Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
&
R esearch Bulletin 5-5A
Guidelines for
Site Specific
Assessment of
Mobile Jack-Up Units
August 2008
August 2008
GUIDELINE
FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT
OF MOBILE JACK-UP UNITS
FIRST EDITION MAY 1994
William T. Bennett
Jeremiah Daniel
David B. Lorenz
Jack Y. K. Lou
James M. Magill
Scott C. McClure
John A. Mercier
Peter G. Noble
John A. Pritzlaff
William J. Sember
N. Pharr Smith
Y. S. David Tein
David P. Tuturea
Philip B. Kimball
Executive Director
The opinions or assertions of the authors herein are not to be construed as official or reflecting
the views of SNAME or any government agency.
It is understood and agreed that nothing expressed herein is intended or shall be construed to give
any person, firm or corporation any right. Remedy, or claim against SNAME or any of its
officers or members.
INTRODUCTION
1.1 General
1.2 Reference Document
1.3 Applicability and Limitations
1.4 Typical Approach to Site Assessment
6
6
6
LOADINGS
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
4.6
4.7
4.8
4.9
3
3
3
4
CONFIGURATIONS
3.1 Mode of Operation
3.2 Airgap
3.3 Leg Length Reserve
1
1
1
2
Loading Cases
Wave and Current Forces
Wind Forces
Reaction Point and Foundation Fixity
Storm Approach Angle
Centre of Gravity
Displacement Dependent Loads
Dynamic Effects
Other Loads
7
8
8
8
9
9
9
9
10
RESISTANCE
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
General
Overturning Stability
Foundation and Preload
Structural Integrity
Adjacent Structures
Other
11
11
11
12
12
12
INTRODUCTION
1.1
General
1.1.1
This document is a GUIDELINE for the site specific structural and foundation
assessment of jack-up units. The purpose of this GUIDELINE is to identify the
factors which are likely to be the main concerns for any site assessment of a jackup unit. It is not to be interpreted as guidance for design or construction as there
are existing rules and regulations, both by Classification Societies and
Governmental Agencies, covering these aspects.
1.1.2
This GUIDELINE has been developed by representatives of all parts of the jackup industry working in a Joint Industry Project. It is intended to serve as a basic
standard and to provide a common reference when comparing the work of
different assessors. The user is advised to take due account of any Regulatory
requirements that may apply to the particular geographic area of operation.
1.2
Reference Document
1.2.1
1.3
1.3.1
An assessment should be made of the jack-up for each site location. This
GUIDELINE relates only to the assessment of the jack-up in the elevated
condition. Transportation to and from the site and moving on and moving off
location are not covered in this document.
1.3.2
This GUIDELINE will apply to most jack-ups. It is recognized that there may be
designs and/or circumstances when certain provisions may not apply. Such
instances shall be reviewed on a case by case basis.
1.3.4
It is assumed that the jack-up is built to recognized standards, and has been
maintained as required to continue to meet those standards. Any deterioration of
the jack-up should be taken into account in the fitness for purpose site specific
assessment.
1.4
1.4.1
2.1
Rig Data
2.1.1
The specific rig information that is required to perform a site specific assessment
may include:
-
Rig type,
Weights,
Preloading capability,
Materials,
Design parameters, any proposed deviations for the intended operation, and
2.1.2
2.2
Site Data
2.2.1
The site data should include the location coordinates, seabed topography and
water depth referenced to a clearly specified datum (e.g., Lowest Astronomical
Tide (LAT) or Chart Datum (CD)). Note that charts derived for use by
comparatively shallow draft shipping are often not sufficiently accurate for siting
jack-ups.
2.3
Environmental Data
2.3.1
It is of prime importance to obtain appropriate wind, wave and current data for the
site evaluation with due recognition of the quality of the data. Other data are to
be evaluated as applicable e.g., tides, rate of marine growth, ice, sea and air
temperature, earthquake, etc.
It is recommended that the 50 year return extremes be used for the site specific
assessment of manned jack-ups. In some cases longer return periods may be
preferred or required. In other cases a smaller return period may be justified. For
example, if the jack-up is unmanned or can be demanned readily and the risk of
environmental pollution is considered to be sufficiently low, the use of a 10 year
return period storm is recommended. In such cases the availability and
effectiveness of early warning systems and the adequacy of the evacuation plans
should be assessed.
2.3.3
2.3.4
2.3.5
The extreme wind, wave and current in some parts of the world (e.g., North Sea)
are specified by the Regulatory Authorities for the geographic area. It should be
noted that these data may not take account of local variations. Improved
environmental data are continually becoming available due to the use of better
hindcasting techniques and more reliable measured data. Consequently, a specific
meteorological assessment of the site is desirable, especially if the jack-up is
loaded to near its design limitation.
2.3.6
In some areas of the world there are no adequate data, or there are variations in
existing published data. For such cases there is a need for site specific studies to
establish the meteorological criteria.
2.4
Geotechnical Data
2.4.1
Site specific geotechnical information must be obtained. The type and amount of
geotechnical data required will depend on the particular circumstances such as the
type of jack-up and previous experience of the site, or nearby sites, for which the
assessment is being performed. Such information may include shallow seismic
survey, coring data, cone-penetrometer tests, side-scan sonar, magnetometer
survey and diver's survey.
2.4.2
The site should be evaluated for the presence of shallow gas deposits.
For sites where previous operations have been performed by jack-ups of the same
basic design, it may be sufficient to identify the location of, and hazards
associated with, existing footprints and refer to previous site data and preloading
records; however, it is recommended that the accuracy of such information be
verified.
2.4.4
At sites where there is any uncertainty, corings and/or cone penetrometer tests
(CPT) data are recommended. Alternatively the site may be tied-in to such data at
another site by means of shallow seismic data. If data are not available prior to
the arrival of the jack-up on location at the site, it may be possible to take
coring(s), etc. from the jack-up before preloading and jacking to full airgap.
Suitable precautions should be taken to ensure the safety of the unit during this
initial period on location.
2.4.5
The site should be evaluated for potential scour problems. These are most likely
to occur at sites with a firm seabed composed of non-cohesive soils where the
penetration will be minimal.
2.4.6
CONFIGURATIONS
3.1
Mode of Operation
3.1.1
This GUIDELINE applies to the elevated condition. The jack-up may be used in
alternative modes at one location, for example normal operating or elevated storm
mode, tender mode or cantilever drilling/workover mode. Where more than one
mode of operation is contemplated it may be important in the site assessment to
investigate the differences in these modes (e.g., the varying airgaps required for
each) as well as the operations necessary to change from one mode to another
(e.g., skidding the cantilever in for a storm). The practicality of any required
mode change should be evaluated, and appropriate assumptions incorporated into
the site assessment calculations. Any restrictions on the operations must be
included in the operating procedures.
3.2
Airgap
3.2.1
The Airgap is defined as the distance between the underside of the hull and the
lowest astronomical tide (LAT) during operations. It is usually not practical to
change the airgap in preparation for a storm, and therefore the minimum Elevated
Storm airgap for an intended operation should be calculated based upon a suitable
return period storm. It is recommended that this return period should not be less
than 50 years, even if a lower return period is used for other purposes.
3.2.2
The jack-up may be required to operate over a fixed platform or some other
obstruction which may dictate a larger airgap. This larger airgap should be used
for the site assessment.
3.3
3.3.1
It is recommended that a reserve above the upper guides of 1.5 meter of leg length
or one jack stoke on hydraulic units is allowed to account for any settlement, and
to provide a contingency in case the actual penetration exceeds that predicted. A
larger reserve may be required due to the strength limitations of the top bay of the
leg or leg/hull interface considerations.
LOADINGS
4.1
Loading Cases
4.1.1
A more detailed discussion of the various loadings that must be considered for
site assessments can be found in the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE. The
following outlines the loadings to be considered in general terms:
1)
2)
3)
4)
Environmental Loads
a)
Loading due to the extreme storm one (1) minute mean wind on hull
and exposed areas (e.g., legs) as applicable, plus
b)
Loading due to extreme wave and current on legs and other submerged
structure, plus
Functional Loads
a)
b)
Response Effects
a)
b)
Dynamic effects.
Other Loads
4.1.2
Wind, wave and current are typically considered to act simultaneously and from
the same direction. Directionality of wind, wave and current may be applied
when it can be demonstrated that such directionality persists for the site under
consideration.
4.1.3
For dead loads it is typical to consider the jack-up in the fully loaded condition for
structural checks and with the minimum anticipated variable load (often 50%) for
the overturning calculation. If the assessment of the jack-up shows it is marginal
in one of these conditions, consideration may be given to limiting the variable
load to a lower or higher level (depending on the critical parameter), providing the
jack-up can be successfully operated under such restrictions. Any restrictions on
the variable loads should be incorporated in the operating procedures and the rig
personnel should be properly briefed.
4.2.1
Wave and current forces on the legs and appurtenances (e.g., raw water tower)
should be computed using the Morison equation. A wave theory appropriate to
the wave height, period and water depth should be used for the determination of
particle kinematics. The derived loadings are directly affected by the current
profile chosen and the method used to modify the profile in the presence of
waves.
4.2.2
Drag and inertia coefficients valid for the flow regime and chosen wave theory
should be selected. Applicable test results may be used to select the coefficients.
The effects of raw water piping, ladders and other appendages should be
considered in the calculation of the force coefficients for the legs.
4.2.3
4.3
Wind Forces
4.3.1
Wind forces should be computed using the one (1) minute mean wind velocity
and appropriate formulae and coefficients or should be derived from applicable
wind tunnel tests. Wind forces on legs can be a dominant factor for jack-ups
operating at less than their maximum design water depth. Generally, for site
assessments, block areas are used for the hull and appendages. The maximum
value may be used for all headings or alternatively directionality may be
considered.
4.4
4.4.1
The selected reaction point at the spudcan should be specified clearly in the site
assessment. The selection of the reaction point should be based on the estimated
penetration using the geotechnical information from the site.
4.4.2
The jack-up's legs will normally be assumed to be pinned at the reaction point.
Any divergence from this assumption should be clearly stated together with the
assumptions for any moment fixity provided to the leg's cans by the soil.
4.4.3
For mat supported jack-ups the reaction is typically considered to act at the
underside of the mat bottom plating.
4.5.1
The critical storm approach angles relative to the jack-up are usually different for
the various checks that are made (e.g., strength vs. overturning checks). The
critical direction for each check should be used as appropriate.
4.6
Centre of Gravity
4.6.1 The location of the cantilever, substructure, and other significant weights should
be considered. If these differ for the Operating Condition and the Elevated Storm
survival condition, the practicality of making the changes required to achieve the
Elevated Storm survival condition should be established.
4.7
4.7.1
Loading effects that are a consequence of the displacement of the structure should
be considered in the analysis. These effects are due to the first order sway (Pdelta), and its enhancement due to the increased flexibility of the legs in the
presence of axial loads (Euler amplification).
4.8
Dynamic Effects
4.8.1
4.8.2
a)
The structure will vibrate at its natural period if excited by the forces of
ocean waves.
b)
c)
Such vibrations induce inertial loads which are the product of the mass and
acceleration of the system.
d)
The total load on the system is the combination of static and inertial
components. The direct calculation and application of the inertial loads is
preferable to the application of a Dynamic Amplification Factor.
Other Loads
4.9.1
In certain areas there may exist Regulatory requirements to investigate other types
of load. Examples may include:
-
Boat impact,
Earthquakes,
10
RESISTANCE
5.1
General
The key resistance checks include:
-
Overturning stability,
Structural integrity.
5.2
Overturning Stability
5.2.2
5.3
5.3.1 The purpose of preloading is to develop adequate foundation capacity to resist the
extreme vertical and horizontal loadings. The jack-up should normally be capable
of preloading to exceed the maximum vertical soil loadings associated with the
assessment storm. Where there is insufficient preload capacity to meet the
extreme loadings, a lower preload may be acceptable when justified by
appropriate geotechnical calculations.
5.3.2
If the penetrations obtained are significantly different to those predicted in the site
evaluation, further investigation should be undertaken to determine the reasons
(e.g., the jack-up's location may differ from that evaluated or local anomalies may
exist below the spudcans) before proceeding to full airgap.
5.3.3
Certain jack-ups are more sensitive than others to the effects of rapid leg
penetration when going on location. The structural behaviour of jack-ups under
such conditions varies considerably between different designs. Hence some jackups are more sensitive to lateral loads and are more susceptible to local damage.
It is therefore important that an in-depth understanding of the behaviour of the
subject jack-up is obtained if there is a risk of rapid leg penetration (punchthrough).
11
5.4
Structural Integrity
5.4.1
Strength
Checks are required to ensure that the strength complies with the acceptance
criteria. It may be possible to compare the critical leg loadings to existing
calculations in accordance with the RECOMMENDED PRACTICE. Foundation
fixity should only be included in the evaluation of the upper leg when an
applicable and detailed foundation study has been made. Where foundation fixity
may exist, the lower parts of the leg should be checked assuming an upper bound
fixity value.
Areas which are often critical on jack-up rigs are the legs at the lower guides, the
legs between guides, the lower guides, the pinions and/or rack teeth, the chocks
and/or chock supports (if chocks are fitted) and the leg to can or mat connection.
Any strength limitations with respect to maximum or minimum penetrations
and/or bearing area or amount of foundation fixity should be related to the
geotechnical information for the specific site.
5.4.2 Fatigue
Fatigue should be considered. This does not imply that a detailed assessment or
analysis will normally be required.
5.5
Adjacent Structures
5.5.1
It may be necessary to consider the interaction of the jack-up with any adjacent
structures. Possible topics to be included in the site specific assessment are the
effects of the jack-up's spudcans on the foundation of the adjacent structure and
the effects of relative motions on the drill-string, well conductor, well conductor
guides, etc.
5.6
Other
5.6.1
The assessor should be aware that there may be other characteristics and/or
peculiarities of certain designs that will impact the site specific assessment.
Additionally there may be characteristics which vary within a design class that
should be considered.
12
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT
OF MOBILE JACK-UP UNITS
FIRST EDITION MAY 1994
(REVISION 3 AUGUST 2008)
Rev
Rev 1
Issue Date
May 1997
Rev 2
Jan 2002
Rev 3
Aug 2008
Details
Changes made to pages 3, 9, 15, 19, 20, 24, 36, 42, 61, 65, 66, 67, 73-77, 87, 88, 90,
95, 97, 98, 99, 104, 108, 115, 118, 120, 125, 126, 127, 133 and 136
Revised areas indicated by sidelines thus:
Changes made to pages.
1, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 104, 110, 114, 123, 126, 136, 137, 141
Revised areas indicated by double sidelines thus:
Changes made to pages 1, 2, 9, 15, 52, 75, 76, 79, 89, 99, 105, 105, 123, 110, 114,
121, 129-134, 136-138
Revised areas indicated by triple sidelines thus:
Page 2
Rev 3, August 2008
This document evolved through a joint industry project (JIP) sponsored by a large number of
companies who are listed on the next page. Technical and administrative management of the
project was provided by Noble Denton Consultancy Services Ltd. This document has not been
produced by SNAME although some SNAME members have participated in its production.
SNAME has, at the request of the working group for the JIP, published this document so that it
may be widely disseminated in industry. However, SNAME takes no responsibility for any of
the technical or other contents of this document. SNAME cannot provide any technical or other
support for this document. For naval architects, engineers, or any other persons using this
document, technical support is available on a fee-paying basis from American Bureau of
Shipping. The contact at American Bureau of Shipping at the time of publication of this
document is:
Mr. Joseph H. Rousseau
Technical Secretary to SNAME OC-7 panel
ABS Americas
16855 Northchase Drive
Houston, Texas 77060-6008
USA
FAX:
Phone:
(281) 877-6796
(281) 877-6626
Although this document is entitled "Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of
Mobile Jack-up Units," it must not be construed as a recommended practice proposed by
SNAME.
Page 3
Rev 3, August 2008
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This RECOMMENDED PRACTICE was drafted by the Working Group of the Joint Industry
Sponsored project "Jack-Up Site Assessment Procedures - Establishment of an International
Technical Guideline". Technical and administrative management was provided by Noble
Denton Consultancy Services Limited. Funding was provided by the Working Group members
and the other Participants in the study listed below:
The Working Group
Friede & Goldman
Noble Denton
ABS
Amoco
BP
Bureau Veritas
DnV
LeTourneau, Inc. (Marine Div.)
Lloyds Register
Maersk Drilling
MSC
Noble Denton
Reading & Bates
Santa Fe
Sedco-Forex
Shell
U.K. Health & Safety Executive
Other Participants
Phase 2 only:
AGIP S.P.A.
Norwegian Maritime Directorate
Phases 2 and 3:
ARCO Oil & Gas Co.
Eiffel (UK) (ex CFEM)
National Energy Board - Canada (ex COGLA)
Elf
Enterprise Oil
Far East Levingston Shipbuilding
IADC (sponsoring members)
Maersk Olie Og Gas
Mobil
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate
Phillips Petroleum Company
Statoil
Technip Geoproduction
Texaco
Page 4
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS
SECTION
TITLE
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVES
3
ASSESSMENT INPUT DATA
3.1
Rig data
3.2
Functional Loadings
3.3
Environmental Conditions - General
3.4
Wind
3.5
Waves
3.6
Current
3.7
Water Levels and Airgap
3.8
Temperatures
3.9
Marine Growth
3.10
Leg Length
3.11
Geotechnical and Geophysical Information
3.12
Bathymetric Survey
3.13
Seabed Surface Survey
3.14
Geophysical Information - Shallow Seismic Survey
3.15
Surface Soil Samples
3.16
Geotechnical Investigations
Glossary of Terms for Section 3
4
CALCULATION METHODS
HYDRODYNAMIC AND WIND FORCES
PAGE NO
9
10
13
27
4.1
Introduction
4.2
Wind Force Calculations
4.3
Hydrodynamic Forces
4.4
Wave Theories and Analysis Methods
4.5
Current
4.6
Leg Hydrodynamic model
4.7
Hydrodynamic Coefficients for Leg Members
4.8
Other Considerations
Glossary of Terms for Section 4
5
5.1
5.2
5.3
5.4
5.5
5.6
CALCULATION METHODS
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
General Conditions
Seabed Reaction Point
Foundation Fixity
Leg Inclination
P- Effects
Structural Modeling
- Introduction
- General considerations
- Applicability and limitations
- Modeling the leg
- Modeling the hull
- Modeling the hull/leg connection
- Modeling the spudcan
42
Page 5
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE NO
5.7
Load Application
- Self weight, variable and drilling loads
- Wind loads
- Hydrodynamic wave-current loads
- Inertial loads due to dynamic response
- Second order effects
Glossary of Terms for Section 5
6
CALCULATION METHODS
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
61
6.1
6.2
Introduction
Prediction of Leg Penetration During Preloading
- Analysis method
- Penetration in clays
- Penetration in silica sands
- Penetration in carbonate sands
- Penetration in silts
- Penetration in layered soils
6.3
Foundation Stability Assessment
- Approach
- Ultimate bearing capacity for vertical loading
preload check (Step 1)
- Bearing capacity/sliding check - pinned footing (Step 2a)
- Footing with moment fixity and vertical and
horizontal stiffness (Step 2b)
- Displacement Check (Step 3)
6.4
Other aspects of jack-up unit foundation performance
- Leaning Instability
- Footprint Considerations
- Scour
- Seafloor Instability
- Shallow Gas
- Spudcan-Pile Interaction
Glossary of Terms for Section 6
7
7.1
7.2
7.3
CALCULATION METHODS
DETERMINATION OF RESPONSES
General
Quasi-Static Extreme Response with Inertial Loadset
Dynamic Extreme Response
- Factors Governing Dynamics
- The Structural System
- The Excitation
- The Dynamic Analysis
- The Natural Period(s)
- Inertial Loadset Approaches
- Detailed Dynamic Analysis Methods
- Acceptance Criteria
7.4
Fatigue
- General
- Fatigue life requirements
- Fatigue sensitive areas
- General description of analysis
Glossary of Terms for Section 7
89
Page 6
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (continued)
SECTION
TITLE
PAGE NO
8
8.1
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Structural Strength Check
- Introduction
- Definitions
- Factored loads
- Assessment of members (excluding stiffened and
high R/t tubulars)
- Assessment of other geometries
- Assessment of member joints
8.2
Overturning Stability
8.3
Foundation Assessment
- Step 1, Preload and sliding checks
- Step 2a, Capacity check - Pinned foundation
- Step 2b, Capacity check - With foundation fixity
- Step 3, Displacement check
- Punch-through
8.4
Horizontal Deflections
8.5
Loads in the Holding System
8.6
Hull
8.7
Structure Condition Assessment
Glossary of Terms for Section 8
110
REFERENCES
139
INDEX
141
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1
12
Figure 3.1
19
Figure 4.1
32
Figure 4.2
35
Figure 4.3
Gusset plates
37
Figure 4.4
38
Figure 4.5
39
Figure 5.1
54
Figure 5.2
55
Figure 5.3
56
Page 7
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF FIGURES (continued)
Figure 5.4
57
Figure 5.5
58
Figure 5.6
59
Figure 6.1
62
Figure 6.2
62
Figure 6.3
64
Figure 6.4
65
Figure 6.5
66
Figure 6.6
67
Figure 6.7
68
Figure 6.8
69
Figure 6.9
71
Figure 6.10
80
Figure 6.11
81
Figure 7.1
92
Figure 7.2
101
Figure 8.1
111
Figure 8.2
127
Figure 8.3
128
Figure 8.4
128
Page 8
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (continued)
LIST OF TABLES
Table 3.1
22
Table 4.1
Height coefficients
28
Table 4.2
Shape coefficients
29
Table 4.3
36
Table 5.1
48
Table 7.1
102
Table 7.2
104
Table 7.3
105
Page 9
Rev 3, August 2008
INTRODUCTION
1.1
1.2
This document has been formulated as a result of a Joint Industry Project involving all
sections of the industry. It is not intended to obviate the need for applying sound
judgment as to when and where this PRACTICE should be utilized.
1.3
The formulation and publication of this PRACTICE is not in any way intended to impose
calculation methods or procedures on any party. It leaves freedom to apply alternative
practices within the framework of the accompanying GUIDELINE.
1.4
This PRACTICE relates only to the assessment of independent leg jack-up units in the
elevated condition. The development has been based on 3 legged truss-leg units and
caution is advised when applying the PRACTICE to other configurations. Transportation
to and from the site and moving on and moving off location are not covered in this
document.
1.5
This PRACTICE may be revised if and when more information/research results become
available.
1.6
For further details of the applicability and limitations, refer to the GUIDELINE.
1.7
This PRACTICE may be used by anyone desiring to do so, and a diligent effort has
been made by the authors to assure the accuracy and reliability of the information
contained herein. However, the authors make no representation, warranty or
guarantee in connection with the publication of this PRACTICE and hereby
expressly disclaim any liability or responsibility for loss, damage or injury resulting
from its use, for any violation of local regulations with which a recommendation
may conflict, or for the infringement of any patent resulting from the use of this
publication.
1.8
The load factors presented in Section 8 herein were determined from the reliability
analysis of a limited number of jack-up/site combinations. The load factors are
provisional pending the further evaluation of the results from a wider range of
assessments by the SNAME OC-7 panel.
Alternative values can be used when acceptable rationale is provided.
Page 10
Rev 3, August 2008
OBJECTIVES
2.1
2.2
2.3
The user of this PRACTICE is advised that, in some areas of the world, the requirements
of the local regulatory bodies may be more onerous than those recommended herein.
2.4
2.4.1
The primary objective of the site specific assessment is to ensure the integrity of the jackup in the elevated condition. The assumptions incorporated into the assessment must
conform with the structural condition of the unit.
2.4.2
The assessment will normally assume that the jack-up is in sound mechanical and
structural condition and it is the responsibility of the owner to ensure that this is so. The
existence of valid documents indicating that the jack-up is presently in class by a
recognized classification society is usually sufficient to verify the mechanical and
structural condition of the jack-up to the assessor.
2.4.3
Accidental loads (dropped objects, ship impact, etc.) are not specifically addressed and
should be covered at the design stage. Furthermore, the site specific assessment
addresses the global structural integrity, hence local damage not affecting the overall
integrity is outside the scope of the PRACTICE.
2.4.4
As indicated in Section 1.4.1 of the GUIDELINE, the assessment of the jack-up may be
carried out at various degrees of complexity. These are as expanded below, at increasing
levels of complexity. The objective of the assessment is to show that the acceptance
criteria of Section 8 of this PRACTICE are met. If this is achieved by a particular level
there is no need to consider a more complex level.
1. Compare site conditions with design conditions or other existing assessments
determined in accordance with this PRACTICE.
2.4.4
Page 11
Rev 3, August 2008
2. Carry out appropriate calculations according to the simple methods given in this
PRACTICE.
Possibly compare results with those from existing more
detailed/complex calculations.
3. Carry out appropriate detailed calculations according to the more complex methods
given in this PRACTICE.
In all cases the adequacy of the foundation should be assessed.
An overall flow chart for the assessment is given in Figure 2.1 overleaf.
Page 12
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 13
Rev 3, August 2008
3.1
Rig data
3.1.1
The information that may be required to perform the assessment is outlined in Section 2.1
of the GUIDELINE.
3.1.2
The operating procedures and limitations of the jack-up should be clearly defined in the
Operating Manual. Those sections of the Operating Manual which give relevant
information and are required to perform a site assessment in accordance with this
PRACTICE are to be provided.
3.2
Functional Loadings
3.2.1
The operating and survival conditions may be treated separately, provided it is practical
to change the mode of the jack-up unit from operating to survival mode on receipt of an
unfavorable weather forecast, and appropriate procedures exist. The limits of operational
loading conditions may depend on the drilling program proposed and consideration
should be given to loadings on the conductors if supported by the jack-up.
3.2.2
For both operational and survival conditions, the following shall be defined:
a) Maximum and minimum elevated weight and weight distribution (fixed and variable
load), excluding legs. In the absence of other information the minimum elevated
weight may normally be determined assuming 50% of the variable load permitted by
the operating manual.
b) Extreme limits of center of gravity position (or reactions of the elevated weight on the
legs) for the conditions in a) above.
c) Substructure and derrick position, hook load, rotary load, setback and conductor
tensions for the conditions in a) above.
d) Weight, center of gravity and buoyancy of the legs.
3.2.3
3.3
3.3.1
The environmental data required for an assessment and their application are discussed in
Section 2.3 of the GUIDELINE.
Page 14
Rev 3, August 2008
3.3.2 Section 2.3 of the GUIDELINE recommends that 50 year return period extremes are
normally used, however in particular circumstances other return periods may be
appropriate.
3.3.3
Unless there is specific data to the contrary, wind, wave and current loadings shall be
considered to be those caused by the individual return period extremes acting in the same
direction and at the same time as the extreme water level. Seasonally adjusted values
may be adopted as appropriate to the duration of the operation.
Note:
Where directional and/or seasonal data are utilized, these should generally be factored so
that the data for the worst direction and/or season equals the omni-directional/all-year
data for the assessment return period.
3.4
Wind
3.4.1
The wind velocity shall be the 1 minute sustained wind for the assessment return period,
related to a reference level of 10.0m above mean sea level. The Commentary discusses
the conversion of data for averaging periods other than 1 minute to 1 minute values.
3.4.2
The wind velocity profile is normally taken as a power law with exponent
specific data indicates otherwise (see Section 4.2.2).
3.4.3
Different jack-up configurations (weight, center of gravity, cantilever position, etc.) may
be specified for operating and survival modes. In such cases, the maximum wind
velocity considered for the operating mode should not exceed that permitted for the
change to the survival mode.
3.5
Waves
3.5.1
The extreme wave height environment used for survival conditions shall, as a minimum,
be computed according to the following sub-sections based on the three-hour storm
duration with an intensity defined by the significant wave height, Hsrp, for the assessment
return period. The seasonally adjusted wave height may be used as appropriate for the
operation.
1
10
unless site
The wave height information for a specific location may also be expressed in terms of
Hmax, the individual extreme wave height for the return period, rather than the significant
wave height Hsrp. The relationship between Hsrp and Hmax must be determined accounting
for the effects of storms (longer than 3 hours) and for the additional probability of other
return period storms (see Commentary Section C3.5.1). This relationship will depend on
the site specific conditions, however Hsrp may usually be determined from Hmax using the
generally accepted relationship for non-cyclonic areas:
Hsrp = Hmax/1.86
For cyclonic areas the recommended relationship is:
Hsrp = Hmax/1.75
3.5.1
Page 15
Rev 3, August 2008
Note:
The wave load can be computed either stochastically (through a random frequency or
time domain approach) or deterministically (through an individual maximum wave
approach). The scaled wave heights for the two approaches are discussed in Sections
3.5.1.1 and 3.5.1.2 respectively (see Commentary). The scaled wave heights are to be
used only in conjunction with the associated kinematics modeling recommended in
Section 4.4 and the hydrodynamic coefficients given in Sections 4.6 to 4.8.
3.5.1.1 For stochastic/random wave force calculations Airy wave theory is implied, see Section
4.4.2. To account for wave asymmetry, which is not included in Airy wave theory, a
scaling of the significant wave height should be applied to capture the largest wave forces
at the maximum crest amplitude. The effective significant wave height, Hs, may be
determined as a function of the water depth, d in meters, from:
(d 25m)
Hs = [1 + 0.5e(-d/25)] Hsrp
and should be used with the wave kinematics model described in Section 4.4.2.
For water depths less than 25m a regular wave analysis should be considered.
The selection of wave period for use in stochastic/random wave force analysis is
discussed in Section 3.5.3 and the Note thereto.
3.5.1.2 For deterministic/regular wave force calculations it is appropriate to apply a kinematics
reduction factor of 0.86 in order to obtain realistic force estimates (see Commentary).
This factor may be considered to implicitly account for spreading and also the
conservatism of deterministic/regular wave kinematics traditionally accomplished by
adjusting the hydrodynamic properties.
The factor should be applied by means of a reduced wave height, Hdet. Hdet may be
determined as a function of Hmax from:
Hdet = 0.86 Hmax
The use of a factor smaller than 0.86 may be justified by analysis explicitly accounting
for the effects of three-directional spreading. However, such effects should be properly
balanced by the inclusion of second-order interaction effects between spectral wave
components.
The wave loads should be determined using an appropriate wave kinematics model in
accordance with Section 4.4.1.
In the analysis a single value for the wave period Tass, in seconds, associated with the
maximum wave may be considered. Unless site specific information indicates otherwise
Tass will normally be between the following limits:
3.44 ( H srp ) < Tass < 4.42 ( H srp )
where Hsrp is the return period extreme significant wave height in meters.
Page 16
Rev 3, August 2008
3.5.2 For airgap calculations the wave crest elevation may be obtained from the formulations
of an appropriate deterministic wave theory (see Section 4.4.1) and the maximum wave
height, Hmax, from the relationship:
Hmax = 1.86 Hsrp
In Tropical Revolving Storm areas the relationship:
Hmax = 1.75 Hsrp
may alternatively be applied.
It is noted that the minimum return period recommended by the GUIDELINE for Hsrp for
airgap calculations is 50 years, even if a lower return period is used for other purposes.
3.5.3 Where the analysis method requires the use of spectral data, the choice of the analytical
wave spectrum and associated spectral parameters should reflect the width and shape of
spectra for the site and significant wave height under consideration. In cases where fetch
and duration of extreme winds are sufficiently long a fully developed sea will result (this
is rarely realized except, for example, in areas subject to monsoons). Such conditions
may be represented by a Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum. Where fetch or duration of
extreme winds is limited, or in shallow water depths, a JONSWAP spectrum may
normally be applied (see Note at the end of this Section).
The wave spectrum can be represented by the power density of wave surface elevation
S(f) as a function of wave frequency by:
S(f) = (16I0())-1Hs2TP(TPf)-5exp(-1.25/(TPf)4)q
[Note: An alternative formulation is given in the Commentary]
where;
q
= exp(-(Tpf-1)2/22) with:
Page 17
Rev 3, August 2008
When considering a JONSWAP spectrum, the peak enhancement factor varies between
1 and 7 with a most probable average value of 3.3. There is no firm relationship between
, Hs and Tp. Relationships between variables for different according to Carter (1982)
[1] are as follows:
I0()
Tp/Tz
1
2
3
3.3
4
5
6
7
.200
.249
.293
.305
.334
.372
.410
446
1.406
1.339
1.295
1.286
1.260
1.241
1.221
1.205
Alternatively:
0.2
I 0 ( ) = 1 0.287 Ln ( )
However in shallow water the wave steepness can increase to 1/12 or more, leading to a
zero-upcrossing period Tz as low as 2.8 ( H srp ) . This is because the wave height
increases and wave length decreases for a given Tz.
Note:
If a JONSWAP spectrum is applied the response analysis should consider a range of periods
associated with Hsrp based on the most probable value of Tp plus or minus one standard
deviation. However it should be ensured that the assumptions made in deriving the spectral
period parameters are consistent with the values used in the analysis. Alternatively, applicable
combinations of wave height and period may be obtained from a scatter diagram determined
from site specific measurements; in this case specialist advice should be obtained on a suitable
spectral form for the location. To avoid the need for analyses of several wave periods a practical
alternative is to use a 2 parameter spectrum with = 1.0 in combination with the site specific
most probable peak period.
Page 18
Rev 3, August 2008
3.5.4 For stochastic/random wave force calculations, the short-crestedness of waves (i.e. the
angular distribution of wave energy about the dominant direction) may be accounted for
when site-specific information indicates that such effects are applicable. In all cases the
potential for increased response due to short-crested waves should be investigated. The
effect may be included by means of a directionality function F(), as follows:
S(f, )
S(f).F()
where;
angle between direction of elementary wave trains and dominant
direction of the short-crested waves.
S(f, ) =
directional short-crested power density spectrum.
=
directionality function.
F()
and, in the absence of more reliable data:
=
C.Cos2n for -
F()
2
2
where;
n
=
power constant
C
=
constant chosen such that:
/2
F() .d = 1.0
-/2
The power constant n, should not normally be taken as less than:
n
=
2.0 for fatigue analysis
n
=
4.0 for extreme analysis
3.5.5 Where the natural period of the jack-up is such that it may respond dynamically to waves
(Section 7.3), the maximum dynamic response may be caused by wave heights or
seastates with periods outside the ranges given in Sections 3.5.1.2 and 3.5.3. Such
conditions shall also be investigated to ensure that the maximum (dynamic plus quasistatic) response is determined.
3.5.6 For fatigue calculations (Section 7.4), the long term wave climate may be required. For
the purposes of the fatigue analysis the long-term data may be presented deterministically
in terms of the annual number of waves predicted to fall into each height/period/direction
group. Alternatively the probability of occurrence for each seastate (characterized by
wave energy spectra and the associated physical parameters) may be presented in the
form of a significant wave height versus zero-upcrossing period scatter diagram or as a
table of representative seastates.
3.6
Current
3.6.1 The extreme wind driven surface current velocity shall be that associated with the
assessment return period wind, seasonally adjusted if appropriate. When directional
information regarding other current velocity components is available the maximum
surface flow of the mean spring tidal current and the assessment return period surge
current, seasonally adjusted if appropriate, shall be vectorially added in the down-wind
direction and combined with the wind driven surface current as indicated in Section 3.6.2.
If directional data are not available the components shall be assumed to be omniirectional and shall be summed algebraically.
Note: A site specific study will normally be required to define the current velocity
components.
Page 19
Rev 3, August 2008
3.6.2 The current profile may be expressed as a series of velocities at certain stations from
seabed to water surface. Unless site specific data indicates otherwise, and in the absence
of other residual currents (such as circulation, eddy currents, slope currents, internal
waves, inertial currents, etc.), an appropriate method for computing current profile is (see
Figure 3.1):
VC = Vt + Vs + (Vw - Vs) [(h+z)/h], for |z| h and Vs < Vw
VC = Vt + Vs
where;
VC = current velocity as a function of z. Note that a reduction may be
applicable according to Section 4.5.
Vt = downwind component of mean spring tidal current.
Vs = downwind component of associated surge current (excluding wind driven
component).
Vw = wind generated surface current. In the absence of other data this may
conservatively be taken as 2.6% of the 1 minute sustained wind velocity
at 10m.
h = reference depth for wind driven current. In the absence of other data h
shall be taken as 5 meters.
z = distance above still water level (SWL) under consideration (always
negative).
Page 20
Rev 3, August 2008
3.7
3.7.1
The water depth at the location shall be determined and related to lowest astronomical
tide (LAT). The relationship between LAT and Chart Datum is discussed in the
Commentary.
3.7.2 The mean water level (MWL) related to the seabed shall be expressed as the mean level
between highest astronomical tide (HAT) and lowest astronomical tide (LAT) i.e.:
MWL = (HAT + LAT)/2
3.7.3 The extreme still water level (SWL) shall be expressed as a height above LAT, and shall
be the sum of;
Mean high water spring tide (MHWS)
+ 50 year extreme storm surge (see Note 1).
unless reliable data indicates that an alternative summation is appropriate.
3.7.4 When lower water levels are more onerous the minimum still water level (SWL) to be
considered in the loading calculations shall be the sum of:
Mean Low Water Spring Tide (MLWS)
+ 50 year negative Storm Surge.
3.7.5
The Airgap (see Note 2) is defined in Section 3.2 of the GUIDELINE as the distance
between the underside of the hull and LAT during operations. It shall be not less than the
sum of:
Distance of the extreme still water level (SWL), from Section 3.7.3, above LAT
+ 50
year extreme wave crest height associated with Hmax as defined in
Section 3.5.2 (see Note 1),
+ 1.5m Clearance to the underside of the hull (or any other vulnerable part
attached to the hull, if lower). See Commentary.
Notes: 1. Section 3.2.1 of the GUIDELINE recommends that values for a return period
of no less than 50 years be applied, even if a lower return period is used for
other purposes.
2. The definition of Airgap used herein differs from that used in other areas of
offshore engineering where the Clearance used here is often defined as
Airgap.
Temperatures
The lowest average daily air and water temperatures shall be compared with the steel
design temperature limits of appropriate parts of the jack-up. If these are not met,
suitable adjustments should be made to the properties applied in the strength assessment.
3.9
Page 21
Rev 3, August 2008
Marine Growth
Where existing marine growth is not to be cleaned between locations or where the
operation is to last long enough for significant growth to occur, the influence of growth
on the leg hydrodynamic properties should be considered as stated in Section 4.2.3 of the
GUIDELINE. Where applicable, location specific data should be obtained. In the
absence of such data, default values for thickness and distribution are given in Section
4.7.3.
3.10
Leg Length
Recommendations regarding the reserve leg length are given in Section 3.3 of the
GUIDELINE.
3.11
3.12
Bathymetric Survey
3.13.1 The seabed surface shall be surveyed using sidescan sonar or high resolution multibeam
echosounder techniques and shall be of sufficient quality to identify obstructions and
seabed features and should cover the immediate area (normally a 1 km square) of the
intended location. The slant range selection shall give a minimum of 100% overlap
between adjacent lines. A magnetometer survey may also be required if there are buried
pipelines, cables and other metallic debris located on or slightly below the sea floor.
Page 22
Rev 3, August 2008
REFERENCE
SECTION(S)
RISK
Installation problems
- Bathymetric survey
3.12
Punch-through
3.14
3.16
6.2.6
3.14
3.16
6.2.6
6.3
Sliding failure
3.14
3.16
6.3.3
Scour
3.12
3.15
6.4.3
Seafloor instability
(mudslides)
3.13
3.14
3.16
6.4.4
Gas pockets/
Shallow gas
3.14
6.4.5
Faults
3.14
3.13
3.13
- Geotechnical data
- Consider change in footings
- Jetting
3.14
3.16
Footprints of previous
jack-ups
3.12
3.13
6.4.2
Page 23
Rev 3, August 2008
3.13.2 Where seabed obstructions such as pipelines and wellheads are known to be present,
sufficient information to enable safe positioning of the jack-up is required. In some cases
an ROV or diver's inspection may be required in addition to a sidescan sonar survey.
3.13.3 Seabed surface surveys can become out-of-date, particularly in areas of
construction/drilling activity or areas with mobile sediments. Good judgment should be
used regarding the applicability of all surveys, especially with regard to validity. In open
locations the maximum period for the validity of seabed surveys for debris and mobile
sediment conditions should be determined taking account of local conditions. For
locations close to existing installations seabed surveys for debris and sediment conditions
should, subject to practical considerations, be undertaken immediately prior to the arrival
of the jack-up at the location.
3.14
Due to the qualitative nature of seismic surveys it is not possible to conduct analytical
foundation appraisals based on seismic data alone. This requires correlation of the
seismic data with soil boring data in the vicinity through similar stratigraphy.
3.14.2 A shallow seismic survey should be performed over an approximately 1 kilometer square
area centered on the location. Line spacing of the survey should typically not be greater
than 100 meters x 250 meters over the survey area. Equipment should normally be
capable of giving detailed data to a depth equal to the greater of 30 meters or the
anticipated footing penetration plus 1.5 to 2 times the footing diameter. Further guidance
on seismic surveys is given in reference [2].
3.14.3 The survey report should include at least two vertical cross-sections passing through the
location showing all relevant reflectors and allied geological information. The equipment
used should be capable of identifying reflectors of 0.5m and thicker.
3.15
The site investigation should be sufficient to identify the character of the soil surface and allow
evaluation of the possibility of scour occurring. (See Commentary to Section 6.4.3)
3.16
Page 24
Rev 3, August 2008
Geotechnical Investigations
3.16.1 Site specific geotechnical testing is recommended in areas where any of the following
apply:
-
Page 25
Rev 3, August 2008
C
d
f
F()
HAT
Hdet
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Hmax
=
=
Hs
Hsrp
I0()
LAT
MHWS
MLWS
MWL
n
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
q
S(f)
=
S(f,) =
SWL
Tass
Tp
Tz
VC
Vs
Vt
Vw
z
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Page 26
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 27
Rev 3, August 2008
4.1
Introduction
4.1.1 The models, methods and coefficients given in this Section are matched to represent a
consistent method such that the whole Section should be considered together. No force
coefficients should be used unless they correspond to a particular stated analysis method.
4.1.2 The environmental forces may be determined according to the recommendations of this
Section based on the dimensions of the members and the environmental criteria as
described in Section 3 (wind speed, wave height and period and current velocity and
profile).
4.1.3 Since differences in shape, proportions and even detail can result in considerable
differences in the resultant forces, rational data from model testing may be used by the
assessor at his discretion subject to the conditions of Section 4.7.6.
4.2
4.2.1 For wind load application according to Section 5.7.2, the wind force for each component
(divided into blocks of not more than 15m vertical extent), FWi, may be computed using
the formula:
FWi = Pi AWi
where;
Pi
= the pressure at the center of the block.
AWi = the projected area of the block considered.
and the pressure Pi shall be computed using the formula:
Pi
= 0.5 (Vref)2 Ch Cs
where;
Page 28
Rev 3, August 2008
= Vref (Z/Zref)1/N
VZ
Vref
Ch
where;
Hence:
Alternatively, the approximate coefficients shown in Table 4.1 may be applied. The
height is the vertical distance from the still water surface to the center of area of the block
considered. Blocks which have a vertical dimension greater than 15 m shall be subdivided, and the appropriate height coefficients applied to each part of the block.
