Elastic-Plastic Seismic Performance for Jacket Platform Based on Improved Modal Pushover Method

doi:10.16183/j.cnki.jsjtu.2019.204

Abstract

Abstract:

In connection with the elastic-plastic failure problem of offshore jacket platform subjected to a powerful earthquake, an improved modal pushover method based on performance design is proposed. The elastic-plastic seismic performance and failure modes of the jacket platform are obtained to solve the problem of elastic-plastic performance evaluation of the offshore jacket platform in strong earthquakes. The elastic-plastic seismic responses of the platform in 8-degree seismic fortification and rare intensity are calculated by using different methods, and the differences between these responses are compared. Besides, the influences of combined modes, mode shape vectors, and uncertainties of seismic are discussed. The results show that the high-order vibration modes and mode shape vectors have a great influence on the elastic-plastic seismic performance of the platform. The first 9 or higher order modes and mode shape vectors should be adopted. The seismic-resistant weak links are located at the top of the platform in 8-degree seismic fortification and rare intensity, which should be paid more attention to. The seismic responses of the platform show significant differences and discreteness in different seismic activities, which have the same peak seismic acceleration. The improved modal pushover method is suggested to be used to evaluate the elastic-plastic seismic performance of jacket platform.

Key words: jacket platform, marine seismic, elastic-plastic seismic performance, improved modal pushover method, failure mode, seismic response

CLC Number:

TE52

LIU Hongbing, SUN Liping, AI Shangmao, YAN Fasuo, CHEN Guoming. Elastic-Plastic Seismic Performance for Jacket Platform Based on Improved Modal Pushover Method[J]. Journal of Shanghai Jiao Tong University, 2021, 55(3): 265-275.

Figures/Tables 11

Fig.1

Fig.2

Fig.3

Tab.1

Tab.2

Fig.4

Fig.5

Fig.6

Tab.3

Fig.7

Fig.8

References 17

[1]	刘红兵，陈国明，朱本瑞，等. 基于能力谱法导管架平台抗震性能评估[J]. 中国石油大学学报(自然科学版), 2015, 39(5): 124-129.
	LIU Hongbing, CHEN Guoming, ZHU Benrui, et al. Seismic performance evaluation for jacket platform based on capacity spectrum method[J]. Journal of China University of Petroleum (Edition of Natural Science), 2015, 39(5): 124-129.
[2]	LI C, LI H N, HAO H, et al. Seismic fragility analyses of sea-crossing cable-stayed bridges subjected to multi-support ground motions on offshore sites[J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 165: 441-456.
[3]	API. Recommended practice for planning, designing and constructing fixed offshore platforms—Working stress design: RP 2A-WSD[S]. 21st ed. Washington D. C., USA: American Petroleum Institute, 2007.
[4]	中华人民共和国住房和城乡建设部. 建筑抗震设计规范： GB 50011-2016[S]. 北京：中国建筑工业出版社，2016.
	Ministry of Housing and Urban-Rural Development of the People’s Republic of China. Code for seismic design of buildings: GB 50011-2016[S]. Beijing: China Architecture Publishing & Media Co., Ltd., 2016.
[5]	ZOU Y, LIU H B, JING L P, et al. A pseudo-static method for seismic responses of underground frame structures subjected to increasing excitations[J]. Tunnelling and Underground Space Technology, 2017, 65: 106-120.
[6]	ZHOU B, HAN X S, TAN S K. A simplified computational method for random seismic responses of a jacket platform[J]. Ocean Engineering, 2014, 82: 85-90.
[7]	ZHOU X Y, GU M, LI G. Grouping response method for equivalent static wind loads based on a modified LRC method[J]. Earthquake Engineering and Engineering Vibration, 2012, 11(1): 107-119.
[8]	ZHOU J, JIANG Y, WANG L X, et al. A long-period elastic response spectrum based on the site-classification of Chinese seismic code[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2018, 115: 622-633.
[9]	陈之毅，谈忠傲，楼梦麟. 地下结构抗震设计方法整体强制反应位移法[J]. 同济大学学报(自然科学版), 2016, 44(8): 1145-1152.
	CHEN Zhiyi, TAN Zhong’ao, LOU Menglin. Integral forced displacement method for seismic design of underground structures[J].Journal of Tongji University (Natural Science), 2016, 44(8): 1145-1152.
[10]	KONSTANDAKOPOULOU F D, EVANGELINOS K I, NIKOLAOU I E, et al. Seismic analysis of offshore platforms subjected to pulse-type ground motions compatible with European Standards[J]. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 2020, 129: 105713.
[11]	Applied Technology Council. Seismic evaluation and retrofit of concrete buildings: Volume 1[R]. Redwood City, CA, USA: Applied Technology Council, 1996.
[12]	Federal Emergency Management Agency. NEHPR commentary on the guidelines for the seismic rehabilitation of buildings: FEMA Publication 274[S]. Washington D. C., USA: Buliding Seismic Safety Council, 1997.
[13]	ZOLFAGHARI M R, AJAMY A, ASGARIAN B. A simplified method in comparison with comprehensive interaction incremental dynamic analysis to assess seismic performance of jacket-type offshore platforms[J]. International Journal of Advanced Structural Engineering, 2015, 7(4): 353-364.
[14]	CHOPRA A K, GOEL R K. A modal pushover analysis procedure for estimating seismic demands for buildings[J]. Earthquake Engineering & Structural Dynamics, 2002, 31(3): 561-582.
[15]	LIU Y, KUANG J S, HUANG Q X. Extended spectrum-based pushover analysis for predicting earthquake-induced forces in tall buildings[J]. Engineering Structures, 2018, 167: 351-362.
[16]	ZHONG J, ZHANG J P, ZHI X D, et al. Identification of dominant modes of single-layer reticulated shells under seismic excitations[J]. Thin-Walled Structures, 2018, 127: 676-687.
[17]	曲哲，叶列平，潘鹏. 建筑结构弹塑性时程分析中地震动记录选取方法的比较研究[J]. 土木工程学报，2011, 44(7): 10-21.
	QU Zhe, YE Lieping, PAN Peng. Comparative study on methods of selecting earthquake ground motions for nonlinear time history analyses of building structures[J]. China Civil Engineering Journal, 2011, 44(7): 10-21.

