0
Offshore and Structural Mechanics

Effect of Grouting in Jacket Type Offshore Platforms Pile-Leg Interaction in Nonlinear Range of Deformation

[+] Author and Article Information
M. R. Honarvar, M. R. Bahaari

School of Civil Engineering, University College of Engineering, University of Tehran, Tehran 15875-4416, Iran

B. Asgarian

Civil Engineering, K.N. Toosi University of Technology, Tehran 15875-4416, Iran

J. Offshore Mech. Arct. Eng 130(4), 041302 (Sep 26, 2008) (8 pages) doi:10.1115/1.2904586 History: Received January 17, 2007; Revised October 23, 2007; Published September 26, 2008

The annulus between the pile and leg in jacket type offshore platforms may be filled with cement grout mainly to reduce horizontal deflections, inhibit corrosion, and increase the energy absorption capacity. This paper discusses an approach, which can be used to demonstrate an enhanced structural performance due to the both presence and lack of grouted piles. The compressive stress-strain response of the grout has been derived from the performed experiments. Having this response, the fiber beam column post-buckling element in the commercial code, DRAIN-3DX , was being used to investigate the behavior of grouted and ungrouted jackets and also the relative pile-leg interaction. It is therefore concluded that in the cases where the existing structure is ungrouted or incompletely grouted, adequate grouting can be considered as a relatively inexpensive method to improve the strength and performance of the structure. In fact, the cement filling of a tubular member increases its overall strength and also provides additional stability. The lateral force-deformation curves are equivalents for the cases where the axial force is less than 30% of the yielding force, Pyielding. However, as the axial force increases, the grouted portal element gradually gives a much better performance compared to the ungrouted element. By increasing the axial force, the lateral hysteretic behavior deteriorates in both grouted and ungrouted cases; however, this deterioration is more severe in the case of an ungrouted portal element.

Copyright © 2008 by American Society of Mechanical Engineers
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 4

Behavior of a typical strut

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 5

Typical hysteretic loop of a strut

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 6

Element E16 (post-buckling inelastic fiber beam column element)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 7

Steel material properties in E15 of DRAIN

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 8

Concrete material properties in E15 of DRAIN

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 9

Sample stress-strain curve of “API 5L Gr.X52” steel

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 10

Grout sample cubes (three were cured in an entrapped space)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 11

Resulted σ(MPa)−E(%) curves for two grout samples (cured in an entrapped space)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 12

Resulted σ(MPa)−E(%) curves for two grout samples (cured in normal condition)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 13

Average resulted stress-strain curve of four grout samples and adjusted curve in DRAIN software

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 16

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(I) and ungrouted condition (no axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 17

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(I) and ungrouted condition (10% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 18

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(I) and ungrouted condition (30% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 19

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(I) and ungrouted condition (50% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 20

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(I) and ungrouted condition (80% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 21

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(II) conditions and axial load application)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 22

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(II) and ungrouted condition (no axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 23

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(II) and ungrouted condition (10% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 24

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(II) and ungrouted condition (30% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 25

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(II) and ungrouted condition (50% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 26

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(II) and ungrouted condition (80% ultimate axial load))

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 27

(Axial load—maximum lateral load) interaction curve for grouted and ungrouted portal element

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 2

Behavior of a typical portal

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 1

General configuration of the composite member

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 3

Typical hysteretic loop of a portal

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 14

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of ungrouted conditions and axial load application)

Grahic Jump Location
Figure 15

Pile-leg interaction analysis—hysteretic diagram (comparison of grouted(I) conditions and axial load application)

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In