Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
J. J u n c h e r J e n s e n a, A. E. M a n s o u r b & P. T e r n d r u p P e d e r s e n a
aDepartment of Ocean Engineering, Technical University of Denmark.
DK-2800 Lyngby, Denmark
bDepartment of Naval Architecture and Offshore Engineering, University of
California, Berkeley, USA
(Received 21 August 1989: revised version received 12June 1990;accepted 14June 1990)
ABSTRACT
1 INTRODUCTION
2 THE O V E R T U R N I N G A N D STABILIZING M O M E N T S
Figure 1 shows a typical jack-up platform with three vertical legs and
footings in the form of spud cans. The legs are constructed as lattice
structures with triangular cross-sections. The platform shown in Fig. 1
has a derrick placed on a retractable cantilever.
, & I.
~<
,< ~<
~< ~<
,< ~<
,<
Aft legs :orwardleg
~< ~<
~< ~<
~<
~<
~< ~<
~<
See Bed
with the wind pressure on the hull and on leg segments above the water
surface, it is these hydrodynamic forces which produce the major
overturning moments about axes through the centroids of the legs at the
lower face of the spud cans. In the present analysis the destabilizing
effect of the compressive gravity loading on the legs, the deck sway and
dynamic excited inertia forces are also taken into account.
For the jack-up to be stable it is necessary that the sum of these
destabilizing moments is smaller than the restoring moment produced
by the effective weight of the platform multiplied by the distance from the
axis of overturning to the center of gravity.
Since a consistent calculation of the overturning moments must
include inertia forces and the effect of sway, it is necessary to establish a
mathematical model which reflects the structural behavior of the
platform. Therefore, the core of the mathematical model to be used is a
simple 3-D linear beam structural model of the jack-up.
The hull is modelled as a rigid body but the jack houses, the upper
guides and the elevating system are flexible relative to the hull.
206 J. Juncher Jensen, .4. E. Mansour, P Terndrup Pedersen
where the constants A0, A~. A2 and A3 are derived by curve fitting and
depend on the platform geometry, the water depth and the current
profile. In deriving this formula a one-to-one relation zbetween the wave
height H and wave period To is used.
The inertia forces due to the platform motion are estimated using a
modal approach where only the lowest horizontal vibration mode is
included. The corresponding equation of motion becomes
where 6o(t) is the deck sway. The structural parameters are the lowest
natural frequencyw, the damping ratio ~ and the generalized stiffness kM
related to the deck sway.
It is then assumed that the dynamic effects due to the superharmonics
in the overturning moment Mo(t) can be ignored compared to those
arising from the fundamental frequency. This assumption is in line with
the conclusions by Haver. 3The deck sway amplitude 6o thereby becomes
1 \ToJJ +
where T = 2rr/oois the fundamental natural period. Substitution of eqn
(3) into (5) yields
Reliabilityofjack-up platformsagainstoverturning 209
~
6~kM A1 + A3 (7)
,,0,
For the example platform, A0 = 7.7 MN m, A~ = 5.77 MN m / m A2 =
1.88 MN m/m 2 and A 3 = 0.2568 MN m/m 3. The fundamental natural
period is 8.16 s with full variable loads and the damping ratio ~ is taken
to be 5%, to account also for hydrodynamic damping. With these values
and the relation between wave heights H and wave periods To given by
Odland, 1the dynamic overturning moment amplitude Bp turns out to be
nearly linearly dependent on the wave height H
( ~ cos ( 2 . ; o ) ) 2
+~(~cos(2~,)/3 ~,2,
In Fig. 2 the maximum and minimum values obtained by eqns (3), (10)
and (12) are compared. For the high wave heights which govern the
survival capability of the platform, the approximate eqn (12) is seen to be
quite accurate. The importance of dynamic amplification is clearly
present for all wave heights, as can be seen by comparison with the result
given by eqn (3) (Fig, 2).
Similarly, Fig. 3 shows a comparison between direct numerical
210 J. Juncher Jensen, A. E. Mansour, P. Terndrup Pedersen
400
2OO
Z
L~ Peak
0
100 // ~ / .
~4 ""
'"IL//I
0 6 8 10 ~ 12 114 /
I ",
\
~ H(m)
/
./' /
\\ ./
-100
Fig. 2. Maximum (peak) and minimum (trough) values of the static and dynamic wave
and current induced overturning moment Mo as function of wave height H.