Height
m
0 - 15
15 - 30
30 - 45
45 - 60
60 - 75
75 - 90
90 - 105
105 - 120
120 - 135
135 - 150
150 - 165
165 - 180
180 - 195
Height coefficient
Ch
1.00
1.18
1.30
1.39
1.47
1.53
1.58
1.62
1.66
1.70
1.74
1.77
1.80
In deriving Table 4.1 the wind velocity used to obtain Ch for the block below 15.0m is the
Vref value. For all other blocks the Ch value is that for the mid-height of the block. When
using Table 4.1 the wind velocity is derived from Section 3.4.1 for a reference height of
10m above the still water.
Page 29
Rev 3, August 2008
Shape coefficient
Cs
1.0, based on total projected area
Deckhouses,
jack-frame
structure, sub-structure, drawworks house, and other abovedeck blocks
Leg sections projecting above
jack-frame structure and below
the hull
Isolated
tubulars
pedestals, etc.)
(crane 0.5
Isolated
structural
shapes 1.5, based on member projected
(angles, channels, box, I- area
sections)
Derricks, crane booms, flare The appropriate shape coefficient
towers (open lattice sections for the members concerned
applied to 50% of the total
only, not boxed- in sections)
projected profile area of the item
(25% from each of the front and
back faces)
Shapes or combinations of shapes which do not readily fall into the
above categories will be subject to special consideration
Table 4.2 - Shape coefficients
4.3
Hydrodynamic Forces
4.3.1 Wave and current forces on slender members having cross sectional dimensions
sufficiently small compared with the wave length should be calculated using Morison's
equation. Note: Morison's equation is normally applicable providing:
> 5Di where;
= wavelength and
Di = reference dimension of member (e.g. tubular diameter)
Morison's equation specifies the force per unit length as the vector sum:
F = Fdrag + Finertia = 0.5 D CD vn vn+ CM A u n
where the terms of the equation are described in the following.
Page 30
Rev 3, August 2008
4.3.2 To obtain the drag force, the appropriate drag coefficient (CD) is to be chosen in
combination with a reference diameter, including any required additions for marine
growth, as described in Section 4.7.
The Morison's drag force formulation is:
Fdrag
= 0.5 CD D vn vn
where;
Fdrag
CD
vn
D
= drag force (per unit length) normal to the axis of the member
considered in the analysis and in the direction of vn.
= mass density of water (normally 1025 kg/m3).
= drag coefficient ( = CDi or CDe from Section 4.6-7).
= relative fluid particle velocity resolved normal to the member axis.
= the reference dimension in a plane normal to the fluid velocity vn
( = Di or De from Section 4.6-7).
Note: The relative fluid particle velocity, vn, may be taken as:
vn = un + VCn - r n
where;
un + VCn = the combined particle velocity found as the vectorial sum of the
wave particle velocity and the current velocity, normal to the
member axis.
rn
= the velocity of the considered member, normal to the member axis
and in the direction of the combined particle velocity.
4.4
Page 31
Rev 3, August 2008
4.4.1 For deterministic analyses an appropriate wave theory for the water depth, wave height
and period shall be used, based on the curves shown in Figure 4.1, after HSE [3]. For
practical purposes, an appropriate order of Dean's Stream Function or Stokes' 5th (within
its bounds of applicability) is acceptable for regular wave survival analysis.
4.4.2 For random wave (stochastic) analyses, it is recommended that the random seastate is
generated from the summation of at least 200 component Linear (Airy) waves of height
and frequency determined to match the required wave spectrum. The phasing of the
component waves should be selected at random.
The extrapolation of the wave kinematics to the free surface is most appropriately carried
out by substituting the true elevation at which the kinematics are required with one which
is at the same proportion of the still water depth as the true elevation is of the
instantaneous water depth. This can be expressed as follows:
z' =
z
1+ / d
where;
z' = The modified coordinate to be used in particle velocity formulation
z = The elevation at which the kinematics are required (coordinate measured
vertically upward from the still water surface)
= The instantaneous water level (same axis system as z)
d = The still, or undisturbed water depth (positive).
This method ensures that the kinematics at the surface are always evaluated from the
linear wave theory expressions as if they were at the still water level, Wheeler (1969) [4]
(see Figure C4.4.2 in the Commentary).
4.4.3 If breaking waves are specified according to Figure 4.1, it is recommended that the wave
period is changed to comply with the breaking limit for the specified height.
Page 32
Rev 3, August 2008
Notes
1) None of these theories is theoretically correct at the breaking limit.
2) Wave theories intended for limiting height waves should be
referenced for waves higher than 0.9Hb when stream function
theory may underestimate the kinematics.
3) Stream function theory is satisfactory for wave loading calculations
over the remaining range of regular waves. However, stream
function programs may not produce a solution when applied to near
breaking waves or deep water waves
4) The order of stream function theory likely to be satisfactory is
circled. Any solution obtained should be checked by comparison
with the results of a higher order solution.
5) The error involved in using Airy theory outside its range of
applicability is discussed in the background document.
Nomenclature
Hmax/gTass2 = Dimensionless wave steepness
d/gTass2
Hmax
Hb
d
Tass
L
g
=
=
=
=
=
=
4.5
Page 33
Rev 3, August 2008
Current
4.5.1 The current velocity and profile as specified in Section 3.6 shall be used. Interpolation
between the data points may be required and linear interpolation is recommended for
simplicity.
4.5.2 The current induced drag forces are to be determined in combination with the wave
forces. This is to be carried out by the vectorial addition of the wave and current induced
particle velocities prior to the drag force calculations.
4.5.3 The current may be reduced due to interference from the structure on the flow field of the
current, Taylor [5]. The current may be reduced as follows (see Commentary):
VC
= Vf [1 + CDeDe/(4D1)]-1
VC
where;
Vf
CDe
De
D1
4.6
4.6.1 The hydrodynamic modeling of the jack-up leg may be carried out by utilizing 'detailed'
or 'equivalent' techniques. In both cases the geometric modeling procedure corresponds
to the respective modeling techniques described in Section 5.6.4. The hydrodynamic
properties are then found as described below:
'Detailed' model
All relevant members are modeled with their own unique descriptions for the Morison
term values with the correct orientation to determine vn and u n and the corresponding
CDD = CDiDi and CMA = CMiDi2/4, as defined in Section 4.7.
'Equivalent' model
The hydrodynamic model of a bay is comprised of one, 'equivalent' vertical tubular
located at the geometric center of the actual leg. The corresponding (horizontal) vn and
u n are applied together with equivalent CDD = CDeDe and CMA = CMeAe, as defined in
Sections 4.6.5 and 4.6.6. The model should be varied with elevation, as necessary, to
account for changes in dimensions, marine growth thickness, etc.
Note:
The drag properties of some chords will differ for flow in the direction of the wave
propagation (wave crest) and for flow back towards the source of the waves (wave
trough). Often the combined drag properties of all the chords on a leg will give a total
which is independent of the flow direction along a particular axis. When this is not the
case it is recommended that the effect is included directly in the wave-current loading
model. If this is not possible it is recommended that:
Page 34
Rev 3, August 2008
1. Regular wave deterministic calculations use a value appropriate to the flow direction
under consideration, noting that the flow direction is that of the combined wave and
current particle motion.
2. An average drag property is considered for random wave analyses which are solely
used to determine dynamic effects for inclusion in a final regular wave deterministic
calculation which will be made on the basis of 1. above.
3. The drag property in the direction of wave propagation is used for random wave
analyses from which the final results are obtained directly.
4.6.2 Lengths of members are normally taken as the node-to-node distance of the members in
order to account for small non-structural items (e.g. anodes, jetting lines of less than 4"
nominal diameter). Large non-structural items such as raw water pipes and ladders are to
be included in the model. Free standing conductor pipes and raw water towers are to be
considered separately from the leg hydrodynamic model.
4.6.3 The contribution of the part of the spudcan above the seabed should be investigated and
only excluded from the model if it is shown to be insignificant. In water depths greater
than 2.5 Hs or where penetrations exceed 1/2 the spudcan height, the effect of the spudcan
is normally insignificant.
4.6.4 For leg structural members, shielding and solidification effects should not normally be
applied in calculating wave forces. The current flow is however reduced due to
interference from the structure on the flow field, see Section 4.5.3.
4.6.5 When the hydrodynamic properties of a lattice leg are idealized by an 'equivalent' model
description the model properties may be found using the method given below:
The equivalent value of the drag coefficient, CDe, times the equivalent diameter, De, to be
used in Section 4.3.2 for CDei of the bay may be chosen as:
CDe De = De CDei
The equivalent value of the drag coefficient for each member, CDei, is determined from:
CDei
= [ sin2i + cos2i sin2i ]3/2 CDi D i 1 i
D es
where;
CDi
Di
De
li
s
i
=
=
=
=
Note:
indicates summation over all members in one leg bay
Page 35
Rev 3, August 2008
The above expression for CDei may be simplified for horizontal and vertical members as
follows:
Vertical members (e.g. chords):
Horizontal members:
4.6.6 The equivalent value of the inertia coefficient, CMe, and the equivalent area, Ae, to be
used in Section 4.3.3, representing the bay may be chosen as:
CMe
Ae
Ai
Di
For a more accurate model the CMe coefficient may be determined as:
CMe Ae = Ae CMei
where;
CMei
CMi
Aili
Aes
= the inertia coefficient of an individual member, CMi is defined in
Section 4.7 related to reference dimension Di.
Note:
For dynamic modeling the added mass of fluid per unit height of leg may be determined
as Ai(Cmi - 1) for a single member or Ae(CMe - 1) for the equivalent model, provided
that Ae is as defined above.
4.7
Page 36
Rev 3, August 2008
4.7.1 Hydrodynamic coefficients for leg members are given in this Section. Tubulars,
brackets, split tube and triangular chords are considered. Hydrodynamic coefficients
including directional dependence are given together with a fixed reference diameter Di.
No other diameter should be used unless the coefficients are scaled accordingly. Unless
better information is available for the computation of wave and current forces, the values
of drag and inertia coefficients applicable to Morison's equation should be obtained from
this Section.
4.7.2 Recommended values for hydrodynamic coefficients for tubulars (<1.5m diameter) are
given in Table 4.3 based on the data discussed in the commentary.
Surface condition
Smooth
Rough
CDi
0.65
CMi
2.0
1.00
1.8
See Note
Page 37
Rev 3, August 2008
4.7.4 The in-line force due to gussets in any vertical plane shall be determined using a drag
coefficient:
CDi = 2.0
applied together with the projected area of the gusset visible in the flow direction, unless
model test data shows otherwise. This drag coefficient may be applied together with a
reference diameter Di and corresponding length li chosen such that their product equals
the plane area, A = Dili and Di = li (see Figure 4.3). In the equivalent model of Section
4.6 the gussets may then be treated as a horizontal element of length li , with its axis in
the plane of the gusset. CMi should be taken as 1.0 and marine growth may be ignored.
Page 38
Rev 3, August 2008
4.7.5 For non-tubular geometries (e.g. leg chords) the appropriate hydrodynamic coefficients
may, in lieu of more detailed information, be taken in accordance with Figures 4.4 or 4.5
and corresponding formulas, as appropriate.
Figure 4.4: Split tube chord and typical values for CDi
For a split tube chord as shown in Figure 4.4, the drag coefficient CDi related to the
reference dimension Di = D+2tm, the diameter of the tubular including marine growth as
in Section 4.7.3, may be taken as:
C D 0
CDi =
C D 0 + ( C D1 W / D i C D 0 )Sin 2 [( 20 )9 / 7]
0 < 20
20 < 90
where;
CD0 = The drag coefficient for a tubular with appropriate roughness, see Section 4.7.2.
(CD0 = 1.0 below MWL+2m and CD0 =0.65 above MWL+2m.)
CD1 = The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack ( = 90), related to projected
diameter, W. CD1 is given by:
18
.
CD1 = 14
. + 13 ( W / D i )
2.0
;
;
;
12
. <
18
. <
.
W / D i < 12
.
W / D i < 18
W / Di
The inertia coefficient CMi = 2.0, related to the equivalent volume Di2/4 per unit length
of member, may be applied for all heading angles and any roughness.
Page 39
Rev 3, August 2008
Other Considerations
Local load effects will normally have been addressed at the design stage. Should the
wind or current and/or wave height parameters at the location exceed those applicable at
the design stage further consideration may be required. The Commentary provides
further details and references to calculation methods.
Page 40
Rev 3, August 2008
AWi
A
Ae
Ai
CD
CDe
CDi
CD0
CD1
CDpr
CM
CMe
CMi
Ch
Cs
d
D
De
Di
D1
Dpr
FWi
Hs
li
Pi
r n
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
s
tm
Tn
Tz
u
un
u n
vn
VCn
Vf
Vref
VZ
W
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
z
z'
Z
Zref
i
i
Fdrag
Finertia
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Page 41
Rev 3, August 2008
=
=
=
=
=
5.1
General Conditions
Page 42
Rev 3, August 2008
5.1.1 Structural calculations should be carried out in accordance with the following sections.
5.1.2 A range of environmental approach directions and storm water levels should be
considered, such that the most onerous (i.e. that leading to the extreme maximum and/or
minimum loading) is determined for each assessment check {strength of each major type
of element (chord, brace, etc.), overturning stability, foundation capacity, horizontal
deflections, holding system, etc.}.
5.1.3
5.1.4 For fatigue calculations it may be necessary to determine the load or stress ranges, and
hence other phase positions may also need to be considered.
5.2
5.3
Foundation Fixity
5.3.1 For analyses of an independent leg jack-up unit under extreme storm conditions the
foundations may normally be assumed to behave as pin joints, and so are unable to
sustain a bending moment. Analysis and practical experience suggest that this may be a
conservative approach for bending moment in the upper parts of the leg in way of the
lower guides.
5.3.2 In cases where the inclusion of rotational foundation fixity is justified and is included in
the structural analysis, it is essential that the nonlinear soil-structure interaction effects
are properly taken into account. The model should include the interaction of rotational,
lateral and vertical soil forces.
Page 43
Rev 3, August 2008
5.3.3 Methods of establishing the degree of fixity of rotational restraint, or fixity, at the
footings are discussed further in Section 6.3.4 and the Commentary to Section 6. Upper
or lower bound values should be considered as appropriate for the areas of the structure
under consideration.
5.3.4 For checking the spudcans, the leg-to-can connection and the lower parts of the leg,
appropriate calculations considering soil-structure interaction shall be carried out to
determine the upper bound can moment. These areas may be checked assuming that a
percentage of the maximum storm leg moment at the lower guide (derived assuming a
pinned footing) is applied to the spudcan together with the associated horizontal and
vertical loads. This percentage would normally be not less than 50%. For such
simplified checks the loading on the spudcan may be modeled assuming that the soil is
linear-elastic and incapable of taking tension.
5.4
Leg Inclination
The effects of initial leg inclination should be considered. Leg inclination may occur due
to leg-hull clearances and the hull inclination permitted by the operating manual. Thus
the total horizontal offset due to leg inclination, OT, may be determined as:
OT = O1 + O2
where;
OT = Total horizontal offset of leg base with respect to hull.
O1 = Offset due to leg-hull clearances.
O2 = Offset due to maximum hull inclination permitted by the operating manual.
If detailed information is not available, OT should be taken as 0.5% of the leg length
below the lower guide.
The effects of leg inclination need be accounted for only in structural strength checks.
This will normally be accomplished by increasing the effective moment in the leg at the
lower guide by an amount equal to the offset OT times the factored vertical reaction at the
leg base due to dead, live, environmental, inertial and P- loads.
5.5
P- Effects
5.5.1 The P- Effect occurs because the jack-up is a relatively flexible structure and is subject
to lateral displacement of the hull (sidesway) under the action of environmental loads.
As a result of the hull translation the line of action of the vertical spudcan reaction no
longer passes through the centroid of the leg at the level of the hull. Consequently the leg
moments at the level of the hull are increased over those arising from a linear quasi- static
analysis by an amount equal to the individual leg load P times the hull translation, D.
This additional moment will cause additional deflection over that predicted by standard
linear-elastic theory. The increased deflection is a function of the ratio of the applied
axial load to the Euler load.
Page 44
Rev 3, August 2008
Furthermore the shift in the hull center of gravity due to the hull translation will increase
the overturning moment (or decrease the righting moment). Consequently the axial loads
in the leeward leg(s) will increase and the axial loads in the windward leg(s) will reduce.
The consequences of the above are:
a) Increased hull deflections (which will increase the linear-elastic P- moments).
b) A redistribution of base shears (in global axes) such that the increase in lower guide
moment is reduced in the leeward leg(s) and increased in the windward leg(s).
5.5.2 An analysis using a standard linear elastic (small displacement) finite element program
will not allow for these effects. The following Sections describe techniques which may
be used to account for the P-/Euler effects. The large displacement methods are the
most accurate, but require more rigorous analysis. The geometric stiffness methods are
simpler and generally of sufficient accuracy.
5.5.3 Large displacement methods;
These methods are part of a number of finite element (F.E.) programs. In such methods
the non-linear (large-displacement) solution is obtained by applying the load in
increments and iteratively generating the stiffness matrix for the next load increment
from the deflected shape (nodal deflections) of the previous increment. Some F.E.
programs offer an intermediate solution in which the deflected geometry from an initial
linear- elastic solution is used as the input to the final 'corrected' solution.
5.5.4 Geometric stiffness methods;
5.5.4.1 These methods are also available within a number of F.E. programs. A linear correction
is made to the element stiffness matrix based on the axial load present in the element.
Iteration is also required for this solution procedure.
5.5.4.2 A simplified geometric stiffness approach allows incorporation of P- effects in a
standard linear-elastic F.E. program without recourse to iteration (refer to Commentary
for derivation). In this approach a correction term is introduced into the global stiffness
matrix prior to analysis. When the analysis is complete the hull deflections, leg axial
loads and leg bending moments will include the P- effects. The derivation of the
method is described in appendix C5.A of the Commentary.
The correction term is:
-Pg/L
where;
Pg = Total effective gravity load on legs at hull. This includes the hull weight
and weight of the legs above the hull.
L = The distance from the spudcan reaction point to the hull vertical center of
gravity.
Page 45
Rev 3, August 2008
This single (negative) value is incorporated into the global stiffness matrix by attaching a
pair of orthogonal horizontal translational earthed spring elements to a node representing
the hull center of gravity and entering the negative value for each of the spring constants.
Some F.E. packages allow direct matrix manipulation.
The negative stiffness term at the hull will produce an additional lateral force at the hull
proportional to the structural deflection. The resulting (additional) base overturning
moment will be equal to the gravity load times the hull displacement.
The additional lateral load (due to the negative stiffness term) will cause an overprediction of the base shear (in global axes). Typically this is not critical. However, the
base shear at each leg can be reduced by an amount equal to the difference between the
total base shear and the shear due to the applied loads (both in global axes) divided by the
number of legs.
5.5.4.3 An alternative geometric stiffness approach is given below. Here the P- effects are
determined by amplifying the linear-elastic displacement (excluding P-) as follows:
= s / (1 -
P
)
PE
where;
5.6
Page 46
Rev 3, August 2008
Structural Modeling
5.6.1 Introduction
It is important that the structural model accurately reflects the complex mechanism of the jackup. For most jack-up configurations the load distribution at the leg-hull interface is not amenable
to manual calculation, therefore, it is necessary to develop a Finite Element (F.E.) computer
model. A number of different modeling techniques can be used to depict the jack-up structure.
The recommended techniques are summarized below and their applicability and limitations are
discussed in more detail in Section 5.6.3.
a) Fully detailed model of legs and hull/leg connections with detailed or representative
stiffness model of hull and spudcan.
b) Simplified lower legs and spudcans, detailed upper legs and hull/leg connections with
detailed or representative stiffness model of hull.
c) Equivalent stiffness model of legs and spudcans, equivalent hull/leg connection
springs and representative beam-element hull grillage.
d) Detailed leg (or leg section) and hull/leg connection model.
Section 5.6.3 and Table 5.1 outline the limitations of the various modeling techniques and
should be referenced to ensure that the selected models address all aspects required for a
specific assessment.
5.6.2 General Considerations
In the elevated condition the most heavily loaded portion of the leg is normally between
the upper and lower guides and in way of the lower guide. The stress levels in this area
depend on the design concept of the jack-up. A specific jack-up design concept can be
described by the combination of the following components (see Commentary Figure
C5.5):
a) With or without fixation system,
b) Fixed or floating jacking system,
c) Opposed or unopposed pinions.
In units having fixation systems the transfer of moment between the leg and the hull is
largely by means of a couple due to vertical loads carried from the chord into the fixation
or jacking system.
Where a fixed or floating jacking system is fitted (and there is no fixation system) the transfer of
moment between the leg and the hull is partly by means of a couple due to horizontal loads
carried from the chords into the upper and lower guides. In this case and when the chord/guide
contact occurs between bracing nodes significant local chord bending moments are normal.
Page 47
Rev 3, August 2008
If the jacking system has unopposed pinions local chord moments will arise due to:
-
the horizontal pinion load component (due to the pressure angle of the
rack/pinion).
the vertical pinion load component acting at an offset from the chord neutral axis.
The modeling of the various design aspects is critical and recommended modeling
techniques are outlined in the following sections. The Commentary provides detailed
information regarding the combination of the above three components for current jack-up
units.
5.6.3 Applicability and Limitations
It is most desirable to fully model the jack-up when assessing its structural strength.
Very often assumptions and simplifications such as equivalent hull, equivalent leg, etc.
will be made in the process of building the model. In view of this, various levels of
modeling described in a) through d) below may be used. It should be noted that some of
these methods may have limitations with respect to the accuracy of assessing the
structural adequacy of a jack-up and when simplified models, such as those described in
(c) and (d) are used it may be appropriate to calibrate against a more detailed model.
a) Fully detailed 3-leg model
The model consists of 'detailed legs', hull, hull/leg connections and spudcans modeled in
accordance with 5.6.4(a),5.6.5, 5.6.6 and 5.6.7, respectively. The results from this model
can be used to examine the preload requirements, overturning resistance, leg strength and
the adequacy of the jacking system or fixation system.
b) Combination leg 3-leg model
The model consists of a combination of 'detailed leg' for the upper portion of legs and
'equivalent leg' for the lower portion of the legs modeled in accordance with 5.6.4. The
hull, hull/leg connections and spudcans are modeled in accordance with 5.6.5, 5.6.6 and
5.6.7 respectively. The results from this model can be used to examine the preload
requirements, overturning resistance, leg strength and the adequacy of the jacking system
or fixation system.
c) Equivalent 3-stick-leg model
The model consists of 'equivalent legs' modeled in accordance with 5.6.4(b), hull
structure modeled using beam elements in accordance with 5.6.5, leg to hull connections
modeled in accordance with 5.6.6 and spudcans modeled as a stiff or rigid extension to
the equivalent leg. The results from this model can be used to examine the preload
requirements and overturning resistance. This model may also used to obtain the
reactions at the spudcan or internal forces and moments in the leg at the vicinity of lower
guide for application to the 'detailed leg' and hull/leg model (d) which should be used to
assess the strength of the leg in the area between lower and upper guides.
d)
Page 48
Rev 3, August 2008
I
Model
Type
a
b
c
d
Global
Loads
Y
Y
Y
-
VI
Pinion/
Fixation
System Loads
Y
Y
Y
VII
Hull
Element
Loads
2
2
-
Legend:
Y = Applicable
- = Not applicable
Notes:
1. Large displacement and dynamic effects to be included where appropriate.
2. VII, hull stresses will only be available from more complex hull models.
Table 5.1 - Applicability of the suggested models
5.6.4 Modeling the Leg
The leg can be modeled as a 'detailed leg', an 'equivalent leg' or a combination of the two.
The 'detailed leg' model consists of all structural members such as chords, horizontal,
diagonal and internal braces of the leg structure and the spudcan (if required). The
'equivalent leg' model consists of a series of colinear beam elements (stick model)
simulating the complete leg structure. It is recommended that the leg model(s) be
generated in accordance with the following:
a) 'Detailed Leg' Model
The coordinates of the joints for this model are to be defined by the intersection of the
chord and brace centerlines. For joints where there is more than one brace, it is unlikely
that there will be one (1) common point of intersection between the braces and chord. In
this instance, it is usually sufficient to choose an intermediate point between the
chord/brace centerline intersections. Gusset plates normally need not be included in the
structural leg model, however their effects may be taken into account in the calculation of
member and joint strength checks.
b)
Page 49
Rev 3, August 2008
The leg structure can be simulated by a series of colinear beams with the equivalent cross
sectional properties calculated using the formulas indicated in Figure 5.1 or derived from
the application of suitable 'unit' load cases (see Commentary C5.5) to the 'Detailed Leg'
model described in 5.6.4 (a). Where such a model is used, detailed stresses, pinion loads,
etc. will be derived either directly or indirectly from a 'detailed model'.
c) 'Combination Leg' model
To facilitate obtaining detailed stress, pinion loads, etc. directly, a 'detailed leg' model can
be generated covering the region between the guides, and extending at least 4 bays below
and, where available, at least 4 bays above this region. The remainder is then modeled as
an 'equivalent leg'. Care is required to ensure an appropriate interface and consistency of
boundary conditions at the connections. The 'detailed leg'/'equivalent leg' connection
should be modeled so that the plane of connection remains a plane after the leg is bent.
Note:
The leg stiffness used in the overall response analysis may account for a contribution
from a portion of the rack tooth material. Unless detailed calculations indicate otherwise,
the assumed effective area of the rack teeth should not exceed 10% of their maximum
cross sectional area. When checking the capacity of the chords the chord properties
should be determined discounting the rack teeth.
5.6.5 Modeling the Hull
The hull structure should be modeled so that the loads can be correctly transferred to the
legs and the hull flexibility is represented accurately. Recommended methods are given
below:
a) Detailed Hull Model
The model can be generated using plate elements in which appropriate directional
modeling of the effect of the stiffeners on the plates should be included. The
elements should be capable of carrying in-plane and, where applicable, out-of plane
loads.
b) Equivalent Hull Model
Alternatively, the hull can be modeled by using a grillage of beams. Deck, bottom,
side shell and bulkheads can be used to construct the grillage. The properties of the
beam can be calculated based on the depth of the bulkheads, side-shell and the
'effective width' of the deck and bottom plating. Attention should be paid to the inplane and torsional properties due to the continuity of the deck and bottom structures.
Page 50
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 51
Rev 3, August 2008
The finite lengths of the guides may be included in the modeling by means of a
number of discrete restraint springs/connections to the hull. Care is required to
ensure that such restraints carry loads only in directions/senses in which they can act.
Alternatively the results from analyses ignoring the guide length may be corrected, if
necessary, by modification of the local bending moment diagram to allow for the
proper distribution of guide reaction, see Figure 5.6.
b) Jacking Pinions - The jacking pinions should be modeled based on the pinion
stiffness specified by the manufacturer and should be modeled so that the pinions can
resist vertical and the corresponding horizontal forces. A linear spring or cantilever
beam can be used to simulate the jacking pinion. The force required to deflect the
free end of the cantilever beam a unit distance should be equal to the jacking pinion
stiffness specified by the manufacturer. The offset of the pinion/rack contact point
from the chord neutral axis should be incorporated in the model.
c) Fixation System - The fixation system should be modeled to resist both vertical and
horizontal forces based on the stiffness of the vertical and horizontal supports and on
the relative location of their associated foundations. It is important that the model can
simulate the local moment capacity of the fixation system arising from its finite size
and the number and location of the supports.
d) Shock Pad - Floating jacking systems generally have two sets of shock pads at each
jackcase, one located at the top and the other at the bottom of the jackhouse.
Alternatively shock pads may be provided for each pinion. The jacking system is free
to move up or down until it contacts the upper or lower shock pad. In the elevated
condition, the jacking system is in contact with the upper shock pad and in the transit
condition it is in contact with the lower shock pad. The stiffness of the shock pad
should be based on the manufacturer's data and the shock pad should be modeled to
resist vertical force only. It should also be noted that the shock pad stiffness
characteristics may be nonlinear.
e) Jackcase and associated bracing - The jackcase and associated bracing should be
modeled based on the actual stiffness since it has direct impact on the horizontal
forces that the upper guide can resist.
Note:
Where the hull is not modeled it is normally suitable to earth the base of the jackcase and
associated bracing, the foundations of the fixation system and the lower guide structures
at their connections to the hull.
Simple modeling
f) For applications such as those described in Section 5.6.3 c) (Equivalent 3-stick-leg
model) a simplified representation of the hull to leg connection is required. In this
instance the rotational stiffness may be represented by rotational springs and, where
applicable, horizontal and vertical stiffnesses by linear springs. Where these are
derived from a more detailed modeling, as described above, it is important that
suitable loading levels (typical of the cases to be analyzed) are selected so that the
effects of clearances, etc. do not dominate the result. Hand calculations may also be
applicable. See Section C5.5 in the Commentary.
Page 52
Rev 3, August 2008
Load Application
The assessment follows a partial factor format. The partial load factors are applied to
loads as defined in other sections (i.e. they are load factors, NOT load-effect factors).
The jack-up response is non-linear, and hence the application of the combined factored
loads will not in general develop the same result as the factored combination of
individual load effects.
For typical jack-up assessments, the time-varying nature of the wave loading will
amplify the static responses and must be considered. The extreme response can be
assessed either by a quasi-static analysis procedure (Section 7.2) including an inertial
loadset (Section 7.3.6) or by a more detailed dynamic analysis procedure (Section 7.3.7).
In the former case (quasi-static analysis including an inertial loadset), the load factors
should be directly applied to the appropriate combinations of quasi-static environmental
loading and inertial loadsets. In the latter case (detailed dynamic analysis), alternative
methods can be used when acceptable rationale is provided.
The loads and load effects to be included in the analysis, with their designators used in
Section 8 in ( ), comprise:
a) Self weight and non-varying loads (D), variable and drilling loads (L).
b) Wind loads (E).
c) Hydrodynamic wave-current loads (E).
d) Inertial loads due to dynamic response (Dn).
e) Second order effects (associated with D,L,E & Dn).
These are discussed in turn below.
Page 53
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 54
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure 5.1: Formulas for the determination of equivalent member properties;(After DNV Class
Note 31.5 1992 [6] (corrected)
Page 55
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure 5.2: Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups with a fixation system
Page 56
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure 5.3: Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups without a fixation system
and having a fixed jacking system with opposed pinions
Page 57
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure 5.4: Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups without a fixation system
and having a fixed jacking system with unopposed pinions
Page 58
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure 5.5: Leg shear force and bending moment - jack-ups without a fixation system and
having a floating jacking system
Page 59
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure 5.6: Correction of point supported guide model for finite guide length
(After DNV Class Note 31.5, 1992 [6])
Page 60
Rev 3, August 2008
A
= Equivalent axial area of a leg for stiffness calculations.
ACi = Area of chord including a contribution from the rack teeth (see note to Section
5.6.4.)
AD = Axial area of an inclined brace.
AQi = Equivalent shear area of a leg face.
AQy = Equivalent shear area of a leg in y direction.
AQz = Equivalent shear area of a leg in z direction.
AV = Axial area of a brace perpendicular to the chords.
d
= Length of inclined brace or face to face distance between chords for lattice
structures without inclined braces.
D
= Self weight and non-varying loads.
Dn = Inertial loads due to Dynamic response.
E
= Environmental loads.
h
= Distance between chord centroids.
h
= Length of guide.
IB = Second moment of area of 'brace'.
IG = Second moment of area of longitudinal girder.
IT
= Equivalent torsional constant of leg about longitudinal axis.
IY = Equivalent second moment of area of leg about y-y axis for stiffness calculations.
Iz
= Equivalent second moment of area of leg about z-z axis for stiffness calculations.
L
= Variable loads.
L
= Distance from the spudcan reaction point to the hull vertical center of gravity.
N
= Number of bays, used in determination of equivalent shear area AQ.
OT = Total horizontal offset of leg base with respect to hull
= O1 + O2
O1 = Offset of leg base with respect to hull due to leg-hull clearances.
O2 = Offset of leg base with respect to hull due to maximum hull inclination permitted by
the operating manual.
P
= Average axial load in the legs at the hull (total leg load divided by number of legs).
P
= Guide reaction.
PE = Euler buckling load of an individual leg.
Pg = Total effective gravity load on legs at hull, including the hull weight and weight of
legs above hull.
s
= Leg bay height (distance between brace nodes).
s = Linear elastic first order displacement of hull.
Page 61
Rev 3, August 2008
6.1
Introduction
6.1.1 Section 6 addresses three groups of geotechnical areas of concern which are discussed in
the following subsections:
6.2 Prediction of footing penetration during preloading.
6.3 Jack-up foundation stability after preloading.
6.4 Other aspects of jack-up foundation performance during or after preloading.
6.1.2 Where geotechnical analyses are performed they should be based on geotechnical data
obtained from a site investigation incorporating soil sampling and/or in-situ testing (see
Section 3.16).
6.1.3 Uncertainties regarding the geotechnical data should be properly reflected in the
interpretation and reporting of analyses for which the data are used.
6.1.4 The majority of spudcans are effectively circular in plan but other spudcan geometries
are not uncommon. Typical spudcan designs are illustrated in Figure 6.1. The bearing
capacity formulas given in this section are consistent with 'circular' spudcan footings
without skin-friction on the leg. Due consideration should be given to the tapered
geometry of most spudcans for bearing capacity assessment.
Note: Terms which are not defined in the text may be found in the Glossary to this
Section.
6.2
Page 62
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 63
Rev 3, August 2008
The depth of spudcan penetration is usually defined as the distance from the spudcan tip
to the mudline. It is therefore necessary to correct for this when referring to the
analytical foundation model.
The possibility of soil back-flow over the footing should be considered when computing
bearing capacity. In very soft clays complete back-flow may occur whereas in firm to
stiff clays and granular materials, where limited footing penetration may be expected, the
significance of back-flow diminishes.
Back-flow in clay may be assumed not to occur if:
D
Nc us
'
where, in this case, cus is taken as the average undrained cohesive shear strength over the
depth of the excavation, N is a stability factor and ' is the submerged unit weight of the
soil.
Conservative stability factors in uniform clays, as a function of excavation depth and
diameter, are summarized in Figure 6.3. Alternative stability factors are given in the
Commentary. For spudcan penetration analyses it is recommended that conservative
criteria are used and the excavation depth be considered as the depth to the maximum
spudcan bearing area.
Both the bearing capacity analyses and the above back-flow analysis are based on simple
solutions developed for other geotechnical purposes or foundation conditions. These
differences should be recognized and are discussed further in the Commentary.
The equations given in the following sections may be considered with or without soil
back-flow over the footing. The additional load from back-flow on the footing increases
the maximum penetration. In general two cases can be distinguished:
-
Immediate back-flow
For deeply penetrated footings the effect of side wall collapse after preloading will be to
significantly reduce the ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the foundation. Where
relevant this phenomenon should be considered.
For spudcan penetration analyses the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, FV, may be
determined at a series of spudcan penetration depths according to the criteria given in
Sections 6.2.2 to 6.2.6.
Page 64
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 65
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 66
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 67
Rev 3, August 2008
It is noted that the lower bound foundation capacity is given by general failure in the clay
layer (right hand side of equation), and that squeezing occurs when B
3.45T(1+1.1D/B). The upper bound capacity (for T<<B) is determined by the ultimate
bearing capacity of the underlying strong soil layer.
Comment on the limits included in the above relationships is provided in the
Commentary.
6.2.6.2 Punch-through: Two clay layers
The ultimate vertical bearing capacity of a spudcan on the surface of a strong clay layer
overlying a weak clay layer can be computed according to Brown [9]:
H
FV = A (3 cu,t + Nc sc cu,b) A Nc sc cu,t
B
See Figure 6.6.
For the evaluation of punch-through potential for deep footings, and to achieve
compatibility with the equations used for homogeneous clays, the following equations are
recommended:
For no back-flow conditions:
H
D+H
) cu,b + po'} A(Nc sc dc cu,t + po')
cu,t + Nc sc (1 + 0.2
FV = A {3
B
B
and for full back-flow conditions:
H
D+H
) cu,b] + 'V A Nc sc dc cu,t + 'V
FV = A [3
cu,t + Nc sc (1 + 0.2
B
B
Figure 6.6: Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - firm clay over weak clay
Page 68
Rev 3, August 2008
6.2.6.2 It is noted that the condition (firm clay over soft clay) can also be "man-made" as in some
clays artificial crusts can form during delays in the installation procedure. Caution is
therefore required in situations where soil sampling/testing is performed from a jack-up
prior to preloading.
6.2.6.3 Punch-through: Sand overlying clay
The ultimate vertical capacity of a spudcan on a sand layer overlying a weak clay layer
can be computed using:
For no back-flow:
H
(H' + 2 p'o) Kstan A
B
and for full or partial back-flow:
H
FV = FV,b - A H' - A I ' + 2
(H' + 2 p'o) Kstan A
B
where;
FV,b is determined according to Section 6.2.2 assuming the footing bears on the
surface of the lower clay layer, with no back-flow.
FV = FV,b - A H' + 2
Page 69
Rev 3, August 2008
Layer 1
Analysis 1
QV
Layer 2
Layer 3
Analysis 1
6.3
Page 70
Rev 3, August 2008
6.3.1 Approach
The overall foundation stability may be assessed using a phased method with three steps
increasing in order of complexity (See Figure 6.9):
- Step 1
Preload and Sliding Check (Section 6.3.2). The foundation capacity check
is based on the preloading capability. Sliding of the windward leg is also
checked. Loads from pinned footing analysis.
- Step 2
Step 2a
Step 2b
- Step 3
Any higher level check need only be performed if the lower level check fails to meet the
foundation acceptance criteria given in Section 8.3.
The following sections give details regarding the three phased acceptance procedure.
However, there are certain aspects which are not covered in these sections which may
require further consideration. Some of the more common ones are listed below:
- Soils where the "long term" (drained) bearing capacity is less than the "short term"
(undrained) capacity. This may be the case for overconsolidated cohesive soils (silts
and clays) with significant amounts of sand seams.
- Where soil back-flows over the spudcan after the preload installation phase, (silts,
clays).
- If a reduction of soil strength due to cyclic loading occurs. This can be of particular
significance for silty soils and/or carbonate materials.
- If an increase in spudcan penetration occurs, due to cyclic loading, where a potential
punch-through exists.
- In soils with horizontal seams of weak soils located beneath the spudcan it is
recommended that the lateral bearing capacity/sliding stability of the foundation is
verified.
If any of the above circumstances exist further analysis is required.
In the case of partial spudcan embedment, (e.g. sandy soils), additional footing
embedment may result in a considerable increase in bearing capacity.
Page 71
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 72
Rev 3, August 2008
6.3.2 Ultimate bearing capacity for vertical loading - Preload Check (Step 1)
Except as discussed in 6.3.1, when the horizontal load is small, the ultimate vertical
bearing capacity under extreme conditions is assumed to be the same as the maximum
footing load during preloading, (VLo). The minimum requirements for VLo are given in
Section 8.3.1.3 or 8.3.2 as applicable.
6.3.3 Bearing Capacity/Sliding Check - Pinned footing (Step 2a)
A reduction in vertical bearing capacity, FV, of a footing occurs when it is simultaneously
subjected to horizontal loading, QH, and moment loading, QM. The latter is ignored in
Step 2a analyses as the footings are considered to be pinned.
The vertical/horizontal capacity envelope, FVH, for sands and clays may be generated
according to the following criteria, however, further discussion with regard to the
analytical applicability is provided in the Commentary.
6.3.3.1 Ultimate Vertical/horizontal bearing capacity envelopes for spudcan footings in sand:
The general ultimate vertical/horizontal bearing capacity envelope for jack-up footings in
sand is as follows:
FVH = A (0.5 ' B N s i d + po'Nq sq iq dq)
During the preloading phase it may be assumed that no horizontal load acts on the
foundation and that the ultimate vertical bearing capacity of the soil is in equilibrium with
the applied footing installation load, VLo. The applied footing installation load should
include the effect of back-flow and spudcan buoyancy i.e. VLo = FV - Fo'A + 'V. In this
instance the inclination factors assume values of unity and the remaining terms may be
defined.
Substituting for iq and i the appropriate relationship may be written for generation of the
foundation capacity for combined vertical and horizontal loading as:
FVH = A {0.5 ' B N s d [1 - (FH/ FVH)*]m+1 + po'Nq sq dq [1 - (FH/FVH)*]m}
This may be solved by the use of assumed values for (FH/FVH) designated (FH/FVH)*. For
example use (FH/FVH)* = 0.00, 0.04, 0.08, 0.12, etc. For these values corresponding FVH
values may be determined.
The correct FH values may then be determined as FVH and (FH/FVH)* are known, e.g. for
(FH/FVH)* = 0.12, FH* = 0.12 FVH*.
The corrected horizontal capacity, FH, may then be given as:
FH = FH* + 0.5' (kp - ka) (h1 + h2) As
The sliding capacity envelope of a footing in sand is given by:
FH = FVHtan + 0.5' (kp - ka) (h1 + h2) As
where is the steel/soil friction angle which for a flat plate, = - 5, and for a rough
surfaced conically shaped spudcan = .
Page 73
Rev 3, August 2008
6.3.3.2 Ultimate vertical/horizontal bearing capacity envelopes for spudcan; footings in clay
The general equation for the horizontal and vertical bearing capacity envelopes for
footings in clay is as follows:
FVH = A [(Nc cu sc dc ic) + po' Nq sq iq dq]
Substituting for the inclination factors for a circular footing the equation may be written
as:
FVH = A {Nc cu sc dc [1 - (1.5FH*/NcAcu)]
+ po' Nq sq (1 - FH*/FVH)1.5 dq}
The ultimate bearing capacity envelope under inclined loading may be determined by
substituting values of FVH and solving for FH*.
FH may then be given as:
FH = FH* + (cuo + cul)As
Footing sliding capacity in clay:
When 0 QV 0.5 FV the sliding capacity in clay may be conservatively assumed
constant, determined by:
FH = Acuo + (cuo + cul)As
6.3.3.3 Ultimate vertical/horizontal bearing capacity envelopes for spudcan for spudcan footings
on layered soils.
The above formulas (Sections 6.3.3.1 through 6.3.3.2) can also generally be used to make
a conservative estimate of the ultimate FVH-FH relationship for layered soils by
considering failure through the weakest zones in such a soil profile.
The bearing capacity of layered soils may be determined using the principles of limiting
equilibrium analysis or the finite element method.
6.3.3.4 Settlements resulting from exceedence of the capacity envelope
Vertical settlement and/or sliding of a footing can occur if the storm load combination is
in excess of the (FVH-FH) resistance envelope computed for the spudcan at the penetration
achieved during installation. Such settlements can result in a gain of (FVH-FH) bearing
capacity, e.g. in silica sands. However, the integrity of the foundation may decrease in
the situation where a potential punch-through exists, e.g. where dense sand overlies soft
clay. More thorough analyses are required for complex and/or potentially dangerous
foundation conditions of the type listed in Section 6.3.1.
6.3.4 Footing with moment fixity and vertical and horizontal stiffness (Step 2b)
Foundation fixity is the rotational restraint offered by the soil supporting the foundation.
The degree of fixity is dependent on the soil type, the maximum vertical footing load
during installation, the foundation stress history, the structural stiffness of the unit, the
geometry of the footings and the combination of vertical and horizontal loading under
consideration.
