American Journal of Applied Sciences 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

ISSN 1546-9239
© 2008 Science Publications

Experimental Modeling of Pile-Leg Interaction in Jacket Type Offshore

Platforms Cyclic Inelastic Behavior
1
M.R.Honarvar, 2M.R.Bahaari and 3B.Asgarian
1
Marine Structures, Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
2
Faculty of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
3
K.N.Toosi university of Technology, Tehran, Iran

Abstract: Offshore platforms in seismically active areas should be designed to survive in the event of
severe ground excitations with no global structural failure. The annulus between the pile and leg in
jacket-type offshore platforms can be filled with cement grout as a means of reducing horizontal
deflections, inhibiting corrosion and preventing local damages. This paper discusses an experimental
approach which can be used to demonstrate the effect of grouting on enhanced structural performance
of jackets. In this regard, the lateral load bearing behavior of grouted and un-grouted jackets are
investigated experimentally with special attention to effect of grout on pile-leg interaction. Results are
presented on the cyclic inelastic behavior of two scaled frame models of a representative platform
which was recently installed in the Persian Gulf. The objective of this effort was to improve the
understanding of the behavior of jackets subjected to lateral motions and specially the effects of exact
real pile-leg interaction. it should be noted that this paper addresses the exact and realistic pile-leg
interaction. It is concluded that grouting can not be considered as a definite method of improving
strength and structural nonlinear dynamic behavior. Although it generally increases the lateral
stiffness, but some side effects and points are to be considered. In this paper, the two separate lateral
load bearing mechanisms -namely portal (braced) mechanism and frame bending mechanism- are
distinguished and the effect of grout on each one is shown.

Key words: Jacket, offshore, platform, grout, cyclic, experimental

INTRODUCTION different behavioral aspects of grouted and un-grouted

pile-leg interaction are investigated.
General: Most of the jackets have foundation piles Where a structure’s piles pass through the legs, the
through each main leg which are welded to the structure primary pile/structure connection is typically made by
at deck level. Modeling the cyclic inelastic behavior of welding the pile to the structure and/or by grouting the
legs and braces is of utmost importance in any leg/pile annulus. In this case, the pile leg acts as a
nonlinear dynamic analysis of offshore jackets. In the composite member. In case of un-grouted leg-piles, the
past years, considerable investigative efforts have effect of shim plates at elevation of horizontal braces
have to be considered[10].
focused on understanding the inelastic behavior of
offshore structures subjected to severe seismic loadings
Background and scope: Zayas et al.[14] reported the
and numerical methods for predicting this behavior results of a series of axial cyclic tests on isolated struts
have been developed[15]. Numerical efforts on frame representing typical tubular braces in offshore
behavior used to be evaluated by experimental tests platforms. Zayas et al.[15], reported the experiments on
which were all conducted in a simplified condition two one-sixth scale models of an X-braced tubular steel
without modeling the pile above seabed and pile-leg offshore platform subjected to cyclic displacements
structural interaction. simulating the effects of severe earthquake ground
In this study, two scaled 2Dimenional models of a motions. These efforts were numerically studied by
platform are fabricated and tested under cyclic deck Keyvani[11] and Asgarian[4]. Ray Clough and Yousof
displacement to show the effect of pile-leg interaction Ghanaat[8] have studied the dynamic elastic and
in inelastic range of deformation. Furthermore the inelastic behavior of one 5/48 scaled model of an X-
Corresponding Author: B.Asgarian, Assistant Professor of Civil Engineering, K.N.Toosi university of Technology, Tehran,
Iran, Phone Number: 00989121253874
1448
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

