Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 9

The Design of a Self-propelled Jack-up Drilling Rig for the Chukchi Sea

John Bandas, Sarah Schlosser, Sean Finn, Nathan Garza, Andy Lister, and Jeff Phillips Ocean Engineering Program, Zachry Department of Civil Engineering Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-3136
Abstract- ConocoPhillips asked the team to design a self propelled jack up drilling rig for exploratory work in the Chukchi Sea, during the warm water season, at a location that is approximately 131 feet (40 meters) in water depth. This was accomplished using computer programs including StabCAD, SolidWorks, AutoCAD, and Visual Analysis. The legs of the jack up were designed to withstand ice collisions with the aid of patrolling ice breakers. The jack up rig had to be capable of traveling at speeds up to 11 knots (5.65 m/s). The stability during transit was analyzed for an intact condition as well as a damaged condition (assuming two ballast tanks are damaged). The centers of gravity and buoyancy were calculated, as well as metacentric height. A geotechnical analysis was performed on the spud cans of the rig . The rig was designed to comply with all safety regulations specified by the American Bureau of Shipping (ABS), the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) Rules, the International Maritime Organization (IMO) rules, and the T&R 5-5A Design Criteria set by the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) and Marine Pollution Act (Marpol 73/78).



A jack up drilling rig was designed to operate in the Chukchi Sea. The rig meets the requirements of Conoco Phillips and is capable of surviving the open water season. The drilling location is 71N, 165W between Alaska and Russia where the water depth is approximately 131 feet (40 meters). The jack up is intended to be used during the open water season which is from June to mid December when the ice is minimal in this location. The rig is capable of operating in broken ice conditions that are typical during the beginning and end of the open water season in the Chukchi Sea, holding enough fuel and supplies as well as have enough storage for the entire season, and accommodating 110 people. The jack up rig was designed in accordance with the ABS Class Rules as well as the Site Specific Requirements to SNAME T&R 5.5 criteria [1]. Some major design considerations include the effect of the ice and the extreme temperatures. The ice is a major design consideration due to the catastrophic consequences of ice colliding with the jack up rig. The rig was designed to be able to sustain minor collisions. The comfort of the crew was also taken into account. With temperatures reaching as low as -20 degrees Celsius, the crew needed to be able to function in these extreme temperatures [2]. Operations on the deck were

designed to be functional despite any heavy gear worn by the crew. To ensure that this jack up rig can be built with the support of the different classification societies the following regulations were complied with during design. The jack up rig is classified by ABS as a Self-Elevating Drilling Unit [3]. This unit is capable of floating freely to the desired location under its own power or tow, and raises itself on its legs to a determined elevation. Particularly, this drilling unit had to encounter first- and second-year ice over its operation. This required special accommodations as shown in the ABS Steel Vessel Rules [4]. The vessel had to meet the Mobile Offshore Drilling Unit (MODU) rules which are created by ABS and reference the International Maritime Organizations (IMO) stability requirements. These requirements entailed an intact stability in 100 knot (51.5 m/s) winds, and damaged stability in 50 knot (25.8 m/s) winds. The final waterline could not submerge any watertight opening, and the righting moment had to equal twice the heeling moment at a certain angle [3]. Environmental loading rules are given in Reference [3]. These rules cover loads due to wind, waves, and currents, as well as phenomena such as vortex shedding and gravity loadings due to the unit resting on the seabed. Additionally, the design loads and pressures encountered by ice are described in Ref. [3]. Fire and safety measures are also described. The bulkhead divisions are characterized along with the various means of escape. The overall structure arrangement is defined by MODU and SOLAS safety guidelines. Other required guidelines include procedure for escaping in case of emergency, and are followed by making sure all the equipment needed for proper evacuation are within the jack up rig [2]. Fire fighting systems were arranged to protect the general area of the rig as well as the drilling area [5]. Additionally, fire water stations are located along the drilling area per ABS guidelines. All fire hoses are collapsible and are within the required length of 30m (100ft) [3]. Portable fire extinguishers were provided in accordance with National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards in type and size [6]. In the event of an evacuation, the rig was designed to provide multiple routes of escape. Stairways and ladders are provided to be used during evacuation. In machine areas, vertical ladders were installed to ensure a quicker and more

