Analysis of Jackup Rig in Wet Tow Transit

ANALYSIS OF JACK-UP RIG DURING WET TOW
WITH LEGS LOWERED
A THESIS
submitted by
P LALITH KUMAR
OE14M053
In partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the award of the degree
of
MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY MADRAS
CHENNAI - 600036
MAY 2016
To Mom and Dad who always supported me
whatever path I took
THESIS CERIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis titled "ANALYSIS OF JACK-UP RIG DURING WET TOW
WITH LEGS LOWERED", submitted by Mr. LALITH KUMAR P, to the Indian Institute of
Technology Madras, Chennai for the award of the degree of MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY in
OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING, is a bonafide record of the research work done
by him under my supervision in the Department of Ocean Engineering, Indian Institute of
Technology Madras (IITM). The contents of this thesis, in full or in parts, have not been submitted
to any other Institute or University for the award of any degree or diploma.
Date: Prof. R. PANNEER SELVAM

Place: Chennai, India Professor and Guide
Department of Ocean Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology Madras
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am highly indebted to Prof. R. Panneer Selvam my mentor, philosopher and guide for his
invaluable guidance, advice, encouragement and above all for his role as a teacher. His guidance
has played a big role in this project from the very conception to the completion and the knowledge
acquired by me in the process. His sincerity and dedication to work remains as source of
inspiration to me.
No words can express my deep sense of gratitude to Prof. S Nallayarasu, Co-ordinator, for his
valuable suggestions, the professional way in which he arranged the project reviews and for his
guidance whenever the students were in need.
I am grateful to Dr. Rajiv Sharma, review panel member whose valuable inputs have been
beacons guiding me along the correct path at every stage of my project work.
I am thankful to all my teachers at IIT Madras for making my post-graduate studies an invaluable
learning experience, both academically and practically who put their faith in me and urged me to
do better.
I express my deepest gratitude towards my loving Grandma Smt. Sriranjanamma for all the
sacrifices borne for me and for the emotional support throughout my life. I express my gratitude to
my father Shri P Muneeswara Reddy and my mother Smt. P Parvathi for their abundant love,
nurture and the most important of all providing quality education without which I wouldn't have
been at this pleasant juncture in life. I am also deeply indebted to my sister P Deepika for her kind
affection and support.
I will always remember my friends and classmates at IIT M campus with whom I have cherished
some joyous moments during my stay at the campus.
i
ABSTRACT
Keywords: Jack-up Rig Wet Tow, Response Amplitude Operator, Lowering Legs, Bending
Moments, Stresses, Safe Limits, Rig's Response, Drag Forces, Stick Leg Model,
Hydrodynamic Coefficients
There is a steadily increasing demand for the use of jack-up units in deeper water and harsher
environments. The deployment of jack-up rig from one drilling site to another involves either a
wet tow or dry tow. Usually the latter requires the application of a specialised submersible barge
whereas wet tow can be undertaken with relative ease and increased stability. Wet tow can be
undertaken with legs partially submerged rather than cut in case of dry tow which introduces the
possibility of distortions, defects, excessive stresses and high localised heat input due to welding.
Dry tow is performed with the legs extended above the hull and in transit there is a probability that
it could be subjected to storm conditions and the legs has to be lowered below the hull to maintain
the rig motions within acceptable level (stability and safety considerations). This will cause
additional loads in the form of drag on the legs which are extended below the hull, unlike the
condition with legs extended in air.
In this study several cases of wet tows are studied in which various lengths of jack-up's legs are
submerged. A Typical Marathon LeTourneau 116-c jack-up rig is used to perform motion analysis
with various leg drafts and indicate the safe limits up to which the legs can be lowered below the
hull without overstressing it. For each wet tow case various wave headings are considered to
report rigs response. For each of the different tow cases and heading, time dependent bending
moments about longitudinal and transverse directions were determined at the jack house level for
the portion of the leg above as well as below the hull.
For the above purpose, a simplified 'stick leg' model of a jack-up leg was adopted. the equivalent
dimensions of the stick leg and cross sectional properties are derived by employing the formulas
given in the ISO standard. For this model Hydrodynamic drag and mass coefficients are calculated
using an equivalent drag coefficient CDe, and an equivalent mass coefficient CMe, in accordance
with the ISO standard.
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.................................................................................................i
ABSTRACT..........................................................................................................................ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS...................................................................................................iii
LIST OF TABLES..............................................................................................................vi
LIST OF FIGURES...........................................................................................................vii
ABBREVIATIONS............................................................................................................xii
NOTATIONS....................................................................................................................xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 General.............................................................................................................................1
1.2 jack-up rig Characteristics...............................................................................................1
1.3 Jack-up analysis and modelling.......................................................................................3
1.4 Types of jack-up units......................................................................................................6
1.4.1 Independent leg type jack up unit..............................................................................6
1.4.2 Mat type jack-up unit.................................................................................................7
1.5 Jack-up fatalities..............................................................................................................8
1.6 Need for the study..........................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General...........................................................................................................................11
2.2 Various studies on wet tow transit of jack-up rig..........................................................11
2.3 Objective and scope of the study...................................................................................14
2.4 Thesis outline.................................................................................................................16
iii
CHAPTER 3 ANSYS AQWA AND DESCRIPTION OF JACK-UP MODEL
3.1 General...........................................................................................................................17
3.2 Ansys AQWA suite........................................................................................................17
3.3 Response amplitude operator.........................................................................................19
3.4 Description of Jack-up unit............................................................................................20
3.4.1 Deck parameters.......................................................................................................21
3.4.2 Jack-up legs..............................................................................................................22
3.4.3 Spud can..................................................................................................................24
3.5 Structural modelling.......................................................................................................29
3.5.1 General.....................................................................................................................29
3.5.2 Equivalent leg modelling.........................................................................................29
3.5.3 Equations as per ISO standard.................................................................................29
3.5.4 Equivalent hydrodynamic coefficients.....................................................................31
3.5.5 Equivalent diameter.................................................................................................31
3.5.6 Equivalent drag coefficient......................................................................................31
3.5.7 Equivalent mass coefficient.....................................................................................32
CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 General...........................................................................................................................34
4.2 Loads on the structure....................................................................................................34
4.2.2 Motion response......................................................................................................34
4.2.3 Response to irregular waves....................................................................................34
4.3 Results............................................................................................................................37
4.3.1 Response amplitude operators for legs above the hull.............................................37
4.3.2 Response amplitude operators for 100 ft leg draft...................................................41
iv
4.3.6 response to irregular waves......................................................................................55
4.4 Bending moments on legs..............................................................................................58
4.5 Stresses in legs...............................................................................................................66
4.6 Safe limits of leg draft....................................................................................................69
4.7 Natural period variation................................................................................................70
4.7 Moment of inertia and added mass variation.................................................................72
4.8 Drag force and velocity variation...................................................................................73
CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Summary........................................................................................................................75
5.2 Conclusions....................................................................................................................75
5.3 Scope for future work....................................................................................................76
REFERENCES...................................................................................................................77
v
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
1.1 Jack-ups lost in transit....................................................................................08
3.1 Principle dimensions of hull..........................................................................21
3.3 Legs and spud can specifications...................................................................23
4.1 Maximum response of jack-up rig in different degrees of freedom..............53
4.2 Percentage change in responses in comparison with the case when