braced offshore platform made of tubular members. In desired to obtain information to develop and verify
this platform, a 5/8 scaled model of the jacket tested by numerical models which can subsequently be used to
Zayas et al. was represented. Earthquake motions used predict dynamic behavior, it is not necessary to perform
for jacket shaking were modified records using El tests dynamically, because:
Centro and Taft recording earthquakes. Linear and
nonlinear analyses of the structure on the shaking table • Once a numerical model is verified on the basis of
were performed using fiber Beam-Column post- experimental data under cyclic loading, time
buckling element by Asgarian[3]. history dynamic analysis can be used with
In this study, a complementary test is conducted in confidence to check ductility demand, the
line with Zayas et al. efforts[15] to model the pile-leg structural displacements and the energy dissipation
real interaction through the connection joint and shim- of the structure[15]
plates and show the effect of grouting in lateral cyclic • Earthquake excitations are non-deterministic and
behavior of offshore jacket type structures. several records must be applied to assess the
The experimental program and the frame models nonlinear structural response properly[15]
employed are described in section 2 of this paper. Two • When the results from specimens with different
types of frames, representing the current practices are details (e.g. with and without grout) are being
investigated. In one model, the gap between pile and compared, a quasi-static test is to be used in which
leg is filled with grout, which is called Grouted frame the same displacement history is imposed on all
and the other frame is called Un-grouted. The overall specimens. If a shaking table test is performed,
behavior of the experimental model is discussed in each specimen will have a different period and
section 3 of this paper. Particular attention is paid to the therefore is expected to behave differently. Thus,
effect of grouting on the deterioration of strength and it is not clear whether the differences are due to the
energy dissipation capacity. details. However, if a dynamic analysis model is
being calibrated to a single or several tests, then a
Jacket members behavior in nonlinear range of shaking table test is better. In a quasi-static test
deformation nearly any reasonable numerical model will give
Portals: Portals are members with essentially constant hysteretic loops that look perfect, however, they
axial force and variable lateral displacement[11]. The may give different dynamic results
portal behavior of a jacket leg under lateral forces
results in a relatively small bending moment at the mid- Objectives: While there have been great strides in
height of the leg segment between any two adjacent nonlinear dynamic analyses and these are generally
horizontal bracing levels. Grouted and Un-grouted essential to the design and evaluation of offshore and
portals behave differently and have different methods other onshore structures, the programs need to be
of modeling[10]. verified for particular applications and models
calibrated to the particular situation at hand. That is,
Struts: Struts are essentially bracing members with the computer models are only as good as their
constant lateral loads (usually zero) but variable axial underlying assumptions. Many aspects of structure
displacement[11]. Since jacket braces are connected to behavior are quite complex. These include local
legs, which normally have much larger flexural buckling, fracture and in this case, aspects of composite
stiffness, their axial response is their most important behavior. The results of the composite behavior of the
behavioral characteristic. jacket legs with the pile-grout, jacket interface is likely
to be very difficult to model numerically. Thus, it
Quasi-static loading approach: A good approach to seems that a realistic nonlinear analysis models will be
verify specific aspects of the numerical model, as was very complex and it will be difficult to trust its results
utilized here, is to impose quasi-static load or unless there is experimental verification and perhaps
deformation histories on the specimen. This type of simpler models might be adequate for the particular
study provides valuable information on force-deflection type of structure being employed. As such, one or more
relationship of the frame as a whole and also on tests are essential to substantiate the nonlinear analyses.
individual members. Realistic numerical modeling of This study presents results of experimental
these loops is essential for accurate computer research on steel offshore-type braced frames subjected
simulation of the inelastic dynamic response of a to large cyclic inelastic loadings, applied in a quasi-
structure. Past research on braced frames has been also static manner, simulating severe earthquake excitations.
mostly performed in a quasi-static manner[15]. If it is Two models (fabricated on the basis of a one twelfth
1449
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

scale of a recently installed jacket in Persian Gulf, one Material behavior: Figure 3, 4 and Table 1, present
in grouted and one in un-grouted condition) were the stress-strain curves for the steel and grout materials
tested. The specific objectives of this investigation are used.
as follow:[15]