Page 74
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 75
Rev 3, August 2008
6.3.4.2 Ultimate Vertical / horizontal / rotational capacity interaction; function for spudcan
footings in sand and clay
For shallow embedment for both sand and clay, the yield interaction is defined by the
following expression:
2
FVHM FVHM
FM
FHM
=0
1
4
+
H
M
V
V
Lo
Lo
Lo
Lo
where VLo is taken to be equal to the vertical spudcan load achieved during preloading
and HLo and MLo are defined as follows:
For sand:
= (C1 / C 2 )(VLo / 4)
= 0.12VLo
= 0.075VLo B
H Lo
M Lo
Note that in the above expression for the yield surface, if a load combination
(QV,QH,QM) satisfies the equality then (QV,QH,QM) = (FVHM, FHM, FM). The load
combination (QV,QH,QM) lies outside the yield surface if the left-hand side is greater
than zero. Conversely, the load combination lies inside the yield surface if the left-hand
side is less than zero.
The expression for the yield surface can be re-written to give the maximum spudcan
moment as a function of the horizontal and vertical loads. Thus, for a given vertical and
horizontal load combination which, with zero moment, lies inside the yield surface given
above, the maximum moment at a spudcan cannot exceed the value defined below.
Q 2 Q 2 Q 2
FM = MLo 16 V 1 V H
V Lo V Lo
H Lo
The equation above only applies when:
0.0 < QV < VLo
0.5
Q Q
QH < 4 H Lo V 1 V
VLo VLo
Embedded footings in clay achieve greater moment and sliding capacities as compared
to shallow penetrations in clay. For fully or partially penetrated spudcans, the yield
surface at FVHM/VLo<0.5 can be expressed as:
2
FM
FHM
+
- 1.0 = 0
f 2 M Lo
f 1 H Lo
where;
Q
f1 = + 2(1 - ) V
VLo
f2
=
=
Page 76
Rev 3, August 2008
Q 2
FM = f 2 M L 0 1 H
fH
1 Lo
The equation above only applies when:
0.0 < QV < VLo
QH < f1 H Lo
There is no existing data for deeply embedded footings in sand. The application of the
yield surface calibrated to shallow penetrations will likely be conservative for the deep
penetration case.
6.3.4.3 Estimation of rotational, vertical, and horizontal stiffness
An initial estimate for rotational stiffness, K3, which is applicable for a flat spudcan
without embedment (Winterkorn [10]) under relatively low levels of load is given
below:
GB 3
K3 =
, flat spudcan with no embedment
3(1 )
Values for K3 for other cases are given in the Commentary. The selection of the shear
modulus, G, is discussed in the Commentary. An upper or lower bound value should be
selected as appropriate for the analysis being undertaken.
For clays susceptible to cyclic degradation (OCR 4) the soil rotational stiffness,
calculated from the degraded static soil properties, may be multiplied by a factor of 1.25,
Anderson [18].
If the load combination of (QV,QH,QM) lies outside the yield surface, the linear rotational
stiffness at the spudcan must be reduced until the load combination lies on the yield
surface. The reduction in stiffness is arbitrary and requires iterative analyses.
It should be noted that if the initial load combination (QV,QH,QM) lies outside the yield
surface, the final value of the rotational stiffness is determined only by the requirement
that the generated moment at the spudcan falls on the yield surface.
If the load combination of (QV,QH,QM) lies inside the yield surface, the initial estimate
of rotational stiffness should be reduced by a factor, fr. The reduction factor is equal to
Page 77
Rev 3, August 2008
unity when the moment and horizontal forces are zero. It is given by the following
expression (Svan, [56]):
fr =
(1- rf ) + 0.1e100(rf 1)
Q 2 Q 2
H
M
+
H
M
Lo
Lo
rf =
Q Q
4 V 1 V
VLo VLo
0.5
Note that rf > 1.0 implies that the load combination (QV,QH,QM) lies outside the yield
surface. Under such conditions, the reduced stiffness factor is not applicable.
For fully embedded foundations in clays at vertical load ratio FVHM/VLo < 0.5, the failure
ratio may be expressed as:
0.5
Q 2 Q 2
rf = H + M
fH
fM
1 Lo 2 Lo
where f1 and f2 are as defined in Section 6.3.4.2 above, but replacing FVHM with QV.
Vertical and horizontal stiffnesses can be estimated from the elastic solutions for a rigid
circular plate on an elastic half-space (assuming no embedment):
2GB
Vertical stiffness,
K1 =
(1 )
16GB(1 )
Horizontal stiffness, K2 =
(7 8 )
Advice on the selection of appropriate values for G may be found in the Commentary.
6.3.4.4 Extension of the yield surface for additional penetration
On seabeds of silica sands, conical spudcans which are not fully seated may show a
plastic moment restraint due to further penetration. The effect may be taken into
account for legs with QV/VLo > 0.
The moment capacity Mp associated with further penetration is estimated as the
minimum of MPS and MPV, calculated as follows (Svan [56]):
MPS = 0.075 B VLo(D/B)3
MPV = 0.15 B FVHM
in which B is the plan diameter of the effective contact area after preload, and D is the
plan diameter of the contact area when the spudcan is fully seated.
The combined capacity should be checked against the modified yield function:
2
FHM
FVHM FVHM
FM
=0
+
1
4
VLo
M P
H Lo
VLo
For additional penetration of spudcans in clay, references C6 [49] and [52] provide
work-hardening modifications to the yield surface equations. Updated stiffnesses are
determined through plasticity principles.
Page 78
Rev 3, August 2008
3.
Page 79
Rev 3, August 2008
wave force transfer function (Sections 7.3.5.2, 7.3.5.4, C7.4 & Fig C7.1). Typically
the initial linearised rotational stiffness for the dynamic analysis may be taken as
80% of value determined from the formulation in the first paragraph of Section
6.3.4.3. When this stiffness is adjusted to avoid wave force cancellation, the
adjusted value may lie anywhere between 0% and 100% of the value from Section
6.3.4.3.
This simplified approach does not capture the temporary reductions in stiffness
which occur during plasticity events, but also does not capture the increased
damping that is associated with these events; these two effects are considered to be
largely self-cancelling. Given that care is taken to avoid wave force cancellation
effects, it is considered that the dynamic response will be determined at a level
which is either realistic or conservative.
For further discussion of approaches which may be used to avoid cancellation and
reinforcement effects refer to the Commentary Section C7.4.
By considering the effects of the foundation fixity on both the dynamic response
and the seabed reactions. This approach is more complete and may require a
complex iterative calculation procedure. The following outline procedure may be
adopted:
a) Use a time-domain dynamic analysis to determine structural
response and foundation loadings at each time step.
b) Compute the foundation behaviour using a non-linear elasto-plastic
model, such that at each time step the plastic and elastic portions of
the behaviour are captured. If desired, this model may include
hysteresis. This will likely require an iterative procedure.
c) When plasticity occurs, the responses will be influenced by the
load history. Consideration should be given to ensuring that the
methodology used to determine the extreme values provides stable
results. In cases where the analysis is intended to provide final
results (rather than DAFs for application in subsequent analysis
step) it may be appropriate to perform analyses for differing wave
histories, and then determine the extremes from a procedure such
as that given in C7.B.2.3.
Page 80
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 81
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 82
Rev 3, August 2008
6.4
Page 83
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 84
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 85
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 86
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 87
Rev 3, August 2008
A
As
a
au
B
b
cu
cu1
cuo
cus
cu,b
cu,t
C1
C2
dc
dq
d
D
f1
f2
fr
Fo'
FH
FHM
FV
FV,b
FVH
FVHM
FM
Gv
Gh
Gr
h
h1
h2
H
HLo
ic
Page 88
Rev 3, August 2008
iq
i
I
ka
kp
K1,K2,K3
Ks
L
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
m=
MLo
MP
=
=
=
MPS
MPV
n
N
Nc
Nq
N
po'
QH
QM
QV
rf
sc
sq
s
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
T
V
VLo
h
'
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Inclination factor.
(1 - FH/FVH)m
Inclination factor.
(1 - FH/FVH)m+1
Height of soil column above spudcan.
Active earth pressure coefficient (for cu = 0) = tan2(45-/2)
Passive earth pressure coefficient = 1/ka
Stiffness factors.
Coefficient of punching shear.
Foundation length, for circular foundation L=B.
For strip footing - inclination in direction of shorter side.
= (2 + B/L)/(1 + B/L)
For strip footing - inclination in direction of longer side.
= (2 + L/B)/(1 + L/B)
For circular footing = 1.5
C1VLoB/4, C1 = 0.3 (sand)
0.1VLoB (clay)
moment capacity associated with further spudcan penetration under
environmental loading (equal to minimum of MPS and MPV).
moment capacity when further spudcan penetration leads to fully seated spud
conditions.
moment capacity under further spudcan penetration, when the actual vertical
force is too low to reach fully seated conditions.
Iteration factor, 2.
Stability factor.
Bearing capacity factor (taken as 5.14).
Bearing capacity factor = etantan2(45 + /2)
Bearing capacity factor = 2(Nq + 1)tan
Effective overburden pressure at depth, D, of maximum bearing area.
Applied factored horizontal load.
Applied factored moment load.
Applied factored vertical load.
Failure ratio.
Bearing capacity shape factor = (1 + (Nq/Nc)(B/L))
Bearing capacity shape factor = 1 + (B/L)tan
Bearing capacity shape factor = 1 - 0.4(B/L)
( = 0.6 for circular footing under pure vertical load).
Thickness of weak clay layer underneath spudcan.
Volume of soil displaced by spudcan.
Maximum vertical foundation load during preloading.
Adhesion factor = 1.0 for soft clays, = 0.5 for stiff clays.
Steel/soil friction angle - degrees, (-5).
Vertical displacement of foundation.
Horizontal displacement of foundation.
Submerged unit weight of soil.
Foundation rotation - radians.
Angle of internal friction for sand - degrees.
Poisson's ratio.
Page 89
Rev 3, August 2008
7.1
General
7.1.1
The response of a jack-up unit is determined by combining the applied factored loading
with a structural model to determine the internal forces in the members and the reactions
at the foundations. These internal forces and reactions are compared with the factored
resistances available to take up these loads to determine the safety of the unit. The loads
consist of fixed loads (self weight and non-varying loads) and variable loads (see
Section 3.2) together with hydrodynamic and wind loadings (see Section 4). The
structural modeling is described in Section 5. The foundation resistance is described in
Section 6. Section 8 provides the structural resistance and a methodology to check the
adequacy of the various resistances to the acceptance criteria.
7.1.2 Two aspects of the response are to be distinguished and assessed separately. These are:
a) The extreme response. The maximum calculated response to the design environment
occurring at a particular instant in time, which is compared with the acceptance
criteria. See Sections 7.2 and 7.3.
b) Fatigue. The cumulative effect of stress/strain cycling, which is used to estimate the
fatigue lives of steel components (see Section 7.4).
7.1.3 For typical jack-up assessments, the time-varying nature of the wave loading will amplify
the quasi-static responses and must be considered. The extreme response can be assessed
either by a quasi-static analysis procedure (Section 7.2) including an inertial loadset
(Section 7.3.6) or by a more detailed dynamic analysis procedure (Section 7.3.7).
7.1.4 The dynamic amplification of the quasi-static response may not be significant for a given
set of location parameters. The magnitude of the dynamic response is primarily
influenced by the amount of wave energy at or near the natural period of the jack-up.
The distribution of wave energy is at a maximum at the peak wave period and reduces for
other periods. Thus the single most important parameter in the determination of the
dynamic amplification of responses is the separation of the natural period of the jack-up
from the peak period of the wave spectrum. Generally a large separation will produce a
small dynamic amplification. As the separation decreases, the dynamic amplification
will increase. These conclusions may be modified by effects such as wave-load
cancellation and wave-current induced harmonics.
7.1.5 For many applications, the dynamic amplification may be determined using a simple, but
empirical, method. This simple method is detailed in Section 7.3.6.1. Caution is advised
when relying solely on results using this simple method. Specific guidance on the
limitations of the method is given in Section 7.3.6.1.
Because of its simplicity, the method detailed in Section 7.3.6.1 is recommended for an
initial evaluation of the dynamic amplification. If the dynamic amplification is
determined to be relatively small (see Section 7.3.6.1), or, if acceptance criteria are met,
then random dynamic analysis is not required.
Page 90
Rev 3, August 2008
7.1.6 For many applications the dynamic effects may be included through the addition of an
inertial loadset (see Section 7.3.6.1) to the environmental loads in a quasi-static analysis
procedure. In this approach the inertial loadset may be determined using a simplified
model of the jack-up. An appropriate detailed model of the jack-up may then be used to
determine the detailed responses when the inertial loadset is applied together with the
quasi-static environmental loads.
7.1.7 Appropriate combinations of gravity loads, wave/current loads and wind loads shall be
applied as required by the acceptance criteria in Section 8. Load application is described
in Section 5.7. Section 5.1 requires that the analysis is carried out for a range of
environmental headings with respect to the unit such that the most onerous loading(s) for
each major type of element in the structural system is(are) determined. The checks
cover:
Limit State Check
8.1
Load Component
L note 2
E
min max
Y4
Y
Y
8.2
Overturning moment
Stabilizing moment
5
Y
5
Y
Y
Y
8.4
8.5
Section
Response Parameters(s)1
D
Strength of
elements
Overturning
stability
Foundation
capacity:
- preload
- sliding
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y6
Y6
Y6
Y6
Y6
Y6
Y6
Y6
8.3
8.3.1
8.3.1
- bearing
8.3.2/3
- displacement
8.3.4
Horizontal
deflection
Holding system
loads
Dn
7.2
7.2.1 The most common method of analysis adopted for the determination of extreme
responses is the deterministic, quasi-static wave analysis. Such an analysis shall be
carried out in accordance with all relevant requirements of Sections 3 to 6. The
maximum wave loading is determined by 'stepping' the maximum wave through the
structure. The maximum wave is defined in Section 3.5.1.2 and the methodology for
calculating the wave loading is described in Section 4.3. Various methods for
determining the inertial loadset are given in Section 7.3.6. Load cases and combinations
are discussed in Section 7.1.7.
Page 91
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 92
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 93
Rev 3, August 2008
Due to the fact that the mass of the hull dominates the mass distribution, the global
dynamic behavior of the jack-up may in some cases be determined from an idealized
single degree-of-freedom system (see Section 7.3.6.1).
Structural modeling at various levels of complexity is discussed in Section 5.6.
7.3.3 The Excitation
7.3.3.1 The characteristics of the environmental excitation are controlled by the fluctuating
nature of the environmental factors - wind, current and waves. Currents change slowly
compared with the natural periods at which jack-ups may oscillate and may hence be
considered to be a steady phenomenon. Variations in wind velocity cover a wide range
of periods, but the main wind energy is associated with periods which are considerably
longer than the natural periods of jack-up oscillations. Therefore, in connection with
jack-ups, the wind may generally be represented as a steady flow of air. The periods of
waves typically lie between some 2-3 sec and some 20 sec. Since typical jack-up natural
periods fall within this range, the primary source of excitation is from waves.
Sea waves are generally not regular but random in nature unless swell is predominant.
This has important implications which should be considered for both the dynamic
excitation and the resulting dynamic response.
As waves and currents interact these two environmental factors should be considered in
combination when generating time varying hydrodynamic drag forces according to
Section 4.3.
7.3.3.2 For the simplified dynamic analysis method of Section 7.3.6.1 based on a regular-wave
deterministic quasi-static analysis the wave period is chosen to be 0.9Tp where Tp is the
peak period of the wave spectrum for the extreme sea state.
For random analyses (see Sections 7.3.6.2 and 7.3.7) the most probable peak period (Tp)
of the wave spectrum for the extreme seastate will normally be selected when a 2
parameter Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum is used (Hs and Tp from site specific data and
= 1 in Section 3.5.3). If a JONSWAP spectrum is used it is recommended that the peak
period is considered to vary between plus and minus one standard deviation from the
most probable peak period (Tp).
Where the jack-up is sensitive to the wave period it is recommended that the range
described in Section 3.5.1.2 or 3.5.3 is investigated as appropriate.
In a deterministic calculation waves with a period close to the natural period of the jackup will give the largest dynamic amplification. It is therefore recommended that the
wave associated with the highest natural period of the jack-up is also investigated.
Page 94
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 95
Rev 3, August 2008
7.3.5.3 If such a capability is not available, the fundamental mode period may be estimated from
the system described by:
-
an equivalent mass representing the mass of the jack-up and its distribution as
referred to in Section 7.3.2; the equivalent mass is equal to the mass of the hull plus a
contribution from the mass of the legs, including added mass, and is located at the
center of gravity of the hull.
The period is determined from the following equation applied to one leg:
Tn = 2 ( M e / K e )
where;
Tn
Me
Mhull
= number of legs.
Mla = mass of leg above lower guide (in the absence of a clamping mechanism)
or above the center of the clamping mechanism.
Mlb = mass of leg below the point described for Mla, including added mass for
the submerged part of the leg ignoring spudcan. The added mass may be
determined as Ae(CMe - 1) per unit length of one leg (for definitions of
Ae and CMe see Section 4.6.6); = mass density of water.
Ke
P
1
3EI
PE
=
*
L3
3L 12Fg I EI L
3(EI) 2
2
1 4 AFv Y K rs 2 Fr LK rs K rh + 7.8I
A s Fh L2
EI
EI
+ L+
Fr K rh
K rs
When the soil rotational stiffness Krs at the spudcan-foundation interface is zero this may
be re-written:
P
1
3EI
PE
=
3 *
12Fg I
L
3EI
7.8I
+
1 +
2 +
Fr LK rh A s Fh L2
AFv Y
Krs
Page 96
Rev 3, August 2008
Krh = rotational stiffness representing leg to hull connection stiffness (see below).
= factor to account for hull bending stiffness.
1
=
YK rh
1 +
2EI H
= representative second moment of area of the hull girder joining two legs
about a horizontal axis normal to the line of environmental action.
Fr
IH
E
As
= second moment of area of the leg (see Figure 5.1), including a contribution
from rack teeth (see Note to Section 5.6.4).
= distance between center of one leg and line joining centers of the other two
legs (3 leg unit).
axial area of one leg (equals sum of effective chord areas, including a
contribution from rack teeth - see Note to Section 5.6.4).
= distance between windward and leeward leg rows for direction under
consideration (4 leg unit)
= geometric factor.
=
1.125 (3 leg unit), 1.0 (4 leg unit)
Fv = factor to account for vertical soil stiffness, Kvs, and vertical leg-hull
connection stiffness, Kvh (see below).
1
=
EA
EA
+
1 +
LK vs LK vh
Fg
Fh
L
P =
= factor to account for horizontal soil stiffness, Khs, and horizontal leg-hull
connection stiffness, Khh (see below).
1
=
EA s
EA s
+
1 +
2.6LK hs 2.6LK hh
= length of leg from the seabed reaction point (see Section 5.2.1) to the point
separating M1a and M1b (see above).
the mean force due to vertical fixed and variable loads acting on one leg.
M hull g
=
N
= acceleration due to gravity.
Page 97
Rev 3, August 2008
2
(EI) (K rs K rh )
Thus:
when Krs = 0 and Krh = , L = /2 and hence:
2 EI
PE =
4L2
when Krs = and Krh = , L = and hence
2 EI
PE =
L2
The hull to leg connection springs, Krh, Kvh and Khh represent the interaction of the leg
with the guides and supporting system and account for local member flexibility and
frame action. They should be computed with respect to the point separating M1a and M1b,
as described above. The following approximations may be applied:
Khh =
Kvh = effective stiffness due to the series combination of all vertical pinion or
fixation system stiffnesses, allowing for combined action with shockpads, where fitted.
Unit with fixation system:
Krh = combined rotational stiffness of fixation systems on one leg.
= Fnh2kf
where;
Fn = 0.5, three chord leg; = 1.0, four chord leg
h
= distance between chord centers.
kf
= combined vertical stiffness of all fixation system components on one
chord.
Unit without fixation system:
Krh = rotational stiffness allowing for pinion stiffness, leg shear deformation
and guide flexibility.
kud2
= Fnh2kj +
1 + (2.6k u d / EA s )
where;
h
= distance between chord centers (opposed pinion chords) or pinion pitch
points (single rack chords).
kj
= combined vertical stiffness of all jacking system components on one
chord.
d
= distance between upper and lower guides.
ku = total lateral stiffness of upper guides with respect to lower guides.
As = effective shear area of leg.
7.3.5.3 The above equations for estimating the fundamental natural period are approximate and
ignore the following effects:
-
Page 98
Rev 3, August 2008
7.3.5.4 Due to uncertainty in the parameters affecting the natural period the calculated natural
period(s) will also be uncertain. The natural period(s) used in the dynamic analysis
should be selected such that a realistic but conservative value of the dynamic response is
obtained for the particular application envisaged. Care should be taken to ensure that the
maximum dynamic amplification is not selected as coincident with a cancellation period
causing minimum environmental loading. The potential for increased response due to
shortcrested waves should be considered (see Section 7.3.7.5). For further details refer to
the Commentary Section C7.4 and Figure C7.1.
7.3.6 Inertial Loadset Approaches
In inertial loadset approaches the dynamic response is represented in a global quasi-static
response model by either a distributed inertial loadset or an equivalent point load applied
at the hull center of gravity. The inertial loadset may be derived from the simple
approach described in Section 7.3.6.1 or from the more complex methods discussed in
Sections 7.3.6.2 and 7.3.6.3.
7.3.6.1 The classical SDOF analogy
This representation assumes that the jack-up on its foundation may be modeled as an
equivalent mass-spring-damper mechanism; see Section 7.3.2. The (highest) natural
period of the vibrational modes may be determined as described in Section 7.3.5. The
torsional mode and corresponding three-dimensional effects cannot be included in this
representation.
The single degree-of-freedom (SDOF) method is fundamentally empirical because (1) the
wave-current loading does not occur at the mass center and (2) the loading is nonperiodic (random) and non-linear.
It should also be noted that all global and detailed response parameters are not equally
amplified.
The method described below will generally lead to a reasonable
approximation of the jack-up's real behavior and has been calibrated against more
rigorous methods. The following cautions are noted when using the SDOF method:
1. If the ratio of the jack-up natural period to the wave excitation period, , is less than
0.5 and the current is 'relatively small' the SDOF method should give reasonably
accurate results when compared to a more rigorous analysis.
2. If is greater than 0.5, the relative position of the jack-up natural period within the
base shear transfer function should be checked. If the natural period falls near a
wave force peak, then the SDOF method may be unconservative because it ignores
forcing at other than the full wave excitation period. Note that the calculation of
natural periods should include a range of periods to account for a reasonable
estimate of foundation fixity (see Section 7.3.5.2).
3. The SDOF method may be unconservative for cases with relatively high currents. If
the results of the assessment are close to the acceptance criteria further detailed
analysis is recommended.
Page 99
Rev 3, August 2008
The ratio of (the amplitudes of the) dynamic to the quasi-static response as a function of
frequency () or period (T) of steady state, periodic and sinusoidal excitation is
calculated as the classical dynamic amplification factor (DAF):
DAF =
where;
T
Tp
Tn
=
=
=
=
=
[(1
) + ( 2 ) 2 ]
2 2
=
Jack up natural frequency n
Jack - up natural period Tn
=
Wave excitation period T
Damping ratio or fraction of critical damping
(% Critical Damping)/100, 0.07.
0.9Tp.
most probable peak wave period.
the jack-up natural period as derived in 7.3.5.
The damping parameter in this model represents the total of all damping contributions
(structural, hydrodynamic and soil damping). For the evaluation of extreme response
using the SDOF method a value not exceeding 0.07 is recommended.
The calculated DAF from the SDOF method is used to estimate an inertial loadset which
represents the contribution of dynamics over and above the quasi-static response in
accordance with Figure 7.1. This inertial loadset should be determined as follows and
applied at the hull (center of gravity) in the down-wind direction:
Fin
= (DAF - 1) BSAmplitude
where;
Fin
= Magnitude of the inertial loadset for use in conjunction with the
SDOF method.
BSAmplitude = Amplitude of quasi-static Base Shear over one wave cycle.
= (BS(Q - S)Max - BS(Q - S)Min)/2
BS(Q - S)Max = Maximum quasi-static wave/current Base Shear.
BS(Q - S)Min = Minimum quasi-static wave/current Base Shear.
Note: The above equation is part of a calibrated procedure and should not be altered. A
more general inertial loadset procedure, using the results from random analysis,
is described in Section 7.3.6.3.
7.3.6.2 Other SDOF approaches
An alternative use of the SDOF method is to apply the entire DAF function for all
frequencies (periods), rather than a single point DAF at one frequency. This method
reflects the random wave plus current excitation more correctly. Execution of this
procedure is as per the relevant parts of Section 7.3.7.
Page 100
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 101
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 102
Rev 3, August 2008
7.3.7.4 Table 7.1 summarizes appropriate percentages of global critical damping for the various
damping sources which should be summed to provide the total global damping as a
percentage of critical damping.
Damping source
Structure, holding
system, etc.
Foundation
Hydrodynamic
Notes:
2%
2% or 0%(1)
3% or 0%(2)
7.3.7.5 The effects of directionality and wave spreading may be considered in any dynamic
analysis. It is recommended that a comparison be made between the Base Shear Transfer
Function (BSTF) for the chosen 2-D (long crested/unspread) analysis direction and the 3D (short crested/spread) BSTF to determine whether the selected direction is
unconservative. Optimally the direction of the 2-D seastate should be chosen to obtain a
match with the 3-D BSTF for the entire wave spectrum. If this is not possible the match
between the spread and unspread BSTFs should be good at the natural period.
A 3-D BSTF, H3D, can be generated from a set of 2-D BSTFs, H2D, by the following
expression:
2
H3D() =
[H
( , )] cos 2 n ( )d
2
2D
where:
=
=
=
Page 103
Rev 3, August 2008
7.3.7.6 Tables 7.2 and 7.3 respectively identify the most important factors associated with each
type of analysis method and with each approach to determining the extreme responses.
Further details of the methods are provided in the Commentary.
7.3.8 Acceptance Criteria
The results of a dynamic extreme response analysis shall be assessed against the
acceptance criteria described in Section 8. The required load factors should be
introduced when combining the component loads into total load combinations.
Page 104
Rev 3, August 2008
Method
Recommendations
Frequency
Domain
Time
Domain
Page 105
Rev 3, August 2008
Method
Recommendations
General
Frequency
Domain
Time
Domain
7.4
Page 106
Rev 3, August 2008
Fatigue
7.4.1 General
The fatigue of jack-ups should be considered for all new locations and operations. Jackups are mobile structures, generally operating in a wide range of water depths, therefore
the location of the fatigue sensitive areas may vary (see Section 7.4.3). This means that
fatigue damage at any member/joint or other component may not occur equally
throughout the life of the unit and tends to complicate the fatigue problem.
If the original analysis carried out for the unit demonstrates that lives of critical
components are adequate then a unit may not require a separate analysis if on location for
a period of less than one year provided that adequate proof from a recent inspection exists
showing that the unit is behaving as originally predicted.
If no original analysis and/or inspection proof is in existence then a separate analysis may
be required for all operations in excess of one year. In extreme cases six months may be
more appropriate if this period contains the rough winter season. Alternatively a recent
assessment inspection, or proof that such an inspection (including detailed NDT) has
been carried out may serve as a demonstration of the adequacy of the unit.
7.4.2 Fatigue Life Requirements
A fatigue analysis, if undertaken, should ensure that all structural components have
(remaining) fatigue lives of more than the greater of four times the duration of the
assignment or 10 years. Different (reduced) fatigue life requirements may be justified for
certain items on a case by case basis where structural redundancy or ease of access for
inspection and repair permit.
7.4.3 Fatigue Sensitive Areas
All structural members subject to fatigue loading are to be checked in the analysis, with
emphasis on the following areas, which are likely to be the most critical. However, other
areas should also be studied if they are potentially more critical:
a) The leg members and joints in the vicinity of the upper and lower guides for the
operating leg/guide location(s).
b) The rack teeth of the chord.
c) The leg members and joints adjacent to the waterline.
d) The jack-frame/jackhouse and associated areas of the hull.
e) The leg members and joints in the vicinity of the leg to spudcan connection.
f) The spudcan to leg connection.
Records of inspections, damage and repair for the unit may provide guidance in the
selection of critical areas.
Page 107
Rev 3, August 2008
As mentioned the fatigue analysis should consider all loading conditions that may
occurduring the period under consideration and for items c) through f) the cumulative
damage due to transit loadings should also be included.
7.4.4 General Description of Analysis
Suitable approaches to the analysis may be found in reference [13].
approaches may be applied.
Equivalent
Page 108
Rev 3, August 2008
= Equivalent axial area of a leg (see Figure 5.1), including contribution from rack
teeth (see note to Section 5.6.4).
As
= Effective shear area of one leg.
BS
= Base Shear.
d
= Distance between upper and lower guides.
D
= Self weight and non varying loads.
DAF = Dynamic Amplification Factor.
Dn
= Inertial loads due to Dynamic response.
E
= Environmental loads.
E
= Young's modulus for steel.
Fg
= Geometric factor
= 1.125 (3 leg unit), 1.0 (4 leg unit)
= Factor to account for horizontal soil stiffness, Khs, and horizontal leg-hull
Fh
connection stiffness, Khh.
Fin
= Magnitude of inertial loadset.
Fn
= 0.5, three chord leg; = 1.0, four chord leg
= Factor to account for hull bending stiffness.
Fr
Fv
= Factor to account for vertical soil stiffness, Kvs, and vertical leg-hull connection
stiffness, Kvh.
g
= Acceleration due to gravity.
h
= Distance between chord centers or pinion pitch points.
Hdet = The wave height to be used for deterministic waveforce calculations, allowing for
conservatisms in the theoretical predictions of higher order wave theories.
= 1.60 Hsrp
Hmax = The maximum deterministic wave height.
= 1.86 Hsrp, generally.
= 1.75 Hsrp, in Tropical Revolving Storm areas.
Hs
= Significant wave height (meters), including depth/asymmetry correction,
according to Section 3.5.1.1.
Hsrp = The assessment return period significant wave height for a 3 hour storm.
H2D = 2-D base shear transfer function.
H3D = 3-D base shear transfer function.
I
= Second moment of area of the leg (see Figure 5.1) including contribution from
rack teeth (see note to Section 5.6.4).
IH
= Representative second moment of area of the hull girder joining two legs about a
horizontal axis normal to the line of environmental action.
= Combined vertical stiffness of all fixation system components on one chord.
kf
kj
= Combined vertical stiffness of all jacking system components on one chord.
= Total lateral stiffness of upper guides with respect to lower guides.
ku
Ke
= The effective stiffness associated with one leg.
= Horizontal stiffness of leg-hull connection, generally infinite.
Khh
= Horizontal stiffness at the spudcan-foundation interface.
Khs
Krh
= Rotational stiffness representing the leg-hull connection.
= Rotational stiffness at the spudcan-foundation interface.
Krs
Kvh
= Vertical stiffness of leg-hull connection.
= Vertical stiffness at the spudcan-foundation interface.
Kvs
L
= Variable loads.
L
= Length of leg from the seabed reaction point (see Section 5.2.1) to the point
separating M1a and M1b.
Page 109
Rev 3, August 2008
M
Me
Mhull
M1a
=
=
=
=
M1b
MPME
=
=
=
N
N
P
=
PE
T
Tass
Tn
Tp
Tz
Y
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
1,2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Nodal masses.
Effective mass associated with one leg.
Full mass of hull, including variable load.
Mass of a leg above lower guide (in the absence of a clamping mechanism) or
above the center of the clamping mechanism.
Mass of leg below the point described for M1a, including added mass for the
submerged part of the leg.
Most Probable Maximum Extreme response(s). The extreme response with a
63% chance of exceedence; approximately equal to the 1/1000 highest peak
level in a 3-hour storm.
Power constant of spreading function.
2.0 for fatigue analysis.
4.0 for extreme analysis.
Number of legs.
Number of cycles.
The mean force due to vertical dead weight and variable load acting on one
leg.
M hull g
N
Euler buckling load of one leg.
2EI
0.9 Tp.
Wave period associated with Hmax (also used with Hdet).
Natural period of jack-up (subject to the precautions of Section 7.3.5.4).
Peak period associated with Hsrp (also used with Hs).
Zero-upcrossing period of the wave spectrum.
Distance between center of one leg and line joining centers of the other two
legs (3 leg unit).
Distance between windward and leeward leg rows for direction under
consideration (4 leg unit).
The minimum positive non-zero value of L satisfying:
( K rs + K rh )EI
tan (L) =
2
(EI) ( K rs K rh )
Scalar multiplier used in establishing 2-D Fin.
Scalar multiplier used in establishing 2-D Fin.
Structural mode shapes.
/n = Tn/T.
Mass density of water.
Angle between 2-D BSTF and dominant direction of 3-D BSTF.
Wave excitation frequency = 2/T.
Jack-up natural frequency = 2/Tn.
Damping ratio or fraction of critical damping.
Page 110
Rev 3, August 2008
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
8.1.1 Introduction
8.1.1.1 Code Basis
The main basis for the structural strength check is the AISC 'Load and Resistance Factor
Design (LRFD) Specification for Structural Steel Buildings' [14]. The AISC LRFD
specification has been interpreted and, in some cases, modified for use in the assessment
of mobile jack-up unit structures. Interpretation of the code has been necessary to enable
a straight-forward method to be presented for the assessment of beam-columns of non 'I'
section. Development of the code has been necessary in two areas as described below:
a) A method has been established for dealing with sections constructed of steels with
different material properties.
b) A method has been established for the assessment of beam columns under biaxial
bending to overcome a conservatism which has been identified in the standard AISC
LRFD equations.
Page 111
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 112
Rev 3, August 2008
One particular type of member geometry which is not covered at all by AISC LRFD is
the high R/t ratio tubular which usually has ring frame and/or longitudinal stiffeners.
Recommendations for checking such members are given in Section 8.1.5 where the user
is referred to an applicable code and guidance is given on suitable load and resistance
factors.
The resistance factors used in the AISC LRFD specification have been adopted.
In addition to checking the strength of members, it may be necessary to check the
strength of joints between members. Recommendations for joint checking are given in
Section 8.1.6 where the user is referred to an applicable code and guidance is given on
suitable load and resistance factors.
8.1.1.2 Limitations
The structural strength check assessment described here is limited by the following
criteria:
a) The geometry of structural components and members, as defined in 8.1.2, must fall
reasonably within the categories described in that section.
b) In accordance with AISC LRFD Specification, Chapter A Para. A5, the minimum
specified yield stress of the strongest steel comprising the components and members
should not exceed:
-
100 ksi (690 MN/m2) if elastic structural analysis is used to determine the
member loads.
For higher strength steels within the holding system, refer to Section 8.5.
It should also be noted that the assessment has been tailored towards the types of analysis
normally carried out for jack-ups. The detailed recommendations which follow focus
particularly on closed section brace and chord scantlings in truss type legs.
Geometries outside the limits of Sections 8.1.2 - 8.1.4 may be checked in accordance
with the recommendations of Section 8.1.5.
Notes:
1. Of necessity, many of the equations presented in Section 8.1 are dimensional. Such
equations are quoted firstly in metric units (MN, m, MN/m2 etc.) and then in { } in
North American imperial units (kips, inches, ksi, etc.).
2. Where the member geometry may contain components of part-tubular shape it is
appropriate to consider their dimensions in terms of radius and thickness (rather than
diameter and thickness), and hence relevant equations have been converted to this
format.
Page 113
Rev 3, August 2008
{Imperial: 1,650/Fy}
[Table B5.1]
b) Structural Components
A structural component is defined as a part of a structural member (see Figure 8.2).
Typically, structural components are pieces of plating or tubulars such as the plates, splittubulars and rack pieces forming a jack-up chord, or the stringers on a panel. Note that it
is not always appropriate to consider fundamental structural parts as components. A
plain tubular, for example is better analyzed as a member. A component should not
consist of more than one material.
8.1.2.2 Stiffened and Unstiffened Components
A component which is stiffened along both edges is denoted a stiffened component. A
component which is supported along only one edge is denoted an unstiffened component.
Typically all the components forming parts of chord sections may be regarded as
stiffened.
Page 114
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 115
Rev 3, August 2008
Pu
8 M uex M uey
+
1.0
+
a Pn 9 b M nx b M ny
[Eq. H1-1a]
else
1
M M
Pu
uey
+ uex +
1.0
2a Pn b M nx b M ny
[Eq. H1-1b]
where;
Pu = applied axial load
Pn = nominal axial strength determined in accordance with Section 8.1.4.2
(tension) and 8.1.4.3 (compression).
Muex,Muey = effective applied bending moment determined in accordance with Section
8.1.4.4 (tension) and 8.1.4.5 (compression).
Mnx,Mny
a = Resistance factor for axial load = 0.85 for [Eq. E2.1] compression and
0.90 for tension [Eq. D1.1].
b = Resistance factor for bending = 0.9 [Ch. F1.2]
Page 116
Rev 3, August 2008
[Eq. D1.1]
Note: If for any component the nominal strength is significantly different from the
nominal strengths of other components, the formulation above may be conservative and
alternative rational methods may be applied. An example is given in the Commentary.
8.1.4.3 Nominal Axial Strength of a Structural Member in Compression Pn
So long as local buckling of the components of a member is not the limiting state, the
member can be treated for global loads only. Should local buckling dominate, the loads
in the components must be considered. Therefore, in determining the nominal axial
strength of a member in compression, a local buckling check must first be applied.
Check: Local buckling
The structural components which make up the cross section of a compact or noncompact
section must satisfy the following criteria [Table B5.1]:
i)
Page 117
Rev 3, August 2008
ii)
iii)
Members containing rectangular and tubular sections which do not meet this criteria are
considered to be slender and are treated in 8.1.4.3 b) for local buckling.
a) Strength assessment for Compact and Noncompact Sections
The nominal axial strength of a structural member subject to axial compression and
within the above stipulated restrictions regarding cross section shall be determined from
the following equations:
Pn = A Fcr
[Eq. E2.1]
c2
Fcr = (0.658 ) Fyeff
For c 1.5
[Eq. E2.2]
Fcr =
0.877
2 Fyeff
c
[Eq. E2.3]
where;
A = gross area of section (excluding rack teeth of chords)
1
c =
r =
E =
Fyeff
K =
K Fyeff 2
[Eq. E2.4]
Page 118
Rev 3, August 2008
[Eq. A-B5-11]
0.877
for c Q > 1.5
[Eq. A-B5-13]
2 Fyeff
c
where c is defined in Section 8.1.4.3 a) and Q is determined from the
following:
Fcr =
i)
856t i
170
bei =
1
bi
f i ( b i / t i ) f i
326t i
64.9
1
{Imperial: bei =
bi }
f i ( b i / t i ) f i
[Eq A-B5-7]
and fi is the calculated elastic stress in the component where, for the
analysis, the member area is based on the actual cross sectional area but
with elastic section modulus and radius of gyration based on effective
area.
ii)
= Qa Qs
Page 119
Rev 3, August 2008
Qs is the lowest value for all components in the member which are
stiffened along one edge determined from the following:
For 250/ Fy < bi/ti < 460/ Fy
{Imperial: 95/ Fy < bi/ti < 176/ Fy }
Qs = 1.415 - 0.00166(bi/ti)
Fy
Fy } [Eq. A-B5-3]
Qs = 137,900/[Fyi(bi/ti)2]
{Imperial: Qs = 20,000/[Fyi(bi/ti)2]}
[Eq. A-B5-4]
3790
2
+
Fy ( R / t ) 3
{Imperial: Q =
550
2
+ }
Fy ( R / t ) 3
[Eq. A-B5-9]
Page 120
Rev 3, August 2008
Where the individual member loads are determined from a second order analysis
i.e. the equilibrium conditions were formulated on the elastically deformed structure
so that local P- loads were also included in the analysis:
B = 1.0
Page 121
Rev 3, August 2008
where;
Lb = Laterally unbraced length; length between points which are either braced
against lateral displacement of the compression flange or braced against
twist of the cross section.
ry
Sections which do not satisfy this criteria are susceptible to lateral torsional buckling and
are treated as having slender compression components as in Section 8.1.4.6 c).
Check: Local buckling
The cross sectional geometry of a member subjected to bending is to be examined for
susceptibility to the limit state of local bucking. If local buckling is deemed to be the
limit state, the nominal bending strength shall be reduced in accordance with the
following paragraphs. Members with particularly slender components are covered in
Section 8.1.4.6c).
For this check it is necessary to identify web components and flange components. This
can be done by visual inspection, with knowledge of the major and minor axes. For
example, in a split-tubular, opposed rack chord, the rack plate would be a suitable web
component, and the split tubulars flanges. For a teardrop chord, the rack and side plates
would be web components, and the back plate the flange. In cases of doubt, components
shall be checked as both web and flange.
Page 122
Rev 3, August 2008
a) Compact Sections
For members in which all the components sections satisfy the following [Table B5.1]:
i) For rectangular components stiffened along both edges
bi/ti
p
where;
p
= 500/ ( Fyi )
{Imperial: p = 190/ ( Fyi ) }
ii) For rectangular components stiffened along one edge
bi/ti
p
where;
p
= 170/ ( Fyi )
{Imperial: p = 65/ ( Fyi ) }
iii) For tubular sections
2R/t p
where;
p
= 14270/Fyi
{Imperial: p = 2070/Fyi}
The nominal bending strength is given by the plastic bending moment of the whole
section
Mn
= Mp
[Eq-A-F1-1]
where Mp is derived as discussed above.
Note: Where significant plastic hinge rotations are required the section must remain
stable after rotation through an appreciable angle. In such cases, to achieve this
requirement, the limitations of ii) and iii) above should be reduced to:
ii) p = 135/ ( Fyi )
{Imperial: p = 52/ ( Fyi ) }
iii) p = 11000/Fyi
{Imperial: p = 1600/Fyi}
b) Noncompact Sections
For members in which all the components do not satisfy the previous criteria but satisfy
the following [Table B5.1]:
i) For rectangular components stiffened along both edges
bi/ti
r
where;
r
= 625/ ( Fyi Fr )
{Imperial: r = 238/ ( Fyi Fr ) }
Fr
= 114 MN/m2 {16.5 ksi} residual stress
ii) For rectangular components stiffened along one edge
bi/ti
r
where;
r
= 278/ ( Fywj Fr )
{Imperial: r = 106/ ( Fywj Fr ) }
Fywj = web component yield stress.
Fr
= 114 MN/m2 {16.5 ksi} residual stress.
iii) For tubular sections
2R/t r
where;
r
= 61850/Fyi
{Imperial: r = 8970/Fyi}
Page 123
Rev 3, August 2008
The nominal bending strength is given by an interpolation between the plastic bending
moment and the limiting buckling moment:
p
Mn = Mp - (Mp- Mr)
[Eq. A-F1.3]
r p h
where;
Mp = Section Plastic Moment.
= subscript referring to the component which produces the smallest value of
h
Mn .
[Table A-F1.1]
Mr =
+ Fy S
{Imperial: Mr =
+ Fy S }
R/t
R / t
Fyfj
= yield stress of flange component.
Re
= hybrid girder reduction factor [A-G2]
= 1.0 if components are of the same material
otherwise:
= [12 + ar (3m m3)] / (12 + 2 ar) 1.0
ar
= ratio of total web area to area of compression flange.
m
= ratio of web component yield stress to flange component yield stress
which gives smallest value of Re.
c) Slender Sections
The nominal bending strength of members including components which do not satisfy the
above criteria for compact and noncompact sections or for lateral torsional buckling shall
be determined in accordance this section.