full leg up.......................................................................................................53
4.3 Maximum bending moment about transverse axis for 12 m
wave height....................................................................................................62
4.4 Maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis for 12 m
wave height....................................................................................................63
4.5 Maximum bending moment about transverse axis for different
wave heights...................................................................................................63
4.6 Maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis for different
wave heights...................................................................................................64
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
1.1 "A" shape structure with a flat top and bottom.............................................02
1.2 Modes of operations when a jack-up is to operate at a location..................03
1.3 Jack-up rig being towed using tugs..............................................................04
1.4 Typical jack-up drilling rig profile..............................................................05
1.5 Image of jack-up rig drilling on the platform..............................................05
1.6 Jack-up rig failure during transit..................................................................09
1.7 Jack-up rig failure during wet tow...............................................................09
2.1 A typical 3-legged jack-up rig.....................................................................11
2.2 Steps involved in the study..........................................................................15
3.0 Ansys workbench GUI menu.......................................................................19
3.1 Marathon LeTorneau jack-up rig being towed............................................20
3.2 Plan of hull (upper deck)..............................................................................22
3.3 Model of hull................................................................................................22
3.4 Plan of front single leg.................................................................................24
3.5 Plan of leeward leg.......................................................................................24
3.6 Spudcan detailing.........................................................................................25
3.7 Spud can model in Ansys.............................................................................25
3.8 Front view of jack-up leg.............................................................................26
3.9 Isometric view of jack-up leg......................................................................26
3.10 Model of jack-up rig in Ansys with legs above the hull..............................27
3.11 Model of jack-up rig with legs lowered below the hull...............................28
vii
Figure No. Title Page No.
3.12 Equations for determining the effective shear area for
two- dimensional structures (ISO 19905-1 ,2012).......................................30
3.13 Equations for determining the equivalent section
properties of three dimensional lattice legs (ISO 19905-1,2012)................30
3.14 Flow angles appropriate to a lattice leg (ISO 19905-1,2012)......................32
3.15 Drag coefficient variation using the actual leg model.................................33
3.16 Equivalent stick model of jack-up rig..........................................................33
4.1 Meshed image of hull...................................................................................35
4.2 Meshed image of rigs leg.............................................................................35
4.3 Beam sea condition for the model...............................................................36
4.4 Head sea condition for the model................................................................36
4.5 Different directions of wave approach.........................................................37
4.6 Surge RAO for full leg up............................................................................38
4.7 Sway RAO for full leg up............................................................................38
4.8 Heave RAO for full leg up...........................................................................39
4.9 Pitch RAO for full leg up...............................................................................39
4.10 Roll RAO for full leg up..............................................................................40
4.11 Yaw RAO for full leg up.............................................................................40
4.12 Surge RAO for leg draft 100 ft....................................................................41
4.13 Sway RAO for leg draft 100 ft.....................................................................41
4.14 Heave RAO for leg draft 100 ft...................................................................42
4.15 Pitch RAO for leg draft 100 ft.....................................................................42
4.16 Roll RAO for leg draft 100 ft.......................................................................43
4.17 Yaw RAO for leg draft 100 ft......................................................................43
viii
4.25 Sway RAO for leg draft 250 ft....................................................................47
4.36 Pitch RAO- 0 degree heading......................................................................54
4.37 Roll RAO-90 degree heading.......................................................................54
4.38 Maximum pitch response for Hs = 20 ft for 10 sec period..........................55
ix
4.43 Maximum pitch response for Hs = 20 ft .....................................................57
4.44 Maximum Roll response for Hs = 20 ft.......................................................57
4.45 BM above hull with legs above hull in wave of heading 135....................58
4.46 BM above hull with legs above hull in wave of heading 120....................59
4.47 BM above hull for jack-up rig with legs 25% below hull in
wave heading 90.........................................................................................59
4.48 BM above the hull for jack-up rig with legs 25% below hull in
wave of heading 135...................................................................................60
4.49 BM below the hull for jack-up rig with legs 25% below hull in
wave of heading 135...................................................................................60
wave of heading 120...................................................................................61
4.51 BM above the hull for jack-up rig with legs 50% below hull in
wave of heading 135...................................................................................61
wave of heading 135...................................................................................62
4.53 Variation of maximum bending moment about transverse axis
for12 m wave...............................................................................................64
4.54 Variation of maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis
for12 m wave...............................................................................................65
4.55 Variation of maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis
for different wave heights............................................................................65
4.56 Variation of maximum bending moment about transverse axis
for different wave heights............................................................................66
4.57 Maximum stress in leg for 4 m wave...........................................................67
x
4.58 Maximum stress in leg for 8 m wave...........................................................67
4.59 Maximum stress in leg for 10 m wave.........................................................68
4.62 Variation of natural period vs leg draft for roll............................................71
4.63 Variation of natural period vs leg draft for pitch.........................................71
4.64 Variation of moment of inertia vs leg draft..................................................72
4.65 Variation of added mass vs leg draft............................................................73
4.66 Variation of drag force vs leg draft..............................................................73
4.67 Velocity variation across the front leg.........................................................74
4.68 Velocity variation across the back leg.........................................................74
xi
ABBREVIATIONS
API American Petroleum Institute
ABS American Bureau of Shipping
BM Bending Moment
BSI British Standards Institution
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
DNV Det Norske Veritas
GUI Graphical User Interface
ISO International Organization for Standardization
ISOPE International Society of Offshore and Polar Engineers
JONSWAP Joint North sea Wave Project
MARIN Maritime Research Institute Netherlands
MODU Mobile offshore drilling unit
MPC Multi point constraint
MSL Mean Sea Level (still water level)
OTC Offshore Technology Conference
RAO Response Amplitude Operator
SNAME Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers
SPE Society of Petroleum Engineers
VDL Variable deck load
xii
NOTATIONS
A Added mass
Aci Area of chord
Asi Effective shear area
c Center to center distance between chords
CAe Added mass coefficient
CMe Equivalent mass coefficient
CDe Equivalent drag coefficient
De Equivalent diameter
Di Reference diameter of member i
h Bay height of rig's leg
Hs Significant wave height
l Leg length
li Reference length of member i
s Height of one bay
t Time
T Wave period
Tp Peak period
Peak enhancement factor (default value = 3.3)
xiii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
A jack-up is a self-elevating unit comprising of a buoyant hull that can be raised over the sea
surface by three or more steel legs supported on the seabed. The hull contains the facilities
required to carry out the mission of the unit, such as drilling, production, construction support and
as service platforms for offshore operations. The industry has also started using these units for
installation and servicing offshore wind farms. The hull carries also all supporting functions such
as accommodation, power generation, utilities etc. Most of these units are not self-propelled and
therefore are dependent upon being towed by tugs or transported on heavy lift vessels between the
different locations the units shall operate. These platforms are in general the most popular type of
mobile units and there are about 540 jack-ups in operation in the world by end of 2013. They
originated from drilling offshore in the Mississippi area in the early 1950s and the first one was
designed by R. G. LeTourneau for Zapata Drilling.
1.2 JACK-UP RIG CHARACTERISTICS

A jack-up unit is composed of a hull, legs, footings, drilling package and other equipment. Hulls
are mainly triangular, but other forms as rectangular, octagonal and shipshape are also present.
The most common are three leg systems, whereof the legs are truss type structures with triangular
or square trusses. For the shallow water, the legs may also be of tubular type. Tubular legs are less
expensive than open-truss legs to fabricate, they are less stable and cannot adapt to stresses in the
water as well as open-truss legs. For this reason, tubular-legged jack-ups are not used in waters
exceeding a certain water depth (<75m). At the bottom part of each leg, there is an independent or
spudcan supported footing or a mat supported footing. Spudcans are fitted to support the legs on
the seabed. These are typical cylindrically shaped steel shoes with pointed ends, similar to a cleat.
A spike in the can is driven into the ocean floor, adding stability to the unit during operations.
Jack-up units with cylindrical type legs typically have a mat supported footing. A mat supported
footing is generally one common footing for all the legs. The shape is formed as a rectangular,
A shape structure with a flat top and bottom, see the Fig. 1.1 for an illustration.
1
Fig. 1.1: A shape structure with a flat top and bottom (Morandi 1986)
Once a jack-up unit has been towed to site, the legs are jacked down to the seabed, where they
continue to be jacked down into the seabed until there is adequate bearing capacity for the hull to
climb out of the water. The foundations are then preloaded by filling up seawater into ballast tanks
or by pre-driving the legs. The spudcan will penetrate through the soil until it has sufficient
bearing capacity to carry the preload. The vertical bearing capacity will be equal to the applied
preload. This preloading process will act as a proof test of the foundation by exposing it to a larger
vertical load than would be expected during the design storm. After preloading, the ballast tanks
are emptied and the hull is jacked clear to a predetermined distance above the still water level.
This distance is called the air gap and is defined as the distance between the underside of the
hull (keel) and still water level (MSL). Fig. 1.2 illustrates the operations of a jack-up unit from
arriving at a site to be in full operation step by step from towing to the location, lowering the legs,
Preloading and jacking up hull to start operating it. Fig. 1.3 shows the jack up being tow to the
location and Fig. 1.4 and Fig. 1.5 depicts the jack-up rig position after complete jacking up and
just before drilling in the field and in the presence of platform respectively
2
Fig. 1.2: Modes of operations when a jack-up is to operate at a location (Morandi, 1986)
1.3 JACK-UP ANALYSIS AND MODELLING
Before a jack-up can operate at a given site, an assessment of its capacity to withstand a design
storm, usually for a 50-year return period, must be performed. In the past, with jackups used in
relatively shallow and calm waters, it has been possible to use overly simplistic and conservative
jack-up analysis techniques for this assessment. However, as jack-ups have moved into deeper and
harsher environments, there has been an increased need to understand jack-up behaviour and
develop analysis techniques. The publication of the Guidelines for the Site Specific Assessment
of Mobile Jack-Up Units (SNAME, 1994) was an attempt by the offshore industry to standardise
jack-up assessment procedures. The guidelines also detail categories of jack-up modelling
sophistication based on the latest research.
3
More realistic modelling of jack-ups based upon the relevant physical processes has been
developed in a number of areas, the most significant being:
Dynamic effects
Geometric non-linearities in structural modelling
Environmental wave loading
Models for foundation response
Response to different environmental conditions
Site specific assessment
Fig. 1.3: Jack-up Rig being towed using tugs

(source: http://gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/dt.common.streams.StreamServer.jpeg)
4
Fig. 1.4: Typical Jack-up drilling rig Profile
(Source: http://offshore-fleet.com/images/jackup-rig-01.jpg)
Fig 1.5: Image of Jack-up rig drilling on the platform

(Source: http://www.offshoreenergytoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/ADTI-Hires-Energy-Endeavour-Jack-Up-
Rig-for-N.-Sea-Drilling.jpg)
5
1.4 TYPES OF JACK-UP UNITS
There are two basic types of jack-ups:
1. Independent leg type Jack-up
2. Mat type Jack-up
Both types of jack-ups have a hull, float onto location, jack the legs to the ocean bottom, and then
jack the hull out of the water.
1.4.1 Independent-Leg Type Jack-up Unit

For the independent-leg units (usually three legs with lattice construction), preloading is
required to drive the legs into the ocean bottom before the hull is completely jacked out of the
water. During this procedure, the jack-up MODU is at risk from weather and leg punch through;
i.e., one leg breaks through a hard crust, putting the other legs in a large bending movement.
Generally, 5-ft swells and/or a combined sea of 8 ft are the maximum seas in which these units
can jack out of the water. If the hull should roll, pitch, and heave to an extent that the legs come
into contact with the ocean bottom, particularly if it is hard, the legs can be severely damaged.
The preload sequence is usually done in stages, with the hull never rising more than 5 ft out of the
water to safeguard against having a leg punch through. If the ocean bottom is soft and consists of
clay, it is not uncommon to take 7 or more sequences, with each sequence taking 7 to 12 hours.
The units pumps seawater into its preload tanks, adding weight to the hull and driving the legs.
After the legs are driven and the hull goes into the water, the seawater is dumped overboard and
the sequence is begun again. This process occurs until the legs no longer penetrate the ocean
bottom. The concept is to load the legs to a level above that which the unit will encounter in the
harshest predicted environment.
The newer, enhanced premium units do a single preload in which the jacking system is strong
enough to jack the unit with all the preload water onboard, the basic weight of the hull, and the
full transit VDL. This is a significant advantage in that a much smaller weather window can be
acceptable to move the unit. Jack-ups are most susceptible to major damage or loss when they are
floating.
6
1.4.2 Mat-Type Jack-up Unit
The mat-type jack-up also usually consists of three legs that are cylindrical and are from 8 to 12 ft
in diameter. The mat is carried just under the hull during mobilization, usually with 5-ft gap.
When the unit comes onto location, it jacks the mat down to the ocean bottom, and because of its
low bearing pressure, usually under 500 to 600 psf, the unit jacks the hull out of the water without
going through the preload sequence required for independent-leg units. Bethlehem Steel Corp.
built most of these units from the 1950s through the 1980s. Their key advantages are that they
were relatively inexpensive to build and leave no footprint at the drilling location.
Unfortunately, the Mat-Type Jack-up unit also has several disadvantages:
They are very susceptible to damage from any object on the ocean bottom.
They tow very slowly because the mat and hull are large and create a lot of drag. Their mats
are susceptible to being gouged by workboat propellers.
Their upper hull has limited open deck storage space.
Their legs sometimes form a wind-induced leg vibration known as vortex shedding at high
winds, which can cause them to fail.
Vortex shedding is a form of severe vibration seen with smoke stacks without spoilers.
Most mat rigs have cylinders for legs and are structurally limited to shallower water depths,
usually less than 250 to 275 ft.
Only a few units have reached 300 ft, and these units have lattice-type legs.
For these reasons, mat jack-ups have fallen into disfavour, although they are relatively
inexpensive and for some well types are more than adequate.
1.5 JACK UP FATALITIES
The rigs are susceptible to fatalities which includes Bad weather, metal fatigue, loss of towline,
human error and equipment failure are all common factors leading to the loss of rigs at sea when
en-route to a new location. At least 30 jack-ups alone have been lost while on tow. Listed below
in Table is a selection of rigs that have sunk. The images in Fig. 1.6 and 1.7 shows the position of
rig just before sinking which occurred during wet tow.
7
Table 1.1: Jack-ups Lost in Transit
(Source: http://home.versatel.nl/the_sims/rig/i-sunk.htm)
Rig Name Year Place of Occurrence Description of Accident