• Obtain experimental data on the pile-leg interaction

in a correctly scaled model of jacket type offshore
structures as similar as possible to the real
condition, by considering the connection joints,
pile through the leg, crown shim-plates, shim plates
at the elevation of horizontal braces, grouting in the
gap between pile and leg and etc.
• To assess the effect of grouting on the cyclic
inelastic response of tubular steel structures
• Provide observations and information pertinent to
the inelastic behavior of X-Braced offshore
structures under cyclic seismic-type excitations,
applied in a quasi-static manner
• Obtain experimental data suitable for assessing the
reliability of numerical procedures used to predict
inelastic seismic behavior of frames of the type
used for offshore structures

MATERIALS AND METHODS

To achieve the objectives of this investigation, two

one-twelfth scale models of a recently designed and Fig. 1: Pile and deck fabrication drawing
installed jacket in Persian Gulf, were simplified,
adjusted according to available pipes and laboratory
facilities, constructed and tested under lateral quasi-
static displacement-controlled histories representative
of severe motions. This platform had already been
designed in accordance with API criteria, therefore the
design of test frames consisted of simplifying the
structure to facilitate testing, determining an
appropriate scale factor and detailing the specimen
frames to avoid undesirable behavioral modes.

Frames configuration: Both frames are quite similar

except that, one is grouted in the gap between pile and
leg but the other one is not.
The test frames were simplified and consistent with
the objectives of the investigation. Therefore only a
planar (2D) row was tested. The effect of horizontal
braces in the prototype, perpendicular to the modeled
face was considered as lateral (out of plane) constraints
on legs. The stiffness and weight of the well-head deck
was simulated by a box-section beam. Pin connections
were employed at bottom of the extended pile.
Hydrodynamic forces were not simulated. Considering
above mentioned criteria and all limitations in
fabrication and test laboratory, frames were detailed as
shown in Fig. 1, 2 for jackets, piles and decks and the
assemblage, respectively. Fig. 2: Platform assemblage shop drawing
1450
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

Table 1: Pipes material characteristics, tensile test results X-bracing joint-can behavior: In this test, the
Measured result of tensile strength test in lab behavior of braces was not focused on, but the portal
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fy Fu Elongation Fy (Mpa) Fu (Mpa) Elongation behavior (both while working with braces and while
(Mpa) (Mpa) Avg Avg Avg working individually in bending) and the effect of grout
Brace on overall behavior were to be highlighted, therefore
333 437 0.35 342 429 0.313
353 420 0.33
joint cans intentionally were not fabricated and the
359 443 0.29 brittle failure (tearing) has occurred because of the Heat
323 414 0.28 Affected Zone area which was developed while 2mm
X Brace joint can thickness pipes were being welded to each other.
310 397 0.10 310 397 0.1
350 442 0.16 (Minimum) (Minimum) (Minimum) However the stress-strain curve of the can was derived
Portal by fabricating similar X connections and testing two
277 346 0.38 276 327 0.390 specimens. The worst of resulted stress-strain curves is
284 322 0.41
283 320 0.38 presented in Fig. 3 and Table 1.
260 318 0.39
Grouting material behavior: Some sample cubes
BRACES PORTALS X-CAN (5×5×5 Cm3) of grout were tested under
Stress (MPa)

450

X-CAN, 0.052, 397 X-CAN, 0.102, 397

BRACES, 0.315, 429
compression[10]. The grout was made of seawater and
400
BRACES, 0.106, 429 cement type II (with Water/Cement weight ratio of 39%
350
BRACES, 0.002, 342 and 1.98 t/m3 density). Three of the cubes were cured in
X-CAN, 0.002, 310 PORTALS, 0.132, 327 PORTALS, 0.392, 327
300
the wet normal open condition, while other three in the
entrapped close condition to simulate the entrapped gap
PORTALS, 0.002, 276
250

