of offshore towers. J Geotech Engrg. 121(9):660–668. failure modes on jacket structures global failure modes. 17th
El Naggar MH, Novak M. 1996. Influence of foundation nonlinearity on International Conference on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic
offshore towers response. J Geotech Engng. 122(9):717–724. Engineering. OMAE98-1482.
Elsayed T, El-Shaib M, Gbr K. 2014. Reliability of fixed offshore jacket plat- Morison JR, O’Brien MP, Johnson JW, Schaaf A. 1950. The force exerted
form against earthquake collapse. Ships Offshore Struct. 11(2):167–181. by surface waves on piles. Petroleum Trans. 189:149–157.
Fenton JD. 1985. A fifth-order stokes theory for steady waves. ASCE J Mostafa YE, EI Naggar MH. 2004. Response of fixed offshore platforms to
Water W Port Coast Ocean Engr. 111:216–234. wave and current loading including soil–structure interaction. Soil Dyn
Gaidai O, Cheng Y, Xu X, Su Y. 2018. Long-term offshore Bohai bay Jacket Earthq Eng. 24:357–368.
strength assessment based on satellite wave data. Ships Offshore Struct. Reese LC, Cox WR, Koop FD. 1975. Field testing and analysis of laterally
DOI: 10.1080/17445302.2018.1444346. loaded piles in stiff clay, Proc. 7th Offshore Technology Conf. Paper No.
Gates E, Marshal W, Mahin SA. 1977. Analytical methods for determining OTC 2321, Houston (TX). 671–690.
the ultimate earthquake resistance of fixed offshore structures. Sharifian H, Bargi K, Zarrin M. 2015. Ultimate strength of fixed offshore
Proceedings of the Offshore Technology Conference. Houston (TX): platforms subjected to near-fault earthquake ground vibration. Shock
USA. Vibration. 2015:1–19. Article ID 841870. DOI:10.1155/2015/841870.
Golafshani AA, Bagheri V, Ebrahimian H, Holmas T. 2011. Incremental Shayanfar MA, Khanzadi M, Memarpour MM, Kimiaei M. 2010. Ultimate
wave analysis and its application to performance based assessment of capacity of fixed offshore platforms by static and dynamic pushover
jacket platforms. J Constr Steel Res. 67:1649–1657. analyses under environmental loads. J Model Eng. 9(21). In Persian.
Hansen K, Gufmestad OT. 2001. Reassessment of jacket type of platforms DOI: 10.22075/jme.2017.1556.
subject to wave-in-deck forces: current practice and future develop- Spacone E, Filippou FC, Taucer FF. 1996. Fiber beam column model for
ment. Proceedings of the Eleventh International Offshore and Polar nonlinear analysis of RC frames. I: formulation. Earthq Eng Struct
Engineering Conference, Stavanger (Norway). Dyn. 25(7):711–725.
Hezarjaribi M, Bahari MR, Bagheri V, Ebrahimian H. 2013. Sensitivity Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H. 2004. Pore water pressure response around pile
analysis of jacket-type offshore platforms under extreme waves. J and its effects on p-y behavior during soil liquefaction. Soils Foundat.
Constr Steel Res. 83:147–155. 44(6):101–110.
Honarvar MR, Bahari MR, Asgarian B, Alanjari P. 2008. Cyclic inelastic Tokimatsu K, Suzuki H, Suzuki Y. 2001. Back-calculated p-y relation of
behavior and analytical modeling of pile leg interaction in jacket type liquefied soils from large shaking table tests. 4th Conf on Recent Adv
offshore platform. Appl Ocean Res. 29(4):167–179. in Geotech Earthq Eng and Soil Dyn. San Diego, Calif.
Jahanmard V, Dastan Diznab MA, Mehdigholi H, Tabeshpour MR, Tromans RS, Van de Graaf JW. 1992. A substantiated risk assessment of a
Seif MS. 2015. Performance-based assessment of steel jacket platforms jacket structure. Shell Research BV. Offshore Technology Conference
by wave endurance time method. Ships Offshore Struc. 12(1):32–42. (OTC). OTC-7075.
Mahin SA, Popov EP, Zayas A. 1980. Seismic behavior of tubular steel U.S. Army corps of engineers (USACE). 2002. Coastal engineering manual,
offshore platforms. Off Tech Conf. OTC 3821. part II: Coastal Hydrodynamics. chapter 1.
Manuel L, Schmucker DG, Cornell CA, Carballo JE. 1998. A reliability- Youd TL, Idriss IM. 1997. Proceeding of the NCEER Workshop on
based design format for jacket platforms under wave loads. Marine Evaluation of Liquefaction Resistance of Soils. National Cent For
Structures. 11(10):413–428. Earthq Eng Res. State Uni Of New York at Buffalo.
Matlock H. 1970. Correlations for design of laterally loaded piles in soft Zarrin M, Asgarian B. 2013. Reducing error of probabilistic seismic
clay. Offshore technology conference. Houston (TX): Vol 1. PP.577–588. demand analysis of jacket type offshore platforms subjected to pulse-
Mazzoni S, McKenna F, Scott M, Fenves G. 2007. Open system for earth- like near fault ground motions. J Marine Eng. 8(16):33–49.
quake engineering simulation (OpenSEES) - OpenSEES command Zarrin M, Asgarian B, Abyani M. 2018a. Probabilistic seismic collapse
language manual. Berkeley, CA: University of California. analysis of jacket offshore platforms. ASME J Offshore Mech Arctic
Memarpour MM, Kimiaei M, Shayanfar M, Khanzadi M. 2012. Cyclic lat- Eng. 140(3):031601.
eral response of pile foundations in offshore platforms. Computers Zarrin M, Asgarian B, Foulad R. 2018b. A review on factors affecting seis-
Geotechnics. 42:180–192. mic pile response analysis: a parametric study. J Numerical Methods
Menegotto M, Pinto P. 1973. Method of analysis for cyclically loaded Civil Eng. 2(2):1–17.
reinforced concrete plane frame including changes in geometry and Zeinoddini M, Matin Nikoo H, Estekanchi H. 2012. Endurance wave
non-elastic behavior of elements under combined normal force and analysis (EWA) and its application for assessment of offshore structures
bending, proceeding, IABSE symposium on resistance and ultimate under extreme waves. Appl Ocean Res. 37:98–110.