0-933957-38-1 2009 MTS

practical means of exiting the areas. These machine areas consist of two vertical ladders each which are insulated to provide a safe escape and fire shelter [3]. For evacuation purposes, five 25 man life rafts are on both the starboard and port side and numbered even and odd, respectively. There are 300 life jackets on site to account for the crew with half located throughout the rig itself, and the other half located near the life rafts. A three minute evacuation plan is also in place to satisfy Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS) guidelines [6]. Through site research, the team determined this is rarely ever pack ice, meaning it is usually just relatively small pieces floating, therefore not requiring the use of a special ice capable life raft. The superstructures for the hull, decks and deckhouses are constructed of ASTM A53 Grade B steel which can withstand temperatures as low as -60C and is used primarily in offshore structures [8]. Steel was chosen due to its high modulus of elasticity and is also used for framing and ceiling construction as well. Other areas such as control and service spaces are constructed using material with minimal flame-spread characteristics. The bulkhead divisions of the rig were designed in accordance with MODU 3-4-1 and SOLAS Regulation II2/3.3 [2][6]. The selected division for the structure is to be A60 class division, subdivided by space classifications ranging from control stations to sanitary spaces to the fire integrity of bulkheads separating adjacent spaces [2]. When cables and other pipes penetrate through the hull, the open spaces are made air tight in order to prevent smoke and fire from spreading. To prevent oil spills several safety precautions are implemented on the rig. Containment modifications to the hull design are implemented as well to avoid hydrocarbons entering the surrounding environment [8]. Pressure relief valves are placed into the process line to avoid over pressure of the oil. In case the oil pressure does supersede the set pressure the valve will discharge into the secure gutter area. Additionally, vapor depressurizing is used to drop the pressure to 50 percent of the design pressure to bring the system to a safe operating condition. Emergency shutdown stations are placed in critical locations around the rig such as the helicopter deck, process deck and control station. This should allow for the crew to halt operations when the process area is experiencing severe over pressure and other methods such as the pressure relief valves and depressurizing do not suffice. Additional safety guidelines are followed in the event of an actual oil spill. Curbing at deck level is implemented to prevent any oil spill. Protective walls along the gutter are in place to prevent the oil from draining into the environment. Recessed drip pans are installed to collect any oil spilled in the deck area. II. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

is derived from MODU 3-1-A2 and is found using (1) [3]. (1) Here pressure is a function of density , gravity g, and depth d. The dynamic pressure applied to the structure takes into account the wave number and varies exponentially with depth as shown in (2). H refers to wave height, while k is the wave number. (2) The dynamic and static pressures were superimposed to determine the total pressure profile. At a depth of 131 feet (40 m), the total pressure is 731.3 kips (3250 kN). The wind loadings were calculated using the beam and bow profiles of the jack up rig. The projected areas of the rig from both views were calculated and a shape coefficient is given to each section. The two profiles of the jack up were then taken and divided further and given a height coefficient. The height coefficient changes as the height increases every 51.5 ft (15.7 m). The annual frequency of occurrence of wind in the Chukchi Sea was obtained from reports by ConocoPhillips [10]. From statistical analysis of this table the average wind conditions were found as well as storm conditions for up to a 100 year storm. The average wind conditions are presented in Figure 1 and the direction they normally propagate in any given year is shown in Figure 2. The average wind speeds in the Chukchi Sea range from 8.2 ft/s to 24.6 ft/s (2.5 m/s to 7.5 m/s) as shown in Figure 1 and this wind is coming for the northeast nearly 30% of the time. This data is useful when positioning the rig as tests can be run to determine which angle allows for the least drag when drilling. According to ABS MODU rules the rig must be designed to withstand storm conditions of a 100 year storm [3]. Through statistical analysis, conditions for 3 different storm cases: 1 year, 10 year and 100 year, were performed and are presented in Figure 3. The wind calculations pertaining to this jack up rig were calculated in the bow, beam and quartering seas directions. A design wind speed of 14.5 knots (7.5 m/s) was used since it was the highest average wind speed encountered at this site. Under this design wind, the wind load is 203.5 kips (905.2 kN), 232.6 kips (1034.7 kN), and 291 kips (1294 kN) for bow, beam, and quartering directions, respectively. The current forces applied to the structure were calculated using Ref. [3]. The current profile was determined using (3) from the surface to a depth of 16.4 ft (5 m), which is

The total pressure acting on the legs, during drilling, is a combination of static and dynamic pressure. The static pressure is a function of height and increases linearly with the depth from the mean water level (MWL). The static pressure