200 space between the pile and leg where no air circulation
150
would exist. The samples were tested in the MTS
machine after 28days. Two of incomplete cured and
100

X-CAN, 0.000, 0
two of normal cured samples were tested. In real
condition, the grout is neither completely entrapped,
50
BRACES, 0.000, 0
PORTALS,0.000, 0
0
0.000 0.050 0.100 0.150 0.200 0.250 0.300 0.350 0.400 0.450
nor normally can be cured, therefore an average of the
Strain
tests and the equivalent linear curve are plotted in
Fig. 3: Pipes material stress-strain curves, tensile test Fig. 4.
Results
50
Fabrication: The specimen frames were constructed by
45
(Mpa)
S2C = 43MPa
qualified fitters and welders who all were engaged and
40 S1C = 35MPa
E2C = 0.8% quite experienced in real-scale jackets fabrication. Care
35 E1C = 0.5% was taken to insure proper alignment, minimize initial
30
eccentricities, bevel the ends of members similar to API
25
recommendations, specify close fit-up of welded
20
components and use full penetration butt welds at all
S3C = 21MPa
15 E3C = 1.85% tubular member connections. The SMAW electrodes
10
were E6013. All weldments were tested under PT
(%)
5
(liquid penetrant examination) and MT (magnetic
0 particle examination), NDT tests and the repairs were
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 done to detect and remove the flaws that could cause
premature failure[15].
Fig. 4: Average resulted stress-strain curve of 4 grout The welded shim plates on the piles are shown in
samples and adjusted curve in drain software Fig. 5. After the construction of separate items (Jackets,
piles, shim plates, base plates and deck box), they were
Steel material behavior: Figure 3 and Table 1, show assembled to each other for both the frames. The
stress strain behavior of the pipes used for the specimen connections of top and bottom of piles are shown in
frames. Totally 8 samples were tested (4 for braces and Fig. 6 and 8. After the completion of the frames, one
4 for portals). Two samples were tested for each size of was grouted in the gap between pile and leg using
used pipes. exactly the material and mix ratio mentioned above,
1451
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

Fig. 5: Assemblage of shim plates on piles at mid-

horizontal brace elevation

Fig. 8: Load cells and LVDT’s arrangement

until making sure the grout is over-flowing out and pre-

calculated required volume of grout is completely
injected. During the injection, the leg was continuously
vibrated in order to avoid air entrapment between pile
and leg.

Test setup: The lateral load applied to the frame was

Fig. 6: Leg-pile connection joint, full-penetration weld
of deck on top of piles measured using load-cells attached to the loading jacks.
All joints displacements especially lateral displacement
of the frame at all elevations were measured using
linear variable differential transformers (LVDT's). The
arrangement of load-cells, LVDT's and elasto plastic
strain gages (YE-FLA-5 type) are shown in Fig. 8 and
10. Figure 10 presents the details of lateral out of plane
constraint supports. These constraints are used to
simulate the lateral effect of perpendicular horizontal
braces at the elevation of horizontal plans, on the
behavior of legs and their free out of plane buckling
length.
The prescribed displacement history for the frame
models is shown in Fig. 11 and Table 2.
Cycles 8, 9, 14, 21, 28 are five working load cycles
at a specified displacement of +/-2Cm. Such cycles
have to be included at various points in the history to
check the degradation of structural stiffness at working
Fig. 7: Full-penetration weld of piles on base-plates, no level loads. They are also useful in evaluating
weld between pile and leg numerical models[15].
1452
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