25 November Gulf of Bohai, off In 1979, the jack-up Bohai 2 capsized
Bohai 2 1979 China and sank in a storm while on tow off
the coast of China.
08 November Southern North Sea, After a dramatic crew rescue in 1989,
Interocean II 1989 UK Continental Shelf the Interocean II sank in a North Sea
storm after towline failure.
1 September Ledge Point, Western The Key Biscayne capsized and sank
1983 Australia off Australia's west coast in 1983
Key Biscayne
after flooding and towline failure.
Ocean Express 15 April 1976 Gulf of Mexico Another casualty of towline failure,
Jack-up the Ocean Express sank in 1976
during a storm in Gulf of Mexico.
Ocean Master June 1977 West Africa The Ocean Master II sank off West
II Jack-up Africa in 1977 as a result of structural
problems and bad weather
Mr. Bice Jack-up June Gulf of Mexico Mr Bice sank in 1998 in the Gulf of
1998 Mexico after structural failure and
flooding.
15 North Atlantic The Rowan Gorilla I was crossing the
December North Atlantic in 1988 when it
Rowan Gorilla I 1988
capsized and sank after structural
failure caused by bad weather.
20 August German Bight, North A storm in 1990 caused structural
1990
West Gamma Sea failure and flooding to the West
Jack-up Gamma, resulting in its sinking after
towline loss.
8
Fig. 1.6: Jack up rig failure during transit
(source: http://i2.wp.com/gcaptain.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/CERQ6sjWMAI-
58q.jpg?resize=600%2C450)
Fig. 1.7: Jack up rig failure during wet tow

(source: http://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/media-
aspermontlimited/images/ern/AOC_Offshore_Jack-up_Rig_Collapse_II_low.jpg)
9
1.6 NEED FOR THE STUDY
To meet the world increasing demands for oil, exploration and exploitation have moved into
deeper and deeper water and harsher environment. Today, oil companies are searching for oil in
water depths up to 3000 meters and in any weather conditions ranging from typhoons to the arctic
areas. Exploration has traditionally been carried out by two types of units; a floater (ship-shaped
and semi-submersible units) and a jack-up (self-elevating unit) as this mission requires mobility.
Together with the technological advances in drilling technology to meet the increasing water and
increasing drilling depth, the equipment and the storage requirements for bulk and liquid have
grown in size and weight. The units have therefore grown in similar manner.
From their introduction, the accident rate involving jack-ups has exceeded that of other offshore
installations. Accidents have occurred in the past in all the four stages; during transportation,
installation, operation and removal. The probability of accidents can be reduced by proper design
and analysis of the structure.
The jack-up units are slender structures due to their layout. The platform deck is supported on
either three or more independent moveable legs. By increasing the water depth, the structure
becomes more and more susceptible to the responses as the natural periods move towards the peak
of the wave energy spectrum. As a part of the development, the water depth limitations for jack-
ups have increased by improving the structural robustness. The main objective of this work is to
analyse the jack-up unit for various sea states and for different leg drafts and to investigate the
limitations i.e., the safe limits up to which the leg be extended below the hull without
overstressing it , purpose-built for the harsh environment in the North Sea.
10
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 General
This chapter presents a literature review on Jack-up rigs. The purpose is to primarily explore the
various approaches used by researchers worldwide to better understand the modelling and
behaviour of such structures. The review focuses on the static and hydrodynamic response of the
structure due to various environmental considerations, such as wind, waves and current. Not much
work is reported in literature on analysis of a jack-up with its legs lowered below hull. Emphasis is
placed on modelling techniques and methods of solution. Many modelling and techniques are
common to ocean engineering communities due to similarities in structural and environmental
complexities. Fig. 2.1 shows the model of rig with extended cantilever performing drilling.
Fig. 2.1: A typical 3-legged jack up rig (DNV 2012)
11
2.2 Various studies on wet tow transit of Jack-up rig
Dallinga et al. (1984) studied on Design Aspects for Transport of Jack-up Platforms which
contains A method for the calculation of design data for the transport of a jack-up platform on a
barge is presented. The motions as well as the internal loads and the resulting deformations are
considered. With the aid of a computer. program based on three-dimensional diffraction theory the
hydrodynamic characteristics of the barge are determined. The effects of forward speed and non-
linear roll damping are investigated. Also the loads in the jack-up and the dynamic hogging,
sagging and torsion deformations of the barge are calculated. The above mentioned aspects of the
transport are reviewed for various wave conditions including directional seas. A procedure to
determine design values based on long-term statistics is proposed.
Sharples et al. (1989) studied the risks with respect to jack-up rigs into perspective by quantifying
them and comparing them to other risks. Their paper contains a few risk comparisons with fixed
platforms, semisubmersibles, and drill ships. Historical casualties are used in an example to show
how a change intended to make an operation safer, may result in the opposite effect. Examining
risks from losses due to environmental overload, the conclusion is reached that jack-ups are very
safe structures." There appears to be no jack-up, in the timeframe examined, that has been lost
because of a deficiency in the calculation methods currently in use by knowledgeable experts.
Massie et al. (1992) performed experimental and numerical study on jack-up dynamic behaviour.
The laboratory study of three principle jack-up platform models were carried out in both regular
and irregular waves. The data from irregular wave tests were analysed in both the probability
domain and frequency domain supported by careful error analysis. Computer simulations were
carried out in the time domain using a nonlinear, dynamic, multiple degree of freedom software
which includes various hydrodynamic interaction options.
Grenda et al. (1992) Conducted a study to investigate the dynamic response to wave loading of a
typical midsized jack-up drilling rig in the elevated position. Results of the study revealed the
potential for significant dynamic amplification of wave loads in water depths exceeding about 150
ft range. Major parameters considered were water depth, damping ratio and current velocity. the
increase in wave-induced leg stresses due to inclusion of dynamic effects was calculated to be on
the order of 20% to 150 % for the subject rig in 150 and 300 ft of water, respectively. Sensitivity
to damping ratio was found to be quite high, while the effect of currents was minimal. The
dynamic analysis procedure used in study incorporated a time domain simulation method with a
simplified wave load model.
12
Chakrabarti et al. (1995) have analysed Jack-up's by modelling it as a plate model using the
structural analysis computer program StruCAD 3D and the motion response has been calculated
using the program NEPTUNE. Different cases of wet tow are analysed and the limits for safe tow
in case of storm are found out.
Brunel et al. (1996) performed a study based on three dimensional hydro-elasticity theory, the
responses namely displacements, distortions, bending moments, shearing forces, stresses at any
position in a flexible jack-up rig structures are assessed. The transported rig is either carried dry or
towed wet in a unidirectional or confused seaway. Calculated response spectra and statistical
measures are illustrated to know the barge or jack-up flexibility, sea conditions, wave spreading.
The rig was modelled using Timoshenko beam elements for jack up legs and thin plate elements
for barge and jack-up deck.
Houlsby et al. (1998) presented a two-dimensional finite element program for the non-linear
dynamic analysis of offshore jack-up units under storm loading is described. The program aims to
incorporate consistent and reasonable levels of approximation of all the major system parameters;
this is in contrast to many previous approaches, which have tended to model some aspects of the
problem in great detail while adopting a very simplified approach to others. Accurate modelling of
the jack-up legs is achieved using an Eulerian formulation of beam column theory. The complex
non-linear behaviour of the spudcan footings is represented by a recently developed work-
hardening plasticity model, which represents a considerable advance over the simple pinned
footing assumption which is most frequently used for jack- up analysis. Several options for
calculating wave kinematics are available, including Stokes' fifth order wave theory.
Cassidy et al. (2001) published paper on Analysis of Jack-up units using a Constrained NewWave
methodology which is concerns with the models appropriate for the dynamic assessment of jack-
ups, with a balanced approach taken in considering the nonlinearities in structure, foundation and
wave loading. A work hardening plastic model for spud-cans on sand is used for the foundation
model. The spectral content of wave loading is considered using wave theory. A method for
determining short-term extreme response statistics for a sea-state using Constrained newwaves is
detailed
Hunt et al. (2004) in their paper on Jack-up response to wave-in-deck loads during extreme storms
paper presents the methodology and key findings of a study into the wave loads generated on a
13
typical jack-up structure. The effects of structural response to previous waves, foundation
modelling complexity and hull inundation levels on maximum structural response to wave-in-deck
loading were assessed by performing a number of short duration time-domain analyses. A
principal finding of the study was that large horizontal and vertical wave-in-deck loads are
generated during inundation, and that the jack-up effectively reacts statically to the vertical
loading.
Gang and Yong (2012) dealt with the dynamic analysis of jack-up unit leg system. Analysis of
three frequently used truss-type legs is conducted including X -type, reverse (rev) K -type and
mixing type. In their study, detailed models are built to simulate the Jack-up unit. Multi point
constraint (MPC) elements are used together with the spring elements to deal with the boundary
condition. Static response analysis, dynamic response and weight, which are the key technical
objects of jack-up legs are analysed and compared for three kinds of different leg through finite
element analysis.
Lee and Yan (2012) carried analysis on a typical jack-up leg configuration and the investigation of
the internal wave loading on jack-up legs has been performed using Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) methodology. Systematic parametric studies are conducted to determine the
dependence between the hydrodynamic load and internal wave amplitude under different incident
wave directions. Through this study, useful information on hydrodynamic load ranges of internal
waves can be obtained for future jack-up design.
The following observations are drawn from the literature study:
Various analysis are performed with varying rig configuration and their responses are
analysed.
Wave loading on the jack-up legs are performed to find its impact on legs
Limited study on wet tow analysis of rig when legs lowered.
risks associated with respect to jack-up rigs in transit conditions either wet or dry tow.
Comparative study with respect to different sea states and with different configurations of
the rig.
14
2.3 OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE STUDY
The main objective of the study is to Compare the Jack up rig response when legs extended above
hull and when legs are lowered below the hull and to know the influence of submerged leg length
on rigs response along with finding the limits up to which the legs can be lowered without
overstressing.
The scope of the work includes:
Modeling the Jack-up rig in Rhinoceros and import the model into Ansys workbench and
give the parameters required for analysis
Above model with legs above the hull is analysed in Ansys Aqwa and the response is
obtained.
Validating the results with the results published in the paper.
The legs are lowered for different drafts below the hull and the rig is analysed for each
case using Ansys Aqwa and hydrodynamic loads are calculated using Ansys Fluent
Bending moments on Jack up rig legs are calculated for different leg drafts.
Finding out safe limits up to which the leg can be extended below the hull without
overstressing it.
The Fig. 2.2 below depicts the process involved in the study in the order which it is performed
Analyse the above