Page 124
Rev 3, August 2008
The nominal bending strength of a member is given by the limiting flexural bending
moment:
Mn
= S Fcr
where S is the elastic section modulus for the plane of bending under consideration and
Fcr is the lowest value from (where appropriate):
i) Doubly symmetric members (lateral torsional buckling)
12
C b X1 2 X1 2 X 2
Fcr = 6.895
1 +
22
[Table A-F1.1(b)]
12
C X 2 X1 2 X 2
{Imperial: Fcr = b 1
}
1 +
22
where;
Cb = 1.75 + 1.05(M1/M2) + 0.3(M1/M2)2 2.3 where M1 is the smaller and M2
the larger end moment in the unbraced member; M1/M2 is positive when
the moments cause reverse curvature.
X1 = (/S) ( EGJA / 2)
X2 = (4Cw/Iy)(Sx/GJ)2
E = Modulus of elasticity (200,000 MN/m2 {29,000 ksi}).
G = Shear modulus of elasticity (77,200 MN/m2 {11,200 ksi}).
J
= Lb/ry
ry = Radius of gyration about the minor axis
ii) Singly symmetric members (lateral torsional buckling)
Fcr =
393,000C b
{B1 +
SL b
(1 + B2 + B1 2 ) }
{Imp'l: Fcr =
57,000C b
{B1 +
SL b
[Table A-F1.1(c)]
( I y J ) Fy
(1 + B2 + B1 2 ) }
( I y J ) Fy}
where;
I c h I y 2
2.25 2 1
I y L b J
I c h 2 I c
25 1
I y L b J
web depth.
second moment of area of compression flange about the section minor axis
as for doubly symmetric sections.
1
B1 =
B2 =
h =
Ic =
Cb =
iii)
Fcr = 77,220/2
where;
= bi/ti for flange(s)
iv)
Page 125
Rev 3, August 2008
[Table A-F1.1]
{Imperial: Fcr = 4,875/(R/t)}
i.e.
M
M
M nq
nx
ny
Since Mnx and Mny are by definition Mnq for q = 0 and 90 respectively and so are
known, the only unknown in the above identity is . This can be determined from
the graph in Figure 8.4 or by numerical means if preferred. Figure 8.4 is based on
the ratio Muq/Mnq being equal to unity, and will produce conservative results when
axial loads are present.
5. Step 4 yields a value of suitable for loads from 30 to the X-axis. Steps 2 to 4 are
repeated for q = 45 and 60 to obtain a range of values of .
6. The value of for use in subsequent assessment shall be the least of the above
determined values, but not less than 1.0.
Page 126
Rev 3, August 2008
This method includes some approximation. Since bending will not be along or
perpendicular to a plane of symmetry, deflection will not necessarily be at the same angle
as the applied moment. This effect is second order.
Note: An alternative, more detailed approach, involving modified interaction equations
is presented below for a number of typical chord configurations.
8.1.4.8 Plastic Interaction Curve Approach
Alternatively, interaction equations and curves for generic families of chords are
presented in Figures C8.1.8 - C8.1.11 in the Commentary. These are taken from Dyer
[19] and based on the interaction approach proposed by e.g. Duan & Chen [20]. It
should be noted that the curves and equations are based on axial load applied at the
'center of squash' which is defined as the location at which the axial load produces no
moment on the yielded section. For chords without two axes of symmetry (triangular
and tubular with offset rack) this is offset from the elastic centroid when the section is
comprised of materials of differing yield strengths. Before a section is checked it is
necessary to correct as appropriate moments by the axial load times the offset distance
between the elastic centroid (used in the structural analysis) and the 'center of squash'.
This offset, together with other geometric data for the members of each family of
chord is presented in Tables C8.1.1 to C8.1.4 in the Commentary. The effective
applied moment may then be calculated from:
Muex = Bx(Mux + Pu.ey)
Muey = By(Muy + Pu.ex)
The interaction equations are based on ultimate capacity. It is therefore necessary to
introduce the required resistance factors. This is achieved by defining:
Py = F1.a.Pn
Mpx = F2.b.Mnx
Mpy = F2.b.Mny
where; F1 = 1.0, unless alternative values are justified by analysis.
F2 = 1.0, unless alternative values are justified by analysis.
The ratio of Pu/Py, Muex/Mpx and Muey/Mpy shall be determined for the condition under
consideration. The user should then enter the plastic interaction curves with the
Muex/Mpx and Muey/Mpy ratios. The allowable value for Pu/Py may then be determined.
A measure of the interaction ratio can then be obtained as the ratio between the actual
and allowable values of Pu/Py.
The user should note that the equations for sections with only one axis of symmetry
depend on the sign of the moment about the Y-Y axis (given in the Figures). The sign
convention should be observed with care.
The equations are based on lower bound data from each family of chord shape and will
therefore tend to be conservative. More accurate results will be obtained from the
individual consideration of the chord in question.
[NOTE: At present Figures C8.1.8 - C8.1.11 in the Commentary cover only fully
plastic section strength considerations, and their use for a beam-column member is
based on the assumption that the member being evaluated is sufficiently short/compact
that elasto-plastic stability (buckling at large strains) is not a consideration. Violating
this assumption may lead to errors on the unsafe side. Updated information covering
elasto-plastic stability may be generated in the future, and should preferentially be
used for member evaluations.]
Page 127
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 128
Rev 3, August 2008
8.2
Page 129
Rev 3, August 2008
Overturning Stability
8.2.1 For independent leg jack-ups the assumed overturning axis shall be the most critical axis
passing through any two spudcan reaction points as defined in Section 5.2.
8.2.2 The overturning moment shall be calculated from the components of environmental
loading, resolved normal to the overturning axis, times the vertical distance from the
point of action of the component to the overturning axis.
The overturning stability should meet the overturning requirements of 8.2.3, based on
the overturning moment MO resulting from the application to the jack-up of the factored
load Q described in 8.1.3.
8.2.3 The unit shall be shown to satisfy the following overturning requirements:
MO 1.MD + 2.ML + 3.MS
where;
MD = The stabilizing moments due to weight of structure and non-varying loads
(at the displaced position resulting from the factored loads - see note)
including:
- Weight in air including appropriate solid ballast.
- Equipment.
- Buoyancy.
- Permanent enclosed liquid.
ML = The stabilizing moment due to the most onerous combination of
minimum variable load and center of gravity applicable to extreme
conditions as specified in Section 3.2 (at displaced position - see note).
MS = The stabilizing moments due to seabed foundation fixity (these shall not
be taken into account unless specific calculations for the location and the
spudcan concerned show that a significant contribution from seabed
fixity may be expected).
1 = R.F. for dead load moments (MD) = 0.95
2 = R.F. for live load moments (ML) = 0.95
3 = R.F. for seabed moments (MS)
= 0.95
Note: It may be convenient to consider the reduction in dead and live load stabilizing
moment caused by the displacement resulting from the factored loads as an
increase in the overturning moment, rather than as a reduction in the stabilizing
moment.
8.3
Page 130
Rev 3, August 2008
Foundation assessment
The foundation assessment shall be carried out in a step-wise manner until the
requirements of the current stage are satisfied when it is not necessary to proceed further.
The philosophy is described in Section 6.3 and shown in Figure 6.9.
p.VLo
where;
VLo = Vertical leg reaction during preloading
p = R.F. for foundation capacity during preload
= 0.9 (see Commentary)
Page 131
Rev 3, August 2008
8.3.1.4 In dense sands (i.e. with maximum bearing area not mobilized) and in clayey soils the
preload check may be applied if the leeward leg horizontal reaction QH < 0.1VLo (with
QH determined in accordance with Section 8.3.1.5). For a spudcan fully embedded in
sand the preload check may be applied if the leeward leg horizontal reaction QH <
0.03VLo. In all other cases a pinned condition bearing capacity check of the foundation
shall be carried out in accordance with Section 8.3.2 (see Commentary).
8.3.1.5 Step 1b - Sliding Resistance - Windward Leg(s)
a) The sliding capacity of the windward leg(s) should be checked for the horizontal leg
reaction QH in association with the vertical leg reaction Qy, both resulting from the
application to the jack-up of the factored load Q described in 8.1.3.
b) The foundation shall be shown to satisfy the following capacity requirements:
QH Hfc.FH
where;
FH = foundation capacity to withstand horizontal loads when load QV is acting
Page 132
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 133
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 134
Rev 3, August 2008
Horizontal Deflections
When working close to or over a platform the assessor shall, if required by the platform
owner, provide the extreme deflections of the jack-up to the platform owner (see Section
5.5.1 of the GUIDELINE).
8.5
8.5.1 The holding system (elevation and/or fixation system) is deemed to be the system which
forms the load path connecting the hull to the legs.
8.5.2
The loads in the holding system shall not exceed those specified by the manufacturers,
unless the basis of the limitations and the equivalent reference stress levels are stated,
when the loads in the holding system resulting from the application to the jack-up of the
factored load Q described in 8.1.3 may be compared with the ultimate capacity
multiplied by a R.F. () of 0.85.
8.5.3 he stresses in the structural members connecting the holding system to the hull shall be in
accordance with the requirements of Section 8.1.
8.6
Hull
8.6.1 It is assumed that the jack-up hull is designed and built to the structural/scantling
requirements of a recognized Classification Society and carries a valid Class Certificate.
8.6.2 For jack-ups where 8.6.1 does not apply it shall be shown that the hull has adequate
strength to withstand appropriate combinations of dead load, variable load, environmental
load, deflections, preload conditions and dynamics effects.
8.7
Page 135
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 136
Rev 3, August 2008
ar
A
Ae
Ai
bei
bi
B,B1,B2
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
E
fi
Fcr
FH
Fmin
Fr
FVH
FVHM
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Fy
Fyh
=
=
Fyeff
Fyi
Fywj
Fyfj
Fui
G
h
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Bx,By
Cb
Cm
=
=
=
Cw
D
Dn
=
=
=
Ic
I
Ix
Iy
J
=
=
=
=
=
e , ex , ey =
E
=
Page 137
Rev 3, August 2008
L
Lb
m
MD
ML
MS
Mn, Mnx,
Mny
Mnq
MO
Mp
Mpx
Mpy
Mr
Mu
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Mue, Muex,
Muey
M'uex, M'uey
Muq
M1
M2
PE
Pu
Pn
Pni
Py
q
Q
Q
Qa
QH
Qs
QV
QVH
QVHM
r
rx
ry
R
Re
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Page 138
Rev 3, August 2008
S
Sx
Sy
t
ti
=
=
=
=
=
VLo
X1,X2
Zi
1
2
3
4
,c
p
r
a
b
c
Hfc
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
p
t
VH
=
=
=
VHM
1
2
3
=
=
=
Page 139
Rev 3, August 2008
REFERENCES
Carter D.J.T. (1982), 'Estimation of Wave Spectra from Wave Height and Period', I.O.S.
Report No. 135.
Wheeler J.D. (1969) 'Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves',
Proceedings 1st Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. (OTC 1006).
Det Norske Veritas, Classification Note 31.5, 'Strength Analysis of Main Structures of
Self-Elevating Units', February 1992.
Brekke J.N., Murff J.D., Campbell R.B., and Lamb W.C., (1989) 'Calibration of Jackup
Leg Foundation Model Using Full-Scale Structural Measurements', Proceedings 21st
Offshore Technology Conference, Houston. (OTC 6127).
Meyerhoff G.G. and Chaplin T.K., 'The Compression and Bearing Capacity of Cohesive
Layers', Br. J. Appl. Phys, No 4, 1953.
Brown J.D., and Meyerhoff G.G., 'Experimental study of Bearing Capacity in Layered
Soils', Proc. 7th ICSMFE, Vol 2, 1969.
10
Winterkorn H.F. and Fang H.Y. (1975) 'Foundation Engineering Handbook', Van Nostrand
Reinbhold Company.
11.1 Noble Denton & Associates Limited (1987), 'Foundation fixity of jack-up units, Joint
Industry Study', Volumes I and II.
11.2 Noble Denton & Associates Limited (1988), 'Foundation fixity of jack-up units, Joint
Industry Study, extra work'.
12
13
Det Norske Veritas, Classification Note 30.2, 'Fatigue Strength Analysis for Mobile
Offshore Units', August 1984.
14
American Institute of Steel Construction, 'Specification for Structural Steel Buildings Load and Resistance Factor Design', September 1986.
Page 140
Rev 3, August 2008
REFERENCES (Continued)
15
Det Norske Veritas, 'Rules for Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations', July 1989,
Part 3, Chapter 1, Section 6B and associated Class Note 30.1, 'Buckling strength analysis of
Mobile Offshore Units', October 1987.
16
American Petroleum Institute, 'Draft Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and
Constructing Fixed Offshore Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design'
(RP 2A-LRFD), First Edition, December 1989.
17
Matlock H. (1970), "Correlations for Design of Laterally Loaded Piles in Soft Clay",
Proceedings Offshore Technology Conference (OTC 1204).
18
Andersen K.H. (1992), "Cyclic effects on Bearing Capacity and Stiffness for a Jack-up
Platform on Clay", NGI Oslo report 913012-1, Rev 1.
19
Dyer A.P., "Plastic Strength Interaction Equations for Jack-Up Chords", MSc Thesis, Dept
of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield, Nov. 1992.
20
Duan L., Chen W.-F., "A Yield Surface Equation for Doubly Symmetrical Sections",
Engineering Structures, Vol 12, pp. 114-119, April 1990.
Page 141
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX
Subject
Page(s)
ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
dynamic extreme response
foundation assessment
holding system loads
horizontal deflections
hull
overturning stability
punch-through
structural strength check
structure condition assessment
ADDED MASS
AIRGAP
16, 20
15, 31
AISC-LRFD CODE
15
AXIAL AREA
chord
leg
49
54
AXIAL LOAD
at leg/hull connection
due to P-
50
44
AXIAL STRENGTH
compact and noncompact sections
slender sections
structural member in compression
structural member in tension
117
118
116
116
90,94,98,99,102,103
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY
21, 22
BEARING CAPACITY
bearing capacity check, foundation stability
penetration in carbonate sands
penetration in clays
penetration in layered soils
penetration in silica sands
penetration in silts
settlements resulting from exceedence of capacity envelope
soil back-flow
61-82
72, 132
65
64
66-69
65
65
73
63
BENDING MOMENT
bending moment diagrams for leg
bending moment due to foundation
55-58
42
Page 142
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
BENDING STRENGTH
compact sections
noncompact sections
slender sections
121-125
122
122-123
123-125
125-128
BOREHOLE INVESTIGATION
24
BREAKING WAVES
19, 31
CENTER OF GRAVITY
COMPACT SECTIONS
definition
nominal axial strength
nominal bending strength
114
116
121
24
CREST ELEVATION
15, 20
CURRENT
drag forces
environmental excitation
other considerations
load application
profile
stretching
structure interference
surface current
surge
tide
velocity
18-19, 33
29-30, 33
93
39
53, 89
19, 33
19
33, 34
18
18, 19
18, 19
18, 19, 33
33-39
46-52
DETERMINISTIC ANALYSIS
dynamic wave analysis
extreme response determination
hydrodynamic modeling
wave height for
wave theories
31,42
93
89
34
15
31
DIRECTIONALITY
directionality function for spreading
effects on dynamic response
14
17
102
Page 143
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
DRAG COEFFICIENTS
equivalent drag coefficient
gusset drag coefficient
split tube chord drag coefficient
triangular chord drag coefficient
tubular drag coefficient
33-39
34-35
37
38
39
36
DRAG FORCE
30, 33
DYNAMIC AMPLIFICATION
dynamic amplification factor
89,91,93,98-100
98, 99
DYNAMIC ANALYSIS
application of dynamic analysis methods
closed-form frequency domain analysis
damping
dynamic amplification
dynamic amplification factor
environmental excitation
equivalent mass-spring-damper system
extreme response
fixation system
frequency domain method
inertial loadset
JONSWAP spectrum
maximum response
most probable maximum
natural period
nonlinear elements
Pierson-Moskowitz spectrum
random analysis
regular wave (deterministic) analysis
single degree of freedom analogy
structural system
damping
masses
springs
stiffness
time domain methods
89-107
104
98
90, 98, 101
89,91,93,94,98
98,99
93
95,98
89,92,104,105
46, 48, 49-51,55-58, 97
94, 100,101,104,105
52, 53, 89-91, 98- 101
16-17, 93
18
100,101,104,105
18,90,93,94-99
91
16, 93
90,93,94,100-103
93
98,99
91
91,98,101
91,95
95
91,94
94,101,104,105
EFFECTIVE LENGTH
effective length factor
117
117, 128
ENVIRONMENTAL DATA
(see also WIND, WAVE and CURRENT)
directionality
return period
return period for airgap
14-21
14, 17
10, 14
15, 20
ENVIRONMENTAL EXCITATION
93
33
47, 49,54
Page 144
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
89,92,104
20, 42
FACTORED LOADS
for foundation stiffness determination
foundation checks
overturning check
structural strength check
110
74
130-134
129
114
FACTORED RESISTANCE
foundation checks
overturning check
structural strength check
110
130 - 134
129
115
FATIGUE
analysis
environmental data for
life requirements
sensitive areas
FIXATION SYSTEM
modeling
rotational and vertical stiffness
shear force and bending moment diagrams
46
48, 49-51
97
55-58
FIXITY
degree of fixity
foundation capacity with
horizontal and vertical stiffness
rotational foundation fixity (stiffness)
42-43
43, 91, 94
133
75, 96
42-43, 73-75, 76, 95
FOOTPRINTS
22, 79
FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT
capacity check
foundation fixity
pinned foundation
displacement check
horizontal leg reaction
preload check
sliding resistance
vertical leg reaction
130-134
132
133
132
134
133
130
131
125
FOUNDATION ANALYSIS
bearing capacity
displacement check
moment fixity
footprints
leaning instability
other considerations
partial spudcan embedment
preloading penetration
preloading check
61-85
61-81, 130-134
70, 81,134
73-81
22,83
83
70
70
61-69
70-72, 130-131
Page 145
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
22, 84
85
22, 85
70,72-73, 131
85
GEOTECHNICAL ANALYSIS
leg penetration
analysis method
carbonate sands
clay
layered soils
silica sands
silts
spudcan geometries
spudcan foundation model
61-85
61-69
61-63
65
64
66-69
65
65
61, 62
62
GEOTECHNICAL SURVEYS
bathymetric survey
borehole investigation
cone penetrometer testing
geotechnical investigation
seabed surface survey
shallow seismic survey
soil sampling
use of geotechnical data
21-24
21, 22
24
24
24
21-23
22, 23
22
61
GUIDES
46, 49-51, 59
GUSSETS
37, 48
28
HORIZONTAL DEFLECTIONS
134
131-133
HULL
acceptance criteria
detailed hull model
equivalent hull model
functional loads
loading
134
49
49
13
52
Page 146
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
51
50, 51
49-51
51
HULL MODELING
detailed hull model
equivalent hull model
49
49
49
HYDRODYNAMIC COEFFICIENTS
gussets
marine growth
non-tubulars
other shapes
rough tubulars
smooth tubulars
split tube chord
triangular chord
tubulars
36-39
37
21, 30, 36
38
39
36
36
38
39
36
HYDRODYNAMIC LOADS
deterministic/regular wave analysis
drag force
fluid-structure interaction
inertia force
Morison's equation
slender members
stochastic/random wave height/spectra
wave kinematic extrapolation
29-31, 53
15, 31
30
30, 98
30-31
29, 30, 31, 33, 36
29
15, 16-17, 31
31
INERTIA
inertia coefficients
inertia force (wave)
inertial loadset
JACKING SYSTEM
46, 49-51,55-58
79
LEG/CAN CONNECTION
43
43
Page 147
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
LEG MODELING
hydrodynamic
added mass
buoyancy
detailed leg modeling
drag coefficients
equivalent leg modeling
inertia coefficients
member lengths
non-structural items
shielding
solidification
spudcan modeling
structural
combination leg modeling
detailed leg modeling
equivalent leg modeling
member lengths
single detailed leg model
spudcan modeling
Page(s)
35, 90, 94
13
33-34
33-39
33-35
35, 36-37, 38-39
34
34
34
34
34
49
46-52
47-49, 54
48
48
52
LEG PENETRATION
analysis method
carbonate sands
clay
layered soils
silica sands
silts
61-63
65
64
66
65
65
LEG RESERVE
21
110-113, 127
LOADS
application to structural model
combinations
current
hull (functional)
hydrodynamic
inertial loadset
P-
wind
52-53
89
53, 89
13, 52
29-31, 53
52, 53, 89, 90,98-101
43-45, 52, 53
27-29, 53
LOCAL BUCKLING
116,121
MARINE GROWTH
21, 30, 36
MASS-SPRING-DAMPER SYSTEM
95,98-100
14
20
20
Page 148
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
MOMENT
bending moment capacity
bending moment due to foundation fixity
bending moment diagrams for leg
can moment
effective applied moment
members in compression
members in tension
hull sag moment
leg/hull connection moment
lower guide moment due to leg inclination
overturning moment
P- moment
second moment of area (legs)
120
119
52-53
46, 49-51
43
90,100,129
43-45
54
MORISON'S EQUATION
100,101,104,105
NATURAL PERIOD
90,93,94-99
44, 77
87
34
38-39
OVERTURNING STABILITY
axis
moment
10, 129
124
44, 45, 89, 129
P-
43-45
44
45
52, 53
45
44
121-125
42
55-58
129, 133
PINIONS46-47,49-51,55-58,134
PLASTIC ANALYSIS
plastic moment
plastic stress distribution
112
121,122
114
Page 149
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
PRELOAD
foundation assessment
foundation stability
leg penetration during
90,110
130, 131
70-72
61-69
PUNCH-THROUGH
134
QUASI-STATIC ANALYSIS
RACK TEETH
fatigue
stiffness due to
marine growth on
100
49
36
14, 27, 28
21
RESISTANCE FACTORS
foundations
holding system
overturning
structural members
130 31
134
129
115
RESPONSE ANALYSIS
89-107
RETURN PERIOD
14, 15, 20
SCOUR
22, 80
42
21
SEAFLOOR INSTABILITY
81
SHALLOW GAS
22, 81
22, 23
29
55-58
SHIELDING
34
SHOCK PADS
50, 51
Page 150
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
14, 15, 17
98,99
SLENDER SECTIONS
hydrodynamic loads
structural considerations
29
114,118,123-125,127
SLIDING CHECK
36
SOIL SAMPLING
23, 24
SOLIDIFICATION
34
SPECTRUM (WAVE)
JONSWAP
Pierson-Moskowitz
16-18
16-17, 92
16-17,92
38
SPUDCAN
modeling
partial spudcan embedment
spudcan foundation model
spudcan geometries
spudcan-pile interaction
34, 52
70
62
61, 62
86
STIFFNESS
due to chord rack
for natural period estimation
geometric stiffness modeling methods
49
95-98
44
STOCHASTIC ANALYSIS
dynamic analysis
hydrodynamic modeling
kinematic extrapolation
wave height for (scaled)
wave spectra
wave theory
93,94,100,101,104,105
34
31
15
16-17
31
42
STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS
fatigue analysis
foundation fixity
general conditions
leg inclination
load application
P- effects
range of storm directions
response analysis
seabed reaction point
structural modeling
42-53
18, 42, 107
42-43, 73-81
42
43
52-53
43-45
42
88-105
42
46-52
Page 151
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
STRUCTURAL MEMBERS
definitions
structural strength check
113
110-127
STRUCTURAL MODELING
combination 3-leg model
combination leg model
detailed hull model
detailed 3-leg model
detailed leg model
equivalent 3-stick-leg model
equivalent hull model
equivalent leg model
fixation systems
general considerations
jacking systems
jack-case and bracing
leg-hull connection modeling
model applicability
pinions
rack tooth stiffness
shock pad
single detailed leg model
spudcan modeling
46-52
47
49
49
47
48
47
49
49
46, 51
46-47
46, 51
51
49-51
47
47, 51
49
51
48
52
110-127
110-112, 127
116-119
116
121-125
125, 128
114
116-119
121-125
120
119
117, 128
110-114
110, 115, 127
115
116-119,121-125
112,113
110,111,127
127
122
117
122
127
112,115, 127, 134
Page 152
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
114
118,119
123-125
113
113
110-127
121
112,114,117
91-93
91, 102
91,95
94, 95-98
10, 135
33, 34
20
94,101,104,105
39
36
130-133
WATER LEVEL
chart datum
extreme still water level
lowest astronomical tide
mean water level
minimum still water level
20
20
20
20
20
20
WAVES
Airy wave theory
breaking waves
crest elevation
directionality function
extreme wave height
freak waves
kinematic extrapolation
maximum height
period
associated
peak
return
zero-upcrossing
14-18
15, 31
19, 31
15, 20
17, 102
14
20
31
14, 15
47
47
47
15
16-17
14, 15, 20
16-17
Page 153
Rev 3, August 2008
INDEX (Continued)
Subject
Page(s)
WAVES (Continued)
shortcrestedness (spreading)
significant height
significant height (scaled)
spectrum
JONSWAP
Pierson-Moskowitz
steepness
16-17, 93
16-17, 93
17
WEIGHT
center of gravity
minimum elevated weight
WIND
force calculation
height coefficient
load application
profile
reference level
shape coefficient
velocity
14, 27-29
27-29
28
53
14, 28, 29
14, 27-28
29
14, 27-28
YIELD STRESS
112,114,117
74-75
16-17
COMMENTARIES TO
RECOMMENDED PRACTICE
FOR SITE SPECIFIC ASSESSMENT
OF MOBILE JACK-UP UNITS
FIRST EDITION MAY 1994
(REVISION 3 AUGUST 2008)
Rev
Rev 1
Issue Date
May 1997
Rev 2
Jan 2002
Rev 3
Aug 2008
Details
Changes made to pages 11, 27, 30, 80, 86, 128, 155, 171, 176, and 191.
Revised areas indicated by sidelines thus:
Changes made to pages 112,114, 131, 138, 147, 152, 153, 164, 176
Revised areas indicated by double sidelines thus:
Changes made to pages 9,115 119, 127,131, 164, 180
Revised areas indicated by triple sidelines thus:
Note that page numbers listing above changes in Rev.1 and 2 may no longer be
accurate due to insertion of material in Rev.3.
Page 2
Rev 3, August 2008
PREAMBLE
These Commentaries to the Recommended Practice for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile JackUp Units (PRACTICE) have been written to provide background information, supporting
documentation, and additional or alternative calculation methods as applicable.
The reader should recognize that the information presented herein should only be taken in
conjunction with the PRACTICE and that the cautions and limitations discussed in
Section 1 of the PRACTICE apply.
Page 3
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS
SECTION TITLE
PAGE NO
C3
12
C3.3
12
C3.4
WIND
12
C3.5
WAVES
C3.5.1 Determining Wave Heights for Regular and Irregular
Wave Analysis
C3.5.1.1 Significant Wave Height for Stochastic
Irregular Waves Analysis.
C3.5.1.2 Wave Height for Regular Wave Analyses
C3.5.3 Alternative formulation for wave spectrum.
C3.5.4 Spreading
13
C3.7
20
21
22
C4
23
C4.1
INTRODUCTION
23
C4.2
23
C4.3
HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES
C4.3.1 General
C4.3.2 Drag forces
C4.3.3 Inertia forces
24
C4.4
WAVE THEORIES
C4.4.1 General
C4.4.2 Regular wave analysis
C4.4.3 Irregular wave analysis
27
C4.5
CURRENT
C4.5.1 General
C4.5.2 Combination with wave particle velocities
C4.5.3 Reduction of current by the actuator disc formula
C4.5.4 Current stretching
31
C4.6
32
Page 4
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE
PAGE NO
C4.7
34
C4.8
OTHER CONSIDERATIONS
58
59
61
Appendices to Section C4
C4.A Example of Equivalent Model Computations
C4.B Comparison cases to assess implications of PRACTICE
formulation
C4.C Comparison of test results for chords
C5
66
70
75
78
C5.1
INTRODUCTION
78
C5.2
GENERAL
78
C5.3
GLOBAL RESPONSE
79
C5.4
80
C5.5
82
C5.6
LOAD APPLICATION
84
C5.7
EVALUATION OF FORCES
84
89
Appendices to Section C5
C5.A Derivation of alternative geometric stiffness formulation for P- effects
90
Page 5
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE
C6
PAGE NO
98
C6.1
INTRODUCTION
98
C6.2
98
C6.3
111
C6.4
121
122
124
C7
128
C7.1
INTRODUCTION
128
C7.2
128
C7.3
128
C7.4
130
C7.5
131
Appendices to Section C7
C7.A Derivation of jack-up stiffness equation
C7.B Details of appropriate dynamic analysis methods
C7.B.1 Analysis methods
C7.B.1.1 Frequency domain methods
C7.B.1.2 Time domain methods
134
145
Page 6
Rev 3, August 2008
CONTENTS (Continued)
SECTION TITLE
Appendices to Section C7 (continued)
C7.B.2 Methods for determining the MPM
C7.B.2.1 Use of drag-inertia parameter (or equivalent)
determined from mean and standard deviation
of a frequency or time-domain analysis.
C7.B.2.2 Fit Weibull distribution to results of a
number of time-domain simulations to
determine responses at required probability
level and average the results.
C7.B.2.3 Fit Gumbel distribution to histogram of peak
responses from a number of time-domain
simulations to determine responses at
required probability level.
C7.B.2.4 Apply Winterstein's Hermite polynomial method
to the results of time domain simulation(s).
PAGE NO
145
147
148
150
151
C8
164
C8.0
164
C8.1
167
C8.3
FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT
186
C8.7
188
190
192
Page 7
Rev 3, August 2008
LIST OF FIGURES
C3.5.1
C4.7.18
C4.7.19
C4.7.20
C4.A.1
C4.A.2
66
68
C4.C.1
75
C4.3.1
C4.4.1
C4.4.2
C4.4.3
C4.7.1
C4.7.2
C4.7.3
C4.7.4
C4.7.5
C4.7.6
C4.7.7
C4.7.8
C4.7.9
C4.7.10
C4.7.11
C4.7.12
C4.7.13
C4.7.14
C4.7.15
C4.7.16
C4.7.17
C4.C.2
C4.C.3
C4.C.4
C4.C.5
16
26
29
30
30
42
44
44
45
45
47
47
48
48
49
49
50
50
53
53
54
54
56
57
57
75
76
76
77
Page 8
Rev 3, August 2008
85
85
86
86
87
87
87
88
88
C5.A.1
C5.A.2
Analysis model
Load application
94
94
C6.1
98
C6.2
C6.3
C6.4
C6.5
C6.6
C6.7
C6.8
C6.9
C6.10
C6.11
98
101
107
109
110
112
112
112
116
119
C7.1
133
C7.A.1
142
C7.B.1
C7.B.1
153
154
C7.B.2
C7.B.3
C7.B.4
C7.B.5
C7.B.6
C7.B.7
C8.0.1
C8.1.1
155
156
157
160
162
162
166
171
C8.1.5
C8.1.6
C8.1.7
C8.1.8
C8.1.9
C8.1.10
C8.1.11
Page 9
Rev 3, August 2008
171
171
172
172
174
174
177
180
182
184
LIST OF TABLES
C3.5.1
C3.5.2
C4.7.1
C4.7.2
C4.7.3
C4.7.4
C4.A.1
C4.A.2
C4.A.3
C4.A.4
C4.A.5
C4.B.1
C4.B.2
14
15
37
43
43
56
66
67
67
68
69
72
73
Page 10
Rev 3, August 2008
93
103
93
103
104
104
104
104
132
179
181
183
185
Page 11
Rev 3, August 2008
C3.4
Where directional data are available, these may be considered (Section 3.3.1).
Note: When directional data are specified, the data should normally not be divided
into sectors of less than 30 and the directional values so calculated should generally
be factored such that the extreme for the most severe sector equals the omnidirectional value for the required assessment return period and season where
applicable. In certain areas 30 sectors may be inappropriate; caution should be
exercised if an assessment heading falls marginally outside a sector with higher data.
The downwind (vector) component of the maximum surface flow of the mean spring
tidal current is specified rather than the maximum spring tidal current (Section 3.6.1).
WIND
The PRACTICE selects the 1 minute sustained wind for determining the wind loadings
on the jack-up. In some instances the wind data will be supplied only for an alternative
averaging period. The conversion to the 1 minute sustained value can not be uniquely
defined as the conversion can be a function of various parameters, including the wind
speed itself. In the absence of site specific data the following formula may be applied
[1], providing that the design storm is of longer duration than the supplied averaging
period (the supplied averaging period may exceed the storm duration in areas of the
world where the extreme winds are due to squalls, thunderstorms, etc.):
t
Vref = Vs[1 - 0.047ln( ref )]
ts
where;
Vref = wind velocity for reference averaging period required by PRACTICE
(1 minute).
Vs = wind velocity for supplied averaging period, ts.
tref = averaging period required by PRACTICE (1 minute).
= averaging period for supplied wind velocity.
ts
Page 12
Rev 3, August 2008
C3.5.1 Determining Wave Heights for Regular and Irregular Wave Analysis
The wave heights utilized by the PRACTICE for wave load calculations are related to the
return period significant wave height for a three-hour storm, Hsrp. The PRACTICE
however recognizes that this data may not always be available to the assessor and
therefore provides relationships between Hsrp and Hmax, the individual extreme wave
height for the assessment return period with an annual probability of exceedance of
1/return period. The assessment return period is normally taken as 50 years in which
case Hmax(50) is the wave height with a 2% annual probability of exceedance.
Hsrp and the associated period are normally determined through a direct extrapolation of
measured or hindcast site specific significant wave heights. Hmax may be determined
either from an extrapolation of the distribution of individual wave heights over the
assessment return period or by the application of a multiplication factor to Hsrp.
It is noted that the 'extreme wave height' of a regular wave, Hmpm, determined from a 3hour storm segment is the most probable maximum (MPM) wave height, defined as the
distance from the extreme crest to the following trough. Using this definition, the MPM
wave height from the 3-hour storm segment is given by:
Hmpm = 1.68 Hsrp
This relationship is confirmed by the data of [2] for individual storms. However, Hmpm
must not be confused with Hmax and must not be used to determine the value of Hsrp on
which an assessment is based. This is because Hmax includes site specific considerations
of potentially longer durations of storms (including build up and decay) and the
additional probability contributions of other return period storms (i.e. 20, 30, 40, 100year, etc., return period storms). Consequently the ratio Hmax/Hsrp is larger than the ratio
Hmpm/Hsrp.
A consequence of the site specific nature of the derivation of Hmax is that there is no
unique relationship between Hmax and Hsrp applicable to all areas of the world. Thus, if a
specified return period maximum wave height is given at a particular location there is no
consistent way to derive Hsrp without knowledge of how the maximum (Hmax) wave
height was derived originally.
Average factors between Hsrp and Hmax have been derived for a North Sea and a Gulf of
Mexico location for a 50-year return period. Without further information, the North Sea
factors can be generalized to any non-tropical revolving storm area and the Gulf of
Mexico factors can be generalized to tropical revolving storm areas. These factors are:
Environmental Conditions
Tropical revolving storms
Non-tropical storms
Hmax/Hsrp
1.75
1.86
Page 13
Rev 3, August 2008
The Dean's stream function/Stoke's fifth order theories predict higher peak than trough
amplitudes, increasing the maximum velocities and the wetted surface compared with the
Airy theory. In Figure C4.4.2 the difference in the profiles is illustrated. Using the same
specified wave height this difference may be seen in terms of the overturning moment,
base shear or deck displacement.
A number of computations were performed to determine the differences due to wave
kinematics on selected Jack-up designs. Some results are summarized in Tables C3.5.1
and C3.5.2. See also Appendix C4.B.
Airy
Const.
Airy
Wheeler
Stoke's
fifth
Dean's
stream
Airy
Const.
Airy
Wheeler
Stoke's
fifth
Dean's
stream
Water
depth
m
Wave
H:T
m:sec
30
15/14
7.5
15/14
70
Crest
amp.
m
Base
shear
MN
Overt.
moment
MNm
Dean's
overturning/
other
3.577
91.607
1.74
7.5
3.266
82.782
1.93
15/14
10.22
5.211
156.16
1.02
15/14
15/14
28/16
15/15
28/16
15/14
28.16
15/14
28/16
10.42
7.5
14.0
7.5
14.0
8.41
19.17
8.41
19.33
5.243
2.916
14.121
2.563
13.446
3.171
18.264
3.161
18.136
159.45
160.83
677.69
138.80
636.53
180.80
976.62
180.30
972.54
1.
1.12
1.44
1.30
1.53
1.00
1.00
1.
1.
Page 14
Rev 3, August 2008
Airy
Wheeler
Stochastic
irregular seas
1.00
Deterministic
1)
0.79
regular waves
2)
0.66
3)
0.71
4)
OVERTURNING MOMENT:
Stochastic
irregular seas
1.00
Deterministic
1)
0.81
regular waves
2)
0.67
3)
0.72
4)
-
Airy
No stretch
Airy
Constant
Stokes
fifth
1.03
0.84
0.69
0.75
-
0.83
0.69
0.56
0.61
-
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.92
1.10
0.93
0.76
0.83
-
0.790.69
0.56
0.61
-
0.66
0.66
0.66
0.93
Water depth 110m, Hs = 13.0m, Tp = Tass = 17.0 sec, uniform current V = 0.4 m/s
1) Hmax = 1.86Hs
2) crest as Stokes
3) Hmax = 1.86Hs * 1.07 except Stokes.
4) Hmax = 1.60Hs (PRACTICE recommendation)
Wheeler stretching basis for normalized results, i.e.:
Airy Wheeler stochastic load = d (other load)
Here it is assumed that the significant wave height should have a scaling factor close to
1.0 for Wheeler stretching at 110m using irregular wave analysis. At shallower water
depths a scaling factor in excess of 1.0 should be due to the wave asymmetry.
In [8] a scaling of wave crests is suggested based on the Stokes wave profiles.
Comparisons are made both with data for North Sea conditions (d = 70 m), see also
Figure C3.5.1, and shallow waters (d 5.0 m) in the Baltic Sea implying that this may
be a general model. A correction proportional to wave steepness is deduced which
shows fair agreement with the data.
3
D2
k
=
=
=
=
=
The data and the model indicate that the skewness, 3, is about 0.08 - 0.2 for large
seastates at 70 m water depths giving a correction of 1.05-1.12 on the crest height
compared with a linear model. The forces on a Jack-up structure increase
proportionally as the square (or more) of the elevation. Applying a correction for the
square of the bias in wave crest the correction for 70m should be in the range 1.10-1.25,
depending on wave steepness.
Page 16
Rev 3, August 2008
By combining the above suggested formulae a correction for the Wheeler stretching in
a stochastic analysis may be deduced as:
Hs
The D2 factor includes a dependence on the wave number for individual; waves. This
is not suitable for the purpose of inclusion in the PRACTICE, since there is no unique
wave number for a seastate.
The elevation is not the only parameter to be considered and others; are:
- the depth attenuation over water depth,
- the profiles are not similar in horizontal directions,
- and forces at some distance lose correlation.
This gives a different scaling than that deduced from the wave crest height only.
Based on the above a significant wave height for stochastic/irregular wave analysis
using Airy waves and Wheeler stretching is recommended as:
Hs
= [1 + 10 Hs/Tp2 exp(-d/25)]Hsrp
This removes the direct link to the Stokes profile as suggested in [8], but contains the
linear dependence on steepness and a depth dependence with an exponential decay.
Further, by inserting the limited range of wave steepness specified in Section 3.5 the
scaling may be further simplified. Assuming a peak enhancement factor of = 3.5, the
peak period may be approximated as Tp/Tz = 1.3, giving a range for
0.046 < Hs/Tp2 < 0.057 for all areas. A ratio Hs/Tp2 = 0.05 is therefore introduced, such
that the significant wave height is recommended as:
Hs
The scaling factor should be limited to a water depth above, say 25m.
A similar scaling on wave height for Airy/Wheeler stretching is currently being applied
indirectly in design specifications, [9], where it is stated that the wave heights
according to Airy should be two times the peak amplitude predicted by the Stokes wave
profile.
The above scaling is an approximation. It would be more correct to account for the
wave asymmetry directly in the generation of the sea surface elevation by, for example,
the methods indicated in [8]. The significant wave height Hsrp could then be applied
directly.
Scaling for other stretching techniques combined with Airy waves may be deduced for
stochastic, irregular waves and based on computational comparisons for different wave
heights and water depths. However, this will not give exactly the same force profile
over the leg and discrepancies in force prediction will occur. Such scaling is therefore
not included in the PRACTICE.
For computational comparisons using this wave height scaling, see also Appendix
C4.B.
Page 17
Rev 3, August 2008
C3.5.3
Page 18
Rev 3, August 2008
g
q
=
=
=
=
Hm0
Tp
f
=
=
=
=
=
Spreading
The PRACTICE provides a formulation which may be used to incorporate the effects of
wave spreading in the analysis. The power constants recommended [10] imply that the
extreme seastate is close to long-crested, and that there is therefore little angular
distribution of wave energy about the mean direction.
It should be noted that where significant spreading exists it may be non-conservative to
assume a long-crested sea.
In [4] a reduction formula is suggested which reduces the velocity by a factor 'primarily
accounting for wave spreading':
ured/u = [(2n+1)/(2n+2)]
where;
n
= the exponent in the cos2n spreading function at Tp,
u
= the computed velocity for long crested waves,
= the reduced horizontal velocity.
ured
For a range of the spreading exponent, 2 < n < 3, the range of the scaling is 0.91 <
ured/u < 0.94. This corresponds to a reduction of the forces by a factor ranging from
0.833-0.875. To use such a spreading factor in reducing overall forces on a structure is
debatable, and especially so for jack-up structures. There may be cases where the
inclusion of the spreading in irregular seas results in higher forces for some headings.
If the leg spacing corresponds to a wave period, inducing opposing wave forces for
different legs coinciding with the first resonance period, the forces will in fact be
amplified when spreading is included. For jack-ups where the resonance period may
often be as high as 4-7 sec., the effect of wave spreading is believed to reduce forces.
However, the size of the reduction is dependent on the structure.
C3.7
Page 19
Rev 3, August 2008
CDeDe
d
D2
f
g
H
Hdet
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Hmax =
Hmpm =
Page 20
Rev 3, August 2008
Hmo
Hs
Hsrp
k
n
q
Snn(f)
tref
ts
T
Tp
Tz
u
ured
V
Vref
Vs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
3
4
d
s
Page 21
Rev 3, August 2008
Heideman J.C. and Schaudt K.J., 'Recommended Equations for Short-term Statistics of
Wave Heights and Crest Heights', 1 April 1987.
'Practice for the Site Specific Assessment of Jack-up Units', By Marine Technology
division, SIPM, EDP-5, The Hague, May 1989.
J.E. Skjelbreia, G. Berek, Z.K. Bolen, O.T. Gudmestad, J.C. Heideman, R.D. Ohmart, N.
Spidsoe and A. Torum, 'Wave Kinematics in Irregular Waves', OMAE, Stavanger, 1991.
S.R. Winterstein, E.M. Bitner-Gregersen and K. Ronold, 'Statistical and Physical Models
of Nonlinear Random Waves', OMAE, Volume II, Safety and Reliability, Stavanger, 1991,
pp.23-31.
10
S. Haver, 'On the Modelling of Short Crested Sea for Structural Response Calculations',
EurOMS, Trondheim, 20-22 August 1990.