Table 2: Prescribed Displacement-Controlled Deck Load History

Cycle Stage Delta Cycle Stage Delta Cycle Stage Delta
(Cm) (Cm) (Cm)
1 1 0.0 11 41 0.0 21 81 0.0
1 2 0.2 11 42 3.0 21 82 2.0
1 3 0.0 11 43 0.0 21 83 0.0
1 4 -0.2 11 44 -3.0 21 84 -2.0
2 5 0.0 12 45 0.0 22 85 0.0
2 6 0.5 12 46 3.5 22 86 9.0
2 7 0.0 12 47 0.0 22 87 0.0
2 8 -0.5 12 48 -3.5 22 88 -9.0
3 9 0.0 13 49 0.0 23 89 0.0
3 10 0.8 13 50 4.0 23 90 10.0
3 11 0.0 13 51 0.0 23 91 0.0
3 12 -0.8 13 52 -4.0 23 92 -10.0
4 13 0.0 14 53 0.0 24 93 0.0
4 14 1.0 14 54 2.0 24 94 11.0
4 15 0.0 14 55 0.0 24 95 0.0
4 16 -1.0 14 56 -2.0 24 96 -11.0
5 17 0.0 15 57 0.0 25 97 0.0
5 18 1.0 15 58 4.5 25 98 12.0
5 19 0.0 15 59 0.0 25 99 0.0
5 20 -1.0 15 60 -4.5 25 100 -12.0
6 21 0.0 16 61 0.0 26 101 0.0
6 22 1.2 16 62 5.0 26 102 14.0
6 23 0.0 16 63 0.0 26 103 0.0
6 24 -1.2 16 64 -5.0 26 104 -14.0
7 25 0.0 17 65 0.0 27 105 0.0
7 26 1.5 17 66 5.5 27 106 16.0
7 27 0.0 17 67 0.0 27 107 0.0
7 28 -1.5 17 68 -5.5 27 108 -16.0
8 29 0.0 18 69 0.0 28 109 0.0
Fig. 9: Strain gages arrangement 8 30 2.0 18 70 6.0 28 110 2.0
8 31 0.0 18 71 0.0 28 111 0.0
8 32 -2.0 18 72 -6.0 28 112 -2.0
9 33 0.0 19 73 0.0 29 113 0.0
9 34 2.0 19 74 7.0 29 114 18.0
9 35 0.0 19 75 0.0 29 115 0.0
9 36 -2.0 19 76 -7.0 29 116 -18.0
10 37 0.0 20 77 0.0 30 117 0.0
10 38 2.5 20 78 8.0 30 118 21.0
10 39 0.0 20 79 0.0 30 119 0.0
10 40 -2.5 20 80 -8.0 30 120 -21.0

Fig. 10: Out of plane constraint detail at horizontal Fig. 11: Prescribed Displacement-Controlled Deck
braces elevation Load History
1453
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

Fig. 15: Disconnection of x braces in later cycles

Fig. 12: General view of experimental setup
Figure 12 and 13 show the experimental setup including
the pin support, hydraulic jacks, jacks support frames,
lateral constraints, LVDT's, strain gages and general
test layout.

RESULTS

Both grouted and ungrouted frames were tested as

detailed in previous section exactly in the same
conditions. Summary of events and failure mechanism
that happened during the tests are shown in Fig. 14. In
the absence of joint cans in X braces, tearing failure
occurred in the joints of lower and upper panels of both
frames. In this test, as explained before, the behavior of
braces (which was investigated many times before)
were not focused on, but the portal behavior and the
effect of grout on overall behavior was to be
Fig. 13: LVDTs No. 17-19, strain gages 52-59, 68-71
highlighted, therefore joint cans were not fabricated and
a brittle failure has occurred, however the stress-strain
curve of the can was derived (by fabricating similar
separate X connections) and reported for further
numerical efforts. Figure 15 and 16 presents photos
showing the failure mechanism that happened during
both the tests. In Fig. 16, a picture of the deformed
shape of frames in the last cycle is shown.