Bending moments
Model the rig in model with legs
are calculated on
Rhinoceros above the hull using
the jackup rig
Ansys AQWA
Lower the legs for

Import the model the above model and Study is extended for
from rhino to ANSYS perform the analysis different sea states
for each case
Stresses on the legs

Input various Hydrodynamic loads
are calculated and
parameters required on the legs are
safe limits of leg
for analysis calculated
draft are found out
Fig. 2.2: Steps involved in the study
15
2.4 THESIS OUTLINE
Chapter 1 Introduction: This chapter gives brief introduction about the jack-up rig
characteristics, their modes of operation and different considerations in jack-up analysis and
modelling which outlines the various factors to be considered. The details of different types of
jack up units and the details on the jack-up rigs lost during transit is also presented along with the
description.
Chapter 2 Literature Review: A detailed discussion on the review of works done by

various authors along with the problem definition and their mode of approach which concludes
with defining the objective and scope of the study.
Chapter 3 Ansys Aqwa and Description of model: In this chapter the theoretical
formulation of the jack-up rig, the parameters used in modelling along with the model used in the
study is shown which includes various assumptions made and the details of the software tool used
in the study is also discussed. The details of the stick model is also presented along with the
considerations from ISO is detailed.
Chapter 4 Analysis and Results: This section of the thesis includes the various cases and
conditions used to analyse the model in Ansys AQWA. This also includes the results obtained by
analysing the rig for different cases along with the observations made during the study.
Chapter 5 Summary and Conclusions: This section briefs a summary of the study along
with the observations made during the study, this is followed by conclusions from the study and
future work that can be carried out is also briefed.
16
CHAPTER 3
ANSYS AQWA AND DESCRIPTION OF THE JACK UP MODEL
3.1 GENERAL
In this chapter, the theoretical formulation for the analysis of Jack-up rig is presented. The details
of software tool ANSYS AQWA is also included. A brief description about the graphical user
interface of the software tool is given. The details of the potential flow theory used by AQWA for
solving the hydrodynamic problems are also explained.
3.2 ANSYS AQWA SUITE

ANSYS AQWA contains a set of programs for hydrodynamic analysis. The software is based on
potential theory approach. AQWA suite contains many models in which each model performs
various functions, in all of these models AQWA Line computes the linearised hydrodynamic fluid
wave loading on a floating or fixed body using 3 dimensional radiation or diffraction theories. The
hydrodynamic forces are composed of radiation forces and wave excitation forces. The radiation
fluid loading is due to body motions and may be calculated by investigating the radiated wave
field arising from body motions. The active or wave excitation loading which includes motion is
composed of diffraction forces due to the scattering of the incident wave field and Froude-Krylov
forces due to the pressure field in the undisturbed incident wave. The incident wave acting on the
body is assumed to be harmonic and of small amplitude compared to its length. The fluid is
assumed to be ideal, incompressible and irrotational, hence potential flow theory is used. The
hydrostatic fluid forces may also be calculated using AQWA-LINE and these, when combined
with the hydrodynamic force and body mass characteristics, may be used to calculate the small
amplitude rigid body response about an equilibrium mean position. The solution technique utilises
a distribution of fluid singularities over the mean wetted surface of the body. It provides an
engineering tool set for the investigation of the effects of wave, wind and current on floating and
fixed offshore and marine structures. The programs within the AQWA Suite are as follows
(AQWA manual, Release 14.5, October 2012)
AQWA-LIBRIUM - Used to find the equilibrium characteristics of a moored or freely floating

body or bodies. Steady state environmental loads may also be considered to act on the body (e.g.
wind, wave drift and current).
17
AQWA-LINE - Used to calculate the wave loading and response of bodies when exposed to a
regular harmonic wave environment. The first order wave forces and second order wave drift
forces are calculated in the frequency domain.
AQWA-FER - Used to analyse the coupled or uncoupled responses of floating bodies while
operating in irregular waves. The analysis is performed in the frequency domain.
AQWA-NAUT - Used to simulate the real-time motion of a floating body or bodies while
operating in regular or irregular waves. Non-linear Froude-Krylov and hydrostatic forces are
estimated under instantaneous incident wave surface. Wind and current loads may also be
considered.
AQWA-DRIFT - Used to simulate the real-time motion of a floating body or bodies while
operating in irregular waves. Wave frequency motions and low period oscillatory drift motions
may be considered. Wind and current loading may also be applied to the body.
AQWA-WAVE - Used to transfer wave loads on fixed or floating structure calculated by AQWA-
LINE to a finite element structure analysis package.
The analysis is done in a Workbench based editor which is a graphical interface for AQWA
analyses. It is used to create the model, apply specific inputs and view results. The main analyses
done on floating structures are Hydrodynamic Diffraction and Hydrodynamic Time Response.
AQWA Hydrodynamic Diffraction provides an integrated environment for developing the primary
hydrodynamic parameters required for undertaking complex motions and response analyses.
Three-dimensional linear radiation and diffraction analysis may be undertaken taking full account
of hydrodynamic interaction effects that occur between bodies. AQWA Hydrodynamic Time
Response provides dynamic analysis capabilities for undertaking global performance assessment
of floating structures in the time domain. A wide range of physical connections, such as mooring
lines, fenders, and articulations, can be provided to model the restraining conditions on the
vessels. The image of the Workbench user interface is shown in Fig 3 below.
18
Fig. 3: Ansys Workbench GUI menu
3.3 RESPONSE AMPLITUDE OPERATOR

In case of regular waves, the amplitude of structural response is generally normalised with
reference to the amplitude of wave. For linear systems these normalised responses are invariant to
the wave amplitude at a frequency and these are referred to as the response amplitude operator
(RAO).
(3.1)
In case of random waves, the power spectral densities of the response and wave surface elevation
are proportional to the square of their response amplitude. Hence RAO can be written as
RAO (3.2)
19
3.4 DESCRIPTION OF JACK-UP UNIT
The jack-up unit is a similar design as Marathon LeTorneau 116-c Class drilling unit, with 3
square legs chorded inverse K-braced truss legs, with internal span-breaker bracing and split-
tubular chords which have opposed racks. This rig is widely used in Mideast - Persian Gulf, Asia-
Pacific, Gulf of Mexico and North sea taking its usage to its very limits to work in these harsh
environments. This class of rigs are capable of drilling to a maximum well depth of 35,000 feet
while operating in water depths ranging from 9 to 400 feet. This rig is built according to
American Bureau of Shipping and classified under A1 Self-Elevating Drilling Unit. The
specification of each part of the rig is given below. Fig. 3.1 shows Marathon LeTorneau 116-c
Class drilling unit being towed using tugs. This is case of wet tow where the legs are above the
hull.
Fig. 3.1: Marathon LeTorneau Jack-up rig being towed

Source: http://www.foxoildrilling.com/uploads/2/6/5/8/2658531/6696877_orig.jpeg
20
3.4.1 Deck Parameters
The deck is modeled as a triangular hull which essentially comprises of an upper plate and a lower
plate with water tight bulkheads between the two plates. The three legs pass through the two
plates. A plan of the hull is shown in Fig. 3.2 and its model as seen in Ansys is shown in Fig. 3.3.
This hull is 200 ft wider and 305.3 ft longer. This hull consists of upper and lower decks which are
stiffened panels and as such are modeled as beams and plates. A number of plates are supported
over a grid of beams. The Table 3.1 below shows the overall details of the hull and jack-up rig
principal dimensions.
Table 3.1: Principle Dimensions of hull

Overall Length (ft) 305.3
Hull Length (between perpendiculars) (ft) 243.1
Hull Width (ft) 200
Hull Depth (ft) 26
Deck Area (sq. ft) 27055
Net Tonnage (tonnes) 2240
Gross Tonnage (tonnes) 7460
Load Line Draft (ft) 17
Max. water depth (ft) 350
21
Fig. 3.2: Plan of Hull-upper Deck (Rowan 2000)
Fig. 3.3: Model of hull
22
3.4.2 Jack-Up Legs
Each leg of jack-up is 477.5 ft (145.54200 mts) in length (l) and is modeled as a square space truss
having horizontal vertical and diagonal members. Fig 3.4 and 3.5 shows the plan of single leg,
Fig. 3.8 and Fig. 3.9 shows Isometric and side views of the Jack-up legs. The horizontal, vertical
and diagonal members ofthe jack-up are hollow steel tubular sections whose dimensions are
tabulated below in Table 3.2. The Table 3.3 is about the detailed specifications of Legs and Spud
can.
Table 3.2: Dimensions of truss leg members