Figure 1. Occurrence of Given Wind Speed

Figure 2. Occurrence of Wind Direction

considered the boundary layer. From the boundary layer to the seabed (4) was used to calculate the current profile because the wind does not affect the current below the boundary layer. In these equations, Vt denotes the tidal velocity, Vs the storm tide velocity, Vw the wind driven current, and w the wind velocity. (3) (4) The wind driven current velocity was determined using a frictional coefficient which is derived from the Coriolis parameter. The Coriolis parameter is dependent on the latitude of the drill site. The average current force was calculated, and was found to be approximately 2.04 kips (9 kN). Regarding environmental loads, the rig needed to be able to withstand the worst case scenario of loading which led to the load being applied from three different directions, bow seas, beam seas and obliquely. The current load was calculated for one leg of the jack up. These loads were calculated as 2.1 kips (9.2 kN) for bow and beam seas, and 1.4 kips (6.2 kN) for oblique seas. The jack up was designed with an air gap sufficient to prevent waves from hitting the deck, however proper consideration was needed for the waves hitting the legs. To calculate this load Morrisons equation, was used, shown in (5). FI and FD correspond to the inertial and drag forces, respectively, while CS and CD are inertial and drag coefficients. This equation was specified in the MODU rules [3]. (5) For the Chukchi Sea, the design period was given as 5.5 s at a water depth of 131 ft (40 m). Using this information we can solve (5). The structure was found to be drag dominant, with a drag force of 2.25 kips (10 kN), a inertial force of 0.65 kips (2.9 kN), for a total wave force of 2.90 kips (12.9 kN). This jack up rig is outfitted with an ice radar system which tracks ice flow near the rig and has two ice breakers assisting in minimizing ice collisions. The ice breakers operate at a perimeter of 20 nautical miles (37 km) to break any pack ice that penetrates that initial boundary. In the case of ice breaching a boundary of 15 nautical miles (28 km) the crew will continue normal operations while preparing to secure the

Figure 3: Wind Speed, Wave Height, and Peak Period for Storms

well. If the ice approaches 10 nautical miles (18.5 km) drilling will be stopped and the rig will enter survivor mode. Further, the rig is designed for minimal ice collisions, in the event the detection system falters. The ice loading calculations were performed as stated in Ref [3]. To determine the load, the design pressure due to the ice was calculated using (6). (6) The K1 and K2 coefficients were determined based on the class of ice encountered. Dice corresponds to the displacement weight of the ice chunks. The ice class that the rig is designed to encounter is B0, which can be very large when assissted by an ice breaker. This corresponds to a value of K1 0.165 and a value of K2 0.38. The angle of the structure in the ice belt, which is 90 for this rig, was used to determine the K3 coefficient (7). The flare angle, of the structure in the ice is 90 degrees. This angle resulted in a K3 value equal to 0.6. (7) When (6) was computed, the ice loads were calculated to be 1072 ST (9.54 MN). III. JACK UP DESIGN The arrangement of the equipment and material on the deck of the rig is very important to the stability of the facility and is shown in Figure 4. The center of gravity needed to be as close to the center as possible to avoid having a rotating moment on the deck. The deck itself, from a starboard view, has a trapezoidal profile to minimize the amount of drag on the hull during transit. The top of the deck is 232.9 ft (71 m) from bow to stern 177 ft (54 m) from starboard to port. The rig is required to accommodate 120 people and researching existing crew quarters. The quarters are 4 stories tall, with dimensions of 84 ft (25.6 m) by 42 ft (12.8 m) and 52 ft (15.9 m) in height with a total weight of approximately 200,000 lbs (890 kN) [11]. The helipad is attached to the crew quarters to allow quick access in the event of an emergency and is octagonal in shape with a diameter of 72 ft (22 m). An aluminum deck was chosen, to alleviate some weight, with the capacity to hold a S92 helicopter [12]. The center of the topside contains a pit where the casing and piping used for drilling are stored which cuts into the hull of the topside approximately 10 ft (3m) to negate the wind forces on the materials. In order to reach the entire span of the topside, four

Figure 4: General Arrangement of Structures on Deck

cranes are required. The cranes chosen are capable of lifting 300 tons and are mounted on pedestals on the deck. They are 13.1 ft by 13.1 ft (4 m by 4 m) [13]. The drilling derrick is located on the cantilever which can be retracted during transit to keep water from flowing into the pit containing the pipes and casing. The cantilever is 100 ft (30.5 m) in length and can reach a distance of 70 ft (21.3 m) away from the deck. The entire structure will be supported by triangular legs that are 361 ft (110 m) in length. The legs were designed with an inverted K truss to add strength and stability. The square holes in the hull allow the spud cans to be retracted into the hull during transit to reduce drag. The spud cans are octagonal in shape, 26.2 ft (8 m) from point to point. In order for the rig to be stable during transit and for preloading purposes, ballast tanks were required. The rig is designed to have twelve ballast tanks, two of which are filled during transit; they are labeled in Figure 5. In order to stabilize the rig during transit the two ballast tanks are filled to 4.8 ft (2.1 m). The center compartments in Figure 5 are used for mud and portable water storage. The distribution of the weight on the deck is very important in relation to the stability and moments on the facility. The weight of one crane and pedestal is approximately 493 kips (2200 kN) and was treated as a static