Overall behavior of test frames: The variation of deck

load vs. total deck displacement is presented in Table 3,
4 and Fig. 17-20 for different range of cycles as the
hysteretic curves of overall frames behavior compared
between grouted case and un-grouted.
There seems not to be a significant difference in
hysteretic behaviors of the two cases, but generally it
was seen that in grouted case, lateral stiffness of portal
elements (only while working in combination with the
Fig. 14: Summary of events braces and not as a lone individual lateral system) and
1454
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

Table 3: Frame load vs. deck displacement (cy 1-30) (un-grouted frame)

1455
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

Table 4: Frame load vs. deck displacement (cy 1-30) (grouted frame)

1456
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

140
P
(KN)90

40

-10
-210 160
- -110 -60 -10 40 90 140 190
∆ h(mm)
-60

-110

Cy 1-10, -160 Cy 1-10,

Ungrouted Grouted

Fig. 18: Frame load vs. deck displacement (cy 1-10)

140
P (KN)
90

40

-210 -160 -110 -60 -10

-10
40 90 140 190

Fig. 16: Platform typical deformed shape (cy. 30, -60

= -20cm), braces all disconnected ∆h(mm)

-110

Cy 1-30, Ungrouted Cy 1-30, Grouted

-160
140 Cy 11-20, Ungrouted Cy 11-20, Grouted
P (KN)

90
Fig. 19: Frame load vs. deck displacement (cy 11-20)

40
140

P (KN) Cy 21-30, Ungrouted Cy 21-30, Grouted

-210 -160 -110 -60 -10

-10 40 90 140 190 90

∆h(mm)
40
-60

-210 -160 -110 -60 -10

-10 40 90 140 190

-110 ∆h(mm)

-60

-160
-110

Fig. 17: Frame load vs. deck displacement (cy 1-30) -160

therefore lateral stiffness of the grouted frame was more Fig. 20: Frame Load vs. Deck Displacement (Cy 21-30)
than the un-grouted case. This fact can be seen more
clearly in next section where presenting the results for as the lone individual lateral system (pure portal
braces. Therefore generally in grouted case, in both behavior), is quite the same in both the cases. This fact
stages of failure (in lower and upper panel braces), the can be seen in last cycles of hysteretic behavior curves
braces failed in earlier cycles with lower deck where all X bracings are cut and frame behaves as a
displacements because of the higher rate in increasing pure portal system. This is due to the low effect of grout
the stress in braces. in the composite section while the section works in
The lateral stiffness of portal elements while not bending specially with low values of axial
working in combination with the braces and behaving compression[10]. However, while portal elements work

1457
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008
180
in a combined resistant system, grouting can laterally
increase the system stiffness due to the effect of braces 160

Frame Load (KN)

which can change the bending moment to a couple of 140
Ungrouted-Push
Ungrouted-Pull

tension and compression in two legs and cause the Grouted-Push

Grouted-Pull

grout to be able to increase the overall frame stiffness.

120

Therefore, regarding the lateral load bearing behavior, 100

two roles and types of behavior for portals can be seen 80

on which the effect of grout is quite different:

60

• One role is the axial behavior that happens when 40

the braces are working and changing the 20

overturning moment to a couple of tension and 0

Cycles

compression in the portals. In this case, the whole 0 5 10 15 20 25 30

frame is acting as a combined brace-portal system

and grouting can increase the lateral stiffness of the Fig. 21: Frame maximum loads at cycle displacements
frame because of its important effect on the axial 200

stiffness and strength of compressive portal P (KN)

element. This positive effect of grout is only 150

important when the stiffness of brace system is 100

high and has not gradually been failed or 50

decreased. It means that by degradation of bracing
system stiffness, gradually this mentioned effect of -250 -200 -150 -100 -50
0
0 50 100 150 200 250

grout also decreases. Furthermore in very high -50

∆h(mm)
ranges of lateral movements, gradually grout would -100
not work because of the development of cracks and
its failure in compression -150