Member Description Outer Diameter (mm) Wall Thickness (mm)
Horizontal Members 750 50
Vertical Members 750 50
Diagonal members 400 40
Table 3.3: Legs and Spud can Specifications

Legs
Length Overall ( 3xSquare truss) (ft) 477.5
Chord, Centerline to Centerline (ft) 30
Longitudinal Leg Spacing (ft) 129

Transverse Leg Spacing (ft) 142
Spud Can Dimensions
Spud Can Diameter (ft) 46
Height (ft) 23.8
Nominal Projected Area (sq. ft) 1555
Volume (cu. ft) 9788.405
23
Fig. 3.4: Plan of front single Leg Fig. 3.5: Plan of leeward leg
The above legs are constructed using a particular type of high tensile strength steel with minimum
Tensile yield strength of 689 MPa (100ksi). The cente to center distance (c) between chords is
9.15 m (30.01 ft) and bay height, h of 3.41 m (11.18 ft).
3.4.3 Spud Can

A spudcan is the term used for the base cones on mobile-drilling jack-up platform. The spudcans
are the inverted cones mounted at the base of the jack-up which provide stability to lateral forces
on the jack-up rig when deployed into ocean-bed systems. in sand overlying clay, the installation
of spudcans is often subjected to a potential punch-through hazard. This occurs when the applied
load exceeds the maximum bearing resistance of the upper sand layer causing the spud can to
plunge into the underlying clay. The Spudcan of Marathon LeTourneau design, class 116-c jack-
up rig has diameter (across flat) 14 m and height 7.3 m with bearing area of 143.6 m2 with volume
of 275 m3. Normally spudcans are constructed using a particular type of high tensile strength steel
with minimum Tensile yield strength of 689 MPa (100ksi) which are used for the construction of
jack-up legs.
24
Fig. 3.6: Spud can detailing (Roper 2008)
Fig. 3.7: Spud can model in Ansys
25
Fig. 3.8: Front view of jack-up leg Fig. 3.9: Isometric view of jack-up leg
26
Fig. 3.10: Model of Jack-up rig in ANSYS with legs above the hull
27
Fig. 3.11: Model of Jack-up rig with legs lowered below the hull
28
3.6 STRUCTURAL MODELLING
3.6.1 General
There are different modelling techniques that can be used to depict jack-up units. These
techniques have different applicability and limitations with respect to the units design and level of
detailed checks. In this work, a jack-up unit is modelled as a so-called simplified barstool model
or an equivalent model, using an equivalent stiffness model of legs and spudcans, equivalent leg
hull connection springs and representative beam-element hull grillage. This model is suitable for
performing the global analyses. After performing a global analysis of the barstool model, a more
detailed analysis of a single leg model may be recommended to assess the strength of leg members
and leg holding system. This detailed single leg model consists of a detailed leg and is used in
conjunction with the reactions at the spud can or the forces and moments in the vicinity of lower
guide, obtained from the global barstool model.
3.6.2 Equivalent Leg Modelling

The equivalent leg model represents both the spudcan and legs.
The stiffness of a leg is characterized by the following equivalent cross sectional properties:
Cross sectional area
Moment of inertia
Shear area
Torsional moment of inertia
The most dominating factor affecting the leg stiffness is leg bending. The shear deflection of most
members is small, but it can be significant in a lattice structure. The legs in the barstool model is
modelled by a series of collinear beams, where the cross sectional properties are derived by
employing the formulas given in the ISO and DNV standards. The determination of stiffness for
the equivalent leg model is accomplished as outlined below.
3.6.3 Equations as per ISO Standard and DNV RP C 104

The equations given in the ISO standard and DNV RP C 104 are shown in Fig. 3.12 and Fig. 3.13.
Varying sizes of chords and braces along the leg can be accounted for by calculating the properties
for each leg section and creating the equivalent leg model accordingly.
29
Fig. 3.12: Equations for determining the effective shear area for two-dimensional
structures (ISO 19905-1 and DNV C104, 2012)
Fig. 3.13: Equations for determining the equivalent section properties of three-dimensional
lattice legs (ISO 19905-1 and DNV C104, 2012)
30
3.6.4 Equivalent Hydrodynamic Coefficients
Hydrodynamic drag and mass coefficients are calculated using an equivalent drag coefficient CDe,
and an equivalent mass coefficient CMe, used on a lattice leg represented by an equivalent
diameter De.
In accordance with the ISO and DNV standard, these are calculated using the following
procedures.
3.6.5 Equivalent Diameter

The equivalent diameter of the lattice leg can be given by:
(3.3)
where,
Di - reference diameter of member i
li - reference length of member i (node to node)
s - height of one bay
3.6.6 Equivalent Drag Coefficient

The equivalent drag coefficient of the lattice leg is determined by:
(3.4)
where,
CDei - equivalent drag coefficient of each individual member i, given by:
31
(3.6)
where,
CDi - drag coefficient of each individual member i, related to the reference diameter
1 - angle between flow direction and member axis
1 - angle defining the member inclination from the horizontal plane
The Fig. 3.14 below for illustration of flow angles to a lattice leg structure within one bay
height.
Fig. 3.14: Flow angles appropriate to a lattice leg (ISO 19905-1 and DNV C104, 2012)
The drag coefficient of each individual member is calculated based on the geometry. For plain
tubular elements, such as internal, diagonals and horizontal elements, the individual drag
coefficient is set to 1.05 (rough) and 0.65 (smooth).
3.6.7 Equivalent Mass Coefficient
The equivalent inertia coefficient CMe of a lattice leg is recommended to fixed at 2.0 (smooth) and
1.80 (rough). The added mass coefficient CAe, is defined as (CMe-1) and used in conjunction with
the equivalent area of the leg, calculated by Section 3.6.3. The Fig 3.15 below shows the variation
of drag force for the actual model when analysed in Fluent and Fig. 3.16 shows the stick model of
the jack up rig.
32
.
Fig. 3.15: Drag coefficient variation using the actual leg model
Fig. 3.16: Equivalent Stick model of Jack-up
33
CHAPTER 4
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1 GENERAL
In this chapter the type of analysis performed along with the different parameters taken for the
analysis is mentioned. Brief discussion on the results obtained is also presented along with the
meshed model used for analysis in Aqwa is also shown. The chapter concludes with the results of
the motion response of the rig to various sea states along with the variation of bending moments in
the leg and the drag force on it is also presented. The safe limit up to which legs can be lowered
for different sea states is also calculated by taking the weight of leg and moment on the leg to
calculate the axial and bending stresses.
4.2 LOADS ON THE STRUCTURE

For afloat operations the jack-up rig must meet the stability and structural criteria prescribed by
the classification societies, such as ABS. For rigs in severe storm transit condition, ABS
requirement states that legs are to withstand acceleration and gravity bending moments resulting
from the motions in the most severe anticipated environmental transit conditions, together with
wind moments corresponding to a velocity of not less than 51.5 m/s (100 knots) and current 0.5
m/sec.
4.2.1 Motion Response

The jack-up rig is modelled using equivalent stick leg and analysed for various cases as follows:
Case 1: Full leg above the hull
Case 2: Leg Draft 100 ft below the hull
Case 3: Leg draft 200 ft below the hull
Different directions of wave approach are considered for each of the above case namely 45,
90 (beam sea), 135, 180 (head sea) and its responses are analysed for each case which are
shown in the sections presented below along with the variation of motion response shown in each
case.
34
4.2.2 Response to Irregular Waves
In order to compare the responses for the various cases instead of using a single wave an irregular
wave has been used represented by a spectrum. Responses of the Jack-up rig has been evaluated
for a JONSWAP spectrum with a significant wave height Hs of 20 ft and a peak period Tm of 10
second. The Fig. 4.1 shows the meshed image of hull and Fig. 4.2 shows the meshed image of
legs. The Fig. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 shows different directions of wave attack.
Fig. 4.1: Meshed image of hull
Fig. 4.2: Meshed image of rigs leg
35
Fig. 4.3: Beam sea condition for the model
Fig. 4.4: Head sea condition for the mode
36
Fig. 4.5: Different directions of wave approach
4.3 RESULTS
4.3.1 Response Amplitude Operators for Legs above the Hull
The response amplitude operators for the case of legs above the hull are shown below in Fig. 4.6
to 4.11 for different degrees of freedom i.e., surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and yaw. The analysis
is done by using the barstool model or the stick model of the rig in Ansys AQWA. Different
directions of wave approach are considered to know the influence of the wave in different
directions. Similarly in the coming sections the analysis is carried out by lowering the legs below
the hull for different leg drafts and the analysis is continued. Fig. 4.6 shows the surge RAO of the
rig, Fig. 4.7 shows the sway RAO, Fig. 4.8 shows the RAO in heave, Fig. 4.9 shows pitch RAO,
Fig. 4.10 shows RAO for roll motion and Fig. 4.11 shows RAO for Yaw. From these graphs it can
be observed that the responses of jack-up rig is higher in pitch and roll degrees of freedom and the
same observation can be made in different cases of wet tow when legs are lowered presented in
the sections below.
37
0.12
0.1
Surge RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
0 Degree
0.06
45 Degree
90 Degree
0.04
135 Degree
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.6: Surge RAO for Full Leg Up
0.25
0.2
Sway RAO (ft/ft)
0.15
0 Degree
45 Degree
0.1
90 Degree
135 Degree
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.7: Sway RAO for Full Leg Up
38
4.5
3.5
Heave RAO (ft/ft)
2.5 0 Degree
2 45 Degree
90 Degree
1.5
135 Degree
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.8: Heave RAO for Full Leg Up
4.5
3.5
Pitch RAO (deg/ft)
2.5 0 Degree
2 45 Degree
90 Degree
1.5
135 Degree
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.9: Pitch RAO for Full Leg Up
39
2.5
2
Roll RAO (deg/ft)
1.5
90 deg
45 deg
1
135 deg
180 deg
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.10: Roll RAO for Full Leg Up
0.25
0.2
Yaw RAO (deg/ft)
0.15
45 deg
90 deg
0.1 135 deg
180 deg
0.05
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.11: Yaw RAO for Full Leg Up
40
4.3.2 Response Amplitude Operators for 100 ft. Leg Draft
The response amplitude operators for the case of legs lowered below the hull by 100 ft are shown
below in Fig. 4.12 to 4.17 for different degrees of freedom i.e., surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch, and
yaw respectively. The response for this case is lower than the case where the legs are above.
0.14
0.12
0.1
Surge RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
0 Degree
45 Degree
0.06
90 Degree
0.04 135 Degree
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.12: Surge RAO for Leg Draft 100 ft
0.14
0.12
Sway RAO (ft/ft)
0.1
0.08 0 Degree
45 Degree
0.06
90 Degree
0.04 135 Degree
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.13: Sway RAO for Leg Draft 100 ft
41
4.5
3.5
Heave RAO (ft/ft)
2.5 45 deg
2 90 deg
135 deg
1.5
180 deg
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.14: Heave RAO for Leg Draft 100 ft
1.4
1.2
1
Pitch RAO (deg/ft)
0.8
45 Degrees
90 Degrees
0.6
135 Degrees
0.4 180 Degrees
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.15: Pitch RAO for Leg Draft 100 ft
42
1.6
1.4
1.2
Roll RAO (deg/ft)
90 deg
0.8
45 deg
0.6 135 deg
180 deg
0.4
0.2
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.16: Roll RAO for Leg Draft 100 ft
0.2
0.18
0.16
0.14
Yaw RAO (deg/ft)
0.12
45 deg
0.1
90 deg
0.08 135 deg
0.06 180 deg
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.17: Yaw RAO for Leg Draft 100 ft
43
below in Fig. 4.18 to 4.23 for different degrees of freedom i.e., for surge, sway, heave, roll, pitch,
and yaw respectively.
0.12
0.1
Surge RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
180 Degrees
0.06
135 Degrees
45 Degrees
0.04
90 Degrees
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
0.12
0.1
Sway RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
180 Degrees
0.06
135 Degrees
0.04 90 Degrees
45 Degrees
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
44
4.5
3.5
Heave RAO (ft/ft)
2.5 45 deg
2 90 deg
135 deg
1.5
180 deg
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
0.9
0.8
0.7
Pitch RAO (Deg/ft)
0.6
0.5 45 Degree
0.4 90 Degree
135 Degree
0.3
180 Degree
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
45
0.8
0.7
0.6
Roll RAO (deg/ft)
0.5
45 deg
0.4
90 deg
0.3 135 deg
0.2 180 deg
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
0.18
0.16
0.14
Yaw RAO (deg/ft)
0.12
0.1 180 deg
0.08 135 deg