load in the analysis of the center of gravity [13]. The aluminum helipad was chosen for its lightweight properties, weighing approximately 48 kips (214 kN) [12]. The cantilever and drilling derrick were combined into a total weight of 360 kips (1600kN). The legs are made of ASTM A53 Grade B steel and weigh approximately 905 kips (4026 kN) total. The materials needed for drilling have an approximate weight of 14000 kips (62000 kN) giving the entire rig an estimated weight of approximately 19500 kips (86000 kN). With the different weights being arranged around the deck, a moment was created about the longitudinal axis. The moments were taken using the distance from the datum, which is the center of the deck for every axis. Ballast tanks were used to offset this moment during transit. The hull contains twelve ballast tanks in total and flooding two of these tanks diminished the moment about the longitudinal axis by bringing the longitudinal and transverse center of gravity to the center. This eliminates the overturning moment during transit and caused the vertical center of gravity to be 11.8 ft (3.6 m) due to the legs being completely retracted. One of the design requirements for the jack up is that it should be self-propelled at a speed of 11 knots (5.66 m/s). In order to find the required power to propel the ship, the resistance of the hull was calculated. There are several types of resistance, including frictional, wave-making, form, and appendage resistance. Without model tests or programs to calculate the resistance, all forms of the resistance save for the frictional resistances are extremely difficult to calculate. To simplify the calculation of resistance, it was assumed that the frictional resistance is equal to or greater than all other forms; that is, the total resistance was calculated as simply twice the frictional resistance. The frictional resistance was calculated using (8), where S is the surface area and V is the ship's velocity [14]. (8) Using these calculations, the resistance of the hull is found to be approximately 50.4 kips (224 kN). Multiplying by the velocity yields a power requirement of 1700 hp (1.3 MW). This kind of power can be achieved using retractable thrusters, which retract into the hull when not in use (when the legs are deployed). Thrusters of this type were found that can achieve 600 hp (447 kW) [15]. Four thrusters are installed on each corner of the ship. Coupled with the weight of a power plant, this setup weighs approximately 3.3 million pounds (1.5 million kg). Considering the high bearing capacity of the soil in the North Chukchi Sea, spud cans were chosen as the foundation support for the jack up rig as opposed to a mat footing which is generally used for unstable soils [16]. A design is shown in Figure 6 where the initial diameter was set at 26.2 ft (8 m). The projecting tapered point on the bottom helps to reduce the risk of slipping in the case of shallow penetration, which is typical in soils with high bearing capacities [16]. When the legs are retracted during transit the spud cans are

Figure 5. Ballast Tank Schematic

(11) where cu is the undrained shear strength, Sc is the shape factor, dc is a depth factor, and p'o is the effective pressure at the penetration depth. The un-drained shear strength varies over a range; and the average of this range was used in the calculations. The bearing capacity factor was found using (12). Here, is the latitude of the drilling location. (12) The shape factor was calculated using (13), where the bearing capacity factor is given in the SNAME code to be 5.14 and the foundation length is equal to the diameter of the spud can due to its octagonal shape. (13) To calculate the depth factor, the depth to diameter ratio had to be evaluated; since it was less than 1, (14) was used. (14) The effective pressure at depth was calculated using (15). A is the projected area of the spud can. (15) The vertical and horizontal reaction forces could then be calculated using (16) and (17), respectively. To calculate the horizontal reaction force, the lateral projected area of the spud can was needed. This area was determined by looking at a side view of the spud can and calculating the area. (16) (17) All of these equations were specified by Ref. [1]. The diameter of the spud can was designed to be 26.2 ft (8 m). Using this diameter and a penetration depth of 9 ft (2.75 m), the vertical reaction from the soil was calculated as 7065 kips (31.4 MN) and the horizontal reaction force was 19 calculated as 18600 kips (82.7 MN). These values create factors of safety in the horizontal and vertical directions of 240 and 1.45, respectively. To calculate the preloading requirement for installation the maximum loading possible was calculated and magnified to include safety factors. This maximum loading was compared with the vertical leg reaction which has been reduced by 10% due to the built in safety factors. To calculate the preloading amount, (18) was used [1]. (18) While preloading, 7200 kips (32000 kN) must be loaded on each leg to ensure proper stability in the soil. When the rig is installed it will lower two legs, diagonal of each other, and fill ballast tanks until this preloading amount is reached. While the tanks are filling the legs will begin to penetrate the soil