• The other role is when portals behave only in -200

bending as some individual portal elements. In this Ungrouted-Push Ungrouted-Pull Grouted-Push Grouted-Pull

case grouting does not have any considerable effect

on the bending resistance of the portals unless a Fig. 22: Frame load vs. deck displacement response
constant high value of axial force is imposed on envelopes
them. This fact could clearly be seen in a recent 12
research using post-buckling fiber element[10]. The
Energy (KJ)

lateral stiffness of portal elements while not 10

working in combination with the braces is quite the

Ungrouted
Grouted

same in both cases. The hysteretic behavior curves 8

of a simple portal element in a jacket-type offshore

structure for the grouted or un-grouted cases, do 6

not depict considerable differences for an equal

low level of axial load and a good consistency can 4

be seen. The positive role of the grout in lateral

stiffness of a single portal element, appears only 2

when it is completely under pressure which

Cycles
happens in high values of constant axial force 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

The maximum lateral loads per cycles are plotted

in Fig. 21. The envelopes of hysteretic curves for both Fig. 23: Frame energy dissipation per cycle
cases are compared in Fig. 22. The energy dissipation
per cycle and cumulative dissipation curve are plotted not have happened and the cumulative energy
in Fig. 23 and 24. It was found that cumulative energy dissipation curve of grouted specimen would have
dissipation curve of grouted specimen is above the un- stayed above the one for un-grouted.
grouted specimen, but only before tearing happens. The degradation of structural stiffness at working
Therefore if joint cans had been modeled, tearing would level loads can be seen and compared in Fig. 25 for
1458
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008
60
When the stiffness of portal system, while working
Energy (KJ)

50
in combination with the braces, increases, the applied
Ungrouted
Grouted load on the bracing with constant stiffness also
40
increases while a unique similar displacement is applied
to the combined systems as a whole. In this condition,
30
axial stresses in braces of grouted frame increase more
rapidly than in un-grouted case and cause the increase
20 in lateral stiffness of the frame. Therefore in grouted
case, the braces failed in earlier cycles with lower deck
10 displacements and approximate same maximum lateral
loads. Also cumulative energy dissipation curve of
Cycles
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
grouted specimen is above the un-grouted one but only
before tearing happens in braces. However if joint cans
had been considered, tearing would not have happened,
Fig. 24: Frame cumulative energy dissipation braces would have shown plastic behavior and the
cumulative energy dissipation curve of grouted
both cases. No significant difference in behavior specimen would have stayed above the un-grouted one
degradation sequence can be seen between two cases. before any tearing happens. Grouting generally will
increase the stiffness and energy absorption of the
Behavior of members: It was described in previous frame, provided that the joint cans be modeled and the
section that generally in grouted case, lateral stiffness braces be able to demonstrate post-buckling behavior.
of portal elements (while working in combination with Five working load cycles were included at various
the braces) and therefore lateral stiffness of the grouted points in the history to check the degradation of
frame were more than un-grouted and when the structural stiffness at working level loads. No
stiffness of one system (portal system increases, the significant difference in behavior degradation sequence
applied load on the 2nd system with constant stiffness can be seen between the two cases.
also increases while a unique similar displacement is
applied to whole the combined systems. This higher ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
rate in increasing the stress in braces can be seen more
clearly in Fig. 26-29 where the results of test are The research employed herein was sponsored
presented for individual braces. under POGC (Pars Oil and Gas Company) project No.
It should be noted that strains recorded by strain 65 “Nonlinear Dynamic Behavior of Offshore
gages were changed to pipes stresses, using measured Platforms”. The financial support of POGC is gratefully
stress-strain relation curve. Furthermore, the axial acknowledged.
stresses and bending stresses could be seen separately, The tests were performed by BHRC (Building and
by having the strain in different points of sections. Habitation Research Center) of Habitation Ministry of
Islamic republic of Iran, in structure laboratory. BHRC
DISCUSSION is gratefully acknowledged.