400 r
H=15m
300
To = 13.11 sec
Direct calculation
Equation (12)
200 I
I
I
I
I
I
Z / ~
I --
0 100
/ I
I
I
I
/ u
/ (1)
>
\
/,
/
/
\ \\\ /
-100
",.2.~-"
I J
Fig. 3. Variation of the dynamic wave and current induced overturning moment Mo with
time t.
c4 = a3(al + 3a3) -I
KCrM,~ ---- al + 3a3
and where the variance aM,,: and the mean value/4~,, of the overturning
m o m e n t are given by:
: ) = off~ + 2a~ 2 + 15a3 2 + 6ala3
O'M,
/~M,, = a0 + a2
The skewness of this distribution can be expressed approximately as
a3 = 6c3(1 + 6c4)
and the kurtosis approximately as
2
0~4 = ~ [(18C4 + 1) 2 -- 11 + 3
TABLE I
Statistical Parameters for the Wave and Current Induced Dynamic Overturning
Moment Mc,
From Table 1 it is seen that for small wave heights the overturning
m o m e n t is nearly Gaussian distributed. However, for significant wave
heights around 7 m which are characteristic for the survival condition
there is a non-zero skewness and a coefficient of kurtosis well above 3.0
indicating significant non-linearities.
E = max[Mo(t), 0<t<T}
The time T must be sufficiently short to ensure stationarity.
If the functiong(.) is monotonic in u, the conventional Poisson's model
for upcrossing gives
FE(m) = e -vl"}r (22)
where, from eqn (20), v ( m ) = roe -v2u:, i.e.
FE(m) = e x p l - v o T e x p ( - 1/2u2)1 (23)
Returning to eqn (15), the functiong(.) is assumed to have the polynomial
form (eqn (13)):
Mo = ao + a l U + a2U 2 + a3 U3 (24)
A specific realization m of the overturning moment can thus be written as
m = ao + a l u + a2 u2 + a3 u3 (25)
Solving (25) for u and retaining only the real solution, one obtains
u = [ - A + ~/A 2 + B] v 3 - [.4 + x / A 2 + B] v 3 - C (26)
where
C - 02
3a3
where Mr, M w and M o are the restoring moment due to gravity, the wind
moment and the overturning moment due to waves and current,
respectively, c,s is a coefficient, given by eqn (2), to account for the effect of
the platform deflection on the restoring moment, i.e. the P--6 effect.
Negative G(m) as given by eqn (28) indicates a failure state where the
moments tending to overturn the platform are larger than those tending
to restore it. Then. the probability of overturning p~ is given by
p~ = P [ G ( m ) < 0] (29)
The cumulative distribution function of an extreme peak of the
overturning moment Mo is given by eqn (23) with u given by eqns (26) and
(27). The restoring moment M~ and the wind moment M,~ are assumed Io
be statistically independent and normally distributed with means/4 and
/1,, and standard deviation o.. and cr,~, respectively. The coefficient c~ is
assumed deterministic. Equation (28) can be rewritten as
and variance o , 2
o-] = (or-c~)-" + o,, ~ (33)
The probabiliW of overturning becomes
Notice that u is a function ofm and thus of the significant wave height H~.
/~ andos can be determined from eqns (32) and (33) respectively, in terms
of/4,/aw, Or and Ow. These latter quantities can be estimated from their
components using conventional first order second moment methods.
Since the restoring moment Mr is a product of a weight.F times the
Reliabili~ of jack-up platforms against overturning 217
Po = EP~i f (39)
i
where Si is the event of 'no overturning' in the ith sea state, i.e. the
complementing event ofF,.. Here U and N are the union and intersection
symbols and i = 1, 2 . . . . . s, where s is the total n u m b e r of sea states.
Evaluation of (40) is difficult and requires information on the
dependence of all failure events in the different sea states. An upper
bound for Pt can be constructed however, if the events of overturning in
the different sea states are assumed statistically independent. This
assumption leads to the conservative b o u n d
Assuming that n = N/s where N is the total number of wave peaks during
the operation of the jack-up platform at a site, and differentiating eqn
(42) with respect to s and equating it to zero lead to the following simple
expressions for s and n
S = N 2/~p + 2) (43)
and
n = Np/~p + 2t (44)
Equations (44) and (45) provide the sea state Hs and the number of peaks
n to be used in determining a probability of overturning which can be
considered as a lower bound for the long-term analysis. This will be
discussed further in the application example of Section 4.
One last remark regarding the long-term analysis. For more realistic
estimates of the bounds, it is important to include the directionality of the
main train of waves with respect to the platform. Unlike the short-term
analysis where only the 'worst' wave direction is considered, the long-
term analysis must be realistically based on a variety of sea conditions
and wave directions estimated from data at the site. The long-term
variation of the main wave direction is taken into account using a
formula equivalent to eqn (39).