Figure 6. Spud Can Profile Drawing

able to fit into the hull to reduce drag. To calculate the bearing area, the spud can was treated as a flat octagonal plate as shown in the plan view of Figure 6 to simplify the calculations. This bearing area was used in calculating the vertical reaction force the soil provides to the structure. The lateral area, shown in the profile view of Figure 6, was used in the horizontal reaction force provided by the soil. The spud cans are made of plates of ASTM A53 grade B steel with a .5 in (13 mm) thickness. The SNAME T&R 5.5A required a check on backflow over the spud can when fully penetrated to determine if it should be factored into the preloading requirements. The criteria of (9) was used to determine if this rig experienced any backflow [1]. If (9) is satisfied there is no backflow, which was the case with this jack up rig. In (9), Dsoil is the penetration depth, Ncu is a bearing capacity factor, and ' is the effective soil weight. (9) SNAME also required a design to be checked against any squeezing of the clay (10) [1]. If this equation is satisfied there is no clay squeezing which was the case for this jack up. (10) where B is the diameter of the spud can and Tsoil is the depth of the clay layer. In the northern Chukchi Sea, the soil was classified as clayey silt according to the geotechnical report provided by ConocoPhillips [10]. Clay tends to be very plastic regardless of water content meaning it can be deformed without breaking, cracking, or changing in volume. Clay possesses very high strength properties while silt tends to have little or no plasticity giving it very little strength [17]. The first 15 ft (4.5 m) of soil in the northern Chukchi Sea is very soft clayey silt while the soil down to 75 ft (22.9 m) tends to be stiff to very stiff clays. With these denser soil properties spud cans were used for a foundation as opposed to using a mat which is generally used in softer soils. Using these soil properties the bearing capacity of the soil was calculated using (11) [1]. This equation is specific to the non-squeezing and no backflow cases discussed earlier.

until the preload is met, and they should be reaching their maximum penetration of 9 ft (2 m). An overturning moment is created at the spud can due to the environmental loads which is then counteracted by a restoring moment due to the soil. ABS requires a minimum factor of safety of 1.1 for these moments. They overturning moment was calculated using Visual Analysis and was found to be approximately 91.8 k-ft (125.6 kN-m). The restoring moment was calculated using (19) [16]. This restoring moment was calculated to be 116.1 k-ft (158.8 kN-m) creating a factor of safety of 1.26 which satisfies ABS rules. (19) where Ms is the restoring moment, Mso is the restoring moment assuming a rigid structure, n is the number of legs, P is the axial load in the legs, and e is displacement. The vessel must meet the MODU stability requirements as stated by ABS. This entails an intact stability in 100 knot (51.5 m/s) winds, and damaged stability in 50 knot (25.8 m/s) winds. The final waterline should not submerge any watertight opening, and the righting moment must equal twice the heeling moment at a certain angle according to [3]. Following the specification on the jack ups topside arrangements; the model for StabCAD was completed as shown in Figure 7. For StabCAD analysis, the vessel appendages were configured for a freely floating condition, the period of deployment between transit and jacking up. In accordance with the ABS MODU rules, the vessel must be stable during every stage of deployment; since the center of gravity is highest with the legs up, this configuration is good for design. Note that the crane and leg trusses are modeled here as cylinders. StabCAD allows for such an approximation by means of a shape coefficient, specified by the user, which converts the properties of the cylinder to that of the desired truss shape [19]. For this analysis, the shape coefficient is left at a default value of 0.5, as suggested by the StabCAD manual for approximating trusses. According to the MODU rules, the area under the wind righting moment curve must be 40% larger than the area of the wind heeling moment (have an area ratio of 1.4), over a range of inclination from rest to the down flooding angle of the vessel [3]. Also, the angle between where the moments are equal and the down flooding (the range of stability) must be above 7 degrees. The down flooding angle is the angle to which weather tight integrity is preserved. The inclination is taken about the axis most susceptible to down flooding; in this case, diagonally across the hull, or 40.6 degrees from inline. For the intact condition, the vessel must meet the above criteria of moment areas in both calm and storm conditions. For normal operations, the vessel is designed for 70 knot (36m/s) winds, while the design for severe storms is 100 knots (51.5 m/s) [3]. The program is run with a KG of 32.8 ft (10 m). The longitudinal and transverse center of gravity is assumed to be in the center of the hull and a draft of 9.19 ft (2.8 m) is used. StabCAD computes the righting and heeling moments, and automatically generates a down flooding angle and area