C4
C4.1
Page 22
Rev 3, August 2008
C4.2
For leg structures, the equivalent hydrodynamic coefficients on lattice legs may be
taken from Section 4.6. These will generally be the same as those for clean legs in
large velocities and long waves and hence the smooth values are generally
recommended.
C4.3
HYDRODYNAMIC FORCES
C4.3.1
General
Jack-up leg sections are complex structures, usually made of slender members. The
best engineering tool available for computation of hydrodynamic forces is Morison's
equation. However, the limitations of Morison's equation should be recognized. For
single large diameter members/legs, which may be an alternative to lattice legs, more
appropriate theories and formulations for the inertia forces should be applied.
MacCamy and Fuch's [60] corrections on the inertia coefficients of vertical elements
may be an alternative for those structures.
A limitation on the application of Morison's equation to predict wave loads is
implemented. The limitation is set to:
> 5Di
(4.3.1)
where;
= wave length and
Di = reference dimension of individual leg members (within a lattice leg).
The above limitation implies that the members should be small compared with the
waves.
Morison's equation [30] is an empirical relation given by a drag term plus an inertia
force term as:
F = Fdrag + Finertia = 0.5 CD D | ux | ux + CM (D2/4) u x
(4.3.2)
where;
CD = the drag coefficient.
CM = the inertia coefficient.
ux, u x = the horizontal water particle velocity and acceleration.
D
= the tubular diameter.
Page 24
Rev 3, August 2008
For the drag part of the equation the extension from Morison's original formula is made
as:
Fdrag = 0.5 CD D | vn | vn
(4.3.3)
where vn is now introduced as the relative particle velocity normal to the local member
axis including current, taken as:
vn = un + VCn - r n
(4.3.4)
where;
un + VCn = the combined particle velocity from wave and current by vectorial
summation normal to the member considered.
r n = the velocity of the considered member normal to its axis and in the
direction of the combined particle velocity.
= 0, if an absolute velocity is to be applied, i.e. neglecting the structural
velocity.
= 1, if relative velocity is to be included. May only be used for
stochastic/random wave force analyses if:
Ured = uTn/Di 20.
where;
u
= particle velocity,
Tn = first natural period of surge or sway motion
Di = the reference diameter of a chord.
In the above definition of combined velocity, current is included. This should be
acceptable as the member does not distinguish between the velocity due to current or
wave motions. The backflow of the wake is different in combined wave and current
fields, (KC dependence) but this has a small influence on the prediction of the largest
force in an extreme wave for single members of diameters typical for jack-ups, see
Section C4.7.2.6.
For inclined members the above definition implies that the procedure to arrive at the
force components is first to determine the particle velocity component normal to the
member axis, then determine the force normal to the member axis and thereafter to
determine the force components in the global directions. This implies that the force
component along the member is neglected.
On the inclusion of the relative velocity there has been some reluctance to directly
accept the extension to the original Morison's equation. Intuitively the extension
should be correct using the same argument as for current forces as the member only
experiences the flow field passing locally. However, the displacements of the members
are quite small and there has been few data to support such an extension as pointed out
in [34]. In [55] test results show that for small amplitude motions the damping may be
overpredicted when the relative velocity is included. However, for a typical jack-up,
with member diameters less than 1m and natural periods around 5.0 seconds, the
sensitivity to member displacement is not large because the parameter Ured = uTn/Di
20 or more in an extreme sea state, see Figure C4.3.1. In addition, the Christchurch bay
test results show that the relative velocity formulation gives good prediction of the inine loading [44], 'correctly predicting the important hydrodynamic damping at the
resonant frequency'. From this it may be concluded that the relative velocity
formulation is probably applicable for jack-up structures. A limitation is introduced to
avoid any significant overprediction of damping.
C4.3.3
Page 26
Rev 3, August 2008
Inertia forces
These forces are not dominant for extreme loads of typical jack-up lattice legs. A more
comprehensive model could be applied to include relative accelerations (noting that in
this case the added mass should not be included in the structural model).
In the RP the formulation is given as:
Finertia = CM (D2/4) u n
(4.3.5)
where;
Finertia = normal force per unit length of member (in this case the member is
vertical and the force horizontal).
C4.4.
WAVE THEORIES
C4.4.1
General
In general there are two different computational methods with corresponding suitable
wave theories;
-
For the deterministic regular wave analysis all formulated wave theories may be chosen
from a mathematical point of view. For shallow waters however, the choice of wave
theory is limited to those properly predicting wave asymmetry and the corresponding
change in wave kinematics.
For the stochastic irregular wave analysis only the linear Airy wave theory, or
variations of Airy theory are suitable. Airy wave theory does not fully describe the
wave kinematics behavior since this wave theory implies symmetric waves, which are
not always applicable for shallow water. This will limit the application of this type of
analysis to deeper and intermediate water depths and is considered further in Section
3.5.1, see Appendix C4.B.
C4.4.2
Page 27
Rev 3, August 2008
C4.4.3
Notes
1) None of these theories is theoretically correct at the breaking limit.
2) Wave theories intended for limiting height waves should be referenced for
waves higher than 0.9Hb when stream function theory may underestimate
the kinematics.
3) Stream function theory is satisfactory for wave loading calculations over
the remaining range of regular waves. However, stream function programs
may not produce a solution when applied to near breaking waves or deep
water waves.
4) The order of stream function theory likely to be satisfactory is circled. Any
solution obtained should be checked by comparison with the results of a
higher order solution.
5) The error involved in using Airy theory outside its range of applicability is
discussed in the background document.
Page 28
Rev 3, August 2008
Nomenclature
Hmax/gTass
2
d/gTass
Hmax
Hb
d
Tass
L
g
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Page 29
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 30
Rev 3, August 2008
C4.5.1
General
The current specified for a specific site is to be included as specified in section 3.6 of
the PRACTICE. Interpolation between the data points may be required and linear
interpolation is recommended for simplicity.
C4.5.2
C4.5.3
C4.5.4
Current stretching
It is suggested to let the profile follow the surface elevation by changing the coordinate
system similarly to that of the Wheeler stretching defined by equation 4.4.1. The
current profile is recommended in Section 3.6.2.
C4.6.1
Page 31
Rev 3, August 2008
General
The hydrodynamic modeling of the leg of a jack-up may be carried out by utilizing
either 'detailed' or 'equivalent' techniques. In both cases the geometric orientation of
the elements are accounted for. The hydrodynamic properties are then found as
described below:
'Detailed Model'
All relevant members are modeled with their own unique descriptions for the Morison
term values and with correct orientation to determine vn and u n and the corresponding
drag coefficient times diameter CDD = CDiDi and inertia coefficient times sectional area
CMA = CmiDi2/4, as defined in Section 4.7.
'Equivalent Model'
The hydrodynamic model of a bay is comprised of one, 'equivalent', vertical tubular to
be located at the geometric center of the actual leg. The corresponding (horizontal) vn
and u n are to be applied with equivalent CDD = CDeDe and CMA = CMeAe, given in
4.6.5 and 4.6.6. The model should be varied with elevation, as necessary, to account
for changes in dimensions, marine growth thickness, etc.
C4.6.2
Length of members
Lengths of members are normally to be taken as node-to-node distance of the members,
in order to account for small non-structural items.
C4.6.3
Spudcan
A criteria for considering the spudcan is suggested such that the effect of the wave and
current forces on the spudcan may normally be neglected at deep water or deep
penetrations. However, there may be special cases with e.g. large spudcans in
combination with high currents that should be considered also outside the suggested
criteria.
C4.6.4
The effect is less than 10% in the worst direction and is therefore suggested omitted in
the PRACTICE, when:
As/At < 0.5
where;
As = sum of projected areas for all members in the considered plane
At = the total projected envelope area of the considered plane.
Solidification should be considered if shielding is included.
C4.6.5
C4.6.6
Page 33
Rev 3, August 2008
If, however, a more accurate model is wanted an alternative is given using the
individual member inertia coefficients, as specified in Section 4.7 of the PRACTICE,
and including the effect of inclined members. The CMe coefficient is then determined
by the summation shown in Section 4.6.6 of the PRACTICE. This model is in closer
agreement with the 'detailed model'. It should be stressed that the coefficients must be
defined together with their reference dimensions Di.
As comments to this formulation the following may be observed:
-
for horizontal members with flow along the length axis the inertia coefficient is:
CMei = 1.0
for a vertical rough tubular the inertia coefficient will be:
CMei = 1.8
for other vertical members the inertia coefficient will be:
CMei = 2.0
for other flat plates (brackets) the inertia coefficient will be:
CMei = 1.0
C4.7
C4.7.1
General
The coefficients determined herein are based on tests where the particle velocities and
accelerations are measured simultaneously as the forces, usually in a controlled
environment. This is the logical way to determine the loading coefficients. However,
the important result in engineering is the overall forces predicted by the Morison's
equation over the Jack-up legs. Since some wave theory has to be applied, which does
not perfectly predict the wave particle motions in all cases, additional scaling is
suggested in Section 3.5 of the PRACTICE, see also Appendix C4.B. This is important
to consider when reading this chapter as the stated coefficients may be somewhat larger
than those applied in other recommendations or classification rules.
C4.7.2
C4.7.2.1 General;
There exists a wealth of data on hydrodynamic coefficients (drag and inertia
coefficients) for tubulars, mainly from model tests. A number of model tests have been
performed in wind tunnels, others in oscillating water environment or in steady water
flow, while (to our knowledge) only a few model tests have been performed in a wave
environment. In addition a few full scale tests have been reported.
In the following section (Section C4.7.2.1-7) an overview is given of the literature that
has been applied for the purpose of recommending values for the hydrodynamic
coefficients of jack-up platforms.
k
Relative roughness
=
D
where;
k
= roughness height
D
= diameter
Um = maximum orbital particle velocity
T
= wave period
U
= flow velocity at the depth of the considered element.
Concerning the first question above, it is important to determine the range of Reynolds
numbers and Keulegan-Carpenter numbers of interest. Both the drag coefficient CD
and the inertia coefficient CM are dependent on the Reynolds number and the
Keulegan-Carpenter number. In the ultimate strength case one is interested in the CD
and CM coefficients in relatively long and steep waves, i.e. wave steepness S = Hs/ in
the range 1/10-1/15. A typical ultimate strength case may for example be, a tubular
with diameter D = 0.3 m standing in a seastate with average zero-upcrossing period Tz
= 10 secs.
( = 156 m) and significant wave height Hs = 13.0 m. The representative water particle
velocity for this wave will be:
Hs
UW =
= 4.1 m/s.
Tz
Assuming a current velocity UC of about 1.0 m/s, the total water particle velocity will
be U = UW+UC = 5.1 m/s. This results in the following Reynolds number and
Keulegan-Carpenter numbers (close to the water surface):
UTz
UD
Re =
KC =
= 170
= 1.1 106,
D
This means that in the ultimate strength case we are dealing with high KC-numbers and
post-critical Re-numbers. Sarpkaya (see for example [4]) uses a parameter = Re/KC
to describe the test environment. In the ultimate strength environment described above,
the value of is approximately 6500.
Re
= 0.62 106,
KC = 58.
This means that post-critical Re-numbers and relatively high KC-numbers are also to
be dealt with in the fatigue case. Sarpkaya's parameter has a value = 10860 for the
described fatigue case.
It may be concluded that, in general, for jack-up tubulars, the following ranges of Renumbers and KC-numbers will be of interest:
-
Since quite a large amount of the literature survey is dealing with papers written by
Sarpkaya, the following range of Sarpkaya's -parameter may be regarded to be of
interest: 6000 - 20000 (depending on the KC-number).
The answer to the second question concerning the roughness of the tubulars will
depend largely on type of paint used and the smoothness of the steel surface, whether
the tubular is new or has been in the water for quite some time (marine growth), or
whether the tubular mainly stays in air, etc.
Smooth cylinders are defined as cylinders having a roughness k/D < 0.0001, while
rough cylinders are assumed to have a roughness k/D > 0.004 (i.e. highly rusted steel
k/D 0.005-0.01). Marine roughness due to marine growth implies a roughness in the
range k/D 0.01-0.15.
Page 36
Rev 3, August 2008
In Table C4.7.1 a survey result is presented of relevant literature with respect to inertia
coefficients (CM) and drag coefficients (CD) for tubulars. Of course, there exists more
relevant literature than that presented in Table C4.7.1, but it should give a reasonably
representative overview.
Table C4.7.1 : Survey of Relevant Literature on CM and CD values for Tubulars
Source
Keulegan
Carpenter
1958 [1]
CM
1.3-1.8
2.4-2.6
Sarpkaya
1976 [2]
Comments
Sub-Critical
and Critical
Flow. Low
Re-numbers.
Post-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
20-40
60-100
0.6-0.7
0.6-0.7
1.7-1.8
1.7-1.9
Sand
20-40
1.5-1.7
1.6-1.8
1.7-1.9
1.2-1.4
1.2-1.4
1.1-1.3
Post-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
k/D = 0.005
>0.5 106
k/D = 0.01
Roughened k/D = 0.02
Hogben
Smooth Cylinder >1.0 106
et al.
1977 [3]
Rough Cylinders
Survey
k/D = 0.0002
>1.0 106
Paper
k/D = 0.002
>0.5 106
State of
k/D = 0.01
>0.5 106
the Art
k/D = 0.05
>0.1 106
Sarpkaya
Smooth Cylinder >0.1 106
et al.
1982 [4]
Rough Cylinder >0.1 106
k/D = 0.01
Sarpkaya
Smooth Cylinder 0.1 106
et al.
0.15 106
1984 [5]
Rough Cylinder 0.1 106
k/D = 0.01
0.15 106
Sarpkaya
Rough Cylinder 0.1-0.2 106
et al.
k/D = 0.01
1985 [6]
0.21 106
60-100
1.4-1.6
1.5-1.6
1.6-1.7
0.6
1.5-1.7
1.4-1.6
1.4-1.6
1.5
Post-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
Post-Crit.
Flow.
Rough Cylinders
k/D = 0.005
>0.5 106
k/D = 0.01
Roughened k/D = 0.02
Sand
>25
>25
>25
>25
>25
25-40
0.6-0.7
1.0
1.0
1.25 1977
0.6-0.8
1.5-1.7
25-40
1.5-1.7
1.0-1.2
25-40
60
0.7-0.8
0.6-0.65
1.5-1.7
1.5-1.6
25-40
60
25-40
1.4-1.5
1.4-1.5
1.4-1.5
1.4-1.6
1.5-1.6
1.0-1.3
50
1.4-1.5
1.2-1.3
Post-Crit.
Flow.
Critical Super-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
= 4000.
Critical Super-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
= 2500.
Critical Super-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
= 4200.
Page 37
Rev 3, August 2008
Source
Geometric Shape Re-Number KC-number CD
CM
Comments
According to Sarpkaya, available data with current + oscillatory flow substantiate the fact that
drag coefficients obtained from tests at sea in general will be smaller than those obtained under
laboratory conditions.
20-25
0.6-0.7
1.6-1.8 Super-Crit.
Sarpkaya
Smooth Cylinder 0.2-0.3 106
1985 [7]
Oscillating
Flow.
= 11240.
6
Sarpkaya
Smooth Cylinder >0.5 10
25-40
0.6-0.8
1.5-1.8 Post-Crit.
1985 [8],
>0.5 106
>50
0.6-0.7
1.6-1.8 Oscillating
1986 [9]
Flow.
Rough Cylinder >0.5 106
k/D = 0.02
>0.5 106
Smooth Cylinder 0.5 106
25-40
>50
1.4-1.8
1.4-1.6
0.4-0.5
0.9-1.0
1.0-1.2
15-25
0.3-0.6
0.8-1.4
Rough Cylinder
k/D = 0.02
k/D>0.1
15-25
15-25
0.6-1.0
1.0-2.0
0.4-1.0
0.8-2.3
1.4-1.5
Survey
Articles
Nath
1982 [10]
Rough Cylinder
k/D = 0.02
k/D>0.1
0.5 106
0.5 106
0.15-0.2 106
0.15-0.2 106
1.2-1.4
1.3-1.5
Super-Crit.
Steady Flow.
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow.
Super-Crit.
Oscillating
Flow.
Super/PostCrit. Flow,
Regular
Waves.
The authors present results for random waves as well, but it is difficult to draw any conclusion
from these results.
Kasahara
Smooth Cylinder 0.5-1.0 106
20-40
0.5-0.6
1.6-1.8 Post-Crit.
et al.
Oscillating
1987 [12] Rough Cylinder
Flow.
6
20-40
1.1-1.4
1.3-1.7 Large Scatter
k/D = 0.0083
0.5-1.0 10
50
1.1-1.2
1.6-2.3 in CM-values.
k/D = 0.0042
0.5-1.0 106
20-40
0.9-1.3
1.3-2.1
50
0.9-1.1
1.6-2.1
6
Chaplin
Smooth Cylinder 0.2 10
20
0.6-0.7
1.4-1.5 Super/Post1988 [13]
Crit. Oscillating Flow.
Source
Davies
et al.
1990 [14]
CM
1.5-1.6
18
0.5-0.7
1.5-1.7
20-40
0.6-0.8
1.4-2.0
20-40
1.0-1.8
1.0-1.9
60-90
0.6-0.8
1.5-1.7
Page 38
Rev 3, August 2008
Comments
Post-Crit.
Flow, Reg.
Waves.
Post-Crit.
Flow. Random Waves.
The authors conclude that for smooth cylinders and KC>4, drag and inertia coefficients in
periodic waves may be used to represent average CD- and CM- values in random waves.
RodenSmooth Cylinder >1.0 106
0.6
Post-Crit.
busch
Rough Cylinder
Steady Flow
et al.
k/D = 0.02
>1.0 106
0.9-1.1
(Steady Tow).
1983 [15]
>30
0.6-0.7
1.6-1.7 Post-Crit.
Smooth Cylinder >1.0 106
Rough Cylinder
Oscillak/D = 0.02
>1.0 106
>30
1.4-1.5
1.1-1.3 ting Flow
(Forced
Motion).
Post-Crit.
Random Flow
(Forced
Motion).
Post-Crit.
Random Flow
60-90
1.1-1.4
1.0-1.4 (Forced
Motion).
The random tests show relatively large spread especially for the lower KC-numbers (20-40).
RodenSmooth Cylinder >1.0 106
>60
0.65-0.75 1.5-1.7 Post-Crit.
busch
Random Flow
et al.
Rough Cylinder
(Forced
6
>60
1.1-1.3
1.1-1.5 Motion).
1986 [16] k/D>0.0005
>0.5 10
Theopha- Rough Cylinder
Post-Crit.
natos
k/D = 0.005
>0.8 106
0.95-1.05
Steady Flow
et al.
k/D = 0.0095
1.0-1.1
(Steady Tow).
1989 [17] k/D = 0.025
1.15-1.25 =>
Sand Rough.
----------------------------------------------------------------------k/D = 0.049
1.15-1.25
k/D = 0.098
1.3-1.4
=>
Pyramids
----------------------------------------------------------------------k/D = 0.067
1.2-1.3
=>
Mussels
Klopman
"Rough" Cylinder
Post-Crit.
et al.
k/D = 0.00012
0.5 106
15
0.6-0.9
1.3-1.6 Random Waves.
1990 [18]
0.95
Steady Flow.
k/D = 0.104
0.98-1.2
Wolfram
& Theophanatos
1990
[21]
Roshko
1961 [22]
Miller
1976 [23]
0.98-1.2
1.22
1.26
1.11
1.51
1.69
1.35
0.65-0.75
0.60-0.65
>3.0 106
>0.5 106
>0.5 106
>3.5 106
0.80
0.8-0.9
0.8-0.9
0.9-1.0
1.0-1.1
1.0-1.1
1.1
1.1
1.1-1.2
1.1-1.2
1.2-1.4
0.6
>2.0 106
Rough Cylinder
k/D = 0.0004
Sand
k/D = 0.0009
Roughened k/D = 0.0014
k/D = 0.0021
k/D = 0.0031
k/D = 0.0050
Pearl
k/D = 0.015
Barley
k/D = 0.023
k/D = 0.044
Dried
k/D = 0.042
Peas
k/D = 0.063
Pearcey
Smooth Cylinder
et al.
1982 [24] Rough Cylinder
k/D = 0.0004
k/D = 0.0014
k/D = 0.0028
0.8
0.88
0.92
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow.
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow.
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow
Wind Tunnel.
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow
Wind Tunnel.
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow
Wind Tunnel
Post-Crit.
Steady Flow
Wind Tunnel
The literature review presented in Table C4.7.1 shows that the test results at different
facilities agree reasonably well with respect to the drag coefficients for smooth
cylinders in post-critical flow. The majority of tests show CD values between 0.6 and
0.7, both for the lower KC range for fatigue (25-60) and the higher KC range for
ultimate strength. The suggested CD value for smooth tubular elements (k/D < 0.0001)
in post-critical flow is therefore chosen to be CD = 0.65.
For rough cylinders the spread between the individual tests with respect to CD values is
considerably larger. Especially Sarpkaya [2] operates with very high post-critical CD
values for rough cylinders. It should be noted that none of the values obtained by the
other authors referenced in Table C4.7.1 support the Sarpkaya values in the postcritical region. The differences between individual tests may partly be due to the
different types of post-critical flow (different test conditions) and to the non-uniform
definition of roughness used by the different authors.
One should also bear in mind that the wave particle velocities decrease with increasing
depth below the water surface, which might mean a transition from the post-critical
regime to the super-critical or even critical regime. This will result in a reduction in CD
values for smooth cylinders (although in the lower Re-number part of the critical
regime it may result in an increase in CD values, but here the water particle velocities
are so low that the resulting contribution to the overall drag force will be significantly
smaller than the contributions higher up on the cylinder). For the rough cylinders the
critical regime occurs at lower Re-numbers and there is no reduction in the drag
coefficient in the super-critical regime. For large roughnesses an increase in the drag
coefficient has in fact been reported in this regime [3, 32].
Based on the literature survey presented in Table C4.7.1 and the discussion above, the
drag coefficient for rough cylinders (roughness k/D>0.004) is chosen equal to CD = 1.0,
both for the ultimate strength and the fatigue cases.
C4.7.2.3 Marine Growth dependence
Rust and hard marine growth has been found to behave in essentially the same manner
as artificial hard roughness, but a surface with hard marine growth behaves quite
differently from a surface with soft marine growth. Another point of consideration is
that different types of marine growth on a submerged tubular may dominate at different
depths below the sea surface.
The use of anti-fouling coating will at least delay the development of marine growth
but after a few years the anti-fouling coating becomes less effective. Regularly
cleaning of the tubulars is another possible way to limit the development of marine
growth. In Table 4.3, Section 4.7.2 of the PRACTICE, it is assumed that severe marine
growth is not allowed. This is in accordance with the operational profile of mobile
jack-up rigs, with cleaning of legs at intervals preventing severe marine growth.
In addition measurements also indicate that the wave forces in ocean waves are less
than predicted by use of a constant CD [39, 31], see also Figure C4.7.1
Based on this it is recommended that the value CD for a smooth surface (CD = 0.65) is
generally used for the legs above MWL + 2m and the value for a rough surface below
MWL + 2m (CD = 1.0), as stated in Table 4.4 of the PRACTICE.
Surface
Steel, new uncoated
Steel, painted
Steel, highly rusted
Marine growth
k (meters)
5.0E-5
5.0E-6
3.0E-3
5.0E-3 - 5.0E-2
Several authors have presented, in graphical form, the CD dependence on the relative
roughness k/D at post-critical Re-numbers. Figure C4.7.2 presents a graph from Miller
[23], showing the variation of CD with varying k/D based on several model experiments
at post-critical Re numbers. Figure C4.7.3 and Figure C4.7.4 show similar graphs
presented by respectively Wolfram et al [21] and Pearcey et al [28]. Based on the
available data with respect to the dependence of CD on k/d, the expressions presented in
Equation (4.7.1) have been proposed to describe this dependence for the purpose of the
PRACTICE. The drag coefficient CDi may then be obtained from Equation (4.7.1):
C Dsmooth = 0.65
;
k / D < 0.0001
Tubular
Smooth (k/D<0.0001)
Rough (k/D>0.004)
Intermediate k/D
CDi
0.65
1.0
Equation 4.7.1
CMi
2.0
1.8
2.0
Page 43
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure C4.7.2 Drag coefficient for rough cylinders at high Reynold's number, [23]
Page 44
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 45
Rev 3, August 2008
In post-critical conditions, for KC-numbers lower than say 30-40, there seems to be
some dependence of the drag coefficient on the KC-number, at least for rough
cylinders. For smooth cylinders this KC-dependence is more uncertain. The
Christchurch Bay Tower (CBT) results for a clean cylinder reported by Bishop [26], for
example, show this dependence for smooth cylinders, and so do the results reported
from the Ocean Test Structure (OTS) [19]. Wolfram and Theophanatos [21], and the
SSPA results reported by Rodenbusch and Gutierrez [15], do not show this dependence
for smooth cylinders.
For rough cylinders in post-critical conditions, the KC-dependence of the drag
coefficient for KC-numbers lower than say 30-40, seems to be a more generally
observed trend, as in [15, 19, 27] amongst others.
It must be emphasized that for decreasing KC-numbers (<30) the (post-critical)
conditions will gradually be more inertia dominated and less drag dominated, implying
an increasing uncertainty in the reported CD- values.
Figure C4.7.6 shows CD as a function of the KC-number for cylinders in waves from
[52]. Figures C4.7.7 and C4.7.8 show in a similar way CD as a function of KC-number
for respectively a clean cylinder and a rough barnacle covered cylinder of the Ocean
Test Structure (OTS [19]) as presented in [25].
Based on the discussion above and the results reported in the literature the explicit KCdependence presented in Equation (4.7.2) may be included in the computations in
addition to the roughness dependence:
.
;
KC < 10
145
0 .2
CDi(KC,k/D) = CDi(k/D) * 2 / ( KC 5) ;
10 < KC < 37
(4.7.2)
10
.
;
37 < KC
A graphic representation of Equation (4.7.2) is given in Figure C4.7.9.
Equation (4.7.2) should also be used for smooth cylinders, in spite of the uncertainty
with respect to the KC-dependence. However, for low KC- values the choice of CDvalue is less critical due to the transition to inertia dominated conditions. Furthermore
using Equation (4.7.2) for the entire roughness range (from smooth to rough) results in
a more uniform and easier to use way to handle the KC-dependence.
An inertia coefficient CM = 2.0 for smooth cylinders and CM = 1.8 for rough cylinders
is suggested for use if KC-dependence is used for the drag coefficients at low KCnumbers.
Page 46
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 47
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 48
Rev 3, August 2008
As previously discussed the drag coefficient is dependent on the Re-number and this
has been reported by several authors [3, 32] (Figures C4.7.11 and C4.7.12) and is
reflected in some guidance on load computations, e.g. [29, 33] (Figure C4.7.10).
However, the use of test results reducing CD in the critical region is not relevant for
practical purposes as the roughness k/D<1/100000 implied in the curve for smooth
cylinders is not applicable for jack-up structures. The change in the Reynolds
dependence with respect to roughness is quite large and it is therefore not possible to
recommend one single curve for this dependence. The recommended set of curves
shown in Figure C4.7.13 are mainly based on a functional fit to the test results
presented in [32] and in addition the drag coefficient in the critical regime is set to
minimum of CD = 0.45. Test results have indicated lower CD values, but only in the
ideal conditions of test facilities. A recommended set of curves are given in Figure
C4.7.13, complying with the roughness dependence of Figure C4.7.5 at large Reynolds
numbers. Using the curve for roughness k/D = 0.01 there is no reduction below CD =
1.0 for Reynolds numbers above 105, which supports the use of a constant CD in the
PRACTICE.
Page 49
Rev 3, August 2008
C4.7.4
C4.7.5
CD1 =
18
W / D i < 12
.
.
. + W / 3D i 12
. < W / D i < 18
.
14
2.0
. < W / D i < 2.0
18
(4.7.3)
For the interpolation between the directions 0 and 90 a number of formulations are
available, but since there were a number of test results available, a best fit of a new
formulation was decided.
The following interpolation formula were found to fit the data best, see Appendix C4.C,
and at the same time be flexible with respect to the drag coefficient for rough and
smooth surfaces at 0:
CDi =
C D 0
C + ( C W / D C )sin 2 [( 20 )9 / 7]
D1
i
D0
D0
< 20
20 < < 90 (4.7.4)
where;
CD0 = is the drag coefficient for the chord at = 0 and is to be taken as that
of a tubular with appropriate roughness, see Section C4.7.2 i.e. CD0 =
0.65 above MWL + 2.0m and CD0 = 1.0, below MWL+2.0m. Possible
dependence on KC and Re numbers as for a tubular.
CD1 = The drag coefficient for flow normal to the rack ( = 90), related to
the projected diameter (the rack width W).
Explicit dependence on KC may be taken according to Figure C4.7.9,
but is normally not relevant for extreme loading conditions.
Dependence on k/D or Re may normally be neglected.
The above formulation was derived based on the assumption that the chord behaves
like a tubular up to a direction where the rack enters the flow field, and from there and
up to 90 the chord acts as a flat plate.
In addition to the above formulation two other formulations were tested as shown in
Figure C4.7.16. Equation 4.7.4 gave an excellent fit with the observed drag
coefficients for a smooth tubular and is therefore recommended to be used for split tube
chords.
Interpolation formula similar to those used in [29] and [46] are compared in Figure
C4.7.17 with Equation 4.7.4, for a regular wave analysis. There is some difference in
the direction close to 90, but the number of test results behind the PRACTICE
formulation is believed to justify the change.
Page 52
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure C4.7.14 Definition of directions and dimensions for a split tube chord
Page 53
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure C4.7.17 Comparison with some current practices for regular wave analysis [29], [46].
W/D = 1.24 and the scaling regular/irregular = 0.7, valid below MWL + 2.0m
For large rack to diameter ratios W/D, it may however be considered appropriate to
modify (reduce) the inertia coefficient such that it accounts more correctly for the
combination of the contributions from the flat plate and tubular components.
C4.7.5.2 Triangular chords
For triangular chords (Figure C7.4.18) little test data are available. Some currently
applied formulae for drag coefficients of more basic sections were therefore used in
addition to the test results to improve the background for the actual chosen values. Drag
coefficients related to two typical shapes are given in [45], as shown in Figure C4.7.19,
for a triangular box section and two plates mounted normally on each other. A
triangular chord is a combination of these cross sections. The numbers at different
directions are compared in Table C4.7.4. The drag coefficients were determined by
vectorial summation of drag forces in direction 1 and 2 according to Figure C4.7.19.
To relate the drag coefficient to a fixed dimension Di = D the back plate width is
chosen. A fixed dimension and directional dependent drag coefficient is convenient for
modeling purposes. The drag coefficient related to this fixed diameter may be
computed as:
CDi
= CDpr() * Dpr() / Di
where;
CDpr() = the drag coefficient referenced to the projected diameter.
170
.
;
= 0
195
.
;
= 90
.
;
= 105
= 140
= 180 o
.
;
165
2.00 ;
= 180
Dpr() = the projected diameter of the chord determined as:
D cos( )
;
0 < < o
Page 55
Rev 3, August 2008
CDpr:
/45/
/45/
0
45
90
135
180
1.7
2.5
2.2
1.5
2.0
1.3
1.8
1.3
1.8
PRACTICE
1.70
1.825
1.95
1.50
2.00
(W/D = 1.1)
As a basis for the suggested drag coefficients the results available from TEES [67] and
DHL [61,62] were considered together with the recommendations in [46]. The drag
coefficients recommended in the PRACTICE are compared with the TEES test results
in Figure C4.7.20.
The inertia coefficient CMi = 2.0 may be applied for all directions, related to the
equivalent volume of Di2/4 per unit length, where Di = D, the backplate dimension.
This assumes that the outline cross sectional area is approximately Di2/4. If the rack
width is not of similar size to the backplate dimension, a more detailed consideration of
the inertia coefficient should be made if the loadings on the leg are not drag dominated
i.e. if the results are sensitive to the choice of inertia coefficient.
Explicit dependence on KC may be taken according to Figure C4.7.9, but is normally
not relevant for extreme loading conditions. Dependence on k/D or Re may normally
be neglected.
Other shapes
For other shapes, or groups of elements, see e.g. [45].
Page 56
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure C4.7.19 Drag coefficients for basic sections in uniform flow [45]
Page 57
Rev 3, August 2008
For the most critical individual leg members the possibility of local vortex induced
vibrations should be evaluated. This check will normally be covered at the design
stage. However, if the site conditions of wind or current and/or wave height exceed
those used for design such a check may be required. This is because vortex induced
vibrations may lead to very high local stresses and a major contribution to fatigue
loading.
Vortex induced resonance will not normally be occur if:
S < 0.2
for tubulars
< 0.145 for flat plates
where;
S = [(fi Di)/vn], the Strouhal number
vn = flow velocity normal to the member
Di = diameter of member
fi = fundamental vibration frequencies of member (in Hz).
Further information and bounds for S above which vortex shedding will not occur may
be found in [45] and [59].
CMi
d
D
De
Di
Dl
Dpr()
fi
Hs
k
k/D
KC
li
N
rn
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Re
s
S
S
S
T
Tn
Tz
u
un
u n
ux, u x
U
UC
Um
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
CDi
CDpr()
CDrough
CDsmooth
Ch
CM
CMe
CMei
Page 58
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 59
Rev 3, August 2008
Ured
UW
vn
VC
VC
=
=
=
=
=
VCn
Vf
W
=
=
=
W
xo
=
=
z
z'
Z
=
=
=
i
Fdrag
Finertia
FinertiaH
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Page 60
Rev 3, August 2008
Keulegan, G.H., Carpenter, L.H., 'Forces on Cylinders and Plates in an Oscillating Fluid',
Journal of Research of the National Bureau of Standards, Volume 60, No. 5, May 1958.
Sarpkaya, T., 'In-Line and Transverse Forces on Smooth and Sand-Roughened Cylinders in
Oscillatory Flow at High Reynolds Numbers', Naval Postgraduate School, Report NPS-69
SL 76062, 1976.
Hogben, N., Miller, B.L., Searle, J.W., Ward, G., 'Estimation of Fluid Loading on Offshore
Structures', Proc. Institution Civil Engineers, Part 2, 1977.
Sarpkaya, T., 'Wave Forces on Inclined Smooth and Rough Circular Cylinders', Offshore
Technology Conference, Paper OTC 4227, 1982.
Sarpkaya, T., Bakmis, C., Storm, M.A., 'Hydrodynamic Forces from Combined Wave and
Current Flow on Smooth and Rough Circular Cylinders at High Reynolds Numbers',
Offshore Technology Conference, Paper OTC 4830, 1984.
Sarpkaya, T., Storm, M.A., 'In-Line Force on a Cylinder Translating in Oscillatory Flow',
Applied Ocean Research, Volume 7, No. 4, 1985.
Sarpkaya, T., 'Force on a Circular Cylinder in Viscous Oscillatory Flow at Low KeuleganCarpenter Numbers', Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 165, 1986.
Sarpkaya, T., 'Past Progress and Outstanding Problems in Time-Dependent Flows about
Ocean Structures', Proc. of Separated Flow around Marine Structures, The Norwegian
Institute of Technology, Trondheim, Norway, 1985.
Sarpkaya, T., 'On Fluid Loading of Offshore Structures - After Ten Years of Basic and
Applied Research', Offshore Operations Symposium, 9th ETCE, New Orleans, 1986.
10
11
Bearman, P.W., Chaplin, J.R., Graham, J.M.R., Kostense, J.K., Hall, P.F., Klopman, G.,
'The Loading on a Cylinder in Post-Critical Flow Beneath Periodic and Random Waves',
Proceedings of BOSS, 1985.
12
Kasahara, Y., Koterayama, W., Shimazaki, K., 'Wave Forces Acting on Rough Circular
Cylinders at High Reynolds Numbers', Offshore Technology Conf., Paper OTC 5372,
1987.
13
14
Davies, M.J.S., Graham, J.M.R., Bearman, P.W., 'In-Line Forces on Fixed Cylinders in
Regular and Random Waves', Society for Underwater Technology, Volume 26:
Environmental Forces on Offshore Structures and Their Prediction, 1990.
15
Part I - Planar
Page 61
Rev 3, August 2008
16
17
18
Klopman, G., Kostense, J.K., 'The Loading on a Vertical Cylinder in Random Waves at
High Reynolds Numbers', Water Wave Kinematics, pp. 679-699, 1990.
19
Heideman, J.C., Olsen, O.A., Johansson, P.I., 'Local Wave Force Coefficients', Civil
Engineering in the Oceans IV, ASCE, 1979.
20
Nath, J., 'Biofouling and Morison Equation Coefficients', Proceedings 7th. International
Conf. on Offshore Mechanics and Arctic Engineering, 1988.
21
Wolfram, J., Theophanatos, A., 'Marine Roughness and Fluid Loading', Society for
Underwater Technology, Volume 26: Environmental Forces on Offshore Structures and
Their Prediction, 1990.
22
Roshko, A., 'Experiments on the Flow Past a Circular Cylinder at Very High Reynolds
Number', Journal of Fluid Mechanics, Volume 10, Part 3, 1961.
23
24
Pearcey, H.H., Cash, R.F., Salter, I.J., 'Flow Past Circular Cylinders: Simulation of FullScale Flows at Model Scale', NMI Report R131, 1982.
25
'Roughness and Vortex Shedding Effects for Cylinders in Flume and Real Sea Waves',
Report for the Health and Safety Executive by Advanced Mechanics Engineering Limited,
1991.
26
Bishop, J.R., 'An Analysis of Peak Values of Wave Forces and Particle Kinematics from
the Second Christchurch Bay Tower', NMI Report R180, 1985.
27
Bishop, J.R., 'Wave Force Experiments at the Christchurch Bay Tower with Simulated
Hard Marine Fouling', Report No. OTI 89 541, HMSO, 1989.
28
Pearcey, H.H., Matten, R.B. and Singh, S., 'Fluid Forces for Cylinders in Oscillatory Flow
Waves and Currents when Drag and Inertia Effects Are Present Together', BMT Report to
the Health and Safety Executive OT-0-86-011, 1986.
29
Det Norske Veritas Rules for the Classification of Fixed Offshore Installations.
30
J.R. Morison, M.P O'Brien, J.W. Johnson, S.A. Schaaf, 'The Forces Exerted by Surface
Waves on Piles', J. of Petr. Techn., American Inst. of Mining Engrs., Vol. 189, 1950, p149154.
31
32
O.M. Faltinsen, 'Sea Loads on Ships and Offshore Structures', Cambridge University Press,
Trumpington Street, Cambridge, 1990.
Page 62
Rev 3, August 2008
33
BSI Code of Practice No. 3, Chapter 5, Part 2, 'Wind Loads', September 1972
34
J.H. Vugts, 'A Review of Hydrodynamic Loads on Offshore Structures and Their
Formulation', BOSS'79, Imperial College, London, England, August 1979
35
E.J. Laya, J.J. Connor and S.Shyam Sunder, 'Hydrodynamic Forces on Flexible Offshore
Structures', Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 110, No.3, 1984.
36
S.R. Winterstein, E.M. Bitner-Gregersen and K. Ronold, 'Statistical and Physical Models
of Nonlinear Random Waves', OMAE, Volume II, Safety and Reliability, Stavanger, 1991,
pp.23-31.
37
J.D. Wheeler, 'Method for Calculating Forces Produced by Irregular Waves', OTC, paper
no. 1006, Dallas, Texas, 1969.
38
J.E. Skjelbreia, G. Berek, Z.K. Bolen, O.T. Gudmestad, J.C. Heideman, R.D. Ohmart, N.
Spidsoe and A. Torum, 'Wave Kinematics in Irregular Waves', OMAE, Stavanger, 1991.
39
R.G. Bea and N.W. Lai, 'Hydrodynamic Loadings on Offshore Platforms', OTC paper no
3064, May, 1978, pp. 155-168.
40
R.G. Dean and P.M. Aagaard, 'Wave Forces: Data Analysis and Engineering Calculations',
Journal of Petroleum Technology, March 1970, 105-119.
41
J.R. Chaplin and T.P Flintham, 'Breaking Wave Forces on Tubulars', 3rd International
Jack-up Conference, City University, London, September 1991.
42
43
44
R.C.T. Rainey, 'Christchruch Bay Tower Compliant Cylinder Project, Final Summary
Report and Conclusions', OTH-90-139, WS Atkins Engineering Sciences, Surrey, January,
1991.
45
DNV Classification note 30.5, 'Environmental Conditions and Environmental Loads', July
1990.
46
'Practice for the Site Specific Assessment of Jack-up Units', By Marine Technology
Division, SIPM, EDP-5, The Hague, May 1989,
47
WAJAC, Veritas Sesam Systems Report no. 82-6108, Hvik, Dec. 1984.
48
N. Pharr Smith, D.B. Lorenz, C.A. Wendenburg and J.S. Laird, 'A Study of Drag
Coefficients for Truss Legs on Self-Elevating Mobile Offshore Drilling Units', SNAME
Tansactions, Vol. 91, 1983, pp. 257-273.
49
N. Pharr Smith and C.A. Wendenburg, 'A study of Drag Coefficients', The Jack-Up
Drilling Platform, Ed. L. Boswell, City University, London, 1989.
Page 63
Rev 3, August 2008
50
Yoshiharu, Ideguchi, 'Legs Drag Coefficients of Enhanced 300IC Jack-Up Rig', TSU
Research Laboratories Technical Research Center, Nippon Kokan K.K. Report No.
822117, June 1982
51
52
Atkins Engineering Services, 'Fluid Loading on Fixed Offshore Structures', OTH 90 322,
1990.
53
Taylor, P., 'Current Blockage - Reduced Forces on Steel Platforms in Regular and Irregular
Waves with a Mean Current', Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 6519, Houston,
1991.
54
Heideman J.C. and Schaudt K.J., 'Recommended Equations for Short-term Statistics of
Wave Heights and Crest Heights', 1 April 1987
55
Moe, G. and Verley, R.L.P, 'Hydrodynamic Damping of Offshore Structures in Waves and
Currents', The Offshore Technology Conference, OTC 3798, Houston, 1980.
56
57
58
Health and Safety Executive, 'Offshore Installations: Guidance on design, construction and
certification', London, 1990.
59
N.D.P. Barltrop, A.J. Adams, 'Dynamics of Fixed Marine Structures', Third Edition,
Butterworth Heinemann, 1991.
60
MacCamy R.S., Fuchs R.A., 'Wave Forces on Piles: A Diffraction Theory", U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Beach Erosion Board, Tech. Memo No 69, Washington DC, 1954.
G.H.G. Lagers, 'Morison Coefficients of Jack-Up Legs', MSC report 1005, Schiedam, The
Netherlands, February 1990.
62
G.H.G. Lagers, 'Collected Morison Coefficients of Jack-Up Leg Elements', MSC report
1715, Schiedam, The Netherlands, June 1991.
63
S.Th. Schurmans et. al., DHL, 'Wave Forces on Jack-Up Legs', Delft Hydraulics
measurement report 8603-1505, Delft, 1990.
64
A. Lken, 'Review of DHL test data', Veritec report no. 91-3372, Hvik, 1991.
65
Lseth R.M., Arnesen Y., 'Check of data reduction of DHL data', DNVC report No 921054, Hvik, August 1992.