220 J. Juncher Jensen, A. E. Mansour. P. Terndrup Pedersen
4 APPLICATION
Axial stiffness 6 X 10 ~ N
Effective drag coefficient 3-1
(based on Co = 0.7 for tubular members)
Effective inertia coefficient 2.0
C o r r e s p o n d i n g diameter 1.4m
The design survival condition for the present jack-up is:
Water depth 90m
Air gap llm
Wave height (Stoke's 5th) 13-4 m
Surface current 0-8 m/s
Bottom current 0.2 m/s
W i n d velocity (1 m i n mean) 42 m/s
Penetration (all legs) 5m
A deterministic structural analysis using the design survival condition
a n d the characteristic values
F c = 64.25 M N
d c = 10m
for the weight a n d distance from center-of-gravity to axis of overturning,
respectively, yields the overturning m o m e n t s
M~ = 2 8 5 M N m and M~w = 1 7 0 M N m
a n d a deck sway
u~ = 1.15m
Then, from eqns (1), c~ = 0.885 a n d the safety factor y = 1.25.
4.2 Probability of overturning, the safety index and the safety factor
As described in Section 2, the following values for the coefficients in eqn
(13) were d e t e r m i n e d for the jack-up u n d e r consideration
a0 = 7.7 al = 18-367(Hs/4)
a2 = 1"88(HJ4) 2 a3 = 0"2568 (HJ4) 3
All as have d i m e n s i o n s of m o m e n t , M N m. Using these values in eqns
(27) a n d (26) result in an explicit equation for u in terms of m, which can
be inserted in eqn (35) to evaluate the conditional probability of
overturning for a given value of CD. The values o f the other parameters
a p p e a r i n g in eqn (35) are calculated as follows.
A s s u m i n g that the overturning m o m e n t is a n a r r o w - b a n d process, roT
is equal to the n u m b e r of peaks n. The design wave height 13.4 m is
222 J. Juncher Jensen, A. E. Mansour. P. Terndrup Pedersen
,5 ,, la 12 1, H(m)
7.7g 7.27 . 6:7s ~3 ~.71 H s ( rn )
Po
. I.l.Co- 0.61 , Vco 24 %
10-'
~ _ _ : ~CD =0.7 , Vc =0 %
O
Desiqn point
:0-:
!\
\
\
\
10-3,
\
\
\
\
\
\
\
10-4
1.0 1.1
For the case w i t h p c , = 0-61, Vc~ = 24%, the safety indexfl = - ~ - ~ (Po)
a n d the safety factor y are s h o w n in Fig. 5 as a function of the significant
wave height H~. Both curves show a nearly linear d e p e n d e n c e with Hs,
but with different slopes. The m a i n reason for the low values of }"
obtained is the use of a low characteristic value for the restoring m o m e n t
M c w h e n evaluating I/.
[3~y
.. /_Design point
2.0,
,.ot I
0.5 t .L
5 6 7 8
HS (m)
Fig. 5. Variation of the deterministic safety factor )' and the safety index /3 with
significant wave height H~.
TABLE 2
Sensitivity of the Probability of Overturning to Design Parameters
For the long-term analysis, the jack-up platform was assumed to operate
in the Baltic Sea at a location where wave statistics were available./~ The
distributions of the significant wave height given for Marsden area 5
were plotted on a Weibull paper and the long-term Weibull parameters
were estimated. The shape parameterp and the scale parameter hw were
determined to be p = 1.29 and hw = 1.2 m.
10"1
Po Hs = 700m
~6 2. Design point
(y= ~.25)
TABLE 3
Probabilities of Overturning at a Site in the Baltic Sea
P,,i Po/
and
3 10 -3 <Pt < 6 10 -3 for PCD = 0"70, Vco = 0%
The criterion described in Section 3.2 was also used to estimate a lower
b o u n d for the probability of overturning. The values o f p and hw for the
Weibull distribution of the significant wave height were substituted in
eqns (44) and (45) (with N = 107) t o give
Hs = 7.039m and n = 555
These values were then used to determine the probability of overturning
Po for the two sets of Co values
po = 3 X 10 -3 for Pc,, = 0.61, VcD = 24%
and
Po = 2 X 10 -3 for /JCo = 0.70, Vc,, = 0%
The estimate of the lower b o u n d using this criterion is thus slightly lower
than the lower b o u n d found from Table 3.
In order to examine the effect of including the directionality of the
long-crested waves with respect to the platform, the previous calculations
were repeated, but using only the wave heading which gives the largest
value of the overturning moment. The resulting upper and lower bounds
then become
9 x 10 -3 <pt < 24 X 10 .3 for PCD = 0"61, Vc,, = 24%
and
8 X 10 -3 < P t < 15 10 -3 for ~c, = 0.70, Vco = 0%
which are about 2-5 times larger than the previously obtained bounds.
5 CONCLUSION
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
REFERENCES