Figure 7. StabCAD Model

ratio. The stability curves for the normal conditions are shown in Figure 8. This is the lowest wind speed allowed for design, and the moment area ratio of 6.52 far surpasses the criteria required of 1.4 specified by the MODU rules. Note that in this figure, the allowable KG is stated to be 36.1 ft (11 m); this is not the true KG. The true allowable KG is retrieved from StabCAD by forcing the area ratio to equal 1.4. For the normal conditions, the allowable KG is 290 ft (89.1m). Even in the severe storm condition shown in Figure 9, the area ratio is 3.18, and the allowable KG is found to be 290 ft (88 m). For both wind speeds, the range of stability is 8.25 which is greater than the 7 requirement according to ABS MODU rules. For the damaged stability, MODU requires that the vessel maintain a range of stability of 7 degrees when the hull is penetrated to a horizontal depth of 5 ft (1.4 m) [3]. The wind condition for damaged stability is 50.2 knots (25.8 m/s) [3]. The worst case is a puncture at the bulkhead boundary, flooding two compartments. When comparing this drawing with the general arrangement of bulkheads, Figure 5, it shows that two of the ballast tanks would be damaged. With the damaged tanks, the vessel has a static angle about the inclination axis of 0.58 degrees, found in Figure 10. However, the range of stability is 7.23 degrees, which is satisfactory and the allowable KG is well above the calculated KG of 33 ft (10 m). The rig was designed to have triangular-shaped legs due to cost effectiveness. The truss form of the legs are a reverse K arrangement, which helps stability and reduces the amount of material. Figure 11 is a 2-dimensional model of the rig with the cantilever retracted. There are plates attached at the bottom to simulate the spud cans. The main deck consists of steel plate sections which include the ballast tanks and bulkheads as noted in the general arrangement. The total height of the legs is 361 ft (110m); the excess length helps provide reserve strength for the lowersections which are subjected to various environmental loads. The wind loads are 788.21 lb/ft (36.4 N/m) distributed linearly along the top side legs and start dissipating at 10 ft (3.05 m) above the main deck to 0 at the deck line. The

Figure 8: Moments of Inclination in 70 knot (36 m/s) Winds

Figure 10. Moments of Inclination in Damaged Condition

cumulative topside weight is 510.5 kip/ft (2270.8 kN/m) and placed 86.12 ft (26.25 m) from the bow. This configuration represents the cantilever retracted; for the operational case where the cantilever is extended the deck load is 87.63 ft (26.71m) from the bow. The operational water depth is 131 ft (40m) with a calculated 49.2 ft (15 m) air gap placing the bottom of the deck at 180.45 ft (55 m). Each test used 616.86 lb/ft (9 kN/m) wave and current loads at the mean water level and linearly decreasing to 0 at 16.4 ft (5 m) below the mean water level. With the rack and pinion system used to jack up the legs and support the deck, the strength and stability of the connecting joints was a very important design consideration. With the two cantilever scenarios, the maximum moments were 7.04105 kipft (9.54105 kNm); the operational cantilever slightly changed the location of the center of gravity but had minimal effects on the joint reactions and member forces. The total deck and topside produces a maximum vertical force of 18.14 kips (80.70 kN) on each leg; this required the rack and pinion supports to be able to withstand these forces as well. The moments experienced on the spud cans were

maximized at 92.6 kipft (125.60 kNm). In order to ensure the stability of our structure the rack and pinion system had to be able to withstand the above mentioned moment and the soil had to withstand the forces created at the spud cans. The primary goal of structural analysis was to prove that the structure as a whole can withstand the applied loads without failure. A 3-dimensional model was constructed and the loads applied. The topside structures in the model were modeled as plates to help get a more accurate computation of the wind loading. The increased surface area subjected to the wind loads will have a greater impact on the resulting moment experienced by the connecting supports between the legs and main deck and the rack and pinion system. In order to simulate the weight of the topsides a uniformly distributed load of 0.0215 ST/ft2 (2.06 MPa) was placed on the deck plates. This value was calculated by dividing the total estimated topside weight (7496 ST) by the operational area of the deck. The results of the 3-dimensional loadings are applied to the bow (x-direction) are shown in Figure 12. The deck experienced minimal deflections demonstrating the current