90 deg
0.06
45 deg
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
46
yaw respectively.
0.12
0.1
Surge RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
180 Degrees
0.06
135 Degrees
0.04 45 Degrees
90 Degrees
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
0.12
0.1
Sway RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
180 Degrees
0.06
135 Degrees
90 Degrees
0.04
45 Degrees
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (Secs)
Fig. 4.25: Sway RAO for leg Draft 250 ft
47
4
3.5
3
Heave RAO (ft/ft)
2.5
45 deg
2
90 deg
1.5 135 deg
180 deg
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
0.8
0.7
0.6
Pitch RAO (deg/ft)
0.5
45 deg
0.4
90 deg
0.3 135 deg
180 deg
0.2
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.27: Pitch RAO for leg Draft 250 ft
48
0.7
0.6
0.5
Roll RAO (deg/ft)
0.4
90 deg
0.3 135 deg

45 deg
0.2 180 deg
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
period (secs)
0.18
0.16
0.14
Yaw RAO (deg/ft)
0.12
0.1 180 deg
0.08 135 deg

90 deg
0.06
45 deg
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
49
4.3.5 Response Amplitude Operators For 300 ft Leg Draft
yaw respectively.
0.14
0.12
0.1
Surge RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
180 Degrees
0.06 135 Degrees

45 Degrees
0.04 90 Degrees
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
0.12
0.1
Sway RAO (ft/ft)
0.08
180 Degrees
0.06
135 Degrees
0.04 90 Degrees
45 Degrees
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
50
4
3.5
3
Heave RAO (ft/ft)
2.5
0 Degree
2
45 Degree
1.5 90 Degree
135 Degree
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
0.7
0.6
0.5
Pitch RAO (deg/ft)
0.4
45 deg
90 deg
0.3
135 deg
0.2 180 deg
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
51
0.6
Roll RAO (deg/ft) 0.5
0.4
90 deg
0.3
135 deg
45 deg
0.2
180 deg
0.1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
0.18
0.16
0.14
Yaw RAO (deg/ft)
0.12
0.1 180 deg
0.08 135 deg

90 deg
0.06
45 deg
0.04
0.02
0
0 5 10 15 20 25
Period (secs)
Fig 4.35: Yaw RAO for Leg Draft 300 ft
52
Table 4.1 shows the maximum responses of the jack-up rig in various wet tow conditions when
the legs are lowered below the hull. The reduction in response can be observed in case when the
legs are lowered below the hull.
Table 4.1 Maximum Responses of Jack-up rig in Different Degrees of Freedom
Full Leg up Leg Draft Leg Draft Leg Draft Leg Draft
100 ft 200 ft 250 ft 300 ft
Surge 0.122 0.111 0.108 0.107 0.096
Sway 0.21 0.14 0.11 0.108 0.104
Heave 4.131 4.05 3.864 3.77 3.33
Pitch 4.181 1.325 0.82 0.704 0.612
Roll 2.26 1.505 0.736 0.619 0.5609
Yaw 0.192 0.177 0.167 0.163 0.1562
Table 4.2 shows the percentage change in response of the jack-up rig in various degrees of
freedom in comparison with the case when the legs are above the hull. Fig 4.36 and 4.37 shows
the pitch and roll RAO in 0 and 90 degree direction for different leg drafts.
Table 4.2 Percentage change in responses in comparison with the case when Full
Leg up
Full Leg up Leg Draft Leg Draft Leg Draft Leg Draft
100 ft 200 ft 250 ft 300 ft
Surge % - 9.016 11.475 12.295 21.311
Sway % - 33.33 47.61 48.57 50.47
Heave % - 1.96 6.463 8.738 19.389
Pitch % - 68.309 80.387 83.161 85.36
Roll % - 33.407 67.433 72.616 75.181
Yaw % - 7.812 13.02 15.104 18.645
53
4.5
3.5
Pitch (degree/ft)
3
Full Leg Up
2.5
Leg Draft 100 ft
2 Leg Draft 200 ft
1.5 Leg Draft 250 ft

Leg Draft 300 ft
1
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig 4.36: Pitch RAO - 0 Degree Heading
2.5
2
Roll (degree/ft)
Full Leg Up
Leg Draft 100 ft
1.5
Leg Draft 200 ft
1 Leg draft 250 ft

Leg Draft 300 ft
0.5
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Period (secs)
Fig 4.37: Roll RAO - 90 Degree Heading
54
4.3.6 Response to Irregular Waves
The Fig. 4.38 to 4.42 shows the effect of varying wave period on maximum response for
significant wave height of 20 ft and peak period of 10 sec. Here the peak period of the wave
spectrum has been varied over a range of periods with the wave height held constant at Hs= 20 ft.
The graphs shown below are responses in pitch degree of freedom when the Legs are above hull
for wave periods 10 - 14 seconds.
15
10
Pitch (degrees)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 10 sec period
-5
-10
-15
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.38: Maximum pitch response for Hs = 20 ft for 10 sec period
20
15
10
Pitch (degrees)
0 Time Period 11 sec

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-5
-10
-15
Period (secs)
55
30
20
Pitch (degrees) 10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 time period 12 sec
-10
-20
-30
Time (secs)
40
30
20
Pitch (degrees)
10
0
Time Period 13 sec
-10 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-20
-30
-40
Time (secs)
40
30
20
Pitch (degrees)
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Time Period 14 sec
-10
-20
-30
-40
Period (secs)
56
The above peak responses for each case of wet tow are plotted in Fig. 4.43 for pitch and Fig. 4.44
for roll respectively. here the peak period is varied and analysis is run for each case to get the
maximum response of the rig.
35
30
25
Pitch (degrees)
Full Leg Up
20
Leg Draft 100 ft
15
Leg Draft 200 ft
10 Leg Draft 250 ft
Leg Draft 300 ft
5
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.43: Maximum Pitch Response, Hs=20 ft
16
14
12
Roll (degrees)
10
Full Leg Up
8 Leg Draft 100 ft
Leg Draft 200 ft
6
Leg Draft 250 ft
4 Leg Draft 300 ft
0
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Period (secs)
Fig. 4.44: Maximum Roll Response, Hs=20 ft
57
4.4 BENDING MOMENTS ON LEGS
Bending Moments are calculated for a simplified stick leg model of jack up leg. The equivalent
dimensions of the stick leg were derived by analysing the detailed model of the jack-up leg. The
Mass distribution and hydrodynamic coefficients were selected to match the detailed model
according to ISO 19905-1. The bending moments on the leg were determined using Ansys Aqwa
which considers the inertia forces due accelerations in six degrees of motion, due to gravity, wind
forces on the legs above the hull and hydrodynamic forces due to wave, forward velocity on
portion of leg below the hull.
Simulation is carried out on the model for the three cases of wet tow :
Jack-up legs above the hull,

Jack-up legs with 25 % (36.34 m) below the hull,
Jack-up legs with 50 % (72.69 m) below the hull,
Regular wave of 10 seconds period is used with wave headings of 90 (beam sea), 120, 135,
150, 180 (head sea) were analysed for regular wave heights of 4 m, 8m, 10 m, 12 m, 16 m. For
the portion of leg above hull, wind velocity of 51.5 m/s (100 knots) is considered. For each of the
different tow cases and heading, time dependent bending moments about longitudinal and
transverse directions were determined at the jack house level for the portion of legs above and
below the hull. The graphs in Fig. 4.45 to Fig. 4.52 shown below are for wave height of 12
meters and for period of 10 seconds.
4 x105
3
Bending Moment (kNm)
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-1
-2
-3
Period (secs)
Fig 4.45: BM above hull with legs above hull in wave of heading 135
58
x105
5
4
3
2
1
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
-1
-2
-3
-4 Time (secs)
Fig. 4.46: BM above hull for Jack-up with legs above hull in wave heading 120
4000 x105
3000
Bending Moment (Nm)
2000
1000
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-1000
-2000
Time (secs)
-3000
Fig. 4.47: BM above hull for Jack-up with legs 25% below hull in wave heading 90
59
2000
1500
1000
500
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
-500
-1000
-1500 Time (secs)