n	a_n/%
n	a_nx	a_ny	a_nz	a_r，nx	a_r，ny	a_r，nz	∑a_nx	∑a_ny	∑a_nz	∑a_r，nx	∑a_r，ny	∑a_r，nz
1	0	81.54	0	41.22	0	0.03	0	81.54	0	41.22	0	0.03
2	82.76	0	0	0	33.19	0	82.76	81.54	0	41.22	33.19	0.04
3	0	0.02	0	0	0	78.86	82.76	81.55	0	41.22	33.19	78.90
4	0	16.63	0	50.80	0	0.01	82.76	98.18	0	92.02	33.19	78.90
5	16.13	0	0	0	47.34	0	98.89	98.18	0.01	92.02	80.53	78.90
6	0	0	95.77	0	0	0	98.89	98.18	95.78	92.02	80.53	78.90
7	0	0.01	0	0	0	20.17	98.89	98.19	95.78	92.02	80.53	99.07
8	0	1.05	0	0.22	0	0.03	98.89	99.24	95.78	92.24	80.53	99.10
9	0.31	0	0	0	9.58	0	99.21	99.24	95.79	92.24	90.11	99.10
10	0	0	0.06	0	0	0	99.21	99.24	95.85	92.24	90.11	99.10

模态振型编号	方向	等效屈服点响应		模态推覆响应		是否发生屈服
模态振型编号	方向	u_r/cm	V_b/kN	u_r/cm	V_b/kN	是否发生屈服
2	x	6.90	1.65×10³	3.19	676.00	否
5	x	7.03	1.04×10³	0.48	83.60	否
9	x	5.95	1.82×10³	0.09	7.32	否
1	y	6.82	1.64×10³	3.14	666.00	否
4	y	7.14	1.05×10³	0.46	81.30	否
8	y	4.87	2.24×10³	0.09	10.90	否

模态振型编号	方向	等效屈服点响应		模态推覆响应		是否发生屈服
模态振型编号	方向	u_r/cm	V_b/kN	u_r/cm	V_b/kN	是否发生屈服
2	x	6.77	1.65×10³	65.45	2.79×10³	是
5	x	6.42	1.03×10³	2.95	4.11×10²	否
9	x	5.87	1.81×10³	0.18	3.60×10¹	否
1	y	6.75	1.64×10³	65.47	2.79×10³	是
4	y	6.99	1.04×10³	2.82	4.00×10²	否
8	y	5.47	2.28×10³	0.20	5.35×10¹	否