Page 64
Rev 3, August 2008
67
cos*)
CDi
Chords:
1
2
3
(30)
(30)
(90)
90.
90.
90.
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inclined
braces
4
5
6
7
8
9
-30
-30
30
30
90
90
26.7
-26.7
26.7
-26.7
26.7
-26.7
10
11
12
-30
30
90
0.
0.
0.
span
breakers
s
C De * D e = C Di D i l i / s
D e = ( D i 2 l i / s)
C De = 4.82 / 158
.
C Me
*)
Geometric factor,
see Section 4.6.6
the PRACTICE
Di
li
1.0
1.0
2.124
.65
.65
.65
5.0
5.0
5.0
3.25
3.25
6.90
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
.30
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
0.84
0.84
0.84
0.84
3.36
3.36
0.125
0.125
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.10
5.0
0.06
.10
5.0
0.06
.10
5.0
0.50
CDi*Di*li*cos = 24.10
= 5.0 m
= 4.82
= 158
.
= 3.05equivalent model
= 2.0
CDi*Di*li*cos
cos*)
CDi
Chords:
1
2
3
(30)
(30)
(90)
90
90
90
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inclined
braces
4
5
6
7
8
9
-30
-30
30
30
90
90
26.7
-26.7
26.7
-26.7
26.7
-26.7
10
11
12
-30
30
90
0.
0.
0.
span
breakers
s
= 1178
.
C De * D e
= 0.842
De
= D i 2 1i / s
C De
= 0.842 / 0.370
C Me
Di
li
0.65
0.65
2.124
.152
.152
.152
1.178
1.178
1.178
0.1164
0.1164
0.3803
0.25
0.25
0.25
0.25
1.0
1.0
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
.07
.07
.07
.07
.07
.07
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
0.02899
0.02899
0.02899
0.02899
0.11957
0.11957
0.125
0.125
1.0
0.65
0.65
0.65
= 0.370
= 2.277 equiv. model
= 2.0 (model scale)
.025
1.173
.025
1.173
.025
1.173
CDi*Di*li*cos =
CDi*Di*li*cos
0.00238
0.00238
0.01906
0.992
C De * D e = 359
.
De
= 158
.
= 2.277 equiv. model
C De
= 2.0 (full scale)
C Me
cos*)
CDi
Chords:
1
2
3
(60)
(60)
(30)
90
90
90
1.0
1.0
1.0
Inclined
braces
4
5
6
7
8
9
0
0
60
60
30
30
26.7
-26.7
26.7
-26.7
26.7
-26.7
10
11
12
60
60
30
0.
0.
0.
span
breakers
s
= 1178
.
C De * D e
= 0.843
De
= D i 2 1i / s
C De
= 0.843 / 0.370
C Me
Di
li
1.663
1.663
0.65
.152
.152
.152
1.178
1.178
1.178
0.2978
0.2978
0.1164
0.091
0.091
0.716
0.716
0.254
0.254
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
.07
.07
.07
.07
.07
.07
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
0.01088
0.01088
0.08561
0.08561
0.03037
0.03037
0.650
0.650
0.125
0.65
0.65
0.65
= 0.370
= 2.278 equiv. model
= 2.0 (model scale)
.025
1.173
.025
1.173
.025
1.173
CDi*Di*li*cos =
CDi*Di*li*cos
0.01239
0.01239
0.00238
0.9929
C De * D e = 359
.
De
= 158
.
C De
= 2.278 equiv. model
= 2.0 (full scale)
C Me
Page 67
Rev 3, August 2008
Table C4.A.4 Square bay with triangular chords, Equivalent model to be used in
site assessment z < MWL + 2m.
i
cos*)
CDi
Di
li
1
2
3
4
45
45
135
135
90
90
90
90
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.65
1.65
1.79
1.79
.71
.71
.71
.71
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.4
3.983
3.983
4.321
4.321
5
6
7
8
0
90
90
0
40.2
40.2
40.2
40.2
0.2689
1.0
1.0
0.2689
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.32
.32
.32
.32
10.6
10.6
10.6
10.6
0.912
3.392
3.392
0.912
Side
Horiz
9
10
11
12
0
90
90
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.091
1.0
1.0
0.091
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
.32
.32
.32
.32
11.2
11.2
11.2
11.2
0.0
3.584
3.584
0.0
span
breakers
13
14
45
45
0.
0.
0.354
0.354
1.0
1.0
.23
.23
11.4
11.4
2.622
2.622
brackets
15
90.
0.
1.0
2.0
Chords:
Inclined
braces
s
= 3.4
C De * D e
= 1163
.
2
De
= ( D i l i / s)
C De
= 1163
. / 2.30
C Me
CDi*Di*li*cos
.98
0.98
1.921
CDi*Di*li*cos = 39.550
= 2.30
= 5.06 equivalent model
= 2.0
cos*)
CDi
Di
li
1
2
3
4
45
45
135
135
90
90
90
90
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.65
1.65
1.79
1.79
.167
.167
.167
.167
0.8008
0.8008
0.8008
0.8008
0.2207
0.2207
0.2989
0.2989
5
6
7
8
0
90
90
0
40.2
40.2
40.2
40.2
0.2689
1.0
1.0
0.2689
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
.076
.076
.076
.076
2.481
2.481
2.481
2.481
0.0330
0.1226
0.1226
0.0330
Side
Horiz.
9
10
11
12
0
90
90
0
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.091
1.0
1.0
0.091
0.65
0.65
0.65
0.65
.076
.076
.076
.076
2.628
2.628
2.628
2.628
0.0
0.1298
0.1298
0.0
span
breakers
13
14
45
45
0.
0.
0.354
0.354
0.65
0.65
.054
.054
2.680
2.680
0.0333
0.0333
brackets
15
90.
0.
1.0
2.0
Chords:
Inclined
braces
s
= 0.8008
C De * D e
= 2.227
De
= D i 2 1i / s
C De
= 2.227 / 0.542
C Me
= 0.542
= 4109
. equiv. model
= 2.0 (model scale)
CDi*Di*li*cos
.231
0.231 0.1070
SCDi*Di*li*cos = 1.7836
C De * D e
De
C De
C Me
= 9.48
= 2.307
. equiv. model
= 4109
= 2.0 (full scale)
Computations are performed on a 'simplified model' with no mass. The irregular and regular
wave results are computed according to the PRACTICE, Section 3 and 4. These computations
are made to asses the implications of changes made concerning drag coefficients and wave
kinematics formulations compared with previous practices.
The significant wave height is chosen as judged realistic for the two water depths investigated:
Water depth 30m:
significant wave height
Hsrp = 10m
Hsrp = 14m
Dc
W
Db
lb
xleg
D1
=
=
=
=
=
=
0.7m,
0.8m,
0.3m,
13.44m,
50m
10m
Practice I:
Irregular waves:
d
l
cos
CD
Tubular 1.0
*0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 2.419
Chord 1 2.114 *0.7 *1.0
*1.0 = 1.479
Chord 2,3 1.279 *0.7 *2.0
*1.0 = 1.790
5.688
CDeDe
Page 70
Rev 3, August 2008
PRACTICE:
CD
d
l
cos
1.0
*0.3 *13.44 *0.6 =
2.057 *0.7 *1.0
* 1.0 =
1.056 *0.7 *1.0
*2.0 =
z < 1.5m
z > 1.5m
kinematics according to
Delta stretching
Wheeler stretching
Regular waves :
Stokes' fifth
Tubular 0.7
*0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 1.693
Chord 1 1.486 *0.7 *1.0
*1.0 = 1.040
Chord 2,3 0.896 *0.7 *2.0
*1.0 = 1.254
= 3.989
CDeDe
No shielding assumed
Practice II:
Regular waves:
Stokes' fifth
Tubular 0.64 *0.3 *13.44 *0.6 = 1.548
Chord 1 1.307 *0.7 *1.0
*1.0 = 0.915
Chord 2,3 0.973 *0.7 *2.0
*1.0 = 1.362
= 3.825
CDeDe
Irregular waves:
Airy with constant stretching
CDeDe
= 3.825 * 1.3
= 4.973
2.419
1.440
1.478
5.338
4.491
Case
Regular
waves
Practice I
H = Hmax = 1.86 Hsrp
Regular
waves
Practice II
H = Hmax = 1.86 Hsrp
Irregular
waves
Practice II
Hs = Hsrp
Regular
waves PRACTICE
H = Hdet = 0.86 Hmax
Irregular
Waves PRACTICE
Hs = [1+.5exp(-d/25)]
*Hsrp
Environment
H/T
Hs/Tz
m and sec
Current
Base
Shear
Overturning
Moment
m/sec
MNm
0.0
MN
5.58
143
1.0
8.03
197
0.0
5.42
139
1.0
7.70
189
0.0
3.18
108
1.0
6.89
145
0.0
4.90
115
0.88
6.96
157
0.0
5.95
122
0.88
7.88
154
18.6/14.0
18.6/14.0
10.0/11.0
16.5/14.0
11.84/11.0
Case
Regular
waves
Practice I
H = Hmax = 1.86 Hsrp
Regular
waves
Practice II
H = Hmax = 1.86 Hsrp
Irregular
waves
Practice II
Hs = Hsrp
Regular
waves PRACTICE
H = Hdet = 0.86 Hmax
Irregular
Waves PRACTICE
Hs = [1+.5exp(-d/25)]
*Hsrp
Environment
H/T
Hs/Tz
m and sec
Current
Base
Shear
Overturning
Moment
m/sec
MNm
18.6/16.5
0.0
MN
9.82
26.0/16.5
0.5
12.30
819
18.6/16.5
0.0
9.41
641
26.0/16.5
0.5
11.79
785
14.0/13.0
0.0
11.22
747
14.0/13.0
0.5
13.11
859
23.14/16.5
0.0
8.90
578
23.14/16.5
0.44
11.20
709
14.34/13.0
0.0
9.12
573
14.34/13.0
0.44
10.80
671
668
Page 73
Rev 3, August 2008
The results for both the 30m and 90m water depth cases in Tables C4.B.1 and C4.B.2 show
improved agreement between regular and irregular wave force calculations for the PRACTICE
methodology as compared to Practice II.
The main differences between Practice II and the PRACTICE are that:
-
the PRACTICE uses a reduced wave height for regular wave analysis instead of a
reduced drag coefficient.
the PRACTICE includes a shallow water wave height correction to be applied to the
significant wave height used in irregular wave analysis.
The shallow water wave height correction term is described and justified in C3.5.1.1. The effect
of wave asymmetry in shallow water in Practice II is included only by a conservative kinematics
model above the mean water level for an irregular wave analysis. Other practices give no
consideration to shallow water effects in irregular wave analysis.
The agreement between regular and irregular wave forces is better at the 90m water depth case
than for the 30m water depth case. However, the correction term for shallow water cases is
justified as compared to the Practice II results.
Page 75
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 76
Rev 3, August 2008
C5.1
INTRODUCTION
The application of the procedures and techniques given in Section 5 is consistent with
the guidance given in the other sections of the Recommended Practice (PRACTICE).
Furthermore, it is assumed that the user of the PRACTICE is familiar with the general
philosophy and design/assessment approach specifically applicable to jack-ups. To
provide additional guidance to the analyst less familiar with these procedures and to
also ensure consistency of application by all users, this commentary has been prepared.
In general, the structural modeling for the assessment of a jack-up must achieve the
following objectives for both the static and (where applicable) dynamic responses:
C5.2
Realistic global response (i.e. displacement, base shear, overturning moments, etc.)
for the unit under the applicable environmental and functional loads.
Represent the correct linear and non-linear characteristics of the leg, leg-hull
connection and the leg-foundation interaction.
Sufficient detail to allow for detailed assessment of the adequacy of the leg
structure, structural/mechanical components of the jacking system and the
foundation.
GENERAL
Prior to beginning the actual modeling of the jack-up unit the analyst should ensure that
all data necessary to perform the assessment is available. Refer first to the
accompanying "Guideline for Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-up Units" and
Section 3 of the PRACTICE - Assessment Input Data for guidance on the data needed
and for the rationale as to why they are important to the assessment procedure.
Once these data are collected it would also benefit the analyst to review Section 4 Calculation Methods - Hydrodynamics and Wind Forces and Section 6 - Calculation
Methods - Geotechnical Engineering of the PRACTICE. This will serve not only as
confirmatory check to assure the completeness of the data being collected for the
analysis, but will also allow the analyst to evaluate the level of analysis techniques to
be used in light of the computer software available. It is important that the analyst
anticipate the complete scope of the assessment in terms of the level of quasi-static and
dynamic analyses which may be required. This will allow the analyst to optimize the
structural modeling and reduce the duplication of effort.
In the remaining sections of this Section of the Commentary the analyst is guided
through the overall structural modeling of a jack-up for the following:
(1)
(2)
Page 78
Rev 3, August 2008
This Commentary has been focused on providing a general discussion of key points and
their impact/importance on the final assessment results. Thus it is important that if
additional detail is required, the analyst refer to appropriate technical references or
contact the jack-up designer for further guidance.
C5.3
GLOBAL RESPONSE
C5.3.1
C5.3.3
Page 79
Rev 3, August 2008
As explained in Section 5.7 of the PRACTICE, the leg shear and bending moments
caused by hull sagging are very dependent on leg guide clearances, the design of the
jacking system, operational parameters and the modeling used in the analysis. A
simplified approach for a conservative quantitative assessment is to assume that 25 to 50
percent of the theoretical hull sagging moment at the lower guide is seen in practice.
This may be accounted for in a global model by reducing the distributed hull mass by 75
to 50 percent and applying the residual mass as point masses on the hull adjacent to the
connections to the legs. This procedure is not applicable when hull stresses are required.
A more thorough method is to apply self equilibrating pairs of forces/moments across the
spring connections between hull and legs:
the upper and lower guide which transfer bending moments by a set of
horizontal forces
and
2) a jacking system and/or fixation system which transfers vertical load and
bending moment via a set of vertical forces.
Section 5.6.6 gives guidance on the detailed modeling requirements for each of the
following components:
Page 80
Rev 3, August 2008
The various combinations of the above components to create the leg-hull connections
on typical jack-ups now in service are given in Figure C5.5. Close attention to the leghull connection should be given by the analysts to ensure a thorough understanding of
the jacking system so that proper modeling is realized. The number of key variables
which must be properly incorporated are:
bending, shear and torsional stiffness of the leg between the upper and lower
guide
axial, bending, shear and torsional stiffness of the jackcase stiffness of the upper
and lower guides
amount of clearance/tolerance of the legs within the guides (see Figure C5.6)
amount of backlash in the jacking system (see Figure C5.7)
type of leg guide arrangement (see Figure C5.8)
rack/pinion arrangement (opposed versus unopposed pinions) (see Figure C5.9)
When accounting for the effects of clearances (e.g. between guides and leg) in simpler
models there are several approaches available:
For estimates of extreme behavior, use a 'secant stiffness' approach, so that the
springs used provide a realistic displacement for the load/deflection levels
expected. Thus the equivalent stiffness will include any slack behavior:
Note: When using the methods above any spring with true tensile loading must be
manually released.
For natural frequency calculations, providing that the gaps do not open and
close, the use of the stiffness for closed gaps is appropriate.
C5.5.1
Hand calculations using the formulae presented in Figure 5.1 (after DNV, with
corrections). Provided that there are no significant offsets between the brace
work points these will be reasonably accurate for cases A (sideways K bracing),
C (X bracing) and D (Z bracing); case B (normal K bracing) should be used
with caution as the values of equivalent shear area and second moment of area
are dependent on the number of bays being considered. If the leg scantlings
change in different leg sections this can be accounted for by calculating the
properties for each leg section and creating the equivalent leg model
accordingly.
The application of unit load cases to a detailed leg model in accordance with
Section 5.6.4 a) of the PRACTICE. The following load cases should be
considered, applied about the major and minor axes of the leg:
- Axial load. This is used to determine the axial area, A, of the equivalent
beam according to standard theory:
FL
FL
=
=> A =
AE
E
where;
= axial deflection of cantilever at point of load application
F = applied axial end load
L = length of cantilever (from rigid support to point of load
application)
E = Young's modulus
Pure moment applied either as a moment or a couple. This is used to derive the
second moment of area (I) according to standard beam theory:
ML
ML
ML2
ML2
=> I =
=
=> I =
and =
2EI
2E
EI
E
where;
= lateral end deflection of cantilever at point of load application
M = applied end moment
= end slope of cantilever at point of load application
It should be noted that the value of I resulting from the two equations may
differ somewhat.
- Pure shear, P, applied at the end of the leg which may be used to derive I
according to standard beam theory:
PL2
PL2
=
=> I =
2EI
2E
Page 82
Rev 3, August 2008
Using either this value of I, or a value obtained from the pure moment case, the
effective shear area, As, can then be determined from:
PL3 PL
7.8 PLI
=
+
=> As =
3EI As G
3EI PL3
where;
G = shear modulus = E/2.6 for poissons ratio of 0.3
C5.5.2
The application of unit load cases to a detailed leg model in combination with a
detailed leg-hull connection model in accordance with Sections 5.6.4 a) and
5.6.6 a)-e) of the PRACTICE. Unit load cases are again applied, as described in
C5.5.1. In this instance the differences between the results from the detailed leg
model alone (see C5.5.1) and the detailed leg plus leg-hull connection model
allow the effective stiffness of the connection to be determined:
-
or
Krh = ML/(C-)
If the model contains nonlinearities due to the inclusion of gap elements care should be
taken to ensure that suitable levels of 'unit' loading are applied such that the derived
stiffness is applicable to the analysis to be undertaken.
Page 83
Rev 3, August 2008
Section 5.7 of the PRACTICE indicates appropriate methods for applying the various
loads to the analytical model(s). The importance of capturing the distributed nature of
the self weight and distributed loadings is emphasized.
C5.7
EVALUATION OF FORCES
This Commentary is directly applicable for the structural modeling of jack-ups for
either quasi-static or dynamic analysis. Key points which impact the final conclusions
drawn from the assessments of jack-ups have been emphasized to complement the
guidance given in the PRACTICE. A successful analysis will conclude with a set of
forces which can then be used in the final evaluation of the adequacy of the unit the
specific site, as contained in Section 8.0 - Assessment Criteria. The specific areas of
review include:
Care should be taken to ensure that the appropriate load factor is reflected in the
determination of the load set applied during the analysis. This allows for direct use of
the resulting loads in the assessment formulation.
Page 84
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 85
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 86
Rev 3, August 2008
NB:
Additional backlash may arise due to slack in gear train, clearances between
floating elevating system and shockpads etc.
Figure C5.7 : Jacking system backlash
Page 87
Rev 3, August 2008
A
As
E
F
G
I
Khh
Krh
Kvh
L
M
P
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Page 88
Rev 3, August 2008
C5.A.1 SUMMARY
The method described below allows a simple procedure for incorporating P- effects in
a jack-up structural analysis. The advantage of this simple procedure is the ability to
include such effects without the necessity to adopt the iterative procedures required by
other methods. This method is accurate in determining the global response parameters,
including hull displacement and base overturning moment. It is also accurate in
determining the leg moment below the lower guide (usually the most critical part of the
leg). In its simplest form the procedure will conservatively predict the shear in the legs
(by roughly 10%). However leg shear is rarely a controlling factor in structural
assessments; therefore this difference is insignificant.
C5.A.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE METHOD
It is assumed that a structural computer model of a jack-up is used to determine the
effects of applied loads. Typically, a 'static' wave load is applied to a structural model,
and resulting deflections, forces and moments are determined. Note, however, that the
method can be similarly applied to dynamic analysis. (The method may not be
permitted by some software packages which 'prohibit' the use of a negative spring
stiffness).
The incorporation of P- effects in the structural analysis is accomplished by including
a correction term in the global stiffness matrix of the structure. When an analysis is
performed with the correction term included, the resulting deflections, etc. will include
P- effects. Note that since the global stiffness matrix is modified before the analysis,
no subsequent changes to the matrix are required (i.e. no iterations are required in the
solution).
The correction term to the global stiffness matrix is determined by a simple hand
calculation:
The correction term is:
-Pg/L
where;
Pg = Effective hull gravity load. This includes hull weight and weight of the legs
above the hull.
L = The distance from the spudcan point of rotation to the hull center of gravity.
This single (negative) value is then incorporated into the global stiffness matrix of the
jack-up structural model. This can be accomplished in various ways depending on the
software in use. Typically, an orthogonal pair of horizontal translational earthed spring
elements can be attached to a node representing the hull center of gravity, and the
negative value is entered for each of the spring constants. Some software packages
allow direct matrix manipulation.
The effect of the negative stiffness is to produce an additional overturning load at the
hull. The overturning moment produced by this lateral load about the base is equal to
the overturning moment caused by the vertical load (of hull and legs above the hull)
times the deflection of the hull. Thus, the effect of the translation of the vertical load is
incorporated as a lateral force couple.
Page 90
Rev 3, August 2008
The P- effect is a consideration of the displacement of the structure under the applied
loads. In its most general form, the solution considers the displacements of each
element of the structure under loading. This is typically called a 'large displacement'
solution. In this general procedure, the deflections of the structure are used to reform
the stiffness matrix, which is then used to recalculate the displacements. While this is
analytically correct, there is a requirement to resolve the stiffness matrix several times
for each loading condition.
If the overall structural displacements are not very large, approximate solutions may be
used. Typically, approximate solutions are valid if tan , where is the rotation of
the structure about its base. These approximate solutions are known as 'geometric
stiffness' solutions.
The classical column moment magnification or 'Euler
amplification' term is an example. The simple method presented here is another
example. A comparison of these two methods is given in Section C5.A.4 and the
derivation is presented in Section C5.A.5.
The P- effect for jack-up structures is manifested as a change in lateral stiffness of the
individual legs, given a change in the axial load in each leg. For jack-ups the change in
axial load in each leg is caused by the application of the gravity loading and
environmental loading. As shown in Section C5.A.5, the net effect on the P- of the
axial load changes in each leg due to the environmental loading will cancel out. Thus,
for overall structural response, only the gravity load need be considered in the
calculation of P- effects. The reduced stiffness will then affect the response to
environmental loadings.
C5.A.4 VERIFICATION AGAINST 'EXACT' SOLUTION
Verification of this simple procedure was made against an 'exact' solution. In this case,
the 'exact' solution was performed using analysis software which accounts for large
displacements. In this procedure, the displaced configuration of the structure is used to
update the stiffness matrix, and iteration is used to converge on a given solution.
Verification was performed using a jack-up structural model as shown in Figure
C5.A.1. The leg chord, horizontal and diagonal members are modeled as individual
elements. The hull (in this case) is assumed to act as a rigid body. The hull to leg
connection included leg clamping devices. These were modeled along with the leg
guides. For the purpose of this verification the detailing of the hull and leg/hull
connection is not important. The spudcans were modeled as 'pinned'.
Loading of the model was accomplished as shown on Figure C5.A.2. Loadings due to
wave and wind (and dynamic inertial) were considered separately to verify the behavior
under the two separate types of loading. The loading direction was towards the bow in
both cases. For each case, a vertical load was applied at the hull center of gravity. It is
interesting to note that the vertical load is necessary for solution using 'exact' large
displacement methods, but is not needed to obtain a solution using the simple method.
Page 91
Rev 3, August 2008
A summary of the comparison results is given on Tables C5.A.1 (wave load) and
C5.A.2 (wind load). Verification with these two load cases was done separately, since
the loading occurs on different parts of the structure. The level of loading is arbitrary.
Values assumed here are greater than used in the site assessment of this particular jackup.
Discussion of the individual response parameters from Tables C5.A.1 and C5.A.2 is
given below.
C5.A.4.1 Global Response Parameters
The fundamental response quantities of deck displacement and overturning moment
agree to within 1%. The base shear for the simple method is not correct since it
includes the additional (fictitious) lateral force applied to the hull. The difference
between the total applied force and the base shear is the additional lateral force applied
at the hull. In theory the moment due to the vertical load (P- moment) should be
replaced by a lateral force couple, i.e. lateral loads at the hull and base. Reduction of
the base shear (in global axes) by this additional lateral force at the hull will equate the
global base shear with the applied load.
C5.A.4.2 Windward and Leeward leg parameters
The values for individual leg axial load and moment at the lower guide agree to within
1%. These quantities are the most critical parameters for structural assessments.
The distribution of global base shear among the individual legs is not as accurately
matched by the simple method. For each leg, the lateral stiffness is decreased by
increasing axial load. Thus, the distribution of global base shear will depend on the
axial load present in each leg. The simple method, since it lumps the effects of all legs
into one correction term, cannot accurately predict the shear re-distribution among the
legs.
This lack of re-distribution of global base shear loading is not generally important to a
structural assessment. The amount will depend on the level and type of loading (wave
or wind). For the two cases given, 1% and 5% of the total base shear load (in global
axes) is shifted from the leeward leg to the windward legs.
When the leg base shears are not corrected, the simple method conservatively overpredicts the shear in the legs. Since shear force is not as critical as the leg bending
moment this conservatism is not very restrictive.
If a correction is desired, the added lateral load at the hull can be subtracted in equal
fractions from the leg spudcan reactions (in global axes). Note that, for the case of the
windward leg, this will slightly under-predict the 'correct' global shear reaction.
3638.
250.
48.
5477.
212.
57.
3524.
272.
(249.)
56.
3534.
254.
5706.
235.
(212.)
65.
0.
5685.
204.
56.
65.
8.
2538.
352.
124.
7803.
352.
124.
2300.
399.
(351.)
141.
2318.
375.
8279.
400.
(352.)
141.
0.
8242.
305.
141.
140.
47.
Page 93
Rev 3, August 2008
Beam Deflection
Page 94
Rev 3, August 2008
Moment diagram
(due to secondary bending only)
To calculate y1, take moment of M/EI diagram between support and midspan
P(y 0 + y1 ) 2L 2L
y1 =
EI
Centroid of area under moment diagram
Area under moment diagram
Rearranging:
4PL2
y1 = (y0 + y1) 2
EI
using:
2 EI
(with k = 2)
PE =
( kL) 2
P
y1 = (y0 + y1)
PE
P / PE
= y0
1 P / PE
Total lateral deflection: ymax = y0 + y1
P / PE
ymax = y0 + y0
1 P / PE
y1
1
= y0
1 P / PE
Define Ko =
=
Define K1 =
H
y0
3EI
L3
H
y max
Page 95
Rev 3, August 2008
P
1
PE
4L2
= Ko 1 P 2
EI
H
y0
2
3EI 4L
= Ko - P 3 2
L EI
12 P
= Ko - 2 *
L
12P
2L
P( y 0 + y1 ) L 2L
EI
2 3
Centroid of area under moment diagram
Area under moment diagram
Rearranging:
y1 = (y0 + y1)
PL2
3EI
PL2 / 3EI
y1 = y0
2
1 PL / 3EI
ymax = y0 + y1
1
ymax = y0
2
1 PL / 3EI
Define K1 =
H
y max
Page 96
Rev 3, August 2008
H PL2
=
1
y 0 3EI
PL2
= Ko 1
3EI
P
= Ko L
C6.1
Page 97
Rev 3, August 2008
INTRODUCTION
This Commentary is compiled to support Section 6 of the PRACTICE and should only
be used as a reference document in conjunction with the text of the PRACTICE.
A Glossary of Terms used for the Geotechnical Engineering Analysis is included at the
end of this Commentary.
C6.2
C6.2.1
Page 98
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 99
Rev 3, August 2008
For the selection of undrained shear strength, cu, it is recommended that the mean value
to a depth of half a spudcan diameter beneath the level where the maximum spudcan
diameter is in contact with the soil is used (Young [3]).
This method is applicable if the shear strength values up to one diameter below the
spudcan do not vary more than 50 percent from the average value (after Skempton [4]).
If significant cu variations occur, then the bearing capacity should be computed using a
method for layered soil conditions.
Analytical solutions are available for computing the bearing capacity of footings on
clay with increasing shear strength with depth (Davis and Booker, [5]); Salencon and
Matar, [6]; Houlsby and Wroth, [7]). These methods give bearing capacities less than
those resulting from the use of Skempton's [4] and Vesic [8] relationships. Empirical
correction factors for the Skempton [4] and the Davis and Booker [5] methods are
recommended by Endley et al [9].
However these empirical methods take no account of the spudcan equivalent cone
angle, the spudcan roughness factor or the depth of spudcan embedment of the
uppermost part of the bearing area below the soil surface.
An alternative bearing capacity factor Nc' has been developed which takes these factors,
and that of increased shear strength with depth, into account. In this case the ultimate
bearing capacity of a spudcan in clay can be expressed by:
FV = {cuoNc' + po'} A
The maximum preload, VLo, is equal to the ultimate vertical bearing capacity, FV,
taking into account the effect of backflow, Fo'A, and the effective weight of the soil
replaced by the spudcan, 'V i.e.:
VLo = FV - F'oA + 'V
noting that the terms -F'oA + 'V should always be considered together.
Table C6 provides values for Nc' which is an alternative dimensionless bearing capacity
factor dependent on:
(a) The equivalent cone angle of the spudcan . For spudcans with multiple cone
angles, the equivalent cone has a base equal to the base of the largest
component and a volume equal to the total volume of the components,
(b) The roughness factor for the spudcan surface ,
(c) The depth of embedment of the uppermost part of the bearing area below the
soil surface D,
(d) The rate of increase of the undrained shear strength with depth below the
spudcan "" (see Figure C6.3).
The alternative non-dimensional bearing capacity factors "Nc'" shown in Tables C6.1 to
C6.6 have been derived using a computer program which is able to calculate lower
bound (conservative) collapse loads for both axisymmetric and plane strain
foundations. Vertical bearing capacity has been computed for all combinations of the
following parameters:
Page 100
Rev 3, August 2008
D/R
Roughness factor,
= 0.0, 0.2, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8, 1.0
(where = 0.0 for fully smooth and 1.0 for fully rough)
Rate of increase of clay shear strength with depth,
2R/cum = 0.0, 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, 5.0.
The effects of the depth of embedment and the rate of increase of shear strength with
depth are expressed by use of the dimensionless factors D/2R and 2R/cum, where cum is
the undrained strength at the soil surface (equal to cuo - D assuming a linear variation
of strength with depth) and R is the radius of the spudcan.
Values of the dimensionless factor Nc' are given in Tables C6.1 to C6.6 for the range:
= 30 to 180 ;
= 0.0 to 1.0
D/2R = 0.0 to 2.5 ; 2R/cum = 0.0 to 5.0
The factors are calculated assuming a linear variation of undrained strength with depth.
The best fit to the profile of undrained strength between the depth of the lowermost
point of the maximum bearing area and one radius below that point should be used in
deriving the value of .
In the model a field of slip lines is formed between the footing and the horizontal free
soil surface. This type of "general shear" failure mechanism is appropriate for the
shallow footing penetrations being considered. At larger embedments, however, the
slip lines do not propagate to the surface as the "local shear" failure mechanism
becomes critical (i.e. it gives a lower bearing capacity). A transition from general to
local shear failure may be predicted at footing embedments between 6R and 8R.
Page 101
Rev 3, August 2008
The greatest embedment considered in the tables is 5R, so the general shear bearing
capacity factors are still appropriate for this depth. Therefore Table C6.6 should not be
extrapolated to higher values of D/2R, since the bearing capacity factor does not
increase significantly with further embedment. Values for D/2R = 2.5 should be used
for large embedments.
Although a footing may be fully rough ( = 1.0), full adhesion is only mobilized at the
cone surface when 90. For cone angles greater than 90, only partial friction is
mobilized. In general, if the roughness factor is , full friction is mobilized only when
< - sin-1. This relationship may be derived using Mohr's Circle.
For the selection of appropriate roughness factors the results of mathematical models
(Noble Denton [10a]) suggest that the presence of a sharp secondary cone, forming the
tip of spudcan, tends to cause "rough" behavior. Rough blunt spudcans behave in a
similar manner to flat circular plates but more pointed spudcans behave as neither fully
rough nor fully smooth and have intermediate roughness factors of between = 0.3 to
0.5. In the absence of detailed information, and as an approximation, a value of = 0.4
may be appropriate for typical "double cone" spudcan shapes.
For further information regarding this alternative method for bearing capacity analysis
in clay reference should be made to Houlsby [11, 12, 13], Koumoto [14] and Houlsby
[15].
It is noted that footing penetration predictions are generally made using shear strength
data from simple laboratory tests such as torvane, pocket penetrometer, motorvane
and/or unconfined compression tests. Strength values from such tests are generally
lower than those of higher quality in-situ or laboratory tests, particularly if samples for
the latter tests are obtained from push/piston sampling rather than the percussion
sampling method.
It is likely that the former testing methods may yield low bearing capacity values for
very sensitive clays and/or strongly strain softening clays. Engineering judgment is
required in such cases to assess the likely footing penetration.
It is noted that in some clays, following remolding during spudcan penetration, the
shear strength may increase over a short time period. For certain clays the strength
may be regained in a matter of hours. In such cases, a crust of stronger material may
develop underneath the spudcan and this crust may then be underlain by weaker clay.
In this condition a potential punch-through situation could occur during subsequent
reloading. Several actual failures have been attributed to this type of soil behavior
(Young et al., [3]). For soils where this type of strength hardening (thixotropy) is
possible caution should be exercised as interruptions during the preloading operations
could lead to severe consequences.
For the conservative assessment of the effects of cyclic loading on clay foundations the
following vertical bearing capacity reduction factors may be applied to the capacities
calculated from static soil properties (Andersen [16]):
Leeward leg vertical bearing capacity reduction factor
= 1.0
2R
--cum
2R
--cuo
TABLE C6.2
FV/(Acuo) factors
Roughness
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2R
--cum
60 degrees cones
D
cuo
--R
cum
2R
--cuo
FV/(Acuo) factors
Roughness
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.61
4.80
5.05
5.41
5.98
7.12
5.51
5.70
5.94
6.29
6.85
7.98
6.38
6.56
6.80
7.14
7.70
8.81
7.22
7.40
7.63
7.79
8.51
9.61
8.03
8.20
8.43
8.76
9.29
10.38
8.78
8.95
9.18
9.50
10.03
11.10
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.45
4.68
4.98
5.41
6.07
7.33
4.96
5.19
5.50
5.90
6.55
7.81
5.45
5.67
5.96
6.37
7.01
8.25
5.90
6.12
6.40
6.81
7.43
8.66
6.32
6.53
6.81
7.21
7.84
9.05
6.69
6.90
7.18
7.57
8.18
9.39
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.50
2.00
3.50
1.00
0.91
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.29
7.53
7.45
7.38
7.28
7.20
7.34
9.02
8.89
8.73
8.55
8.38
8.39
10.46
10.27
10.05
9.78
9.51
9.39
11.84
11.61
11.32
10.98
10.61
10.37
13.19
12.90
12.55
12.14
11.68
11.30
14.46
14.13
13.72
13.24
12.68
12.19
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.50
2.00
3.50
1.00
0.91
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.29
5.81
5.92
6.04
6.20
6.43
6.97
6.51
6.59
6.70
6.84
7.05
7.55
7.15
7.23
7.30
7.41
7.58
8.08
7.77
7.83
7.88
7.96
8.12
8.54
8.34
8.38
8.42
8.47
8.59
8.98
8.87
8.89
8.91
8.94
9.03
9.39
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
10.45
9.65
8.89
8.20
7.60
7.37
12.51
11.53
10.58
9.67
8.87
8.44
14.51
13.33
12.19
11.09
10.10
9.48
16.44
15.08
13.76
12.47
11.30
10.18
18.31
16.79
15.27
13.80
12.45
11.44
20.10
18.40
16.72
15.08
13.54
12.35
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
7.14
6.92
6.74
6.59
6.55
6.99
8.02
7.73
7.50
7.29
7.20
7.49
8.84
8.49
8.18
7.91
7.76
8.03
9.60
9.21
8.84
8.53
8.33
8.50
10.32
9.88
9.46
9.09
8.83
8.95
10.99
10.50
10.03
9.61
9.30
9.37
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.30
1.75
2.50
4.00
8.50
3.00
2.31
1.71
1.20
0.75
0.35
13.36
11.51
9.98
8.74
7.79
7.40
15.98
13.76
11.89
10.33
9.11
8.46
18.56
15.92
13.72
11.87
10.39
9.51
21.03
18.02
15.49
13.36
11.64
10.52
23.42
20.05
17.21
14.80
12.83
11.49
25.71
22.00
18.85
16.18
13.98
12.42
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.30
1.75
2.50
4.00
8.50
3.00
2.31
1.71
1.20
0.75
0.35
8.49
7.77
7.24
6.82
6.60
6.99
9.54
8.70
8.03
7.56
7.27
7.47
10.50
9.56
8.80
8.21
7.85
8.01
11.42
10.38
9.53
8.86
8.44
8.49
12.29
11.14
10.20
9.45
8.94
8.94
13.10
11.85
10.82
10.00
9.43
9.36
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
4.00
2.86
2.00
1.33
0.80
0.36
16.27
13.10
10.83
9.11
7.91
7.40
19.46
15.68
12.87
10.77
9.26
8.47
22.57
18.14
14.86
12.38
10.57
9.52
25.62
20.54
16.79
13.96
11.84
10.54
28.52
22.86
18.66
15.47
13.06
11.52
31.32
25.08
20.44
16.91
14.23
12.46
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
4.00
2.86
2.00
1.33
0.80
0.36
9.83
8.51
7.61
6.97
6.64
6.86
11.02
9.52
8.44
7.74
7.31
7.45
12.16
10.48
9.26
8.41
7.90
8.00
13.24
11.38
10.04
9.08
8.49
8.48
14.26
12.22
10.75
9.69
9.01
8.94
15.18
13.00
11.41
10.26
9.51
9.35
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.50
2.25
3.50
6.00
13.50
5.00
3.33
2.22
1.43
0.83
0.37
19.18
14.48
11.46
9.37
7.98
7.40
22.94
17.33
13.64
11.08
9.35
8.47
26.61
20.06
15.75
12.77
10.68
9.53
30.20
22.72
17.80
14.38
11.97
10.56
33.63
25.29
19.78
15.94
13.21
11.55
36.92
27.75
21.68
17.43
14.40
12.48
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.50
2.25
3.50
6.00
13.50
5.00
3.33
2.22
1.43
0.83
0.37
11.17
9.14
7.90
7.08
6.66
6.85
12.52
10.23
8.78
7.84
7.32
7.44
13.83
11.26
9.63
8.55
7.94
7.99
15.06
12.25
10.43
9.24
8.53
8.47
16.20
13.15
11.17
9.86
9.06
8.93
17.26
13.99
11.87
10.45
9.56
9.35
Page 102
Rev 3, August 2008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TABLE C6.1
30 degrees cones
D
cuo
--R
cum
2R
--cum
2R
--cuo
TABLE C6.4
FV/(Acuo) factors
Roughness
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2R
--cum
2R
--cuo
FV/(Acuo) factors
Roughness
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.64
4.90
5.22
5.68
6.37
7.65
5.02
5.28
5.59
6.03
6.71
8.03
5.36
5.61
5.93
6.36
7.05
8.32
5.67
5.91
6.23
6.66
7.32
8.60
5.95
6.18
6.49
6.92
7.58
8.86
6.17
6.41
6.71
7.14
7.79
9.05
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
4.96
5.23
5.57
6.04
6.74
8.07
5.25
5.52
5.85
6.31
7.01
8.32
5.51
5.77
6.10
6.55
7.24
8.55
5.73
5.99
6.31
6.76
7.44
8.75
5.92
6.17
6.49
6.93
7.61
8.90
6.05
6.30
6.62
7.05
7.72
8.99
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.50
2.00
3.50
1.00
0.91
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.29
5.57
5.74
5.94
6.16
6.50
7.25
6.05
6.21
6.38
6.61
6.93
7.57
6.47
6.62
6.79
6.99
7.30
7.94
6.87
7.00
7.16
7.36
7.64
8.25
7.22
7.36
7.50
7.68
7.95
8.53
7.53
7.65
7.79
7.97
8.21
8.78
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.50
2.00
3.50
1.00
0.91
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.29
5.69
5.89
6.12
6.39
6.80
7.52
6.04
6.24
6.45
6.72
7.10
7.82
6.36
6.55
6.76
7.01
7.37
8.08
6.65
6.82
7.02
7.27
7.61
8.29
6.89
7.07
7.26
7.48
7.82
8.49
7.09
7.26
7.45
7.66
7.97
8.61
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
6.46
6.41
6.41
6.40
6.54
7.16
7.03
6.94
6.88
6.88
6.99
7.49
7.54
7.43
7.35
7.29
7.37
7.86
8.01
7.88
7.76
7.69
7.73
8.18
8.45
8.28
8.14
8.03
8.06
8.47
8.82
8.65
8.46
8.35
8.33
8.72
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
6.38
6.41
6.46
6.56
6.80
7.43
6.79
6.80
6.83
6.91
7.12
7.72
7.16
7.16
7.17
7.22
7.40
7.99
7.50
7.47
7.46
7.49
7.65
8.21
7.80
7.75
7.72
7.74
7.87
8.41
8.04
7.97
7.94
7.92
8.03
8.53
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.30
1.75
2.50
4.00
8.50
3.00
2.31
1.71
1.20
0.75
0.35
7.36
6.99
6.70
6.54
6.56
7.12
8.00
7.57
7.24
7.04
7.02
7.46
8.59
8.10
7.73
7.47
7.41
7.83
9.14
8.60
8.17
7.88
7.78
8.15
9.65
9.05
8.59
8.24
8.11
8.44
10.08
9.45
8.94
8.57
8.39
8.46
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.30
1.75
2.50
4.00
8.50
3.00
2.31
1.71
1.20
0.75
0.35
7.04
6.84
6.71
6.66
6.81
7.38
7.51
7.27
7.09
7.02
7.11
7.68
7.93
7.65
7.45
7.34
7.41
7.95
8.31
8.00
7.76
7.63
7.67
8.17
8.66
8.31
8.05
7.88
7.89
8.38
8.93
8.57
8.27
8.08
8.06
8.51
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
4.00
2.86
2.00
1.33
0.80
0.36
8.22
7.49
6.94
6.63
6.57
7.05
8.96
8.11
7.50
7.15
7.03
7.44
9.64
8.68
8.01
7.58
7.43
7.81
10.25
9.22
8.48
8.01
7.80
8.13
10.82
9.70
8.92
8.38
8.14
8.42
11.33
10.14
9.29
8.72
8.42
8.67
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
4.00
2.86
2.00
1.33
0.80
0.36
7.70
7.20
6.88
6.72
6.80
7.39
8.22
7.66
7.28
7.08
7.12
7.66
8.69
8.07
7.65
7.42
7.41
7.93
9.11
8.44
7.98
7.71
7.68
8.15
9.49
8.77
8.27
7.97
7.90
8.36
9.81
9.03
8.53
8.18
8.08
8.49
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.50
2.25
3.50
6.00
13.50
5.00
3.33
2.22
1.43
0.83
0.37
9.11
9.93
7.87
8.55
7.12
7.71
6.70
7.22
6.57
7.04
7.03
7.42
TABLE C6.5
10.66
9.17
8.24
7.67
7.44
7.80
11.35
9.74
8.72
8.09
7.82
8.12
12.00
10.26
9.17
8.47
8.16
8.41
12.56
10.75
9.57
8.82
8.44
8.66
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.50
2.25
3.50
6.00
13.50
5.00
3.33
2.22
1.43
0.83
0.37
8.35
8.91
7.52
7.99
7.01
7.43
6.77
7.13
6.80
7.12
7.34
7.64
TABLE C6.6
9.43
8.43
7.81
7.47
7.42
7.91
9.89
8.82
8.15
7.77
7.69
8.14
10.31
9.18
8.45
8.03
7.91
8.34
10.67
9.95
8.72
8.25
8.09
8.48
Page 103
Rev 3, August 2008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
TABLE C6.3
90 degrees cones
D
cuo
--R
cum
2R
--cuo
FV/(Acuo) factors
Roughness
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
2R
--cum
2R
--cuo
FV(Acuo) factors
Roughness
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.32
5.60
5.94
6.41
7.13
8.46
5.55
5.82
6.16
6.62
7.32
8.65
5.74
6.00
6.34
6.80
7.49
8.81
5.89
6.16
6.49
6.94
7.62
8.93
6.01
6.26
6.59
7.03
7.71
8.99
6.05
6.30
6.61
7.05
7.72
8.99
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
5.69
5.97
6.31
6.79
7.49
8.82
5.86
6.13
6.47
6.93
7.63
8.94
5.97
6.24
6.57
7.02
7.70
8.99
6.03
6.29
6.61
7.05
7.71
8.99
6.05
6.30
6.61
7.05
7.71
8.99
6.05
6.30
6.61
7.05
7.71
8.99
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.50
2.00
3.50
1.00
0.91
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.29
5.94
6.16
6.41
6.71
7.13
7.91
6.22
6.43
6.67
6.96
7.36
8.12
6.46
6.67
6.90
7.18
7.57
8.31
6.67
6.87
7.09
7.36
7.73
8.44
6.84
7.04
7.25
7.51
7.86
8.56
6.97
7.15
7.36
7.60
7.95
8.61
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.10
1.25
1.50
2.00
3.50
1.00
0.91
0.80
0.67
0.50
0.29
6.25
6.48
6.74
7.05
7.47
8.26
6.47
6.69
6.94
7.24
7.64
8.32
6.65
6.87
7.11
7.39
7.79
8.52
6.79
7.00
7.23
7.51
7.88
8.60
6.90
7.10
7.32
7.58
7.93
8.61
6.95
7.14
7.35
7.60
7.94
8.61
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
6.50
6.59
6.69
6.84
7.11
7.81
6.82
6.90
6.98
7.10
7.35
8.01
7.11
7.16
7.23
7.34
7.57
8.21
7.35
7.40
7.45
7.54
7.74
8.35
7.57
7.59
7.63
7.70
7.89
8.47
7.73
7.74
7.76
7.82
7.99
8.53
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
2.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.20
1.50
2.00
3.00
6.00
2.00
1.67
1.33
1.00
0.67
0.33
6.73
6.85
6.98
7.15
7.45
8.16
6.98
7.08
7.20
7.36
7.63
8.27
7.20
7.30
7.39
7.53
7.78
8.43
7.39
7.46
7.55
7.67
7.90
8.50
7.53
7.59
7.66
7.76
7.96
8.53
7.63
7.68
7.72
7.80
7.98
8.53
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.30
1.75
2.50
4.00
8.50
3.00
2.31
1.71
1.20
0.75
0.35
7.03
6.94
6.88
6.91
7.10
7.76
7.40
7.27
7.18
7.18
7.35
7.97
7.72
7.56
7.45
7.43
7.57
8.16
7.98
7.81
7.68
7.63
7.75
8.31
8.24
8.03
7.88
7.81
7.90
8.43
8.43
8.21
8.03
7.94
8.00
8.49
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.30
1.75
2.50
4.00
8.50
3.00
2.31
1.71
1.20
0.75
0.35
7.16
7.13
7.15
7.21
7.43
8.13
7.45
7.40
7.37
7.42
7.62
8.23
7.69
7.62
7.58
7.61
7.78
8.38
7.91
7.81
7.75
7.75
7.90
8.46
8.08
7.96
7.88
7.86
7.97
8.49
8.21
8.07
7.96
7.91
7.99
8.49
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
4.00
2.86
2.00
1.33
0.80
0.36
7.55
7.23
7.02
6.95
7.09
7.72
7.94
7.58
7.34
7.23
7.34
7.94
8.30
7.89
7.62
7.49
7.56
8.13
8.58
8.16
7.86
7.70
7.75
8.29
8.88
8.40
8.07
7.88
7.90
8.41
9.10
8.59
8.23
8.01
8.00
8.47
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
4.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.40
2.00
3.00
5.00
11.00
4.00
2.86
2.00
1.33
0.80
0.36
7.56
7.38
7.26
7.25
7.44
8.09
7.87
7.64
7.50
7.46
7.61
8.19
8.15
7.89
7.71
7.65
7.77
8.36
8.38
8.09
7.89
7.80
7.89
8.44
8.58
8.26
8.03
7.92
7.97
8.47
8.73
8.39
8.13
7.98
8.00
8.47
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.50
2.25
3.50
6.00
13.50
5.00
3.33
2.22
1.43
0.83
0.37
8.05
7.46
7.13
6.99
7.09
7.70
8.48
7.83
7.45
7.27
7.34
7.93
8.86
8.16
7.74
7.53
7.56
8.12
9.19
8.44
7.99
7.74
7.75
8.27
9.48
8.69
8.20
7.93
7.91
8.40
9.74
8.90
8.37
8.07
8.01
8.46
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
5.0
0.0
0.2
0.5
1.0
2.0
5.0
1.00
1.50
2.25
3.50
6.00
13.50
5.00
3.33
2.22
1.43
0.83
0.37
7.94
7.56
7.34
7.27
7.43
8.07
8.27
7.85
7.59
7.49
7.60
8.18
8.57
8.10
7.81
7.68
7.77
8.35
8.83
8.32
8.00
7.84
7.89
8.43
9.05
8.50
8.15
7.96
7.97
8.46
9.23
8.64
8.25
8.02
8.00
8.46
Page 104
Rev 3, August 2008
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
2R
--cum
Page 105
Rev 3, August 2008
Density
Very Loose
Loose
Medium
Loose
Medium
Dense
Medium
Dense
Dense
Very Dense
Dense
Very Dense
* See notes overleaf
Soil Description
Sand
Sand-Silt
Silt
Sand
Sand-Silt
Silt
Sand
Sand-Silt
Sand
Sand-Silt
Gravel
Sand
des.