Figure 9. Moments of Inclination in 100 knot (51.1 m/s) Winds

Figure 11. 2D Model Depicting Retracted Cantilever

bulkhead configuration was adequate for the environmental loading. The members angled out just above where the deck is located are basic models of the rack and pinion system used to support and jack up the hull. As expected, the maximum stresses are experienced within the internal truss members. The max stress for an internal member is 8.75 ksi (60.3 MPa). Maximum shearing and moments were both found within the members of the simplified rack and pinion system. A max shearing force of 6.23 kips (27.7 kN) and moment of 18.95 kipft (25.7 kNm) were both located at the base of the rack and pinion member. Most of this force is attributed to wind loading; the actual members will be shielded from the elements therefore only needing to withstand the deck loads and topside wind loading. The results of the 3-dimensional loadings were also applied in the beam direction (y-direction), as shown in Figure 13. As with the previous case, most of the stresses were found in the internal members of the truss and the forces located in the rack and pinion system. The maximum stress and axial stresses were found to be 21.47 ksi (148 MPa) and 0.26 ksi (1.8 MPa), respectively. Both of these were located on the upper part of the leg and resulted solely from wind loading. The upper limits of the shearing forces and moments were 10.68 kips (47.5 kN) and 49.12 kipft (66.6 kNm), respectively. These two forces were experienced on the support members of the rack and pinion system once again. Due to all of the extreme forces were experienced on the starboard wind loading model, proper consideration was needed to determine if the steel used in construction is capable of handling such stresses. All of the steel members are circular 8 XS pipe with an outer diameter of 9 in (.023 m) and a 1.02 in (.026 m) thickness of ASTM A53 Grade B steel for the cold weather conditions. The minimum yield stress for this steel is Fy=35 ksi. The maximum stress and axial stress are both within the yield stress limit giving a factor of safety of 1.63. With a design K-value of .65 and effective length of 25.78 ft (7.86 m), the available strength in axial compression (c Pn ) is 373.47 kips [18]. The shearing force of 10.68 kips is well below the allowable 373.47 kips, giving

Figure 13. Member Forces of Beam Loading Results

a factor of safety of 34.97. Also, the available flexural strength of this steel is 81.4 kipft (110.36 kNm) found in AISC Table 3-15. The steel is able to withstand the maximum moment of 49.12 kipft with a factor of safety of 1.66. All of the structural members withstand the applied environmental loading with adequate factors of safety with respect to the failure modes of the ASTM A53 Grade B steel pipe used for the structure [18]. IV. COST ANALYSIS The cost of the rig was determined using modern day ship yard estimates. It was found to be around $900 million with the funds allocated as shown in Figure 24. The contingency cost of the rig is about 10% of the total cost bringing the total cost up to $1 billion. From this figure one can see that the topside equipment and hull steel take up the bulk of the cost with a total of $643 million. This cost is higher than the average for todays jack up rigs which cost around 650 to 800 million dollars due to its required different steel and sheer size. V. FINAL DESIGN SUMMARY

Figure 12. Member Forces of Bow Loading Results

The jack up drilling rig designed in this report was for operation in the northern Chukchi Sea in a water depth of 120 ft (40m). The jack up works in the warm water season when ice is at a minimum; however, to deal with ice, the jack up has radar detection systems and an escort of ice-breakers. The design calls for four triangular truss legs that are 20 ft (6 m) wide and sit atop spud cans that are octagonal in shape with a diameter of 26.2 ft (8 m). The top of the deck is 232.9 ft (71 m) from bow to stern and 177 ft (54 m) from starboard to port. The hull houses 4 cranes, accommodations for 120 people, helideck, and piping for two different drilling locations. Additionally, the ship is self-propelled, up to a speed of 11 kts (5.66 m/s). The total weight of the jack up is 19 million pounds, or (8.6 million kg). The jack up has been designed to comply with the MODU, ABS and SNAME rules in their entirety as well as accommodate the extreme climate issues that arise with drilling in the Arctic Ocean.