In this study, a new series of experimental data REFERENCES

were produced, using a modified scaled model much
1. Amoco Production Co, 1983. Lateral Stability of
more similar to real condition in aspects of pile-leg
Piles in Ungrouted Jacket Legs, (USA),
interaction and can be used in evaluating numerical
OTC004645.
models.
2. API, 1993. Recommended Practice for Planning,
There was not a significant difference in hysteretic Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
behaviors of the two cases. It was seen that in grouted Platforms, Working Stress Design, API (RP2A-
case, lateral stiffness of portal elements (while working WSD).
in combination with braces) and therefore lateral 3. Asgarian, Aghakouchack, 2004. Nonlinear
stiffness of the whole frame were higher than in the un- Dynamic Analysis of Jacket Type Offshore
grouted case. Regarding the lateral load bearing Structures Subjected to Earthquake Using Fiber
behavior, two different roles and types of behavior for Elements, 13th World Conference on Earthquake
portals were distinguished and the effect of grout on Engineering, Vancour, B.C., Canada, August 2004,
each was investigated. Paper No.1726.
1459
 Am. J. Applied Sci., 5 (11): 1448-1460, 2008

4. Asgarian, Aghakouchak and Bea, 2005. Inelastic 11. Kayvani, K. and F. Barzegar, 1993. Modeling of
Post-Buckling and Cyclic Behavior of Tubular Tubular Members in Offshore Steel Jacket Under
Braces, J. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Eng., Severe Cyclic Loading, Report No. R-324, the
Vol. 127. University of New South Wales, Australia.
5. Asgarian, Aghakouchak and Bea, 2006. Nonlinear 12. Wimpey Laboratories Ltd., 1982, The Reappraisal
Analysis of Jacket-Type Offshore Platforms Using of Steel Jacket Structures Allowing for the
Fiber Elements, J. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Composite Action of Grouted Piles, OTC004194.
Eng., Vol. 128. 13. Wimpey Offshore Engineers and Constructors Ltd.,
6. Bea, R.G., 1992. Seismic design and 1987. New Test Data on the Capacity of Cement-
requalification methodologies for offshore Filled Steel Tubulars, OTC005484.
structures. California Inst. of Tech., Pasadena, CA. 14. Zayas, V.A., E.P. Popov and S.A. Mahin, 1980.
7. Bea, R.G., 1993. Seismic response of offshore Cyclic inelastic buckling of tubular steel Braces.
platforms. X-National Conference on Earthquake Report No. UCB/EERC-80/16, University of
Engineering, Ja1isco, Mexico. California, Berkeley, CA.
8. Ghanaat, Y. and R.W. Clough, 1980. Shaking 15. Zayas, V.A., S.A. Mahin and E.P. Popov, 1980.
Table Tests of a Tubular Steel Frame Model, Cyclic inelastic behavior of steel offshore
Report No. UCB/EERC-82/02, Earthquake structures, Report No. UCB/EERC-80/27,
Engineering Research Center, University of University of California, Berkeley, CA.
California, Berkeley. 16. Zayas, V.A., S.A. Mahin and E.P. Popov, 1981.
9. Higginbortham, A.B., 1973. The Inelastic Cyclic Inelastic Structural Analysis of braced p1atforms
Behavior of Axially-Loaded Steel Members, for seismic loading. Proc. 0ffshore Tech. Conf.,
Disseration, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, American Iron and Steel Inst., 259-272.
January 1973. 17. Zayas, V.A., P.B. Shing, S.A. Mahin and
10. Honarvar, Bahaari and Asgarian, 2007. Effect of E.P. Popov, 1981b. Inelastic structural modeling of
Grouting in Jacket Type Offshore Platforms Pile- braced offshore p1atforms for seismic loading.
Leg Interaction in Nonlinear Range of Report No. UCB/EERC-81/04, University of
Deformation, J. Offshore Mechanics and Arctic California, Berkeley, CA.
Eng., OMAE-07-1007, (Accepted for publication).

1460