15
N
2.6
Nq
3.9
20
5.4
6.4
25
11
11
30
22
18
35
48
33
Page 106
Rev 3, August 2008
* NOTE: "Sand-Silt" includes those soils with significant fractions of both sand and
silt. Strength values generally increase with increasing sand fractions. For
spudcans on sand the effects of cyclic loading may be to either increase or decrease
the pore water pressure. Positive excess pore water pressure will weaken the soil
and in severe cases may cause partial fluidization. Negative excess pore water
pressures may temporarily strengthen the soil. Approximate methods are available
for the assessment of excess pore water pressure development and associated
foundation settlement (Dean [20]).
The following qualifications apply:
1. Footing penetrations in a thick layer of clean silica sand are usually minimal with
the maximum diameter of the spudcan rarely coming into contact with the soil. It is
therefore not usual to consider the effects of soil backflow in this situation.
2. If various sand layers occur to 1.5 B below the footing depth an average value for '
can be selected using the graph developed by Meyerhof [22] as shown in Figure
C6.4. Considering the overall inaccuracy in the prediction of footing penetration in
sand, this refinement does not generally influence the accuracy of the prediction.
3. Emphasis should be placed on the identification and analyses of potential punchthroughs into a clay layer (or a silt layer which may behave undrained).
Page 107
Rev 3, August 2008
Relatively large footing penetrations have been reported for uncemented carbonate
materials despite high laboratory friction angles (Dutt, [23]). This may be attributed to
either the high compressibility of these materials or low shear strengths due to high
voids ratio and a collapsible structure.
The leg penetration is governed by both strength and deformation characteristics of
foundation soils as noted in Commentary 6.2.1. The compressibility of carbonate sands
is relatively higher than for silica sands. Hence, greater penetrations should be
expected for carbonate sands relative to silica sands despite the similar or even higher
laboratory friction angles. This is supported by both experimental (Poulos, [24]) and
theoretical (Yeung, [25]) studies on model foundations.
The predictions of footing penetrations in carbonate sands are likely to be performed to
a lower degree of accuracy compared with those for silica sands. The conventional
method is to use the plasticity based formulation for bearing capacity of shallow
foundations in sand. However, friction angles to be used in the formulae should be
considerably smaller than laboratory values to account (in an artificial manner) for the
soil behavior.
C6.2.5
Penetration in Silts
Cyclic loads imposed in silty fine sands/silt foundations may cause liquefaction due to
the generation of excess pore water pressures. In this situation foundation settlements
would be anticipated. Conservative assessments of reduced bearing capacities and
increased settlements should be conducted as appropriate.
C6.2.6
Page 108
Rev 3, August 2008
FV
= FV,b - W
FV
where;
FV,b
W
Figure C6.5 : Spudcan bearing capacity analysis - sand over clay load spread method
This method, using n = 3, has been recommended by Young, [27] for jack-up
foundations. However, comparison with model test data (Jacobsen, [28]; Higham, [29];
Craig, [30]) suggest a range from n = 3 to 5. Conversely, actual spudcan penetration
data are available which suggest a higher spread, i.e. smaller n values, (Baglioni, [31]).
Hence it is suggested that this method would provide reasonable, but conservative,
results if a lower bound value n = 5 be used. However, it is noted that both
observations of model test data and results of numerical analyses reveal that soil
punching failure occurs along vertical surfaces. Thus, although this method can
provide reasonable quantitative estimates on leg penetration, it may not be based on a
physically correct model.
The same comment applies to the previously referenced Hanna and Meyerhof method
which is based on failure along a truncated cone surface. This is unlike the observed
vertical shear surface. However, the ultimate resistance computed when punching
shear is initiated generally gives reasonable agreement (and is acceptably conservative)
compared with actually observed data.
It is noted that this method generally provides reasonable estimates of ultimate soil
resistance at the onset of punch-through. However, significant underpredictions of soil
resistance have been reported by Baglioni, [31]. Conversely the method appears to
overpredict soil resistance after punch-through has initiated as suggested by Craig, [32].
Summary
The various soil failure mechanisms considered in this section are illustrated in Figure
C6.6.
The current status on analytical methods for punch-through (Section C6.2.6) is that the
widely used methods, discussed above, (i.e. the load spread method and the Hanna and
Meyerhof method) show (different) discrepancies with observed data. However, both
methods allow prediction of a lower bound resistance at the initiation of punch-through.
Page 110
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 111
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 112
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 113
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 114
Rev 3, August 2008
Section 6.3.4.6 describes three methods by which fixity may be included in the
analysis. The intermediate method, using linear fixity, is an approach that was not
previously encompassed. It is now included as the more detailed methods are not
readily available to most analysts. It must however be noted that the linear rotational
stiffness must be selected with care to ensure that wave force cancellation effects do
not drive the resulting DAFs. Refer to C7.4.
Elastic Spring Stiffnesses - Sand and Clay
The elastic stiffness factors are calculated assuming full contact of the spudcan with the
seabed. If the vertical load is insufficient to maintain full contact as the moment
increases then reduced stiffnesses should be used. The stiffness factors are derived for
a homogeneous, linear, isotropic soil. Choice of the appropriate shear modulus should
take into account the expected stress level and strain amplitude. In general, the shear
modulus decreases with increasing strain amplitude.
Selection of Shear Modulus, G, in clay
The value of the initial, small-strain shear modulus for clay should be based on the
value of the shear strength (cu) measured at the depth z = D + 0.15 B where B is the
diameter of the spudcan and D is the depth below mudline of the lowest point on the
spudcan at which this diameter is attained. Where the clay is significantly layered the
average strength within the range z = D to z = D + 0.3B should be used. Except in
areas with carbonate clays or clayey silts the shear modulus should be calculated as
[ref. 53]:
G
= cu
600
OCR 0.25
Where;
OCR = The overconsolidation ratio;
IrNC = The Rigidity Index for Normally Consolidated clay..
For extreme loading conditions and in the absence of other data IrNC shall be
conservatively limited to 400 (Noble Denton, [53]) based on overconsolidated
clay sites with Plasticity Indices (Ip) of up to 40%; the data for normally
consolidated clay published by Andersen in Figure 10.2 of [55], reproduced as
Figure C6.10 below, supports the use of IrNC of 400 up to about Ip = 60% if, as
suggested by Andersen in correspondence, the low points at Ip of around 50%
are given less weight as they fall outside the main trend. Due consideration
should be given to the possibility of determining site-specific shear moduli for
normally consolidated and slightly overconsolidated clays and/or where the
Plasticity Indices exceed 60%.
IrNC = 600 for clays with low OCR and Ip less than about 40% is supported by
field data for jack-up response in the Gulf of Mexico (Templeton [54]).
It should be noted that IrNC appears to be fundamentally inversely proportional to
the Plasticity Index (Andersen [55], Figure 10.2, reproduced as Figure C6.10
below). For sites with Plasticity Indices in excess of 60%, and not covered by
field data, the analyst should account for the inverse relationship when
determining G.
In some cases higher ratios of IrNC may be used. The data published by Andersen
([55], Figure 10.2, reproduced as Figure C6.10 below) would support use of
Gmax / suDSS
2000
40
2.8
2.8
1000
2
4
10
25
40
0
0
20
40
60
80
100
On the vertical axis Gmax, the initial shear modulus from shear waves generated by bender elements in
direct simple shear (DSS) tests is normalised against SuDSS, the undrained montonic shear strength from
the DSS tests. Whilst these parameters may differ from those determined by other means, due to rate
effects, etc., the differences are expected to be sufficiently small that the data and trends remain
applicable.
K 3 = VLo B
0.25
1.5N c OCR
So that the rotational stiffness is directly proportional to the diameter, directly
proportional to the preload, and depends weakly on the OCR. The bracketed term is
almost a constant factor in the region of about 80. Since full embedment will usually
apply, neither preload nor diameter will vary very much for any one unit. In fact the
OCR is the only factor that alters the stiffness significantly.
Selection of Shear Modulus in Sand
For sands the initial, small-strain shear modulus should be computed from:
0.5
G p a = j (Vswl Ap a )
where
D
j
= 230 0.9 + R (Dimensionless stiffness factor)
500
p a = Atmospheric pressure
DR =
Vswl =
D 4V
G
K3
B3
0. 5
2 230 0.9 + R pa0.5Vswl
500
B2
0.5
3(1 )
and
8VL 0
.
N
Two cases emerge. If there is (rarely) full embedment then the rotational stiffness is
proportional to the square of the diameter and the square root of the load - since for any
particular unit not much can be done about either, this results in almost constant
rotational stiffness in the embedded case.
In the partially embedded case we substitute for the diameter and get:
D
1.17
2 230 0.9 + R p a0.5Vswl
0.67
0.67
V Lo 8
500
1
1
K3 =
0. 5
0.67
3(1 )
N 0.67
Vswl
Case 1
1.15
1.28
1.42
1.59
Kd2
Case 2
1.21
1.41
1.70
2.00
Case 1
1.33
1.44
1.51
1.61
Kd3
Case 2
1.49
1.71
1.92
2.06
Case 1
1.28
1.43
1.51
1.57
Case 2
1.47
1.67
1.85
1.98
Case 1
1.23
1.37
1.44
1.51
Case 2
1.64
2.05
2.31
2.41
Case 1
1.11
1.21
1.34
1.49
Kd2
Case 2
1.18
1.34
1.59
1.85
Case 1
1.32
1.42
1.48
1.58
Kd3
Case 2
1.54
1.90
2.15
2.25
Case 1
1.08
1.16
1.27
1.41
Kd2
Case 2
1.14
1.27
1.48
1.72
Case 1
1.31
1.41
1.48
1.57
Kd3
Case 2
1.45
1.64
1.80
1.92
Case 1
1.18
1.31
1.39
1.47
Case 2
1.44
1.62
1.78
1.91
Case 1
1.18
1.31
1.40
1.51
Case 2
1.43
1.76
2.01
2.13
Case 1
1.07
1.15
1.25
1.40
Kd2
Case 2
1.10
1.23
1.44
1.69
Case 1
1.32
1.44
1.51
1.59
Kd3
Case 2
1.39
1.71
1.99
2.16
Figure C6.11: Vertical load-displacement curves for leeward and windward legs
With reference to Figure C6.11, consider the windward and leeward legs as follows:
Leeward leg
Vmax = VD + VE
Windward leg
Vmin = VD - VE
where;
VD
VE
VD + VE
VE
K*v = Kv
VD VE
VE
where;
Kv
Leaning Instability
A lower bound estimate of the leaning stability can be performed using the theory of
Hambly [45]. However, it should be recognized that such estimates have proven to be
generally conservative due to the omission of beneficial effects such as spudcan fixity
and lateral soil resistance on the legs.
The potential for jack-up unit leaning instability may largely be discounted if
appropriate installation procedures are adopted.
C6.4.2
Footprint Considerations
Installing a jack-up with its spudcans near or adjacent to existing footprints, or zones of
weaker material (naturally infilled spudcan footprints) may induce soil failure.
Mathematical models are available for the evaluation of ground stability in such
situations and, in particular, finite element techniques are becoming more widely used.
It is not possible to advise on a minimum acceptable distance between the proposed
spudcan locations and existing footprints as this will depend on several parameters.
These parameters include the soil conditions, the depth and configuration of the
footprints, the degree of soil backfill during and after spudcan removal, the elapsed
time since the last installation, the spudcan geometry and foundation loading.
As a general guideline it is usually acceptable for a spudcan to be installed at a
minimum distance (from the edge of the bearing area to the edge of the footprint) of
one diameter measured at the spudcan bearing area. However, in soft clay conditions,
with consequentially deep footing penetrations, the situation may be complicated by the
fact that the footprints may have larger diameters than the spudcans.
Also in dense sand or stiff clay conditions, where shallow footprints are unlikely to
influence the integrity of the spudcan foundations, the above guideline may be
conservative.
C6.4.3
Scour
The seabed is susceptible to scour when the shear stresses induced by fluid flow exceed
a certain value and/or when turbulent intensity of the flow is sufficiently large to lift
individual grains and entrain these in the flow. Both wave action and currents can
induce scour although in deep water, the effect of wave action on seabed scour is
negligible.
The following parameters are important for the assessment of scour potential:
a) Seabed material - size, shape, density and cohesion
b) Flow conditions - current velocity, wave-induced oscillatory velocities
interaction of waves and currents
c) Shape, size and penetration of jack-up footing.
Methods are available to determine whether significant scour is likely under waves and
currents. These generally proceed by considering the velocities near the seabed and by
calculation of the shear stresses. Guidance is given with regard to the assessment of
scour potential in the US NCEL [46] Marine Geotechnical Engineering Handbook.
Page 120
Rev 3, August 2008
Seafloor instability may be caused by a number of mechanisms and where the potential
for unstable ground conditions is recognized it is recommended that expert local advise
is obtained.
In areas where liquefaction is known to be possible its potential must be assessed.
Liquefaction, or cyclic mobility, occurs when the cyclic stresses within the soils cause a
progressive build up of pore pressure. The pore pressure within the profile may build
up to a stage where it becomes equal to the initial average vertical effective stress.
Foundation failure may result depending on the location and extent of pore pressure
developed in the soil. The rate and degree of pore pressure build up will depend on
three factors:
a) The loading characteristics; that is, the amplitude, period and durations of the
different cyclic loading components
b) The cyclic characteristics of the soil deposits
c) The drainage and compressibility of the strata comprising the soil profile.
The cyclic loads may be induced by environmental or mechanical means, or by the
oscillatory ground accelerations imposed during earthquake conditions.
If appropriate soil conditions prevail, the potential for cyclic mobility should be
considered for a wide variety of load cases. Of particular interest is the windward
footing during storm conditions, where reduced vertical load and increased horizontal
load may theoretically induce lateral sliding or bearing failure.
C6.4.6
Page 121
Rev 3, August 2008
= Adhesion.
= Spudcan effective bearing area.
= Effective spudcan diameter at uppermost part of bearing area in contact
with the soil (for rectangular footing B = width).
= Increased effective spudcan diameter - load spread method.
= Undrained cohesive shear strength.
= Undrained cohesive shear strength at spudcan tip.
= Undrained cohesive shear strength at mudline.
= Undrained cohesive shear strength at max bearing area.
= Critical depth of failure below spudcan in sand.
= Bearing capacity factor = 1 + 2tan(1- sin)2 D/B.
= Bearing capacity factor = 1.
= Distance from mudline to spudcan maximum bearing area.
= Relative Density (percent).
= Voids ratio.
= Voids ratio factor.
= Voids ratio factor for loose sand.
= Voids ratio factor for dense sand.
= Horizontal foundation capacity (envelope).
= Foundation moment capacity (envelope).
= Effective overburden pressure due to backfill at depth of the uppermost part
of the bearing area.
= Vertical foundation capacity.
= Vertical bearing capacity of fictitious footing on the surface of the lower
(bottom) clay layer with no backfill.
= Vertical foundation capacity when horizontal load is present.
= Maximum vertical soil resistance (occurs when FH = 0).
= Shear modulus.
= Shear modulus for loose sand.
= Shear modulus for dense sand.
= Distance from spudcan maximum bearing area to weak strata below.
= Coefficient relating undrained shear strength to shear modulus.
= Height of soil column above spudcan.
= Dimensionless stiffness factor for sand.
= Coefficient of punching shear.
= Vertical foundation stiffness (= K1).
= Vertical, horizontal and rotational stiffness.
= Stiffness factor on vertical stiffness to account for embedment.
= Stiffness factor on horizontal stiffness to account for embedment.
= Stiffness factor on rotational stiffness to account for embedment.
= Modified vertical foundation stiffness.
= Foundation length, for circular foundation L = B.
=
=
=
=
=
=
OCR
pa
po'
=
=
=
Page 122
Rev 3, August 2008
VLo
Vmax
Vmin
Vswl
W
z
zu
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
d
'
'
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
QV
QH
R
sq
s
T
V
VD
VE
=
=
=
=
=
(=
=
=
=
=
Page 123
Rev 3, August 2008
Meyerhof G.G. (1972), "Stability of Slurry Trench Cuts in Saturated Clay", Proceedings
of the Speciality Conference on Performance of Earth and Earth Supported Structures,
ASCE, pp. 1451-1466.
Young A.G., Remmes B.D., Meyer B.J., (1984) "Foundation Performance of Offshore
Jack-Up Drilling Rigs" Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 110, No. 7, pp. 841859.
Skempton A.W. (1951), "The Bearing Capacity of Clays", Building Research Congress.
Davis E.H., Booker J.R., (1973), "The Effect of Increasing Strength with Depth on the
Bearing Capacity of Clays", Geotechnique Vol. 23, No. 4, pp. 551-563.
Salencon J., Matar M., (1982), "Capacite portante des Foundations superficielles
circulaires", Journal de Mecanique theorique et applique, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 237-267.
Endley, S.N., Rapoport, V., Thompson, P.J., and Baglioni, V.P. (1981), "Prediction of
Jack-up rig Footing Penetration", OTC, Houston, OTC 4144.
10a Noble Denton & Associates (1987), "Foundation Fixity of Jack-up Units, Joint Industry
Study", Volumes I, II.
10b Noble Denton & Associates (1988), "Foundation Fixity of Jack-up Units, Joint Industry
Study, Extra work", Volume III.
11 Houlsby G.T., Wroth C.P., (1982), "Determination of undrained strengths by cone
penetration tests", Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on Penetration
Testing / Amsterdam.
12 Houlsby G.T., Wroth C.P., (1982), "Direct Solution of Plasticity Problems in Soils by
the Method of Characteristics", Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Numerical Methods in Geomechanics, Edmonton, Canada.
13 Houlsby G.T., (1982), "Theoretical Analysis of the Fall Cone Test" Geotechnique 32,
No. 2, 111-118.
Page 124
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 125
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 126
Rev 3, August 2008
C.7
C7.1
Page 127
Rev 3, August 2008
INTRODUCTION
The main objective of this Section is to provide documentation of the considerations
applied to the recommendations given in the Recommended Practice (PRACTICE)
concerning the determination of extreme responses. The PRACTICE recommends that
extreme response determination should always follow a procedure which always
considers the potential dynamic magnification of the jack-up's behavior.
C7.2
C7.3
Free surface corrections for frequency domain spectral wave load analysis
When using frequency domain spectral techniques, the wave forces are evaluated using
linear kinematics up to the mean water level only. Thus the force in the wave crests
may be underestimated. The underestimation is perhaps further compounded by the
drag force linearization. To account primarily for the effects if inundation, but also
partially to correct any errors in the drag linearization, empirical factors (FSE's) may be
derived to adjust the wave induced force and overturning moment obtained from a
frequency domain spectral analysis. By way of an example, the maximum wave force
and overturning moment on a pile group (representing jack-up legs) and accounting for
free surface effects and drag force non-linearity, have been compared with the wave
load on the same pie group when ignoring the sea surface variability and using
linearized drag force. This yields separate FSE's for shear and overturning moment
which may be used to make an initial correction for the above effects. Such factors are
dependent on the kinematic stretching algorithm assumed. Using Wheeler stretching
for a drag-dominated jack-up of typical size gives:
H
FSES =
1 +
2 2d
2
H
FSET =
1 +
2 2d
where;
FSES = the base shear correction factor
FSET = the overturning moment correction factor
d
= water depth
H
= the most probable maximum wave height (Hmax or Hmpm)
Similar expressions may be derived for different wave stretching algorithms.
Page 129
Rev 3, August 2008
C7.3.7
For a jack-up subjected to wave and current loading these factors should be used to
scale the MPM responses prior to combination with the mean (wind) response to form
MPME.
C7.4
C7.5
Analysis
Level
Structural Model
Linear
Simple
full
results not
available
directly
SDOF
Nonlinear
Unsuitable
Unsuitable
Linear
Generally
not
recommended
MDOF
Nonlinear
Complex full
results
available
Page 131
Rev 3, August 2008
Linear
MDOF
Nonlinear
Generally
not
recommended
D
C
Notes:
A -
B -
C -
D -
Is the more complete and accurate representation of reality, but also the most
complex. This is a necessary combination for a detailed evaluation of the
dynamic behavior of a jack-up. Both random time and frequency domain
methods can be used; the latter requires some approximation in the form of
appropriate linearization of nonlinear terms and, therefore, the former are the
most suitable.
E -
Incompatible combination.
Page 132
Rev 3, August 2008
To determine the natural period of a jack-up, the effective lateral stiffness seen by a horizontal
load acting at the level of the jack-up hull is required. To determine this stiffness the following
effects which cause hull lateral deflections are considered:
1. bending of the legs, leg-soil and leg-hull rotational stiffness.
2. shear deformation of the legs.
3. axial deformation of the legs.
4. hull bending deformation.
5. horizontal soil and leg-hull connection stiffness.
6. vertical soil and leg-hull connection stiffness.
7. second order P- or Euler amplification.
Effects 4, 5 and 6 may readily be considered by means of modifications to terms in the stiffness
equation that can be derived for effects 1, 2 and 3. Taking each effect in turn:
1. Bending of the legs, leg-soil and leg-hull rotational stiffness.
Consider one leg as shown in the Figure:
F
E
I
As
L
Krh
Krs
Mh
Ms
The bending equation may be written for any section z-z as:
= F.z - Ms
Mzz
substituting the general equation of flexure:
2 x
EI 2 = M zz = M s F. z
z
hence:
x
z2
= M s . z F + A
EI
2
z
2
3
z
z
EIx = M s . F. + A. z + B
2
6
Apply the boundary condition:
Hence: B = 0 and A =
EIM s
K rs
z = 0, x = 0,
x M s
=
z K rs
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
+
2
6
K rs
x M h
=
To determine Ms, apply the boundary condition: z = L, Mh = F.L - Ms,
z K rh
also from (1):
x M s . z F. z 2 M s
=
+
2EI K rs
z
EI
Thus when z = L:
x M s . L F. L2 m s M h F. L M s
=
+
=
=
2EI K rs K rh
z
EI
K rh
rearranging:
F. L F. L2
+
K rh 2EI
(2)
Ms =
1
1
L
+
+
K rs K rh EI
K rs
2EI
6EI
Rearranging and substituting from (2), the effective bending stiffness, KB = F/xLB, at z = L is
obtained thus:
L
L2 L2
L
+
+
3
L
K rh 2EI 2EI K rs
x LB = F
6EI
1
L
1
+
+
K
K
EI
rs
rh
L
L2 L2
L
+
+
K rh 2EI 2EI K rs
KB =
1
L
1
+
+
K rs K rh EI
3
L
6EI
3EI / L3
3L 3( EI) 2
4 LK K
rs
rh
1
EI
EI
+ L+
K rh
K rs
(3)
Page 135
Rev 3, August 2008
Considering the shear force at any section zz is constant, the deflection xzzS due to shear is:
xzzS = F.z/(As.G)
but:
G = E/{2(1 + )} and, for steel, = 0.3
hence:
xzzS = 2.6F.z/(As.E)
and the shear stiffness, KS, when x = L is:
A .E
F
= s
KS =
x LS
2.6L
(4)
(5)
Case 1
Case 2
3( F. L M s )
R
=
Y
applying Hook's law:
3( F. L M s )L
axial =
A. E.Y
The resulting hull rotation is:
hull = 3.axial/(2.Y)
9( F. L M s )L
=
2A. E.Y 2
axial =
3( F. L M s )
X
3( F. L M s )L
A. E. X
hull = 2.axial/X
6( F. L M s )L
=
A. E. X 2
(7)
Comparing equations (6) and (7), it can be seen that (6) is a factor, Fg, of:
= (9/2)/4 = 1.125
Fg
larger than (7).
The effective horizontal stiffness due to axial deformation, KA, rearranging (7), including Fg and
substituting for Ms from (2) is:
F
KA =
horz . Fg
A. E.Y 2 / 4Fg L2
L
L2
+
K rh 2EI
L
1
1
L
+
+
K rs K rh EI
A. E. Y 2 / 4Fg L3
EI L
+
K rs 2
EI
EI
+ L+
K rh
K rs
(8)
Page 137
Rev 3, August 2008
Assume that the hull can be represented by equivalent beams joining the legs, of typical bending
stiffness IH:
If it is assumed that the hull deflects in double-curvature under the influence of the moments
transmitted by the leg-hull connection springs, and that the rotational deflections at the two sides
are equal (the side with higher stiffness has two legs acting on it) we can write, for one half of
the beam:
M.(Y / 2)
=
E. I H
Hence the hull rotational stiffness Khull, = M/ = 2E.IH/Y
If this stiffness is considered as acting in series with the leg-hull connection spring Krh, the
modified stiffness is:
1
1
+
Krh' = 1 /
K rh K hull
Rearranging, and substituting for Khull gives:
Y. K rh
Krh' = Krh/(1 +
)
2E. I H
Hence the modification factor Fr, to be applied to the leg-hull connection stiffness, Krh, to
account for hull flexibility is:
1
Fr =
(9)
Y. K rh
1 +
2E. I H
Page 138
Rev 3, August 2008
The horizontal soil and leg-hull connection stiffnesses, Khs and Khh, may be considered to act in
series with the lateral stiffness due to leg shear deformation (ASG/L). The combined stiffnesses
is then:
L
1
1
+
+
KS' = 1 /
A S G K hs K hh
rearranging, gives:
A G A G
KS' = (ASG/L)/(1 + S + S )
LK hs LK hh
AS.E
AS.E
+
)
= (ASG/L)(1 +
2.6L. K hs 2.6L. K hh
If it is considered that the modified leg deformation stiffness Ks' is linked to the unmodified
value by a factor, Fh:
1
Fh =
(10)
A s .E
A s .E
+
1 +
2.6L. K hs 2.6L. K hh
6. Vertical soil and leg-hull connection stiffness.
The vertical soil and leg-hull connection stiffnesses, Kvs and Kvh, may be considered to act in
series with the axial stiffness due to leg axial deformation (AE/L). The combined stiffnesses is
then:
L
1
1
+
+
KA' = 1 /
AE K vs K vh
rearranging:
AE
AE
+
KA' = (AE/L)/(1 +
)
LK vs LK vh
If it is considered that the modified leg deformation stiffness KA' is linked to the unmodified
value by a factor, Fv:
1
Fv =
(11)
AE
AE
+
1 +
L. K vs L. K vh
Page 139
Rev 3, August 2008
The deflection will (approximately) be amplified by a factor (1 - [P/PE]) due to second order
effects. The Euler load, PE, may be derived as follows, accounting for the soil and leg-hull
connection rotational springs:
P
E
I
L
Krh
=
=
=
=
=
Krs
Mh
Ms
xh
=
=
=
The bending equation may be written for any section z-z as:
MZZ =
P.x - MS
substituting the general equation of flexure:
2x
EI 2 = -Mzz = Ms - P.x
z
hence:
2 x P. x M s
+
=
z 2 E. I E. I
let 2 = P/E.I
hence:
Ms
2x
2
)=0
2 + (x
P
z
The solution to (12) is:
M
x = A.Cosz + B.Sinz + s
P
differentiating (13):
x
= -A.Sinz + B.Cosz
z
When z = 0, x = 0 and hence, from (13), A = -Ms/P
x M s
=
When z = 0,
and hence, from (14) B = Ms/(.Krs)
z K rs
Ms
Ms
M
x=
. Cosz +
.Sinz + s
P
K rs
P
Thus:
(15)
and:
(16)
M
x M s
=
.Sinz + s . Cosz
z
P
K rs
(12)
(13)
(14)
and
x M h
=
z K rh
x = xh
(18)
also
Mh = P.xh - Ms
(19)
When z = L,
= CosL1 +
P
K rs
. K rs
or:
By definition
K rh
1 +
K rs
TanL =
P
K rh
P
. K rs
K . P + K rh . P
= 2 rs 2
P K rs . K rh
P = 2EI so:
( K rs + K rh )EI
TanL =
(EI) 2 ( K rs . K rh )
Notes:
1. When Krs = 0, and Krh = , (24) reduces to TanL =
i.e. L = /2, 3/2, 5/2,
The smallest finite value satisfying (24) is /2, thus L = /2 and 2 = P/(EI) hence:
PE = 2EI / (4L2)
(17)
(20)
(21)
(22)
(23)
(24)
3. For finite values of Krs and Krh the Euler load may be determined using a graphical solution.
For example:
Krs
= 2.65 x 1010 Nm/rad
Krh
= 5.30 x 1010 Nm/rad
E
= 2.10 x 1011 N/m2
I
= 7.45 m4
L
= 100m
From equation (24) the LHS = TanL = Tan100 (Note is in radians/m)
( K rs + K rh )EI
the RHS =
(EI) 2 ( K rs . K rh )
124.4
=
2448 2 14045
.
Plotting these as shown in Figure C7.A.1 the smallest non-zero value in the example is
1 = 0.018248. Thus the Euler crippling load is:
PE
= (0.018248)2EI
or, in the more general form:
= 0.3373892EI / L2
PE
Page 142
Rev 3, August 2008
For the leg under consideration, all the effects can be combined by considering the components
as springs in series, thus Ke, the effective spring stiffness for one leg is deduced from:
1
1
1
1
=
+
+
K e K B KS K A
where the stiffness terms KB, KS and KA are derived in (3), (5) and (8). Rearranging and
including the Euler amplification effect:
P
1
PE
Ke =
1
1
1
+
+
K B KS K A
P
1
PE
=
2
3L 3( EI )
4 LK K
rs
rh
1
EI + L + EI
K rh 2.6L
K rs
+
+
As.E
3EI / L3
EI L
K + 2
rs
EI
EI
+ L+
K rs
K rh
A. E. Y 2 / 4Fg L3
P
3EI
3 1
L PE
3L 3( EI) 2
4 LK K
rs
rh
1
EI
EI
+ L+
K rh
K rs
3( EI) 2 3EI
+
3
4Fg L L3 K rs 2L2
7.8I
2 +
EI
A
L
AEY 2 EI
.
s
+ L+
K rh
K rs
P
3EI
3 1
L PE
=
3L 4Fg L3 3( EI ) 2 3EI 3( EI ) 2
2
3 +
2L2 LK rs K rh
4 AEY K rs L
1
EI
EI
+ L+
K rs
K rh
P
3EI
3 1
L PE
=
3L 12Fg I EI L 3( EI) 2
+
2
4 AY K rs 2 LK rs K rh
1
EI
EI
+ L+
K rs
K rh
7.8I
+
2
As.L
7.8I
+
2
A s .L
3 1
L PE
Ke =
3L 12Fg I EI L
3( EI) 2
2
7.8I
4 Fv AY K rs 2 Fr LK rs K rh
1
+
2
EI
EI
Fh . A s . L
+ L+
K rs
Fr K rh
If the foundation is effectively pinned, and Krs = 0, the equation can be simplified as follows
(multiply top and bottom of central term in denominator by Krs, and then set Krs = 0):
P
3EI
3 1
L PE
Ke =
12Fg I
3EI
7.8I
+
1+
2 +
Fr LK rh Fh . A s . L2
Fv AY
If the foundation and leg-hull connection are effectively encastr, and Krs = Krh = , the equation
can be simplified as follows (note that the Fr term to incorporate hull stiffness has vanished, as
its definition relies on a finite value of Krh; if an alternative definition were applied, its effect
could be retained).
P
12EI
3 1
L PE
Ke =
24Fg I
.
312I
1+
2 +
Fv AY
Fh . A s . L2
In the absence of any of the terms for effects other than bending (i.e. setting A and As to
infinity), this further reduces to 12EI/L3, which is as expected for a beam, encastr at each end,
with one end free to slide.
However, the use of a distributed inertial loadset is considered more representative and
will, in turn, result in a more accurate description of the component dynamic
amplification effects as well as the amplification of global responses. The distribution
of the inertial loadset is based on the fundamental sway modes and the mass
distribution and is determined so that both the global base shear and overturning
moment responses are matched. Figure C7.B.1 (on the left hand side) outlines how a
distributed loadset (2-dimensional response) is determined based on the first two
fundamental bending modes (in the same direction) and the mass distribution.
An alternative to the inertial loadset approach is to use transfer functions to link known
responses with other required responses (for example to determine leg member loads
from total leg loads). The derivation of such transfer functions requires the use of
appropriately detailed models. Where non-linearities are significant the transfer
functions are not linear (and cannot be linearized) and may vary, for example, as a
function of the level of leg load(s).
The following methods are recommended for determining the MPME:
-
This procedure relies on the identification of the two components of the total dynamic
response, i.e. the quasi-static and the 'inertial' parts. The 'inertial' part is the
amplification of the quasi-static part due to dynamic effects, and should not be
confused with inertial wave loading. The procedure requires the determination of the
basic statistical parameters of the mean, , and the standard deviation (excluding the
mean), , of the required response variable(s). In general the root-mean-square, RMS,
, unless = 0. The notation MPMR is used to refer to the most probable value of
the response minus the mean response, R(t) - R, for a given storm duration. When the
mean is included the MPM value is referred to as the most probable maximum extreme
of R(t) and denoted by MPMER.
The response quantity of interest is indicated by the general notation R; this can be any
quantity which is related to the random wave excitation (e.g. base shear BS,
overturning moment OTM, etc.) Where necessary to distinguish between different
forms of response a second subscript is used as follows: 's' for (quasi-)static, 'i' for
inertial and 'd' for total dynamic (quasi-static plus inertial) response.
The procedure for estimating the extreme response is shown on Figure C7.B.4, and
requires the means and standard deviations of the (overall) dynamic and quasi-static
response, and the standard deviation of the 'inertial' response. These can be determined
from time domain simulations (Figure C7.B.2) or frequency domain analyses (Figure
C7.B.3). Figures C7.B.5 or C7.B.6 form an input to Figure C7.B.4. These Figures are
based on [SIPM EPD/51/52 'Dynamic Analysis and Estimation of Extreme Responses
for Jack-Ups', August 1991].
This procedure requires a suitable length time domain simulation record for each
quantity of interest. The input seastate record should be checked for 'Gaussianity'.
Guidance is given in Tables 7.2 and 7.3 of the PRACTICE. The procedure requires the
following steps.
Step 1
R =
R(t
i 1
where
R(ti)
ti
n
Step 2
The individual point-in-time maxima are next extracted according to the following
criteria:
A maximum occurs at ti if:
R(ti-1) < R(ti) and R(ti+1) R(ti)
Suppose Nmax maxima are found in the extraction.
Step 3
From the Nmax maxima, the mean of the signal, R, is subtracted and the maxima R(max,i)
are ranked into 20 blocks having mid-points in ascending order. The blocks all have
the same width and the upper bound of block 20 is taken as being 1.01 x the largest
value, the lower bound of the first block being zero. A distribution of maxima
observations is then found, using for each block the Gumbel plotting position in order
to obtain the best possible description of the distribution for large values of R. If each
block has ni maxima, the cumulative probability Fi to be plotted against the mid point
for block i is then given by:
j= i 1
Fi = [(1 +
where n0 = 0.
j= i
n ) n ]
j= 0
j= 0
0.5
/ ( N max + 1)
R
F(R;,,) = 1 - exp.
where;
and
F(R;,,)
,,(R-)
=
=
=
=
>
probability of non-exceedance
scale parameter
slope parameter
threshold parameter
0.0
Step 4.b
N max i + 1
for i>0.2 x Nmax
R (max, i )
N max
For each of these points, the deviations between the Weibull distribution and the values
R(max,i) (transformed to Weibull scales) are calculated as:
i = ln[-ln{1-F(R(max,i),,,)}] - [ln(r(max,i)-) - ln()]
Step 4.d
The parameters ,, are now estimated by a non-linear least square technique, i.e.
N max
i
i = 0.2 N max
is minimized
N max .
simulation duration
Step 6
The basic assumption of this method is that the 3-hour extreme values follow a Gumbel
distribution:
x
F3h(x) = exp exp
where;
F3h(x)
= the probability that the 3-hour maximum will not exceed value x.
= location parameter
= scale parameter
The following steps are followed for each required response parameter:
Step 1
Extract maximum (and minimum) value for each of 10 3-hour response signal records.
Step 2
MPME
= - ln ln{F 3h ( MPME )}
with;
F3h (MPME) = 0.37
The 0.37 lower quantile is used because the extreme of recurrence of once in 3 hours
will have a probability of exceedance of 0.63 (= 1 - 0.37). In this case it can be seen
that:
MPME
Step 4
For Gaussian processes, analytical results exist for the determination of the MPM
values (e.g. MPM wave height = 1.86 x significant wave height). For general noninear, non-gaussian, finite band-width processes, approximate methods are required to
generate the probability density function of the process. The method proposed by
Winterstein [Winterstein S.R., 'Non-Linear Vibration Models for Extremes and
Fatigue', Journal of Engineering Mechanics, Vol. 114, No 10, 1988] fits a Hermite
polynomial of gaussian processes to transform the non-linear, non-gaussian process
into a mathematically tractable probability density function. This has been further
refined by Jensen [Jensen, J.J. 'Dynamic Amplification of Offshore Steel Platform
Responses due to Non-Gaussian Wave Loads', The Danish Center for Applied
Mathematics and Mechanics Report No 425, May 1991, Submitted to Journal of
Structural Engineering, ASCE] for processes with large kurtosis.
This procedure requires a suitable length time domain simulation record for each
quantity of interest. The input seastate record should be checked for 'Gaussianity'.