-2000
Fig. 4.48: BM above hull for Jack-up with legs 25% below hull in wave heading 135
x104
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
-0.5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-1
-1.5 Time (secs)
Fig. 4.49: BM below the hull with legs 25% below hull in wave of heading 135
60
x104
10
8
Bending Moment kNm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-2
-4 Time (secs)
x104
3
2
Bending Moment kNm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-1
-2
Time (secs)
-3
Fig. 4.51: BM above hull with legs 50% below hull in wave of heading 135
61
x104
10
8
Bending Moment kNm
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
-2
-4
-6
Time (s)
Each of the above figures gives us the bending moment variation for different cases and the
maximum values in each case is tabulated in Table 4.3 about transverse axis and Table 4.4 shows
the values of maximum bending moment about Longitudinal axis.
Table 4.3: Maximum Bending Moment about Transverse Axis [x108 Nm] for 12 m
wave height
Heading [deg] Leg Up 25% Leg below hull 50% Legs below hull
180 4.201 3.623 1.613
150 2.763 0.767 1.486
135 1.230 0.635 1.301
120 1.436 0.812 1.246
90 4.165 1.451 1.082
62
Table 4.4: Maximum Bending Moment about Longitudinal Axis [x108 Nm] for 12
m wave height
Heading [deg] Leg Up 25% Leg below 50% Leg below
180 0 0 0
150 2.016 0.754 0.456
135 2.936 1.248 0.678
120 3.897 1.506 0.798
90 5.264 1.625 0.916
The Table 4.5 shown below depicts the maximum values of bending moment about transverse axis
and for different wave heights ranging from 4 m to 16 m. Similarly the Table 4.6 shows the values
of maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis
Table 4.5 Maximum Bending moment about transverse axis for different wave
heights [x108 Nm]
Wave Ht. [m] Leg up 25 % leg below 50 % leg below
4 1.357 0.58687 0.96458
8 2.9631 1.0214 1.11621
10 3.0125 2.3145 1.4015
12 3.8156 2.8146 1.6102
16 5.1246 4.0126 1.8151
63
Table 4.6 Maximum Bending moment about Longitudinal axis for different wave
heights [x108 Nm]
Wave Ht. [m] Leg up 25 % leg below 50 % leg below
4 1.90125 0.9125 0.4125
8 3.81025 1.5126 0.61256
10 4.3125 1.826 0.14586
12 5.1214 1.8026 1.102
16 7.1246 3.0126 2.10151
The variation of maximum bending moment for 12 m wave is shown in Fig. 4.53 and Fig. 4.54.
These values are from Tables 4.3 and 4.4. The moments are calculated for different directions of
wave approach and the maximum value is obtained for each case.
7
Maximum Bending Moment *108 Nm
5
180 deg
4 150 deg
135 deg
3
120 deg
2 90 deg
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft %
Fig. 4.53: Variation of Maximum bending moment about Transverse axis (12 m wave)
64
6

5
4
180 deg
3 150 deg
135 deg
2
120 deg
90 deg
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft %
Fig. 4.54: Variation of Maximum bending moment about Longitudinal axis (12 m wave)
The Fig. 4.55 and 4.56 shows the variation of maximum bending moment about longitudinal and
transverse axis respectively for different wave heights and are plotted against the percentage of the
legs lowered below the hull.
8
5
4m
4 8m
10 m
3
12 m
2
16 m
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft %
Fig. 4.55: Variation of Maximum bending moment about Longitudinal axis for different
wave heights
65
6

5
4
4m
3 8m
10 m
2 12 m
16 m
1
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft %
Fig. 4.56: Variation of Maximum bending moment about Transverse axis for different
wave heights
4.5 STRESSES IN LEG
The leg of jack-up rig is a latticed structure consisting of four triangular chords. The rack chord
and other sectional properties may vary from elevation to elevation. Here, in this study an average
cross sectional property has been assumed. Local bending moment of the chord has been ignored.
The stresses in the leg at the lower guide level have been calculated with the weight of the leg as
axial load and bending moment. It was mentioned earlier that from consideration of safety
required to meet ABS criteria, the stresses should be limited to 80% of yield stress. This therefore
can be considered as safe limit up to which legs can be lowered. Fig. 4.57 shows the stress
variation for 4 m wave, Fig. 4.58 shows variation for 8 m wave, Fig. 4.59 shows variation for 10
m wave, Fig. 4.60 shows the stress variation for 12 m wave and Fig. 4.61 shows the stress
variation for 16 m wave.
66
450
400
350
300
Stress Mpa
250
200
150 Maximum Stress in Leg for 4 m

Wave
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft in %
Fig. 4.57: Maximum Stress in leg for 4 m wave
700
600
500
Stress Mpa
400
300
Maximum Stress in Leg for 8 m
200 Wave
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft in %
67
900
800
700
600
Stress Mpa
500
400
300 Maximum Stress in Leg for 10 m

Wave
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft in %
900
800
700
600
Stress Mpa
500
400

300
Wave
200
100
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft in %
68
1600
1400
1200
1000
Stress Mpa
800
600 Wave
400
200
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Leg Draft in %
4.5 SAFE LIMITS OF LEG DRAFT
As mentioned earlier the leg draft corresponding to 80% of yield stress can be considered as safe
limit up to which legs can be lowered. From the above graphs it can be concluded that the leg draft
corresponding to 560 MPa is considered safe for severe transit condition.
4.5-(I) 4 m Wave
From the Fig. 4.57 the stresses in the leg are within the limits i.e., less than 560 MPa. Hence, for 4
m wave the legs can be lowered to the limit of 50% of the length.
4.5-(II) 8 m wave
From the Fig. 4.58 the leg draft corresponding to 80% of yield stress is 45% of leg length i.e,
214.65 ft (65.5 mts) which can be considered safe for 8 m wave.
69
4.5-(III) 10 m wave
4.5-(IV) 12 m wave
4.5-(IV) 16 m wave
4.6 NATURAL PERIOD VARIATION
The natural periods for roll and pitch of the vessel with various leg drafts are shown in Fig. 4.62
and 4.63. The plot shows that as leg draft is increased to 200 ft, the vessel's natural period
becomes shorter than that with full leg up. As the leg draft is increased to 300 ft, the natural period
again begins to lengthen.
This behaviour is related to the changes in the moment of inertia with the leg draft as shown in
Fig. 4.64. As the legs are lowered, the vessel's centre of mass is lowered which tends to reduce its
mass moment of inertia which is evident from the figure which causes the vessels response to
stiffen.
For leg drafts up to 200 ft, the vessel motions are governed by the moment of inertia which
reduces with the leg draft. below 200 ft the added mass effect of the legs tends to predominate and
increases the natural period. different natural periods also imply that for different leg drafts,
critical response to a given wave height will occur at different wave periods.
70
25
20
Period (s)
15
10 Roll
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Leg Draft (ft)
Fig. 4.62: Variation of Natural period vs leg draft for roll
25
20
15
Period (s)
10 Pitch
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Leg Draft (ft)
Fig. 4.63: Variation of Natural period vs leg draft for Pitch
71
4.7 MOMENT OF INERTIA AND ADDED MASS VARIATION
The behaviour of moment of inertia and added mass is the governing parameter for the natural
period variation. As the legs are lowered, the vessels center of mass is lowered which tends to
reduce the vessels mass moment of inertia and cause the vessels response to stiffen. For leg drafts
up to 200 ft, the vessel motions are governed by the moment of inertia which reduces with leg
draft. Below 200 ft however ever the added mass effect of the legs tends to predominate and
increases the natural period again. Fig. 4.66 shows the variation of the mass moment of inertia
with respect to the leg draft. It decreases until the legs are lowered to a leg draft of 200 ft and
increases thereafter. Fig. 4.65 shows the variation of added mass with respect to the leg draft and it
increases monotonically.
30000
25000
Moment of Inertia (kg-m2)
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Leg Draft (ft)
Fig. 4.64: Variation of Moment of inertia vs leg draft
72
5500000
Added Mass (kg) 5000000
4500000
4000000
3500000
3000000
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Leg Draft (ft)
Fig. 4.65: Variation of Added mass vs leg draft
4.8 DRAG FORCE AND VELOCITY VARIATION
The variation of drag force on the leg is shown in Fig. 4.66 which increases with increase in leg
draft which will be in additional when the legs are lowered into the sea way instead of air which
acts for the part above the hull. The fig 4.67 and 4.68 shows velocity variation across the legs
which can be used to know whether there is any formation of eddys on the rear part of leg. Here it
can be seen that the flow does not induce any vortices across the legs.
35000
30000
25000
Force, kN
20000
15000
10000
5000
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Leg Draft (ft)
Fig. 4.66: Variation of drag force vs leg draft
73
Fig. 4.67: Velocity variation across the front leg
Fig. 4.68: Velocity variation across the back leg
74
CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
5.1 SUMMARY
In this Thesis, hydrodynamic analysis of jack-up rig in wet tow is carried out and for each wet tow
case various wave headings are considered to report rigs response. For each of the different tow
cases and heading, time dependent bending moments about longitudinal and transverse directions
were determined at the jack house level for the portion of the leg above as well as below the hull.
The stresses at the lower guide level have been calculated with the weight of the leg as axial load
and the bending moment. safe limits have been calculated for each wet tow case and are
mentioned in the conclusions part below.
5.2 CONCLUSIONS
The salient conclusions from the study are shown below
The Jack-up rigs response in pitch and roll changes significantly with increase in leg draft.
In sway degree of freedom it can be reduced up to 50 percent when legs are lowered to a
leg draft of 300 ft and similarly in pitch and roll it can be reduced up to 85 percent and 75
percent respectively for the same leg draft of 300 ft.
The natural period plots for roll and pitch shows that as leg draft is increased to 200 ft, the
vessel's natural period becomes shorter than that with full leg up. As the leg draft is
increased to 300 ft, the natural period again begins to lengthen.
The above said behaviour is related to the changes in the moment of inertia. As the legs are
lowered, the vessel's centre of mass is lowered which tends to reduce its mass moment of
inertia which is evident from the figure which causes the vessels response to stiffen. For
leg drafts up to 200 ft, the vessel motions are governed by the moment of inertia which
reduces with the leg draft. Below 200 ft the added mass effect of the legs tends to
predominate and increases the natural period. different natural periods also imply that for
different leg drafts, critical response to a given wave height will occur at different wave
periods.
75
There is significant increase in Drag Force on the leg with increase in leg draft due to the
hydrodynamic forces on the legs when they are submerged, which depends on vessel
motion as well as wave height and period. requirement of additional powering during the
tow is essential because of increase in leg's drag.
It can be observed that calculated maximum bending moments for the 25% leg below the
hull case are appreciably lower than those determined for the leg completely retracted case.
As the motions are also lowered nearly 68% in pitch and 33% in roll this condition can be
adopted during wet tow of the jack-up rig in a very satisfactory manner.
As mentioned earlier the leg draft corresponding to 80% of yield stress can be considered
as safe limit up to which legs can be lowered i.e., the leg draft corresponding to 560 MPa
is considered safe for severe transit condition. The safe values of leg draft for different
wave heights are calculated.
5.3 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK
Few suggestions for future work are given below:
The model can be analysed as a lattice structure (legs) instead of using a stick model which
may dampen the response further corresponding to that of an equivalent leg model.
More case studies for different tow speeds and sea states need to be carried out for a
specific tow, before a firm estimate of degree of leg submergence can be recommended
with confidence.
Comparison study can be made by changing the configuration of the leg truss network.
Here, rev. K type is used, this can be extended to X and mixed truss types and its effect on
the jack-up's dynamic behaviour can be studied.
This can be verified through experimental study on the 'equivalent stick model' and the
comparison can be brought out.
76
REFERENCES
1. AQWA User Manual, Release 14.5, Oct 2012.
2. B. P. M. Sharpies, W. T. Bennett, Jr and J. C. Trickey (1989), Risk analysis of jack-