The forces on the ship were calculated for wind, current, wave, and ice conditions. The wind force was based off 100 year storm conditions and quartering seas are taken as the worst case scenario. For a 100 year storm with wind speed of 24.6 ft/s (2.5 m/s), the wind force was 291 kips (1294 kN).The calculated value for a current load on a single leg is 2.1 kips (9.2 kN). The wave force was 1.47 kips (6.45 kN), from Morrisons Equation. For ice, the MODU rules list equations that yield an ice force of 217.8 metric tons (240 short tons) for each leg; the pressure is calculated to be 16 psi (1104 MPa) for each leg. The area of the leg occupying the ice belt is found to be 235 ft2 (21.6 m2) and with four legs to multiply by, the total force was found to be 1072 short tons (9.54 MN) on the structure. The in situ geotechnical analysis was performed by McClelland Engineers and the data was provided to the team by ConocoPhillips [10]. The bearing capacities were calculated using the dimensions of the spud can, un-drained shear strengths and penetration depths. From this data, the spud cans are able to withstand horizontal and vertical forces with factors of safety 240 and 1.45, respectively. The maximum penetration depth is 9 ft (2 m). The vessel must meet the MODU stability requirements as published by ABS while in the freely floating condition, the period of deployment between dry-towing and jacking up. The program StabCAD was utilized to calculate the moments, hydrostatics, and down flooding angles of the vessel. The rig was analyzed for an intact stability in 100 knot (51.5 m/s) winds, and damaged stability in 50 knot (25.8 m/s) winds [3]. The vessel was found to meet all the stability requirements. In order to support the topsides, deck weight and drilling equipment and have the ability to withstand the harsh environmental loading; this rig has four triangular reverse K truss legs for support. Using computer modeling this design has been found to have minimal deformation. To ensure the structural strength of the steel members, 8 XS pipe with an outer diameter of 9 in (.023 m) and a 1.02 in (.026 m) thickness of ASTM A53 Grade B steel was used for construction of the truss legs. After calculations using the AISC Steel Code this material contains the needed strength to support this vessel with acceptable factors of safety [18]. Based on current shipyard estimates and steel prices, this rig is estimated to cost approximately $1 billion. Approximately 75% of the total cost is attributed to topside equipment and steel. This estimate is slightly higher than most jack up rigs, but this is attributed to ice fitting the vessel with special steel and extra safety precausions.

The authors thank Dr. Robert E. Randall, Dr. Charles Aubeny, and Dr. Terry Kohutek from Texas A&M University for their guidance. Thanks to Mr. Peter Noble and Mr. Randall Shafer of ConocoPhillips for access to geotechnical data and guidance on the drilling design process. The authors also thank Alberto Monrad, of Global Maritime, and J. Andrew Breuer, Pao-Lin Tan, and Han Yu of the American Bureau of Shipping. REFERENCES
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers (SNAME) T&R 5-5A (2002). Site specific assessment of mobile jack-up units. Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers, New Jersey. "Weather & climate | alaska.com." Alaska Travel, Jobs, Homes, Fishing, Hiking and more... | alaska.com. 22 Feb. 2009 <http://www.alaska.com/about/weather/story/1921.html>. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Rules for Classing and Building Mobile Offshore Drilling Units. Vol. 3. Houston: ABS, 2001. American Bureau of Shipping (ABS). Steel Vessel Rules. Houston: ABS, 2007. American Petroleum Institute (API). RP 14C: Recommended practice for analysis, Design, Installation and Testing of Basic Surface Safety Systems on Offshore Production Platforms. 3rd ed. Houston: API, 1984. National Fire Protection Association. Fire Code. Quincy, Ma: NFPA, 2009. International Maritime Organization. SOLAS. London: IMO, 2004. "Steels for Cryogenic and Low-Temperature Service." KEY to METALS Steel -- Welcome to the World's 39 Most Comprehensive Steel Properties Database. 05 May 2009 <http://steel.keytometals.com/articles/art61.htm>. International Maritime Organization. MARPOL. London: IMO, 2006. Noble, Peter. Chukchi Sea Geotechnical Report. Rep. McClelland Engineers, 26 Jan. 2009. "Living Quarters / Bunk Houses | GML - General Marine Leasing." GML General Marine Leasing - An Oil States International Company Offshore & Onshore portable workforce accommodations, auxiliary equipment, & support services. 19 Feb. 2009 <http://www.generalmarineleasing.com/buildings/living+quarters+bunk +houses>. "Standard Helidecks | Aluminium Offshore - Aluminium Safety Helidecks, Helideck Support Frames and Offshore Structures." Aluminium Offshore - Pioneer in the Design and Production of Aluminium Alloy Structures | Aluminium Offshore - Aluminium Safety Helidecks, Helideck Support Frames and Offshore Structures. 13 Feb. 2009 <http://aluminium-offshore.com/our-business/standardhelidecks>. HUISMAN - Home (en). 3 Mar. 2009 <http://www.huisman-itrec.com>. Tupper, Eric C. Introduction to Naval Architecture. 4th ed. Oxford: Elsevier, 2007. "Retractable Thrusters." Thrustmaster of Texas. 03 May 2009 <http://www.thrustmastertexas.com/products/retractableThrusters.html> . Tirant, P. Le. Design Guides for Offshore Structures (Collection Patrimoines). Minneapolis: Editions Technip, 1993. McCarthy, David F. Essentials of Soil Mechanics and Foundations : Basic Geotechnics. Upper Saddle River: Pearson Education, 2006. American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). Steel Construction Manual. 13th ed. Chicago: AISC, 2005. StabCAD User Manual. Engineering Dyanmics Inc, Rep. Version 4.3 (2003).

[9] [10] [11]


[13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]