Guidance is given in Tables 7.1 and 7.2 of the PRACTICE. The calculation procedure
to determine the maximum of a time series, R(t), in duration T is as follows:
Step 1
Calculate the
consideration:
3
4
Step 2
Compute the following quantities from the characteristics of the response parameters
identified earlier:
. ( 4 3)}]
= 3 / [4 + 2 {1 + 15
h3
h4
[ {1 + 15. (
[1 + 2h
2
3
3)} 1 / 18
+ 6h 4 2 ]
12
Page 151
Rev 3, August 2008
Step 3
It is necessary to seek a more accurate result by determining the solution of the
following equations for C1, C2 and C3:
2
33
44
= K(1-3h4)
= Kh3
= Kh4
with , K, h3 and h4 from above. Following the solution for C1, C2 and C3, the values
for K, h3 and h4 are computed as follows:
K
h3
h4
= (C1 + 3C3)/
= C2/(K)
= C3/(K)
Step 4
The most probable value, U, of the transformed process is computed by the following
equation:
3 hours
2 log e N
simulation time (in hours )
Step 5
The most probable maximum, transformed back to the standardised variable, z, is then
given by:
zMPM = K[U + h3(U2 - 1) + h4(U3 - 3U)]
Step 6
Finally, the most probable maximum extreme in the period T, for the response under
consideration, can be computed from the following equation:
RMPME = + zMPM
General
The figure shows two possible paths. The path on the left through blocks 19
to 22 matches the dynamic base shear and the dynamic overturning moment,
by making up the difference between the dynamic and static base shears by a
distributed inertial force. This distributed inertial force is established by an
appropriate combination of structural mode shapes and lumped masses. The
basis for the calculation is that the base shear and overturning moment
inertial effects are simultaneously matched and combined in phase with the
quasi-static loads such that the levels of total global response are maximized.
By contrast, the path on the right chooses to match the dynamic overturning
moment by an inertial force in the form of a point load at deck level. This is
a very reasonable approximation of the inertial loadset, for cases where the
mass of the hull is much larger than the masses of the legs and the mode
participation factor (the relative horizontal displacement of the vibrating
jack-up) is also largest at the deck elevation. The inertial point load thus
determined is again not equal to the difference in dynamic and static base
shears; generally it overmatches the dynamic base shear. In this case the
remaining excess force is not compensated for (as was possible for the path
on the left) and must be accepted as an element of some conservatism.
Page 154
Rev 3, August 2008
Re blocks 17 and 18: The input to these blocks is obtained from Figure C7.B.4
(blocks 14, 15 and 16). Note that DAF3T will be greater than
DAF3S. This is in agreement with experience and supported by
theory.
Re block 19:
An outline calculation of the distribution of F1i over height is
given in Figure C7.B.1 (Part 2).
Re block 23:
The force F2i follows directly from the increase in OTM and the
height h at which F2i is applied above the effective hinge or
fixation points of the legs Therefore this does not require
knowledge of the mass distribution and mode shape.
Re block 24:
The excess F3i in representing the dynamic base shear is
calculated as general verification. If F3i is found to be relatively
large compared to the dynamic base shear it is recommended
to follow the path on the left instead of the path on the right. A
criterion for this should be set by the user; as a suggestion the
excess should not be greater than up to 5% of the dynamic
base shear.
.
Page 153
Rev 3, August 2008
where
M1i =
F1i =
M1i
F1i
1
2
M
Z
and
1 MZ + 2 MZ
1 M + 2 M
is the global inertial overturning moment (zero mean)
is the global inertial base shear (zero mean)
is the first global sway/bending mode shape
is the second global sway/bending mode shape
is a matrix of structural masses
is a vector of point elevations above footing level
are scalars
(1)
Global inertial responses are calculated from the global response DAFs generated by the dynamic analyses, combined with the
design wave and current load i.e.
F1i = (DAF3S-1)mpmeSs
(2)
M1i = (DAF3T-1)mpmeTs
where
DAF3Ts is the global overturning moment DAF (using mpme responses)
DAF3Ss is the global base shear DAF (using mpme responses)
M1i
is the maximum design wave and current overturning moment
is the maximum design wave and current base shear
F1i
mpmeSs is the most probable maximum extreme static shear
mpmeTs is the most probable maximum extreme static overturning moment
The simultaneous equations (1) are solved for scalar multipliers and , which are used to calculate the inertial load set i.e.
(3)
Fin = 1 M + 2 M
In its current format, Fin is a distributed load vector consisting of horizontal forces applied to each point mass in the structure.
Equations (1) to (3) can be readily adapted such that the inertial load is fully three dimensional in nature, by using the first and
second global (3-D) sway modes along both horizontal axes, and extending equation set (1) to 4 components.
Jack-up structures exhibit several unique properties which allow the use of a simplified inertial load set calculation procedure. For
the majority of units, approximately 80% of the total system mass (including added fluid mass) effectively acts at the hull COG. In
addition, the mass and stiffness distribution results in the ratio of the first and second bending/sway mode periods for each principal
direction being in excess of 5. This leads to the resonant component of response being largely confined to the fundamental modes
in each direction (sway and surge), with a potential contribution from the first torsional mode (yaw). On this basis, and assuming
torsion can be ignored, equation set (1) can be reduced:
M1i = HMHZH
(4)
F1i = HMH
is the first mode shape ordinate at the hull COG
where
H
is the point mass acting at the hull COG
MH
is the elevation of the hull COG above footing level
ZH
We can clearly relate the second of equations (4) with the inertial load set given in Section 7.3.6.1 of the Practice.
Page 154
Rev 3, August 2008
The mean of the "inertial" response is not used in the procedure. In most cases the mean of the static
response will be (approximately) equal to the mean of the dynamic response. Therefore, the mean of the
"inertial" response will be (approximately) zero. This may serve as a check on the simulations performed.
However, under certain conditions the means may truly be different. this can most clearly be seen when
relative velocities (i.e. the wave induced water particle velocity minus the structure's velocity) are used to
perform the dynamic simulation.
Figure C7.B.2 Time domain procedure for determining mean and standard deviation
Page 155
Rev 3, August 2008
The transfer function representing the difference between the dynamic and the quasi-static response is
only notionally associated with "mass inertial" forces (not to be confused with inertial wave loading). The
difference may additionally be due to damping forces and any effect causing (frequency dependent) phase
differences between HRd() and HRs(). (e.g. associated with multi degree of freedom system responses).
Re blocks 4, 5, 6:
The spectral analyses operate on the transfer functions HRx(), which by definition represent the time
varying part of the response minus the mean, i.e. Rx(t)-Rx.
A similar note on the mean values of the various responses as given with Figure C7.B.2 should be made
here. The mean value of the "inertial" response cannot be determined in a frequency domain analysis and
is not required either. However, the fact remains that in most cases the mean of the static response will be
(approximately) equal to the mean of the dynamic response. This should again serve as a useful check o
the analyses performed.
From the above general note it can be seen that both means will only be non-zero if there is a current
present. When relative velocities are used in the analysis of the dynamic problem the interaction between
the current and the relative velocity may be different for the dynamic and the static case, resulting in
realistically different mean values.
Reference:
L.E. Borgman
"Ocean wave simulation for engineering design"
Civil Engineering in the Oceans, ASCE conference, San Francisco, September 1967
Figure C7.B.3 Frequency domain procedure for determining mean and standard deviation
Page 156
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 157
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 158
Rev 3, August 2008
Figure C7.B.5 Procedure for determining the mpm-factor of the static response
Page 159
Rev 3, August 2008
1
K
Cd D v ) / (
2
2
=
2C d v
Cm D a)
2
4
2
(1)
C m Da
Where v and a are the velocity and the acceleration normal to the element, respectively. As both v and a
depend on the wave parameters (wave height, wave period, waterdepth) and the elevation at which the
element is located, it is obvious that K is also a function of depth, waterdepth, wave height and wave
period. therefore, the theoretical definition of K is only meaningful for Morison wave loading per unit length
of the element.
The definition of K can be generalized to random instead of periodic wave conditions by replacing the
deterministic normal velocity v by the standard deviation of the random normal velocity v and replacing
the deterministic normal acceleration a by the standard deviation of the random normal acceleration a.
Equation (1) then becomes:
2
2C d v
(2)
K
=
C m D a
Using a statistical or least squares linearization procedure in the frequency domain, as developed by
Borgman (see notes with Figure C7.B.3), it can be shown that for the wave force on an element of a single
member the standard deviations of the two parts of the wave force are as follows:
R ( C m = 0)
.
8 R ( C d = 0)
With R being the wave force per unit length in a random sea.
K
(3)
Equation (3) may subsequently be generalized to apply to any other local or global response R selected for
interest. It will be clear that such a generalization is purely an engineering postulate and not founded on
theoretical reasoning. It is an attempt to incorporate the important but unknown non-gaussian effects on
the maximum response through the assumed similarity with the wave loading process for which the nongaussian statistics are known.
Yet another way to determine the drag-inertia parameter K for a generalized response R is by using the
kurtosis of R. The kurtosis is defined through the expected values of the second and fourth order
moments of the time simulations of R, i.e.:
4
2 2
=
E {R } / [E {R }]
(4)
For Morison wave loading per unit length of member the relationship between K and the kurtosis k is (see
Ref. 2 below):
4
2
105 K + 18 K + 3
=
(5a)
2
2
( 3K + 1)
or in the inverse form:
1/ 2
26( 3)
( 3) +
3
( 35 3 )
Page 160
Rev 3, August 2008
1/ 2
(5b)
While K varies between 0 (inertia loading only) and infinity (drag loading only) ranges from 3 to 35/3. It
may now be assumed that the same relationship holds for an arbitrary response variable R. Therefore, if
the kurtosis of R is know the corresponding drag-inertia parameter K can be determined. If this is done,
separate time domain simulations for the standard deviations in blocks 9a and 9b are not required but the
route through block 93 cannot be followed. One enters the diagram in block 9c and must read CRs from
Figure C7.B.6 as per block 9d.
Both the kurtosis and the drag-inertia parameter may be subject to appreciable statistical variability and
their determination may require time domain simulations of substantial length; see Ref. 2 below.
Re blocks 9d and 9e:
Figure C7.B.6 (referred to in block 9d) is equivalent to the figure that was derived by Brouwers and
Verbeek and presented in Ref. 1 below as well as in Figure A1 of the SIPM - Practice (EP 89-0550).
However, this latter figure presented the ratio of the expected value of the extreme to the standard
deviation for a 1000 peaks, rather than the mpm-factor CR which is the ratio of the most probable maximum
value of the response to the standard deviation, which is used in this report. Therefore, Figure C7.B.6 has
been recalculated in accordance with Ref. 3 and now truly presents the mpm-factor CR. It should be noted
that the figure is valid for a narrow band process, the corresponding ratios for a broad band process being
somewhat smaller. Therefore, CR is a slightly conservative estimate for the mpm-factor. This is in
accordance with the general principles underlying a simplified engineering method and is well within the
accuracy of the overall procedure.
An alternative and practical method to estimate K is to apply the engineering assumption for estimating the
most probably maximum value of the dynamic response, as used in block 11 of Figure C7.B.4, to separate
responses due to hydrodynamic drag loading only and inertia loading only, replacing RS from block 9 and
Ri from block 10, respectively. These two hydrodynamic loading components are fully uncorrelated and so
are the responses caused by them; hence the correlation coefficient r = 0. Further, the mpm-factor for a
totally drag dominated Morison force is 8.0 and for a totally inertia dominated Morison force it is 3.7. With
these substitutions the equation in block 11 of Figure C7.B.4 becomes:
2
2
2
=
{8.0 R (Cm = 0)} + {3.7 R (Cd = 0)}
mpmR
For zero correlation the standard deviation of the overall response is obtained from the equation:
2
2
2
R
=
{R (Cm = 0)} + {R (Cd = 0)}
(see note with block 7 of Figure C7.B.4).
These are the equations presented in block 9e. The comments made with regard to conservatism
included in the route through block 9d remain equally valid here.
Its determination in block 9c could therefore, strictly speaking be avoided. The input of KRs into block 93 of
Figure C7.B.5 is symbolic, representing the implicit use through Rs (Cm = 0) and Rs (Cd = 0), resulting
directly from blocks 9a and 9b. In practical applications it is recommended that both routes through block
9d and 93 are followed as a check on the calculations.
Reference 1:
J.J.H. Brouwers and P.H.J. Verbeek
"Expected fatigue damage and expected extreme response for Morison-type wave loading"
Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1983, pp. 129-133
Reference 2:
P.M. Hagemeijer
"Estimation of drag/inertia parameters using time-domain simulations and the prediction of the extreme response"
Applied Ocean Research, Vol. 12, No. 3, 1990, pp. 134-140.
Reference 3:
J.J.M. Baar
Extreme values of Morison-type processes"
Report EP 90-33365, October 1990.
To be published shortly in Applied Ocean Research
Page 161
Rev 3, August 2008
The equation for the curve is Ref. 3, Specific notes with Fig. C7.B.5
C <B
( K < 0135
. )
3.72 / A
CR =
if R
C
B
K
<
(
<
0135
. )
( 6.91 + D ) / C
R
Where A, B, C and D are functions of k as follows:
A = 3K2 + 1
B =
1 / ( 2K ) (3K 2 + 1)
(3K 2 + 1) / ( 2 K )
2
1/(8K )
Figure C7.B.7 Comparison between the normalized spectra S(), S() and SPM()
1.
Page 162
Rev 3, August 2008
C8.0
C8.0.1
General
Page 163
Rev 3, August 2008
Reliability analysis was used in the derivation of load effect factors which are
conservatively presented in the PRACTICE as load factors. All factors associated
with strength or resistance have been derived either from consensus (e.g. weight in
overturning) within the JUWG or from other relevant codes (e.g. AISC LRFD). The
philosophy used in the derivation of the load effect factors is discussed below. Further
references on the technique etc. are given in [1], [2], [3] and [4].
C8.0.2
Fundamental Question
When a jack-up is offered for operation at a marginal location, a number of issues such
as overturning stability, soil capacity and leg strength are addressed to ascertain the
fitness for purpose of the jack-up. In all these assessments, it is necessary to establish
an acceptable safety margin (or safety factor) between load and resistance. The
question is, how do we establish, quantitatively, the safety factor required for the
performance assessment?
C8.0.3
Solution
Loads and resistances are not uniquely defined due to physical, statistical and
methodological uncertainties. Acceptance of this fundamental principle has led to the
understanding that the use of safety factors merely assists in maintaining a level of
safety. Furthermore, the true goal of assessment is to achieve as consistent a level of
safety as possible when the safety factors are just satisfied. This demonstrates the need
to perform reliability analysis which would provide a framework to link the safety
factors to the safety levels. The various key stages of the analysis are described below:
Distribution
Gumbel
Poisson
Log-normal
Page 164
Rev 3, August 2008
Three limit states, namely, overturning, preload and leg strength were considered.
These limit states are recognized to possess some degree of reserve of safety from
actual failure. As the PRACTICE is focused upon component failures, and target
safety levels were determined from average safety levels of exemplary rigs (see section
C8.0.3.5 below), reaching any of the selected limit states does not indicate "true"
failure. This is not significant to the code calibration.
C8.0.3.3 Response Model
A major objective of the JUWG has been to develop as comprehensive an analysis
method as possible which reflected the behavior of jack-ups in the elevated condition.
The developed method was applied to derive the response parameters required for the
reliability analysis. It must be noted that time domain analysis was performed in order
to properly capture all the non-linearities in jack-up loading and response. The
following table summarizes the key facts associated with the simulations and analysis
methodology:
Page 165
Rev 3, August 2008
No absolute target or reference safety level was imposed. Instead, the four rig/location
combinations which were, on average, considered to be close to the limit were analyzed
using reliability techniques and the target safety level obtained by averaging the
individual safety levels achieved by each rig. This process is described graphically in
Figure C8.0.1. The process was repeated for each of the limit states considered.
It is not possible to directly compare safety levels achieved by the exemplary rigs with
safety levels of other offshore structures. However, the safety levels achieved are
broadly comparable.
C8.1.1
Page 166
Rev 3, August 2008
Introduction
Code Basis
Currently, the most widely used codes for structural strength assessment for the
offshore industry are based on "working stress design". Examples of commonly used
codes are AISC ASD [9] and API RP2A [10]. Due to a number of inadequacies of
these codes, there has been a move by their authors to replace them with the "Load and
resistance factor design (LRFD)" approach. Although AISC and API allow use of both
the "working stress" and LRFD codes in parallel, it is their intention to phase out the
"working stress" methods in the future. To follow the trend in the industry, it was
decided that the structural strength assessment code to be used in the PRACTICE
should also be based on LRFD. Both the AISC LRFD [11] and API LRFD [12] codes
were reviewed as bases for jack-up structural assessment.
It was decided that the AISC LRFD should be used as the basis for the PRACTICE, for
the following reasons:
i) API LRFD covers tubular members thoroughly but refers the user to AISC LRFD
for non-tubular members. Since non-tubular members are commonly encountered
in jack-ups, AISC LRFD offers the greater applicability.
ii) Although a limit state code, the equations used in API LRFD are expressed in terms
of stresses and not loads. This would cause difficulties in the integration of AISC
LRFD with API LRFD for use in assessment computer programs for the nontubular cases (see (i)).
iii) A parametric study of the two codes for tubular members produced results for the
AISC LRFD equations (including the exponent discussed below) similar to those
for the API LRFD code.
For analysis of a structure using the LRFD approach, it is necessary to define the
structure more comprehensively. Certain characteristics which occurred in jack-up
structures which could be fitted in with the AISC "working stress" codes had to be dealt
with specifically for AISC LRFD. Whether the treatment of these characteristics was
correct in the AISC "working stress" code was doubtful and hence the use of LRFD has
not created additional problems but has highlighted inadequacies of the previously
accepted codes. Particular points of concern include local buckling limit states, hybrid
beam-columns and biaxial bending.
For the PRACTICE it was desirable to produce a code simple to use, unambiguous and
as close as possible to AISC LRFD to avoid the need for validation. Except for the
sections on shell members, the code uses the same equations as given in AISC LRFD
apart from two areas of extension, relating to beam-column biaxial bending and hybrid
beam-columns, discussed below. For instance, the same ranges of D/t ratios have been
used as specified in AISC to define the different ranges of limit state. These ranges
may not be instantly recognizable since they been given in terms of R/t ratios in many
places. This is considered more appropriate for jack-up members which may contain
partial tubular sections for which a section radius is a more meaningful quantity than a
diameter.
AISC LRFD does not cover very high D/t ratio tubes and tubes with stiffeners, so
reference has been made to relevant sections of a different code. The "DNV Rules for
Classification - Fixed Offshore Installations" [13] was selected as the most suitable,
since this is a limit state code. This document refers the user to "DNV Classification
Notes - Note 30.1" [14] for obtaining member resistances or strengths. Some guidance
on the use of these notes is given in section C8.1.5.
Hybrid beam-columns
Hybrid beam-columns are quite common in jack-ups such as chords with high yield
stress racks welded to lower yield stress plate constructions. The treatment of hybrid
beams of this nature is not adequately covered in AISC LRFD and hence it has been
necessary to state rules dictating the method for establishing the axial and bending
strengths of such beam-columns. The methods described are based upon engineering
understanding of the problem and have been made as straight forward as possible.
Limitations
The first limitation, (a) has been stated as a warning that the code given in the
PRACTICE must be restricted to the type of geometries as described in section 8.1.4.
The intention has been to cover all of the geometries likely to be encountered in jackups although there may be some exceptional cases. If this is so, the user must refer to
AISC LRFD [11]. One notable exception could be 'I' type sections which are
sometimes used in jack house frames. Since AISC LRFD is oriented towards the
assessment of 'I' type sections, it is reasonably straight forward to use. It is
recommended that the equations given in Appendix H are used for 'I' sections since
these should give less conservative results than the general equations in Chapter H.
The limitation (b) is stated in AISC LRFD [11] for the reasons that experimental
validation has not been carried out for steels with higher yield stresses than 100 k.s.i.
The equations may not be valid for higher yield stresses although there does not appear
to be any theoretical reason for this to be the case. However, if higher yield stress
steels are to be assessed using the practice, it will be necessary to validate the equations
for whatever yield stress is used in the design. Currently steels with yield stresses
greater that 100 k.s.i. are not generally encountered in jack-ups with the exception of
the mechanical components in the holding system which are to be treated under other
assessment criteria.
Page 168
Rev 3, August 2008
The definitions of members and components have been stated so that the appropriate
analysis method can be used for a particular type of geometry. The emphasis of the
assessment is on structural members, for which loads and properties must be known.
Components are assessed only when the section is identified as being prone to local or
lateral torsional buckling. This type of specification is in keeping with conventional
jack-up analysis procedures in which chord scantlings are modeled as single beams; the
modeling of the individual plates not being necessary.
C8.1.3
Factored Loads
The load factors used in AISC are inappropriate for jack-up analysis since these have
been derived for land based buildings. The derivation of load factors specific to jackups is discussed in Section C8.0.
C8.1.4
Page 169
Rev 3, August 2008
In deriving a suitable form the problem for the tubular was considered first. Clearly,
since the tubular has equal bending strength in all directions, the correct actual bending
moment should be the vectorial sum of the x- and y-axis bending moments. Expressed
as a unity check equation for bending only:
2
M ux M uy
.
+
10
b M nx b M ny
2
and with the addition of axial load (for Pu/aPn > 0.2)
1
2 2
2
Pu
8 M ux M uy
10
.
+
+
a Pn 9 b M nx b M ny
Since most jack-up chords are closed sections with high torsional stiffnesses similar to
tubulars, the logical step was to formulate a similar equation which had the ability to
account for sections not exhibiting circular symmetry. This was carried out by using a
generalized exponent to form the two equations given in the PRACTICE. One of the
equations is given below as an example (for Pu/aPn > 0.2). This resembles the
formulation in the AISC LRFD for I sections, although the exponent has a different
determination procedure.
1
M uy
Pu
8 M ux
+
.
10
+
a Pn 9 b M nx
b M ny
With = 1.0, the equations revert to the standard AISC LRFD equations, and hence a
conservative assessment can be made. However, if the limit is required with more
accuracy, then it is necessary to determine the value for (discussed later).
If the nominal bending strengths Mux and Muy are the same and = 2.0, then this
would imply that the section has equal bending strength in all directions. A value to
= implies that the bending capacities in the x- and y-axes are independent of each
other. Favorable interaction between, for example, the -Mx and +My moments acting
on triangular chords with a single rack cannot be reproduced by the above equation.
In such cases recourse to the section-specific interaction surface is recommended (see
Section C8.1.4.7).
Page 170
Rev 3, August 2008
For hybrid members a nominal strength is required that takes into account the
properties of each component. If there is no likelihood of fracture of any one
component then an addition of the nominal strengths of each component is appropriate
for the member (Figure C8.1.3.).
Figure C8.1.3 : Stress/strain curves for two component member for which
addition of nominal strengths is permissible
Page 171
Rev 3, August 2008
However it is conceivable that fracture of one component may take place at a strain
level below that at which another component is loaded to its nominal strength
(Figure C8.1.4.).
Page 172
Rev 3, August 2008
Consider the portion of steel 1 as component 1 and the portions of steel 2 as component
2. The stress/strain plots of the materials (Figure C8.1.5.) show that the strain level for
component 1 to reach its nominal strength is well below that for fracture of 2. The
ductility of 2 means that the component can support a stress of just over Fn2 for strains
up to those at which component 1 reaches its nominal capacity. Therefore, a less
conservative nominal strength for the member is:
Pn = Fn1A/2 + Fn2A/2
Because the section is balanced, plastic deformation of 2 does not induce any extra
loads or moments on the member. Were the section not balanced, then this would not
be true. It is essential that such aspects are considered in a rational analysis of strength.
C8.1.4.4 Effective Applied Moment
C8.1.4.5
The PRACTICE allows for structural analyses of a range of levels of sophistication. In
some, it may be necessary to manipulate the calculated moment to produce a more
"true" value for application in the PRACTICE. This leads to the use of the effective
applied moment for members with compressive axial loads. Adjustments for tensile
axial loads are not considered significant.
It has been noted that the P- effect produces an extra moment on a leg under hull
sway, and that this moment should be included in the structural analysis. The similar,
local P- effect on the individual members of truss leg must also be included, directly
in the structural analysis, or by use of the B term. If for a truss, the structural analysis
includes the local P- effect then no manipulation is required. If the local P- is not
included, for example through a linear elastic analysis of the leg segment, then the
amplifier B is required. For many non-truss leg cases there is no local P- effect, such
as for a jack-up with large diameter tubular legs.
The use of the single B term differs from that in the AISC LRFD code. There, the first
order moment is separated into two parts: a moment assuming no lateral deflection of
the frame Mnt, and a moment attributed only to lateral deflection Mlt. Then the
effective applied moment is the sum of B1Mnt and B2Mlt, where B1 is similar to B in the
PRACTICE and B2 is a second coefficient. It is important to note that both these
moments are first order, and do not include P-. The use of B1 and B2 is to simulate
the P- effects at local and global level respectively.
Therefore, in the PRACTICE the calculated applied moment is not the same as the Mu
in the AISC LRFD code. The use of
Mue = B Mu
performs the necessary step of adding the local P- moment to the calculated moment
which already includes global P-.
Note that in a plastic analysis, yielding can take place within the members and bending
moments can hence be redistributed. The types of analysis to be used for the structural
assessment of jack-ups are to be elastic analyses where yielding does not take place, so
this aspect is not covered. For reference, AISC LRFD states their code is only valid for
plastic analysis if material yield stresses do not exceed 65 k.s.i.
Page 173
Rev 3, August 2008
The calculations of nominal bending strength for compact and noncompact sections
require knowledge of the plastic moment capacity of the section. For a section
composed of uniform material this is given by the lesser of:
Mp = FyZ
and
Mp = 5/6FuZ
where Z is the plastic section modulus. For hybrid sections there is more than one set
of material properties to consider. Standard techniques are recommended for
evaluation of Mp and an example is provided below.
Example
On the assumption that the strain for component 1 to be loaded to its nominal strength
is not sufficient to lead to fracture of component 2, the plastic stress distribution for
pure bending is as shown in Figure C8.1.7. The Plastic Neutral Axis is a distance zo
from the back face of the chord component, such that:
345 x 0.3 x zo = 345 x 0.3 x (0.3-zo) + 690 x 0.1 x 0.1
i.e.
zo = 0.183 m
The section plastic moment is then:
345 x 0.3 x 0.183 x (0.183/2)
Mp =
+ 345 x 0.3 x 0.117 x (0.117/2)
+ 690 x 0.1 x 0.100 x (0.117 + 0.100/2) = 3.59 MNm
Page 174
Rev 3, August 2008
C8.1.4.7 Determination of
Determination of the correct value of is carried out by calculation of the nominal
strength of the member about axes other than the x- and y-axes. This can be done in
the normal manner based on the effective plastic section modulus with reductions for
local buckling if applicable. Although a beam will not necessarily bend in the same
plane as the applied moment when the bending plane is at an angle to the orthogonal
axes, it is not expected that the capacity will be greatly affected.
Once the nominal bending strength has been calculated for a few angles between the xand y-axes, the value for can be calculated using the graphical procedure given in the
practice, or by an iterative procedure. A successful iterative procedure was found to be
by the use of the coupled equations, setting a = M'uex/Mnx and b = M'uey/Mny:
1n(1 b i )
i+1 =
1na
with the accelerating step:
i+2 = 0.5(i+1 + i)
and the initial value = 1.5.
The three angles which were chosen, 30, 45 and 60 give a good spread over the 90
range. It is not the intention to fit a curve through all the values from the three angles
but merely find the lowest value to . This may still make the equation conservative
although considerably less so than for = 1.0.
Plastic Interaction Curve Approach
Alternatively, interaction equations and curves for generic families of chords are
presented in Figures C8.1.8 - C8.1.11. The offset distance between the elastic
centroid (used in the structural analysis) and the 'center of squash', together with
other geometric data for the members of each family of chord is presented in
Tables C8.1.1 to C8.1.4.
C8.1.5
Page 175
Rev 3, August 2008
Page 176
Rev 3, August 2008
M 2 M 2
x
+ y
M' py
M' px
For (P/Py) 0.6:
M'px
M'py
For (P/Py) > 0.6:
M'px
100
.
. P
= Mpx cos
2. Py
0.7
. P
= Mpy cos
2. Py
P
= 1.71Mpx 1
Py
11
.
P
M'py = 1.39Mpy 1
Py
Figure C8.1.8 Interaction equations/curves for tubular chords
with double central racks.
Page 177
Rev 3, August 2008
Design
L1
t1
L2
t2
t3
127
914
44
48
52
34
26
34
42
28
30
31
32
33
35
36
38
40
44
34
38
42
960
18
121
140
960
CFEM T2005
650
20
108
140
800
Bay Ht
690
690
5532
690
690
690
700
685
650
700*
700
685
700
700
685
650
or 5050
* Note: Early CFEM T2005 designs use 650 MPa steel for tube, later designs use 700 MPa steel.
continued
Table C8.1.1 Data for tubular chords with double central racks
Page 178
Rev 3, August 2008
Design
Bay Ht
L1
t1
L2
t2
t3
CFEM T2600
650
20
120
140
800
700
700
700
6000
MODEC 200
450
102
127
559
490
690
490
5486
MODEC 300
450
102
127
559
690
490
5486
690
102
127
800
490
690
490
6200
Hitachi K1025/31/32
900
100
127
900
690
690
690
5160
950
100
127
950
690
690
690
4360
130
178 1000
690
730
690
4600
127
127
762
34
34
40
40
40
40
40
30
35
35
32
36
50
40
42
32
36
42
47
50
52
60
64
60
64
22
490
15
27
25
28
15
20
27
60
115
20
20
35
18
18
18
20
20
18
18
20
28
30
30
30
30
60
60
10
11
13
14
16
17
19
25
32
38
51
64
76
89
102
114
127
33
35
38
40
41
43
45
47
49
50
51
52
55
56
57
58
27
690
690
690
4000
5486
140
140
762
22
690
690
690
5486
Hitachi K1056/7
1000
627
627
Table C8.1.1 (Continued) Data for tubular chords with double central racks
Page 179
Rev 3, August 2008
M 2 M 2
x
+ y
M' py
M' px
where;
M'px
M'py
P
= Mpx 1
P
y
P
= Mpy 1
P
y
100
.
1.85
2.25
Figure C8.1.9 Interaction equations/curves for split tubular chords with opposed central racks
(doubly symmetrical)
Page 180
Rev 3, August 2008
Design
L1
t1
t2
t3
L4
t4
Y1
H1
H2
400
400
400
400
401
401
611
650
650
550
550
722
722
722
722
722
722
152
127
152
127
178
178
178
210
210
210
210
160
160
160
160
160
160
381
381
381
381
381
381
584
600
600
520
520
680
680
680
680
680
680
25
25
32
32
81
81
83
65
55
25
25
75
75
62
58
50
50
25
25
32
32
57
51
38
48
40
25
35
61
37
37
37
37
37
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
510
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
30
0
0
0
0
51
51
95
75
75
0
0
20
55
36
30
19
19
191
191
191
191
178
178
292
270
270
260
260
340
340
340
340
340
340
165
191
165
191
178
178
292
270
270
260
260
340
340
340
340
340
340
Yield
Stress
Fy1 Fy2 Bay Ht
621
621
621
621
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
Table C8.1.2 Data for split tubular chords with double central racks
690
450
690
517
690
690
690
690
690
690
690
540
540
540
540
540
540
3658
3658
3658
3658
4267
4267
5486
6927
6927
5608
5608
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
6000
Page 181
Rev 3, August 2008
M M
x
+ y 100
.
M
'
M' py
px
P 1.45
where;
M'py = Mpy 1
Py
2
3
P
P
P
= 18
. + 2.7 + 2.8 5.6
When Mx 0:
Py
Py
Py
and M'px
When Mz < 0:
.
P 112
= Mpx 1
Py
= 1.8
1/112
.
M'px = -Mpx
M'px
1.45
P
1
= -Mpx 1
0.75Py 3
Figure C8.1.10 Interaction equations/curves for tubular chords with offset double racks.
Page 182
Rev 3, August 2008
Design
Levingston 011-C
t1
L1
L2
914
29
33
32
35
32
34
35
29
29
32
36
30
32
30
30
30
35
42
30
31
32
34
29
38
29
32
305
906
127
483 621
4826
305 1047
127
690 690
4877
305 1046
127
690 690
5650
305 1046
305 1046
127
127
0
0
690 690
690 690
0
0
4672
5050
5050
5050
5500
Levingston 111
1016
1016
1016
1016
Hitachi Drill-Hope
762
762
900
Robco 350-C
876
876
864
864
t2 t3
84
75
73
68
78
66
190
882
127
690 690
190
300
890
882
130
127
0
0
690 690
690 690
0
0
300
854
127 13
5500
4800
5090
5090
5090
5260
292
881
127
690 690
5461
73
66
57
55
60
77
77
100 16
90 15
73 0
68 0
78 0
0
66 0
0
0
73 0
66 0
57 0
55 0
60 0
77 0
77 0
60
84
60
84
77
83
68
89
82
77
83
68
89
82
Table C8.1.3 Data for tubular chords with offset double racks
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Most of leg
Towage Section
"
"
Btm 2 bays
Rest of leg
Btm 3 bays
"
Rest of Leg
"
Page 183
Rev 3, August 2008
M ' py
M ' px / M px K
2
where;
P
P
P
K = 0.8 + 0.4 + 0.4
Py
Py
Py
P 2.1
and
M ' py = M py 1
Py
P 1.45
When (Mx/Mpx) K: M ' px = M px 1
Py
and = 1.45
1/1.04
P 1.04
M ' px = M px 1
Py
P
P
. + 2.35 + 4.7
and = 145
Py
Py
L1
L2
t2
L3
t3
L4
t4
L5
t5
t6
X1
Y1
Y2
Y3
466
466
466
466
466
466
466
466
466
573
607
607
441
466
466
466
432
565
574
592
534
488
535
549
562
562
356
19
22
25
38
19
19
19
19
19
57
38
38
38
19
29
38
13
13
25
30
40
50
38
38
32
29
19
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
213
222
222
222
213
213
213
213
178
197
225
283
283
283
279
279
279
279
279
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
140
140
140
127
127
127
127
89
102
125
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
127
0
0
0
0
0
102
102
102
102
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
25
25
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
127
0
305
305
305
0
0
305
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
0
25
38
25
0
0
51
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
236
248
268
268
218
236
236
236
166
178
226
359
331
307
337
344
351
351
264
457
457
457
457
457
457
457
457
457
600
600
600
457
457
457
457
432
533
575
443
443
443
453
453
453
453
204
0
0
0
0
0
524
524
524
524
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
211
0
118
124
118
0
0
296
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
414
414
414
414
?
?
687
620
620
620
690
690
690
690
?
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
483
414
414
414
414
?
?
687
620
620
620
690
690
690
690
?
587
587
587
587
587
587
587
587
587
620
620
620
414
620
620
620
?
?
687
620
620
620
690
690
690
690
?
0
0
0
0
0
483
483
483
483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
483
0
483
483
483
0
0
483
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
3408
5113
5113
5113
2556
2556
2556
2556
3408
3430
3456
4800
4800
4800
4539
4539
4539
4539
3353
Yena
Ycos
259
259
260
262
260
278
276
277
290
302
298
327
245
259
259
262
224
286
315
284
255
244
268
282
297
297
197
279
279
279
279
279
296
291
291
304
323
323
346
245
302
303
298
224
286
315
284
255
244
268
282
297
297
197
20
20
19
17
19
18
15
14
14
21
25
19
0
43
44
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Page 184
Rev 3, August 2008
t1
C8.3
Page 185
Rev 3, August 2008
FOUNDATION ASSESSMENT
The intention of the foundation capacity checks of steps 1 and 2 (Sections 8.3.1 and
8.3.2/8.3.3 of the PRACTICE) is to safeguard against foundation failure. Foundation
failure will, in most cases, manifest itself through excessive spudcan vertical and/or
horizontal displacements which may cause local or global instability of the jack-up.
Local instability occurs when a leg becomes overstressed, with global instability as a
consequential effect. Global instability may occur through overturning which will then
cause leg overstress. The key to preventing either type of failure mode is to safeguard
against excessive spudcan displacements.
Since it is difficult to accurately compute the displacements (as proposed in Step 3,
Section 8.3.4 of the PRACTICE, the checks of steps 1 and 2 are performed by
comparing the bearing capacity with the extreme combinations of load, including
applicable partial factors. In steps 1 and 2a the loads are computed assuming pinned
footings. In step 2b the check allows for fixity.
Selection of the Resistance Factors
Page 186
Rev 3, August 2008
Note: Section 8.3.1.4 of the PRACTICE requires that the vertical and horizontal load
check of step 2a is made when the horizontal leg reaction at the leeward leg
exceeds prescribed limits, depending on the penetration and soil. This is
because the simplistic check in Step 1a is based on the proven ultimate vertical
bearing capacity during preloading and it is therefore assumed that the extreme
footing load is the same as the maximum footing load during preloading. This
implies that the horizontal loading on the spudcan under extreme conditions is
small and it is therefore appropriate to limit the combined horizontal and
vertical loading to the values permitted under Step 2. In the selection of the
limits for Step 1a two penetration cases can be distinguished:
- full embedment to maximum bearing area in foundation layer,
- partial embedment in the foundation layer.
For full spudcan embedment in sand the lateral soil resistance at a vertical load
of 0.9VLo is approximately 0.03VLo. Additional penetration may increase the
soil resistance, but to increase the horizontal resistance to 0.1VLo the additional
penetration will be in the order of 10% of the spudcan diameter and outside
tolerable limits.
In the case of partial penetration of the spudcan in sand (i.e., full bearing area
not mobilized), any additional penetration will result in a significant increase of
bearing capacity due to the rapid increase in the bearing area. An increase in
embedded area of approximately 10% will increase the horizontal capacity to
0.1VLo.
In clayey soils the requirement of QH < 0.1VLo is met if the ratio of the spudcan
laterally projected area to bearing area, AS/A is in the order of 0.3.
Step 1b - sliding, vertical and horizontal load vector:
Hfc = 0.8 (effective stress - sand/drained)
= 0.64 (total stress - clay/undrained)
Step 2a - bearing, vertical and horizontal load vector:
VH = 0.9 (maximum bearing area not mobilized)
= 0.85 (maximum bearing area mobilized)
Step 2b - vertical, horizontal and moment load vector:
VHM = VH from step 2a for leeward legs
= Hfc from step 1b for windward legs
Selection of safety factors against punch-through
C8.7.1
Page 187
Rev 3, August 2008
Introduction
Where an on-site structural inspection is required Section C8.7.2 provides guidance as
to how this may be carried out. Section C8.7.3 provides guidance on monitoring the
structural condition during an assignment.
C8.7.2
Close visual inspection of key structural areas may be required if the condition can not
be validated based on the review of existing records (step 1) and the general visual
inspection (step 2). Hence the close visual inspection should focus on specific areas or
details that may be in doubt.
If fatigue is a consideration, it is recommended that, following steps 1 and 2, a selection
of the fatigue sensitive areas should be subjected to close visual inspection. These
close visual (weld) inspections should cover a number of locations from each of the
groups of fatigue sensitive areas identified in Section 7.4.4. This should possibly be
followed with an MPI inspection as outlined below.
Page 188
Rev 3, August 2008
Condition Monitoring
The condition of the jack-up structure should be monitored during the assignment.
This is to ensure the continuation of the overall structural integrity during the
operations. The requirements for condition monitoring may be based on the approach
outlined in steps 1 through 4 above. The operating and maintenance records kept by
the owner are the primary source of input for the independent condition monitoring and
it should be possible to validate the condition of the unit by reviewing these records at
any time during the operation. It is not expected that, for normal operations, the scope
of the condition monitoring should extend beyond step 1.
It is noted that records should be kept for future reference.
a
A
A
A
=
=
=
=
=
Ai
=
As
b
=
B
=
B
=
=
B1
=
B2
C
=
=
CDD
d
=
D
=
=
Fmin
=
Fn1
=
Fn2
=
Fui
=
Fy
=
F'y
=
Fyi
=
F1
F2
=
Hs
=
K
=
L1,L2,etc.
=
Mlt
=
Mnt
=
Mnx
Mny
=
=
Mp
=
Mpx
Mpy
=
=
M'px
M'py
=
Mu
=
Mue
Mux, Muex =
Muy, Muey =
Mx
=
=
My
P,Pu
=
=
Pn
=
Py
Page 189
Rev 3, August 2008
t
t1,t2,etc.
Tp
VT
zo
Z
=
=
=
=
=
=
a
b
Hfc
VH
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
VHM
Page 190
Rev 3, August 2008
safety index.
exponent in chord strength interaction relationship.
exponent in bending interaction relationship.
resistance factor.
resistance factor for axial load.
resistance factor for bending.
foundation resistance factor - sliding.
foundation resistance factor - bearing under the action of vertical and horizontal
loads.
= foundation resistance factor - bearing under the action of vertical, horizontal
and moment loads.
Page 191
Rev 3, August 2008
Ahilan R.V., Baker M.J., Hoyle M.J.R. and Robinson N.J., "Reliability Based
Development of Jack-up Assessment Criteria". Presented at the Tenth Structures Congress
(ASCE), San Antonio, Texas, April 13-15, 1992.
Ahilan R.V., Baker M.J. and Snell R.O., "Development of Jack-up Assessment Criteria
using Probabilistic Methods". OTC7305, Houston, Texas, 1993.
Juncher Jensen J., "Dynamic Amplification of Offshore Steel Platform Responses due to
Non-Gaussian Wave Loads", Danish Center for Applied Mathematics and Mechanics
Report No. 425, May 1991.
Manual of Steel Construction - Allowable Stress Design - Ninth Edition, AISC, 1989.
10
11
Load and Resistance Factor Design Specification for Structural Steel Buildings, AISC, 1
Sept 1986.
12
Draft Recommended Practice for Planning, Designing and Constructing Fixed Offshore
Platforms - Load and Resistance Factor Design API RP2A - LRFD First Edition, 1 Sept
1989.
13
Rules for Classification - Fixed Offshore Installations, Det Norske Veritas H`vik, July
1991.
14
Buckling strength analysis of Mobile Offshore Units - Classification Notes- Note 30.1,
H`vik, October 1987.
15
Dyer A.P., "Plastic Strength Interaction Equations for Jack-Up Chords", MSc Thesis, Dept
of Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Sheffield, Nov. 1992.
16
Duan L., Chen W.-F., "A Yield Surface Equation for Doubly Symmetrical Sections",
Engineering Structures, Vol 12, pp. 114-119, April 1990.
17
Norwegian Geotechnical Institute, "Cyclic Effects on Bearing Capacity and Stiffness for
Jack-Up Platforms on Clay', Report 913012-1, May 1992.
Page 192
Rev 3, August 2008
18
Rapaport V., Alford J., (1987) "Pre-loading of Independent Leg Units at Locations with
Difficult Seabed Conditions." Conference title : Recent developments in jack-up platforms
- design, construction and operation. The City University, London.
19
Senner D.W.F., (1992) "Analysis of Long Term Jack-up Rig Foundation Performance."
Offshore Site Investigation and Foundation Behavior. SUT International Conference,
London.
20
Sliggers P.G.F., "SIPM Practice for Site Specific Structural Fitness for Purpose Assessment
of Jack-Up Rigs", Paper 21979, SPE/IADC Conference, Amsterdam, 11-14th March 1991.