up rigs, Journal of Marine Structures 2 (1989) 281-303.
3. Cassidy, M. J. (1999), Non-linear analysis of jack-up structures subjected to random

waves. Doctoral dissertation. University of Oxford, England.
4. F. van Walree and E. Willemsen (1988), Wind loads on offshore structures. Technical
report, MARIN, 1988.
5. Howarth M, Dier A, Jones W. (2001), A study of jack-up hull inundation under extreme
waves. Eighth international conference on the jack-up platform. City University, 2001.
6. Hoyle, M. J. R., Stiff, J.J., Hunt, R. J. (2012), Background to the ISO 19905-Series and
an overview of the new ISO 19905-1 for the Site-Specific Assessment of Mobile Jackup
Units.
7. ISO-19905-1 (2012), Petroleum and natural gas industries Site-specific assessment of

mobile offshore units, with the Norwegian Annex. Part 1: Jack-ups. The British
Standards Institution (BSI), England.
8. J. N. Brekke (1992), North sea jack-up measurements on Maersk Guardian, Health and
safety executive, Offshore technology report, OTH 91 344.
9. K. G. Grenda (1986), Wave dynamics of jack-up rigs, 18 th annual OTC conference,

Texas, May 1986.
10. Le Blanc, L. (1981), Tracing the causes of rig mishaps. Offshore. March (1981) 51-62.
11. M. Howarth, A. Dier, W. Jones, R.J. Hunt (2004), Jack-up response to wave-in-deck
loads during extreme storms, , Elsevier, 2004.
12. Morandi (2004), Jack-ups capabilities, In-house power point presentation for Global
Maritime. Houston, USA.
77
13. M.S. Williams, R.S.G. Thompson, G.T. Houlsby (1998), Non-linear dynamic analysis
of offshore jack-up units, Computers and structures 69 (1998) 171-180, April 1998.
14. O.T. Gudmestad and G. Moe (1996) Hydrodynamic coefficient for calculation of
hydrodynamic loads on offshore truss structures. Marine Structures 9, 1996.
15. P. A. Frieze, T. C. Lewis and B. L. Miller (1994),Criteria for jack-up's manoeuvring,

OTH 94 434, May 1994.
16. P. Chakrabarti, B. Halbleib and J. Bird (1995), Analysis of jack-up units during transit
with legs lowered, 27th annual OTC in Houston, Texas, USA. May 1995
17. Ping Liu, W. W. Massie, J. G. Wolters and J. Blaauwenendraad (1992), Dynamics of

jack-up structures, SPE international meeting on petroleum engineering, SPE, Beijing,
China, March 1992.
18. Ren Xian-gang and Bai Yong (2012), Comparison study of jack-up drilling unit's
dynamic behaviour, Journal of Ships and Offshore structures, 8:5, 457-467.
19. R.P. Dallinga, A.B. Aalbers, and J.W.W. van der Veg (1984), Design Aspects for
Transport of Jack-up Platforms on a Barge, 16th Annual OTC in Houston, Texas. May 7-
9, 1984.
20. Rules for Building and Classing Mobile Offshore Drilling Units, American Bureau of
Shipping, 1991.
21. Self-elevating Units, Recommended practice, DNV-RP-C104, Nov 2012.
22. Sing-Kwan Lee, D. Yan (2012), Hydrodynamic loads on jack-up legs due to oceanic
waves, Proceedings of International Offshore and Polar Conference, ISOPE, Rhodes,
Greece, June 2012.
78
23. SNAME Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A (2008), Recommended Practice For Site
Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units. Rev. 3. The Society of Naval Architects
and Marine Engineers. Houston, USA.
24. SNAME Technical & Research Bulletin 5-5A (2008), Commentaries To Recommended
Practice For Site Specific Assessment of Mobile Jack-Up Units. Rev.3.The Society of
Naval Architects and Marine Engineers. Houston, USA.
25. S.K. Lee, D. Yan, B. Zhang, and C.W. Kang (2009), Jack-up leg hydrodynamic load
prediction - a comparative study of industry practice with CFD and model test results. In
ISOPE 2009.
26. Warlick, W. P., Goodwin, R. J., Teymourian, P. & Krieger, W. F. (1982), Analysis of
accidents in offshore operations where hydrocarbons were lost. Houston Technical
Services Center, Gulf Research and Development, 1982.
27. Y. Fu, W. G. Price, Brunel U. and P. Temarel (1986), The dynamics of a flexible jack-
up transported in a seaway, OTC, Houston, Texas, may 1986.
28. Yousri M. A. Welaya1, Ahmed Elhewy1 and Mohamed Hegazy (2015), Investigation
of jack-up leg extension for deep water operations, International Journal of Naval Archit.
and Ocean Engineering (2015), 7:288-300.
79

Analysis of Jackup Rig in Wet Tow Transit

Transféré par

Informations du document

Copyright

Formats disponibles

Partager ce document

Partager ou intégrer le document

Options de partage

Avez-vous trouvé ce document utile ?

Ce contenu est-il inapproprié ?

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

Analysis of Jackup Rig in Wet Tow Transit

Transféré par

Droits d'auteur :

Formats disponibles

ANALYSIS OF JACK-UP RIG DURING WET TOW

WITH LEGS LOWERED

In partial fulfilment of the requirements

for the award of the degree

OFFSHORE STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF OCEAN ENGINEERING

Date: Prof. R. PANNEER SELVAM

1.2 jack-up rig Characteristics...............................................................................................1

1.3 Jack-up analysis and modelling.......................................................................................3

1.4 Types of jack-up units......................................................................................................6

1.4.1 Independent leg type jack up unit..............................................................................6

1.4.2 Mat type jack-up unit.................................................................................................7

1.5 Jack-up fatalities..............................................................................................................8

1.6 Need for the study..........................................................................................................10

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW

2.2 Various studies on wet tow transit of jack-up rig..........................................................11

2.3 Objective and scope of the study...................................................................................14

2.4 Thesis outline.................................................................................................................16

3.2 Ansys AQWA suite........................................................................................................17

3.3 Response amplitude operator.........................................................................................19

3.4 Description of Jack-up unit............................................................................................20

3.4.1 Deck parameters.......................................................................................................21

3.4.2 Jack-up legs..............................................................................................................22

3.4.3 Spud can..................................................................................................................24

3.5 Structural modelling.......................................................................................................29

3.5.2 Equivalent leg modelling.........................................................................................29

3.5.3 Equations as per ISO standard.................................................................................29

3.5.4 Equivalent hydrodynamic coefficients.....................................................................31

3.5.5 Equivalent diameter.................................................................................................31

3.5.6 Equivalent drag coefficient......................................................................................31

3.5.7 Equivalent mass coefficient.....................................................................................32

CHAPTER 4 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

4.2 Loads on the structure....................................................................................................34

4.2.2 Motion response......................................................................................................34

4.2.3 Response to irregular waves....................................................................................34

4.3.1 Response amplitude operators for legs above the hull.............................................37

4.3.2 Response amplitude operators for 100 ft leg draft...................................................41

4.3.4 Response amplitude operators for 250 ft leg draft...................................................47

4.3.5 Response amplitude operators for 300 ft leg draft...................................................50

4.3.6 response to irregular waves......................................................................................55

4.4 Bending moments on legs..............................................................................................58

4.5 Stresses in legs...............................................................................................................66

4.6 Safe limits of leg draft....................................................................................................69

4.7 Natural period variation................................................................................................70

4.7 Moment of inertia and added mass variation.................................................................72

4.8 Drag force and velocity variation...................................................................................73

CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

5.3 Scope for future work....................................................................................................76

Table No. Title Page No.

1.1 Jack-ups lost in transit....................................................................................08

3.1 Principle dimensions of hull..........................................................................21

3.3 Legs and spud can specifications...................................................................23

4.1 Maximum response of jack-up rig in different degrees of freedom..............53

4.2 Percentage change in responses in comparison with the case when

4.3 Maximum bending moment about transverse axis for 12 m

4.4 Maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis for 12 m

4.5 Maximum bending moment about transverse axis for different

4.6 Maximum bending moment about longitudinal axis for different

Figure No. Title Page No.

1.1 "A" shape structure with a flat top and bottom.............................................02

1.2 Modes of operations when a jack-up is to operate at a location..................03

1.3 Jack-up rig being towed using tugs..............................................................04

1.4 Typical jack-up drilling rig profile..............................................................05

1.5 Image of jack-up rig drilling on the platform..............................................05